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!

So staying at home making a lovely life for your children and so bringing up said children that are well behaved and confident isn’t contributing to society? This makes well adjusted adults that do well in life. I’d say that was more than contributing. Your comment really annoyed me and I’m not a stay at home mum.

I think it is a fallacy that it times past most families could afford a SAHP. In many working class families both parents went out to work. Also, I think people's expectations are much higher now and they are far more materialistic than in the past. Very few people will accept pre-owned furniture etc (unless it is all re-furbed in trendy, retro style), even when they first leave home. My husband and I both chose to work part time to share the parenting role as that was important to us but as we both have long term health conditions we couldn't work full time anyhow. That means we are approaching retirement and will still have some mortgage to pay off from our pension income. Not great but we know there are many people whose lives are tougher than ours. We are proud to have raised our DS and my step children in an egalitarian way that shows them both men and women can be breadwinners/nurturing parents.

My mum needed to work part time in order to make ends meet and that was in the 70s and 80s. There was never much money and the outgoings then were much less than they would be nowadays. No foreign holidays, no mobile phones, computers, other tech, only one oldish car etc. Not sure things are all that different we just want more stuff so more hours if work is needed to pay for it.

@Scarlettpixie

My mum needed to work part time in order to make ends meet and that was in the 70s and 80s. There was never much money and the outgoings then were much less than they would be nowadays. No foreign holidays, no mobile phones, computers, other tech, only one oldish car etc. Not sure things are all that different we just want more stuff so more hours if work is needed to pay for it.

Things are definitely different now, read the articles I posted earlier in the thread. House prices have massively outstripped wages and the only reason your parents didn’t go for foreign holidays/mobiles/tech/new cars is because they didn’t have the same options we do in 2021.

My mum had quite a high powered job for a woman in her generation, she worked long hours and earned the salary to compensate that, but so did my dad and therefore our family life really different when me and my brother were young. They were quite materialistic and motivated by money and buying more stuff really, I was proud of them but it's not a lifestyle that I aspired to myself, there were too many sacrifices made by us as children and I will always remember the sports days and Christmas plays that nobody came to.

I have gone a different way and work three days a week while my DH works four. We have a small house but we are in it, with our children, for 5 days of the week. That suits me better. We are lucky though, we both have corporate jobs which were positive about compressing/reducing hours but still pay ok. These kind of jobs are rare and we know it.

Most people I know with young kids have one parent working part time though, both working full time is not the norm in the families I know and that includes doctors, teachers, lawyers etc as well as people in retail and hospitality.

And this can only be done by staying at home? Kids of Mums who work don't make lovely lives for their children and bring up children who are well behaved and confident? Only kids of SAHM's are well adjusted in life? Seriously??? Why ia it one or the other ?? Am so tired of this bllsht!!! SAHM's have the great well rounded kids - Working Mums are egotistical money chasing selfish with mal adjusted kids??

Apart from the fact that poor women have always worked - it wasn't that familes could AFFORD to have one person working. It was that there were no opportunities for women to work.
Professions such as teaching, secretarial work, telephone operator etc required women to give up work when married. What naice job was the woman supposed to do if married to a middle class man? If they were short of money the women made it work by darning clothes etc. behind the scenes. but they stil ddnint have the option.

It depends what you what from life? When I was little we didn’t have mobile phones / tv Netflix / computers / new clothes etc ... We demand more in our lifestyle which of course is all a cost.

@Dee1975

It depends what you what from life? When I was little we didn’t have mobile phones / tv Netflix / computers / new clothes etc ... We demand more in our lifestyle which of course is all a cost.

Affordable housing proportionate to wages. That’s the difference between now and when you were a child, not a moral choice to shun luxuries.

Relative to wages, rent and, certainly, the interest rate on mortgages were much higher in the 70s/80s. Food was also more expensive. People did not expect holidays abroad, new cars, clothes whenever they fancied them. Credit cards were used for emergencies. Most lived within their means and planned a realistic budget. If you want to be at home with your children, who aren’t going to be little for long, find ways to minimise your spending, move to a cheaper area, change your life style. It can be done.

