AIBU to think being a SAHM is undervalued and misunderstood?

[erereeee]

I’ve been lurking for a while and finally decided to post. I’m a SAHM to two young children, and I can’t help but feel like society (and even some people on here) massively undervalue what we do. It’s as if staying home to raise my children makes me lazy or unambitious, when in reality, I’m working harder than I ever did in an office.

From morning to night, I’m doing everything: cleaning, cooking, laundry, childcare, emotional labour, organising appointments, school runs, etc. The mental load is constant. Yet, because I’m “just” at home, people assume I sit around all day. Even my partner, who works full-time, makes the occasional offhand comment like, “Must be nice to chill at home,” which drives me up the wall.

I see posts on here about working mums and how they “do it all,” which is amazing, but can we acknowledge that being a SAHM is also a full-time job? I don’t clock out at 5pm. I don’t get annual leave. And honestly, if you added up the cost of hiring a nanny, cleaner, cook, and personal assistant, it would be way more than I’d ever earn in a 9-5.

Yet, when I meet new people, I always get that look when I say I’m a SAHM, like I’m somehow less intelligent or lacking ambition. Why is it so hard to just respect different choices?

Let’s keep it civil, but I’m genuinely curious to hear what others think.

Nice attempt at backtracking at what most definitely was an attempt to belittle me rather than argue with any of my very valid points responding to what many people on this thread have indeed both outright said and heavily insinuated. My post wasn’t angry it’s interesting that you read it that way, something that says far more about you than about me. Have a nice day at work.

The thing is mothers who are working are doing all the things SAHP do too but working on top.

One word of advice op being a sahp is not sustainable in the current climate and you need to thing very carefully about your provision in old age. No marriage is guaranteed to last and state pensions aren’t either.

Maybe this was the Ops intention. Light the touch paper and sit back and watch the ensuing arguments.

Have they been back on even once?

No not once have they been back.

Yawn
You seem to think that you are doing society a service in staying at home to mind your kids and clean your house. You're not . You're doing what works for your family but having done both it's far easier doing all the house and kids stuff when not working than when you are.

I think the only reason for the looks you're getting is if you sound like you do on here spouting on about you really do 5 peoples jobs than you're just coming across as a pita.

Maybe they weren't real

I also don't really get this argument about being a SAHM being "undervalued": who is "undervaluing" it?

Nobody seriously questions that being a present and engaged mother is "valuable": the OP's argument implies that being a SAHM is intrinsically more "valuable" than being a working mother. I personally don't believe this and I think most people don't really believe it these days.

Many (most) people aren't able to be with their children 24/7 so they compensate for this by being present with them when they can and otherwise being an engaged parent. But their inability to be with their children around the clock doesn't mean they don't value this time with them. For the majority it isn't a choice.

Those of us who do have to work have also mainly observed that despite decades of people trying to demonstrate that being a working parent harms children through various studies etc, no credible evidence has been turned up that proves that it does. So we have concluded that there's no point beating ourselves up about something we can't control, particularly when there's no evidence that it makes any difference. That's a perfectly rational and healthy position to take but its not a judgement on SAHMs.

More broadly, why does society at large have to "value" SAHMs? Being a SAHM may or may not benefit your individual family, but it frankly doesn't impact much on anyone outside the family. Why should Joe Bloggs care that you don't work?

The objections I have read on here about SAHMS fall into two basic groups in my experience: a) people observing that its a very financially precarious position to put yourself in, b) people saying they would find it very boring. You may disagree with these positions and obviously everyone has their own angle on this. But I don't think anyone has a moral objection to the idea of people staying at home with their kids.

It's a bit of a non argument concocted by SAHMs who feel put upon about it but it doesn't really cross anyone else's mind.

