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 think as long as both parents are happy with the set up and it’s financially viable without relying on state help, then it is completely up to the individual household to decide what works for them.

You're being ridiculous. "Into care" is a very generic term that covers all ages from birth to elderly, including adults in need of support. If I'd meant care in the kind of context you are thinking, I'd have specified foster care. The only kind of 'into caring' I think about these days is when thinking of the future of my aging parents. And I have also used the terminology, 'if they have go to into care.' I guess, I should be more specific in case people think I'm going to put them into state care.

I agree it’s contributing but I could never say that being a mum is “work” 🙃

Single dads do this themselves all of the time though.

So do single mums and 2 parent families.

I don’t know any parents who hire people to do all of those things.

I do all those things as well, but I still recognise that a parent taking a financial hit to focus on spending as much time as possible in the vitally important early years is a good thing and should be celebrated!

My kids have!

@carshaker how much time do you actually need off to look after kids tho. I think DS has averaged maybe 1-2days a year (excluding time wasted to COVID) through primary school and some of those was because we felt sorry for him not a must stay home. He had 4 days with chicken pox before the nursery said if they looked scabbed they wouldn't be checking as most of the kids had it.

I don't think running a house is a job me and DH do maybe an hours work in the house a day max. It a lot to give up a career for a year as most kids are ready for the socialisation of nursery by age 2 which after a year maternity leave isn't a lot at all, in-fact a lot of people could make it 6 months with the family leave etc.

Mostly that is because women are expected to be everything for everyone. If a ball gets dropped, it's the woman's fault. If something is sub par (whereas at the same level a man is an exceptional parent for doing it) it's the woman's fault. A lot of us are expected to work like we don't have kids and parent like we don't work. Somehow ,somewhere we're still doing it wrong regardless. We're bombarded with negative judgements and statements even before that pee stick turns positive and it never stops. We're constantly having to justify ourselves, our choices,our circumstances, our worth. Be the best mum, partner, friend, worker, daughter ,sister,aunt etc. Resentment, envy , jealousy seep in. The realisation that it doesn't have to be like this it's a hard pill to swallow. The ability to allow yourself to let the ball drop is hard to develop. Putting yourself first(whatever for that takes) is mired in guilt and shame.

Fuck.That.

I think SAHM work hard, obviously some more than other but that's the same with working mothers. It's a huge range.
My view is firstly as women we need to own our choices more. It feels like you have to justify either working or not working because of finances. Most women claim they either can't work because of the cost of childcare or can't not work because of needing the money. I think it would be more empowering if we said this is a choice I am making that currently works best for my family.
Secondly I think we all need to move away from competing to have the hardest life. When did they became a brag? As a part time working mum I love working and having a change of while my child is in childcare. I also love my days at home. We make choices to make it work financially but it is important to be as happy as possible to raise children in a relaxed environment. If SAHMs get to do some nice things in the daytime good for them!

It’s not just SAHMs who can end up in a financially abusive relationship. I read threads on here all the time about women who are working but earn much less than their partners and are struggling to keep up with outgoings because of an unfair split of finances. They still end up strung up when their partner leaves them they discover they are unable to afford the mortgage and other essential bills on their single income.

Financially speaking, I’d rather be a married SAHM with fully equal and transparent access to all money in shared accounts, equal contributions to pensions and savings accounts etc in my own name, than in the sort of relationship described above.

There seems to be some kind of assumption on here that all SAHMs are just a bunch of downtrodden drudges, happy to accept whatever meagre scraps the man of the house might throw their way. Of course, women that are happy in fair and equal relationships with financially secure futures regardless of the outcome of their marriage don’t need to start threads on mumsnet so I can understand why the assumption is there.

Interested to hear what makes something 'work' in your eyes?

Are childminders working or not?

It is a financial contribution to the family in the sense that someone definitely needs to look after the children, and unless there is the option of free family childcare, then one of the parents has to do it or they have to pay someone else to do this.

But the extent to which families are likely to regard it as a financial contribution probably depends in large part on the earning capacity of the parent who stays at home. If the SAHP has relatively low earning potential, then the financial contribution made by staying at home is probably broadly comparable to going to work, because the cost of paying for childcare would offset whatever they could earn to the extent that there is little financial advantage in WOH.

