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.

Probably I would want to be part time working. I have worked full time since mine was 6 months (not choice, finance based) and I did really miss time with my son, I wish I had more, but I also like to work perhaps a couple of days a week for a change in scenery and interaction.

I was a SAHM for 9 years until my youngest started Primary school. Then went back to work part time and am now working fulltime in a career I love. I loved my time at home when the children were young and feel very fortunate to have had the best of both worlds.

I would love to be a STAHM but I chose to work part time as I didn't want to give up my career and try to pick it up again when the kids were older. I have a part time permanent contract at a place I love, with a flexible employer and earn decent money so I felt I couldn't walk away from it despite being able to afford to stay home (just about). I call my sage 'fun money' as it covers holidays, days out etc.

If money was not a factor at all though I'd happily stay home

“Daycare” doesn’t exist in the UK, where the majority of commenters are from.

You also can’t cite a blog as a source. Well, I mean you can. But everyone will disregard it as nonsense.

Actually, ill cite a proper source showing that you are limiting your female children’s earning potential by staying at home with them; and are more likely to raise boys who turn into adults who don’t do their “fair share” at home (the subject of many a negative “useless men” post here and elsewhere): hbswk.hbs.edu/item/kids-benefit-from-having-a-working-mom

so keep your judgey comments to yourself and do what works for you without trying to shit on others.

I work because I don’t ever want my daughter to be trapped in a relationship she can’t leave. Working mothers breed working mothers.

I find small children pretty boring in large doses, and I don't think I'm particularly good with children. I get satisfaction from work, so better for me, and probably for them too, if I work and they get the variety that childcare adds to their lives.

I hated being a SAHM. I found it boring, lonely and I lost my sense of self. Even with getting out to various groups.

I love working for more than just money. It gives me satisfaction.

I couldn't have been paid enough to go back to work. I knew i wanted to be at home full time with them once they were here. I loved it, and im so glad i made that choice. But my job never defined who i was, so i didn't feel like i lost myself at all, i saw my friends the same and i just replaced my time at work with time with our DS it was brill.

Part time would be nice. But I couldn't do full time as a SAHM.

If money were no object I would have stayed at home with my kids until they were a round 6. After that I would have wanted to get in to some work or some form of regular engrossing activity.

I worked mainly in the evenings when they were young so would say I was a SAHM as well as working. However, I would have preferred not to have worked at all until they were at least at school. It's only a short time in your life and you don't get that time back. Unfortunately, everything needs paying for!!!

My brain would rot as SAHM. It would mentally be like confining a marathon runner to 5km. Mat leave was challenging, I had way too much time on my hands!

Well said.

I think it depends what you mean by 'financially stable', though. If that stability means reliance upon your partner then that's no good, in my opinion.

I agree. Being technically "financially stable" enough to give up work because your partner can cover you is a trap. It makes it much easier to slide into dependency. It's one thing to be dependent on your partner when you have two kids under three. It's quite another when you have teenagers. No woman should be dependent on a man for more than a decade.

If money had been no object I would probably have taken 18 months full maternity and then started working again 1-2 days a week and building in a day's volunteering or education. I went back at nine months and that felt a bit soon but I think beyond about two years you're at risk of slipping into being a permanent SAHM and that really wouldn't have worked for my mental health. I enjoy being with young children but I have to have lots of things going on or I get bored really quickly. I would have struggled with the idea of only being a mum.

@KievsOutTheOven

^Actually, ill cite a proper source showing that you are limiting your female children’s earning potential by staying at home with them; and are more likely to raise boys who turn into adults who don’t do their “fair share” at home (the subject of many a negative “useless men” post here and elsewhere): hbswk.hbs.edu/item/kids-benefit-from-having-a-working-mom^
so keep your judgey comments to yourself and do what works for you without trying to shit on others.
I work because I don’t ever want my daughter to be trapped in a relationship she can’t leave. Working mothers breed working mothers.

Thank you. Didn't take long for them to crawl out of the woodwork, did it?

Kids or not, I don’t think I’d do paid work if I was that independently wealthy - and I wouldn’t be making my husband work either!

If I had enough capital that investing it would generate an income equivalent to my current salary for life I’d be absolutely minted.

I’d never be a SAHM. It would be terrible for my mental health, and subsequently my family’s well-being. I chose to go back to work two days a week when kids were preschoolers, although I did have the personal income to stay at home if I wished. My worry was how easy it is to get out of the habit of working, losing confidence and the hassle of regaining my professional registration. I was also a more interesting, connected and patient person when our at work two days a week. My mum provided a day of childcare, a nanny the second, and we had a cleaner. It worked well for everyone and I’m pleased I never stopped working I’m a job I’ve always loved.

My mum was a working mum. I am not. We are different people living different lives, making our own choices. She brought me up well, I learned from her, and I will do the same for my daughter, just differently. My daughter will then make her own choices. It's nothing to do with how we are ' bred'.

Working mothers breed working mothers

Thats ridiculous and why the debate between SAHP and WOHP is so laughable.

Well, the Harvard research seems pretty definitive and its based on a pretty big sample. From the report:

"what this research says to us is that not only are you helping your family economically—and helping yourself professionally and emotionally if you have a job you love—but you're also helping your kids. So I think for both mothers and for fathers, working both inside and outside the home gives your kids a signal that contributions at home and at work are equally valuable, for both men and women. In short, it's good for your kids."

It can work either way though. My mum was a SAHM and hated it. She loved us but was bored, frustrated and financially trapped and was endlessly trying to relaunch her career and stumbling because she had been out of the workforce too long. If anything having a mother who hated at being at home made me even more determined that it wasn't going to happen to me.

My mum was a working mum and I'm a SAHM so bang goes that theory.

What has stuck though is the expectations on my husband. My dad was incredibly hands on. The only thing he didn't do was breastfeed us. He also did his fair share of household chores. Now a days he cooks more than mum does (and he is a really good cook)

From the moment I moved in with DH I was clear I wasn't doing it all and that adulting would be shared. What that has looked like has changed and evolved for sure. DH is very much an active parent and partner. I might be a SAHM but we work as a team together.

I hope my children see that and take that example forward as well.

Btw my daughter wants to be a doctor with a big house and a 100 million children. My son wants to be an engineering teacher and live in a flat and then stay home to raise his babies .....

@Awumminnscotland

Do you apply that to all aspects of parenting?

If what we do as parents makes no difference, might as well bung them in 'day care' eh?

I took voluntary redundancy when coming back from mat leave - my package was a years salary with no tax so I used that as a salary for just over a year, I did have to go back to work but I had a lovely time off with my son and he was able to go into a much more affordable preschool when I did - plus it was term time only so I saved a fortune.

@Twizbe

So you can see the obvious correlation with having a working mum and showing the benefits of equal parenting?

But you think the theory is worthless?

Anacdata doesn't trump data.

I think you may be deliberately misunderstanding.. I said I was brought up well by which I meant I was able to make my own choices and live the life I feel is my own. Being a well adjusted and independent person is very much a result of my parents' support and my upbringing.

@Awumminnscotland

But that is how we are 'bred'

So it does have something to do with it

Role modelling behaviour is important.