To think it's a bit sad that both people nowadays need to work to afford a household?

[Lowef]

I know this isn't a popular opinion on MN but was thinking how rubbish it is that today mostly both parents need to be working to be able to afford the basics of food, clothing, rent. mortgage etc for the family without being on the breadline.

I have really fond memories of playing with my mum in the garden planting pots, watching her cook whilst i sat on the worktop. She'd collect us from school everyday and on fridays she'd have baked some warm muffins, sweet buns which were still warm and fresh from the oven. She'd give some to my friends too. She taught me so many things like sewing, cooking, gardening (she was very green fingered), growing veg. She spent alot of time with us kids and i look back at those days really fondly.

In comparison I am nothing like this with my children - I just don't seem to have the time and energy for the things she did. I can't bake cupcakes in time for the kids school pick up as they're in the after school club. Dinner is a quick whisk up whatever I have in the freezer / fridge , I'm too frazzled and tired for spending lots of time with the kids. DH is the same.

In an an ideal world i would love to be a SAHM and have more energy and time for my family and myself too instead of just rushing through life. The years are going by so fast and most of my energy and life is taken up by work. The children are growing up so quickly.

Not sure if anyone else feels the same too or if ill get an MN roasting!

Lone parent here (divorced). I am so glad I kept working because now I have a way to support myself and my kids! Imagine being trapped at home and unable to tell an abusive husband to leave. I have a health pension pot to look forward to and I only work four days a week - by choice and to still be around for my teenagers. The trick is to get a decent enough job to be able to cut your hours a bit! The downside is that as I was always the bigger earner I had to give my ex 55% of assets to get rid of him - even though I have the kids. That’s British “justice”. A plus, though, is I have discovered I am wealthier on a monthly basis without him freely squandering the family “pot”. Basically I removed a parasite. And I kept my house because I work. Hurrah! There were times when the kids were small I would have liked to be a SAHM or at least have a little more time at home but now I am seeing the rewards - and so are they.

I did all those things with my mum (who worked full time). I definitely don’t have the energy or desire to be regularly baking cupcakes at 4 pm for ‘fun’ on a Wednesday afternoon. We do it on the weekends and in the school holidays. Life is busy and I only work part time but even so, we aren’t sewing and baking every day.

As always with these threads, the truth is somewhere in between.

In answer to the original question, yes. I think having two working parents should be a choice not a necessity.

I think parents (specifically mothers, let's me honest) should have the choice to work based on desire rather than need. These threads seem to lump working mothers in one camp. There is a huge difference between a woman who chooses to continue or pursue a career and a woman who needs to work because the family needs the money.

They aren't the same thing at all.

I was a single parent for years who managed the things you mention OP, food, mortgage, clothing, holidays etc on my salary which wasn't from a highly paid job. It doesn't always take two salaries. Depends where you live, how you manage money.

I’m grew up in poverty. My mum and dad didn’t work. It was awful. Yes there were at home all the time but they weren’t happy (unless drinking).

I have worked full time since leaving uni at 21. Had 9 months out twice for mat leave. Have never considered it unusual for me to work full time. I want to give my DC the childhood I never had.

What about the lone parents that only have one income coming in. We struggle but we manage

We live such grand lifestyles compared to what they did even 70 years ago, circa WW2, when heating the house was a pure luxury, as was electricity. Now we are wanting two cars, bedrooms for each child, restaurant meals, holidays, etc....Our houses are furnished extensively and so on.

We live such grand lifestyles compared to what they did even 70 years ago, circa WW2, when heating the house was a pure luxury, as was electricity. Now we are wanting two cars, bedrooms for each child, restaurant meals, holidays, etc....Our houses are furnished extensively and so on.

Why is this a bad thing? Wanting more? Do you think people in the 1940s harped back to the Victorian ages and how they didn't have electricity so they should be grateful for that and not worry about heating? I'm so glad to live in this era with the amount of leisure time we have and infinite possibilities to enjoy it.

I want to give my DC the childhood I never had

Same here.

I couldn’t not watch them go without or miss out on extras their peers had because I wanted to not work and stay home. Children have very few memories pre school age and once at school are out most of the day anyway,

I definitely don’t have the energy or desire to be regularly baking cupcakes at 4 pm for ‘fun’ on a Wednesday afternoon. We do it on the weekends and in the school holidays. Life is busy and I only work part time but even so, we aren’t sewing and baking every day.

So much of this is personality and inclination rather than time or availibilty. I have worked throughout my DC's childhoods (part time until youngest was nearly 8). I have made cupcakes at 8am and 8pm and everything in between but then I love baking (and think I am pretty good at it).

On the other hand if I had all the time in the world I wouldn't do gardening, I can't stand scrabbling around in the mud (DH will do that).

I also do days out and musesums.

