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?

Absolutely no way I'd have been a sahm cause my oh wanted a parent at home.

Do it yourself then mate

Read it again, where have I said that? nowhere.

I'm saying that capitalism has created a unique value system based upon exchange values rooted in and limited to the exchange value of paid labour.

Yes is the answer to the question should men also give up work so as not to miss out on the precious time?

Great

So who earns the money?

I'm not a capitalist

I dont think working affects motherhood

Topgub, I'm going to add to this, you seem unable to grasp the point I made, perhaps "all work and no play" makes you dull You seem to have a lot of time for prickly posting, perhaps go read a book once in a while ! It amazes me too that all the stalwart worker bees climbing up the ladder to reach epic pension contributions seem to lack some very basic understanding. But then that's capitalism for you.....ever increasing circles of microscopic myopic levels of specialism.

Ok, so you approve of my choices (yay, what a relief!), but are implying that I am damaging society? Oh no, that sound bad, but without more detail it is really difficult to know how worried I should be.

I haven’t seen anyone asserting motherhood = sainthood, so maybe that is just your imagination? I also have never asserted any harm to children as a result of different childcare choices. Are you feeling guilty about something and it is causing you to read meaning into posts that weren’t intended?

@MiniTheMinx

Nah I'm good thanks.

If you cant debate your point when challenged, I'd suggest it's not a good point.

I dont understand this though. Can you try to explain how both parents working Monday to Friday 8am - 6pm does not affect parenting?

I am trying to get my head round it, because it is obvious to me that it would. Wondering how ypu dont see it that way. Genuinely curious.

I had 2 under 2. I went back two and a half days. Not for the money. That all goes on childcare. But for the break and the chance to do something that isn't kid-related. Two so close together is hard work and my job is like going on holiday a couple of days a week 😂

Do you trust your husband to give you the money you need (no matter how much) for your own things ?
do you trust your husband that if you split you’d not be empty handed and struggle financially?

do you want to depend financially (and probably psychologically) to him for a few years?

Before the age of six months, a baby doesn't even have any sense of 'separateness' to the mother. He / she has no sense of themselves as a whole being or entity, just parts. The mother is 'parts' and di are they. It's called the paranoid-schizoid phase basically. Attachment patterns can be easily disrupted as they move out of the paranoid-schizoid phase because this is when a human being internalises a sense of self. Trauma or disruption is internalised and may manifest in later life in relationship patterns. This is why separation anxiety (ie babies screaming particularly for the mother) only really happens at 6-9 months when the baby realises they are actually separate to the mother. If they are separate, it means she can be 'absent' in other words. Add to that the disorientation of an unfamiliar setting. Other babies crying, strange sounds, smells, voices, echoes.

I've read Bowlby, Ainsworth, and the other attachment theorists. They say nothing whatsoever about working vs nonworking. A child can be securely attached to a working mother and insecurely or avoidantly attached to a SAHP.

If you’re going to be a SAHP then you need to have a partner that is completely on board with it and you need to set your finances up so that you are protected.

So, can you afford for you to pay into a pension?

How do your finances work - do you have access to money that is just for you? Not for groceries or kids shoes, but for you?

What, if anything, will change in terms of the house if you do become SAH long-term? Will you and your and your DH have the same expectations over how much each of you do?

How will time for you to have time to yourself work? When will you get time to have a bath in peace or go out with friends? Equally if you’re home all day and desperate for a break how is it going to work if your DH wants a night out?

It sounds like you and your DH already disagree over your elder DC being in nursery or not - how will things like that be resolved? It can be very very easy to get into the mindset of the one at home being the default or senior parent, but that can be really unhealthy if it festers.

You need to sort the big things, but you also can’t overlook the little things because big differences you can sit down and hash out together but the little things are the niggles that pick at your every day until you explode.

I was a long-term SAHM. It worked for us as we both had the sort of jobs where we would have to work early or late at short notice, and DH really sometimes had to go abroad at short notice. So if we both worked we would be fighting about who would drop work commitments if the chilcare fell through or DC was sick.

I went back to work for a couple of years after DC1 but I knew in my heart that I couldn't sustain the commitment to work that I had before. DH earned more than me and had the greater potential. So we I decided to sacrifice my career for a more relaxed home life. We both understood that my contribution to the family was no lesser than DH's financial one and I had pension arrangements. Any savings were in my name as I didn't pay tax on a salary. It helped that I was older when I had DC, so had already achieved well in my career.

Long term we were better off with me as a SAHM as DH's ability to drop everything for work if necessary without having to make arrangments for childcare did his career no harm at all.

I threw myself into being a SAHM as a career. I involved myself in all sorts of organisations in the community as appropriate for the DC's age: toddler groups, then helping in school, moving to various charities and support groups for adults as the DC were at school more. I also went to adult classes, using the paid-for creche until they were at school. As a result I know a large number of people in the local community and how systems work. I was involved with a much larger range of people and experiences than just the field I worked in. And, of course, while they spent time with other people, I was number one carer for my DC, which I value. So I found it as satisfying as a career but in a different way.

