To think SAHM with young DC deserve more respect

[CheekyFawn]

I work full time but currently on maternity leave looking after my 5 months old baby and a toddler DS who is 3 yo.
I just don't know where my time goes. Between breastfeeding baby, getting DS ready for preschool and tidying up the house, cooking meals etc, it just feels like there is no time at all even to have 5 mins of coffee break. I feel it was much better when I was at work couple of months ago when DS was in nursery that I used to get at least a lunch break for an hour or 30 mins at least or time between meetings to have a coffee and look at my phone in peace. I imagine this is I think how a day looks for SAHM with young DC and it's bloody hard. Many people just assume they are not doing much but I think they deserve more respect.

I fundamentally disagree with you. Looking after children is vitally important to the children themselves, the family unit and wider society. The early years can shape someone's entire life. It is far more important than loads of jobs like cleaning cars selling vapes or cold calling people to buy insurance etc. I don't look down on anyone doing these kinds of jobs, I don't do societally important work either, but I'm not stupid enough to delude myself that my work must be more important because I'm paid for it. I earn far more than a carer or nursery nurse but I certainly don't think that means that this means my role is more important to society as it simply isn't.
Nor do I think it's necessarily harder to do my role than be a SAHP. Nobody sits there measuring the difficulty of every role and assigning it a score but I can guarantee there is a huge variance of job difficulty in this country and being a SAHP wouldn't be at the bottom of this scale.

Presumably they employ a full time nanny then, or have lots of family to help raise their children?

We tried having both of us working when we just had one child, that was sustainable for a while. But for DH to climb higher, in a very competitive field, we needed someone always available to care for children and home. We even tried a nanny/housekeeper for a year, but this caused more issues for us. The obvious solutuon for us was for me to become a SAHM, rather than keep using childcare. He needs to be free to focus on work, which involves travelling overseas and working unpredictable hours.

There really isn't much childcare provision, unless you use breakfast clubs, after school clubs, nurseries and can balance it all, to enable both parents to stay employed. How do people manage the school holidays? What if your DC don't thrive in childcare settings and holiday clubs? Obviously it's great if they do, but many children are happier when they have more time with a parent.

I think the value of having a SAHP is under-appreciated by some, maybe under valued in general by entire societies. Very sad that so many SAHMs feel unappreciated or not respected by society.

To me, being able to say I'm a SAHM feels very 'respectable'. I always wanted to take on this role and do it well. Raising and nurturing a family, being able to focus on this exclusively instead of juggling work at the same time, is a privilege to me. We worked and planned for it. I don't care too much if others look down on me for choosing this path. And I don't look down on others for their paths, every family situation is so different nowadays.

The elephant in the room is that lots of parents (both men and women) don't like the idea of having a child in childcare for excessively long hours. What constitutes excessive hours will differ for different families but I know lots of families that have changed working arrangements so that they can do more drop offs and pick ups and be around more before and after school. Is it strictly absolutely necessary to do this? Of course it isn't, but lots of people prioritise their child's wellbeing so will sacrifice a lot if they think that their child will benefit from having a parent around more.

Sometimes the man and woman both drop hours or work more flexibly but sometimes that isn't practical and one parent has to take the hit. If someone is earning six figures and someone is on minimum wage then it's obvious who would sensibly reduce their hours or potentially become a SAHP depending on the wants and needs of the family. Some jobs just can't be done flexibly in the way that would facilitate family life. It's complex but pretending that everyone would merrily use boarding schools, super long hours at nursery, au pairs to fill in the gaps would be hugely disingenuous. Some parents just aren't comfortable with that. What's not ok though is to agree to an approach where one parent takes the career hit and then after a separation to pretend that this wasn't necessary and there were other options available as if they were ever a viable alternative.

I’ll second that!

I love it when someone starts a thread to get some validation and compliments, then gets increasingly belligerent in their replies as people tell them to get over themselves. They're my favourite type.

I didn't say looking after children wasn't important. I'm saying it's not necessary or better for child or society for a mother to do nothing else. You can do an excellent job of raising children alongside working in a vape shop, and an appalling job of it while being unemployed. It's the quality of the parenting that's important not the constant presence of a mother. I agree there are jobs out there that are easier than looking after small children, if all you have to do is the job. But the comparison is not children with job, it's children with children + job.

