Having children isn't viewed as an achievement, the same way having a successful career is

[gagablacksheep]

Just wondering what people's thoughts are on this.

Having children is the hardest thing I've ever done, yet, I feel like, as the majority of people have children- it's nothing ' special ' that you get any kind of pat on the back for, in the same way you would - if, say you had a very successful career.

The kind of social standing that comes with being very successful career wise, just isn't the same, as being a mum. Most people can be ' a mum ', but most people can't have very successful careers.

Is it just me, or is being a mum just a bog standard thing, that seems a bit 'thankless' in the eyes of society ? Sorry if I've not explained my feeling and thoughts very well.

Well you do come across as very insecure and bitter TopGub. I don't know why that is. God only knows . It's not to do with your 'role' though. Its to do with the way you express yourself on here.

Are there any other roles in life you declare to be of no value?

Let me ask you - would you tell a minimum wage worker they had no value? Would you tell a street cleaner they had no value? What about the nursery workers who are quite possibly on MW? Would you tell them they had no value while you swam off to your god-almighty, value-defining career?

I hope not. So why is it ok to tell a SAHM her role has no value?

Do you think women who are full time carers for elderly or disabled relatives also have no value? Because presumably, like a SAHM, they should be paying someone else MW to do that so they can have a 'real role' elsewhere. Just like you.

Think about your argument and think about whether you would speak to anyone else the way you speak to a SAHM. "You have no value - sorry that's just my opinion". Listen to what you are saying and think about how it reflects on you.

When I was a psychotherapist, it certainly didn't define me and it was the last thing I wanted to talk about socially. I remember once being introduced at a dinner party where the guests were mainly bankers and high finance types - "Let me introduce cat - the most patient woman in the world.' Then someone turned to me and said, "You must have had such a challenging... yet rewarding.., day." I used to get this kind of thing quite a lot and i know people meant well, but it was a load of bollocks really. I hope I made some positive impact in that paid role, but who would care, except for the clients? What's the difference?

I find defining people by their careers so odd. I hate it when people ask kids “what do you want to do when you’re older?” As if little kids should be dreaming of labour. Society is absolutely obsessed with it.

@catculture

How do my comments come across as insecure or bitter?

Can you explain further rather than just repeating it?

What would I have to be insecure or bitter about?

There are paid roles I think have no value, yes. Not MW ones though. Hedge fund managers, tax accountants. Footballers

Carers bring value to the people they are providing care to.

You haven't provided any arguments to show that the sahm role (in and of itself, not the role of parenting) has any value.

How does it have no value to the kids? Even if you think it doesn’t matter who is caring for them (which i don’t agree with, but for arguments sake), surely it’s still valuable to be caring for them?

My niece used to say "be a mum".

There's nothing wrong with this questions IMO. Humans, and the society in which we live, is set up some that everyone contributes to it somehow. Isn't that part of the value you feel SAHMs have? If not, what is the value that you expect recognised.

Anyway, I don't think there's anything wrong with asking children what they see in their future. It's not just about labour is it? Not many kids say I'd like to be an accountant or factory working (nothing wrong with either of those, just thinking of very "workery" jobs) - most talk about things that they think will be exciting, what they want to experience or align with their values (e.g. helping people, exploring, doing music, exercising leadership, travelling). Why is there anything wrong with that? What would you like your children to think about for their futures? Or do you not think they ought to think about that at all? Because that's odd too - while of course they shouldn't be preoccupied with it, children learn by modelling and it's entirely natural to think about what they will be like when they grow up.

It isn't about dreaming of labour, it's about what they want to do with their lives. Which is why you will find lots of young children saying that they want to be footballers or run cake shops etc.

My dd wants to be a doctor because she knows it will be fulfilling. She believes that it will enable her to make optimum use of her many skills and talents, and she thinks it will give her a real sense of purpose. That isn't dreaming of labour, it's just thinking about how she wants to spend some of her time.

