to think working parents don't 'do all the things SAHPs do plus work'?

[Sampanther]

I've heard this response an awful lot, particularly to that awful 'being a SAHM is the hardest job in the world' advert. I have worked outside the home and been a SAHM and I do not feel that working meant I did all the parenting plus work on top. For example, as a SAHM parent I'd deal with squabbling, tantrums, discipline, naps, take them to parks/soft play etc and help them to play nicely with other children, cook with them, do painting and play doh and so on.

As a working parent I had an hour of getting them ready in the morning, dropped them off at childcare, then an hour of winding them down and putting them to bed at night. I could eat and go to the toilet in peace during the day, the house was tidy and needed little cleaning as we were rarely in it and I had very little to do with discipline etc.

I'm not trying to say working parents don't parent, because obviously they do but AIBU to think parents who work fulltime don't 'work and do all the parenting as well'? I don't get why working mums respond that way and think they're right but if a working husband came home and said to his stay at home wife that he does just as much parenting as her then I'm sure mumsnet would not agree.

Most of wether male or female or working or not workin will have spent from 6pm Friday to 8am Tuesday with solid baby and todder care.

Yes women (and men) who work full time spend fewer hours before children start nursery school etc doing a lot of domestic jobs (wise them to avoid those) and will have changed fewer nappies but they are no less parents for having the wisdom to benefit their children by working full time and changing fewer nappies.

There are some wise words from JR in today's Sunday Times on advice to daughters:

Justine Roberts, CEO of Mumsnet
"Always have your own bank account, and don’t be reliant on, or dominated by, your partner. Don’t marry a man who can’t cook, clean or look after himself, as he’ll expect you to do it for him. Children are only on loan to you for 18 years, but a marriage is for life, so look after it. Your child-rearing will most probably be for only a portion of your life, so nurture your skills and don’t turn your back on your career. If you stay at home, make sure you’re valued there — don’t be a dogsbody. Make sure your partner does their share, and the kids, too. It’s impossible to do everything — you just fall over. "

fid, to take the last point first, my comment about how comments made newer mothers feel was intended more generally, although I speak personally as a working mother. I think hearing what others do, learning about the many ways people organise their lives, the diversity of approaches is one of the things which gives you confidence to trust your own judgement, rather than feel there is a way things should be done. That was more the sense of what I meant, and why I think it is important to challenge the blanket comments which come out. Now the blanket comment which started this thread was about SAHMs doing more parenting, so that was the context in which I was posting.

Had the blanket statement been SAHMs are economically dependent, then if you go back to my earlier posts, I clearly state that without SAHM unpaid labour, your DH could not go out to work, and cite campaigns to have the value of childcare and domestic work recognised. The point about economic dependency is a societal argument; just as, quite frankly, how you retain the services of trained people in your workforce whilst also enabling them to parent. Answering both those questions means addressing gender inequalities; and part of that is understanding the multiple ways in which women, people, organise their lives, the problems and barriers they face etc.

I was speaking generally too Bluebell. Wasn't by any means aiming all of that at you, jsut telling you why I posted as I did.

We seem to agree more than we disagree.

Yes, let's call it quits then. I won't be able to say anything coherent for tiredness, and I keep coming back to feeling utterly blessed, after everything, with what I have. And there is nothing to debate there. So bed!

I keep coming back to feeling utterly blessed, after everything, with what I have.

Me too. Which is the most any of us can hope for, really.

Bed for me too, I think!

We all do it. It's just that SAHP do it for more hours a day, while the working parent does something else for those hours of the day.

Working parents are paid for those hours, and they can go to the toilet and talk to adults. But they also may desperately wish they had the luxury of spending their days with their children instead of spending most of the money they earn for the priviledge of someone else spending that time with their child.

See what I did there? You could cut this arguement any way. Why do we always have to compete with other parents instead of just supporting each other?? Parenting is hard and very rewarding - surely that's the same for everyone no matter how their day is set up...

