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.

Yeah I know, but that wouldn't be for me either. Primarily because I don't think he'd do as good a job as me at it!

Aside from this, I do have quite a "traditional role mindset". Although if the options were DC in a nursery/childminder or with DH, I'd go with DH every time.

I was a SAHM for 12 years - not exactly financially 'independent' but no financial worries, I had a great lifestyle .. lots of hobbies, volunteering etc. For much of that time my DS (an only DC) was at nursery/school so I had plenty of time to myself and was never bored.
But don't underestimate the long term effect on your career ... it was very difficult to get back into the career I had, certainly nowhere near the salary level I was at years ago. I am working (part time by choice) in an industry I love but earning barely more than NMW whereas I was fortunate enough to earn a good salary, company car, associated perks etc before.
I am well aware that my comfortable lifestyle relies on the financial contribution my DH has made ... and if we separated I would not be in a strong position. Looking back, it's not a decision I would recommend.

But presumably someone who believes in “traditional roles” based on gender wouldn’t study to PhD/surgeon level to then become a SAHP, given that it would take so long (and cost so much) to train to that level that most women would only afford a relatively short career before biological time would be ticking so to speak.

I don’t think many female surgeons who plan on having children believe in gender based roles, so it’s probably irrelevant.

I’ve always been pretty career driven (not to surgeon level but I do have a “professional” job) and always knew I wanted kids but not to rely on full-time nursery, so finding a partner who was willing and able to take at least some of the career sacrifice was important to me.

YADNBU, Yes, I stayed a home with our DS. It was priceless to us.
But different strokes for different folks.

Yes, perhaps. Although I think very few 18 year old women going off to med school, or 25 yo women coming out the other side of it, are necessarily thinking about children yet.

Like another poster says "different strokes for different folks" and all that.

I don’t know - I did actually start training as a vet so similar type of career; and I knew even before that I wanted kids. I kind of feel most (or at least many) people know by that age if they want kids or not. I met my partner at 21 when I was still at uni and pretty early on I knew I wanted kids with him, even though we didn’t have kids for quite a while after that.

I think the belief in gender based roles probably starts in childhood, to be honest, as I find people who were brought up in families with less traditional roles are less likely to bring their own families up traditionally. My dad was very hands on for his generation (and is still a really hands-on papa to my own kids) and my mum worked more hours than he did. So to me, it’s not particularly unusual that my male partner is the primary parent and works part time.

Only 2 out of 4 of my generation actually have kids, and we are all in our 30s. My daughter swears she won’t ever have kids, and I believe her. She wants to be a scientist.

I’d work part time, or at least have DC in nursery for a few sessions and do a really engaging volunteer role. I’m not cut out to be with small children 24/7, lockdown showed me that! And once they’re toddlers/pre-school age it’s good for them to have the variety and social interaction of nursery.

Not a chance!
My children thrive in nursery settings and the eldest since 2 has formed strong friendships. They both do more things in 1 day at nursery then I could manage in a week at home! Our nursery is 50% minimum outdoors (based on the Scandinavian model and we are north east Scotland so its all year all weather) and they both love it. DS1 spent most of the day on Tuesday outside in the snow at -1 (they can freely go in and out).

I also enjoy having a piece of my life which is for me and I worked my arse off to build my career. I have a colleague who recently came back to work after 5 years off and she admits herself it's a huge uphill battle as she is behind on systems, developments and legislation.

Or my kids are older (one is an adult) I would say no.

I would however, take time out when they were in their teens instead.

Mine are older now, but I was a SAHM.

I chose to stay home with them.
I would 100%. Make the same choice if I had my time over.

Yes I chose being a sahm anyway regardless of finances. They're only little once and I went back ft initially and hardly saw my dc. I decided to take a short break from work even though I was massively career focussed and it's only when I stayed at home I realised what I was missing out on. I know it's not for everyone but I thought working was for me until I actually stayed at home long enough to adjust to being a sahm.
And I loved it so much. Unfortunately I'm now working pt but I'd love to go back to being a sahm.
I also found it really nice to support homework and having a daily chit chat to and from school with dc just lovely. I get that's not for everyone but I've noticed the dc at my dc school who have sahp definitely are ahead in their school work whether or not that's just a coincidence I'm not sure but I don't think so. As for what would you do I loved meeting up with other sahp I joined a golf club, volunteered. Ahhh sigh!!

I’d choose work. As long as it was an interesting job, and wasn’t such long hours that I hardly saw my DC. 9-5 3 days a week would be ideal. Unfortunately such jobs are rare in my field.