OP your childhood sounds idylic and I hooe that my children will have some of that even if I was at work sometimes.

I want to give my DC the childhood I never had

I definitely wanted to give my children a childhood I never had which is why I didn’t work.

I have worked in many jobs. I don’t think I used my brain in any of them.

There is a huge difference between a woman who chooses to continue or pursue a career and a woman who needs to work because the family needs the money. They aren't the same thing at all.

Why? Because one is an evil woman who doesn't care about the children while she selfishly does what's best for her, without any thought about the family? And spends her earnings on hats, I presume?

If I quit my well paid and interesting career and get a minimum wage job (as in this case, the family would really need the money), am I then a good mother?

There is a huge difference between a woman who chooses to continue or pursue a career and a woman who needs to work because the family needs the money.

Can you explain these differences please?

@Bythemillpond

I want to give my DC the childhood I never had

I definitely wanted to give my children a childhood I never had which is why I didn’t work.

I have worked in many jobs. I don’t think I used my brain in any of them.

It’s obviously all down to different individuals. I may have felt differently if I hadn’t have had a career. I’ve been teaching 20 years and I love it. My career enriches my life.

@DelBocaVista I would think it's the difference between having the choice to pursue something you very much enjoy (personally life-enriching) vs not having a choice; financial necessity being the prime incentive (not personally life-enriching).

I was only ever on minimum wage jobs so giving up work wasn’t that huge a deal financially once I had factored in everything else like transport, having to buy clothing that I only ever wore for work because combats and a t.shirt weren’t considered office attire and lunches because I hated working so much I used to fight to stay in bed till the last possible minute and the thought of making a sandwich the night before was just too depressing. What I brought into the household was so small that once I had the time to sit down and go through our finances with a fine tooth comb and organise shopping etc I ended up saving more than I earned.
Also I wasn’t incapacitated by depression and could then turn my hand to a lot of different stuff. Although over the years I have come to the conclusion that I think I last about a week in any job before I either walk out or hand my notice in.
I think it is the delights of ADHD.

[quote DoubleTweenQueen]@DelBocaVista I would think it's the difference between having the choice to pursue something you very much enjoy (personally life-enriching) vs not having a choice; financial necessity being the prime incentive (not personally life-enriching).[/quote]
But what difference does that have in reality? Does it matter if you're working for financial necessity or through choice ( or something in between)

I would think it's the difference between having the choice to pursue something you very much enjoy (personally life-enriching) vs not having a choice; financial necessity being the prime incentive (not personally life-enriching).

Hmm I guess you can look at it this way. Normally on those threads it's considered very detrimental for children if a mother goes to work, but it's different if you really have to, because that's then somehow ok and not damaging to DC.

@DelBocaVista I was answering the question literally and have no idea what the original argument was

Regarding the op, I do think it's a shame that life - particularly housing - has become so expensive that many families don't have any choice but to both work full-time just to have a fairly basic lifestyle (by today's standards).

@Blueskies3

We live such grand lifestyles compared to what they did even 70 years ago, circa WW2, when heating the house was a pure luxury, as was electricity. Now we are wanting two cars, bedrooms for each child, restaurant meals, holidays, etc....Our houses are furnished extensively and so on.

Oh god, it’s not true though, please read those articles I posted - people live with modern appliances because we live in modern times, it’s absolute bollocks to pretend that people in the 1940s lived as frugally as possible out of some moral connection to the past.

The reason people struggle with poverty now is because of insane house prices massively outstripping wages. People need two cars for two separate jobs.

*There is a huge difference between a woman who chooses to continue or pursue a career and a woman who needs to work because the family needs the money.

Can you explain these differences?*

My mother worked as well as my father because if she didn't we didn't eat.

My auntie and uncle both worked full time even tho his salary was very good, he owned his own company. My auntie went back to work full time in the Nhs ASAP after having each of her 3 kids (he wanted 2 kids she insisted on having 3)because she found it tedious being as home as a sahm. ( her words) She wanted the nice lifestyle, the house, the kids and the career. They had a cleaner an ironing lady and neither of them ever cooked . So some people including women do actually want their cake and eat it. Their kids, my cousins, spent their entire life either at school or with a child minder. But they had nice clothes, holidays and toys.

Bold fail

And people have always had expectations of a certain standard of living - just because your gran didn’t have Netflix in 1942 doesn’t mean she wasn’t hoping for a nicer lifestyle.

@G5000 I suppose such threads often attract posters who have a particular view!

@SnackSizeRaisin

Society does not value the stay at home parent.

That's because a stay at home parent is generally not contributing to society. It's only of value to their own family. Nothing wrong with being a stay at home parent, but it's of no value to society in general

So the years I've spent volunteering for various charities has no value? I don't think so and neither do the charities I volunteer for.