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 ?

Because feminism was invented by men.
Women you can have it all mesning women you can do it all
If you can't do it all you are substandard.

Exactly and why should anybody else's opinion matter? It's none of their business.

At a societal level I agree with incentives allowing a parents to stay at home until kids are a certain age (4-5) but not beyond that. And there should be choice, depending on what parents want.

What respect do you want for them? When I was a SAHM I didnt need anyones respect, I just went about my day. What is it you want for them? Gushing posts on here about how amazing they are?

People argue on posts like this because both sides get tit for tat. Comments like SAHM is harder, on duty 24/7. It's gets people's backs up. Every single situation is different, so what's harder to one person could be a dream to someone else.

Are you fucking joking - it’s definitely not work?? I invite you to look after my 19 month old and do the chores etc. etc. etc.etc. in my house for a day and tell me it’s not work 😡

No I am sorry any parent that works but doesn’t pull their weight in their own days off, even if here’s an sahp are poor parents and partners.

Obviously, there’s societal issues. But individuals can choose to act differently.

and at no point did I blame the one whose partner is shit.

Though even if the brain surgeon can do more and his wife (or her husband) has a "lesser" career, then their goals in that "lesser" career are just as important as their spouses. And if the brain surgeon breaks up with their spouse, then shouldn't the other have had the opportunity to become self-supporting and not start on the back foot without having had that opportunity?

As you earn 'good' money then it is the best of both worlds

For those on min wage, not so much

Legally speaking, a SAHM is contributing to the welfare of the family by providing child care and homemaking. This freed the family from having other expenses they would have if she was working like childcare. Having been a working woman and a SAHM, I had a more relaxed life when I was working but at the same time much less flexibility to adapt to the relentless traveling for work my exH’s career demanded.

Legally speaking, a SAHM is contributing, I agree with this but also agree that becoming a SAHM may be one of the most idiotic decisions I have taken myself: it destroyed my career, ended my financial independence, not having an income created an imbalance of power in my relationship and when it all went pear shaped, I was left holding the baby with no other support from him than 15% of his income AFTER taxes, which obviously was not enough to provide for his son in the way I could have had if I had kept my career.

But law saved me, if being a SAHM was ignored as a contribution, I would have raised DS living under a bridge, so at least I got enough equity from the house to keep us from living under a bridge while I was working in low paid jobs that allowed me to pick up DS before the nursery closed for the day.

I agree, but I'm not so sure that the "average" man would achieve what he does at work without female facilitation. Many mediocre men are facilitated not just at home but at work by women. There is a body of research into office gender dynamics showing this.

Why shouldn't it be possible? Why do we expect doctors to work themselves into the ground etc? Are we really not capable of re-imagining the workplace to do things differently?

Yes, some jobs will always be stressful- dealing with high stakes, life/death situations, vulnerable people etc. Some jobs will be inherently less flexible than others because of the nature of what involve. But we're on a hiding to nothing if we just shrug and say, oh well, the people in those jobs will just have to work crazy hours and smash their mental health etc because that's how things are and nothing can be done.

I worked full time, as did DH. We looked after DT’s when they weren’t at nursery/school and ran the home.

Birthing and raising children is a pretty fucking essential job for the continuation of the human race - if not THE most important job. And yet we are still in an age where its mostly about your status in a terms of your position at work and your earning power which is a very male way of seeing and perceiving the world IMHO.

Women do the most important role and yet we're not recognised for it. A SAHM is a powerful contributor to society. More powerful than a load of middle-aged men in suits talking over each other in endless board meetings to see whose ego can shout the loudest. I think the men know that deep down.

How old are the children?
You can't work full time (in normal working hours) with babies and toddlers
What happens with school-age children in the holidays and after school?

That’s parenting. Thats what you sign up for when you have a baby!

many , many people do this AND a full time job.

No one cares

they only care when deliberate remarks are made to make a dig like I’m a full time mummy 🙄 or I would get so bored at home 🙄

Do you say the same about men who work? Are the outsourcing their contribution at home? Or is it just women you think that about because they should be at home so it’s their job and of course the big man goes out to work, home as nothing to do with him 🤨

But this then becomes about asking what's best for society, the family or the individual.

It's better for society that the surgeon maximises their productivity. They have the shortage skill that can't be easily replaced. It is likely that less operations will happen if the surgeon works less hours. WH Smith can easily replace their workers.

The family unit will almost definitely be financially better off if the surgeon works more.

When you view it from the individual perspective then I agree that the enabling partner (the WH Smith worker) takes on the risk. Of course they can be better protected through private arrangements as a family or through legislation though.

So women who cannot or choose not to do this most important role of the human race are of no account?

Choose a partner who has equally good standards as yourself. I would never have had a family with DH if I hadn’t known that he did an equal share of running the home. We raised our family jointly - both did night feeds, cooked meals, did the laundry, did nursery and school drop offs, time off work when DC’s were sick.
Women need to have higher expectations and standards in their partner

Actually laughing at the PP (can't find the post) who suggested there's only an hour worth of housework to do per day.

No clubs or childminders beyond clubs that I have to go sit & watch at, and scouts once a week. Obviously they go to school but that’s education not outsourcing. I don’t pay anyone to do anything. Obviously many do, but my finances don’t currently allow for that, I wish they did.

I work flexible hours, so I work evenings and weekends, and DH does his share of taking time off over school holidays and does his fair share of the housework.

It’s brutal and I had way much more spare time when I was a SAHM. I genuinely don’t recommend living like this, I’d love to outsource some housework and dog walking, but it’s the only way I can build a better future for my children.

Most use childcare. Have you considered that being an involved, engaged caregiver involves work? I honestly wonder about some poster's standard of parenting and work if they think they can work FT in paid employment whilst simultaneously caring for a toddler FT.

And a lot of people who cite ‘not being any better off’ are not in the position you describe.

What if the spouse works in another useful or shortage area?

I think marriages for people who work intensively are challenged enough, so very important for the other half to maintain their employability in case it falls apart.

It won't do anything to help marriages if someone is devalued by society because their spouse is seen as more important to society. It won't help society if this creates mental health problems in the spouse and more hands on parent because they aren't getting their own needs met, feel devalued, or just are depressed about losing their own career potential.

I make the best decision for my family regardless of what society would prefer. They will always come first. I am well qualified in a critical shortage area but, if my children need more more, they'll just have to deal with it.

I don’t understand the extremes on these threads.

Plenty of working parents also spend lots of time with their kids. Even those with ‘bigs jobs’. If fact, often, the bigger the job the more flexibility you have and the more resources you have to buy time back. We even manage to cook healthy food and keep up with laundry and housework. Even when a single parent.

Plenty of sahp use nursery. Most kids, eventually, go to school. of course some sahp don’t ever get a break. But loads do.

The Need for some people to make out working parents must not be able to spend time with their kids or that sahp never use child care is weird.