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?

Sorry, less time input when they are older is needed, I meant.

If you were planning ahead, you'd also plan for your sole earner dh becoming redundant, incapacitated or upgrading to a newer model of spouse, all of which are sadly not totally uncommon.

Yes I think much of this "I must work no matter what" comes from rampant paranoia and insecurity.

But that's funny because you get married precisely for security.

The other things you mentioned would be covered by insurance.

There is a lot of research about how the brain developes and when and I have just explained this in a reply to another post. Bowlby was a while ago, and attachment can be misunderstood, but basically serious attachment problems can lead to very serious problems in relation to how someone relates to others - I think you'd find attachment problems behind most neo nazis for example - but to say that a child in childcare is going to lead to such serious problems is completely wrong - and conversely a parent who is at home who is not engaging with a child could equally be causing attachment problems. So it isn't a simple equation sah means better attachment. What would improve things if everyone attached more importance to reading up on child development research though...

I don't have time to continue here and as I say I did in fact explain a bit more about why the early years is not just about wiping snotty noses - so I have done as you ask - but just to also add here that it is interesting that you have invested more time on this thread than you have actually reading into child development research - it might be worth reflecting on why that might be the case. I will leave that with you.

Also, just going back to what I said about bonding, what I meant was, if you enjoy a lot of things with dc when they are young, it is more likely that you will have things in common and so spend easy and enjoyable time with the dc when they are adults too, is how I understand it. Sorry I should have read through before posting.

"If you were planning ahead, you'd also plan for your sole earner dh becoming redundant, incapacitated or upgrading to a newer model of spouse, all of which are sadly not totally uncommon."

Yes. Do you think I am stupid?

Yes, some people believe women who choose not to be employed must be stupid.

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.

'Arguably'? You have no proof for what you just said. Sounds like self-delusion to me.

How well a child turns out depends on many factors including their personality, intelligence, environment. It is not at all a given that what you put in as a parent in the early years comes back as dividends later. That is a dangerous fallacy and a parent taking credit for a 'good' child. What about children in good homes who don't turn out well. Did their parents not bond with the child early on?

As parents, we set the framework and structure for good care and development in the short, medium and long term. Plenty of room for that in all permutations of family set ups without having to do the martyr-ish attachment parenting. So no child who has a mental health crisis or eating disorder or self-harmed ever had a SAHP?

If you have older children and more than one, you will realise there is no such thing as short term input brings long term rewards. Children develop to become the unique individuals they were meant to be. Parents just set the conditions and support the child along the way whatever their need. Their needs are not just being held and cuddled before 5 and their needs get more complicated over time.

@spaceshiptrain

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.

So you're effectively comparing women who don't need to work but choose to do so to someone cutting off their own foot? You've said its not an exact analogy but the conclusion is clear.

Wow. And you wonder why working mums sometimes feel like they are being attacked?

This poster did literally say that having children to send them to childcare was "madness" btw.

Well done. Glad you got all bases covered. If you could share what your secret is, then other SAHMs can make sure they similarly protected.

I do agree that children need different types of support though life. It's not all about the early years, those these are very important. If you have 5 DC as we did, you are negotiating the different stages continually. How the hell we would have coped with is both working full time as well I've no idea. It would have been total hell. It's all very well declaring 'women should work full time' when you just have one child, or maybe two!

@iconicloveliness so Bowlby then.

I don't have time to continue here and as I say I did in fact explain a bit more about why the early years is not just about wiping snotty noses - so I have done as you ask - but just to also add here that it is interesting that you have invested more time on this thread than you have actually reading into child development research - it might be worth reflecting on why that might be the case. I will leave that with you.

I happened to be on leave. So right now just temporarily like a SAHM. I have done my reading when my dcs were young. I still have the tomes.

blueshoes - there is no secret. If you can afford to be a SAHM for a year, two, three - then you may do it. I wouldn't recommend being purely reliant on someone else's salary alone indefinitely - you need to know you have assets acccrued as a family and know how it would all break down in the event of a split or worse. But individuals are best placed to weigh up risk in their own contexts. This is why some people decide to SAH.

Interesting that @iconicloveliness seems to think they're the only one to have read child development research

Or that their interpretation is the only one. But was unwilling to link to the supposed evidence.

There's zero evidence to suggest attachment and bond are dependent on a sahm.

"What depresses me is that the existence of sahms perpetuates the gender pay gap. Makes the next generation see it as normal that ‘man works and woman stays home’."

Yes let's blame SAHMs just going about their day to day lives with their own kids. Let's tell the next generation it's fine to have a low paid woman looking after you kids. Just as long as it's not a mum. That'll solve everything for children and women.

That sounds sensible. The overall financial situation (including what ifs) should be taken in to consideration in the decision to SAHM.

@mantramama

Or

Let's tell them that both mums and dad's are equally responsible for childcare

I've worked full / part time / sahm & started a business and am sahw now. DH has always worked nights it all worked for us & kids were fine never used childcare . I think it's all about what works for your own family unit .

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.

Like I said, you must have worked in shit nurseries. This is really not what is happening across all childcare providers.

I think it makes some sahms feel better? Thinking of everyone in the ‘rat race’. Not realising that many women work in the public sector

Oh come on.

These threads are always so horrible. Everyone's prejudices, regrets, jealousies, irritants, superiority, etc. etc. all either chucked out in a diatribe of nasty condemnation or hidden behind the head-tilting, faux-concern and sly bullshit.

About 15% of posters engage thoughtfully and offer compassionate, intelligent debate, and 85% just want to stick the boot in and screech I AM RIGHT!!! in everyone's face.

The 'judgy types.'

The fucking irony.