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?

When my kids were young I did everything with them. I helped not to have the mental distraction of a job, to be honest. I never needed to rely on nannies or childcare at all. No family around. DH obviously got involved when her was there, but it wasn't the same as being the default parent 24/7. Things don't just happen with kids. Somebody is doing it with them if you're not. I've put everything into my kids in terms of the direct day-to-day. He has put everything into providing the financial conditions for us to do that without worrying. Both are important. But we were in a specific financial set up. If we had been similar earners, things possibly would have been a bit different over the years. The kids haven't seen me do loads of domestic work particularly because we had cleaners. Mind you, most cleaners are female anyway aren't they? As are most childcare workers. So not a lot of difference.

Agreed. My sleep deniers both were cuddled to sleep initially and then after a week, went to sleep on their own in the cot. I was amazed. They would never do that at home for me!

Agreed. My sleep deniers both were cuddled to sleep at nursery initially and then after a week, went to sleep on their own in the cot. I was amazed. They would never do that at home for me!

@spaceshiptrain

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.

Sorry, no, that's not good enough. Someone tips up and says its "madness" to work if you have children. It's hard to imagine a goadier or more incendiary remark on a parenting forum. It's insulting to every working woman in the world.

You can't say its OK to be nasty, ignorant and vindictive and then when someone calls you on it say "calm down, dear, its not about you".

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.

I didn't ignore it. I was making the point that the PP who posted that ridiculous comment seem to suggest only childless people should work or wpopwl who have a willign SAHP at home.
Yes, an alternative is that one parent become a SAHP if there are two parents at home ( although I notice you refer to SAHM's........) but in this situation whey aren't we berating the parent (man) who goes out to work too? They are equally responsible for the child and by working they are doing all the things working mothers are being criticised for.

I'm not sure why you would feel sorry for me. It's hard work full stop, whether you are "a natural" at it or not. Being responsible for someone else for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week is the very essence of hard work.

I did it because I inherently knew it was best for my child. If I could have gone off to work knowing someone who loved them just the same as I did (and who would have done the job just the same as i would) was looking after them, I might've gone to work.

I just knew no-one else was capable of doing it like I was.

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

Really? I never thought of cuddling my child. I just put him in basket in the garden and hoped for the best.....

But then I'm a mother who works out of choice so I probably should have had my son removed from me at birth. I mean, his dad works too but that's okay apparently.

Like I said early my 19 year old is fine and well rounded …doesn’t feel neglected…knows how to nap still & eats okish for a student. Me working and her being at nursery hasn’t damaged her - she got to 19 and seems fairly normal!

We have a healthy close relationship which I treasure. If you asked her was she affected by her parents both working she would say - I know this as I’ve just asked her - No, because she knew we would always be there as she needed us. She felt safe in the knowledge that we always put family first.

Just be good parents whether that be working or staying at home - don’t make parents feel bad either way to justify your choice. No one really knows what tomorrow brings and we all trying our best.

Surely not?

In nursery's they are all locked in a cupboard and never interacted with at all

@blueshoes thank you! I actually agree with you (again!), and have appreciated our exchanges. I also agree wholeheartedly with the increased input needed when they're older, and so when I go back to work, my husband is going to drop to part time (he's older than me so will in effect take an element of early retirement), so he can do all the drop offs, and pick ups etc, so they'll always have someone with them before and after school. Of course I'm going to be jealous and will probably struggle to start with of our swapping roles, but as well as being fair to him and better reflecting his own age and career history (in terms of him wanting to wind down at that point in time), it'll be good for the kids to have that time with him, and as long as they one of us, it fits with my ethos. And I'll still be there as much as I can!

I think you are confusing adoption with child minding. Working parents do look after their children.

@canyoutoleratethis

Have we?

Can't say I remember

I domt think 1 person being entirely possessive of their child for the first 5 years is the essence of raising a child. No.

I dont think its good for child or parent. Or at all necessary even.

It's possible to work and raise children

@canyoutoleratethis It sounds like a fair and well thought out set up. Good luck with it.

@Dacadactyl

Aren't all parents responsible for their kids 24/7?

