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?

I cant see that anyone is arguing- its a discussion with different views.

I agree that I was the primary parent during the early months, I BF all 3 of my DC for 2 years and DH was very involved in the hands on care and the emotional care .I literally wasn't parted from my DC in the early months, the urge was overwhelming and peaked at around 5-6 months and then gradually waned as they got older.

Society does acknowledge this and the mothers need for recovery from pregnancy and birth in ML laws. Obviously this period varies from mother to mother and is stronger for some- by the time mine were a year- 14 months I was fine with returning to WOH on a PT basis ,with DH caring for the DC.

I had them fairly close together and so they all benefitted from subsequent ML.

There is a point in my ramblings, how would I have felt if my DH hadn't been able to care for the DC while I worked, the answer is I don't know.
We can only make decisions and hold opinions based on our own set of circumstances and its wise to bear this in mind before judging others.
Outs has made some brilliant posts which I agree with wholeheartedly.

Parenting is valuable and essential and I think the way forward is ensuring that SAHP are protected financially - I would want a pension and a % of the family income paid directly to me.
I do think that there needs to be a realistic approach though - being angry because you then have to take a lesser job role after 10 years as a SAHP ? Its pretty inevitable that your skills will need to be updated , if I had left for that period I would need to retrain fully.
That's not a patriarchal society, its an inevitable consequence( unless you are able to retrain/study as a SAHP) and would apply equally to SAHM/D

You are clearly very angry, OutsSelf, because you are inventing things that no one has said in order to argue with them.

Well said Rita. Your perspective sounds similar to mine, except that I had a shorter ML and our dd went to a childminder rather than DH caring for them. We had a mutual agreement that we would try to keep things as evenly balanced as possible. It wasn't literally a 50/50 split because that can logistically be hard to implement. But DH made a decision NOT to chase promotions and work stupid hours so that he could take a fair share of drop offs and pick ups with the childminder. It also meant he had that special 1:1 time when dd was 3 months upwards.

You did say oxytocin was the only route for bonding mothers. Thoughtless and untrue, Bonsoir. I'm just pointing this out, you need not concern yourself or try to undermine my point by suggesting its emotionalism

Just to add, the not chasing promotions was a temporary thing while our children were pre schoolers. It was one of the factors which enabled busy family life with early childcare drop offs, workable. Once the youngest child started school, we both actively sought promotions.
Once again, this was our choice, I'm not claiming its 'better'. Some families take an active decision to prioritise one career and have one parent stop work to help facilitate that.
What matters like I said much earlier on the thread, is every member of the family living a life that enables them to fulfil their potential as far as possible, and be happy and secure

Outs

It is a fact that oxytocin is produced in massive amounts during childbirth and BF- it really cant be denied that it is responsible for human bonding, not only in parent/child bonding.
It is also produced in other situations, sex - responsible for increased pair bonding, after nipple stimulation( also BF), after orgasm etc .
It is also produced in response to positive social interactions with others- feelings of love and positivity to others and I include DC you haven't given birth to here.
Parents bond with these children in the same way as birth children.
Violence is a strange word to use tbh

People wouldn't be so disadvantaged for SAH if the norm was that everyone regardless of gender was expected to pitch in, take parental leave and career breaks. If the norm was that as an adult you did do childcare and perhaps care of elderly relatives DURING your career

People are suggesting that women NEED to be the SAH parent because of oxytocin. Bonsoir even suggested that an involved dad could inhibit the bonding process. I use violence because it's less rude than bullshit and also focused on people marginalised and made less by those statements. Those people are harmed by those statements

And the FACT of oxytocin shouldn't be used to excuse the marginalisation of women as SAH

I personally think that if you think women are totally free to chose to go back to work or be a SAHM you are deluded.
And so it is to say that men can can be SAHD if they wish and are completely free to do so.
On paper, yes we are. In reality, the pressure of society is immense. And just as most if you would never dream to jump in a queue, most men don't even think to be a SAHD or women think it's normal fit them to sacrifice their career fur their dcs.
If you go to other countries, you will see that women there can have a very different attitude, eg it's fine to work full time with a baby, saying it can be hard work to juggle but never thinking of stopping work ect (as a society).

And yes oxytocin probably has something to do with bonding. But if it was just that, does it means that mother would formula feed have a lesser bond? Mothers who adopt? Mothers who have been déjà rated at birth, maybe due illness of the child or the mum? And what about fathers? Who can a dad then be able to bond with his baby? Look after the baby properly if the mum is ill in hospital or if she does in labour?
Whilst I do disagree there is some hormonal influences, saying it's the strongest us IMO wrong. There are Los of ways to bond with a child and as a mum who had to create the bond rather than just enjoy it thanks to the hormones, I find it insulting that, in effect, I'm told it's not as good as.
In the context that bonding with your child isn't a I the thing when you are on ML, it's a life long thing.

