My mother is guilting me about being a working parent.

[Sevendayhigher]

Hi,

This upset me today and I suppose I'm asking whether I'm being unreasonable for thinking that it's OK to work even though you don't absolutely, 100% HAVE to.

It was a difficult drop off at nursery today because my son is unwell (he's 14 months) and I work from my parents' house.

I mentioned that it's hard being a parent today where most households need a dual income just to sustain themselves. My mother told me that the main reason most households are dual income now is because they 'expect so much out of life, whereas in the 50s people were happy with what they had' (or words to this effect). Apart from the plethora of issues that the 1950s carried, which she agreed was true, I argued that most households could survive on one income fairly comfortably because housing wasn't as expensive as it is today, compared to the salaries that people make. Nowadays it's very hard to get a mortgage with one income, especially if you haven't had money gifted to you. And if you rent, that a crazy cost too. She argued it was the same as in the 1950s, except people didn't 'expect to go on holiday every year or go out for fancy dinners, and were happy with their little house that wasn't that great.' I told her that as a family, we would bloody love 'a little house that wasn't that great' - please can she show us one that we can afford on my husband's salary alone, like people did in the 50s?

She then told me that if we really wanted to, we could move into something like that and I could be a stay at home mum, but that we want to live in a 'fancy area' so don't. She told me we'd be able to afford a house on just my husband's salary if we lived outside London. Not true, but the main thing that irked me was the implication that I'm working my (genuinely low paid) job because we want to live a luxury lifestyle/won't 'lower ourselves' to a cheaper area. She even said that she'd have been prepared to move to the other side of the country if it meant she could stay at home with her children instead of going to work.

What also irks me is that I can see where she's coming from - in theory if we moved to Derbyshire or somewhere very far away we could potentially buy a house and I wouldn't technically have to work. It feels as if my mother is saying that it's not OK to not want to do that - as a parent you have to make every sacrifice in order to stay at home with your child. Even if it means giving up all your family's support around you/living in a place you're unfamiliar with. On a personal note, my husband is visually impaired and unable to drive, so moving out of a city is also very difficult for us transport-wise, but I feel like we shouldn't have to justify ourselves with this??

I know she'd just tell me that she was giving her opinion and I shouldn't be so sensitive about it, but am I being unreasonable to think that it's OK to work in order to not have to give up almost everything in your life? Or is the most important thing staying at home with your child?

Well, by her reasoning she's an equally shite grandmother for not looking after your DC and making you send them to nursery?

Or did that not happen in the 50's either?

Not always, and certainly not in my case or for several of my friends.

How does she know what parental finances were like in the 50s?
Because my nan had two child in the 50s (and one in the 40s and one in the 60s) she'd be 106 if she was still alive.

Thanks for your comment :)

Just to clarify because a couple of people have asked me why I've sent my son in unwell to nursery - he's teething, he has three coming through at once. I wish I'd just said that in the first place. He's not caught an illness, he's just miserable and teethes for weeks on end (has done since three months old). Unfortunately I have only a few days holiday left from extending my maternity leave and if I took a day off every time he was teething I'd be out of a job anyway!

How on earth can a grandmother with a 14 month old grandson know what adult life in the 1950s was like?

I'm 67 and my earliest recollections of adult life and responsibilities are from the late 1970s and early 1980s.

For anybody to have first hand knowledge of adult life in the 1950s they'd now have to be in their 80s at the very least. Seems a bit old to have a 14 month old grandchild...

Like pps, I'd like to know how your DM has such confident opinions about the 1950s. My DM grew up then and she's in her 80s with grandchildren who are all adults. The world she remembers is so different to ours, you'd need to get a social historian to capture the detail, but one thing that stands out is the lower cost of living compared to ours in 2025. Things that used to cost next to nothing (eg, water rates) now make up major bills in their own right. . .and that's before you look at really big expenses like housing.

As for your DMs assertion about moving across the country, smile, nod and ignore. Beautiful rural areas (eg Derbyshire) are among the most expensive for the cost of living and often the least well-served with public transport and other services. De-industrialised regions, eg Teesside, have plentiful cheap housing and few jobs. Anywhere where you aren't happy and are missing family and friends is going to put you on a back-foot when it comes to daily stresses like child-raising. And what would your DM actually say if you upped sticks and took off for Matlock or Middlesbrough, where you'd hardly see her?

Even Hitler would have said the odd thing that made sense to someone.

