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.

Depending on how independently wealthy I was, my preference would be:

• Not working, but nanny to do the grunt work of parenting while I swanned around.
• Working, with nanny, to do the grunt work
• Shared care with DH, both working part time.
• SAHM
• Working, nursery to look after DC while I worked.

The last seems most exhausting and I probably wouldn’t do it if I was independently wealthy enough to not be worried about maintaining my earning power.

I too don't understand what you are asking or what the point is.
On some threads people say they would still work. Would I? I'm not sure. I worked part time while ds's in primary. I like my job. If I won huge millions on lottery and had my time again would I work? Probably not, I could find plenty to do to enjoy and fill my time. Plus I'd probably buy a couple of businesses to ensure future income, so I'd have a tiny amount of work making sure that all ran nicely.
But your question is pointless and doesn't majesty sense for most peoples RL situation.

I would be bored out of my mind if I wouldn’t have work

@KievsOutTheOven my phone is not letting me quote but in anwer to you. I will break down my explanation for you to understand. It may be in bits though.

I have not "interpreted" the study to miss the point. I read the actually study, and i have previously copied exactly what it stated from a relatively small number of people.

It stated it made no difference if a mother worked a couple of months in 14 years or 60 hours a week across 14 years, it was of benefit to the child.
How can you take that seriously to prove anything?

You believe, if me working 3 months when my child is say one years old, that makes a massive difference to their professional outcome in later life?? (Tosh)

Can you explain how you think this would make a difference?

It also states the role is irrelevant and the pay is irrelevant, so from that, i would think volunteering would have the same outcome.

@KievsOutTheOven
Oh and no i wont be going off to try and find data to try and make a whole load of women feel bad for their choices.
And as i dont believe you can generalise and its a personal case if it's better to have a SAHP or not, i wouldn't post something i don't believe.

There are lots of examples posted on the (millions) of different discussions about that.

I think it's interesting to look at what really wealthy women do - people like Pippa Middleton. They don't typically choose to work in a "proper" career but neither are they changing every nappy. They usually have a nanny and a creative or other intellectual interest outside the home.

I enjoy my career and I wouldn't want to be home full time but if I had millions in the bank, I would probably do what they do.

@MeinKraft

I don't think women working full time is a modern invention at all

Women have always worked. I also can't think of any reason why in a 2 person family only 1 of them should work

What is a modern (and sexist) invention is that the parenting ideal involves women sacrificing everything to martyr themselves to their children and the idea that children need to be indulged and entertained and supervised 24/7 until 18 years old.

It's not my ideal and I don't agree it's 1 the govt should fund

@ilovemyspace

I have children. I have a maternal bond. I even, gasp, love and raise my children.

I still manage to be fully committed to my career and think its absolutely worth while

Does your oh think his career / job is more important and worthwhile than loving and raising his children?

I have actually already explained this, several times on this thread, and actually, other SAHM’s have agreed with me.

If you grow up in a house where the mother prioritises spending time at home with the children and keeping a home over a career, that becomes your “norm”

If you grow up in a house where the division of labour in the house (childcare and cleaning) is even, and the woman prioritises working outside the house in some way (even part-time) then that becomes your “norm”

If you are brought up in a happy household (of either kind) you will likely want to repeat your own upbringing with your own children. There are likely to be equal numbers of happy households in each of the above camps.

It would be interesting to see if boys of SAHD’s were more likely to earn less, actually! And it would be interesting to see someone graph the number of hours worked by mums (or salaries earned by mums) with the salaries of their daughter. I’d imagine they’d find a direct correlation.

Some of this is not exactly rocket science to draw out conclusions from:

• working mums are likely to bring more money into a household overall than a household with only one income; therefore they may be able to afford their child to attend private school/live in an area with better schools/afford tutors
• working mums may be more likely to be degree educated and be “career orientated” than stay at home mums ((www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/05/07/opting-out-about-10-of-highly-educated-moms-are-staying-at-home/) - it’s well documented that children of degree educated parents are more likely to go to uni than children of parents without degrees - and it’s also well documented that those who have degrees are more likely to become higher earners than those who don’t have a degree.
• working mums may be able to afford more activities and extra curricular activities for their children; such as sports and instruments; and these are also correlated with higher academic success. Higher scene of success is correlated with higher earning potential. (files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1208711.pdf )

I don’t think that being a SAHM is necessary bad for girls - there are undoubted benefits to having a parent at home. However, I would not want my daughter to be a SAHP unless she was independently wealthy enough to not rely on her partners salary to do so; as I believe it makes women vulnerable and have to stay in unhappy relationships.

If you read back a few pages you’ll see me discuss this at length with a SAHM who agrees with me.

And it’s not at all a dig at SAHM’s. However, statistically speaking my daughter is more likely to earn more money now than if I stayed at home. It’s a fact. Does it mean she’s happier? Not necessarily. Will she be wealthy? Maybe, maybe not, but there is more chance she will be. And, sad as it may be, this means she’s more likely to have a longer, healthier life.