I really don't care what other decisions people make. But sahms offer no value to me, they just offer value to their family. But I don't know why that matters, why do you want other people to validate your value if you are happy and proud with what you are doing. I suppose working mums do offer me value, as they are the shop workers who serve me, medical staff me and my family use, or what ever career that directly helps me, but I guess I've never really given it much thought. To everyone outside your immediate family, you don't offer value. I don't mean that harshly, you are allowed to live for just you and your family and I wouldn't be adverse to making the same decision. I just wouldn't expect praise for it

👏👏👏

I honestly don't give a shit about what other women choose to do with their time, but I am sick of the whinging and whining from SAHMs proclaiming that they have it hardest. If it's so shitty for you, do something about it then, or is it that you want a medal? If so, then ask your DH for that validation medal, not other mums!

It's fair to acknowledge that there is a wider social benefit to children being well-raised.

It's also fair to acknowledge that there's a wider benefit to society from tax payers.

Which is not to say that any particular model is suited to any particular family. What does get my goat is that work is still very anti-family in many cases. The sooner we normalise shorter working hours and normalise men taking greater shares of child-rearing the better.

My husband has compressed his hours as well as me, and he's still shunned a bit by mum groups etc as the lone dad.

My other problem with the "why don't people value SAHMS"? rhetoric is that it implies that SAHMs are doing it better than working mums. There's a whiff of martyrdom in this: the implication is that SAHMs are selflessly performing a service to benefit the wider community and society by not going to work, whereas working mums are just power mad capitalist automatons who just want to buy loads of pairs of Jimmy Choos and holiday in the Maldives twice a year.

I've lost count of the number of threads I have read where people will say: "Why can't you downsize, to let you have more work/life balance?" as if I only worked to acquire more "stuff". Why would I make that sacrifice? Giving up most of my income in order to cool my heels at home for a few more hours a day would not benefit my child: she would have to move home, move school, uproot herself and give up most of her hobbies just so I can be more "present"? I guarantee you my child would not want that. It's nothing to do with "work/life balance", it's about survival.

It's a completely bogus dichotomy. Most mums, whether they work or not, have made an agonising calculation about what the best possible tradeoff is between work and childcare for their children. No one is doing any of this for the good of society at large.

It’s as if staying home to raise my children makes me lazy or unambitious, when in reality, I’m working harder than I ever did in an office

If you are being genuinely curious, as you say you are, I’ll respond. I fail to understand how it’s ‘work’ as you describe it, or why it’s full time.

I say that as someone who worked full time (and LOTS more), had a DH who worked full time (but zero overtime), AND managed kids full time with absolutely zero childcare, zero family nearby. Obviously excluding ‘necessary’ pre-school a few days a week for school readiness, but even then apart from the last we had younger ones at home while older ones went to preschool a few days a week or were at school as we went through the cycle oldest to youngest.

Edited to add, we don’t don’t have the ‘easiest’ group of kids either. Included one with SEN, and one with physical disabilities.

People who work for pay also benefit wider society as taxpayers, unlike people who devote all of their time to their private domestic matters.

The thing is that most mum's understand what it's like to be a SAHM because most have had periods of doing this. And many of them also know what it’s like being a mum and working as well. I imagine everyone's call on what was more difficult will come down to what their job is and personality type of them, their kids and partner.

I detest posts like this as they are just so self serving and completely undermine the role of caregiving for working and SAH parents.

DH and I now work FT hours and I can emphatically tell you that there is absolutely no way we could both do our jobs effectively and care for children FT in a way that we deem to be safe, enriching and nurturing. Something has to give and nobody on this earth has super powers! I think children of all ages, but especially very young children need a lot of input and benefit greatly from dedicated time and effort. We simply couldn't get all the work we need to do and look after young children. It would inevitably lead to the children spending long periods of time entertaining themselves or watching screens. Not to mention when we need to actually be onsite, attend meetings or meet clients, sometimes at the same time as each other.

You may think your post proves that the SAHP role is so easy that you can fulfil it whilst both working FT but I just think you either don't care for your kids acceptably, you are sacrificing your work or you have extremely easy and flexible roles that most of the population aren't lucky enough to have. Put it this way, there is no way I would employ someone to work for me FT if I knew they were looking after a preschooler at the same time.

Nope, sorry but that isn't always the case. Some people can claim more through government benefits as a result of them working than the tax they earn, especially when you account for the additional childcare hours they can claim. This is a very common scenario. It would actually be cheaper for the taxpayer for them not to work.