Your mother would have got a bellow from me that WOULD have been audible on the fucking moon! "She argued it was the same as in the 1950s, except people didn't 'expect to go on holiday every year or go out for fancy dinners, and were happy with their little house that wasn't that great.'"

What a crock! even without ever going out Or holidays of ANY description, housing is ridiculously expensive and salaries are comparatively LESS than they were then in terms of percentages.

Put it this way, my starting salary in 1992 in London was about £15k. Starting salaries are barely more than that now in 2025, but look at housing - MY rent was £650 pcm for a 2 bed in Ealing, which I shared. £650 a month would not get you a ROOM in London now.

Tell your mother that it's none of her business, and go back to your home to work from there.You are allowing her WAY too much bandwidth

I didn't need to read past your first paragraph to know YANBU.

I have many many reasons that I want to work. Being home 24/7 with my children would be the wrong choice for the whole family, not just for me. Do I need to explain those reasons? Nope!

But I can see why your mum's opinion has upset you. But it's you life, not hers. Your priorities , not hers. Your family, not hers. So her opinion does not matter and DOES NOT mean in any way that you are wrong or a bad parent for having a different life to what she did / what she thinks you should have.

Please don't let it upset you. Agree to disagree, make light of all the things wrong with "her way" if you have to, to get her to butt out. "Haha oh it's a good job I don't think the way you did back then, or otherwise we'd never enjoy a meal out ever again, ho ho! Oh, the kids are playing up again and driving me nuts in the house all day, thank god I get to work and earn money so we can do nice things outside of the house, ahh there are so many things we can do now that they didn't have in the 50's, imagine how much harder it would have been back then!" Otherwise if you let it, this will eat you up!

I haven't read all the responses but here are some counter arguments

• the cost of living is less in the north but so are wages
• Children benefit from socialising in childcare & having structure and independence from the main care giver (I appreciate this can be done without child care)
• Working sets a good example to your DC in terms of work ethic
• Working protects you if your family no long received your husbands wage
• Working helps to keep your mind active which can help you stay mentally healthy and be happier so be a better parent when you are with them
• having more money enable more opportunities for the DC (eg activities & holidays)

I am sure there are others and this post isn’t meant to say being a SAHM is bad but also it isn’t the only way.

That's so true, the aberration is that boomer generation. Outside of that very specific era in history, working class women - i.e most women throughout history - always worked and earned in a myriad of different ways. And upper class women employed staff to perform the role of stay at home mum.

What an arrogant answer. I had a job that I loved, was good at, rewarded me personally and served the community at a high level - and it paid well. I gave it up to stay at home with my kids. No one coerced me, it was entirely my choice and I've been so grateful I've been able to have this time with them - I'd make the same decision again and again.

Some people's choices look different to others, it doesn't mean there's a lack of them, or either one is superior.

Sorry but your mum was parenting in the 50s?! She can't have been.
My mum was only born late 50s and I'm 43.
Why isn't she comparing things to the 70s/80s/90s when lots of mums did need to work financially and buying a home was harder than in the 50s?
She does have some good points like I do think people have their priorities wrong sometimes these days.
But of course it's fine to work if that's what you want. Most parents find a balance that work for their family, and childcare isn't damaging children.

Look you can just ignore other peoples opinion. But if it’s about mum- guilt , we all have it, you’re not alone. But I’d be looking g to find somewhere else to work, you don’t need that kind of negativity when you are just doing your best.

I'm probably the same generation as your Mum OP and she is talking mostly a load of old clapp.

I left home and rented a three bed house from a farmer. I had the choice of five properties and rented for almost two years, went away to college and rented a different house from the same farmer afterwards for a further seven years. My rent was £50 a month (without changing over that entire time). At the start my weekly wage was basic £86 but with overtime it regularly went to £140. It cost £11 to fill the tank in my car and that would last for weeks.

It is far harder to get along now, both financially and in ever other way.

I'm not sure why she is talking about the 1950s. Surely that is when she was a child not when you were a child? I am a grandmother and my children were born in the 1980s when most women I knew, including myself, worked after they had children.

Unless one partner is a very high earner, it would be very difficult to manage financially on only one income. I don't know why your mum is trying to question your choices and undermine you. Didn't she ever go out to work?

My mum is exactly the same, throwing jabs and digs at me for sending my kids to nursery.

She was a housewife, but when my dad left when I was 10, she was a single mum to 4 children and we were screwed.

