To think that it's ok to want to bring up your children and to be a mother, just as it's ok to go out to work instead?

[bronya]

I was brought up to 'have a career' and to think about work not babies. I admit I'd be bored doing nothing, and love the tutoring that I do - but I have no wish at ALL to be the main wage earner and leave the childcare to someone else. When my DS was born, it felt like I was complete. I'm happier, have more self esteem and confidence than I've ever had. I've met many other mums who feel similarly. Surely, our choice is just as valid as those who are WOHM? The point of feminism was that we should have that choice - whichever one we choose is our decision, surely?

I guess each family has to decide on their own balance.

I don't think just SAHP are helicopter/over focused parents though, that is more a personality thing. I know a WOHM who let her DS go to cubs but he wasn't allowed by the camp fire, on camp or on school trips. My MIL was a WOHM and massively domineering to DH. I think those types would be like that regardless of work situation.

I am a long term SAHM (14 yrs so far, 5 DC) but have many interests and am nearing completion of an OU degree. I also do some volunteering. So I have never been here 100% of the time or focused on DC only.

Money wise I agree that it would be sad if a child missed out on all paid activities etc but I guess what is important to one family is not necessarily to another. In addition some SAHP may be well off and able to afford those things whereas a family both working may not be able to afford it. Again comes down to each individual family.

Well if we're going to go by financial rev in gov coffers given that you have to earn quite a lot before you actually contribute I think many families with 2 x wp have little to gloat about when you consider 2 x tax thresholds,tax credits,lower tax rates,help with childcare,as you say part time salaries etc.So not sure of the point re bringing that up.

Re looking back at regretting mateialism,what tosh.

I don't want kids like that anyway.

I'm raising mine to appreciate what thy have,the outdoors which is free,their family,time to learn,appreciate and enjoy just being alongside getting qualifications in order to get jobs they enjoy and which pay the bills.Pony lessons,tutoring nah no thanks.

This weekend we didn't do pricey activities but we went holly hunting,made popcorn,did cheap crafty stuff,read,watched a DVD etc.Most of our friends are the same.My dc appreciate what they have and I love that,wouldn't have it any other way.Leaning to appreciate very little makes people happy.

Dp had a very poor childhood,he never stops banging on re how great it was.His lack of materialism is what I always liked about him and what I want for my kids.That said compared to him mine do far better materialistically.They may not have the latest this and that,cinema trips every weekend,pony lessons etc but they do well.

Making kids think they need stuff and money spent on them can only lead to stress and depression further down the line when they realise life isn't a steady stream of trips,expensive hobbies,shopping etc.What if they don't get salaries that accommodate a lifestyle like that further down the line?

It's fine if you want that for your kids but many don't and shouldn't be made to feel crap.You choose your priorities,others choose their's.

I think some of those comments are a bit off johnny

There are loads of people both working for very little money who can't afford to give their children those things, it's not all about material things

Yes there are, Rufus, but they'd be worse off still if one parent decided that their precious company and 9-3 domesticity was worth more than being less poor than they had to be.

Retro, your weekend sounds lovely. Inexpensive pastimes and costly stuff aren't mutually exclusive, however.

Retro

I'm coming round to your house next weekend

I don't think my ds is materialistic because he wants to go to a football club at the weekend. I wasn't materialistic as a small girl when my mum told me I could (finally) have some riding lessons - I was over the bloody moon and very appreciative!

That does sound good Retro but not as doable with teenagers!

Retropear not many families can afford what your describing on one income. If we had one income we would have 1k a month to live in. There is no way we would have any money for craft stuff etc on that type of wage. That is average wage here to.

We have about 1k a month coming in, annieorangutan, it barely covers rent and bills. We struggle for bus fares. But we do manage to get some pound shop craft stuff, plus all the cardboard boxes from the recycling, and a few pine cones. It can be done, it's our choice, and I think if I did go to work it would all go on childcare anyway.

It wouldnt names as tax credits pay. We dont get help in any other area as have to pay for all repairs and mortgage ourselves.

Johnnybarthes did you miss the bit where I said that if I "got a bloody job" it would all go on childcare?? Hubby earns less than average actually. Until last year he only earned minimum wage. Not that it's any of your business. But we wouldn't be financially better off if I went to work, I have looked into it. Besides, I already have a job, which is precisely the point of this thread. I'm a full time parent and home educator. Why is it that someone else caring for my children or educating them would be classed as a job, yet you don't think SAHP status is worth the same respect?

But I resent the statement that I'm indulging myself. It is literally years since I bought anything for myself. We have never had a holiday. I have one cardigan and it has a ghole in the bloody sleeve. My dh can't afford new shoes for work. We do have housing costs, get no benefits other than child benefit, and are not wealthy - although by no means as poor as some.

