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.

With all due respect, are all studies a “pile of tosh” to you?

The earlier posters mummy blogger “study” even said that the most impact was during the parents first year; and is assuming the use of “daycare” rather than more individualised care like a family member, nanny, or so on. And given that the vast majority of British working mothers take close to a year off for maternity leave; again it’s largely irrelevant.

Work.

It's more than finances for me. I worked hard to get to where I am in my career, I love what I do and it's good for my mental health.

DS is 3 months and I've recently returned to work. I already feel much more like 'me' as opposed to just 'DS mum'.

With all due respect, are all studies a “pile of tosh” to you?

Not all,No. But the ones i see cited on here are, yes. And the other ones i have seen cited to try and "prove" which is better SAHP or WOHP, yes, all tosh.

And what is your basis for deciding if a study - carried out by one of the largest academic institutions in the world - is “tosh” or not?

If you actually read my posts properly you’d see I don’t actually care; I only cited the study as a rebuttal to the pp who was throwing shade on working mothers.

The earlier posters mummy blogger “study” even said that the most impact was during the parents first year; and is assuming the use of “daycare” rather than more individualised care like a family member, nanny, or so on. And given that the vast majority of British working mothers take close to a year off for maternity leave; again it’s largely irrelevant

But the "study" you cited was drawn on some of the information collated from 20 years ago.
It was also drawn stating that it classed a working mum as someone who worked a 60 hour week the same as a woman who worked a couple of months of one year of a childs life up until the age of 14, the same. It stated it had no relevance to earnings, status or job role. Tosh.

You completely missed the point of the study. The mere act of the mother going out to work and having work aspirations is beneficial, even if the mother does not have a well-paying job/career. They are ALL beneficial.

What credentials do you have which means you are qualified to cite academic literature as “tosh”?

And what is your basis for deciding if a study - carried out by one of the largest academic institutions in the world - is “tosh” or not?

It credibility in content amongst one of the things, but my deciphering of tosh or not in general is not the debate here. I have told you twice now why i dont think the one you posted is credible.

If you actually read my posts properly you’d see I don’t actually care; I only cited the study as a rebuttal to the pp who was throwing shade on working mothers

I have read your posts properly and replied accordingly if you check back.
Stating that you have replied to a post, you felt unfair on a huge group of women by citing one that was unfair on another group of women - crazy really.

Always want to work even if part time. Got two girls and think that it is important.

“credibility in content” - something is not discredited just because you disagree with it. You can’t claim something is “gosh” just because you don’t like it.

Ans no, it wasn’t being “unfair” - I provided a peer reviewed article that directly disproved the pp.

It is proven that there is a correlation with higher earnings among daughters of women who work in any capacity. Is this true or not? Statistically speaking?

I would have gone absolutely mental with boredom if stuck at home every day with my children ..love them to bits but I need adult company and conversation to stay sane !

I ADORED being at home with mine - and have managed to raise two well adjusted and happy young people.
I don't have a career now though - just a part time job I don't much like. So at nearly 50 I realise that I did sacrifice something for them.

You completely missed the point of the study
No, I havent interpreted the point I read the actually study and what it was seen to "prove". And lt was nonsense and if anything proved it was irrelevant on the outcome how much a woman worked. But I've shown that below.

The mere act of the mother going out to work and having work aspirations is beneficial, even if the mother does not have a well-paying job/career

You may believe that it is more beneficial for you, your family and your kids and thats a very valid opinion, just dont cite tosh to try and prove it or combat other tosh.

Others believe that being at home and spending all that time with their child is more beneficial as you can instil a good work ethic in your kids and be a SAHP.

What credentials do you have, which means you are qualified to cite academic literature as “tosh”?

Common sense, the ability to read and dechipher said acedemic literature and objectivity.
Just because it has a certain name put to it doesn't mean they are always correct. You need to be able see past that sometimes.

I don't think there are any wrong choices. Working 2-3 days a week is probably the sweet spot though.

I would rather sit on a cactus. 🌵 and stay sat on it for decades.

I'd be a SAHM no question. But I'd still put them in nursery once or twice a week because I think being exposed to that structure/atmosphere is hugely important. And also I'd need that day or two as a break from going mental, even if it's just to catch up with housework etc.

Mothers going to work full time is an incredibly modern invention. One parent should be paid enough to be able to support their family, perhaps with a small contribution from the other parent.