So I find this quite interesting because I don’t think I would but I wouldn’t do my current job. My husband earns enough that I could have chosen to be a sahm but haven’t. There have been times that the juggle has been so hard but I have had intellectual stimulation and I think mine have genuinely benefited from nursery from about 2.

so…. With unlimited money, I would be at home with them until 2 and then whatever I was doing would look to do some nursery from that age while making sure I was also doing something for me whether that be study, volunteering etc. school she actually feels the killer when working. I would love to be around more to pop in for all of the random assemblies, do more with the PTA etc, do play dates after school etc.

I wouldn't have chosen it. Part time work felt like the optimum balance. We could've lived off one income actually, though I realise this is very different from independent wealth.

Also I think DH and I would probably have chosen 1 x FT and 1 x SAHP over 2 x FT, while we're on the general topic. Neither of us has ever been keen on the idea of both being full time with kids.

No. I enjoy my work. It’s meaningful and of value. It takes 15 or so years to be qualified.

it’s not unusual to me to have two incomes because I come from a working class family in which women have always worked - it was simply impossible not to do so. The middle-class invention of a stay at home parent was a status symbol that was only dreamt up a few hundred years ago.

I think the more interesting experiment would be raising women to expect they’d fund themselves throughout their lives. I’m always surprised by how many women post who worked for a decade or more before having children but never decided to get any qualifications or improve their ability to support themselves.

@KievsOutTheOven

The same study shows boys earning potential /employment isn't influenced by having a working mum but their attitudes are.

They are more likely to be a more equal parent/believe in equality

hbswk.hbs.edu/item/kids-of-working-moms-grow-into-happy-adults

I know it will be dismissed as tosh but that's what the study showed

@MissTrip82

think the more interesting experiment would be raising women to expect they’d fund themselves throughout their lives

Exactly

Yeah, I saw that - I was wondering specifically about the earning potential of sons of SAHD’s though. I reckon research would probably show they are less likely to be high earners?

My mum worked full-time and my dad worked part-time when I was growing up; and that’s now exactly what happens in my family (although I’m temporarily also part time but with a full-time contract) so I definitely do see the study results playing out in my own family. I hope my son is as hands on as my partner and my own dad!

I hope it would also include raising boys to expect to do their equal share of unpaid caring labour.

I can only find research on parents with lower incomes having a directly negative affect on outcomes for children

But that's not to say sahd partners aren't higher earners

@BashirWithTheGoodBeard

Absolutely

I’d imagine most partners of SAHD’s would be higher earners - when my partner became a SAHD I earned more than him (although he got a very generous redundancy package so although he was a SAHD; we had significant savings to live off too)

I would love to stay at home. To be able to do all the household stuff while he was at preschool so I could actually enjoy him when he's home would be a dream.

@MeinKraft

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.

Where to start: firstly the premise is inaccurate. Throughout most of history women, with the exception of wealthy women, worked because they had to. It's only really a 30-40 year period after the end of WW2 when it became normalised for middle class women not to work. If anything the situation we are in now, where more women work than don't work, is more regression to normal than the 1950s model of a FT breadwinner and FT housewife.

Also you say one parent "should" be paid enough: who decides who "should" be paid anything? This is a factor of the economic situation of the day and the current one dictates that, certainly in large cities, few households can sustain having one breadwinner.

Finally, and most importantly: the key problem with having one parent support the whole family is that the whole family is then dependent on that one parent. If that one parent dies, or gets bored and runs off with another woman or just dicks around and doesn't pull his weight then the whole family gets dragged under by this. (And this is deliberately gendered because it is usually a man). It's a huge financial gamble for the dependent person.

The central question is whether any marginal, short-term benefits to children from having a parent at home FT outweigh the benefits to the whole family of the woman having financial security and greater authority within the household. And that's before you get onto the benefits being argued here about whether a working mother is a better role model than a SAHM.

Personally I think the benefits of having a woman work vastly outweigh those of having a woman at home for a couple more years when the children are small. I realise that there are plenty of very good reasons why women choose to remain at home and that is absolutely their choice.

But arguing that all families "should" be set up with a single breadwinner structure as if it was an open and shut case and the argument had been one is pretty specious.

I have actually already explained this, several times on this thread, and actually, other SAHM’s have agreed with me

No, you actually haven't. You have not answered my question, which relates to the research you cited as relevant.

How is working out of the home for 3 months when a child is, say, 1 years old? How does that help form their professional career ??

If you grow up in a house where the mother prioritises spending time at home with the children and keeping a home over a career, that becomes your “norm”

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?

If you grow up in a house where the division of labour in the house (childcare and cleaning) is even, and the woman prioritises working outside the house in some way (even part-time) then that becomes your “norm”

The study you provided shown that out of the small group they used, working women still did nearly double the chores a man did when they were both working full time, so that doesn't show that it is showing our young women anything. You can be a SAHP and still divide chores, the DH can still pull his fair share of weight with a SAHM there. As most i know do.