I genuinely don't understand the no one is as good as me, not even the person I chose to have kids with. But only up until they're 5. Then any idiot can have them

🤣

OP, if you're having doubts, then it's possibly not the best set up for you. I'd go part time in your situation.

I didn't say that.

No, as I said I've worked in them and they are interacted with, mostly trying to stop them hurting each other or themselves but all I said was they spent the last half of every day upset and wondering where their parents were.

I don't think nurseries are inherently bad. I used them myself, just not all day.

@blueshoes there is developmental research available which peer reviewed, goes back some fifty years etc etc and you are incorrect about there not being evidence and you are incorrect about what you say here generally. I won't go into it, as I don't want people who have chosen childcare to feel got at, but you are incorrect in what you say here.

@Thepeopleversuswork Erm, read the thread. My words were a deliberate mirror of those used to describe SAHMs as mad, so step off your podium of outrage

This sounds quite martyr-ish. That is why I feel sorry.

I know what it is like to have someone (2 dcs, in fact) rely on me 24/7. Turns out it is not just eating, sleeping, burping and bumped knees. It is exams, career choices, university choices, student accommodation and living expenses (needing financial top ups), uniforms, school trips, etc. I am a parent. I plan and think long term, not just before they are 5. That is why I stayed in the workplace, so my dcs have more choices when they are older.

My dd has a late-diagnosed learning difficulty which may hamper her ability to be independent. We paid for her education and can help her with her mortgage, so she just focuses on doing things in her own time. I think that is more helpful than wiping snot.

No one other than my dh and I care enough to plan long term in dcs' interests. The answer is not always to stay at home whilst they are babies because 'no one can do it better than I', which is a tad presumptious.

Oh do enlighten. I hope it is not Bowlby and attachment theory. If so, that has been addressed further down the thread.

Sorry, no I do think its outrageous. Describing people who, through no choice of their own, work to support their children as "mad" is pig ignorant and offensive.

I'll put to one side people who enjoy work and for the record I absolutely support women who want to work, I think its a huge positive for everyone.

But if you really lack the basic imagination to understand that many people couldn't feed their children without working then you lack the intellectual capacity for this discussion.

But she's not though. If you're doing it out of necessity not choice then it's just that; necessity.

Let me illustrate it for you in a different way to help you understand:

A person who cut their foot off because of diabetes (necessity) wouldn't be mad

A person who cut their foot off out of choice would be mad

That's not a direct comparison of the situation but an illustration of how the same action can be both reasonable and also mad.

That's not to say I am saying it's mad to send a child to childcare, it's just to illustrate that the person who did say that was saying it in response to people who choose to and called people who don't do that mad.

You can have a SAHM set-up and still be planning ahead. We did exactly that. The money my DH earned could put the kids through the schools best for them; sort them out for uni so they didn't need loans, etc etc. The sort of money I was on in the health sector was a different trajectory altogether and would never have facilitated any of those things. It was what it was. The whole point of the way we organised ourselves as we did was to create the best opportunities we could for the kids - day-to-day and in the longer term. That was the whole point of everything. Different strengths, different income potentials and doing it together. It's just a different type of 50/50. It doesn't always happen that both partners earn the same and where there are large differences, there are obvious implications to that. I don't know why this would even need pointing out.

The "no-one is capable of doing it better than me" is to do with the fact that an engaged parent knows their child better than anyone else and are more likely to be willing to invest time and take care - when dc are very young they are vulnerable, and so if the child is in childcare it is important to make sure you have chosen well - and when dc are very young they are like sponges and what they experience affect their intelligence, their motivation, their character, their emotional intelligence and stability, their mental health, everything, and how much time the parent puts in will also affect attachment...so it is definitely not just about wiping snotty noses.

The more time spent together when young, in positive ways, means the more you have in common with your dc which is good for bonding.

The input a child gets when young is relevant to the choices an older child makes, how responsible they are when they are older (whether or not they are more likely to be neo nazis or happy successful members of society!). Basically choosing to put your dc into childcare is not necessarily dire, if you choose well and there is compensation for the time away from you and so on, but research definitely shows that the time you invest in your child when they are young is of immense importance. Not just about wiping snotty noses.

Less time input is needed, arguably, if more time input has been invested when they are younger. Though obviously a good close emotional relationship is needed, as it is for all relationships.