Oh, another "avocado and Netfilx" argument. Why the assumption that we all have 3 bed semis which we want to exchange for the 4-bed with a cinema room? Why the assumption that we only book 5 start hotels for a holiday?
Have you actually been outside and seen how people live? Maybe your previous experiences of luxury travel clouded your judgement but the vast majority of people are stuck renting pokey flats or are in a houseshare well into their late 30s and their holiday of choice is a crappy hotel in Lanzarote or "Betty-the-caravan" in Devon for £60 a night. And that's if they are able to afford holidays at all.
I currently have no house. None. And I am not looking to buy one, although, hopefully I am able to afford a little shared ownership flat. I am forced to live with my ex and two lodgers just so I can save a little bit of money to accomplish that. For context, I am a highly specialist clinician with 7 years of higher education behind me.
I don't know what I will be thinking on my deathbed but hopefully it will be about my life being meaningful and fulfilling and a large part of that life will include a job, hobbies, travel and other experiences. I am certain a lot of people are on their deathbed worrying that their children are now homeless because the house was sold to pay care fees or because a pokey LA flat you moved into after your husband left you old, penniless and without career prospects is now being taken back by the housing association and your kids are scouring spareroom.com to save some money for a deposit despite being in their 40s and working full time.

Why cant she see the main point about the housing costs? This is the main problem

Maybe she thought you were moaning or perhaps even guilt tripping her tho? Maybe she thought you where hitting for money

So because your experience is that you wished youd spent more time with your kids, you think every single woman should be spending more time with their kids...

I don't think my eyes can roll any more.

Do you realise there are many different characters, women are more than incubators now. They have options, they are individuals, some people don't like their kids, some wish they'd never had them, some hate their Husbands and wish they could kill them and get away with it (after reading munsnet). How very patronising to say, on your death bed you'll wish you would have given up your career and devoted your life to your children...

There will be some on their deathbed who wish they would have travelled the world, perhaps not settled for the incompetent, moody, shithead, cheating, narcissist husband and gone for the rich job and lived in a penthouse apartment in New York... Your experience isn't the be all and end all for everyone.

I've seen a lot of deathbed situations, and a lot of near death experiences, being an ex nurse. Not even half of them wish they had spent their life dedicated to their kids.

Childhood is short and the benefits associated with giving your child / children time will far outweigh the kudos of a nice house car or holiday or career you can always revive after the hard slog of mothering.

Nobody ever tells men they are working for luxuries do they? Why are working dad's providing for their families but working mums doing it for holidays and nice cars??
Also, not all careers can be 'revived' after a significant break.

@toomuchfaff I agree with you! The 'deathbed' comment gets trotted out on these threads ALLLLLL the time and it's bullshit.

I didn't 'have' to work I suppose, but I did. The benefits for my family were that the extra income meant I could give them more experiences such as travel and other activities. That they didn't grow up thinking women were the default child carers and domestic labourers. That they have never felt pressure to be 'my whole world' because they knew I was a person with interests outside of the home. That I have work related knowledge and experience to share with them and connections that helped them. They enjoyed spending time with grandparents and liked nursery. They are proud of the work I do. As adults none of them want to have a family with a SAHP themselves, which I guess is a sign they felt it worked well for them.

She does make some valid points which is why I think you are conflicted.
Lifestyle expectations were lower in the 50s and 60s and most women were ‘homemakers’ However, back then women lacked financial freedom but the financial freedom women have today has come at a cost as we are still dealing with a generation of men who were brought up under the legacy of women being homemakers . Women are struggling to fulfill all the roles society places upon them.
To add to that, we are now bombarded with advertising/ social media that encourages us to compare ourselves to ‘perfect’ images of how our lives should look which encourages us to become more and more aspirational and to have unrealistic expectations - we want to consume more and more to achieve what we perceive to be a ‘ normal’ life.
In short you are both right and there is no succinct resolution to this conflict. It about assessing what has value for you and trying to achieve a balance that works for you.

Haven’t RTFT because these debates depress me but I watched a really interesting TikTok recently about this sort of thinking.

Essentially the relative price of essentials vs luxuries have completely flipped hence why certain generations have the “you’d afford a house if you didn’t buy coffees out” mentality. Coffees are much more affordable as a percentage of household income, mortgages and rent much less so. Also what is essential and what is luxury has changed. A phone for example is actually now a necessity for most of us but cited as a frivolous expense by older generations who still see them as a luxury.

And even if some expenses are luxurious what’s even wrong with that anyway! We only get one time we might as well go on holiday!