In thinking being a SAHM is work?

[morepizza]

Work is defined as:

noun
noun: work; plural noun: works; plural noun: the works
1 1. 
activity involving mental or physical effort done in order to achieve a purpose or result.

I think this includes SAH parental duties. I know a lot of people don't agree with me. What else would it be called?

What on Earth has that got to do with the availability of employment or whether the number of jobs is finite? That is the result of deregulation of financial markets resulting in the additional income from two parents working being sucked up by house prices. Government policy again. It wasn't somehow inevitable that if more people work house prices will rise. 😂

I do sometimes wonder what people did during all of those years at school.

This is a massive deja vu 👀
Swear to god there was a thread last year or so with dictionary definition and similar answers about gym etc

There have been roughly a million threads on this with the same rubbish spouted every time. 🙄

Polkadot - interesting reply thanks. I would imagine if there were a scientific research approach to this question the response would be interesting.

I do still think comments on this thread that one situation is harder than another is unhelpful given we don't have background on jobs or family circumstances. We don't know how 'average' they are, big issues with the sample on MN too.

To the poster who questioned why other women don’t value SAHMs, my question would be why would we? They’re bringing up their own kids and looking after their own family. Nothing wrong with that but it’s not doing anything for the greater good. And before people start talking about voluntary work, most people I volunteer with through the parent council, scouts and various other organisation I’m involved with work at least part time - very few don’t work at all.

I agree. I often see women on here bemoaning the fact that SAHPs aren't valued by society, but there are lots of things that all of us do for our families which aren't valued by anyone beyond our own households. Why would they be when there is no wider benefit? Yes, you can argue that raising the next generation is important, but that's an argument for valuing parents rather than SAHPs in particular. The specific value that you add as a SAHP benefits your own family, so your contributions should absolutely be valued by your family. Your choices make no difference to the rest of us, so we aren't likely to care either way.

@Sweak

Polkadot - interesting reply thanks. I would imagine if there were a scientific research approach to this question the response would be interesting.

I do still think comments on this thread that one situation is harder than another is unhelpful given we don't have background on jobs or family circumstances. We don't know how 'average' they are, big issues with the sample on MN too.

Sociology!!

@Sweak

Polkadot - interesting reply thanks. I would imagine if there were a scientific research approach to this question the response would be interesting.

I do still think comments on this thread that one situation is harder than another is unhelpful given we don't have background on jobs or family circumstances. We don't know how 'average' they are, big issues with the sample on MN too.

But the thread wasn't about specific poster's circumstances. The question was a general one therefore can only be answered by a general comparison based on averages. There will always be outliers with specific challenges in any situation but the logical fallacy is them extrapolating their experience to a general assessment of objectively difficulty, not proof that an objective assessment is wrong.

Makes me sad that no values mothers' (and it is mainly mothers') time and contribution to family and society

You can value the usefulness of it (to the children and to the family as a whole) without thinking it is very hard work compared with a job, and also while recognising that it is entirely optional.

But the thread wasn't about specific poster's circumstances. The question was a general one therefore can only be answered by a general comparison based on averages.

The thread wasn't about what's harder though. It was simply 'is it work'.

It's the toughest job there is. I know so many who say how hard it is and I know from experience. But even when my kids were babies and toddlers I still held down a job. Were talking part time from 16 hours when we could afford nursery to me dropping to 2 short shifts of 3 and a half hours a week on the weekends. We were financially worse off for me doing those hours because dp was full time and even when I dropped to 5.5 hours on a Sunday my earnings meant we got no help. However it kept me sane because that was my break every week and adult conversation.

@Sweak

But the thread wasn't about specific poster's circumstances. The question was a general one therefore can only be answered by a general comparison based on averages.

The thread wasn't about what's harder though. It was simply 'is it work'.

Fair enough.

I suppose the answer to that question is that it's a matter of semantics and who cares?

Some posters feel looking after their children and doing housework is a full time job.
Other posters manage to do the above while also working.
It's just about respecting choice.

It always makes me laugh that if you stay at home and look after your own kids, you 'don't work'. If you stay at home and look after someone else's kids, you 'do work'. Just swap kids with a friend if you have a problem with 'not working' 😂

That can be applied to most things. DIY gardening, cooking. If you do it yourself it's not your job if you get somebody to do it and pay them then it's probably their job.

