Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

SAHPs

198 replies

AvadaKedavra1 · 20/01/2019 01:56

So a little conversation on FB, well a debate.

Here is snippet:

Me: Those who choose to spend time as stay at home parents should be able to afford such a luxury. If you can't afford it, it's simple, go to work.

Poster: little bit ignorant.. I’m not saying their whole life I’m saying until their 5. Until they’re emotionally ready to be away from their parent

Me: Some people don't have that luxury. 5 years is a long time to be out of the workforce. Sorry but I want the best for my little girl and I want her to know when she grows up she can have a career as well as children. You won't have much luck apart from a minimum wage job if leave work for 5 years. Career gone. Poof.

Emotionally ready? I was 16 weeks when my mum went back to work full time and our relationship is great, she's my rock. I'm also a lot more realistic knowing my mum had to go out an earn a living. Christ these days it is a rare luxury for a mum to be at home for the first 5 years, it isn't financially sustainable for most. Besides, kids need to mix with other children, learn to be separated from mummy/daddy well before they go to school. My little girl will be just turning 4 when she goes to school.

You are the ignorant one if you are that blind sighted that you think it's that simple to just stay at home for 5 year when you can't afford it!

I definitely don't agree with 'let's stay at home for 5 years and rely on the benefit system to put food in my child's mouth'.

Ludicrous and entitled.

Was BU? What are your thoughts?

OP posts:
Klopptimist · 20/01/2019 02:15

Oh bloody hell Avada, you are about to get barbecued...

That said, this comment I’m saying until their 5. Until they’re emotionally ready to be away from their parent is dreadful. Plenty of parents have no choice but to go out to work when their children are very young and they don't need guilt trips like this.

SneakyGremlins · 20/01/2019 02:15

Confused I don't quite follow

budgetneeded · 20/01/2019 02:19

budgetneeded

The Canadian government has made it an option (for those who qualify) to stay home for the first two years. To encourage breastfeeding and to help with the lack of child care options for under two’s.
I worked casual; 4-12 hour a week until they were in school full time. But then nursing is a good profession that way.

Why do you think your thread is that important you started another...
Like all things individual circumstances

Original poster
AvadaKedavra1 · 20/01/2019 02:23

@budgetneeded 2 years I can see that, 5 years I ridiculous if you can't afford it.

My thread isn't that important, I started another one as I accidentally included a name in my previous thread and have asked mumsnet to delete it.

OP posts:
Original poster
AvadaKedavra1 · 20/01/2019 02:25

@budgetneeded also nursing in the UK is the polar opposite to good profession in the flexibility for childcare thing.

@SneakyGremlins it was a post on Facebook that turned to mum's being able to stay at home relying on the state.

OP posts:
ANightWatcher · 20/01/2019 02:26

Your other threads been hidden til MNHQ are back on duty 😊

BBInGinDrinking · 20/01/2019 02:27

I see you've removed the person's full name now OP, on this duplicate thread, but you've still cut, pasted and posted her words from FB on to here?

JasperKarat · 20/01/2019 02:29

I think if it's self funded do what you like, but the state shouldn't be funding a lifestyle choice that lots of working parents don't have. Lots of working families can't afford a SAHP until age two let alone five. Also what if you have another? Age gap of two years is common, are you going to stay off work and expect to be funded for seven years?!

Original poster
AvadaKedavra1 · 20/01/2019 02:32

@BBInGinDrinking yeah, should I not have?

OP posts:
budgetneeded · 20/01/2019 02:32

If you have a partner that works M-F 9-5 as per the expression there are evening and weekend shifts that do not require much if any childcare.

Original poster
AvadaKedavra1 · 20/01/2019 02:35

@JasperKarat agreed.

OP posts:
BBInGinDrinking · 20/01/2019 02:40

I wouldn't do it, OP. You're using her words and she doesn't know, (yet), nor can she defend herself from your use of ignorant, ludicrous and entitled. I think an argument on FB should stay on FB, not be cut and pasted onto MN. But that's just my opinion.

xsahm · 20/01/2019 02:43

Honestly you're as bad as each other. You may have a point about not using benefits to fund an extended absence from work but you lose the equivalent in preaching that what you do is best and should be what everyone does. So YABothBU, just live your own life, don't gloat over your perception of what's best for everyone else and move on.

jessstan2 · 20/01/2019 02:44

Why does it matter? You do what is right for you at the time. I don't worry about what choices others make and not all stay at home parents are on benefits, sometimes the other partner earns enough to pay them.

Personally I enjoyed going to work and a lot of my colleagues were working parents like me so we understood each other from that point of view. My mother was always a bit sniffy about me working but she did help me with child care, it just wasn't 'done' in her day. I liked earning money, we'd have been very hard up if I hadn't worked back then.

ReanimatedSGB · 20/01/2019 02:45

The state should fund parents who want to stay at home. Just like the state should fund everyone by way of Universal Basic Income. There is no actual need for every single able-bodied adult to be in employment, and we need to address economic inequality.

Babies, young children (and some older children and adults with physical or mental health issues) need to be looked after by someone, and the person looking after them needs an income of some kind.

HelenaDove · 20/01/2019 02:52

Not accoording to some on the Money Matters board @ReanimatedSGB

Original poster
AvadaKedavra1 · 20/01/2019 02:52

@BBInGinDrinking sorry I should have clarified, I wanted to know if what I said was unreasonable or whether people agree rather than a dig at her. Probably shouldn't have called her ignorant, it was just in retaliation to calling my ignorant.

Also seemed a good way to gauge people's thoughts on mum's going back to work.

OP posts:
almutasakieun · 20/01/2019 02:53

I think yis are both talking shite.

Original poster
AvadaKedavra1 · 20/01/2019 02:53

@ReanimatedSGB but why when people are choosing to have babies for benefits? Although there is a 2 child limit now.

OP posts:
Original poster
AvadaKedavra1 · 20/01/2019 02:54

@almutasakieun Why, what's your opinion?

OP posts:
Original poster
AvadaKedavra1 · 20/01/2019 02:55

@jessstan2 this was on a benefits support page.

OP posts:
Original poster
AvadaKedavra1 · 20/01/2019 02:56

@jessstan2 and that is precisely why I mentioned affordability in my comments.

OP posts:
Hedgehogblues · 20/01/2019 02:57

but why when people are choosing to have babies for benefits?

I can't take anything else you say seriously after reading this

Original poster
AvadaKedavra1 · 20/01/2019 03:00

@xsahm I didn't say what I do is best, I'm not even at that stage. My little girl is 5 months old. I just gave a couple of examples of how people have managed in my experience, such as my DM.

OP posts:
Original poster
AvadaKedavra1 · 20/01/2019 03:02

@Hedgehogblues don't then... Although I don't get why, it's true. There was a woman who openly admitted wanting a bigger house for her and her 12 children. She was single and never worked a day in her life.

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread