Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To say loud and proud that it's better for my kids that I don't work

999 replies

yetanotherchangename · 04/03/2015 12:39

There have been lots of threads about WOHM/SAHM at the moment, which frankly are beyond boring. HOWEVER on all of them I've seen SAHMs attacked (either for being naive, vacuous, lazy, money grabbing, downtrodden) etc., and I've seen a lot of SAHM explain why being at home is the only option for their family.

I've rarely if ever seen a SAHM openly say that it is a good thing for kids if they have a parent who doesn't work. I think we are too afraid of offending mothers who do work. Am I unreasonable to claim back some pride in what I am doing?

OP posts:
MadameLeBean · 05/03/2015 11:50

Well said Jackie it isn't just the mother's responsibility !!Hmm

Kewcumber · 05/03/2015 11:55

Do you think pistonheads forums if full of angsty snipey threads like this? Hmm

I'm sure someone has made this point already.

lem73 · 05/03/2015 12:05

Please don't swear but it's a valid point. On this particular day the father couldn't do it because he was on a course. He actually usually took care of the kids when they were sick because he could work from home. It was the first time in years my friend would have had to stay at home but she didn't want to. That's what really annoyed me. It's not like she had had to do it loads and her employer was fed up with her.

lem73 · 05/03/2015 12:09

Also Jackie the main reason I don't work is the issue of sick leave. My dh travels a lot for work and I don't have family near by. I think it can only work if both parents are willing and able to take responsibility for sitting at home with sick kids.

Jackiebrambles · 05/03/2015 12:13

I think it can only work if both parents are willing and able to take responsibility for sitting at home with sick kids.

I totally agree. There was a thread the other week about this, and how difficult it is to cope with 2 working parents and no family nearby when you have sick kids. Its a nightmare.

I have no family nearby, although if my DCs got chicken pox or similar I could probably ask my retired mum or dad to come down and take over with a couple of days notice, but they are 3+ hours away so last minute 'he was sick last night' help is not available.

So DH and I have to share it, use holiday, work from home/in the evenings to make up time etc.

Kewcumber · 05/03/2015 12:19

I think it can only work if both parents are willing and able to take responsibility for sitting at home with sick kids.

So how do you think single parents with no engaged other parent around make it work?

This person can stay at home but wants to have a separate income. Really?! Shock so you think she is being unreasonable but it's not unreasonable for her DH to be working to have a "separate income". How is it not his fault that the child went to school with a temperature?

Lweji · 05/03/2015 12:23

lem73

Do you know well what your friend's circumstances at work are?
What the culture there is?

Many people dose off their kids and they are fine the next day. Many people keep their kids at home and they continue to be ill during the weekend.
We dose off ourselves not to miss a day's work, and sometimes it's important that children don't miss school either.

If you don't want to be judgemental, then don't be.

lem73 · 05/03/2015 12:32

First of all, yes, I know a lot about my friend's circumstances. My whole point in mentioning this story is that is I shut my mouth and didn't say what I thought but I've had plenty of comments, including from this friend, judging my situation as a SAHM. I never tell people who work what I think about their choices
And frankly I don't think it's fair on the other children to send in kids when you know they are sick.

morethanpotatoprints · 05/03/2015 12:42

Sonnet

Yes, some benefits are there as a safety net, but unfortunately due to employers being subsidised by government to pay a decent wage we are stuck with the current system where benefits have to be used to supplement low incomes.
This has no bearing whether 2 or one parent works if the income is low.
In fact in some cases it costs the tax payer more if both parents are working.
But don't let that stand in the way of the usual comments
" sahp is ok if tax payer isn't funding it"

mmgirish · 05/03/2015 12:51

Mmmm bored of SAHMs being attacked for their choice yet declaring that it's better to stay at home with kids.... Yawn. What a knobbish post. You clearly have too much time on your hands OP.

MadameLeBean · 05/03/2015 12:54

God forbid a woman wants to be self sufficient and have an independent income from her DH or dp how selfish Hmm

Fact is that everyone's relationships are different & can change over time and we see on here every day women being left by the H who supported the family financially they are left in a shit situation having given up their career (and courts are now ruling against spousal maintenance)

Even if you don't divorce and are happily married blah blah, relationship dynamics can affect what works. A PP said that sahm situation tends to cause less conflict - I disagree - although may not be the case for everyone, in my experience when couples are both working the relationship dynamic seems more equal and there is less conflict as you can empathise with each other's day for example - there is none of the "what did you do all day" or "I'm too tired from work to help with the kids in the eve"

although having said that there may be competition for work time I.e. Whose job gets priority when the kids are ill & it's very hard generally if you are the lower earner to get equal priority - which marginalises women in the workplace even further. It's something that I struggle with even though I am the higher earner! But we have agreed to give our careers equal priority so I don't expect DP to make all the career sacrifices.

MadameLeBean · 05/03/2015 12:57

Are children really the #1 important thing over everything career fulfilment and a happy relationship? No, it's a balance, as long as they have their basic needs fulfilled and are loved, what's so awful about saying that women are allowed other priorities apart from their kids? Men definitely have them - work being the obvious one (generalising here but still). Men don't get crucified for putting their career first.

bigbluestars · 05/03/2015 12:58

"when couples are both working the relationship dynamic seems more equal and there is less conflict"

Hmm- maybe in your world.

