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!

@dotdashdashdash IMO a good parent will be a good parent no matter their circumstances. People with stable personalities and good emotional intelligence will form good relationships with their kids.

Historically speaking children were never raised by their parents in the first place. In rich households children had nannies and tutors. In poorer ones they were in the care of the oldest child and pretty much left to their own devices. This idea of having someone available at all times to do the bidding of a child, and the need to spend lots of time entertaining them is very new and there isn't evidence to prove that it necessarily produces more well rounded children.

A few of the things I remember about my (FT teacher) mum:

• how loving she was, and how she could always make everything feel better, even if it wasn't
• how much she loved literature ( and I am so grateful she passed that gift on to me)
• how passionate she was about politics and fairness, and how knowledgeable she was about both
• how strong she was, and how daring - she did things and lived a life that was very unusual for her class and sex at the time
• how much she loved her job

Can't recollect her ever making a cupcake.

House prices are nuts, and I feel for parents who wish they could spend more time with their children.

But even the thought of my mum waiting at home to bake with us when we got back from school - makes me shiver.

Fine if it's what you want - as long as you're not trying to lock anyone else in your pastel covered prison with you.

My problem with SAHM is that too often their SOs consider what the stay at home partner does as "lesser." The feeling is, "I earned the money, I control it." There is little value placed on what the SAHP contributes. So, there's that.

All too often, more radically-inclined feminists say, "We fought so hard so you could have a career!" without considering that what they were fighting for was the choice to have that career, and that denigrating the woman who can, and does, choose to be at home is as belittling as men were when they called working women "ball-busters," because work was the MAN'S PART!

But I agree that it is sad that there is no longer, in far too many cases, a choice to be made. Both partners have to work to maintain a lifestyle that is above poverty level.

I think things are so much better workwise for parents these days in the UK. Paid maternity leave and much better part time work opportunities. My dc are 7 and 9. Dh is ft and I work 4 days- this is v typical of our peers and plenty of dads are the part timer. I hardly know any families where both parents work ft. Work is more flexible and childcare much better- most schools have clubs and there are local childminders too. Although it's a tough juggling act some days, I feel like we have lots of family time. I'm so grateful dh and I both have our careers - they are important to us both and give financial stability. I recognise we're lucky I can choose to be part time. It's the luxury of choice which makes all the difference.

@dotdashdashdash

Freddyfuzzbear what has breastfeeding got to do with being a SAHP? I'm breastfeeding my toddler and I work full time. I'm not seeing the relevance.

Sorry thought that was obvious.....she breastfeeds often throughout the day..whenever whenever wants.

[quote TheLastLotus]@dotdashdashdash IMO a good parent will be a good parent no matter their circumstances. People with stable personalities and good emotional intelligence will form good relationships with their kids.

Historically speaking children were never raised by their parents in the first place. In rich households children had nannies and tutors. In poorer ones they were in the care of the oldest child and pretty much left to their own devices. This idea of having someone available at all times to do the bidding of a child, and the need to spend lots of time entertaining them is very new and there isn't evidence to prove that it necessarily produces more well rounded children.[/quote]
Exactly,. The idea that children always had a mother entirely devoted to their upbringing until second-wave feminism pushed women out of the home and into the workplace is demonstrably wrong. And of course women — other than aristocrats who didn’t rear their own children in any way we would recognise as such, anyway — always worked. Working class women and children were the cheap labour of the Industrial Revolution. Before that, workplaces and homes were linked and often in the same premises and the family worked in both — it was only really in the 19thc that middle-class homes separated from workplaces and it became a mark of prosperity for a man to keep his wives and daughters idle and at a suburban home distant from his work.

People have this idea that the SAHM is some kind of timeless trans historical thing, and it really isn’t.

My accountant friend said to me “I’ve done the sums, 1.6 is the ideal”. She was talking about 1.6 working parents for each family, and that was based on finances, stress, kids’ happiness, fulfilment, everything. She and her partner each worked 4 days per week. On the other days they could get household jobs done which made the weekend more enjoyable, they could pick their kids up from school and go to the park or take them to sports training. They could make nice dinners to enjoy together as a family. They could volunteer at their child’s school. I think it’s a good balance and it’s what I’ve tried to achieve for my kids.

I think evolutionary biology is more relevant than poor mums and kids working I'm victorian era factories....when considering the benefit to the kids at least

Sorry thought that was obvious.....she breastfeeds often throughout the day..whenever whenever wants.

No, it wasn't obvious. And I'd hate for any new mums reading this to worry that a return to work means the end of their breastfeeding journey when it really, really isn't, unless they want it to be.

Both my husband and I went part time (30 hours a week each) until our two left primary school, so they were dropped at school every day by one parent and four days out of five they were picked up from school by by the other (and we were lucky that the fifth day was by a grandparent), so it doesn't have to be all or nothing.

Having researched my family tree, I have to go back a number of generations to find a women who didn’t work in my family

Not researched my family tree but one side of my family (going back to 1900) all had very similar working practices. Walking out of jobs, having several businesses that they flitted between. Nothing lasting longer than a few weeks. Occasionally there would be a brother or sister who would be able to hold down a job. I think the ability to hold down a job is genetic.

