To think that being a SAHP is a full time job.

[SpottedTiger]

DC1 is due soon. I'm the main earner and DH works PT, he has been seriously unwell over the last few years and this has been a huge achievement. Our plan is that after my Mat leave DH will become a SAHD and I will go back to work FT. We are both happy with this plan, however DHs family and friends are putting pressure on him to continue working PT around my work hours. Obviously if DH wants to for himself that's fine with me, but my thoughts are that looking after DD all day is a full time job in itself and it's unfair to expect him to then go to work after a full day with her when it's not financially necessary. DH works in an entry level, minimum wage job which he doesn't especially enjoy, so taking a career break for a few years shouldn't impact negatively on him from a career perspective and he is looking forward to the role of SAHD.

Gloating not floating. There’s nothing floaty about it

@bumpity

Potentially you could. But you might not if money is tight and if you have an arrangement whereby you could save yourself the cost of the day. And the childcare won't apply to weekends/ mornings/evenings.

Equally both WOHP and SAHP could have friends/family able to step in to cover a sick day. Or they might not.

It's all individual circumstance.

Crudely, IMO:

Looking after a 0-1 yr old is like a very demanding full time job;
Looking after a 1-4 yr old is like a modestly demamding part time job;
Looking after school age kids is at the very most like a part time job that's at the absolute least demanding end of the possible spectrum.

@LaurieMarlow
Of course it's individual circumstances, I was just pointing out that when it comes to parental sickness in general WOHPs are at a bit of an advantage because they are more likely to have the option of using childcare.

In the same way that that when DC are sick then SAHPs are usually at an advantage.

The years before school are intensive. There are many good reasons to have a parent at home. One baby benefits from being with a full time carer and two child care is free.
Once the child goes to school then maybe your DH can go back pt to fit around school.
It can work very well if you can afford it. It's a win win.

Sure, but reducing the argument to 'WOHP get sick days, SAHP don't' is too simplistic.

And the severity of the illness is an important consideration.

Working parents may not be able to take sick days they genuinely need because they have important deadlines to meet. This has happened to me on plenty of occasions.

Equally, if the illness is severe enough, other arrangements (for work and/or childcare) will have to be made regardless.

And anyone can pay for emergency childcare if they need it.

Equally to your point about children being sick, this might not be a big problem for WOHP if they have family to step in. It might be a much bigger problem for SAHP if they have other children with busy schedules and no outside support.

Which all comes back to the point that everyone family circumstances are different and what makes sense for them as a family will also be different.

ETA I understand the 'usually' argument, but I'm not sure it's always helpful when circumstances can be so different and people get (understandably) defensive when they feel their circumstances are not getting a fair hearing.

It does not matter if it's the equivalent of a full time job or not. All that matters is whether it works for you.

I agree that the question of it being a 'job' is a total red herring.

We live in a capitalist society, driven by economic activity and our whole understanding of a 'job' comes from that.

We don't as a society know how to handle caring duties (not just of children) that need to be done, but inhibit the ability of individuals doing them to also take a 'paid' role.

We have no mechanisms for 'valuing' these roles because our primary means of 'valuing' contributuon is via money.

Basically the system is broken. Ultimately children need to be cared for and it is someone ridiculous to disparage a parent for doing that (unpaid) when it works for the family unit.

There are both advantages and disadvantages to having a SAHP, it's entirely down to you what makes sense for all concerned.

@LaurieMarlow
ETA I understand the 'usually' argument, but I'm not sure it's always helpful when circumstances can be so different and people get (understandably) defensive when they feel their circumstances are not getting a fair hearing
Of course there is a need to allude to the fact that everyone is different and operating in different circumstances, however there will always be an element of whataboutery when discussing anything at a class level but I don't think that this should prevent people from pointing out trends and problems associated with what is true for the majority in a group of people.

I agree with much of what you have written in your latest post about the current system being broken. I think as a society we are suffering cognitive dissonance as we are more aware than ever of the needs of the vulnerable in our society and yet the work associated with caring for them is completely undervalued and in some cases completely unrecognised. We have literally had people on this thread suggest that looking after young children doesn't involve any element of work because it should be completely pleasurable to look after our own offspring and that's what WOHPs do in their time off so therefore it must be a leisure activity. I honestly think this is such an unhelpful and unrealistic view of what it actually takes to raise children irrespective of if you choose to be a WOHP or a SAHP.

I also genuinely think that there is a willful desire from some elements of society to punish SAHPs. They see the role as a luxury and privilege that should come with a heavy cost as that's only fair. I think what many of these WOHPs don't appreciate is that being a SAHP is not necessarily a pleasurable experience even if it is a lifestyle choice. I'm almost certain that they wouldn't view someone that gave up work to care for their elderly parent with dementia in the same way even though this too would be a lifestyle choice as there would be other methods that would enable their relative to be cared for that didn't require them to give up work. So many posters on this thread have stated that they found being a SAHP harder than being a WOHP and yet the lazy SAHP stereotype prevails and spend people remain absolutely convinced that being at home is comparatively easy.

We don't as a society know how to handle caring duties (not just of children) that need to be done, but inhibit the ability of individuals doing them to also take a 'paid' role.

