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!

@Sunhoop

It's a sad state of affairs if a parent of an under 2 needs peer reviewed studies to convince them their child is better off with one to one care/their parents. Perhaps in such cases the child really is better off in a childcare setting...

The self-delusion is somewhat pathetic. I sent my second child to a childminder part time from 14 months. I didn't lie to myself that it was better for her but I did it for myself and for my sanity. It's obvious to anyone with eyes that children that age do better/get more interaction/are less stressed at home unless their parents are utterly shite which most parents aren't. It's so obtuse to deny it and as I said upthread does a disservice to children as policies on parental leave will never change if we can't even acknowledge it.

But people are right to want peer-reviewed studies because, as with so many of the truisms about SAHPs being intrinsically better for kids, it just doesn't really hang together.

There just isn't any conclusive, longitudinal evidence that children raised exclusively by a biological parent do better than children who spent some part of their early years looked after by a childminder.

If you control for really poor childcare there's just no evidence that children who are at home exclusively do better. It's all anecdotal "stands to reason" stuff based on homespun ideas about the mother being the "natural" childcarer.

There are actually studies that suggest that women who work have more "quality" time with children than those who are exclusively at home. That may be bias etc, but the point I'm making is there isn't a clear cut evidence base for SAHPs benefiting their children.

The one factor which is overwhelmingly correlated with success in children is the education levels of the mother. Something which doesn't necessarily sit that easily with being a SAHM.

I just don't think the science base is there that makes the case for SAHPs being more likely to raise successful, happy children.

I'm a single parent so staying at home to bake muffins has never been on the cards for me. I can totally understand that there are some benefits to the family that accrue from having one parent at home all the time. But I do think a lot of the received wisdom about children benefiting from being looked after exclusively by a parent is a mixture of guesswork and old-fashioned sexism.

Let's be honest enough to admit that there's a lot of guesswork and a lot of talking one's own book on both sides of this debate. None of us really knows.

@TheLastLotus
Logic....But just because some men were controlling of finances when women didn't work in paid employment, it doesn't mean that was common. Controlling men will always find ways to be controlling . My dad was lovely, but he's honestly not the only lovely man on earth!

Yes to everything thepeopleversuswork has written.

Looking at reputable, peer reviewed research is a responsible thing to do. You don't have to do it but for me, as a university academic who carries out research, it seemed sensible.

Parenting is a very emotive topic and a topic where people feel they have the right to judge others ( mainly women) and some people still base their decisions on societal expectations and stereotypes so using research to inform your decision is not a bad thing.

To suggest those that do look at research would be better off putting their children in childcare is such a ridiculous and judgemental thing to say.

I was exhausted as a sahm to toddler twins. Much easier working part time . Full time for me would've swung the pendulum too far the other way. I have much more energy now. I tend to think what's good for the parent is good for the child.

Tired, sad parents usually have tired , sad kids.

I think working full time to prove a point is silly. Kids do need taking care of.

And I think all of this has to do with rising house prices and inequality. Is has become harder for parents.

We try to get a balance we both work 4 days and overlap one day in the week, (Monday's so we benefit from bank holidays off both of us) and my partner works alternative Saturdays and Sundays so we all have one day at the weekend together and only one day of childcare to find during term time and during holidays we use our leave.

It took some sorting out and we are worse off financially both loosing 7.5hrs pay a week but we've just cut back x

I think working full time to prove a point is silly. Kids do need taking care of.

What on earth does this mean? Who is working full time to prove a point? Do you really think people who work full time don't care for their kids?

@MyDcAreMarvel

People have a skewed view of equality it doesn’t mean being treated the same. Men and women having different roles doesn’t mean one is more important than the other. The large generation of feminists have made it very difficult for women to stay at home and raise their own children.

You could also say it's the large generation of sexist men who have refused to stay at home to raise their children and thus have made it very difficult for women to have their own careers.

Hear hear, @HollowTalk.

The large generation of feminists have made it very difficult for women to stay at home and raise their own children

Of course, it's all women's fault.
Silly women wanting to strive for equality. Don't we know our job is at home. 🙄

Again - minimising the value of those that do.

I think working full time to prove a point is silly. Kids do need taking care of.

I'm a single mother. I get no maintenance from my DD's dad and no support with childcare. I have to work FT to keep a roof over her head. and feed her What point is it I am trying to prove?

And before someone comes along to say that its different for single parents, if I happened to actually enjoy my work (which, as it happens, I do), would that make me a worse mother?

Would I be better coming out of the workforce, reducing my DD's standard of living significantly and making myself miserable just in order that I'm not proving a point?

what about those who would rather hang round with less sensible friends because they want some company?

Do you have teenagers? So you think that a teenager who wants to hang out with less sensible friends would choose to do that only because they can't hang out with mummy and bake cupcakes?

@wantanotherdog .
The average divorce rate for the UK and England is 33%. So 1/3 of all married couples at some point decide they don't want to be married anymore. Presumably at that point it's a loveless marriage. But women can't leave because they can't just go out and get a job.
It's hard for people out of work for years now to get a job, but not pretty much impossible like it was in those days.

The point is work gives people choice

@DoubleTweenQueen

Again - minimising the value of those that do.

No. I believe that women and men should be free to choose without judgement. If you choose to be a SAHP and it works for you then great. If you choose to work and it works for you then great.