I'm not indulging myself - how bloody dare you? - I'll decide what's best for my family, and you decide what's best for yours, thanks very much. I work every bit as hard as I did when I was in paid employment.

Like I said, I used to work, and my children used to go to nursery. I'm no better or worse a mum than I was then, but it's different.

Long term SAHM-ing is bad news? What gives you the right to make that statement on behalf of all women? Doesn't do children any good? got any research-based evidence for that, or is it just your own opinion? Again, how dare you presume to know what's best for our family? I'm not telling you what's best for yours.

Standard of living - depends what you think a decent standard is. Yes, we do struggle to meet the basics, but we choose to struggle because it is worth it and is the right thing for our family at the moment.

lifeisforlivingkatie, of course fathers who go out to work are fathers. Mothers who go out to work are mothers - but neither are full-time parents.

How can you.be on 1k and only get child benefit?

Um, easily. 1,150 after tax, to be exact.

You will still get tax credits on that. Quite decent ones as I used to claim them.

We're not eligible for tax credits annieorangutan. So yes, if I worked, it would go on childcare.

Your on 1150

No, we don't. Reasons why are boring, but can assure you we don't - and it's not because we've got savings, it's to do with dh's employment.

posted too soon! Your on 1150 and dont get tax credits with 3 kids? I havr less kids and double the income and we do even on maternity leave

I'm not convinced that feminism is about choice. What if my choice is to run a brothel? Or promote quasi scientific information about how women's brains are smaller? I think feminism is an ideology> It posits a theory that most societies are constructed in a way that benefits men financially, emotionally, legally, sexually and just about every other way you can think and in which women are disadvantaged. Choice? That's for shampoo adverts.

It's a personal choice. No knows the circumstances behind people's choices. I am a single mum and aside from maternity I have always worked. Adore beyond anyone's' imagination my D.D as I do. I'd have gone insane being a stay at home mum. I also chose to stay at work to set her a good example that in this life if you want something then you have to work damn hard to get it. Nothing is handed to you on a plate.

However I will say one thing I do not like the way the government look on lone parents who do not work as lazy and a bad example but they do not have that view of married partnered parents who do not work. xxx

Wow, this has become a long thread! All sparked from my 'friend' and her opinion that EVERYONE should work, and that staying at home was worthless! Apparently (according to her!) I must have given up my job for some other reason, as no-one would ever just want to spend time with their child! She also mentioned how she thought that children benefited far more from nursery than from spending the day with a parent. That was why I was a little cross and didn't quite write the title correctly!

Perhaps also, there's personal context too. I was sent to boarding school at 8 years old (my parents lived and worked abroad). I received a letter a week and a phone call once a fortnight or thereabouts. My parents might think they raised me, but I raised myself. When things went wrong; when I needed advice, I had my friends to turn to and my own ingenuity. That was it. I love my parents, but I don't think I ever really knew them.

When it came to my child, I was putting him in childcare for 10 hours out of every day, seeing him only for an hour in the morning and an hour in the evening plus one weekend day (marking/planning consumed the other so DH took him out for the day). I felt like I was a mother who occasionally played with her child. He learnt to crawl with the childminder, and to say his first words. He ate nearly every meal at her house. It just wasn't the right thing for our family.

Oh they do life we're all scum.

On the contrary thenames - all parents are full-time parents, whether they work or not. There is more to parenting than being physically present. It's about providing what your children need and making decisions that will (hopefully) ensure they grow up to be useful members of society. Whether you provide that by staying at home with them or by spending some of your time out at work is irrelevant.

Your definition of full-time parenting means that nobody, regardless of whether they are a WOHP or a SAHP, can ever be a full-time parent since no-one spends 24 hours a day, every day, with their child/ren. That's just ludicrous!

I think the feminist perspectives are the most interesting thing about this thread.

Especially the idea that in a truly equal society it is not a woman's choice it is the families choice. The father might equally want to be the SAHP. Or frankly both or neither might want to.

I have more of a male kind of job and DH a more usually female one. I therefore get paid more and I also have better job security and a better pension. From a financial POV it's a no brainier he should be SAHD but He really doesn't want to! And he is under no pressure from society to do so. Therefore we have an uneasy compromise where both of us work 4 days with me wanting to do less and him more and constant fights about who should be getting the shopping or taking time off for school events.

I often say to him that if our sexes were reversed he would be the SAHP by now. He would be saying 'well it just didn't make sense my salary was all eaten up by childcare'. But no he gets the choice to work as he wishes because he is a man!

So yes it is all about choice but choice is constrained it's not in a vacuum. You can only choose to be SAHM if your partner chooses to be main breadwinner.