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.

I hadn’t seen this thread until this evening. It was written in the middle of the working day yesterday and I have had a busy two evenings alone, relaxing after clocking out of family life (the moment I finish my day job, it seems).

i cannot wait for my 5 weeks of annual leave/solo travelling without the kids this year. Bliss! Only a working parent knows alone time like it.

But, hey, work is a breeze compared to tidying the house, making clothes unnecessarily flat with a lump of hot metal, organising day trips and appointments AND making picnics. Definitely more stressful than daily deadlines, line management, achieving objectives and managing a small army of adults, in parallel to parenting.

I think it completely depends on your situation a SAHP to school age children is very different to younger children or children with SEN.

The thing that always bothers me is the assumption that it’s always a choice and you are so lucky to be financially able to have a choice.

We personally aren’t high earners DH around the 50000 mark but we have 3 children together and a step daughter who lives with us full time, step daughter and oldest child have Autism/ ADHD step daughter who is 13 doesn’t attend mainstream school and does short days and our oldest just about copes with mainstream school but do to social anxiety’s and ADHD wouldn’t have anything left for after school wrap around care. No grandparents or family help.

The youngest goes full time in September and I’m determined to find a job that fits around our quite complicated family life but right now even taking the children’s circumstances out of the equation any possible Salary I could earn would be swallowed up in childcare.

so I personally feel anything but privileged to have the choice to be a SAHP I actually just feel trapped as one.

This is such a good point - not all SAHMs are good mothers? Some child have poor nutrition, little attention, even neglect.

A lot of these posts presuppose earth mothers, devoted to their little ones 24/7. It's not always like that!

Not all mothers do it for altruistic reasons either.

I have had two stints at being a SAHM during my
maternity leaves and yes while it’s not ‘chilling at home’ all the time it is undeniably much much easier than working a full day in a busy, stressful and high responsibility role and then also doing all the jobs you describe, but condensed into a couple of hours in the evening whilst also trying to spend precious time with your children. It’s not like working parents get to ‘clock off’ at 5pm, they then have more to do than you would, having been at home all day.

I would say if you find it so hard looking after your children and doing the housework, then perhaps get a paid job? Some people do struggle with their own children, whereas having a very stressful paid job, I find it much easier to spend time with children and doing housework.

i don’t think the role of a SAHP is undervalued, I don’t think it is of any interest to anyone else - it’s only benefitting your family, and so while I’m slightly jealous of my SAHP friends who get to meet up for coffee and go on fun outings during the working day, or simply get their chores done early do they can relax in the evening, I don’t judge them for being able to be a SAHP. the only time I would give a SAHP ‘a look’ is if they were trying to claim it’s just as hard work than being a working parent, which it clearly isn’t because working parents are doing all the same household chores SAHPs are doing, but in fewer hours, whilst also trying to spend quality time with their children as they haven’t been with them all day. Honestly I loved maternity leave and if I didn’t need my financial independence then I would love to be a SAHM, it was a really fun time in my life when I did it on maternity leave. It’s not for everyone though, my SIL hated it and goes to her low-level admin job for a break from her kids!

SAHMs are also human and can't possibly devote every single second of their lives to quality time with their children.

That's more the angle I was going for but you are right too, you aren't automatically a good mother just because you happen to be a SAHM.

No being a SAHM doesn't automatically make you a better mother - especially if you can't cope or you get depressed which, by the sound of it, a lot of posters would be on here.

A good mum is a happy mum, when all is said and done.

But that still doesn't take away from mums who know that they are the best person to be with their child. This is a very normal and natural way to feel and many women do an amazing job and couldn't imagine things any other way. Of course children benefit from the flexibility to be in the home environment for the most part of their day. And most young kids would rather be with their mum (or dad) unless there are serious reasons why not. I know this isn't always possible, but it doesn't make it any less true.

It's true that not all time can be 'quality time' but then again, I also think this 'quality time' thing is the kind of waffle especially used by men. For instance, ones who appear for half an hour before bedtime and then take the kids to a structured activity on the weekends and then assure themselves that they 'do it all' because their time was the actual proper 'real quality time' and what goes on when they're elsewhere doing 'real big important work' must be nothing.

OP I think women's roles are undervalued but it is changing.
Is your DP doing parenting? They are his children too and need input from and with their father? You might have a problem when eventually you go to work, if your DP has been brought to think everything domestic is down to you. Adults need to be able to undertake tasks in their own self care eg putting their own laundry away and taking some emotional load at some part of the weekend.

I loved being with my children: they loved being with me. They also loved going to nursery and the experiences it gave them alongside the experiences in the home.

It's entirely possible to be a great parent and to work too. It's not some kind of binary choice like a few posters want to believe!

The important thing is raising children into happy, well adjusted adults. Which can be done whether you work or not.

It’s absolutely a privilege these days to be a SAHM though I would disagree that it’s selfish - a lot of stay at home mums like myself (hugely privileged financially but also educated with a career I willingly gave up) are choosing to stay at home for the benefit of our children. To me that’s not selfish, it’s valuing time with your child over career progression or extra income. Of course I know that most women wouldn’t say their income was just “extra” for their household, it’s essential to have two incomes for most families.

