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

[yetanotherchangename]

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?

anothernumberone- I do think it makes a difference. I don't mind if you disagree.

Sorry bigblue I was not trying to twist your words, apologies.

No problem X

Sure childcare giver are caring, expert, and no doubt sensitive to their charges- but they are not loving.

I used to be a nanny. You could not be more wrong.

Well I do disagree but I understand your point of view.

That's great, Bowness. So why do you feel the need to denigrate others' choices?

jassy- I am sure your charges felt loved and secure in your care.
Good that you happened to get paid for it too. Would you have stayed even if a better job had come up though?

My friend is on her 4th nanny. I am sure your experiences are not universal- and certainly not true of children in nurseries.

DH and I have never used much child care.
We have a home cooked meal every day.
Our DC are happy, successful, ambitious teens who haven't given us any real problems.

We've managed this and both have successful careers.

Shall I start a thread about how clever we are. How proud I am that we do this?

Well, my son is in a nursery - my choice. You're welcome to come by and evaluate it, but I'm happy that he is loved as well as cared for.

What I'm pointing out to you is that there are no universals, so making sweeping statements as 'truths' is misguided at best.

Has anyone asked,'What's the point of having children if you never see them/give them to someone else to raise?' yet?

Once they are older I actually think they need childcare clubs, or at least very frequent activities after school or lots of contact with friends.

It depends on loads of things and balancing up the best thing for your fAmily

-need for money for survival
-family ethos, extreme examples being striving for money versus love is all you need
-needs of the mother, happy mum, happy kids
-needs of the Father, is he happy to be the main breadwinner or would he be happier with wife working
Blah blah blah

From my experience happy mum means happy home if mum I'd happy dad is happy, kids are happy

Do what the hell you want as long as the babies are not being left alone

And if you need to justify your choice, whatever that may be, that's when you have a (deep rooted psychological) problem!

No but somebody has asked how you give kids a good work ethic with a sahp. Apparently working decades in a lifetime and having a clutch of qualifications is completely negated when you have a period as a sahp.

Right I'm getting bored of this now so I'm off but I will say one thing before I go. Let's be honest here, some mum/dads whatever have to work to pay the bills, some however do not have to, they choose to. And some have children, realise later on how much work they can be and just can't be bothered to stay at home with them all day so they claim they have to go back to work. So yes I'll say it, why have them in the first place then palm them off with someone else.

I think most people who have children consider them their absolute first priority and factor them in every family decision they make. I think you need new friends Bowness

Good Bowness! At last! You did mean to be insulting, superior and belittling. Don't you feel better now you've admitted it?

What anothernumberone said.

I don't agree with the happy mummy=happy baby stuff.

Having children means sometimes we have to put their needs above ours.

We may be happy to have an unbroken nights sleep- but that's not the best think for a small hungry baby.

There are many instances where having a happy mother does not lead to a happy baby.

So yes I'll say it, why have them in the first place then palm them off with someone else.

mrsdevere- often it is the lowest paid who are forced into being SAHMs. Many working class people cannot afford childcare.

Another Planet MN thread where people have a choice whether to work or not.

It's not Planet Mumsnet. Some people do have a choice. Some people do not.

In an ideal world, every mother would have a choice whether she had to work or not.

In an ideal world, every parent would have a choice whether they had to work or not.

The trouble with threads like this is that neither side of the absolutists have any proof for their points of view, so the argument tends to go round and round in increasingly rude circles until it peters out.

Can we make a deal? Anyone who thinks that either SAHM/P or two WOHPs is universally better for kids, could you agree to shelve it for now, come back in 20 years and determine whose kids are happier, better adjusted and more successful as a whole? The rest of us can just get on with making the decisions we feel are best for our own kids and families, without assuming those choices are as a result best for everyone's kids, and without being constantly attacked and denigrated for those choices by the absolutists?

Ta.