Looking after your own children IS work

[Bumpitybumper]

Oxford Dictionary definition of "work":
activity involving mental or physical effort done in order to achieve a purpose or result

AIBU to suggest that the people that suggest that looking after one's own children isn't work are wrong and in some cases are actively trying to devalue and undermine the people (usually women) that do the majority of childcare?

Would be really interested to understand how anyone can read this definition and argue that looking after children isn't work.

We have an aging population and we need people to decide to have children. Rearing these children (whether with the help of SAHP, working parents, nannies, nursery workers, teachers, childminders and any combination of the above) is an important and worthwhile task that will ultimate benefit and become society as a whole.

That old chestnut. Then someone needs to have children to look after them and so on.

Of course we need people, but we'd be far better off with a lot fewer of them. No one is going to mourn the kids that didn't happen because someone thought better of having them.

Gratitude?

You were talking about value.

Equally I wouldn't expect a stranger to value the fact that I'm a sahp.

I wouldn't expect someone to value the fact I have children at all frankly. That was my choice.

Huh?

You keep moving the goalposts.

Do you think there is any value in people looking after children, for society. Earlier you suggested not.

I suggested there's no value in being a SAHP. You can work and care for a child.

To society that is. I understand its value to individual families.

You seem to take a very individualistic approach.

Of course Dave in Swansea doesn't personally value that Ian in Liverpool looks after his kids.

But as a society, we see value in the nation's children being looked after.

@Nameofchanges

Just anecdotal but my own mum was probably a better mum to us when she was working - happier, more connected to the world, more ‘on it’, more mentally balanced.

I don’t think there’s more value in being a SAHP than there is in being a working parent. Or vice versa. But I do think that childcare and child rearing involves labour and certainly is of value to society.

Both economically and other, even more important ways.

Of course being at home is valuable. Sometimes it doesn't work for both parents to go out to work. It's as simple as that.
People can work around it but a lot of ' 'wraparound' care isn't 24/7 and the school holidays are a worry too : 13 weeks a year to get through , this is sometimes forgotten and not everyone has family to do it all either.
Having a child changes your life forever and we all make different choices in life. I've done both and whatever you do will always be ' wrong' in some peoples eyes!
It's a shame we can't help each other and be supportive instead of being judgemental.
It's not easy being a parent.

The80sweregreat

All of those things make being at home valuable to you and your family, not anyone else.

People like junk food, they like to smoke, drink, they need accountants, they need lawyers, they need banks. Apart from tobacco, I really need all these things, far more than I need your children, frankly.

Not being a parent I couldn't give a shit whether people stay at home or go out to work, but the idea that a SAHM is some kind of saint and morally more superior to all other women really pisses me off. Make choices for your family - fine, but don't insult other women please.

Sorry - meant to say I agree with the quoted bit I pasted!

If there were no children then what would that mean for our society

@Leighhalfpennysthigh

I’m not a parent and am also wary of anything suggesting that being a working parent is ‘lesser’. It’s not (and as I mentioned upthread, I think my own mum was a better parent when she was working too).

But that doesn’t mean that hours spent on child rearing aren’t labour or that paid employment is the only type of ‘work’ (I’m self-employed and work from home for a start) or that those hours spent caring for children are not of value to society as a whole.

Valuing one doesn’t have to entail devaluing the other.

Logical end point of the statement above

Childcare and child rearing is only of value to society where it is done to a reasonable standard. Whether it is done by SAHPs or WOHPs or GPs or aunts and uncles or by the staff at daycare, or any other combination of sensible adults, is absolutely irrelevant. None of those options will produce better 'results' than any of the others.

I did feel judged in the past for working as a lot of my friends stayed at home! It was awful and I was made to feel inferior.
I don't judge anyone for doing what is good for them and their family!

I agree @DontMakeMeShushYou

I mean the one that Leigh quoted.

@LaurieMarlow
Is that a serious question? You know what tax is for, right?
Of course, but I am struggling to understand how paying tax is relevant to whether looking after one's own children is deemed to be "work".

Posters keep mentioning WOHPs paying tax as though it somehow makes their activities more valuable to the economy and society and therefore allows it to qualify as "work". Lots of WOHPs won't pay any/much tax at all and will be able to claim additional childcare hours etc that a SAHP can't. Put bluntly, looking purely at the financial aspect it sometimes costs the state money for a parent to work
Obviously you then get the arguments that paid employment can have social benefits that extend beyond the financial, which of course it can but equally it might not.

It isn't as simple as WOHPs are contributors to the economy and society whereas SAHPs are not.

@Oooom

Oh-so value in those mothers selfishly choosing working as nurses, doctors, policewomen etc...
But what do they matter because they chose to pay someone to look after their children.

Have enjoyed reading your comments @Bumpitybumper

Cherry, as you well know, most women are not working as doctors, nurses etc etc. There are many, many jobs that society could probably do without, quite frankly and these jobs, like the “job” of being a SAHM, are only of value to the person receiving the wage, their family and possibly their colleagues. There are so many jobs that if they were gone tomorrow, “society” would not notice or give a hoot. And by the way, I used to work in one of the “valuable” professions you mention, but I still think I’ve been able to have greater impact on society as a mum to the children I decided to bring into this world. Anything else would have just been a sideshow, as far as I’m concerned.

I still think I’ve been able to have greater impact on society as a mum to the children I decided to bring into this world. Anything else would have just been a sideshow, as far as I’m concerned.

Given the widely-documented adverse environmental impact of having children, I would say that was a given. Perhaps not in the way you intended though.

Well TBF it's humans full stop who are destroying the planet