@Mere1

Relative to wages, rent and, certainly, the interest rate on mortgages were much higher in the 70s/80s. Food was also more expensive. People did not expect holidays abroad, new cars, clothes whenever they fancied them. Credit cards were used for emergencies. Most lived within their means and planned a realistic budget. If you want to be at home with your children, who aren’t going to be little for long, find ways to minimise your spending, move to a cheaper area, change your life style. It can be done.

Nope. Read the articles posted in the thread.

I was so lucky to be able to stay at home for 13 years, from the time I had my first child until my fourth child started school. We didn't have a huge amount of money but lived simply, very few holidays, an old car, no eating out and so on. I think peoples' expectations now are higher, they feel hard done by if they can't have a foreign holiday, meals out and other treats - because treats is what they are, not necessities.

When I was growing up a lot of mums stayed home, and a good proportion of them were fairly indifferent parents whose children weren’t brought up terribly well. Staying home with kids doesn’t automatically mean you are good at the domestic arts. It can mean you are hitting the cooking sherry and Consulate menthol fags once the kids have left for school and burning the fish fingers at 6.

Boffin when my kids were younger I knew a hell of a lot of SAHMs (chi chi area, probate school).
Complete mixed bag.
Kids also were a complete mixed bag. No better behaved or successful or happy than the kids with working mums.
TBH it’s all a bit of a gene pool lottery I reckon.

I agree with you and I like the fact that you've said "both parents" rather than just mum because sometimes it's dad that stays at home. Lockdown has allowed me to pick my child up without using after school club as I'm working from home and we have gained many benefits from this. He has a stay at home mum on a full time wage! It's very busy for me but the difference to what his childhood routine was like before this is glearing. I would never go back to full time office again. Its not worth it for my family.

Yes indeed Missus. People idealise the SAHM thing but in reality it frequently tends to attract those who are more competent at it than being in paid work. Which is fine, but a successful SAHM experience is not a natural consequence of the fact someone has stayed home.

I agree it is sad OP. My parents both worked full time and I spent a lot of time in childcare from the age of 3 months. I really missed my mum and wished it was her picking me up from school instead of my childminder. Unfortunately I have no option but to bring my son up in a similar way. We would love to build a house, have a small holding and be fairly self sufficient but you need money in order to do this. I also wanted to be a younger parent as my parents were older and I experienced all of the drawbacks of that. Therefore we did not choose to earn money and have children later in life. But we do make the most of the weekends by just being together. We rarely go and visit people or have friends over, just spend quality time together.

I love the simple answers of downsizing your life and moving to cheaper areas - what if that downsize or move to a cheaper area means your kids are not able to go to a good school and wind up in one which is not performing - does not develop them to their true potential and does not set them up in life for their own better more interesting career and it perpetuates that standard of living? Fine if you're ok with that but it's not for me. It's up to every family to way the pros and cons of spending more time with your kids or trying to do your best to give them a decent chance of their own future. I came from an ordinary middle class background - we were not poor but we had to watch where money was spent and yes make do and mend and unexpected expenses like the car breaking down or the boiler going meant money had to be found elsewhere. We had no foreign holidays - didn't eat out a lot etc etc - and I grew up viciously not wanting that for my life or my children's life (if I were to have them). I wanted the security which my own financial stability could bring and when my husband didn't work for a number of years as can often happen any family - I was able to keep going and not have it impact on our lives - not just from a lifestyle perspective but also from a security perspective. I knew bills could be paid - I knew we could afford unexpected expenses and I knew my children's lives would not be impacted. I slept well and did not worry and knew then - that that was exactly why it was worth my while going back to work. Also - once kids turn 5 and start school and especially as they age and get longer school hours and more homework - how much of a real benefit is it to do pick up with baked muffins. My kids know I love them that I would do anything for them and they also know how hard I work for them..... and as it happens I do bake cakes and muffins and bread and I do assist with homework - often doing 18 hour days myself to enable that. There is no one size fits all for any family or simple solutions like moving to a smaller house or cheaper area and I strive every day to instill in girls and the women who work for me to always have their own financial independence. My husband also knows that if he ran off tomorrow morning my life would financially go on just as it does now. I would not be one of those women trying to get my career back after an absence of 5-10 years and taking lower paid work. I have friends who did the SAHM - and now can't get back into the job market as they have been out for so long - or are only offered jobs which are a fraction of their previous salary and as a result they cannot afford to buy in the areas where they would like to - where they have their kids in good schools - and one told me that she bitterly regrets quitting her job all those years ago to be a SAHM and putting her husbands career before her own. If she had her time back again she would not have done so. I have never ever been dependent on anyone for anything since the day I started working - it's been my own hard work - long hours - and yes good luck which had got me where I am and if I come across as pushing this point - it's because I truly believe that true financial independence is vital for women - we see it every day they get paid less than men for doing the same work - their pensions for retirement could be screwed - they don't have the necessary savings they need as buffers - the one thing I instill in my daughters every day is have your own financial freedom in life - never depend on anyone but yourself - and never ever give up your career to stay at home - your kids will grow up and get on with their own lives and memories will be memories - no childhood is perfect - but keep your own life - your own identity and your own bank account.