No,it's not same.housewife at home when kids at school is incomparable to actually working

YANBU, I like your last bit too. When I worked, life was easier.

I only read parenting stuff that tallies with my current circumstance, makes life so much easier.

Scottishmummy

It depends on what the sahp is doing with their time surely?
Maybe for most its not the same as being employed, but could still be working.
Like I said upthread, I have a few local friends who are sahps who do other than housework and looking after dc.
I'm not suggesting they work full time hours but some help with their partners S/E or small businesses, admin, diary keeping and secretarial etc. Some H.ed their children and this is a growing trend too.
There are too many variables to generalise who works and who doesn't.
I don't mean that in a competitive way, as in any situation is better, just different.

Rhonda and Scottish

there are s lot of people who view the Childcare costs as coming out of the woman's salary alone (I would be working for nothing)

Yes I've read that on mn too,the discussion of mother can't afford childcare,but has a partner
Childcare costs should be proportionately shared.it's not a sole cost to the mother

Well, if you subscribe to the MN view of 'family income' rather than each half of a couple earning their own private money, it effectively does/is.

If by working a woman (for argument's sake - I really just mean the person who would otherwise SAH) can earn, say, £1200 a month and childcare costs are also £1200 a month then they are working for nothing. It makes no difference if the other parent pays half the childcare fees - the family income still won't increase.

Not in the short term no Permanently but it will when the children turn three when the funded hours begin and it will even more when school begins.

You're reading that back to front permanently. It's a reduction of x amount from the family income therefore x/2 each from both partners income as both are equally as responsible for their children and the costs they incur.

Yes Rhonda but where finances are fully joint the result is the same.

No fid it is not the same as one person having no income. It means the overall costs to the family go up in the same way that they would if say a larger mortgage was taken out, surely.

I seriously pray that as my daughters grow up womens earning reach more parity with men and this isn't even a conversation that's had inr regard to women.

Rhonda, however its dressed up it is still losing the equivalent of one wage. The amount lost is still the same, wherever it comes from

If she earns 1200 and he earns 1200 and childcare is 1200
The equiv of one wage has gone on childcare

And the "DP should pay half CC costs" becomes contentious where the costs outstrip the lower wage, leaving the household worse off, particularly where there is no margin for that.

I can see each way of calculating being more useful in different circs. Of course the principle that both parents pay childcare is quite right.

Again in the short term. But when the children are bigger and childcare costs decrease household income grows significantly. No career progression time has been lost, pension contributions have been made. Both parents have jobs they are suited to rather than one having to find what they can.

In an equal relationship, where both partners have made the decison to have a child and bought into it equally, this shoudlnt even be a consideration. There is no contention there.

I did say earlier on some families can't afford a WOHM. That is totally wrong morally and this sort of accountancy does nothing to challenge that.

I do find it quite sad that money spent on quality Childcare would be described as lost as well, though I recognise what you mean. However for me it was and would be worth every oenny, but then I am also in a privileged position.

It is great to plant that seed of feminist economic thought, of course.

Just acknowledging that some people cannot afford to subsidise a job even until the vouchers kick in at three and that some people think about their finances in different terms and that some people are to busy struggling to pay bills to care about the distinction between the approaches.

The interesting question is why, when only job can be afforded, it is more often the man that keeps is. Which is an angle that interests you, I know, Rhonda but is a huge question, so i'll drop it for now

too ^ busy...

keeps his ^

I KNOW it's not useful on an individual basis fid - I'm trying really hard to ask the big questions and not personalise though it's almost impossible not to draw on your own experience.

Meant to say earlier btw I totally get you about typing while hiding out in the kitchen!

though it's almost impossible not to draw on your own experience.

Yes that's the thing; discussing the generalities whilst acknowledging individual experiences and avoiding alienating anyone.

Almost impossible.

(Suffering DIL guilt now re the stealth-kitchen-posting)

Did it get you through Easter Sunday!

We feel far too much guilt IMO, let it go...

But I do get your intention. It's just that I also understand perm and potato's meaning. Been a long day.