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?

That was to blueshoes , naturally 🙄

I am sorry you feel this way.

I said that attachment is not dependent on being a sahm, I said exactly that. I didn't say bond was dependent on it either. If you are going to be rude about my posts could you at least read them properly first?

I haven't seen the post asking me to link research, I haven't kept up with thread, I have just seen the posts which @ me. There is a huge body of child development research, covering fifty years or so, I can't link all of it. If you think anything I have said is wrong (ie something I have actually said) feel free to challenge it. I may not see your post unless you @ me.

You said I thought i was the only one to read it - that isn't true at all, I said I thought it would be better if more people did read up on it - out of all the many mothers I know personally, the majority say they haven't read it because they say they think it is mumbo jumbo. And a lot of advice on MN goes directly against it.

blueshoes - there are loads of women I see and chat to every day on the gates of two different schools. All I can tell you is, they are there at 8.30 ish and they are there again at 4 ish. What they do in between I have absolutely no idea. We have socialised quite a lot over the years and it doesn't come up.

Most women are SAHM where I live but I have friends who have done all kinds of work-life balance combos over the years. Nobody else with 5 kids though. I think nobody ever asked me what I did because wasn't it bloody obvious?

Thete are loads if people WFH now - inc men. There are semi-retired men around in the day quite a lot. They are in their late 40s / 50s. Things seem very flexi. Nobody really knows or cares what anyone else is doing. My nextdoor neighbours never seem to work (either of them) and they have a live-in nanny and the younger one goes to nursery sometimes as well. I've never asked her what she does now or pre-kids and she never asked me..

Nothing I said was based on Bowlby.... I didn't comment on his work at all other than to say it was done a while ago.

Thanks for clarifying.

Please link to 50 years' research that says that working parents are harming their dcs.

@iconicloveliness

You said there was demonstrable evidence that @blueshoes was wrong?

But are now also saying it doesn't matter if a parent works or is a sahp?

Which is it?

Thete are loads if people WFH now - inc men. There are semi-retired men around in the day quite a lot. They are in their late 40s / 50s. Things seem very flexi. Nobody really knows or cares what anyone else is doing. My nextdoor neighbours never seem to work (either of them) and they have a live-in nanny and the younger one goes to nursery sometimes as well. I've never asked her what she does now or pre-kids and she never asked me

That's a good point. Things are far more flex now, and I'm not sure that's reflected in this thread. I've just thought about my nearest neighbours (not very close). Two are Norwegian, WFH and educate their kids at home. Most seem to be mainly WFH, couple of early retirees. I've no idea who works most hours, who is a SAHP or how the chips fall with childcare.

I'll be honest - I don't care either. As in, it's literally nothing to do with me. Anyone looking from the outside in to our household wouldn't have much of clue about us either.

I've been a City office worker, a SAHP and a freelancer. People ask politely in social chat what I do; I tell them, the chat moves on. My work is one part of who I am and how we live. How we work - or don't - is only one part of our children's lives.

I only EVER see these madly intense, judgemental, often vicious debates on MN threads - never in real life, not once.

I said arguably because you were asserting that more time is needed later on. Basically the input you give in the early years is absolutely recognised in research as being of fundamental importance, and I gave the reasons why, there is zero doubt about this, but there are other factors as you say, it isn't the only factor and I have said that too. You made a couple of assertions which were incorrect and i pointed that out. You are now getting unpleasant about it and saying what I said was delusional. It wasn't.

I am one of those people this time round. My first maternity I had been in the job for five years so was grateful for the mat leave. This time I’m at a different stage in my career (5 year gap) and I enjoy my job. I went back after mat leave into a new company.

Im struggling with being off with second baby, it’s not mentally stimulating enough for me. This has proved to me I couldn’t be a SAHP, I worked PT 3 and then 4 days so it was a goOd balance. Equally I couldn’t work FT.

I am still waiting for your evidence. Thanks

Last post was to @iconicloveliness . Did not realise there was 'zero doubt'.

@Flowerpicker1 I apologise for derailing your thread a tiny bit by talking about research. My advice here would be to follow your intuition. If it is of any help, I had a highflying career, decided to be a sahm after having dc1 and I had planned for that so that was fine, financially, though tighter than it would have been, I could have gone back to my career after a few years, and was still contacted by headhunters for years but because I had changed in myself in the years of being a parent I decided to switch to a different career and I am loving that. Totally happy with all my choices, no regrets. Out of my friends, some worked, some didn't, it has never been a point of issue.

Bit late to the party here but I'd rather work PT than be a SAHM. 1, because I liked the balance and 2, now my kids are older I've always had my hand in work so I've kept a career I enjoy and pays well (incidently, still PT but have the option to increase if I wanted).