It amazes me too that all the stalwart worker bees climbing up the ladder to reach epic pension contributions seem to lack some very basic understanding. But then that's capitalism for you.....ever increasing circles of microscopic myopic levels of specialism.

I'm curious about the fact that so many posters on MN who have a problem with working mums seem to think those of us who work are all driven by a rampant addiction to "capitalism". Do any of you actually know what capitalism means?

For starters you do realise, right, that a large proportion of women who work (and men who work) don't work in capitalist enterprises at all?

A large proportion of people work for the NHS or the civil service, or as teachers or academics or for NGOs or charities or in the arts or whatever. Many of these roles have nothing to do with capitalism. Even those of us who do work for profit-making enterprises aren't "capitalists" in the sense of sitting there like Daddy Warbucks amassing a fortune.

People work for all sorts of reasons. Many of us out of necessity. Painting us all as glassy-eyed drones in some dystopian nightmare is just patronising crap.

If you want, as a SAHM, to be afforded dignity and respect for your role then at least do people who work the basic honour of not paining these hoary old stereotypes. It works both ways.

@Labraradabrador

If you actually care about what I think I'd suggest you work on your self esteem

If you're going to pretend that others aren't suggesting that working mothers are harming their children (bowlby has been invoked, no less) then that really undermines your point

I was SAHM for ten years - we had no family back up near by & I'd have only seen any of my wages in a 5-week month as the rest would had gone on childcare. We decided for that gain it wasn't worth the stress & the timetabling required for me to be at work. I did love the pre-school years when none of us had to have timetable because I didn't have to be anywhere else - as a result our children were able to be the night owls biology gave them - they've never been in bed before 9pm & without alarms none of us is up before 8:30am even on Xmas Day. Late nights also meant we could eat together as a family even when DH was getting back from London at 7:30pm.
I kept my IT/work skills up by becoming involved in first their pre-school (which was a committee run one with a minimum req of at least 4 parent members to stay open & which they still have issues getting helpers with), then their primary school PTA & finally as a school governor. It helped that I've only ever had jobs (in Admin / IT that I do very well) rather than a career with a clear pathway but I don't regret having both time with my 2 DD and for myself as I didn't have to fit our lives round a work timetable & could cover 90% of the child stuff - it was my job for a decade & I did it as well as I could. So Id say try it - you might like it

@Dacadactyl

Is both parents working mon to fri 8 to 6 the only option?

I dont think working affects parenting negatively.

Why would it?

No its not the only option. I am curious whether you think 2 full time working parents woukd negatively affect parenting?

In my mind, in this situation the parents are not doing much parenting and as such, that is havung a negative impact on the children. Do you disagree?

My part time job is so much more to keep than a wage packet op.

But l have a wonderful boss who appreciates me - sadly at home l don't always get the acknowledgement that l do the lion's share of running the home. So l work as it gives me a feeling of self worth.

@Dacadactyl

Yes, I disagree

Do you think children in school mon to fri 9 to 3 are harmed?

My self esteem is the problem now. Right, will promptly turn to the mirror and repeat affirmations of worth.

having been alternately working and stay at home with my children I have no dogma in this discussion. I do think there are benefits to children when parents are able to be more hands on (individually or collectively), and I also have experienced (as a child)the importance of a mother working to ensure financial stability. The thing is, it is snakes and ladders - benefits and risks/downsides. You want to pretend like none of it matters - the reality is all of it matters, but we also all deal with finding a balance that works for our personal circumstances.

My husband could easily have afforded me to stay home as I could have easily afforded him to stay home. But both of us are more than a parent and house partner. We are still us. So we both chose to go back to work. Neither of us could have mentally stayed home and did child care and housework. Some folks like it though and it works for them. Our daughter is a young adult now, we are all incredibly close. She’d not have been better off if we gave up being us and became solely a parent and a house spouse. It’s simply not who we are. We still need the fullfilment of having a life outside our home and for us, in hindsight it was the right choice. It’s afforded us a much better and more enjoyable life style as a family as she’s grown up.

Ah ok, i dont understand that personally, but we are all differnet.

No i do not think children in school 9 til 3 are harmed by it, in the main (there are some children for whom this would be too much though and for whom home schooling would be better).

I personally think the 0-5 age is so formative and important. I would differentiate children of these ages from school aged children.

This is such a personal thing that others opinions should not count. I have friends who HAD to return to work and hated it. I had friends who stayed at home and hated it. I always wanted to be a SAHM and we had 3 kids in 3.5 years so I reduced my hours and by third pregnancy only worked one day a week. Then with 3 pre schoolers I had a year not working at all ( but 'working' at home with a poorly newborn, a toddler and a 3 year old!!) I then returned to work one day a week( DH did compressed hours) and gradually increased my hours over the years until I was full time( by time they were all at secondary school and DH had home based job)
Personally I would not have coped with juggling work and 3 young children with different routines. Staying at home was much much harder than any job I have done before or since but I don't regret it and I think it is hard to evidence any benefits to very young children attending nursery over being at home with a consistent care giver.
Maternity leave is a good time to work out of you could cope with being a SAHM. I think some women see some of their worth in their role at work and lose themselves at home. I absolutely love my job but do not feel defined by it in any way and was happier just being with my little ones when they were tinies.