Not sure whether to be a sahm or not

[Flowerpicker1]

Had 2 under 2. My maternity leave is now coming to an end following the birth of my 2nd dc. Neither dc are in nursery. DH is on a good wage.

Have been given the option not to return to work if I don't want to. Dh can cover us. It would be part not full time anyway.3 days.

Not sure what to do. On one hand I'd love to be there for all of my dcs childhood but on the other I worry if I would cope. We don't have any family or support nearby.

If you work would you rather be a sahm and not put your children in nursery? Or have you done this and loved it/regretted it?

For me, being a SAHM was a sacrifice made in my child's interests. 100%. Being a SAHM is pure hard graft and an absolute labour of love. I am annoyed that someone who has never been a SAHM feels able to say "it is not a sacrifice for the child's interests". My child's interests were absolutely at the forefront of my mind when I gave up work.

It's a SAHM's work. Doesn't have to be but it can be. It's certainly my work and I'm a woman, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

This makes me feel uncomfortable.
I have no issue with people choosing to be a SAHP but the ramifications teaching children that house work and childcare are exclusively women's work are far reaching. It does nobody any favours.

My son has seen me and DH does housework, cook and take care of him. When he grows up he will find doing all of these things the norm - as it should be.

Ok, but I feel a little sorry for you. I think most working women have a taste of being a SAHM, particularly if they took longish maternity leave of 1 year, which seems pretty standard in my workplace. It is hard work if you are not a natural at it.

Having children to then willingly pay someone else to look after them is madness.

What's the alternative? Only childless people work? We close down an entire sector ( so no more nurseries, childminders etc)?

That's great but I didn't say I taught that, at all in any way.
All the housework is mine because that's our set up, that's our deal. She sees many other set ups too. I wouldn't teach her housework is exclusively the job of a female, but it can be, and is in our house because I am one and my husband is the one who wants to go out to work.

Have you missed the alternative that is the subject of this thread which is existing in a family dynamic where one parent provides income and the other provides homekeeping?

@blueshoes my husband is a very hands on dad, and does much more than your average man does (I'm often horrified by the posts on here about some men and how little they do, but that's another issue), but unfortunately no, he's not raising our DD in the same way I am. Of course he's not. I have taught her everything she can do - from walking, to all her words, her colours, her numbers, I feed her the food I have made, I make sure she naps properly (I've plenty of friends with kids the same age at nursery who just get messages from their nursery saying 'x didn't nap today' - when they know full well they would and do nap at home, whereas my DD has a 2 hour nap every day in her own cot in peace because that is what is best for her), I set the rules and expectations of her so I know how she's being brought up, I know what she likes to do, and what she's nervous about and needs help with, I ensure her needs are met at every point, because I am with her. It does make me sad that he comes back from work sometimes and maybe can't quite understand her new word (you know how toddlers can't quite make the right sound), so I have to tell him what she's saying, or he didn't see her do something for the first time and how proud she was of herself. He does what he can, more than he can most of the time, but it isn't the same and he agrees with that.

And no, he doesn't support us. I pay 50% of the mortgage and all the bills as I did our whole relationship from my own savings, and he puts 50% of what we would have paid for nursery fees into my pension. So I would be doing this regardless of whether he was my husband. I'm enormously lucky to have him for a million reasons, but money and supporting me financially isn't one of them

So why does the working parent in that set up @spaceshiptrain have kids if they are just funding someone else to look after them? Surely that’s the same argument?
why would you continue to remain in a relationship with someone who is contributing nothing to raising the children?

But he isn't contributing nothing to raising the children. He comes home from work and spends quality time with our child. He also spends lots of time with us on weekends. You are making assumptions but they are incorrect.

Sounds great, if a little stifling. It does not have to be maternal perfection for a child to thrive. You will enjoy having 2.

Last post was to @canyoutoleratethis

@canyoutoleratethis

Are you going to homeschool?

