Would you be a SAHP to pre-schoolers if you were financially independent?

[Kitchenette]

Not super-rich but say you had enough capital to pay yourself an income for life equal to your full time earnings.

I’m always interested in SAHP threads on here and the various very reasonable objections people raise to it- that you’re making yourself vulnerable financially while also putting too great a strain on the paid working partner. But say we took money out of it- would you prefer to stay at home or go to work? For the purposes of the poll it’s a binary choice (of course IRL the best answer for many of us would be to work PT).

YABU- I would prefer to be in paid employment
YANBU- I would prefer to be a SAHP

Me- I’ve had periods of SAHM, FT and PT work since my children were born. Binary choice with pre-school children and no money worries-I’d be at home, no question.

My preference would be 2-3 days work and the rest at home. I think it’s good for kids to get used to being looked after by others from young age on those days

Thepeopleversuswork - I can totally understand why you would feel defensive as a single mum. But really, hypothesising about the impact of SAHMs, or the impact of childcare, is a dead-end road because every child is different, every family is different, every woman is different and every job is different. Sweeping statements about SAHMs are nonsensical. Nobody is qualified to pontificate about anyone else's family set up ( as long as there are no child protection issues of course).

I had to go back when mine were 4 months & 6 months & would have preferred to stay home with them.

Lots of SAHM say they are busier than if they were at work. I think it depends which job you do. Surely if they really thought working would be easier they would do that?

I don't think all women love being with children so I guess there should be something in between where there is cheap and affordable childcare so babies & toddlers can go a couple of half days. The only people I know who have done this are those with well paid husbands or single parents who get some government funded hours free.

KievsOutTheOven - What you are talking about, in terms of children's outcomes, is wealth.

Yes, 'statistically' children from lower-income households - which would obviously be even lower-income households if the mum is not working - may be less likely to become higher-earners themselves. This will not only be because the mum is not working - it's the entire environment they grow up in.

The majority of families these days fall somewhere in the 'squeezed middle' - families who need two incomes for the lifestyle they perceive to be reasonable. There will be obvious pros and cons to this, which could be summarised as time v money.

But if you are talking about SAHMs specifically, it stands to reason that families with (long-term) SAHMs tend will not to be found in the 'squeezed middle.' I'm talking about women who don't need to work well beyond the pre/school years.

However, there are the women in families with a net worth in the top 1% and you will find that there is a disproportionate amount of SAHMs in this demographic. They are not financially vulnerable due to significant family assets. Many of these are what you might call 'tiger mums' in high extremely achieving families. Families who push for the very best schools and want to facilitate the very best opportunities / extra-curricular for their kids. Imagine how much energy you would have to put into supporting your kids education, without the pressures and time-commitment of a full-time career. This is why these women SAH. They have the money - they want to make it count! Is it any wonder, that children from wealthy families with SAHMs who focus on every aspect of their education and god knows what besides, are more likely to be 'successful' themselves?

@Thepeopleversuswork

Or my personal favourite

Of course I would be a sahm. I love my children and want to raise them myself 😂

@musos

'
Sweeping statements about SAHMs are nonsensical.'

So are sweeping statements about working mums

You can't claim posters are being defensive and then be defensive yourself

I am responding to your logic Botw1. It makes no sense to me because It's not about whether women work or not. It's more about WHY they work / don't work - how much choice for they have in the matter. Same as with anyone else. A good mum is a happy mum and that's all kids need.

of course - but the top 1% are statistical outliers. What I said and what you said are not mutually exclusive. The study is not “tosh” but of course, there are exceptions.

