SAHPs

[AvadaKedavra1]

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?

Men don’t fight with each other about stuff like this. Let’s stop doing it to each other.

We’re all mums. We all love our kids and 99% do what’s best for them.

If you can't afford it, go to work is my opinion.

So that's why you're in the benefit support group? To spread that pearl of wisdom.

You're not a Conservative by any chance are you?

"Starving? Let them eat potatoes"
"Homeless? They should just buy a house"
"Poor? They should just get a job"

But.. this thread is little.more than you bashing people on benefits.
There can be no reasoned debate with people such as you OP because the sanctimonious bullshit that infects your brain makes it impossible to realise other people have different situations than yours. So keep bleating and debating with people on benefits, everyone has to have a hobby I guess, but until you extract your cranium from your sphincter you'll have trouble seeing anyone elses view point.

fern
I honestly believe men should be caring and arguing about finances, child related benefits, maternity/paternity leave etc. They should (in my opinion) be pointing out to other men that if they choose to have children then they should care about the issues related to it.

As it stands, men are all too happy to sit back and ignore the issues surrounding childcare, flexible Working, child related benefits, time out of work because they rely on the fact that women will always take the hit (at times knowing that in the absence of marriage they can have their DP at home with the children, financially vulnerable and they can walk away at any time).

As long as men don't engage then these issues end up being seen as women's issues and women end up being the ones debating (and at times being snippy). Call me cynical but these always being seen as women's issues suits men just fine.

That’s good of you OP.

In an ideal world women would have the same opportunities, the same financial reward, access to affordable childcare, equality in parenting and maintaining the household.

This isn’t an ideal world and life is still stacked against many, many women.
You absolutely should not be made to feel guilty for returning to work. But that doesn’t give you the right to, in turn, lable those that don’t entitled.

They way the system is set up, the cost of childcare, it often doesn’t always make financial sense to work. I’d be better off on benefits and not working. If I didn’t work I would have more money in my pocket, get free school meals and the school would benefit from Pupil Premium.

Many, many jobs are poorly paid, the government gives low paid families WTC, effectively subsidising companies wages rather than making them pay a living wage. Working families are using food banks. If people are living in poverty when they have jobs, why, when they are better off claiming, would they?

OP, you say you're all for SAHP as long as it's self funded. Yet in your first post, you trotted out the tired old insult that, by going back to work, you are able to set a good example to your children. Which implies that all SAHPs set a bad example.

I would love to banish this insult from all SAHP/WOHP discussions. And from the other side, can we also ban comments along the line of WOHPs' children being raised by other people. Both are ridiculous and divisive.

@KlutzyDraconequus I am all for SAHPs if you can afford to do so, if you can't then go to work. As I said it is only while I'm on maternity leave and that is not for 9 months not years on end.

I do not think all people on benefits are scum, I never said anything of the sort.

@Jackshouse when did I swear at you? I don't swear at people. I said I was parent and you should read the full thread then you'd know.

@BitchQueen90 thank you for answering and giving your experience. I like getting these sorts of answers so I can look at things from other perspectives. I can have quite a blinkered view sometimes.

@Seline never thought of it like that, thank you.

Today OP said:
no, once I'm back at work I won't rely on the state

But a couple weeks ago OP said:

04/01/2019 00:48 AvadaKedavra1

At £30k I get £775 from UC which is exactly what I got on tax credits

So... How long have you been reliant on the state OP? Even though you earn £30k you get £200 less than I get in total. Doesn't seem fair that you get so much when you shouldn't need it.

Given that it's perfectly possible for a working parent to be claiming a significant amount in benefits, much more than they pay in NI and income tax, any analysis that doesn't take this into account and only talks about the SAHP claiming benefits is fatally flawed.

The idea that a parent who works instead of SAHPing will necessarily have more money and take less from the state than they would by not working and thus take less from the state is a fallacy. The reality is that when people who can only command a low wage have children, often they're going to need and receive subsidy whatever they do.

If it makes you feel better I have been both. I worked with my first born because I could afford childcare and the mortgage. Lots of people telling me I should spend every minute with my child because they grow up so quickly, they had career breaks too. After the second baby I couldn't afford the childcare for both, so I became a SAHM. Wow the amount of people including neighbours asking, "when are you going back to work?" Like I commited a major crime, looking after my children while my husband supports us! So now I've learned that many people are simple, flawed and judgmental beings. I now abide by:- Live and let live, spread love not hate and try not to judge.

Peace & love to everyone.

As a single parent I'd get MORE benefits if I was working more than 16 hours because I'd no longer have my benefits capped and would get working tax credits PLUS 70% of childcare costs. So dfod.

@MaisyPops my thoughts on men ignoring the issues around working and raising children are exactly the same.

@KlutzyDraconequus I'm not conservative no. I can sometimes have a blinkered view on view things but I can easily see why people rely on state help and everyone's situations are different. I was specifically talking about people who just don't want to work.

@O4FS very true, it's a sad state of affairs that people are put in poverty whilst trying to earn a living.

I wasn't trying to label all SAHP as entiteld just the ones who can't afford not to work but choose not to anyway. I can see that I was wrong in making this comment.

@CornishYarg I'm sorry, it wasn't meant to sound like that. I can be really rubbish with words sometimes.

@Jackshouse it's 'read the full thread'. Sorry if you read it as 'fucking'. I don't swear at people, especially thoughs I don't know.

@ferntwist love your post, agree with it 100%. If more people thought like you, this world would be a beautiful place to live in.

I was a sahp for many years
For many years we couldn't afford anything like holiday, one night here and there by the sea.
It was my job to source the best but cheapest food I could find, I was tuned into all my local supermarkets reduction times. Particularly 2 and 3 reductions.
Lots of car boots, two years running dc Xmas presents came solely from free cycle. No presents between dh and I. No new clothes for me, the basics for dh at work. Certainly no hair dressers, etc.