But if it's your own kids, you can:
Get up late
Mooch about in pjs
Watch a lot of telly
Go on your phone a lot
Lie on the floor and pretend to be involved in their games
Have the odd micro nap
Get them to make their own lunch/ put the washing out/ tidy up (depending on age)
Mutter encouraging phrases whilst thinking about other stuff (like your job)

If it's someone else's kids, you can't.

If I worked the way I parent, I wouldn't have a job for long.

@TheMoth

But if it's your own kids, you can: Get up late Mooch about in pjs Watch a lot of telly Go on your phone a lot Lie on the floor and pretend to be involved in their games Have the odd micro nap Get them to make their own lunch/ put the washing out/ tidy up (depending on age) Mutter encouraging phrases whilst thinking about other stuff (like your job)

If it's someone else's kids, you can't.

If I worked the way I parent, I wouldn't have a job for long.

@WhenPushComesToShove

It always makes me laugh that if you stay at home and look after your own kids, you 'don't work'. If you stay at home and look after someone else's kids, you 'do work'. Just swap kids with a friend if you have a problem with 'not working' 😂

I can go along with the idea that people think it's work, even though it never felt like it to me. However, I do find it really weird when people make comments like this. Surely, looking after other people's kids is way harder than looking after your own? I absolutely love being with my dc but other people's kids are frankly a bit of a pain in the arse. There is simply no comparison!

I suppose the answer to that question is that it's a matter of semantics and who cares?

Yes semantics. And who cares...well we all 'care' (although that does feel a strong word for it!) to be posting on this thread!

@Sweak

I suppose the answer to that question is that it's a matter of semantics and who cares?

Yes semantics. And who cares...well we all 'care' (although that does feel a strong word for it!) to be posting on this thread!

I honestly couldn't care less whether somebody refers to whatever they're doing all day as "work" or not. As you pointed out, it was other silly comments on the thread that I'd responded to. Perhaps I shouldn't have got sucked into it!

It's easier than doing both in many ways, I think its more mentally draining at home FT.
When working I was busy now I'm bored and busy with groundhog day.

Yes and no.

It is absolutely hard work, and when kids are not at school, it is an “occupation” ie occupies all your time. Without taking away from those facts in any way, I also use the word “work” to describe paid (or unpaid) employment, because sometimes I need a word for that too. Words often have more to an one meaning

For me, the big distinction is that employed work time is not mine, it belongs to my employer or client. It is primarily for their benefit, not for me or my family. As a SAHM, my time would all be mine (I appreciate for those with pre school children, that really means it’s theirs, haha) by which I mean my time would be entirely for the benefit of me and my family. I say that with absolutely no reference to the amount of effort or importance of being a SAHM, just that there is this other definition of “work” that I need to refer to as well.

@morepizza

Yes it’s work. To hire a cleaner, nanny, cook & tutor would cost you money. So if you do all those things as a mother, it is providing services that would cost your family money.

Just because it does not bring physical money in (is a moot point) as it stops physical money being paid out. So therefore you might not be earning money, but your saving money.

So much that if it was not for your saving, your family could not afford to have their meals prepared. Or have chauffeurs to drive your children to & for school. Or cleaners to wash & dry their clothes & clean the house.

[quote N0tJustY0ga]@morepizza

Yes it’s work. To hire a cleaner, nanny, cook & tutor would cost you money. So if you do all those things as a mother, it is providing services that would cost your family money.

Just because it does not bring physical money in (is a moot point) as it stops physical money being paid out. So therefore you might not be earning money, but your saving money.

So much that if it was not for your saving, your family could not afford to have their meals prepared. Or have chauffeurs to drive your children to & for school. Or cleaners to wash & dry their clothes & clean the house.[/quote]
The thing is, you're only saving money for your family if your earning potential is quite low in the first place. Not many people pay for chauffeurs or cooks, and many do their own cleaning and laundry as well, despite both parents WOH. The main cost is therefore childcare for preschool children or wrap-around care for school aged kids - and the need for wrap-around care may be quite limited or non-existent if both parents are able to work flexibly. If your earning potential is low, then it's likely that the cost of childcare will exceed what you would earn, so there is indeed a net saving. If your earning potential is high, then there is a net loss. Some families might choose to accept that loss because they feel that the lifestyle benefits are worth it, but there is no actual saving as such - for those families, having a SAHP can only be viewed as a cost.

The economic case is different for school age versus nursery and number of children. Eg for two children you’d probably be looking at £7k for full time wrap around and 6 weeks holiday cover and lower earners should still make money on that.

children in nursery would be a different prospect as could be easily looking at £17k for a full time place for one child.