I've done both and SAHM I bloody hard. I would like to go back to work but I can't. Mind you my DS has complex special needs and will probably never be able to attend school full time.
At work the load was shared, you had people to talk to and in my case very little work at home (house was cleaned properly once a week as no-one was home with just kitchen and bathroom done daily, kids were fed at childcare, so meal prep or clear up).
Being at home though means more cleaning, more feeding, more childcare, more everything really.
Also we don't and never have had loads of life admin but any we did have was done on lunch break when I worked. I miss the lunch break, at the moment having a wee in peace would be a luxury

I'm not judging you, I'd do the same if I could, but what do you think working parents do? I'm a single parent so do everything you list on top of my paid work.

That's so person / child / age / era / personality/ health dependent though. I'm sure my vastly qualified surgeon considered it easier to be at work cutting open tiny children than at home entertaining two for years on end because of the type of person her was. I'm sure our Head of Nursery finds it easier at home with just her two to look after than a whole nursery to be responsible for. Most things are easier with one than twins or triplets. Most things are easier with a healthy child / adult than not. So lockdown was incredibly hard with newborn twins and a preschooler that needed shielding even though I didn't work than it was for my friend with one healthy kid who was working from home. Neither of us could even compare to our friend a nurse with two young kids. It's harder for my part time responsible-job friend than me now our kids are at school but it was easier when they were in childcare and mine were home. And all of that could change in second. Your ability to work or not, the support, the income. Very few of us are in a situation where even if the nearly worst happened, they could guarantee their lifestyle wouldn't change.

I was a SAHM for many years and I do look back and treasure that time. I particularly remember when the first started school aged 4/5 and I also had an almost 3 year-old and a baby. I used to take them all on the school run at 8am. Drop off eldest who was non-stop but always ran into school fine. Middle one was meant to go to a playgroup (nursery?) three mornings per week from the age of about 2 years 9 months. She was more clingy and sometimes she didn't want to go, but that was fine. If she didn't want to go, I didn't force it. If she did go in though, that was my one-on-one time with baby. I used to take him to Gymboree and Monkey Music - still remember the songs! Then pick up the middle one from playgroup at 12pm. Go home, have lunch. Baby would hsve a nap. Then I could have one-to-one time with the middle DD. She was very creative! Then at 3pm, it was back into the car to pick up the eldest. Sometimes he'd bring a friend home. Anyway, it was a lot of in and out, to and fro. A very social time. It was a privilege really - I sometimes wish I could go back to those years because you don't realise how special it was until it's gone. But I wouldn't have the physical energy now I don't think. As for whether it was 'harder' than a job - I wouldn't know how to answer that. It's a pointless non-question really because it's not comparable and it's irrelevant how 'hard' it was. It wasn't about me. They are my kids and I did what I felt I needed to do, that's it.

@Bumpitybumper

DH and I now work FT hours and I can emphatically tell you that there is absolutely no way we could both do our jobs effectively and care for children FT in a way that we deem to be safe, enriching and nurturing. Something has to give and nobody on this earth has super powers! I think children of all ages, but especially very young children need a lot of input and benefit greatly from dedicated time and effort. We simply couldn't get all the work we need to do and look after young children. It would inevitably lead to the children spending long periods of time entertaining themselves or watching screens. Not to mention when we need to actually be onsite, attend meetings or meet clients, sometimes at the same time as each other.

But the reality is some of us have to do this. I'm a single mum working FT. My kid is now in secondary school so it's less an issue now but six years ago I didn't get to say "what is going to be the most safe, enriching and nurturing scenario for her?" It wasn't an option for me. I just cracked on with work, using childcare and running myself ragged. It is what it i

You don't need "super powers". You need to work hard and be well organised. Millions of us do it and for most of us (and I exclude people who have children with disabilities or complex needs) it works out fine.

Obviously you want the best outcomes for your children but most people don't have the luxury of this sort of preciousness about having completely optimal parenting at all times. Life is not like that, never has been like that.

The OP hasn't returned. What a surprise.

@Bumpitybumper You may think your post proves that the SAHP role is so easy that you can fulfil it whilst both working FT but I just think you either don't care for your kids acceptably, you are sacrificing your work or you have extremely easy and flexible roles that most of the population aren't lucky enough to have. Put it this way, there is no way I would employ someone to work for me FT if I knew they were looking after a preschooler at the same time

What rot. At the time and for many years after, I literally had a job that dealt with lives. If you had a car crash or what not and was bus’d or air’d in you’d get me in charge. Never an issue. I was never remiss in my role at work and to suggest I shouldn’t have been employed is ???? Well, fucked, quite frankly. I had waaayyy less sleep as a trainee than I ever had as a parent. So, while doing what I did meant living on the fumes of an oily rag as far as sleep goes it was still far better than what I’d experienced earlier in my career by far!

As for ‘your kids must have spent the whole time being babysat by screens’ - no. Absolutely not. My eldest was limited to 1x Thomas episode a day and then different with the rest that followed according to their interests. Sorry to say, one was a Wiggles fan so I had to endure that once a day at that point🫤 (I then realised how good Thomas actually had been).

It’s really not a form of neurosurgery to look after babies/young kids though. It is tough, I’ll admit that in that I was usually very happy to handover to DH to escape the ‘grind’ of it all so I could go to something equally busy but actually mentally challenging. I found the baby/toddler/young child parenting to be busywork. Kept you physically and emotionally busy but mentally empty. Why someone would want to do that only for years on end or evermore alludes me. DH couldn’t stay at home only either, he felt the same. Happy to do stay at home parent stuff and keep house but he also had to work for mental health. We organised it so we both did both, kids were not in care, no issues with employers employing people who also cared for kids full time as you are SO horrified about (although DH DID then take a job that went sideways so involving no overtime, but also absolutely no hope of progress for a good decade as a trade off so he could work in with my shifts). It’s absolutely doable. If I or DH was only looking after kids without a job, and with 1x SEN and 1x disability included in the mix, there would have been extra capacity for sure. It’s just a case of being organised. We ran it like my dept was run at work🤣, via a huge whiteboard installed in our hall, can’t go wrong.

I agree looking after kids is not a form of neurosurgery. But then, few things are. Why even compare?

I have to disagree that being a SAHM leaves you "mentally empty." You are only left mentally empty if you have no understanding of child development and psychology and the importance of the early years. If you have insight into this, you know exactly what you are seeing, what you are doing and the value of it.

I had trained as a child psychologist. I'd spent years closely observing babies and pre-schoolers - even the most seemingly insignificant habit or interaction is meaningful if you understand what you are seeing. It's fascinating.

It would have left me mentally empty. Funny that, isn't it? How people are different?

I spent my 20s doing degrees, a PhD, qualifying as a librarian first and then sliding into the world of publishing. I work for a very good publishing house and my career is amazing. I speak to interesting people every day, I meet authors at all levels of "fame", and generally find it the most exciting and rewarding profession I could have ever imagined. Why would I suddenly lose interest in that?

That vs. my two maternity leaves knee deep in nappies and breastfeeding, crying, naps - no, sorry, I didn't find that mentally rewarding. Emotionally rewarding, yes. I adore my children; I spend every moment I'm not working playing, talking, teaching, cuddling, and loving them. But that doesn't mean that being a SAHM would have been any less mentally draining for me. I didn't find it hard work, I just found it boring being nothing but one single thing - a mum.

Women don't suddenly become nothing but a mother when they give birth. I've got plenty of understanding of child development. That doesn't mean that my brain immediately switched off all other interests and skills when I became a mother. The people I was around during the day were SAHMs and the conversations revolved only around kids, meals, housework, TV shows. That isn't interesting to me. Everyone else was in work during the day; my brain felt like it was melting with boredom.

I worked hard to be the professional I am. I also worked hard to bring up two clever, affectionate, kind and settled children. I enjoyed and enjoy doing both. People aren't one dimensional cardboard cutouts.

Yet again you're showing how far from reality you are.