This is true, but it is too reductive to frame child rearing as a “caring” duty. Children need to learn a whole host of skills and it takes skill to know how to impart them - it even takes skill to know to impart them!

“Caring” for the eg the elderly and infirm is a very hard, but ultimately far less skilled, task.

I have always worked FT. I 'had' to first because my exH earned very little and I have been a lone parent for 8 years.
I am under no illusions that I do my job less completely than childless worked and I am a less constant parent than FT parents. I have done my very best by my kids, juggling what I could, I rarely missed plays / assemblies etc. Arranging playdates on afternoons I could get off etc. But my kids have not had the luxury of Mum tending to their every need. Is that bad? maybe. has it made them resilient - I think so. Is it just reality for many many parents ? yes it is. If I had had the option to SAH when my kids were very little, I doubt I would have taken it because I have a professional job and wouldn't have wanted to lose my future earning potential. Would I have liked to work 1/2 time ? definitely ... Its great if you can be a SAHP. Its definitely work, and hard, and isolating ... (potentially)

Work can be isolating too. I can think of a lot of adults who, after a couple of decades or more in the same company, can’t really think outside their industry or their company’s value set (which they use to guide their children’s education and upbringing, often to pretty dire effect).

In my view, life is full time. Some days will be easier than others whatever you do. Some days you’ll feel wide awake and some days you’ll be counting down to bedtime - whatever you do. Easy/hard, boring/fun etc.

It’s for each family to figure out the combination of financial, emotional and household that works for all of them.

It’s not a competition. It’s not for others to judge.

The most important thing is that the outcome is/is working towards a safe, secure and happy life of everyone under the same roof.

I’d also add that being a SAHP doesn’t have to be a permanent decision. Review as you go. There has been mention of the difficulty in returning to work after a period at home, and rightly so, as it is something to consider. In my case it was a conscious decision to step away from my old industry and retrain. But additionally difficult doesn’t mean impossible. Fewer decisions than we worry about are actually permanent.

Being a sahp isn’t a full time job. Most people fit in what the majority of sahp is plus a job But if you can afford it it makes everyone’s life so much easier

Deadbudgie

So you are telling us wohp have more than 24 hours a day how can they do the same and work?
I suppose some employers might allow parents to care for their children whilst working. Not sure about the H&S aspect, or how they'd get all their work done.

Not it's not OP, but you don't have to justify. Do what you need or want to for your family.

I've both worked and not worked in the years I've had children. Currently not working (out of the home). It's most definitely harder WOHM as you have to come home and do lots of the stuff I manage to do during the day now. Plus be an actual parent too. (and that's even if you pay someone to look after your child during the day).

Not denigrating SAHM - I'm exhausted by the end of the day now!

does it equate to FTJ? IMO when the kids are in school its way easier than working. But more boring. Today I went for lunch with a friend, volunteered at school, surfed on mumnsnet and did the laundry/tidied up, cooked meals, homework, took kids to karate. No brainpower involved for me compared to a highly stressful corporate role or juggling multiple jobs, or dealing with clients or having a horrible boss or commuting or the other 101 stressful/busy work scenarios. The hardest part is when the kids come home from school!

but if your family suits husband not working that's a totally different issue. Women are always wanting SAHMhood too be valued (rightly) and being a SAHD is just as valuable. When kids are young its a great thing for all of you.

I’d say dead budgie you’re correct in that the overall responsibilities are the same for everyone. It’s of course the quantities that differ.
It’s been argued thoroughly on this thread by both sides (sadly accepting there had to be an argument and sides at all) already. A SAHP is doing more childcare, as when you’re at work someone has taken that responsibility off of your hands for the time you need. The rest of being a parent and just living life is of course the same for everyone.
I’d agree that it is easier to divide and conquer with work and home. I would be lying if I said that it doesn’t appear to be less stressful in my house to keep on top of everything, than those I know who both work FT out of the home. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that a SAHP is still doing something of value and shouldn’t feel the need to use the time they’re not doing childcare to ‘work’.

It isn't.

I think 6am - 7pm providing childcare for the whole thirteen hours to one child, eight hours for one and six hours for the other come rain or shine illness or not is a full time job. While you are out doing whatever it is that would require you to pay someone to do all that I am doing it. I have to do it. But like y U have to go to work.

I hardly ever get a day off and if I’m so it is not even in the range of annual leave.

As even a government body has calculated my financial contribution in terms of childcare let alone other things that tells me I’m not alone in that thinking.

If you really work at the role do a SAHP and are not a parent that just happens not to work that is the distinction

IS a full time job!
What a typo.

You see I should be at work honing my brain and not wasting my potential

The rest of being a parent and just living life is of course the same for everyone.

I entirely disagree, we are all different and have various ways of living and parenting, it's never the same.

Bunpitybumper well said 😊.

I think it is so sad that we view raising our children as a nothing sort of life and are even having this discussion on whether it is a job or not. Lots of people here seem to think it is more worthwhile to pay somebody else to raise your children whilst you go out to work somewhere else. Just shows really how materialistic our society has become...