I'm not sure that level of obsession is healthy tby

@spaceshiptrain ah so exactly like in our house then. Both parents go out to work and then spend lots of time raising our children and spending quality time with them when we see them after work and on the weekends.

Touche

Have you missed the alternative that is the subject of this thread which is existing in a family dynamic where one parent provides income and the other provides homekeeping?

No I've not missed this. As it happens it's my job to research and understand the participation of women in labour market - so i look at how, where and why women work and the influences on these decisions. Questioning why people use childcare is either spectacularly goady or spectacularly stupid.

Talking about this is the context a family dynamic like you describe completely ignores the many, many other factors at play here. We cannot ignore the role of socialisation and expectations around gender roles when it comes to childcare. They exist and and there is a whole load of evidence to support this.
Not everyone has a family dynamic where having one parent at home is optimal, not all families can afford this and peoples circumstances change. Not to mention that it's okay to want a career and a family. Nobody ever has these discussions about men!

I agree it does sounds stifling when written down like that, but it is just the essence of raising a child - teaching them skills, feeding them, getting them to go to sleep, setting the rules and boundaries etc. My point is that I do all those things myself, and others pay someone else to do those things for a varied amount of time each week.

And also yes, I'm terrified of the carnage of having two! But I am lucky and have a number of SAHMs locally that already have the second, and sometimes third, baby, so I know how hard it is and I can't wait

Having children to then willingly pay someone else to look after them is madness.

You are aware, right, that a lot of people don't have an alternative? I am a single parent. What you you suggest I do? Is it "madness" that I work to keep a roof over my child's head and food in her stomach?

Thought not.

What a load of bigoted rubbish.

... I feed her the food I have made, I make sure she naps properly (I've plenty of friends with kids the same age at nursery who just get messages from their nursery saying 'x didn't nap today' - when they know full well they would and do nap at home, whereas my DD has a 2 hour nap every day in her own cot in peace because that is what is best for her),

Be careful - basking in moral superiority can give you a nasty burn.

I haven't said anything to the contrary of what you just said.

I also haven't questioned why people use childcare.

You asked what the alternative was and completely ignored that a family setup with a SAHM was an alternative, even though it's the subject of this very thread.

@Topgub we've debated this enough on other SAHM threads, so I'm not getting into this again with you. No I'm not going to homeschool. I'm going to send my children to school and then go back to work. Because I believe that is when they are developmentally and emotionally ready to be separated from a parent for any significant amount of time. Until then, yes, I am raising my own children.

And as I told blueshoes, my post may sound stifling or obsessive as you put it, but it's just the essence of raising a child written down. How else would you describe it

It's obviously in response to someone saying choosing not to do that is absurd.

We are all aware that some people are forced into situations and that would be terrible on both sides.

This is just a tactic or sillyness where you take an argument about making choices and say 'well I don't have that choice!' great, then it's not about you is it.

I'd work but the cost of childcare can and is very prohibitive for many.

I work PT, children are now all primary aged but we have family help with after school / holidays. Without this help we couldn't afford for me to work.

I make sure she naps properly (I've plenty of friends with kids the same age at nursery who just get messages from their nursery saying 'x didn't nap today' - when they know full well they would and do nap at home, whereas my DD has a 2 hour nap every day in her own cot in peace because that is what is best for her),

My child refused point blank to nap at home ( it didn't matter if that was what was best for him) I found the staff at his nursery were magic sleep fairies who got him to nap for 2 hours every day!

Babies reluctant to nap at nursery are cuddled to sleep, that's how it's done.

Embrace the carnage. Once the kids start having birthday parties, you cannot control what they eat. Once they are older and start going out with friends and having boy/girlfriends, you have even less control. Looking back at my dcs' baby days, it all seems like a storm is a teacup when to wean or toilet train or sleep patterns. The real challenge comes later. I would say cut yourself and the dcs some slack. I still advocate being there at home (if you had to choose) in later years rather than early years. Early years is the easy bit.