She has plenty of aspirations for other areas of her life, too. Family is important to her, and she wants to have children of her own. She wants to travel. She wants to carry on pursuing some of her hobbies, and has ideas about how she will go about this.

Surely it's entirely natural for kids to think about what they want from their future lives? To be honest, I would rather pity a child who was never encouraged to think about this.

@ForestFae

You can care for your kids and not ne a sahm.

Good parenting has value.

What value does a sahm give that wp don't?

Some kids do. I can remember at age 2, knowing I wanted kids of my own and thinking about their names and so on.

Its not I don’t think kids should think about the future, but it should be on their own terms. That question is very adult focused - it’s framed in a way that adults expect the answer to be delivered, rather than a child saying of their own volition “can I do x in the future?”

DS1, 7, wants to be a builder, but he’s come to that conclusion himself because he enjoys constructing things and he thinks building homes for people is a good thing to do. But I’ve never repeatedly asked him “what job do you want?” - He himself asked me how do people get to be the ones who build houses and buildings. So it was entirely motivated by his own interest, in his own time, and by his own curiosity. Whether he will stick with it, who knows, probably not as kids change their minds a lot! But he found this himself through his own exploration, it wasn’t led by me at all.

See my above post, I think I answered the same points

You can. But someone needs to care for them during the day. If it’s valuable for a nursery worker to do it, why not a SAHM?

when I was a kid, i used to say 'be a mum with a career'. Even at 8, I knew you always had to be independent i.e. no one owes you a living etc.

Its why I studied law, not necessarily because I wanted to be a lawyer but because at 18, I wanted to choose a professional degree that could open up many doors. I was resolute I wanted a career so that I didn't need to be dependent on a man for my income and my future child would always have a good life regardless. Financial security is important to me and I don't want to depend on a divorce settlement!

@ForestFae

You didn't answer.

What value does being a sahm add that a wp can't also achieve?

Parenting your own children, which you have to do, working or not, is not the same as working in a nursery

Also when deciding on value you have to factor in the negatives.

The sahp has negatives that childcare worker roles dont

@ForestFae to your last post (I don't want to quote as it's gotten rather long), should we then ask children anything at all? We are constantly shaping and leading them, by wha we say and what we do. My SIL is a SAHM btw. When I asked my daughter (not repeatedly, which I don't think anyone really does) she initially wanted to work from home with me (she didn't know what I do) and be a firefighter. Now she wants to be a teacher. She also wants to go to "college" and live with her friends (US TV). And then be a teacher (because she loves school). all these things are things that she has determined through her own interests and through role modelling (ours, as her parents, and others around her). They are led by her, and not by repeated labour focused questions.

Children don't have to be very old to realise how society works. In most play, children take on roles to aide the game or activity that's being done, and it seems most children want to be "usefull" in that context. I love watching small children organise themselves and work together, it's facinating. We are societally - at least to some extent - set up this way.

It doesn't need to have value to you TopGub. You don't live in my house. All that matters is that it has value to me and my family. Just like when U was a psychotherapist, all that mattered was the therapeutic relationship between myself and clients. What every other Tom, Duck and Harry thought has nothing to do with it.

Its not for me to say which jobs are of 'no value'. These roles clearly matter to the people doing them. Otherwise, they'd be doing something else wouldn't they?

To answer your question about the value of the "SAHM role"... I can't speak for "SAHMs" because we are billions of women worldwide. In all manner of circumstances, cultures and economic set-ups. I can only speak for myself. But you asked. The simple answer is that I just believed I was the best person for the 'job.' It wasn't really about my 'value' or needing affirmation from elsewhere. I just thought to myself, would my kids rather be here with me,
in these early years, or elsewhere? I was looking at it from their perspective. That's not to say, I think they would have been damaged by going to nursery. Also, if I'd needed to work, I would obviously have done that and I wouldn't know anything else or have anything to compare to. But I did have the choice to be around for my kids, without the distraction of a job, so in my case, I took it. If I hadn't been with my kids, I would have had to pay someone else to do it. I didn't want to bring a paid person into our lives for x hours per day if I didn't need to. My husband is very supportive and he sees things the same way. I wanted to do it myself. Because that has been my day to day experience over many years, I know the value of it. But nobody else needs to.