No way could I be a SAHP. Not sure what I expected before having DC, but it turns out I hate baking/craft/playgrounds/role play/soft play etc. Happy to outsource that to people who are trained in it. I love my DC to pieces and we have so much fun at evenings and weekends, it takes the pressure off knowing they are with other children doing activities the support their development in the daytime.

It depends on the career mine you can dive in and out. Some you cannot without taking a substantial hit. I think there's always a chance of divorce and the courts favour clean breaks so spousal maintenance is very unlikely. I would never be a SAHM for a long time you are basically gambling that your DH won't leave you. If independently wealthy that's fine if you are depending on DHs money don't do it.

I 100% agree that I am a product of my environment, my mum was a SAHM and so was my MIL. My dad was hands on though and he was the one who took us to our extracurricular after school.

I remember my nan (also a SAHM) telling me she suggested she go back to work in the 1960s and my grandad was mortally offended by it.

If i hadnt been brought up the way i was, I may well be off working for NASA now 😂It's a weird one really, but I do agree with you.

I'm 37 and all my uni friends have kids now (most had then late 20s, early 30s). I had my first straight after graduating at 21. Most of my (similar age) cousins have kids now too. My DHs similar age cousins are about half and half kids/no kids.

To add...none of my friends or relatives have ever been a FT SAHM.

I basically was a SAHM (did some freelance work when they were asleep) when they were toddlers and younger and I’d do it again, definitely. It is hard work and I think they benefit from a bit of childcare once they’re about 2, but I wouldn’t have wanted to miss out on those years. They were full of joy. Now my youngest has started school, I’m not sure if I would just stay at home if I could. It’s nice to have the mental stimulation of work and I don’t like housework. I work part-time, which is a good compromise at this age I think.

I left a professional career to be a SAHM and I wouldn't change a thing. DH had a successful business, I took a small wage from that to feel like I had my 'own money'. DS went to nursery from 2yo for two mornings a week. We had a nice lifestyle that didn't change when I stopped working full time. The stress and rushing about that I imagine comes with having children and working full time just didn't make me want to go back to work and I am glad I didn't. Very fortunate but I get that it wouldn't do for everyone. DS now grown up and I work PT from home. Paid my NI annually so no loss there but do wish I'd sorted a better pension for all those years.

No, but I would go part time for sure.

I think there is a noticeable shift in attitudes to having children in general. My mum and I had our first kid within 2 weeks of the same age; she was considered an older mum and I considered myself a really young mum (we were both 26).

Weirdly my parents actually were “traditional” in their outlook and did but into traditional gender roles; but their life just didn’t play out that way. And that definitely changed the trajectory of my life. Which is pretty strange to think about, actually.

We do get really bizarre comments often about how “good” my partner is for doing housework, cooking dinners, etc, when nobody would think twice about any of it had he been a woman - and nobody ever comments positively about my achievements in the workplace, my salary etc. The bar for men in society is so low that anything above nothing is praised.

Parenting the first two times I was happy to go back to work.

Third time round, had the money and security been equal, then yes I’d have been at home.

’Can of course be done’?! Not by many many families I’m afraid! We would be unable to survive if we both went part time. Please don’t be so judgemental.

I agree with this. I dislike the trope that clever women are just too good for boring old babies and simply must get back to their important, stimulating job and adult conversation.

I'm as clever as anyone and I find babies and small children absolutely fascinating and more than worth my time and effort. They develop so fast you can almost see their brains forming new connections, processing, computing, learning. It's incredible. I'll never forget my baby looking at the sky, looking at me, thinking for a moment and then tentatively saying his first word, "Birds", looking at me for a response. It came out as "Bds", and I grinned, and he grinned back and repeated, "Bds, bds." That is a tiny moment - one of so many - that exists now only in my memory and no, I don't think I'd have been better off in an office having an adult conversation about reports or politics or the weather.

And that is not to say it was all sunshine and roses. Of course it wasn't. But I just think it is wrong to say that babies are boring and it's just shit and vomit and crying and sleeping and you must be some sort of dullard if you spend a couple of years on it.

We were pretty skint when I was a SAHM, but I thought, and still think, it's an important enough job to be worth it.

No, it isn’t something either of us would want, we both believe children seeing their parents working and earning a living sets a good example to them. I wouldn’t want them to give up a career they had earned, so that isn’t something I would model at home.

None of my close circle have; but my friends are all similarly career driven - most of us work full-time, some are fortunate enough to have family help; others use childcare.
Going back to my school friends though; lots of them are SAHP’s - although they have always been less career driven and probably wouldn’t have benefitted much financially from working whilst they had small kids; due to their earning potential. Again; they never really aimed to have a big career or anything and their aspirations were to raise children.