Can keeping a pet dog can really compare to raising a family? Even as an 'extreme' version. Dogs sort of fit in with a person's lifestyle and career (or get re-homed if they don't suit the owners or family). Raising children is a life long commitment.

Dogs aren't raised. Lots of options are available, including leaving dog home alone all day, or paying a dog walker, or taking dog to work (many offices are dog-friendly now!)

I think all Mums have it tough. SAHM or working. I personally find periods where I’m not working far easier than when I am.

Of course it is a simplified version but you can pay someone else to look after your child, you can wfh to fit around the school run. Most children will eventually be independent adults.
They, like the dog, is a choice for most people. It comes with responsibility. It’s not a job being by a dog owner and neither being a parent. People choose to parent in different ways - most are very reasonable.

I am a SAHM to a 3 year old and a 5 month old. Thanks to mumsnet, I know there is a general attitude out there that it’s the easier option than working but it doesn’t jive with what I see in real life which is:

1. When WOHMs have their second child and take a year maternity they never seem to remove their older toddlers from nursery because it’s suddenly too much hard work to look after them both
2. Comments I’ve heard from both nannies and mums that you shouldn’t hire one person as a “nanny/ housekeeper” because it’s too much to expect 1 person to do both jobs properly (yet a SAHM does that and more and it’s easy apparently)
3. All the local mums I know openly put their kids in front of the tv at weekends and when they are with them in the holidays because they need a break. Behaviour that I know SAHMs would be judged for and certainly shouldn't be necessarily if parenting is so easy. (I don't judge this either btw)

My own view is that there are too many variables to make any big generalisations, but nobody should be a SAHM if they want status in society. It’s something that you do for yourself and your family and you can’t worry about what other people think.

We had our kids in 2003, 2005 and 2007 and I was a SAHM and honestly, it was more normal than not. Totally unremarkable. Never felt judged or devalued - it literally never occurred to me. Where else would the kids be? Most women in the area were also SAH mums - many had nannies or other after school support as well. Everybody had a cleaner, nobody was doing housework. They were doing stuff with the kids. If anything, I was judged for not having a nanny or someone to stay home with the younger ones while I took the elder one to a club or whatever. Even men (eg DH's of friends) thought it was weird that had no 'help' with 3 DC. They used to ask me how I coped. Being there for your kids was the general 'norm' then. Nobody once asked anyone when they were going back to work. Certsinly, I don't know anyone who used a full-time nursery eg. 8-5. The whole 'SAHM value' issue that gets pedalled on MN was a non-issue back then. Either something has drastically shifted in society, or MN is not representative. I don't know.

Hmm well that's a very privileged lifestyle. Had my youngest in 03. Knew very few SAHM and if they had then they wouldn't have had money to pay for cleaners and nannies

My DC was one of those kids in full time nursery at that stage. And seeing as the nursery was full he certainly wasn't alone in that.

Also when they throw in the odd comment which is usually mumsnet gold. And they still get hated on. I love that.

Exactly the same here. I had one SAHM. She is worried now about her lack of pension.

But lots of jobs aren't done simultaneously with caring for small children. Most people use childcare during working hours. So the question is would you find it easier working and looking after children before/after the working day or being at home all day with the kids? I imagine people's answers to this would vary depending on the job and children in question.

I would literally rather do almost any other job than look after a baby with colic all day. I have never had a baby with the condition myself but the limited experience with it frightened me. If it was looking after a compliant and easy kid for the day then I would prefer to do this over most jobs.

Also insisting that it's just the quality of the parenting that counts is just an opinion and will depend hugely on the child. We accept this with all other facets of life. It's horses for courses. Some kids will benefit hugely from having more time with parents, more time at home and might struggle to settle in childcare settings, others thrive in childcare more than they would if they were at home. I think most parents know their children and their individual tolerances. We generally accept this in adults, that some people are just home birds that like a slower pace of life and others are extroverts that love the buzz of being out and company. Kids are just as varied.

I'm assuming you're doing the 'let them eat cake' thing as a brag? Because unless you show literally no interest in the world around you, then you will know that the way of life you're describing is normal for only a tiny percentage of the population. Just as it was in the years you were a SAHM. I brought my children up between 1990 and 2010 and the vast majority of women I knew worked, at least part time. A couple had cleaners. One, a medical scientist before having children, WAS a cleaner because it fitted around school hours. And a child's nanny was their mummy's mum.

