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 the main issue is that when either side feels "attacked" they retort to comebacks that are focused on devaluing their worth, be that financial or otherwise.

So you end up with the 2368384th thread where working mums are selfish, why did they even bother to have kids, their kids are abandoned/neglected/pawned off and SAHMs are lazy, boring, lack independence , have no sense of pride and rotting brains and so on.

That should sum up the next 50 pages.

In short , there's no worth in earning if you're not there for your kids, and there's no worth in being at home for your kids if you're not earning. On and on it goes.

Your attitude is a problem for women. (Especially since you've just said it to be goady, unkind, & horrid as it's untrue.) Since it is mostly women who are sahps. You are undervaluing their contribution. This handmaiden attitude panders to a patriarchal society.

What an interesting way to describe your husband. Outsourcing his contribution at home.

Because of course it’s not the case that you imagine caring for children is properly the role of women, right?

Nailed it.

I know several SAHMs of teen/uni age kids.
mostly they do all the enjoyable things that working people do on their days off or weekends!
It doesn't look a lot like work but presumably it works for their family and is mutually agreed by both partners. Yes I am.a bit envious, but ideally I'd still work pt, but not ft!

I also think that SAHMs often contribute massively to their husband's careers. By having everything at home taken care of, husband can work overtime, pour all his energy into his career = get promoted faster etc.

You are not contributing to society at all. What do you do all day while your kids are at school? My mum worked, I work. Out homes are spotless. So you can’t be cleaning all that time. You can do that in the evenings. I had home cooked meals every evening and so do my children so you can’t be meal planning all day as I can do that again in the evenings.

So again I ask. What are you doing all day that you can’t go out and work. If you have a rich husband then it’s fine but when you are asking the rest of us to top up your family income through universal credit it’s just not ok.

And no I don’t think I’m special. I like millions of other working parents just make it work. Our kids do well in school, have hobbies and are well adjusted humans who know that you have to go to work to get stuff.

Are you agreeing or calling me a dickhead? The OP asked for ideas WHY people thought that and I would say that’s probably the answer. I can’t of course tell you definitively why.

The big question is though.....
Why does anyone really care whether some is a "full time parent"/SAHP/Working parent or whatever.
Most people I know actually really don't care how others live their lives that much and don't even think about it - let alone judge.
Edit : which is essentially what the OP said 🙂

I agree most people just aren’t bothered if you go out to work or fill your time otherwise. Why would they?

This is where I am confused, I have 2 primary aged DC. DH and I work full time in demanding jobs. No cleaner. Kids do wrap around most days. My house is clean and tidy. Kids do clubs. I manage all the admin. If I didn't work I honestly can't think how I'd spend my days. The gym perhaps?

The older I get the more enraged I feel that the work women do in the home is unseen, unpaid and unappreciated. Pre schoolers need looking after full time which is a full on occupation. If you don’t do it you pay handsomely for someone else to.

No problem if SAHMs can afford to look after themselves and the kids financially if the relationship breaks down.

This. The personal is political. If equal numbers of men and women chose to be stay at home carers it would be a totally neutral choice, but it isn’t.

I also don’t think it creates an equal dynamic in a relationship. One person doing all the domestic stuff and the other all the financial heavy lifting is bound to cause resentment at points. Too often the men with SAH wives just opt out of any kind of parenting, perpetuating a lot of the ongoing issues with men as a class. It also really disadvantages women when kids are old enough not to need a SAHP, depending on the length of the time out of the workforce she can find herself really up shit creek financially if they separate or husband becomes ill and unable to work at the same level, for example. Not to mention loss of autonomy and purpose outside of the family. Not healthy in my opinion. The best solution is both parents working part time and sharing all duties as equally as possible.

If you took away the financial risk of staying home long term, what's the issue with it?

It’s a personal risk as much as a financial one, IMO. Long term you are deskilling yourself from the workforce, so you’re very dependent on one other person, the wage earner (man). No one can predict the future and so hedging your bets and not being in a vulnerable position is good sense.

Whilst DC are small staying at home is basically a straight swap for paying childcare and generally makes everyone in the family’s life a bit more pleasant (if you are temperamentally suited to being a SAHP, that is). Once DC are old enough not to need childcare it’s a choice that’s made you very vulnerable. And usually there’s a middle ground of still needing after school & holiday childcare but better to work despite the scheduling annoyances.

But being a SAHP isn’t morally superior and bring a WOHP isn’t morally superior . We’re all parenting and working (paid or domestic) in equal but different ways.

It depends on the specific woman. But I wouldn't judge any woman for making the choice that's right for her and her family.

If she's not got many qualifications or unusual skills or talents and if she worked outside the home she'd be doing relatively unskilled and lower paid things like care work or basic admin office jobs then the contribution from staying at home is 100% equivalent to the contribution that she might otherwise make by outsourcing home and children work to nursery.

If she's got huge potential for much more e.g. she'd qualified as a barrister or medic or become highly experienced in computer programming or architecture prior to starting a family then I would feel personally that it was a bit of a waste of her potential if she gave up a career like that to be a home maker. But it would be none of my business to tell her that unless she asked my opinion.

It partly depends on the circumstances. If you are in a family with a breadwinner partner and you can afford a good quality of life on one salary with absolutely no government benefits then that is very different to opting not to work at the tax payers expense l

I Lso want my girls (& son) to see a mummy with s career.

Agree strongly... I've done both. Both are hard, in very different ways. I have personally never been made to feel devalued by other women in either role. Quite the opposite in fact...

Not everyone does. Some of us work full time and do t have any childcare or other external help.

I don't lack respect for SAHM's.

I think working full-time and having kids is a treadmill and particularly if you have a husband who doesn't pull his weight, or if you're a single mum.

So I think some of the sniping towards SAHM's is the perception that somehow they have it easier. If the kids are school age, that may well be true, but looking after pre-schoolers is definitely a full-time job. I also don't like this tendency to snipe at anyone who you perceive has a little bit more than you, or has things a little bit easier than you.

I work part-time. We have four kids including a baby (she's nearly 1). DH also works PT - we fit our hours around each other and that works best for us.

We both work, if we wanted we wouldn’t need to use any childcare at all for our two year old or nine year old. Surely someone would need to be on a fairly low wage for their earnings to be equal to childcare costs.

This. I also think woken need to consider themselves more valuable than "enabling my husband to got out to work"

A lot of people don't respect a mum who's ' just at home '.

Who are these lot of people?

I do respect the concept of a SAHM. I don’t respect those who bleat on about it being as hard as being a working mum, or who consider themselves superior to working mums and try to put them down.

They might not be happy about it, some people literally have no choice.

It’s not work in the sense of paid employment, you can’t get sacked (well, unless you’re neglectful and SS get involved) you don’t ‘have’ to do anything like you do at work, one SAHM could live in squalor and plonk her kids in front of the TV all day and feed them crisps while another could give Mary Poppins a run for her money.