I know this is incredibly contentious to admit but I don’t believe group care is beneficial to young children, my own experience working at one through my uni years was that the care was safe and adequate but it wasn’t excellent and so many babies and toddlers really struggled being away from their parents 40+ hours a week. There is research to support that the benefits of early education start around 2.5-3 years and that’s for part time hours only. The exception to this is for vulnerable children and low SES children.

When you say that it shouldn’t be socially incentivised or financially rewarded I think you’re neglecting to consider what’s best for the child, and what’s best for the woman too (which I believe is having a choice to work and parent or to solely focus on parenting).

I do think governments should provide tax breaks to single income households in recognition that a SAHM is doing societally undervalued caring work. I’m in Australia and for lower and middle income families there’s something called “family tax benefits part A/B” paid to stay at home parents with a working spouse. The logic is that if government funds are given to fund childcare places, they should also be given to lower and middle income single income families with a stay at home parent.

Your opinion doesn't hold much water as someone who is never going to be in the position to decide whether or not to use childcare. Please don't patronise those of us not in your fortunate position.

I do think governments should provide tax breaks to single income households in recognition that a SAHM is doing societally undervalued caring work.

That's actually a ridiculous comment coming from someone who is "hugely financially privileged".

Don't know whether to laugh or cry at some of these ridiculous comments.

Where I live the government does pay a benefit to stay at home parents if the working parent has an income below $117,000 AUD or £60,000. My family are, in my opinion rightly, not eligible for any government payments but I’m happy that other families receive government support.

Surely the concept of supporting welfare payments for people in less fortunate circumstances than yourself isn’t that ridiculous to you? And yes this payment is because our government values caring for children regardless if that happens at a (subsidised) childcare centre or is care at home from a parent.

How does that work with school age kids? If they are at school then you are not spending all day with them

I think being a SAHM is a full time job so well done op but many women, myself included have done that full time job plus full time working hours on top.

It's not that your choice isn't respected and values it's just that we do it too just don't get to stay at home!

Plus I've always had a deep need to earn my own money and save for my own pension etc and after seeing the struggle that my SAHM friends are in now going through divorce I can see I was right.

@CGaus your entire argument is simply your opinion. If on a personal level you believe - as you clearly do - that being at home is best for your children, then that's fine, nobody can argue with that, it's your belief and what you do in your personal family set up is your business.

What you can't do is extrapolate from it that it's true for everyone else.

Working parents and regulated childcare have been around for decades now. My own children, who went to nursery 30 years ago are now adults. Happy, well adjusted adults in good relationships with successful careers. And guess what- so are their friends, whether they had WOHP or SAHP. There isn't some huge demarcation between them.

Childcare has been around long enough that if there were some great difference between adults who were in childcare as young children and those who weren't, there would be clear evidence. But there isn't.

And actually if there was clear evidence that children of WOHP had worse outcomes, if they routinely did worse at school, got into ant social or criminal behaviour, ended up jobless, etc - if this was true, I'd bet good money the govt would be chasing mums back into the home because ultimately, it's worse for society, financially and in every other way, to have hordes of feckless adults!

If you want to be a SAHM, fine. If you believe it's best for your own children, fine. But don't try to feel better about your choice by trying to convince yourself that your kids will grow up happier or better adjusted than anyone else's. You'll be disappointed when other people's kids turn out just as wonderful as yours do!

While a lot of sah involves repetitive tasks, it doesn't render a person as 'boring' if they choose to do it - personally I did not spend my time discussing laundry! It's down to personality. Sahp discuss the same things as everyone else. And there's plenty of TV show discussion in the workplace too - it's not all deep! And not all jobs are interesting - plenty of those involve repetitive tasks too.

Saying that you’d be bored or find it boring doesn’t mean that you think SAHM’s are boring.

I will bite. In my experience, being a sahm is way easier than being a working mum.

Depends on your situation - you have a non-mobile human at the moment. It’s very different to having a full on, into everything suicidal toddler!

I have been a SAHM for 17 years now but currently studying with the OU part time doing a degree until my youngest DC are in secondary school.

No need to be accusing those out of the workforce lacking ambition. Some of us study because it's a way of improving ourselves before rejoining the workforce later on.

To be fair to pp, not all 10 month olds are non mobile.

sahm currently- op you and I are incredibly privileged to be able to not work a full time job. Yes it’s really full on (I’m also doing a degree) but we have Choices many many mums do not have.Having worked with children since I was teen and interested in child development, I’m saddened that the gov has demanded nurseries change their ratios rather than supporting mum’s (if they want to) care for their own children. It sucks that the majority of people need 2 incomes just to survive.

It's also incredibly privileged to be able to work! You only have to look on here to see the numerous threads from women saying they can't afford childcare.

Ultimately, it's raising children into happy, healthy well adjusted adults which is the important thing. And that can be done in families with working parents as well as those who don't work

Working is not a ‘privilege’. The posts from women who say ‘they can’t afford childcare’ are almost invariably from those who appear to accept, bizarrely, that childcare is balanced solely against their income, rather than as a joint household expense equally shared with their child’s father, and an investment in their own future.

@Coriol
Well, yes, to be more precise I guess I mean it's a 'privilege' in that you're better off having a partner who sees having children as a joint responsibility and doesn't assume that the mum has some greater duty to either stay home or to fund the childcare unilaterally!