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 would love to live in a world where the mental health and family life of those in all careers are considered a priority. But sadly we don’t and we are nowhere near it. I suppose I could have pushed through it, and possibly become another statistic of the horrific veterinary suicide rates. But I’m not sure how that would have helped anything. Perhaps I’m simply a sub-standard human for not managing everything?

You are CEO so you are queen of your little kingdom and that’s great for your own employees. But you have no more power on your own than I do to effect change in other professions. You sound very idealistic and there’s nothing wrong with that - but just saying ‘why isn’t it possible’ is a bit simplistic.

I really hope things do improve for future cohorts, but my immediate concern now is my own family and I’m going to act in whatever way I think is best for us.

@Vergus

That's all about the parents putting themselves and work over the children

Has it occurred to you that some parents have to work in order for their children to eat?

Then your group is atypical. All research shows a massive disparity. According to the research, the only scenario in which men do anything near equal unpaid work to women is the SAHD/working mum set-up. So essentially dad does a 0.5 job, mum does 1.5 jobs.

We made decisions based on what was best for our DT’s - that included full time nursery, private education, lots of travel, sports (most weekends as well as after school), holiday clubs in the school holidays which related to their interests.

You get both sides looking down at each other.
sahp : oh I couldn’t let anyone else raise my dc I’m a full time parent.
erm so are the mums working, they don’t become young free and single at work.
then you have to working mums: I couldn’t rely on anyone else financially or I’d be bored to death at home.
I am lucky I’m self employed I get to do school runs and make dinners clean house, grocery shop and still make a good wage.
personally id love to be at home all the time. My wage is too high to drop it and I’m grateful for that.

Are single parents supposed to survive on fresh air then?

Sorry this is a bit of a tangent but it’s relevant to my household so I’m always interested. Why do SAHMs often say they insist on equal contributions to their own pensions? We looked into this for my (non working) DH and it’s wildly tax inefficient. I assume he’d get half my pension anyway if we divorced. In our case putting £100 into my pension costs the household £55 and putting it into DH’s costs £80. Am I missing something?

There is Mary Harrington's view of feminism which is that women can only work because of industrial modernity and it is an eternal negotiation.

There's no such thing as feminism, just freedom from housework because of home labour saving devices.
1920s women in the US spent an average of 60 hours a week doing housework so she's probably right,

( 26:00 )

That's your choice for your family and equally valid. When I was a SAHM, my kids got all those things except for the full time nursery. This was the arrangement that we felt was best for our own children.

I didn’t have any concerns about DH - he came to the UK for Uni so was use to managing for himself, I saw how his parents had raised him and his sister. We also lived together before getting married and having a family so if he hadn’t taken an equal share, the relationship would have ended.

Do all SAHM spend all their time with their children? No housework, browsinbb go on phones, coffee dates etc

The honest answer would be no

Sorry these days there is no reason for a woman to be a SAHP and childcare can be shared between two parents. It IS possible you have a successful career working part time. Meaning both can make a financial contribution to the family.

If you choose not to get any qualifications or work in a low paid role, that'sa choice you are making.

Sadly lot of relationships these days are not solid enough for one person to let go of their independence and earning power.

I’m so pleased for you and your exceptional parenting. You and your shallow and one dimensional attitude give a great example of why people are fed up with SAHMs thinking they are superior to working ones.

also, I’ve never not shown up for my kids. But bonus , I’ve also kept them in a great standard of living! Go me!

Says who?

Any sources for that?

Don’t most parents put their kids first?

and fact is, you don’t know if it’s been good for the kids.

plenty of kids growing up without a sahp will thrive. Some won’t. Some kids of sahp will thrive. Some won’t.

How do you quantity what portion of that is attributed working or not?

Working or staying at home, isn’t a measure of how successful someone will be as a parent.

