To wonder why women continue to bash each other over the SAHM/WOHP thing

[happyyonisleepyyoni]

I'm sick of hearing women justify their own life choices by bitching about others. It's nasty and low.

Can't we give each other the benefit of the doubt and accept that in the vast majority of cases, people do what they think is best for their families-whether that means staying at home or working. There is no moral right or wrong here.

The End!

I work part time. As others have posted I obviously don't spend my working days doing all the hard work associated with children, like looking after them, feeding them, clearing up, during the day but my evenings are crazy hectic once I've picked them up completely exhausted from the childminder. I am lucky that I don't have to work outside my usual hours often - by the time the children are in bed there is dinner to cook, house to clear and so on, if I had work to do in the evenings like other working parents sometimes have it would be very stressful.

Anyway I am rambling. I am in awe of mums who are at home with their children all week. I am in awe of mums who work full time and juggle everything that needs to be done on their weekends. I think the majority of us do a great job in parenting no matter whether we work or not. I also get cross that the guilt associated with working/not-working always falls to the mother. Why can't fathers occasionally get brought into this debate?

well i say that because whilst I was working, then the nursery was looking after my dcs. Yes I still came home and did everything else. But there were 8 hours a day where I was not doing any childcare or any baby groups or anything like that.

I don't think it is guilt. Most of the SAHPs have said they don't feel guilty as have most of the WOHPs I've seen on threads. Yes some do feel guilt but I actually don't think its the majority.

I think it's more likely that the people from either side who bash like to think of themselves as superior. It reminds me of a silly childish game of "I do it better than you".

I always find these threads quite depressing. I am no feminist warrior but I think it's sad that women tear strips off each other for how the raise their kids. People will always judge others within every aspect of their lives. Personally I think they should mind their own business and concentrate on their own lives.

I can honestly say I don't care if someone stays at home or works, raises their kids as a lone parent or within a family, receives benefits or not. The most important thing is that regardless of how it happens the majority of these children are being looked after, have a stable family life and are bloody happy.

I certainly don't feel guilty for being at home at the minute.

I ate half a chocolate swiss roll for breakfast in a t-shirt covered in baby vom and no one will ever know (apart from on here)

DH went out the door to work while toddler DD was throwing a wobbler in the hall and DS was filling his nappy saying "I'm getting out of this mad house" so he's happy too :)

Yeah so you personally werent doing both, but I and many other parents do

There is no one answer and depends on individual circumstances and preferences, which makes the whole debate oh so fucking pointless.

For example being a SAHP with pots of money to a child who is at boarding school for 10 months a year is probably easier than being a lone WHOHP working 60 hours plus in a hugely stressful job.

Likewise an undemanding 10-3 job is probably easier than being the SAHP of four children with profound disabilities.

Some people find being at home with children all day, others would find it hellish.

Yet still this pointless debate rages.

No problem Eveesmummy and I apologise for snapping at you.

Your environment sounds grim tbh. You have my sympathy.

Personally I feel a bit defensive about WOH, because I'd love to be a SAHM (mostly!) but the finances really don't cover it. So I work full time, and I've made my peace with that, until somebody on here makes a comment about them not understanding why people have kids just to send them to nursery all day, or one of my patients says surely I could work part time if I really wanted to, and then I feel attacked. We're all of us doing the best we can for our children, which will mean different things for different people. I have friends who work full time, part time, and stay at home, we're all supportive of each other but all of us get hassled about our choices by other people! I think some people are still rooted in the men go to work and women look after the children stereotype, but hopefully that will change as time goes on.

YANBU not at all,not even a little teeny bit. It is the most pointless thing for people to bash each other about. As long as people are (more or less ) doing what is best for their family and themselves why does anyone else care.
Every family is different.

But olivia how? Actually, and genuinely, how?

How do you go out to work and look after your DC at the same time, unless you are a childminder or nanny or similar?

Honestly, how would you do it?

Fair enough most WOHP run the home and do everything a SAHP does in that regard. Totally accept that. The critical difference is they get someone to look after their children whilst they are working. And on that basis they do not do 'everything a SAHP does' because the SAHP would look after their children during the working day and the WOHP (in many cases) cannot.

When I was working, I worked in an office, in a senior HR business role. In meetings, conducting interviews, writing policies etc etc etc. I could not physically have looked after my child at the same time. I had to use childcare.

OK some of the stuff I did I could do from home, but would still need to be child free to be able to concentrate, make phone calls etc.

I just don't get people who say they work outside the home full time ^and take care of their children full time. Unless you are a childcarer, it must surely be impossible?