I wonder what the children would prefer. Most as adults who missed out on many things as a child wanted those things rather than a parent who didn’t work in my friendship circle. You don’t get to go back and repeat childhood with all the experiences you’ve missed out on

Dd and Ds both said their childhood was a blast. They want to bring up their children the same way.
A lot of their early childhood they can’t remember specifics but do remember having a great time.
I don’t think me sitting on an office in order to pay for childcare wouldn’t have done anyone any good.

@Bythemillpond was your husband a high earner?

No idea why you’re using the word ‘nowadays’, as if the default has always been one parent working. You must know that’s true for only a small section of society and only in fairly recent times.

The whole idea of a SAHM was an invention of the rising middle class a couple of hundred years ago. It was linked to status, not for the benefit of children and certainly not for the benefit of women.

In any event it was a concept relevant only to a certain group in society. In my working class family, women have always always worked.

So - nowadays? Nonsense.

TheLastLotus he had a good salary but it was by no means in the 6figures. He would come out at the time with about £3000 per month plus he travelled a lot so was away for a couple of weeks each month.

The thing is once I had the time and inclination to sit down and go through our finances the amount I earned was so insignificant that I reduced our outgoings by the amount I earned quite easily without us noticing anything.

MissTrip82

I come from an area that even in my lifetime it was an anomaly that a woman would continue to work after marriage. Stay at home wives became stay at home mums. There was nothing middle class about the area. It was a poverty stricken northern town.

@celandiney

I read a very interesting article about wages in mill towns ,probably during the industrial revolution?A long time ago,so I don't remember where. And the point of this is there were nearby towns- in some it was the norm for woman to continue working after marriage,and in others women stopped work.In the towns where women continued to work wages were lower for everyone,so I agree that society and the economy adjust to what a family as a unit can afford.If it's the norm for both partners to earn housing costs etc will adjust to reflect that.

So you think the answer is that women should stay at home?

@MissTrip82

No idea why you’re using the word ‘nowadays’, as if the default has always been one parent working. You must know that’s true for only a small section of society and only in fairly recent times.

The whole idea of a SAHM was an invention of the rising middle class a couple of hundred years ago. It was linked to status, not for the benefit of children and certainly not for the benefit of women.

In any event it was a concept relevant only to a certain group in society. In my working class family, women have always always worked.

So - nowadays? Nonsense.

All true....except when humans were evolving mothers wouldn't leave their children with strangers to go to work. Our evolutionary biology is what is relevant when you're considering 'benefit to the child' ... and is such that you cannot deny the evidence that young children benefit from being with their primary care givers (evolution has chosen the birth givers and breastfeeders) and having an extremely close bond that is uninterrupted.

I do think I was affected by my parents both working 10 hours a day. For better or worse, I couldn't tell you, but I think I'd be a bit different if it hadn't been that way.

DH and I would both like to go part time so we could both spend quality time with DD, but at the moment it just isn't possible and it makes me sad that she'll likely be relegated to after school clubs and childminders. She won't even have the benefit of grandparents to pick up the pieces, which was a real bonus for me. We are looking at DH (who earns slightly less) going down to four days a week maybe (the lucky bugger).

For the record, I don't resent my parents. They made valid choices and we have a decent to good relationship now.

This may not be popular either but I love being at home with my kids (age 3.5 and 1.5). I only work 2 days a week and I do so for pocket money to save and spend on the kids. My husband works fulltime and pays all our bills. We are an old fashioned couple and I love it. I'm not a person who wants a career. All I've ever wanted is to have a decent sized home with a husband and 3 kiddies (most importantly, I wanted to be able not to have to work as I want to be at home). We are not rich by any means but we are happy with what we have. We purposely chose this house when we bought it as we could afford it on his wage alone as this was always our plan. We have made sacrifices for this in terms of area, size of home and certain holidays but for us they are worth it. For me personally, if I had to work full time would make me miserable. I do know a lot of people who are opposite to me though and couldn't wait to get back at work. But I do hate that we live in a society that puts a lot of emphasis on materialism and not on family life.

@Freddyfuzzbear

I think evolutionary biology is more relevant than poor mums and kids working I'm victorian era factories....when considering the benefit to the kids at least

‘Evolutionary biology’ meaning that you imagine early human women were SAHMs staying at home in the cave with their babies while the men went out and killed mammoths? Also a misunderstanding.

One of the theories as to why women live so long after their fertile years are over — why that makes evolutionary ‘sense’ — is that older, post-menopausal women did the childcare for their groups while the younger, stronger, faster women were hunter-gatherers, and later, farmers.

Have you ever been a stay at home mum? 🙈 I have more energy now that I work.

I work 3 days a week though not full time. I love spending the other days with my kids though.

Both my grandmothers were SAHM - both had 7 children.

I have a well-paid flexible job as a lawyer and two children - I have no doubt my “work life balance” (not that my Gran would have recognised that phrase or had any time for it) is vastly better.

@Sarbears28 I'm the same

I am 64 and my Mum worked full-time from me being 3. There was no way my parents would have been able to get a mortgage if she had not been working.

I cannot think of any of my friends whose parents did not work full time. We all had keys to let ourselves into our homes, from age 11.