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 ?

In the demographic I know, many women, and some men (gasp), are SAHP, and those women that work are all part time.

Quite a few do shared care due to the nature of their work. Pilots for example, do days on and off, and they swap out. They work, obviously, but can also cover childcare and contribute to school life. We had a couple of male PTA's who were pilots, they were a very welcome addition to the mix.

@Parker231 agree with you, that is worrying and hopefully is changing although very slowly. Unfortunately is something we have socially inherited from the times when women did not work once they were married. Changes in society take their time.

@Parker231 it's also that women are disproportionately in the caring professions and these are, comparatively, lowly paid. My husband outearns me 3x despite me having been more experienced in our respective roles.

“Women should be having higher aspirations - something wrong in education”

Surely the same desires that lead some women (and men) to seek out professions in care could lead some women (and men) to want to become a SAHP? For a person decides to train to become a childminder because they love children, enjoy playing with and engaging with children, enjoy taking on an nuturing/caring role, has something gone wrong in their education experience? Should this person have higher aspirations? If not, why has a person who wants to do all these same things for their own preschool age child(ren) had something go wrong or need higher aspirations?

How many childminders are men? Why are the vast majority of SAHPs women (because they have lower paid jobs so less of a hit to family income?).

Unfortunately less - as an example, the majority of nurses and health care professionals are women.

I’ve heard it all now. Women should have higher aspirations? Because they WANT to stay at home and look after their own children?! (I understand that not all SAHMs want to be SAHMs, I’m talking about the ones who do). Should childcare workers have ‘higher aspirations’?! You know, the people YOU’RE paying so YOU can go and do your highly paid, ‘aspirational’ job?!

Women absolutely should have high aspirations. But that might not look like a ‘big’ (paid) job, or climbing the career ladder. Being at home with young children is just as aspirational- and as I’ve said over and over again on this thread- it should be a CHOICE.

@Parker231 absolutely unfortunately! I think as well often these are careers within the state sector so there is a limit on how much people are willing to pay for nurses, teachers, care workers through taxation. But it does reinforce gender inequality because the gap is so wide so it, too often, "makes more sense" for the woman to take on the sahp role.

Taking aside, for a moment, the argument that some women might want to be the sahp, as is their right.

I agree, but in the majority of families with a SAHP, this is the woman because she earns less.

If a woman wants to be a SAHP - no issues. My issue is that this role automatically becomes the women’s because she is on a lower salary so less impact on the family budget.
Why do so few men work in nurseries or as childminders?

For the PP talking about SAHM making an anti-feminist choice, I think feminist rhetoric in the 1980s that women can have it all resulted in my generation not making an informed decision when it came time to have kids.

I had a high earning job after university and I felt pressured to have kids by my “biological clock”. I had no intention of being a SAHM. But two kids with different issues that resulted in regular nursery and then school attendance being impossible (right up to post secondary) forced me to make choices. I also had a PIL with ALS who I became the primary caregiver for when my youngest was a baby. I could have made the “feminist” choice to choose my career path or the choice that my hormones were compelling me to make. I say hormones because that is something that gets dismissed by some people in these discussions when they say that there is no difference between men and women when it comes to raising kids and being a caregiver.

Maybe not all women experience this and maybe some people consider this anti-feminist, but I think hormones are a huge factor for many women in raising children. Maybe women with male partners who have similar strong hormonal responses to their kids don’t have such strong responses because it’s not necessary. I don’t know.

I’m glad women today are more comfortable making the choice not to have kids. I think telling people they should strive to have a big career and kids is wrong unless you really understand how tenuous that situation can be. It can be overwhelming or even completely impossible if you have kids who aren’t healthy and neurotypical or you don’t have a strong support structure around you.

If you are looking at a SAHM and judging her for betraying feminism, I think you’re being insensitive and unfair.

This is interesting! I had not put it like that but completely agree re the chauvinism.

Do you think the cost in the modern world of care for the elderly, obesity, childcare etc could be an actually valuation of the unpaid and un valued work women have done through the ages?

I’ve never personally heard of a male childminder so I assume very few. I’m not sure why the vast majority of SAHPs are women. When we had our first baby I dropped to part-time despite earning more than my husband because I wanted to do that but I understand some women are SAHPs out of necessity and don’t want to be. I’m not sure how this relates to the part of your post that I asked about - “Women should be having higher aspirations - something wrong in education”

Are SAHPs and childminders not aspirational roles because men generally don’t do them? Or are you saying that in the first place women should have higher aspirations in school so they don’t ever end up needing to become the SAHP because they earn less?

Which women should be having higher aspirations? And why?

My comment was that in the vast majority of cases it is the women who gives up work and becomes the SAHP because her salary is less - why is the woman earning less ?

It would be a great role model for children to have more men in caring roles - nursery staff, childminders, nurses, health care providers, reception age teachers - this seem to be by default women’s roles.

I agree but there was a thread recently complaining about a nursery taking on a male member of staff.

If it’s the systems fault that the woman is earning less and men’s fault that they don’t want to take on caring roles….why is it women who need to have higher aspirations? Sorry still not understanding

Taking this argument to its logical conclusion - if domestic chores count as 'work', then I shall still be 'working' when I retire because I will still have to maintain my house.

Surely nobody is going to argue that a pensioner is working, yet a SAHM is working, and providing childcare. It's illogical.

I have a university degree and so did my mother (who worked full-time while raising 3 children by herself) so I did have a "choice" when becoming a SAHM to take care of my SEN child and his brother. I chose with my heart knowing my child would never get as much help and stimulation as with me. We have less money than if I would work but it's really worth it for me and my husband. I just wish people wouldnt be so judgmental.

Only if their husband is prepared to pay for it. I remember when my DDs were young there was at least a couple of women that when they had babies agreed they would return to work after maternity leave. Then changed their minds. And expected their husbands to just put up with it. That's not on. Both of them were divorced with 2 years and in one case the husband had custody of the child

Because men are safe guarding red flags when it comes to positions of power. No way on this earth I would leave my child in the sole care of a bloke, even with a childminding and ofsted certificate.

Anyone in their right mind should be very suspicious.

I didn’t have concerns with DT’s nursery having visiting male teachers and their prep school had lots of male teachers for the younger children including for swimming and games.

@SwordToFlamethrower as a survivor of childhood SA it must be genuinely very sad to be in your place. I trust my partner, sons, men in my family absolutely. I am sorry that you have that fear with you, it must be a hard burden.

• Because men are safe guarding red flags when it comes to positions of power. No way on this earth I would leave my child in the sole care of a bloke, even with a childminding and ofsted certificate.

Anyone in their right mind should be very suspicious.*

I'd buy that if there were hundreds and thousands of men in these jobs in the "olden days". Or even the 90's. You know, back when no one really gave a shit about safeguarding children. The vast majority of sports coaches were male.And then the numbers decreased as we became more "aware". That's not the case though.

Or if police departments were overwhelmingly female, you don't get more power than that.

As soon as women were finally allowed to enter the workforce, now that they had "someone " else to do it, at half the price all the caring jobs types ,menial healtchare jobs etc. went to women

Exactly!