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?

My point is that if someone else is providing the physical, practical and emotional needs of a child for a significant number of hours each week they have influence in the child’s development.

That's not necessarily a bad thing. The phrase 'it takes a village' is very true in many circumstances. I really value the influence nursery had on my DS's development.

Perhaps ‘someone else is raising your children’ is an unpalatable phrase but it is true

It's really not true at all.

TheMoops - it's all relative though and it's just about where different people draw the line. Would you say a mum who only sees her baby for one hour per day is 'raising her child' to the same degree as you? Probably not? If you outsource childcare to others, then you are allowing : choosing those people to play a part in raising your child. A child doesn't go into suspended animation when with other people - that time is just as important to them. I'm not saying this is a bad thing necessarily at all. But just as you wouldn't walk into an office at 6pm, do one hours work and then declare you've "done it all" to an office worker has been there all day since 8am, anyone who has ever been at home with kids knows full well that you can't cram what you did with them all day every day into a couple of hours of an evening or at weekends.

So is my school aged child being raised by her teacher because she is taught by her 9-3 or is it her parents? 🤔

Your own situation will be unique, OP, but in my case ... I didn't have a choice as my H wasn't high-earning enough for me to stay home, but in retrospect I'm very glad I returned to FT work. I don't believe DD (now 10!) has been negatively affected by having attended nursery and while I would have loved to have spent more time with her, I also enjoyed getting out of the house and having the satisfaction and social aspect of work, and I was probably able to move up to my better-paying position sooner because I had less of a career break.

Also, when it sunk in that my relationship was dysfunctional and abusive, I knew I could support myself financially. I would have taken even longer to give myself permission to leave the relationship if that hadn't been the case. I don't have to rely on my ex financially and that makes an enormous difference to me. Hopefully this isn't the case for you, of course!

Someone wants mums to feel guilty no matter what they do. Try to ignore that crap if you can and choose what's right for you and your family.

@coffeedoctor

And no, a dad who comes in at 7pm while his wife partner has been with the kids all day is not 'raising' the kids to the same degree as she is.

if the phrase 'raising a child' is question of degree, then why do mothers who decide to stay at home use the phrase as if what they are doing all the raising?

They cannot physically be 24-7 glued to their child unless they are a bizarre martyr who never uses babysitting or have relatives/grandparents look after or use their nursery entitlement. They somehow still seem to be 'raising their child' once it starts formal school from 9-3pm.

They surely won't say their dhs are not raising their child?

It is used in a thoughtless way and therefore worth 'raising awareness' of how careless speech can be inflammatory.

p.s. the mum who spends only 1 hour with her child is a straw man so it's really not relevant. Even a child in nursery FT is spending a lot more time with its parents than that so let's not make up ridiculous examples to make a point.

The key phrase here is 'playing a part in raising your children'. That's a very different narrative to suggesting ( as some PPs have) that by going out to work and using childcare means you are not raising your children.

I thinks it's absolutely reasonable to give nursery and school credit for helping shape who my child is today. I see that as a positive. But they didn't raise him. Me and his dad are raising him - even when he's in the care of others or at school.

The corollary phrase for a SAHM is she wants to 'play a bigger part in raising her child'.

I would welcome more influences over my child than just me. That would be a positive and a varied and stimulating environment. It takes a village.

I would argue that a school environment is indeed a massive part of 'raising a child' yes. That's why we choose school environments carefully.

CousinKrispy - you might be surprised. I know mums who spend less than one hour per day with their babies.

blueshoes - if you are a SAHM day after day with no 'village' to rely on in the early years, it does indeed feel as if you are ' doing it all' with some help from the DH if you have one and when he's physically there!

Put it this way, if my DH swanned in at 7pm, saw the baby for a hour and declared to everyone he was 'raiding the baby' the same as me ... I think I'd throttle him!

If my DH though it was appropriate to only see his child for one our a day he wouldn't be my DH!

TheMoops - I know families with live-in nannies and they do only see the baby when everything is done at the end of the day. They have night nannies who do night feeds. Sometimes they don't see the baby at all, gif days. They might be overseas for a week or more.

Ok, they are paying for the nannies. They are still the parents. But how are they raising the child when they are only physically with them for probably 5% of their waking lives? The nannies are doing it, whatever the parents say. It's not only DHs who only see their kids for an hour. Some families are structured like this as default.

no time to read full thread sorry

I've done all 3. FT SAHM, PT SAHM and FT working (well, FT but term time only with a bit of holiday working)

My most contented was PT SAHM/PT working. I feel that's the sweet spot if you can afford it. When I was a FT SAHM I did lose a lot of confidence and felt I wasn't contributing anything. We were also always skint. I loved spending time with my kids, however, and I do feel they benefitted greatly by the attention they got from me, rather than in a nursery where there just aren't the adults available for much one to one attention at all (and ratios are possibly going to get worse in order to make nurseries financially viable). I used to be able to make all the school events no problem, able to look after my own sick kids rather than shove them into school when I knew deep down they weren't really up to it

