To hate it when people say “my husband/partner/boyfriend doesn’t do the night feeds because he works”

[ForestFae]

Every time I see or hear this phrase, I rage. Usually said by some poor sleep deprived new mum who’s looking after the baby/ies all day long. Why is looking after a baby not considered valuable work? Why are men getting away with using this rubbish excuse?

Yes there isn’t a one size fits all, but I think a lot of families would benefit from being able to have one parent stay home. So many want to but can’t afford it, which I think is a shame. I don’t think kids benefit from parents being consistently exhausted and stressed from work.

Let’s agree that one size doesn’t fit all then and finish the debate. Phew! 🤣

You could equally say many parents would benefit from working but can't afford childcare...

And anyway, I thought it was being at home that left mums frazzled and exhausted, not working!

Would they? Why? Having one person working and one to manage the domestic is, for most people, more efficient than having two people working and not having adequate time to devote to the domestic sphere. Society should be less about consumerism but people are unfortunately materialistic.

Being a SAHP is difficult when they’re newborns, but I think you’re getting the wrong end of the stick if you think I’m saying it leaves you frazzled and exhausted. It would if you never got any sleep - which is why nights shouldqnt be solely left to the SAHP

I think flexibility and the ability to make personal choice is the the most important indicator of 'societal benefit' because there is no benefit to a miserable society in which economics take precedence over all else and this is all people can comprehend. It's about quality of life and freedom to make choices that suit you and your family. This will mean different things for differnt people, obviously.

These days, we are all pulled in so many different directions and it's about finding the right balance. Everything we do has 'value.' Take children out of the equation. Supposing you are a carer for a disabled or elderly relative. Yes, you could hire someone else to do the care visits. Then it's a 'proper job' right - so it would have 'societal value' according to the argument above. But I bet it would be your visit that the disabled or elderly relative would value more. And these people are part of 'wider society.' They matter as much as anyone else. I bet they value their family member who visits more than any employer values that same individual in the workplace.

Thats not quite the point though. The SAHP is contributing to society via their role as a volunteer. Its the volunteering that is the contribution not the parenting. If you don't subscribe to the view that having a SAHP is essential for raising well adjusted future citizens, which I don't, that still doesn't explain how the role of SAHP benefits society.

It’s one way to ensure kids are raised well. Is it the only way? No. I’d argue it’s one of the better ways, which is why I chose it, but people tend to bristle when you say you chose your choices because you think they’re the best option.

@ForestFae

you can’t nap at work.

Therefore YABU

HTH

@ForestFae

you can’t nap at work.

Therefore YABU

HTH

Not everyone can nap at home. I couldn’t.

@5128gap The flexibility that the role provides, perhaps? That could be applied to other roles, of course, essentially anything that isn’t full-time and during regular business hours. I’ve lost interest in this debate, tbh, people should do what suits them.

I think most people just get on an live their life in a way which suits their own family actually!

And of course it's not a simple binary choice where one course of action means happy family and another way would be disastrous.

I chose to keep working when I became a parent, as did my dh, but I've no doubt my kids would be just as happy and well adjusted as adults if Dh or I had been home too.

@missdemeanors of course they do, that why this debate is getting boring. There isn’t a “right” answer.

Being a SAHP has nothing to do with raising a child well. Plenty of useless SAHPs raising 'little terrors' as you put it. Plenty of amazing WOHPs raising polite, well rounded children.

(And vice versa obviously)

Yes of course but it’s easier to know how you’re raising your child and to have influence over their upbringing as a SAHP. I get to know exactly what they’re eating, what media they’re exposed to, what education they receive, just to name a few examples. As a WOHP you have to put your trust in someone else that they’re doing it the way you want them to.

im not saying there’s anything wrong with being a WOHP, I’m saying there are advantages to being a SAHP (given some people think there aren’t).

I'm one. Enlighten me. Because I know exactly what my children eat, exactly what they learn, and what media they're exposed to (up to a certain age at least but that's the same for any parent).

How? If they’re at nursery or school all day, you only know what you’re told by the staff and the kids and secondly you have no power to change any of it if you dislike it anyway!

Also I love how this wasn’t what the thread was about but instead I’ve got people demanding I justify why I think being a SAHP is more beneficial for my kids.

Op you are just digging yourself a bigger hole and being so damned offensive in the process.

There’s no “hole”, I don’t have to justify anything to any of you.

I look at their scheme of work. I familiarise myself with maths/phonics/foundation subject schemes the school buy into. I talk to my child's 1:1, I talk to my children, do homework with them, I make sure I'm involved because I want to be. Nursery, my child brings 100 things home everyday and tells me all about them. I ask. I make myself involved.

I still homecook all meals. The children still help with chores. We still visit nation trust places, go to the theatre, go to museums...

As do thousands of other WOHPs.

Name 1 thing that makes being a SAHP a better parent...you really can't because it is no better. Its a choice to do things differently. Not better.

Well I'm glad I've managed to raise 3 healthy well adjusted children to adulthood while combining it with an interesting (and socially useful!) career

My takeaway from this thread is that it's great to have choices, so that if we want to outsource some of the daily tasks of childcare without compromising on quality, we are in the privileged position of being able to maintain a career while also raising children into happy, well adjusted adults!

I do not think mat leave/paternal leave is really the issue. I am public sector and was on full pay for 6 months then half pay- I was being paid to be at home and look after DC. I was bfeeding, yes I got tired and late DH did contribute (eg. Aafter nights shifts staying up with the baby whilst I had an extra couple of hours). We just adapted around routines/household stuff and days off. This was nearly 16 years ago and lots of very career minded friends have since had children and had the option of sharing leave- not one wants to! DC's dad did actually become the stay at home parent a few years later for various reasons that worked for our family.

The real issue is after mat leave and both parents work. So many times it seems to be the mother who cuts their hours rather than pay for childcare and therefore loses pension/promotion opportunities etc. Or both parents work full time yet there is not a fair devision of labour with childcare or housework.

I am noticing it more more because more of my friends are getting divorced than married. I have accompanied a few to solicitors because they worn down by it all and the ex husbands are enraged that they are entitled to half, including the pension, in long marriages. All would have settled for much less but their future ex got arsey so they had to head down the legal route.

You're the one being angry over other people's family set ups and the reasons why.