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 ?

Dont work if you don’t want to work I have no problem with this but you’re delusional if you think your middle management husband actually needs you to iron his shirts and cook dinner every night to keep the lights on. He chooses to maintain the convenient fiction because he doesn’t want to take on more of the domestic duties.

My husband runs two businesses and is away 2/3 days a week. He simply wouldn't be able to do that without me being a stay at home mum.

Working parents bring their kids up.

Single parents who work bring their kids up.

Do you wonder who is bringing school age children up?

That's you. My DH literally couldn't have done those things or cared for three preschoolers at once. There are reasons for this but I didn't know any of it before we had a family together. If he'd been a single father he'd have needed a lot of help to do it. His career is only where it is because he had me to pick up the family side of things. He could have done the career thing, of course, but not with having to take responsibility for the children to an equal extent.

Well no, they outsource their contribution at home to someone else who looks after their kids when they work
That’s a very outdated and narrow view, particularly in this day and age of flexible working! DH and I had kids long before any of this, and due to the nature of work, no wfh. But we both worked full time and had the kids between us full time by working opposite shifts/days. We were not against ‘outsourcing’ care, it was simply an opportunity to save on expensive childcare costs. Similarly, we didn’t have a housekeeper but did all of that ourselves (exception being yard and pool maintenance), and we cooked from scratch, no processed foods.

Admittedly, DH had to make a sideways and downwards move to a job with 24/7 requirements to make this feasible and while it took the better part of a decade to swap and get back to where he would have been after kids started school, we still came out waayyyy in front doing it this way. I also waited until I’d paid my dues and got to a position where I could pretty much dictate my roster as opposed to having them younger and then bitching that the world is not revolving around me because ‘children’ as so many do now.

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

Agree and disagree with that. Absolutely preferred working than staying at home with kids even though I found work much harder. Was VERY glad to tag team DH as he came through the door so I could head off to work. It’s not that the ‘work’ with young children was hard (and I say that as having some including one with SEN and one disabled who was a LOT of physical work when young). It was just that the type of ‘work’ at home was not really mentally fulfilling. Also, I probably had more grown adults at work throwing weirder tantrums or being difficult than the best any toddler/little person can manage but at least I got to think at work whereas I found the work at home very rote/mechanical/dull, and let’s face it, young kids are hardly great conversationalists🤣. I really take my hat off to anyone who CAN do it and not escape to a job.

@DallasCC it's not work. It's looking after yourself and your home.

It's your life, do whatever makes you happy.

I think most people don't care.

If you split up he'd still be able to run his businesses ? Would you still be able to be a SAHM? See the difference?

I'm a single parent. I bring my child up and work as well. Having a SAHP has never been common in working class circles, my mother, grandmother and great grandmother worked. FYI my DS is not unruly, has just left school with top marks predicted in GCSE and plans to do a medical degree. Unruly kids is more to do with poverty and socioeconomic issues, not having a SAHP.

@Strawberrycheesecake7

I completely agree. I’m a SAHM and I’m sick of being treated like I’m lazy and don’t contribute. First of all we’d spend a lot of money on childcare if I did work, so I do contribute financially. And secondly I work constantly looking after my son and never have a break. He’s literally napping on me right now otherwise I wouldn’t have time to answer this question. I’m working the hardest I’ve ever worked in my life and I’m definitely not lazy.

Well done for doing what you do - I felt the same when I was SAHM with my babies. I’ve never worked as hard, before or since x

Oh absolutely in some cases there are legitimate reasons, eg health or mental health issues. The problem is that quite a few men (including some I work with, alas) seem to just expect the woman in their life to relieve them of it all when actually they themselves are capable, but just don’t want to. I understand not wanting to (young children are hard work), but that is where paid outsourcing comes in, or a partner who actively wants to stay at home with littles. It shouldn’t be a default that it’s women who can and should and men just can’t (outside of when they really legitimately can’t, as in your situation)

My DH wouldn't be able to run his. He would have had to take a lesser job, with lesser pay, with lesser advancement.

But then why should babies be shoved to some stranger 30 hrs a week on the government's say so when if financial possible .babies are better with there main carer . It's proven time and time again one to one is best not in a baby class with each carer having six it's ridiculous to even suggest it if you have no other choice fine but let's not say its best because it's not

@DallasCC

My husband runs two businesses and is away 2/3 days a week. He simply wouldn't be able to do that without me being a stay at home mum.

My boss is a working single mum who has to go to the US for four or five days a month. She makes it work without a “facilitator”. She pays for it mostly (part time boarding for kids). Yes it probably isn’t what most people would choose as their ideal but she gets on with it because she has to.

Your husband chooses to be away 2/3 days a week and if push came to shove and he had the kids on his own he would either scale this back and delegate to someone or fibd a (probably paid) solution.

Its absolutely not necessary to live like this. It’s men choosing to prioritise their careers over those of their partners.

And I don’t blame people for sometimes making these choices if they suit the family but they don’t get to say that this is essential to the family because I know from my direct experience and those of many women I know that it’s perfectly possible to have a successful career and be a parent without a “facilitator”.

And the reason I care is because men with “facilitators” massively discriminate in the workplace against women who don’t have “facilitators” (because hardly any women do), So do it by all means but don’t say you have to do it.

Well, most of it's not leisure. So what would you call it?

Absolutely. Not working was always a luxury for the better off. I come from a long line of working class women, who worked after marriage and children, because they and their families couldn’t afford for them to not work. It wasn’t for luxuries, it was for basics like a home and food. Being married with children just meant the ‘nicer’ jobs were closed to them, which most left things like cleaning.

I’m away regularly on international trips for work and DH works full time as a GP. We had a weekly look at our diaries to check who would do the nursery/school run on what days, who would take DD to a party and who would take DS to get his new football kit. Neither of us has spent any time as a SAHP.

If you split up he'd still be able to run his businesses ?

No he wouldn't.

Are you just talking about the first five years of life, as that’s a small part of their childhood?

If you go out to work at any time in your kids’ childhood, you’re on 24/7 anyway, as you switch to childcare once work ends.

When they are pre school, or pre the preschool provision, being a SAHM is much harder I agree. Once they’re at school, being a SAHM becomes easier than working outside the home in most jobs, as you get some time for yourself.

And yeah, none of us were ‘unruly’ despite not having a SAHP most of the time!

Just 'life'.

Most people don't spend a lot of time talking about the impact of this stuff, they just do it.

@LookingForEnergy why? You know you can't MAKE him have the kids. So if he turned around and said fuck this and never saw any of you again , or just had them every other weekend, how would his business be affected?

Unless you're an essential part of the business, but even then , there are workarounds.

It's absolutely not necessary to live like this. It’s men choosing to prioritise their careers over those of their partners.

WE chose to advance his career like this. WE did.

To assume I had no say is patronising.

Why not?

I’m away regularly on international trips for work

2/3 days a week?

He works 14 hour days when he's away too. He just couldn't do that and look after two children to the same standard as we can with me being a SAHM.

I was a SAHM for a while when the DC were young, and was then lucky enough to find a very flexible, very part-time job in the days before flexible working became relatively common. I had several DC close together in age, and DH worked insane hours in a stressful job a long commute away. We also had a dog, who needed to be walked an hour+ each day.

I definitely felt that I had no social status whatsoever as a SAHM. But if I'd gone back to a serious job of the sort I had prior to DC, DH would have had no time to himself, and nor would I (not that either us had much at Peak Kid), and it would have destroyed our marriage.

And yes, prioritising his career was the logical choice, because his earning capacity was massively bigger than mine.