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?

A child can still be securely attached to a mother who works. Of course. But obviously, in more extreme case where a baby largely goes through their attachment separation in a nursery setting because they are in that setting from 8am to 6pm Mon- Fri (around a mother's working week), the risk of insecure attachment patterns and development issues due to anxiety are going to be greater. If children are anxious or overwhelmed, they don't learn as well. They instead develop coping strategies which may manifest as avoidant or disorganised attachment patterns and behaviours in general.

This is the first generation really where a large proportion of babies and toddlers are spending the majority of their waking lives in structured day centres with key workers. I agree with a pp that, as a society, we need to be extremely wary of sleepwalking into a 'new normal' in which this is seen as a desirable state of affairs for babies and children. It is not.

@Labraradabrador

And you think I'm antagonistic? 🤣

I dont know what you mean by pretend none of it matters?

Personal choice clearly matters most.

There are no benefits of being a sahm to me.

Would you concede that there may be benefits to your child of having a stay at home mum or parent?

Thepeopleversuswork, having spent the last ten years reading Marx (Tronti, and Negri) I know very well what capitalism is. And whilst many people work in non profit making capacities in various government on non government organisations, all of this is within the greater totality. Charity as an example is something created out of the unintended consequences of a social system that creates at once huge wealth and huge levels of immiseration.

Most kids go to preschool from 3 now?

Most women take 6 months plus mat leave.

Shared leave is a thing.

But no, I don't think 2 parents working full time are harming their children or 'hardly parenting'

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

Well we seem to send our DC to school much earlier than other European countries. I think I read that most start school at 6 rather than between 4 and 5 here. And wasn't there a report a couple of years ago that our school children are more stressed and unhappy than most?

@mantramama

This is the first generation really where a large proportion of babies and toddlers are spending the majority of their waking lives in structured day centres with key workers. I agree with a pp that, as a society, we need to be extremely wary of sleepwalking into a 'new normal' in which this is seen as a desirable state of affairs for babies and children. It is not.

It's not the first generation: this has been fairly routine for nearly 30 years in this country and longer in many other countries. Many European countries use childcare far more extensively and a century ago children have been cared for from a young age by extended family.

And there have been a number of large scale, longitudinal studies into this. There's no compelling evidence whatsoever of correlation between working mothers and behavioural problems, attachment problems or any of these other spectres which are routinely raised, let alone causation.

So talking about "sleepwalking" into anything is just hysterical and irresponsible fear-mongering.

Ok, so stop attacking others making different choices?

if you are happy with your choice to work, super for you. Others clearly find advantage in having a parent more home oriented, so no need to cast shade.

@Dacadactyl

My specific kids?

No.

You do understand that not everyone is a good parent jus because they stay home? That being home all the time suddenly doesn’t make you Mary poppins?

Being a happy fulfilled adult and providing a loving stable home environment is what’s Important. Many people stay home, do fuck all with their kids, are stressed snappy or sit their kids in front of a screen. You can’t judge parenting based on quantity, that’s not what it’s about. There are plenty of grown adults who had a parent at home who will tell you it was shit. Plenty who loved it, and the same for working parents. Because it’s not about staying home, it’s about how you parent and care for a child. And good childcare and socialistion in the early years can be very beneficial to children. They don’t need to be tied to a parent constantly.

you can defend your choice without deriding others. Open your mind.

@Labraradabrador

I havent attacked anyone.

I've shared my view. Asked some questions.

Maybe you'd like to tell @mantramama or @MiniTheMinx to stop attacking others for making different choices?

No?

@MiniTheMinx

Charity as an example is something created out of the unintended consequences of a social system that creates at once huge wealth and huge levels of immiseration.

And your point is what? that women shouldn't work in the charity sector either? What on earth has this got to do with whether or not mothers working has a negative impact on children?

Bring cared for by extended family (as perhaps was more common in previous generations) is very different to today's trend towards structured day care in what are essentially institutions with key workers. That was the point I was making.

I am mostly aware of your comments to me, which have been goady and antagonist. Clearly you have some stuff you are working through - all the best with that. To quote you, hope you don’t regret it on your deathbed

I absolutely love being a SAHP. We were both in very high earning jobs in the City, and both made a joint decision to leave behind the stress and pressure and downsized massively.