Firstly, it doesn’t have to be a “professional career”
No, how does working 3 months out of 14 years help your daughter to be in a professional career.??? Thats what im asking you

The statistics don’t break it down to job type. The statistics show that working mums are more likely to have working daughters, and their daughters are more likely to be higher earners. The scope of the study doesn’t explore why

No, the scope of the study is ridiculous.i can't believe you can't see that given my explanation twice, that it's a small study with no real parameter.

however I would argue that it would be unusual for the only period of a mothers employment to be three months within the first year of their child’s life; especially since most working mums would be on maternity leave for most of the first year

But your evidence is suggesting a couple of months in any profession, for any salary, at any age of the child increases the chances of a daughter to be in professional role. I cant take the findings of a study like that seriously. Its tosh.
And you still havent answered how you think that can be a credible study?

”But there are millions of women who see this and know this is exactly what they dont want to, and they ensure they do not end up in that situation and go the complete opposite. How much do you need to work ? How many hours qualify you to be producing this successful child?”

The statistics show you are not correct. Could you please cite a study which shows this? Statistically, working mothers are more likely to raise working daughters. It’s a fact. Just because “millions” of people (across the world?) don’t fit that statistic doesn’t mean it isn’t true

I have already told you that i dont believe any study can prove what is better for a child between a SAHP and WOHP. It's a personal benefit to a particular family.

Your study doesn't show that. Im sure you can find more credible studies to try and back up your claims but as previously stated, anyone can find a study to try to validate their opinion if they feel the need to.
Again you havent answered

how many hours you think a mother has to work for it to promote their daughters to a professional role in later life.

”No, i disagree these days. I think, thankfully, women have more choice now over how they want to live their lives. Alot realise they dont have to follow what was before them and can break the norms of before and they can do whats best for them and their families (those luckily enough to have a choice”

“alot” (lol) of people, including you, may disagree. But the numbers don’t. Again, statistically working mums are more likely to raise high earning daughters who work. Do you understand how statistics work?

Yes, i do. Do you understand what your evidenced study is supposed to be proving. You dont seem to be accepting that you can not have such a vast scope and feel.it proves anything. It doesn't. Its a small scope study, with no real paramaters so proves nothing really.

”So you are saying, you believe the amount of hours worked by a mother helps define the success of their daughter??? .”

Yes, I do believe there would be a correlation, I believe it would show a bell curve of distribution (as almost everything does) and I do think that perhaps, mothers working an excessive number of hours may also have a negative impact on their daughters, with “peak” earnings lying somewhere between part and full time. It would certainly be interesting to plot though

So if you are part time then, your child will be less succssful, but if you work too much it will have a negstive effect. So you think it's right us women should be judged like this ?? The pressure of just that perfect balance to raise that well-balanced, successful child. Its nonsense, the more you buy into it thr more you help create a worse environment for women.

“Im not sure you are truly in touch with the norm of working mums, most working mums are not out their working to afford private education and tutors.

Yes, working mums will obviously bring in an income but their are many, many, many SAHM who have high earning husbands, so the household income would be more than 2 average incomes.”

I know quite a bit about working mums, thank you, given that I am one 😂 no, most working mums are not working to afford private education or tutors, but increasing the household earnings certainly makes it EASIER to afford those things

Yes, so why make it as a point if it's not a valid point for the majority paying for education??

Of course, only if you need that other income to make things easier. If you dont need the other income and the household can afford all this anyway.

You are unwittingly proving my point though - many, many SAHM’s are relying on their husbands for survival

How have i proved that?? 🤣

And that is dangerous, as it can lead to them not being able to leave unhappy relationships

Of course it can. 50% of marriages fail. And women stay in relationships they absolutely shouldn't, noone is disputing the risks from that perspective. Its the other tosh you are trying to justify in your "study "that im disagreeing with, because its a nonsense study. But most SAHM know the risks, plan for it or accept its a risk they are willing to take.

not something I’d want for my daughter
My part time salary is more than the average full time salary in the UK, for the record

That is absolutely fabulous, you should be very proud of yourself for that. As should your daughter. And that pride in yourself should be enough for you.
You shouldn't need to try to drag others down to raise yourself up.
You can quite happily have different views and opinions without attempting to pull others down. Just enjoy your choices.

