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.

To me it is not a job but a huge privilege. My work involves lots of stress, people, time management, targets, pressure, chaos.
My mat leave (I have had 3 of them, the last being 15 months) involved being places I wanted to be, when I wanted to be there, making new friends, drinking coffee, fresh air, and fun.

Not quite sure why this has descended into competitive who has it worse/who is working harder.

OP - just do what is right for your family. The only thing I would say -.having done SAHM, carer to severely disabled child, own business, NMW employed job, and professional WOH jobs over the last 20 years is that if your dh is planning to stay at home for a number of years but would like to return to work at some stage on the future it might be worth looking into keeping his hand in the workplace in some form, whether occasional casual or agency work or home business or volunteering.

It will be much easier for you to work FT having him at home. Definitely the case for dh.

And for all the doom mongers changes in direction are possible. I am retraining at nearly 50 (working PT alongside). Your family financial situation sounds similar to ours (can survive on one wage) so that’s always a possibility as well.

I've been a SAHM for 2 years now. I was made redundant then DD was born with a disability and other health issues (huge shock). One of us needed to be on hand for her appointments (no family to help).

I feel hugely lucky I can be at home. I don't judge parents of SEN children who work at all but it has made a positive difference to my daughter to have me with her.

I have two under 2. It's bloody exhausting but I wouldn't swap being at a SAHP for anything. I love it and they are tiny for such a short time.

A sahp is probably doing a lot more parenting than a wohp by definition.

This relies on the incorrect assumption that earning money to keep your children doesn't qualify as parenting, when of course it does.

What is true is that WOHPs aren't doing everything that SAHPs do simply because SAHPs are doing more of the childcare and also usually the housework that goes with it. So for example a 1 year old will create mess. If you're the one at home looking after them, you'll have to clean enough of it to be safe. If the child is being looked after by someone else while you work, you won't be doing that childcare or that cleaning.

In terms of house prices, there isn't always a correlation between the number of two income households and prices increasing. It's true that more women work now than did eg 50 years ago and houses cost more now, but within that period there are peaks and troughs for both.

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...

Yeah, how materialistic to want to afford food, pay bills, keep a roof over their heads...

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.

See, the problem there is that parents who hold jobs are still raising their children. They just pay someone else to care for them for a number of hours during the day.
The expression "it takes a village to raise a child" also applies to child care.

And many parents who hold jobs actually like those jobs and their careers. And yes, for me it's more worthwhile than being around my child 100% of the time.
It's interesting because exH was effectively a SAHP when DS was little, but I'd say I'd actually did more care and raised DS more than him. I think the same applies to paid carers.

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...

I don't pay anyone else to raise my child, that's mine and my husband's role. It just so happens that we work outside the home as well, and I believe that I make a valuable contribution to society in fulfilling both roles effectively. It isn't necessarily materialistic to want to contribute outside the home. It can be about people wanting to use their knowledge and skills in a wider sphere than the home, and finding great satisfaction and fulfilment in doing so.