I work FT and have done for a good few years (kids are teens now). I hate it really. DH has a demanding job, our lives feel very stressful and no, we don't always have the time we'd want to give the kids when they need it). The house is a tip, DH and I are 50 and both exhausted by the grind of it all, our weekends are taking up with cleaning and shopping etc, I feel like we don't see enough of our elderly parents, being available for tradesmen is nearly impossible, I resent using up holidays just catching up on what hasn't been done in the house, or going to multiple appointments that I couldn't squeeze into a working day, DH and I neglect our health as getting to the GP is difficult, as is eating really healthy meals all the time etc etc. We have no time to exercise and are too exhausted to anyway. We'd love to get a dog but it would be left alone all day so that's impossible. etc etc etc

So I'd love to go back to PT as for me that's the ideal balance, and personally I think that's what suits many children (some are naturally introverted and being in noisy group situations from 7.30am to 6.30 pm is hard for many of them) but I work in schools and there aren't many PT jobs available which pay ok and I'm conscious of paying enough into my pension.

So, my answer would be, efinitely choose PT if it's possible, but make sure you can definitely afford it, that your career plans won't suffer too much, make sure your DH is on board and you've discussed his expectations (ie i'ts not so you can be a skivvy in the house), he'd have to be in agreement with paying for stuff that maybe you pay for now etc, and also that if you went back to FT after a few years he knows he'd have to step up and do more in the house that you'd done when you had more time to do it when PT.

Sorry to go on, but a lady commented to me the other day that "wasn't it strange" how her DS has "hair that never seems to grow." Yes that's because her nanny takes him for his haircuts and always has! I've seen her in the salon.

So SAHMs don’t consider their husband working to provide for them as part of the role of parenting? Odd.

Do go on. Interesting window into your motivations.

Continue to polish that halo and hope you don't put on too much weight otherwise those judgy pants may get tight.

I could go on blueshoes.

Hobbitfeet32 - yes, of course earning money is a vital part of parenting. I respect my DH for that massively. But it is not the same as directly being with the kids in their waking hours and he would be the first to admit that. Otherwise, you might as well just go and live abroad and send money. Some parents do that.

Of course both WOHP and SAHP are raising their children. Some parents opt to hold back on letting the village get very much unsupervised access to their offspring until a bit later, and possibly don’t rate particularly highly the abilities of the villagers who are offering to pass their values on to their children (or not compared to the abilities they feel they possess themselves). Other parents are very happy with the provision offered and see definite positive benefits.

It could be concluded from multiple threads on Mumsnet that a lot of parents do not actually feel sufficiently in control of their children’s upbringing and the external influences they come under - you only have to read all the rude comments about schools, the content of the curriculum and teachers to see that (also all the complaints about other children their children are obliged to go to school with and attempts to control their friendship groups). If anything, this paranoia and niggling interference with the actions of those in loco parentis during the day has got worse as society has moved towards more families having both parents in work, rather than more relaxed. There seems to be less confidence in the “village” now than in the past, and a lot of stressed parents finding it hard to get access to nurseries, childminders or nannies they deem to be acceptable - particularly if they also have to be affordable.

I believe people should do what works for them full stop. So much vitriol here because people make different choices. The most aggressive posters seemed to be very rattled, suggesting they may not be comfortable with their own choices as they would like to think. I had a high flying career before I had my DC. I had no hesitation about taking a very long career break until they were well into primary school. Both DH and I felt it was important for one of us to be at home with them when they were young and he volunteered to do it if I would rather continue working. It didn't feel like a sacrifice at all and worked for us as a family. I got my career back when I was ready but, even if I hadn't, it would still have been worth it and I think they were among the best years of my life. I don't know how much impact doing things this way had on how my children turned out and I never will so there's not much point dwelling on that but they have turned out very well. I would never judge someone for doing things differently from me and I appreciate that we were very fortunate to have the financial circumstances to make this possible.

So if I said you were bullying me, and others agreed, (despite knowing literally nothing else about them or their motivation) you would accept that and apologise?

I'm sorry you were bullied.

Not liking an opinion does not mean you're being bullied. Not being able to make me shut up and go away and stop saying things you don't agree with is not bullying

Bullying is targeted and repeated. With a power imbalance. There is no power imbalance between us and I'm not targeting you or anyone else

Fuck knows what is going on with the formatting of

@Clairebairn

Yes.

Dh and I were able to be the major influences in our kids lives whilst also gladly accepting lots of other influences.

And working !

Crazy, eh

@Squirrelcentric

I often wonder if that's why some sahms seem to need constant validation and to be told how valuable they are.

Because they're rattled by the idea that maybe its not as necessary as they think.