My post is neither disrespectful nor ignorant. It was factual.

I was a SAHM with 3 kids (twins and a 5 year old) and 2 dogs. I now work full time as a teacher, dealing with up to 180 teenagers a day, and often have to choose between peeing and eating.

We all still need to eat, the laundry still needs doing, the dogs still need walking, the house gets just as messy and dirty, and now they're older they all want to go to different activities, need help with homework, friends round etc...

Life was WAY easier as a SAHM when the kids were little compared to now.

Life may be busy nowadays, but it's still fun!

Are the two things mutually exclusive?

Are you seriously trying to say that working mums don't " rais(e) healthy, well-behaved, educated or skilled children who will be an asset to society when grown up"????

I was giving a perspective @5128gap . In my experience, SAHMs don't feel they need more 'value' (whatever that means) because they frankly don't care and they know they're privileged. Nor do they feel 'financially vulnerable' (as SAHMs are constantly told they must be on MN) because they simply are not. If they were, they wouldn't be a SAHM in the first place would they?

Nobody is disputing the fact that looking after the children is vitally important. We are disputing the assumption that the children will be better looked after if they have a SAHP.

To answer your question, it was much easier looking after my children in the evening after having them all day. Because I was able to structure their day and routine to make it so. I also had the benefit of down time in the day when they napped, or we were at soft play or on a play date or visiting grandparents.

They also had a good dad who would come in and say "you've had them all day" and take over for an hour or so.

Don't get me wrong, if it comes to preferred job, it would be my paid job every time. In fact my DH and I actually swapped for a while and he was a SAHD (which is another story, which served only to cement my dislike of the SAH model) but that's to do with finding SAH boring rather than hard. Which I guess is a type of hard.

I agree that different children respond better to different types of care. Unfortunately that isn't what dictates what they get though, is it? Other than where the child has specific needs, I've not read of any SAHMs who say they made the decision based on the child's personality and preferred type of care. They decide either because its practical or their own preference. So it follows that just as you may get children in nursery who'd prefer to be at home, you will get children kept at home who may thrive better in nursery. In reality children adapt to parental choice.

You see, using my logic, being a mother is not a career. I don't seek accolades because I chose my career either.

Any mother who raises children "fulfils a necessary societal function" (unless they are a neglectful or abusive one).

To be clear, I don't look down on you in the slightest for being a SAHP, and if it's working for you and your family, then that's great. Genuinely, no judgement here. I just don't think it makes you a better parent than one who works and I don't understand the demands from some SAHP that society should value what they do or give them some kind of special respect for looking after their own children. If you and your family value the arrangement, that should be enough.

As to how people manage dual careers without having a SAHP, I think it really depends on the circumstances. There is no one size fits all. Some people have full time nannies or extensive family help as you have mentioned. Others use flexible working in combination with other forms of paid childcare etc. Many use a combination of different things. In our case, DH and I were both able to work full time but very flexibly to manage most of the childcare between us - we did have a nanny for 4 hours every morning for around 2-3 years when dd was very little, but we were able to manage everything else between us.

School holidays were never an issue as we had annual leave, unpaid parental leave etc to use between us, and when she was older, dd enjoyed going to holiday dance clubs etc in any case.

But that's an unanswerable question. You will never know what is better as there are so many variables. I don't think this relates to whether you respect a role or not just because you think it might not be the optimum way of doing something.

What is better, a nursery or a childminder? Again, completely unanswerable. If though I suggested that I don't respect the role of a childminder because I think a nursery can look after more children more efficient and do it better then that would plainly be an absurd thing to suggest. Why do SAHMs have to be the definitive best option before they get the respect that is afforded to everyone else?

Your post offers an answer to my question but not the answer. You will see lots of posts on here that contradict your view and lots that agree. That's what I mean about it being subjective and so many variables being involved.

You found it easier to manage the children's whole day. Lots of people (including me) find it easier when the kids have been worn out and been given dinner already. Part of the difficulty of the role of a SAHP is indeed the boredom. It's not a unique feature of that role as I have found boredom the hardest part of lots of jobs I've had.

I also disagree that children's preferences don't feed into decision making around being a SAHP. Of course the main factors will be finances and personal preferences but I have known quite a few women either flex their jobs a lot, change careers or become SAHPs because of their children not coping well in childcare. It isn't uncommon at all so I'm surprised you think it's unusual