The top 1% of families are obviously statistical outliers in terms of families per se. But the top 1% of families are NOT statistical outliers if we are talking about long-term SAHMs - or women who have the free choice not to work again (which I thought was the whole point of this thread). The top 1% or whatever of net worth families is precisely where you will find a very high-proportion of SAHMs.

@musos

Sorry, what logic of mine are you responding to?

None of your comments seem relevant to mine

@musos

Do women in the top 1% have a free choice?

Either they are dependent on a man's income or their own

Both of which come with expectations

Botw1 - You were saying that women should work (not SAH) to be a positive role model and to ensure better wealth / health for their children.

I am saying many children with long-term SAHMs (mums with the luxury of CHOOSING not to work again - which is what the thread is about) are, by correlation, likely to be in the high-net worth demographics that have the best opportunities / wealth / health outcomes regardless.

As I said, it's not about whether women (or men) work or SAH. It's how much choice they have in the matter.

Being a good role model is obviously not about whether you work or not! You could work all hours, part-time or SAH and still be a crap role model to your kids, depending on your personality. In parenting, as in general life, I'd say it's not what you do, it's how you do it.

Botw1 - it's not really about being dependent on 'income' as such. I meant a level of family assets / wealth that would enable that type of choice.

I was a SAHM when my ex walked out leaving me pregnant with a toddler and a preschooler. It took years to claw my way back and I have concerns about my long term financial security if I live past my early-mid 70s. I wouldn’t stay at home knowing what I k ow now, no.

@musos

I haven't said that

I think you're mixing me up with someone else.

How many men with the luxury of choosing to be a sahd do so?

That's up to men, Botw1. If men want to be a SAHD and they can afford it - then they should do that. It may be that women and men feel differently about such things. Just because men may be less inclined to do something, that shouldn't mean it is 'wrong.'

@musos

I didn't say it was wrong.

I don't believe men or women have a free choice regardless of what they earn and I also don't believe its a coincidence you think men 'feel differently'

My kids dad doesnt feel differently about them than I do.

Ultimately it doesn't matter because couples will always do what they feel is best for them, in their own unique circumstances and according to their own personalities and motivations in life. Other families are irrelevant.

Mine took off 6 weeks in total with paternity leave, annual leave etc. He definitely would've liked more time.

I think that's a good idea. Flexible too which is needed.

It's more difficult for men to do that, especially if they have a wife who insists on doing it and that she is more important to the baby than he is. Not to mention how baby groups & classes are often filled with mothers who may not want a man there.

Even without a wife insisting on it, society tells men constantly that they aren't important when it comes to caring for children. They are expected to go back to work after only 2 weeks for a start which makes it easier for the mother to become the ''main'' parent.

I'm a SAHP. I home educate my DC. I have two degrees but I have never been career oriented (although I had a decent career pre children). I do a lot of creative things and have lots of interests outside my kids. DH has a well paid job that he enjoys so this works for us. If he were to die or become critically ill we are covered. If he were to leave me (I don't think he ever would, but obviously nothing is ever 100%), well I own 50% of the house we live in and its assets and he'd have to pay me a fairly significant amount in maintenance. Push came to shove I'd have to get a job, that's life. I prefer not to base all my life decisions on what ifs.

Research shows that children flourish best in the early years being cared for day to day by their primary caregiver. I appreciate this isn't affordable for many people, and people also don't like to acknowledge the fact, but it doesn't stop it being true. Personally I would like to see funding given to parents in the early years to use flexibly, whether for paid childcare if parents wish to work or as a stipend to SAHP if they would prefer to stay at home with their children.

I’d prefer not to work, but also to have pre-schoolers go to nursery (but from a later age, more like 2) for a couple of days a week, the rest of the time with me. I’d need a break and quiet time to myself, plus time to do things round the house.

I also think nursery is good for their development and socialisation.

My answer might well be different if I’d ever found my career purpose or work I enjoy, but sadly I didn’t.

Can you link the research?

@TrinaLowsln

That doesn't answer the question I asked.