If you are brought up in a happy household (of either kind) you will likely want to repeat your own upbringing with your own children. There are likely to be equal numbers of happy households in each of the above camps

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)

And it would be interesting to see someone graph the number of hours worked by mums (or salaries earned by mums) with the salaries of their daughter. I’d imagine they’d find a direct correlation

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

Some of this is not exactly rocket science to draw out conclusions from:

working mums are likely to bring more money into a household overall than a household with only one income; therefore they may be able to afford their child to attend private school/live in an area with better schools/afford tutors

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.

working mums may be more likely to be degree educated and be “career orientated” than stay at home mums (( www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/05/07/opting-out-about-10-of-highly-educated-moms-are-staying-at-home/) - it’s well documented that children of degree educated parents are more likely to go to uni than children of parents without degrees - and it’s also well documented that those who have degrees are more likely to become higher earners than those who don’t have a degree

working mums may be able to afford more activities and extra curricular activities for their children; such as sports and instruments; and these are also correlated with higher academic success. Higher scene of success is correlated with higher earning potential. ( files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1208711.pdf )

Yes, a household with a lot of money for extra curricular activitues im sure would help broaden a childs horizon but again this is just about money and income. Not mother working specific.
Your examples are just proving the child of an educated household with disposable income is more likely to do better, we all know this. So in those circumstances by your theory of examples here , all you need is money to be successful.

I don’t think that being a SAHM is necessary bad for girls - there are undoubted benefits to having a parent at home. However, I would not want my daughter to be a SAHP unless she was independently wealthy enough to not rely on her partners salary to do so; as I believe it makes women vulnerable and have to stay in unhappy relationships

Haha, isnt "necessarily" Of course it isnt, for the right SAHM. A SAHM can instil exactly the same as a working mum into their kids the same as a working mum can have exactly the same "bond" with a child as a SAHM (as other mothers rave on about)

If you read back a few pages you’ll see me discuss this at length with a SAHM who agrees with me

I dont doubt you will have some that agree and some that dont, thats life and its great we all have an opinion, judgment how ever is very unhealthy and for women to drag eachother down for their choices is a disgrace.

And it’s not at all a dig at SAHM’s.
However, statistically speaking my daughter is more likely to earn more money now than if I stayed at home. It’s a fact. Does it mean she’s happier? Not necessarily. Will she be wealthy? Maybe, maybe not, but there is more chance she will be. And, sad as it may be, this means she’s more likely to have a longer, healthier life.

Of course its not a dig at SAHM as that would be vile.
(Yes as your study shows, 3 months at the local shop and your daugher will be a high earner )

The best way to get a well-balanced, kind, successful, happy child is by having well-balanced, kind, happy, and fulfilled parents(who aren't sinking financially). And that comes in many different forms. The sooner all women realise this, the better and stop pitting each other against each other, the better.

So much defensiveness on this thread. Some people need to ask themselves exactly WHO they are repeatedly trying to convince. It very much reads as if they are trying to convince themselves, to be honest. As for "the evidence" - you can find evidence to support any inclination.

As if a "good role model" is dependent on going to work or not. If you are working and miserable, is that a good role model? If you are a SAHM and miserable, is that a good role model?

Surely a good role model is a decent person? Not how many hours you work ffs.

@musos

The reason why people are defensive, on both sides of this debate, is precisely because most women don't have a choice. They either have to work or can't work because work doesn't make financial sense for their family. In most scenarios there is sound logic for women doing what they do with respect to work and childcare but also a strong undercurrent of emotional guilt which inclines them to justify what they do.

When you have a decision that impacts your children's welfare (arguably the most important thing in women's lives) forced on you by economic and social structures you can't control it's extremely emotionally triggering.

When research is produced that appears either to justify your case or refute it you tend to want to jump on it. I know I have done this. And although this particular study seems robust enough to me, the bottom line is that there isn't really a settled consensus about the impact of childcare on children. In more than 40 years of handwringing over this no one has produced any definitive evidence that working mothers are overall bad for children. There are nuances and special cases and extremes. But there's been no silver bullet study that shows the children of working mums underachieve at school or are more likely to suffer mental illness etc. The body of evidence just isn't there to make this case.

From my perspective: I'm a single parent and I have always had to work. There's never been any question of me taking time out to look after my child. I do bring bias to the table here and I will acknowledge that, but I can also see many women who remain at home with their children lead extremely productive lives and are good role models. And working parents owe it to SAHMs not to belittle them to shore up their own position.

But when people pop up onto chat threads and say "daycare is bad for children, end of", or "there should only be one breadwinner" or "I don't understand people who have children just to leave them in childcare", then hell yes I get defensive. Because some random on the internet is judging the way I support my child, based on no proper evidence, when I have no choice in the matter. And I will continue to get defensive about this. Sorry if it's a derail, but you asked.

“No, you actually haven't. You have not answered my question, which relates to the research you cited as relevant.

How is working out of the home for 3 months when a child is, say, 1 years old? How does that help form their professional career ??”

Firstly, it doesn’t have to be a “professional career” - 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, 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 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.

”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?

”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!

“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.

You are unwittingly proving my point though - many, many SAHM’s are relying on their husbands for survival. And that is dangerous, as it can lead to them not being able to leave unhappy relationships. 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.