If the SAHP is a higher earner, then the opportunity cost of staying at home with the children is much greater, and being a SAHP is effectively a cost for the family rather than a contribution. In some cases, the family might conclude that they think that cost is worth paying for, and that's fair enough - we all make decisions about how we want to spend our money. But the net effect is still that having a SAHP is still a drain on the family's financial resources rather than a contribution to them.

It's a balancing act and depends a lot on luck - how prone your kids are to getting ill and if you can get a part time job that is flexible enough that you don't lose it when the kids get a vomiting bug 3 days apart - first year in school for my eldest I think there were about 4 weeks in the 2 terms where both were at all planned childcare sessions due to fevers, vomiting etc. Would definitely have had to sacrifice one job to keep the other at that point. (TBF was year COVID hit so Jan- March was bad and hand washing lessons did get learned...). It's not like you can necessarily buy in childcare for that scenario (other than a nanny which is ££££ anyway and unlikely to be affordable after a career break!)

I restarted work in younger child's preschool year and got really lucky with a flexible hybrid role! And stayed lucky with most vomiting incidents being on one of our non-working days rather than earlier in the week, plus having got chickenpox out of the way in my SAHM days and close links between school and nursery meaning younger child had already had most school germs...

If kids have existing health issues or disabilities working quickly becomes impossible!

Most people want a bit more out of retirement than the state pension.

Do all the single working mums also buy in all those things? Or shock.horror they do it themselves?

As an aside , I don't do half that shit. I suppose I'm expendable?

I agree that it is also disturbing when finances are split 50-50, but the female partner does near to 100% of the unpaid labour and earns less in her role due to these responsibilities.

We need to invest in our kids, both as parents and a society. That means being the parents and society they need. That's going to mean different things to different people and it's a given that we'll get it wrong sometimes.

The problem is that fewer and fewer people can afford to live on one salary. It's not an ideal we should demonstrate to our kids if it's one that will be impossible for them to achieve. Most likely, they're going to have to work too.

If both parents work, it's more difficult to fit everything in. There's simply less time and you get more tired - working parents do it anyway. We owe them a debt of thanks.
Incidentally , I earned more and worked less hours so my DH was the SAHP.

Single Mothers do all of that PLUS work full time and in high powered jobs for some.

Aren't we actually just saying here that All Women are SuperWomen👏👸

I'll salute to that 😊

This is an incredibly short termist way of looking at it. If both parents stay in work their earning power in the future is higher.

@Q124

I'm not saying it's right for everyone, I'm saying it works for some families. If a man gave up his career to help his wife advance hers, would you have such a problem?

I was simply pointing out that being a SAHM can be a contribution to a husband's career too, not telling women to do it!!

“I do take issue though with your suggestion that being a SAHM is a 24 hr job as though being an employed mum isn't. I'm up very early with my children parenting, when they go to childcare/school and I'm working I am still doing parenting tasks and household tasks in breaks (the life admin stuff a lot of SAHM do), I do pick ups and dinners from scratch and am parenting and running the household around that. I'm waking in the night, caring for the family when they're ill etc. I don't outsource any of those life admin parenting and household tasks and they need to be done. Being a mum whether employed or not is a full on 24 hour thing. It's just in working hours, SAHM are at home and working mums aren't (or might be if WFH - some may even do most or all of the childcare and work when the kids are asleep or at school so fit their work around childcare).”

This. But, overall, I think both SAHPs and WOHPs bring different but equally valuable things to the family.

Why do we still do this to other woman? why is one more important then the other? why are we as woman our own worst enemies?

And can I just stop this myth that you can get a top up from UC if your a stay at home parent.
Only if you have children under 3 or you are unfit for work or a carer so let's put that to bed!

Be so much nicer if we could support each other and realise it's not a one thing fits all.

This just makes you look dim tbh. Do you think these things are essential to be able to have a job as well as children? Presumably single people with no kids need all that except the nanny - amazing anyone works at all

I think actually in this day and age men are expected to take time out for kids stuff too. I think where I work a bloke would be judged actually for not pulling his weight in this way.

I don’t know that many people who don’t work tbh - it’s fairly rare in this day and age, at least amongst the people I know.

Honestly, I think it’s fascinating that it hasn’t crossed your mind to say ‘oops, fair enough, poor choice of words on my part - very inflammatory connotations in the context of both children and this particular debate - obviously I meant childcare - etc etc’.