“No, I havent interpreted the point I read the actually study and what it was seen to "prove". And lt was nonsense and if anything proved it was irrelevant on the outcome how much a woman worked. But I've shown that below.”

I'm not sure if this is riddled with typos or not but it makes no sense.

“You may believe that it is more beneficial for you, your family and your kids and thats a very valid opinion, just dont cite tosh to try and prove it or combat other tosh.

Others believe that being at home and spending all that time with their child is more beneficial as you can instil a good work ethic in your kids and be a SAHP”

Its not tosh. It’s a peer reviewed study. They tracked the outcomes of real people and found that female offspring of working mother were more likely to work than those of SAHM’s; and those who did work were more likely to earn more than working daughters of SAHM’s. The data is there and it’s real. It’s a fact.

“Common sense, the ability to read and dechipher said acedemic literature and objectivity.
Just because it has a certain name put to it doesn't mean they are always correct. You need to be able see past that sometimes.”

Again, there is factual data there to back up their findings. I’d be interested for you to show me peer reviewed literature which disproves it.

It's a good thing that mothers now have more choices and are able to go to work. Paying mothers to stay at home (because of course it would be majority mothers) would be a step backwards.

If someone wants to be a SAHP, they shouldn't expect the government to fund it for them.

Yes, and mothers being able to leave unhappy marriages without leaving themselves destitute is also a modern invention. Being a SAHP leaves one person vulnerable (regardless of whether it is the mother or father) unless you are very proactive in taking steps to protect yourself, or independently wealthy.

That being said I do think statutory maternity leave should be more generous, to allow mothers on a higher income to afford to take the whole year off. I think it should be more proportionate to your own salary (and therefore how much tax you contribute) rather than a flat fee. My maternity pay was less than 1/4 of my gross pay, and I only got 13 weeks at 90% of my pay from my employer.

If it was at all possible yes I would. This is because it would be the right choice for my family and our circumstances.

I am a trained nursery worker so am confident in the early years being able to provide the same care and activities they would have gotten at a nursery. I would still make the effort to sign up to enough age appropriate activities so they get to play with children their age.

If I could still afford it once they go to school I would choose to still be a SAHP so I could be active in their school volunteering where possible so I can play a active role of their education and also plan lessons/activities to do outside of school. That is what my mother did and I do think it benefitted me greatly and is something I would like to provide for my children.

I'd also like to see a more generous leave for fathers too. I feel like a reason why the mother can often become the 'go to' parent even if she isn't a SAHM is because it is easy for that to happen if she takes the whole year off.

@OheeOheeOh I wouldn't, I spent far too many years at uni/training to do my job to just have children and sit at home all day. I wonder how many people who answer yes have left successful careers to be a SAHM? The ones I know didn't have a career to leave, they just married well and live off their husband's. If they hadn't they'd be working in a minimum wage job somewhere. I think that's the thing here, if you don't have a career but have money of course you'll stay at home. If you have a career you worked hard to achieve you'll be less likely to leave it to be a SAHM.
The way you've phrased this it sounds a bit simplistic and patronising.
Do you actually have children? And, therefore, have you felt a maternal bond?
Do you consider having a career to be more important and worthwhile than loving and raising children?
No problem if you do - just don't be patronising about women who want to stay at home and look after the children they've decided to have,

Yeah. I’m lucky that my partner took off nearly as long as I did; a combo of paternity leave, holidays, unpaid leave, and shared parental leave. We were only able to do this as we were ttc for quite a while so had a chance to save.

Maybe a way to do it would be to pay 50% of each parents normal salary for 18 months, and allow the parents to decide who gets what. So they can take 9m together, they can take 6m together and mum take a further 6, they can do 9 each, or whatever. Given our crippling issues with a declining working population and an increasing aging population; we need to do something.

I voted YABU because I wouldn't enjoy being SAHM full time. So out of the two options, I'd choose work. But I'm lucky I work remotely so that saves me almost 15 hours commute.
My ideal scenario would be both me and husband work part time, say 3 days a week, children are in childcare for 4 days, so we're free to do whatever we want for a day. Then 3 days weekend together.
When I was on mat leave with my first I thought I wouldn't want to work afterwards, but I decided to wait and see. Turns out it gave me the right balance. My children are thriving and I'm happy and we're still really close.