OutsSelf - you should probably think a bit harder about why you are so angry rather than accuse others, who are exchanging views calmly and respectfully, of violence.

Outself- don't you think though, that the shared parental leave which comes into force next month, is central to this? If couples genuinely want to have a more shared approach to caring and earning (which are BOTH key parental responsibilities) then the legislation is now in place to allow for it.
Whatever anyone thinks, the situation is far better now than in previous generations. I had my first baby 25 years ago. DH and I worked hard at achieving the best balance we could, but it was far harder back then, eg DH could only take one day off for the births of each of our children. Attitudes were much more stuck in the dark ages and it wasn't that long ago.
Thank god times are changing and men and women aren't expected to fit a mould nearly as much.
Be interesting to see the take up on shared leave

I would have found it immensely difficult to the point of severe anxiety and panic if my DC were away from me at all during the early months.
It was unbearable and horrible.
I don't agree that an appropriately involved father will inhibit the bond, if he is an overbearing twonk ,then yes maybe

Not all mothers whether they gave birth or not felt the same as me.
ML exists for several reasons- yes to allow mother and baby to bond and to allow the mother to physically recover, to establish BF ( if that's the chosen feeding method)

I think Outs that the early months are very different to later years in terms of oxytocin production and that was my experience.

In societal situations where breastfeeding is discouraged in order for fathers to share feeding it is not the individual father's decision to inhibit the bond.

Yes I agree line. I think take up would be huge if we just basically valued childrearing rather than saw it as a distraction from our contribution to society in general

Can men not be part of setting the example of working? Why does it all fall on women [to set the example] & why is this used as the be all & end all as to why WOHM work?

So that, my girls have 2 parents, one of them works hard & sets an example as to how working hard = rewards, the other doesn't work.

It is not all up to the woman.

Honestly? In a context wherever are told that we all need to participate financially, that not working is unacceptable, I think it will A LONG time for it to take.
Because men are still suppose to be the bread winner and that not working reduces your chances of progression, will force you to go back to less qualified job etc.
and that if course, is only true for middle class people with enough earning potentials that they can live on one wage. The others will have to work anyway...,

Undecided if you read my post on oxytocin above you will see that I have explained that it is NOT just produced after birth/BF !!
It is produced in lots of other circumstances.
Yes Oxytocin is produced and creates bonding.
but bonding, loving, caring, sex, positive interaction with others all produce oxytocin too.

I know bonding isn't just while the mother is on ML < sigh>

I'm not angry bonsoir - I think your views harm the people that I've mentioned. Why do you take this to be "angry" and try to set yourself as calm next to that, I want to know.

My happened to bf and have my DP SAH to support my higher earning career as it happens. But if I didn't bf I would not be less bonded with my DC

How about instead of fighting & belittling other's choices, we set the example to our children that people are allowed to work, and they are allowed to SAH, depending what they feel is best, without having to justify it?

Setting the example to be nice to others & to accept their choices, is much better & more worthwhile, imo, that the example of working! The world would be a nicer place if we did this & stopped fighting & trying to get one up on others who do differently to us.

After all, isn't the message that we are all equal? This often (on here at least) gets forgotten when a sahm voices that she is a sahm! Then it's attack for all your worth!

Then it means that bonding with a baby happen in lots if other ways too. And these ways are just as powerful if not more that oxytocin.

If there are other ways to bond that are as powerful, then the mother being the one 'attached' to the baby for the first year or 2 or 3 doesn't have to be. It could also be the dad (or someone else like a foster carer etc).
Oxytocin is NOT the reason for mothers to stay at home or for dads not to be as good at looking after their dcs.

Differentnameforthis- well said.

I for one am very glad that my dd and ds have reached adulthood without any assumption that being a SAHM (in dd's case) or sole earner (in ds's case) will be their default position. They genuinely don't think like that. They both feel equally competent to care and earn. Thank goodness we live in an era when they're allowed to feel that way.

See to me it's not about feeling we are able to make one choice or the other, it's about not being socially and economically disadvantaged by choosing a role that we all agree is vital.

Undecided
Bonding in humans is directly related to production of oxytocin,whether it's to a baby,your partner or friend

Oxytocin is produced by lots of different means -so yes a bonded person other than the mother can care for the child just as well.
The fact is after birth the massive amounts of oxytocin produced by the mother,generally mean she is the primary carer.
I really don't know why you are so desperate to knock what is actually fact.
Biologically birth induces bonding in a really powerful way to ensure the baby is cared for and responded to. Trauma can interfere with this process.
This doesn't however mean if your DC are not your birth DC you won't bond with them.
You will produce oxytocin,just from a different process- skin to skin,feeding,touching ,caring for the child etc