FWIW though I've been both a WOHM and SAHM and have never felt the need to particularly justify the choice to anyone. I do love a good pointless MN debate though

Personally, I think it's lack of imagination and/or intellect that makes people think there is only one true way to raise a family.

Anyone with even a modicum of sense can see there are always plenty of ways to skin a cat successfully ....

That said, despiet the fact that I'm not a WOHM, I will always defend them against nonsense because the vast majority of our DDs will work (most will have to) and I think it is morally wrong to saddle them with a ton of emotional baggage, and let all our DSs work and parent happily.

diet lots of parents work flexibly these days. Between them they work and earn money and look after their DC.

Works particularly well once DC are in school.

I've only ever come across it online really.
My family life is somewhat odd and always has been, in a variety of different ways.
I've only ever had people IRL saying 'Oh.....that's a bit....different' as they discover some random out-of-the-norm thing. So being a WOTH parent has been one of the lesser topics of discussion.
Friends and acquaintances should respect an individual's decision unless it is truly nasty.

Diet

I think to view 'looking after your children' as having to be in the same room as them is pretty limited.

My dS2 has profound difficulties and will need care after I am dead.
I have told my other two chikdren that they are responsible for looking after him when I am gone.
That does not mean they do not get jobs, or have him live with them.
It means they carefully attend to his needs and ensure that they are being met by creating the best, most attentive loving environment they can for him.

I was 'looking after' ds1 when he was in a nursery with exactly the same level of love and care as I did with DS2 who was at home.

And DH who worked full time through both was as loving and attentive parent as I was.

(Actually I suspect dS1 often has care that was less caffine fuelled and irritable )

That should read 'had'

Ds1 is 20. I still love him but he needs less looking after tbh. A bit less...

I sometimes wonder if a parents' view of what constitutes raisning and caring for someone changes over time.

In those early months and years, the endless feeding/nappies/night wakings can feel all encompassing. It's easy to think this is what raising a child is, because there's almost no head space left.

But as they get older you come to see that raising a child/caring for a child isn't about ironing their clothes or making their packed lunches. It's about the 24/7 overarching responsibility for them and their well being. It's about knowing the buck stops with you and that it is a constant. It's about the long term planning of that child's well being...

Im nursery management, but I have done running teen parent groups, creches, nursery nurse etc. All jobs I have had I have had both children with me, except for a three month period. I even took them to uni with me for my degree. When I say I do both I genuinely do!

I have to attend meetings, chair meetings, write policies etc like you dietcoke but again my children are nearly always there, even the very late night ones.

Yes Wordfactory. Indeed.

There is the danger of stereotypes creeping in as well, which is easier online as you don't know the people.
I've seen a lot of SAHM who have crap relationships with their children and who do very little in the way of enriching and nurturing, or even liking and listening, and WOTHM who do wonderful and fantastic things and where the love and care is so strong that you can build a family on it.
And vice versa.
It does seem to be fuelled by insecurity on both sides, which leads in turn to arrogance and criticism when someone has chosen differently to you.

I think diet has a point in that technically, yes you cannot be physically looking after your child if he/she is at home and you are not.

However, this only holds true when they are very young. If you count the mother part of SAHM/WOHM as physically being there with your child then when they are at school you're not a SAHM because there's nobody to 'mother' while you're home and they're at school.

wordfactory But that is applicable to ever parent surely? Albeit in different ways but it isn't confined to one type of parenting style.

I also think that part of caring for children is actually making sure they have their lunches made and ironing their clothes...

I'm not sure I really get your post.

I understand you wouldnt be able to take yours in to work dietcoke, but you could do it from home. You just think you cant concentrate as your not used to it. I do all my office work with children jumping on me and asking me questions in my different jobs. You learn to zone out on noise.

My boss (sorry to keep bringing him up) had a debate with me when I used the term SAHM. He said 'what the fuck is a SAHM, surely a mother is a mother, the term you're looking for is housewife' I said yes but housewife is an old term I suppose. Now I think we say SAHM and WM. This led to him saying I was a PART TIME PARENT because I didn't spend every waking hour with DD.

I bring this up because PP said about working away and not physically being able to care and work. I don't think this means you do one or the other. You do both. I'm a full time mother and a full time worker.

Mrsmagnificent I took Word's point to be that it is ensuring that they have those things (packed lunches, ironed clothes) that is the important part of caring. Whether you physically do that yourself or whether you ensure someone else does it is irrelevant. Does someone who physically makes a packed lunch for their child care more than someone who orders a cooked school meal for them?