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?

You can't work from home and look after your children at the same time. No one wins that way. You don't concentrate on work and you don't give your children quality attention. I wfh but still have to use a nursery, just like anyone who travels to work.

Quite rally plus for me I enjoyed the mental break from my DC and enjoyed doing something completely different.

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'm on both sides of the fence (do we need a fence? Really?), having been a SAHM for years and now, post-divorce, being a WAHM as a childminder who cares deeply for the children I look after. I think it's a good thing for kids if they have a parent who wants to be at home and who can afford to be at home without stressing about money. I think it's an equally good thing if children have two parents who love their careers and don't want to stay at home, or parents who need to work and can be positive about the situation, and they have good quality childcare. The most important thing is for parents to find a way to be happy and make considered choices for their children, then children will be happy. What works for me and my family would probably make many people miserable.

One of my little clients is just about to start coming 4 days a week instead of 1 because mum has a new career opportunity. My friend is excited about her new career, and her daughter is punching-the-air-excited to play with her friends more often.

The key thing for children is to be loved by their parents and to be looked after by people who care about them. That doesn't have to be the parents. Not all childminders are good though - I was welling up recently listening to clients talking about their past childminders. They hadn't felt cared for. My sister stopped using an after-school club she described as a 'holding pen'. Trust your instincts, I think they're generally pretty sound, and kids can give you an honest insight by age 5 or 6.

I agree you can't work at home and take care of the children at the same time. But for the most part when we can work from home, we can be more in contact. For example during meals, for pick ups and drop ins. If they are ill and so on.
And for both parents, not just mothers.

Also agreeing with Million.
We can tell if our children are happy with the people they are cared for.

My brother ended up sacking one nanny because they felt their DC was not being looked after properly. They saw a clear improvement with her replacement, even though their child was still very young.

And for all the criticism of child carers, many parents are not particularly better. :(

I think it sends out the wrong message if children see a parent who does not work for no good reason. Most children understand a baby needs a mother at home for b/f and so on. But once the children are older I think it isn't a good model for one parent not to work at all and rely completely on somebody else's wages.

Wy vivienne*? Most sahp sah to look after preschoolers and return to work once dc are at school. Very few sah permanently.

Yes I do appreciate that it's not always financially viable for one parent both parents to work. But I don't think it's good for a woman to be out of the workplace for a very long time and rely on a partneAr's salary. That is my opinion. Others may have a different one. And I think a balance is better rather than one person doing all the housework and childcare and the other person earning all the money. Though it might make sense at the time it's if there is a split up it becomes difficult. Or one person might be bitter inthe years to come that they didn't have a satisfying career.

But looking after children IS work Vivienne. I think it's a shame not to recognise its value as work and I think suggesting it's not work is a way of further disadvantaging people doing that work because not only are they un/ poorly paid you are failing to recognise the value of their contribution.

But looking after children IS work Vivienne. I think it's a shame not to recognise its value as work and I think suggesting it's not work is a way of further disadvantaging people doing that work because not only are they un/ poorly paid you are failing to recognise the value of their contribution

^^ this absolutely

Also if we collectively as a culture insisted on its value you that would go some wage to assauging the economic precarity of those "dependant" on their partner's wage. I put "dependency" in quotes because those partners earning are dependant on the labour of those looking after their children in order to be able to work. So dependacy is not a straightforward leaning of one partner on the other in this instance

Crikey ! looking after small DC is the hardest work I have ever done in my life !
It is relentless !
I got paid 3 x mat leave of 9 months plus 8 weeks AL each time, then DH and I shared the care.
WOH was easier but not as much fun

Exactly why I think the SAHP should insist on pension contributions and a % of the wage paid into their own savings accountOuts

I'm a working mum and I have all the admiration in the world for SAHMs to pre-school children. Once children start school I think mums should probably go to work like everybody else. But that is just my opinion, and there are exceptions such as parents/children with disabilities, very large families etc. I would love to sit around at home all day, but I'm not sure how I'd justify it to anyone.

I would love to sit around at home all day, but I'm not sure how I'd justify it to anyone.

....aaaaaaaaaaaand we're back to square one....

Sorry, I didn't bother to read square one, this same conversation has been going on for years on MN and most people are very bored of it. I thought I'd have my say anyway though.

Exactly why I think the SAHP should insist on pension contributions and a % of the wage paid into their own savings account

Excellent point. There definitely should be an actual marriage contract that covers when a person stays at home. While the case that provoked a lot of the current debate on here is extremes it does show that society can on a whim change the goal posts for what couples agreed during the good times.

happy

It's just a shame we have to "justify" anything.

We live in a society, where it's adult members are supposed to contribute. If they decide not to, they should at least be able to justify why they don't. And child rearing is contributing, but when the kids are at school, there is a lot of free time that could be put to good use.

But the OP says in the opening post that she doesn't work. Perhaps it is more accurate to say paid work outside the home. If people don't want to do paid work outside the home that's their business. Great to rely on a partners wage and stay at home. But if he disappears into the wide blue yonder then not so great.

I didn't read Viviennemary's post as saying that she doesn't think caring for young children is work. Of course it's hard work.
I took it to mean if a couple decide that one will do all the earning and one does all the childcare and domestic stuff, both parents could feel further down the line that they'd missed out.

That's precisely the reason DH and I, both being equally well qualified and equally good at our jobs, equally good at caring for the children and equally competent at the domestic chores which usually are part and parcel of being the main partner at home, decided that we would work really hard at keeping the balance pretty equal. I would have missed out if I'd given up my career, and DH would have missed out if he'd worked stupid hours and totally prioritised his career as a sole earner.

And for some couples, our way of doing things wouldn't work at all. Some couples want one person at home. Some couples have one partner who is career oriented and one who isn't. And many more variables

I certainly didn't take her post to mean that looking after kids isn't hard work.

happy

I meant women feeling they need to justify working or not working

I certainly don't need to justify what I do to anyone on the planet except my family

Logistically it's probably easier to go to work when children are under school age. Nurseries/CM take children from 8 am (or even 7.30) and will have them till 6pm. So a full working day is not a problem.

A school day tends to be 8.45 till 3.15ish, so working parents will probably need to pay for wraparound childcare which is harder to find as children get older. I can see how it might be easier for one parent to not work in order to organise that. It gets more complicated if you have more than one child where they might not be in the same schools.

Excellent post Lines
Thanks another

I have teenage and older DC now and I work PT because I earn enough to and because I want to.

I've done SAHM & WOHM p/t & SAHM is much easier because you have control over schedule/day, not answerable to anybody etc & usually finished by 7pm whereas when I worked I had to do all my home jobs after a day at work & when kids in bed