MadameLeBean · 05/03/2015 13:00

And as other posters have said happy parents = happy kids more than the influence of any practicalities

ConfuddledPickle · 05/03/2015 13:06

Are children really the #1 important thing over everything

Er...yes. At least in my world they are.

The dc are top priority for both DH and me. Nothing happens (work or personal) without consideration for how it will affect them. From where we choose to live, where we work, what we spend our money on etc. And they always come first.

MadameLeBean · 05/03/2015 13:07

I'm so sick of this "parenting as a lifestyle choice" bullshit culture we have now. It's normal for people to reproduce and necessary for the economy etc. it's part of life. Why does it have to be your whole life? And the conservatives are encouraging it by the marriage tax allowance etc - women back in the kitchen Hmm
It should definitely be made easier for both parents to work in a balanced way rather than reinforcing gender stereotypes and placing full responsibility on mothers to raise their kids and none on men. Sometimes I think we are stuck in the 1950s - guardian recently ran a piece on how being a "housewife" is a feminist choice!!! Shock

MadameLeBean · 05/03/2015 13:09

Bluebigstars I caveated that statement when I made it - I was simply pointing out that "sahm means less conflict" isn't true for everyone as it depends on the relationship dynamics.

MadameLeBean · 05/03/2015 13:13

Confuddled I think you misunderstand my point. My DD is more important to me than anything in the absolute sense (who would I save in a fire, would leave my job if she became very ill etc) but at the margin I am not going to sacrifice other things that make me happy eg my work just so that I can bring her to hockey training every week - she gets happy fulfilled me which she would not if I was at home full time (not saying that is the case for everyone of course)

popalot · 05/03/2015 13:20

It's whatever works for you and your family. For you, staying at home is best. Some mums find it harder than others to juggle work and home committments, so staying at home is good if you enjoy it. Other mums go stir crazy at home, want to earn their own money and would prefer to work. Both fine. Kids benefit from happy parents, however you choose to do it. I work p/t because I want the best of both worlds. Too much work I feel I'm being pulled in 2. Too much time at home I get bored. That's just what I like. Every woman and family is different.

ConfuddledPickle · 05/03/2015 13:20

Madame...I can't view it as that black and white tbh.

I cut from full time to part time for the dc and this has massively affected my potential career development. But now they get to go to their swimming and football every week rather that sometimes having to miss them.

If I believed that giving up work would massively improve their lives, then much as I love my job (and I'm lucky to have the choice, I know) - the job would lose.

Wheelsonthebus123 · 05/03/2015 13:22

Sorry think my point got lost a bit. I think a good childcare professional is worth a lot more than what they're paid, but if a trained childcare professional is willing to look after my children for £x per day to enable me to work for £y per day, where y us much bigger than x, then in the situation where children are happy, stimulated etc, I don't really buy into the philisophy that no one is capable of looking after children better than their own mother. This seems a little unfair on childcare professionals that have undergone training specifically to look after children Mayo imply that they couldn't do a very good job of it!

muminhants · 05/03/2015 13:24

I have a few friends who work full time and constantly like to moan about it and remind me how lucky I am to be at home with the children. Not luck, a choice. Our yearly holiday is far less expensive and glamorous as yours, we live in a house half the size of yours and any plans of moving have been put in hold. It was a choice. You could also make that choice and make cutbacks and sacrifices.

You see where I am it's the opposite. I worked full-time and live (and still live) in a considerably smaller house, had an older car (and only one), and fewer expensive holidays than a lot of the families with SAHMs or mums working part-time. This argument is always trotted out - working mums are just greedy for luxury. I now work part-time, from home. Yes life is a lot less stressful. We manage on less money. But we certainly didn't feel rich when I worked full-time. I know four people locally who've sent their Y7 sons/daughters to private school this year. One is a single mum, two are SAHMs and the other has a good job alongside her husband's good job and like me works from home. So a wide range of circumstances.

This argument also assumes the mum is not the breadwinner and is working to pay for the luxuries. In 20% of families she is the breadwinner, and why should the mum's contribution be downgraded to luxuries anyway? Why is the dad the one who "needs" to work to put a roof over his family's head.

We are not in the 1950s.

And yes, I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's not always wise to depend on a man, or the state. If your circumstances allow it, depend on yourself.

squoosh · 05/03/2015 13:29

I agree, the mothers I know who are stay at home parents tend to do so because their partner is a very high earner compared to those families where both parents work outside the home.

TantrumsAndBalloons · 05/03/2015 13:51

What if you can't make any more sacrifices? What if you can't cut back anymore? What if you utterly depend on 2 wages to just about survive on, to pay for heat and light and food and shelter?

This is why people should stop looking at their own circumstances and assuming everyone else is the same. When we had 2 Dcs under 3 and I had a lower paid job and so did dh, we absolutely depended on every single penny we earned. There was nothing else to cut back on. If DH decided he wanted to be a sahp there's no way we could have coped with the loss of an entire salary. Unless, by sacrifice, you mean not eating or living on the street?

MiddleAgedandConfused · 05/03/2015 14:01

I have met several SAHMs who believe the following;

  1. They are a a better mother than me because they are dedicating their life to the children.
  2. Their husband is better than mine because he can provide financially for the family.
  3. Their children will do better than mine because they have the time to focus on their needs.
  4. They are a better wife than me because they let their husband focus on his job.
  5. Their house is better than mine because they have the time to make it into a 'real home'.

Of course, not all SAHMs are like this. But there are a fair few who are and cheerfully let us WOHMs know how we are failing our families.

Swipe left for the next trending thread