To say it's all the feminist's fault why women can't stay at home and raise their children is just utter sexist bullshit.
There is nothing wrong to choosing to work - nobody ever tells men they aren't raising their children when they choose to work. Why do we say that to women?

I believe that feminism is about choice. That choice can still be to stay at home.

I think that as we go through the generations things that we have now as standard were not even thought of by previous generations.I was the first woman to drive in my family .Have fond memories of going to work with DGM at 5 (she was the tea lady) and catching the bus there with her .Feeling important as I was allowed to put out the cups and saucers! DM also worked .I have been able to be a SAHM for some while now .Had a few PT jobs along the way here and there.Have enjoyed time at home .Have sometimes thought what if? Had I become a Nurse which was my dream .However in the recent pandemic ,dont think I would have coped too well TBH! I think choices have been somewhat eroded for more recent generations .I appreciate that we have been able to buy at the right time and my DH works for a National Telephone co and had not been out of work at any time .However things have still been tight ,we have always managed holidays (here or abroad) and ran a car (not new) .

@DelBocaVista I couldn’t agree with you more. It was the “Don’t we know our job is at home” with the eye-roll that got me.

Never having experienced it, I have a question. What happens to children of working parents when they let themselves in after school? In winter, do they go in to a dark, empty house?
Lots of people have very flexible jobs and/or wfh. In our house one of us is usually wfh or back by 4.30.

Perhaps the vast majority of latchkey children are sensible and / or happy to do this, but what about those who would rather hang round with less sensible friends because they want some company?
Just because a parent is at home it doesn't mean their teenagers want to be at home with them! I don't think this is exclusively an issue for working parents.

In a way, I think it's just as important for grouchy teenagers to have someone at home when they go home after school.

And you can still do that and work. Not all working parents are out of the house all evening. Most families I know has at least one parent home by tea time.

Life is generally a huge spectrum of lifestyles, life stages; choices & opportunities.
'Choice' is the golden word. Most people don’t enjoy the luxury of choice, which I think was the premise of the thread.

[quote DoubleTweenQueen]@DelBocaVista I couldn’t agree with you more. It was the “Don’t we know our job is at home” with the eye-roll that got me.[/quote]
I just don't like being told I'm a shit mother because I choose to work.
I also don't like being told I'm only working because those pesky feminists have forced me into it.

I research and write about women's career development- we have it tough enough without all this bullshit.

What happens to children of working parents when they let themselves in after school?

Kids under secondary age legally can't be alone, so you're thinking of age 11+.

Me as a kid: we had a housekeeper, and I had older teen siblings who came or went. Neighbours when I was a kid: were teachers, so they fetched their kids home with them. Me at 15: daily after school job babysitting an 8yr old for a few hours until his mother (doctor) got home from work. Grandparents and cousins or friends may share childcare with. Work shifts so one adult is usually home. People find solutions.

Nowadays: DH mostly WFH. Well, obviously I do too, but only temporary bc of covid. DH agrees about being around for teens as much as possible..

What about [kids] who would rather hang round with less sensible friends because they want some company?

Wanting company is not why kids go off the rails. Kids can be more connected than ever to each other if they want. Low self-esteem and feeling they lack better prospects is chief reason kids make bad choices. That doesn't happen more just because your parents are both working.

@DelBocaVista I’ve had a career. I am aware.

I was a SAHM 90s - not much fun really, no internet then to waste the days away, most friends worked, quite nice to be your own boss but pretty dull and once DCs at school not rewarding.
Then there's trying to get into work again - not easy at all - and everyone is used to you being home and doing everything.
The grass isn't always greener.
DH worked away and no family around. My job had included shift work so didn't seem possible.

@DoubleTweenQueen yes, and the premise was that most of the population used to at some point. Which i doubt is true

@wantanotherdog

Some thoughts. Why do some posters keep saying that in the past, many women were trapped in loveless marriages because they didn't have financial independence? Are they watching too many TV dramas? My dad gave my mum his wages and had 'pocket money '. And no. He wasn't a weed. My mum enjoyed doing the finances. He didn't. My mum was mainly a SAHM and had lots of interests so she was never bored but thought being a SAHM was important. We were by no means rich. I didn't know this, but she washed my single school shirt overnight so it was dry for the next day and I thought it was normal to eat a lot of eggs and chips. Lots of my friends had the same diet and didn't go on holiday. Never having experienced it, I have a question. What happens to children of working parents when they let themselves in after school? In winter, do they go in to a dark, empty house? Perhaps the vast majority of latchkey children are sensible and / or happy to do this, but what about those who would rather hang round with less sensible friends because they want some company? In a way, I think it's just as important for grouchy teenagers to have someone at home when they go home after school.

The last thing I wanted to do as a teenager is hang out with my mum after school.

My kids have never come back to an empty home and I wouldn't want them to. We picked them up at 4 or 6 when they were at primary school (depending on shifts) from after school activities (chess, cricket, forest schools, music lessons, football etc etc) and when at secondary school we'd either beat them back home (they choose to go to after school sports or library til 5.30 to get homework out of the way) or meet them on the train on the way home for a lift. More recently I work full time from home so would either be in the house anyway or out in town in meetings and would again sync up with them on the way home for a lift. The teenagers would love to be in the house alone (to eat everything) but sadly for them, it never happens.

The world of work has changed a lot since even the 90s and I don't recognise the very back and white ideas about working parents that are being presented here. Things are generally a lot more flexible for professionals, and for shift workers etc, after school care is a) available and reasonably priced b) quite good