Staying at home with kids IS a contribution and it is also WORK

[carshaker]

A lot of people don't respect a mum who's ' just at home '. Like she's not really contributing to the family.

The reality is though, that it's very much a big contribution, even if it's not financial.

If you took away the financial risk of staying home long term, what's the issue with it? Why is it considered by many ( especially women ), less than ?

If this is a woman's choice, what's the issue ?

I suppose because most women make a home AND go out to work for money.

Well no, they outsource their contribution at home to someone else who looks after their kids when they work.

Agree, and also the annoying terminology used at times 'full time mummy' 'I couldn't let someone else bring my child up' .

I'm a sahm and I agree. I know not everyone gets the option but for us personally it's so important I stay at home until youngest starts school. I do so much and dh respects that.

I agree that being at home with children is extremely valuable and important. I think being in an home environment with a loving, bonded caregiver the majority of the time is best for young children.

The issue, for me, is that statistically this is STILL nearly always a woman. We have taught our girls to aim for STEM careers but we haven't taught our boys to aim for caring ones. This perpetuates the undervaluing of caring roles across society, including unpaid roles, which remain feminine-coded... therefore making it harder for the next generation.

Also, you can't remove or ignore the financial risk in a capitalist society. You just can't.

If a woman is happy to not be financially independent or have their own pension then great. I do both - I 'manage a household' and earn good money. It feels like I have the best of both worlds personally.

This has been thrashed out on mn before op <understatement> 😄

Nobody is more than or less than. Everyone has the same number of hours in a day and the choices you have about how to spend them come down to your circumstances. No you can't "have it all" all the time, but you can make a decent job of having most things most of the time. The ways people achieve that and how happy they are with the outcomes vary widely.

As a SAHM I think everyone tries to make the best decision for themselves and their families based on their own situation.

Everyone gets defensive as people making different choices can feel like disagreement with their own personal choice.

There are pros and cons.

It is a financial contribution. The money she saves in childcare offsets the loss of her wage. The man isn’t “paying for everything”, she is saving the family money.

I was just about to say 'who thinks that? Only an absolute dickhead would think that.' Then read the first response.

Exactly !

Hmmm, no!! They might work and do all the kids and household things between them & their partner by condensing hours, being flexible, doing part time, working strange hours. They might spend weekends cleaning or evenings meal prepping, or might eat at 9pm because they’ve got all the kids sports to do.

it’s not a binary choice; work or kids. Plenty of people do both. It’s really really hard.

at the same time, I do think being a SAHM is a job; albeit a lovely job and definitely less busy than working IF the kids are in school/ nursery for some of the time.

Yup. Also, she's enabling her husband to work by taking care of the house and kids.

If he didn't have her, he wouldn't be able to work or he'd have to pay someone else to look after his kids and keep the household.

It's totally a contribution to the family.

AI generated froth bait

MNetters are generally far more respectful of choices that others make

It is one of those ‘debates’ which is used to undermine and devalue women, whatever they do. Enough said.

I am a SAHM and I don't care what people think/say to be honest.I fully respect that some people want to or need to work outside the home, but I agree with you that many appear bitter towards those of us who don't.

I've seen it time and time again on here, people wondering what you could possibly do with "all that time". Then in the next breath complaining that they have no time for anything.

I'm very happy in my life, my home is clean, our life is well organised and we eat healthy meals prepared from scratch. It may not be for everyone but I wouldn't have it any other way.

It is a contribution to the family but it’s not a financial contribution and it’s definitely not work!

I think it’s as much as a job when looking after children who are not at school. Once they’re at school, I would agree that lots of people work, don’t outsource anything and maintain a home.

I agree it’s definitely a big contribution and should be valued. I actually found it much easier to go back to work than be full time stay at home mum.

Of course it’s work. That’s like saying all childcare isn’t work. That being a cleaner isn’t work. That being a PA or Housekeeper isn’t work.

It isn’t paid but it is work.

I would much rather go out to work than stay home with children.

Being a full time house keeper/ cook / cleaner and mum is way more taxing and way more work, than having a full time job. For me anyway.

Also, you're on 24 hours a day. It's definitely work, in my opinion.

The thing is, there are numerous MN posts from women who are/were SAHMs and unfortunately are now separating from their OH and then realise they have no pension of their own, no income and half the assets (unless they'd not married).
I appreciate most people don't think this will ever happen to them but I know a few SAHMs who are trapped because they can't afford to leave. One is at home with 3 young kids, DH works offshore and spends his onshore time jetting away with his friends while she literally holds the baby. He knows she's trapped and he can do as he pleases. She has no idea about their finances. He pays the bills and she gets 'housekeeping' It's a hellish situation all round.

Within the next year or so all children over the age of 9 months old will be entitled to 30 hours a week free childcare so it’ll be interesting to see whether rationale for staying at home stays the same

When looking after preschool kids then it’s definitely work, when the kids are at school 6 hours a day then not so much

Of course it's a contribution, financial and otherwise.

I think it's a bit simplistic to say they're always enabling their DH's career - because the DHs I know with long hours who are very career focused were pretty 50/50 on having children at all, and would have fallen on the no side if they'd have had to do 50% or 100% of the juggling.