I agree that it’s sad that many families don’t have a choice in whether they’d like one parent at home full or part time.

Life’s not all about paid work after all. And why should having kids be a prerequisite to not working? I know a couple of childless couples where one partner is a homemaker and also has lots of hobbies, volunteers etc.
(and one is the man so it’s not always the woman!)
Also know some stay at home Dads who give a lot of their time to local sports clubs etc. In fact the local community also really suffers from both parents having to work full time with no one left to run local organisations, societies in many cases.

What’s important is choice and the high cost of housing has taken that away from many families.

I think the premise of this thread is sad. As if women have nothing to offer in the workplace that could possibly be equivalent to raising children. It makes you wonder what the point of raising girls is at all, if the best fate that can await them is settling down and having and raising children.

Think of all those brilliant women doctors, scientists, chemists, artists, human rights lawyers, etc - but the OP thinks that just because they're women, they'd be better not bothering.

@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

Wtf? Putting all your efforts into raising children isn't contributing to society? Those kids do grow up to be adult members of society as well you know.

I agree. It's sad for men too. It's a totally reductive narrative. Sure, lots of people work to live, but there are lots of others who get a kick out of work (I'm one).

@Tealightsandd

I agree. It's very depressing. The Blair government really kicked it off and things have never been the same since.

It was (and still is) dressed up as freedom and equality for working mothers. In reality lots of people are in dull low waged jobs that they hate, whilst their children are with strangers from early in the morning until the evening. That's too long for many children - it's exhausting for adults, let alone a child.

Time with children, quality family time spent together, is such a brief precious period, gone before you know it.

It's a major contributor towards the housing crisis too. We've gone from only needing X 3 and a half a single salary mortgages to out of control 4/6/7/8 or more X salary. Single people (with or without children) increasingly locked out, and even two income families are struggling.

It should always have been only one parent full-time. Either parent - mother or father.

Agree

I work as a nurse in outpatients (from home since covid) anyways I start at 930 have lunch 3 til 4 and start again 4 til 530. Therefore I'm.always here. When I go back to work I'll start at 930 f2f and then travel time 230 of until 4pm and wfh for 1.5 hours.

I'm still breastfeeding my toddler and feel incredibly lucky to be a SAHM to her. I've never been ambitious career wise so perhaps biased....but DH and I think DD having me at home with her is really, really valuable and I certainly do not feel unfulfilled. When she's at school ill work part time but I wouldn't work full time until she's much older. It's a shame people get so snooty about how 'worthless' being 'just a mum' is....also agree a lot of women who work full time have been shafted because they're still the primary carers for their kids/main runner of household compared to their partners...not fair but the reality in most cases.

I'd rather embrace it and enjoy being the main carer and boss of the household while my kids are young - IMO these are the best years life has to offer.......kids grow too quickly!

We are skint most of the time but I much prefer being a full time mum than having an expensive mortgage and holiday abroad every year etc