Evidence for what?! That there is zero doubt? There is a huge, huge body of research going back decades as I have said. Some has built on previous research, there are more recent neurological studies due to advances in science. Like with any profession which requires qualifications, it takes time to build up knowledge, if you were a lawyer you wouldn't be able to provide links summarising 150 years of case law either. Therefore, I could not possibly link it all here! And to be honest, and I don't mean to be unreasonably sarky, if you had read your "tomes" as you say you did, you would have realised that yourself. If you are genuinely interested, I can give you some pointers. Please feel free to @ me. But if you are just trying to score points, I am not interested and I am out.

@TiredButAlive. I stayed at home for almost 20 years. I loved it. My now adult children have said they benefited hugely from knowing I was available come what may and it made them feel very secure. No being forced to go to school because you can't take time off. No feeling guilty because you think your parent might be annoyed if you need them. They knew I'd be there at every event. They thrived in their early years because they were with me. My care was far superior to nursery/childcare.
I'm 54 and have never been unemployable.

Just one link will do. Where does it say in 50 years research that working parents are harmful to their dcs. You cannot say there is zero doubt and not produce a shred of evidence. If you are a lawyer, you can understand why I am sceptical.

Assertion is not fact. Neither is intuition.

I dint think anyone has said "working parents are harmful to their DCs". Have they?

Where does it say in 50 years research that working parents are harmful to their dcs

Well, that's unlikely to be in just one body of research - or 'link.' And has that actually been asserted?

You cannot say there is zero doubt and not produce a shred of evidence

Yes, anyone can do just that. That's how public forums work, if you're new to them. You can choose to be informed by it, decide to follow it up yourself out of interest or a desire to debunk everything, or reject it because it doesn't fit your world view.

@blueshoes - I’m glad you agree my later posts, the style and tone of which I modelled on most of the current posts, particularly yours, are getting the OP nowhere. The current posts getting are not getting anyone else anywhere, either, they are just a lot of aggressive hot air.

One day it would be really nice if people with very strong views on SAHM v WOHM issues could have a constructive debate, rather than a slanging match, because that really would make interesting and educational reading. I find it hard to believe that the people indulging in these back and forth arguments in thread after thread really do have such extreme, caricatured views in real life, and hard to believe they really take offence at other people’s perceived judgements quite so easily as their posts indicate. These posters make it seem as though their emotions are on a hair trigger and they have primed themselves to react as though everyone holds black and white views which make them either a friend or an enemy. Nobody has ever been successfully talked around to another person’s point of view by being harangued - at most they are brow beaten into submission.

I'd accept that the effect on a child is neutral whether or not their parents work because I have not seen any evidence either scientifically or in real life that working per se harms dcs. Bad parenting does for sure, but that happens whether you are at home or working.

@mantramama thanks for pointing that out.

Just one link will do. Where does it say in 50 years research that working parents are harmful to their dcs. You cannot say there is zero doubt and not produce a shred of evidence. If you are a lawyer, you can understand why I am sceptical.

There's is no evidence. I'm an academic in an education faculty and although child development isn't my particular specialism I am very familiar with the research as I have some involvement in our early childhood studies degrees.

What is often very interesting is the research on using childcare. People are keen to share research that 'proves' childcare is bad for children when the research actually doesn't say that at all. Poor quality childcare can have some detrimental effects but for most children good, high quality childcare for under 2's is neither beneficial nor detrimental and there is evidence of a positive impact on over twos and those from particular groups e.g low socioeconomic groups.
This means that while childcare for many under twos might not be beneficial ( to the child, it's certainly beneficial to the parents) it's not causing any harm. Do you know what does have the biggest detrimental impact? Poverty.

Most of my colleagues who are experts on this topic used childcare- make of that what you will 🤷🏼‍♀️

Most of my colleagues who are experts on this topic used childcare- make of that what you will

A need to earn money?

@Walkaround

Maybe rather than rone policing and bring rude about unamed posters you could contribute to this interesting debate?

@mantramama

They've not said that in those words. But all this talk of research and attachment etc has a clear implication? Does it not?

Why else would it be brought to the discussion?

@blueshoes your posts are appalling, they are intentionally misquoting and trying to wind people up, which means you really shouldn't be advising on this subject at all. Just to clarify once more:

Where does it say in 50 years research that working parents are harmful to their dcs But I did not say this. And in fact I have said the opposite. In plain English. More than once.

You cannot say there is zero doubt and not produce a shred of evidence I said that there was zero doubt that early life input has a huge impact. No, there is no one single piece of evidence that shows that, and I have explained this.

If you are a lawyer, you can understand why I am sceptical What I have said has been crystal clear. I don't know what you are sceptical about, and I doubt I will get a straight, genuine answer, but you do have google at your finger tips so feel free to do some research for yourself.