Bare make up for me and surviving on testers for foundation.

Bikes, toys all free, or charity shops or car boots.
There was no hardship, no savings, we just about kept afloat. Dh on low wage.

Imagine how I felt when people who were back at work after 9 months, getting new kitchens, holidays, extentions, cars... Telling me they had to work 🙄 and that I was lucky to be able to afford to stay at home felt.

What could I say? Well actually our priorities are different? We do without all of those extras so I can be with our dc?

Can I freely say that? Because in many many cases that's been the bottom love truth!
Not the friends who are single parents, or those who did actually need to work.. But the ones who wouldn't give up what we did to facilitate being at home within the dc.

I managed to stay with dc for 10 years. Its been really hard and obviously really rewarding. And now it's gone I'm the blink of an eye and I'm working again.

So... My dc have had the benefit of me at home and now.... They also see mum working 🙄. Now they are older and notice outside stuff far more eg holidays, better presents, nicer clothes.. Now I'm working they get the benefit of that as well.

So, they now get all the benefits of a working parent nowadays they are older.) still at primary).

But I do hope people realise not every sahp is doing so on the luxury of funds, a dh large comfortable wage...

Many like me simply had different priorities and lived on the bare bones for many years.
So do think before you tell someone about all the hideously expensive things your doing because you feel you have too... Then tell someone else who has chosen to forgo those... And tell them they are Lucky!!

@KlutzyDraconequus just since my 6 weeks maternity pay was up.

I have also been offered a promotion when I go back to work offering a lot more money as my boss is leaving, coinciding with my return. Originally I would have needed help with the childcare costs but now that is not the case.

I have always been a sahp to my large family and now that my youngest is nursery age almost, I have no career to even go back to as I had my first while a student. Working never suited our circumstances and would have cost me more, but it will be extremely hard to find a job now so I can see both sides.
However, depending on your area when your child goes to school and you start mixing with lots of other parents, you will probably find there are loads of sahp! It's really not rare where I am. O f course lots of the mums have part time jobs but full time work isn't the norm in my school.

@Burpsandfustles thank you for that perspective.

@WaxMyBalls thank you, I'd not thought of it like that.

@Ethel36 thank you for that. I can see your point.

@sixnearlyseven most mummy's in my area are full time working mum's.

Thank you everyone for your time and your different responses. It is allowing me to look at this from other perspectives, which is what I wanted.

I didn't mean to sound like I was berating and belittling people.

@sixnearlyseven but then again I don't know that many.

One observation I would make is that frequently people who berate others for not working have has different luck and life chances than others. People rarely actually think about their luck
That same old comfortable argument that those who manage well are bound to do due to luck, couldn't possibly due to hard work and sacrifices. Makes it easier to justifies one's choice.

It reminds me of overweight people who tell slim ones that they don't know what's its like to be fat because they are lucky to be slim, assuming that their size 10 is just down to good genes rather then them saying no to the cakes, the take, aways, forcing themselves to go to the gym when all they want to do is crash in front of the TV with a glass of wine.

For info, my being where I am is not due to any bit of luck but many sacrifices. I had no help from my parents who live abroad nor my PIL who were both working FT when my kids were little. My life was day in and day out, getting up at 6am, getting my kids ready, leaving at 7:30, dropping them off to nursery at 8am, working until 4:30 in a demanding job, picking them up at 5pm, doing dinner, homework, washing, dealing with admin etc...until their bedtime at 7pm, 1/2 hour of exercise, more tidying, 1 hour in front of the TV before bed at 10pm. It was exhausting at times to the point of tears when my kids were difficult but I kept it up believing olitvwould pay off one day and it did all around.

I stopped counting the times I heard from others they could do it. Everyone could but you have to believe it is worth it and look at tge long term benefits.

getting my kids ready
Lucky to get pregnant and have kids, some people try for years.

dropping them off to nursery at 8am
Lucky to find a place and be able to afford it.

working until 4:30 in a demanding job
Lucky your employer chose you out of the applicants, if they'd chosen someone else, you'd have been less lucky.

picking them up at 5pm
Lucky your hours allow this.

Tell us again how you've had no luck in life?

Also I don't know how many posters are in their late 40s/50s but life seems very different when you reach that age yet you wish for just the same things if no more. Most people I know in their 50s, let alone 60s can't wait to stop working, or certainly reduce their hours, and that's whether they have worked all their lives or taken some years off to raise their kids. The reality is that the longer you are off work, the harder it is to adjust back to it, certainly on a ft basis.

We have a number of single mums in our organisation that were either not working or working 16 hours who had to look for ft work as their kids started secondary school or left education and despite what is a normal workload are finding it totally overwhelming. They however havecno choice but to work ft until they turn 67 or go off sick and try to claim benefits for sickness. They have the insecurity of renting and no prospect of becoming a home owner.

Of course some had no choice but to do what they did, but some did, just took the opportunity given to them to be sahm or work minimum hours because they could do with the help of tax credits.

I really do wish families making such decision did so not just looking at the next 5 years of their lives but the next 50 as this could very much change their outlook.

Yabu
In a perfect world parents would be fully supported to sah with their young children (0-2 year olds, maybe up to 3 years). This is the most beneficial practice for young children. This is what the research says. This is why nurseries have a primary caregiver approach, in an attempt to replicate (and continue) the primary caregiving from parent. Young children suffer stress in nursery environments, cortisol levels. Science is clear. It is an inconvenient truth of our modern lives with much mass cognitive dissonance surrounding it.

Children begin to benefit from group settings from age three. But how much time do they 'need' in these settings for this benefit to be realised?

And I'm a full time working mum who used nurseries.