Someone may work and blend up that obsessed with their job they become a shit parent. Or may be a better parent for it and ensure they engage with their child outside of work. You might be an amazing sahp. Or a crap one.

even when your kids are adults, you won’t know if the way they turned out was definitely down to parenting or working or anything’s because it’s a million different things that contribute. You do what you think is best for the whole family at the time.

or at least most people do. And if you don’t, you will be a poor parent wether working or not.

I have been a SAHP for 18 years (SEN), during which time I have project managed our house purchases, (adding funds from pre marital self-own property), and the renovations such that our main asset has accrued such value that should I divorce DH and take half, I’d still be set for the rest of my life. On this basis, I’d say that snarky comments about women who cannot/do not work as being a choice to be financially dependent and un-pensioned are really unwarranted and shortsighted. Marriage and raising a family is a team effort, from which both parties gain.

Being a SAHP has enabled me to be a main support for my SEN kids, obtain 3 degrees (PhD next year), support the man I love in the advancement of his own career, be actively engaged in our community, and enhance the value of our marital assets such that I am very financially secure on a personal level. It feels like the best of both worlds personally.

I recognise the contribution to family, I absolutely do, I also recognise that it's work. If you're the adult in the family doing the bulk of childcare and domestic tasks it's an awful lot of work, more than a full time job in many ways. But would I encourage my daughter to be a SAHP? No. For all the protections of marriage, or contributions that the working parent might make to the SAHPs pension etc, having no career or financial independence is a massive risk. If they're not married, it's madness. Noone wants to believe their partner will be a dick and leave them penniless and unable to earn decent money for themselves, when they're older and the hard part of childrearing is done (because unfortunately, that's when they're no longer as useful). But experience tells us that happens all too often. In an ideal world both parents would share child rearing and domestic tasks equally. It doesn't necessarily mean that both parents work full time and "outsource" childcare, it could be that both work part-time, or that each parent takes the career hit at different times. I do think younger people are more switched on with this, they recognise this, and there's more gender equality when they have babies. At least that's what I've noticed with my younger colleagues, and I hope it's a trend that continues.

If you work 2-3 days you love your child.
If you are a sahm you have no pride in yourself
If you work full time and put your child in nursery you are the lowest of the low (me)

Although I especially want to mention the parents who say 'I used to work in a nursery and I would NEVER put my children there'. That's always a helpful thing to read!

In my experience, the kids are not better off with SAHP than with working parents. It is solely down to the parenting, the quality of it, not the quantity.

After kids start school or care, SAHP are not really contributing.

I’m going to stay home until my child is at school full time because it’s best for my family. I couldn’t care less what anyone else thinks about it and I could care less what any other family does. I guess those who shout the loudest are possibly the ones who work but secretly wish they didn’t have too. Why else would they care what other women and families are doing 🤷🏻‍♀️

'Being a SAHP has enabled me to be a main support for my SEN kids, obtain 3 degrees (PhD next year), support the man I love in the advancement of his own career, be actively engaged in our community, and enhance the value of our marital assets such that I am very financially secure on a personal level. It feels like the best of both worlds personally'

You sound like you're writing a cv all that flowery lingo.

I've done both, wohp the hardest time management wise but far more rewarding, sahp mentally draining, boring but convenient and easy and obviously nice to see more of your kids. You do whichever suits your needs at any given time.

Totally disagree

The outcomes of children of working mothers Vs non-working has been studied. I believe the evidence points to daughters of working mothers earning more over their working lives than daughters whose mother's did not work. Those involved in the study did control for other factors, like family income, education levels etc, so it appears that the actual fact of having a working mother does have a positive impact. https://www.hbs.edu/news/articles/Pages/mcginn-working-mom.aspx

I got the family home outright and we didn't have much, if anything, in the way of other assets.

You think people choose not to get qualifications or to have a low paying job? Really?

Because it’s ‘women’s work’ and thus doesn’t count. Read Invisible Women for more examples. Carers are also ignored for the same reason.