I forgot to add, my daughter wants children too. She reckons I will quit work and look after them for her while she works. She wants to have it all 😉

Nursery worker gets paid for it and possibly gets top up benefits if her pay does not go far enough. She is paying taxes even though she is probably not a net beneficiary, but at least she is contributing to the public coffers which I believe is the duty of every healthy citizen. I do believe even if the state invests in childcare and that may cost a lot of money, having even low paid women in work and paying taxes would still generate more revenue than the cost of the childcare and even if it doesn't, it at least gives women more autonomy and reduces poverty. It is easier to increase your income if you are in work than if you are not in work at alll.

She could also continue to work in childcare after her children have grown up so she doesn't need to depend on her husband or her children to feed her. She also can claim state pension.

My MIL doesn't value career, but she has always worked freelance from home and also raised 4 children concurrently (her hours must have been affected when they were growing up). She has always paid taxes and NI and can claim state pension. I think that all women should always have some income coming in, no matter how small even if the family is the priority. Even its very part time and freelance, its still something. Best if you can do few hours but still qualify for state pension of course!

@catculture

All that matters is that it has value to me and my family.

Exactly

Funny that your oh thought you were the best person for the job and not him

Or that the 2 of you sharing the job wasn't the best option

I'd be pretty disappointed of my oh thought like that.

I was around for my kids too. Still am.

No I don't see having children as anything special or skilled. Any idiot who is fertile can have a child, and fulfill a basic human urge whereas not everybody can have a very successful career.

Caring for the kids that the wp has to outsource

So what? Value doesn’t only mean economic value - and it’s going to vary by couple anyway. In my case, everything DH earns is shared. We have complete joint finances. And if you’re a SAHM with kids under 12, you’ll often get contributions paid anyway so will still be able to claim state pension but that’s not the point, it’s up to an individual couple to sort their finances. I’m an only child and my parents are wealthy, by the time I’ll old I’ll have a pretty large inheritance so I don’t need to worry about that anyway. Besides, me being at home enables my husband to earn what he does. Why would it be better for us both to earn half his wage?

I don’t think all women have a “duty” to be income earners if they don’t want to.

I have completely joint finances with my DH and wealthy parents too. One shouldn't rely on inheritance though; anything can happen and anyway, there is a chinese saying that family wealth does not last 3 generations. It is very true; esp in the case of people relying on the fruit of their parents' hard work and spending it rather than adding to it. Marriages can and do end, there are many couples out there whose marriages end even after 20-30 years together!

You wouldn't earn half his wage if you both worked. In fact you would have two personal allowances. It is very powerful; my DH has a colleague who earns 6 figures but he has less disposable income than my DH and I simply because of the personal allowance X 2 (and my DH is a higher rate taxpayer).

It is every person's choice whether they want to work or not; but you can see why society would value healthy and able people who pay taxes over healthy and able people who don't...

Caring for the kids that the wp has to outsource

Yes. Which means the people who provide that childcare have "value" because they are enabling other members of society (parents) to work or do something else with their time. It's not even about money. Volunteers don't get paid, but they are still valued because they provide goods or services to society. What contribution to society do SAHP makes? This is why people don't think the SAHP role has particular value. It only benefits you and your family. So, do what you think is best for your family, but don't expect anyone else to care.

Confused by your suggestion that working parents do not care for their children. Of course they do. And part of caring is making a decision to do whatever is best for the family which in some cases includes using childcare.

For many children, time in nursery means being safe, warm, having somewhere to sleep, and exposure to wider community experiences that they would otherwise miss out on because their parents, for whatever reason, cannot provide the same.

Families fall into extreme difficulties for many reasons, especially death or serious illness of one parent or serious illness of a sibling. In my experience of early childhood education, there are some centres where most of the children fall into this category.