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's one of the reasons but like me, many of them also have high earning
partners so we choose to work because we love what we do.

Doesn't make us bad parents 🤷🏼‍♀️

@iconicloveliness

I think you're being a bit disingenuous

Otherwise what does

said that there was zero doubt that early life input has a huge impact.

That have to do with being a sahm or not?

@iconicloveliness I am not advising on anything. Just one piece of evidence that explains a fraction of the zero doubt will do.

Of course there is no one piece of evidence that explains the entire body of research. That is a straw man and deliberately misconstruing what I asked for. That would in any case just end up as yet another piece of evidence.

TheMoops' post is good enough for me. In the absence of any other proof, I'm happy because I have not come across anything definitive.

The person who you quoted was misquoting.

In relation to what you say about child care research, in fact the research shows that for children whose parents are not engaged or there are serious problems with the home, childcare may have benefits, but in all other cases there are no benefits for children. This does not mean that parents who use childcare are damaging their children, but instead that there aren't benefits as such eithe.

There may be psychological risks and so it is extremely important to find the right child care.

Where the child carer forms a relationship with the child and meets the child's needs while the child is with them, and the child's needs are otherwise met by the parents, risk of attachment problems is greatly reduced.

The reason why so many people in the UK are concerned about this is because, I believe, so many childcare centres give substandard care but this is just a personal opinion. I think that the way childcare is permitted to be organised is short sighted and money driven.

Research also shows that children under 3 will not have a developed a sense of time and therefore are more likely to suffer from stress to do with this, and there may be long term effects, even if they are having a good time at the time.

This with bells on.

My mum gave up work, didn't work for years and had me at 18 so didn't have much work experience or qualifications. When my dad left her after 10 years of marriage my mum couldn't really provide. We were brought up on benefits and it was hard.

I was determined to never be fully dependent on a man financially and always be able to provide for my children.

It comes down to individual situations.

iconic you've basically just repeated what I said 🤷🏼‍♀️

@@iconicloveliness

Sorry. I'm not sure how that answers the question?

What does your research or posts have to do with being a sahm or not?

It is not uncommon for high earning women to have high earning partners and jobs which give satisfaction. Deciding to use childcare may not be because they have no choice to work but is in fact a deliberate choice to work because working brings wider benefits to the family.

Bear in mind these childcare experts could be men as well as women.

These are experts in their field who if they stayed at home to look after their dcs instead, would be a loss to society.

Just have a Google. There are all kinds of studies and evidence. People can make of it what they will. Ultimately though, people don't make these decisions on theoretical evidence and academic predictions about the 'long-term outcomes.' It's usually a largely emotional decision, shaped by practical considerations / limitations and always made in individual contexts.

@Topgub - and as with blueshoes, I point you towards the beginning of this thread where I contributed my suggestions. There is no point contributing my middle of the road opinions on SAHM and WOHM into the middle of the current slanging match, because the thread has already degenerated into the usual aggressively expressed polar extremes on SAHM v WOHM, and the usual arguments over research and who owns what weighty tomes. None of it is furthering anyone’s argument on SAHM v WOHM, it’s just bringing out the aggressive worst in you. And no - the debate is not interesting, because you are just attacking everyone who posts anything,telling them they must contribute, but actually contributing nothing but aggression and demands yourself.

Erm.. thanks? Most of that is pretty obvious, with respect.

Although, in any career, if someone doesn't do it, someone else will fill their shoes. There doesn't have to be a 'loss to society.' A vital role won't stand empty, just because Liz wants to be a SAHP.

I think it is best if you google your questions, blueshoes, because you clearly don't want to read what I have written properly or engage sincerely.

There is a lot of very clear research.

This is on both sides, yes? Can't have a slanging match of one. So listen up, everybody.

Your post of 18.35 is far more nuanced and better explained. I will accept that. We are on the same page.

I will accept that. We are on the same page

ffs blueshoes 😂

Not really, you said that there were positive impacts for children over two, and the research doesn't say that, you also said good quality childcare for under twos is neither beneficial nor detrimental, and that doesn't reflect what research says, research is more cautious and doesn't make the same bald statments.

Incidentally I don't think that poverty is the most detrimental factor either, and it depends on what you mean by poverty. I know many people who grew up in poverty who had loving engaged parents. I think that things like intergenerational trauma, parents having serious attachment issues or other undiagnosed serious personality problems themselves are more toxic for a child than poverty over a some level, though in some ways that goes hand in hand with poverty in the sense that if the government were responsible enough to ensure that people did not fall below the poverty line they might also be responsible enough to ensure that there were public services to help people with mental health problems.

@Walkaround

I havent demanded anyone contribute

But your tone policing is hypocritical at best

That is nice to know but it is worth you going back and reading what I wrote upthread, as that was in direct response to what you had said! But hey, peace in our time, I am not going to knock that! Perhaps we should now battle out the Ukraine situation and see if we can find a peace settlement to satisfy the powers that be about that too!

The posts you have been referring to were not about whether to be a sahm or not. ... do you not think you should be reading posts more carefully?!

@iconicloveliness

So why did you post them on a thread about being a sahm? Where people were discussing the merits or not of being a sahm?

Incidentally I don't think that poverty is the most detrimental factor either, and it depends on what you mean by poverty.

Now, this is my specific area of expertise. Poverty (along with parental education and occupation) are the biggest indicators of a child's predicted educational attainment, progression and future earnings.

Was the OP thinking or even attempting to predict "educational attainment, progression and future earnings" though? Or was she just thinking about what is best, on balance, for her and her kids right now in the specific circumstances she is in? Nobody has a crystal ball.

Maybe not, and the OP might be financially comfortable but don't we all want the best for our child both in the short and long term?

People need to make a choice which suits their as a family as a whole. There is absolutely nothing wrong with choosing to be a SAHP just as there is nothing wrong with choosing to work ( even if that is a choice born out of necessity)

The ridiculous, and quite frankly insulting comments, which ask why people bothered having children if they use childcare and that suggest we are harming our children and our attachments to our children are baseless and inflammatory.

When SAHMs respond on here about being told they are contributing to structural sexism, they will often be told the criticism is not personal, but referring to structural sexism on a societal level. I can accept this to a point, in theory. But it does make me question what kind of society the persistent SAHM critics would actually want. Would they see a society in which all babies are routinely in daycare 8-6 as 'better' than the more mixed society we have now? His do they define 'better?' If better, better for who? There are no definitive answers and no perfect solutions. It's a discussion worth having, but not an easy one, by any means.