We've got a decent financial cushion, and I take on freelance work that I'm gradually increasing as the children get older. DH is around loads because he's also self-employed now, so we share the domestic stuff 50/50.

Being a SAHP gives me freedom and happiness, and it suits our family and how we live.

Bear in mind OP, that there have been hundreds of these threads over the years - 95% or replies will be from people who are fairly scathing about being a SAHP, and will be VERY EMPHATIC about overjoyed at not being one , and people like me who are really happy and fulfilled being a SAHP.

It's very rarely people at work wishing they could be a SAHP, and saying how much they miss being with their kids, or SAHPs who are utterly miserable and are desperate to go to work - these threads are very unbalanced as a rule.

I understand that. But this isn't the first generation by any stretch. And there's no evidence that it has any negative impacts.

@Labraradabrador

Mmmm.

Maybe you should read your own comments back?

I'm not working through anything but you certainly seem highly defensive.

@Topgub defensive? Yes, of personal choices and not demonising those that choose differently.

best wishes on that deathbed reflection and all

@Labraradabrador

Your focus on my deathbed is a tad creepy.

And again, you really don't seem to care about working mothers being demonised so I'm not buying that

I'd like to make sense of the widely accepted phenomena of the CAMHs waiting list. We are creating anxious children, or is something else happening. What are the causes of anxiety, attachment and early trauma, technology, education?

I work with children in care who have suffered early childhood trauma, however I'm seeing more and more children coming into care later from family backgrounds that are by most standards considered normal, nurturing and not socially deprived. More young people are coming into care, receiving full care orders having arrived via psych units. No history of significant neglect or abuse. These YP display classic signs of disordered attachment but are being given tentative diagnosis of EUPD and autism. Always late diagnosis of autism. Colleagues and myself see little evidence of autism traits. CAMHs are breaking under the weight of demand. No one wants to discuss where this tsunami is coming from.

You brought up the deathbed thing, which I agree is very creepy

No, I didn't

Someone else did

I just asked if it applied to men too.

Thepeopleversuswork - in order to gauge 'negative impacts' though, a study would need to define what it means by 'negative impacts' and this is obviously very problematic. As I said, it's impossible to know whether a child who grew up in daycare would have been different if at home with mum because the child is who they are and does not have that parallel experience to compare with. 'Negative impacts' do not necessarily need to manifest as 'measurable' traits - such as diagnosed mental health problems, etc. it could be more subtle things like less successful relationships in the future; anxiety, depression or other mild behaviour traits that hold people back in some way. Or not. But it's a tricky thing to measure.

What is now understood though in a way it perhaps wasn't for recent generations is the impact of 'boarding school syndrome.' The long-term impacts of this type of separation are now documented. That's not to say some children don't go through boarding school and come out totally unscathed or even thrive. They do. But nevertheless, few people would say boarding schools is 'normal' and because it is clearly not and shouldn't / doesn't need to be seen as such. The same is true for babies and toddlers doing long days in nurseries which, when all is said and done, are institutions. Separation anxiety is all relative to age and developmental stages.

I didn’t want to return to work but went back two half days a week because I couldn’t bear to be away from my daughter. Now she’s at school, I do three half days, mostly so I can be there at least a few days a week with her during all holidays.

In your position, if I didn’t HAVE to go back, I wouldn’t. My mum was a SAHM, and I wouldn’t have had it any other way, from a child’s perspective. You can always go back to work. You can’t get that precious time with your babies back. Before anyone says anything, it absolutely is different for fathers. They are not affected by maternal hormones. It drives your emotions. You can’t compare the two.

You still get to see this if you spend some hours of day working and leaving them in care of soneone else . Part or full time working.
You still see your dc develop over time. You can enjoy seeing them grow and develop.
You spend time with them evenings weejends mornings holidays.
Unless you literally do not spend aNy time with them . Seems unlikely.
Did you dh feel he did not experience any of this at alll ? does he feel he never saw new skills develop? Or was he totally absent from their life?

Is always a little odd to suggest that parents who go out to work cannot appreciate or enjoy seeing their dc develop. They just dont get to watch every single hour...for sure....but that dies not equate to being totally absent from the dc lives.
my younger male collesgue is always full of stories of his two dc development ... he sees it and enjoys it yet also works full time too .
If you want or need to work that is ok too. You wont miss their growing up week by week and day by day .... you willl be there for it all, just not every single hour by hour !