Page 13 | To think SAHM with young DC deserve more respect

ItTook9Years · 26/03/2025 16:57

FateReset · 26/03/2025 14:16

In some cases you may be right.

One of the reasons I decided to be a SAHM was to take the stress and pressure off my DH, who needed to focus on his career to progress upwards. Someone in higher management or a position that needs their full attention can't keep taking days off to pick up ill kids from nursery/school, or leave work early for school runs, kids pervformances, school holidays. His earning potential was far higher, so we prioritised the higher income.

In an ideal world, women would be able to take leave flexibility for pregnancy, post natal period, childcare, caring for multiple young children... without it affecting our careers or earning potential. But I don't see this happening.

Show quote history

It won’t. Mainly because when women take time off employers assume all women will take time off. It needs more women to push back against the concepts that financial gains are the only benefits of work and enabling men to progress so bloody easily because women will sit back and let them.

it’s presented as a choice for women (much like name changing on marriage) but it isn’t a true choice and each individual decision impacts on the whole of society.

I have never used my husband’s name or Mrs. I don’t wear a wedding ring. I’m sure there are lots of people I’ve worked with or been interviewed by who would have no idea I was married with a child. Which means the playing field has been a lot more level and I’ve always at least maintained my position compared to DH.

5128gap · 26/03/2025 16:58

Bumpitybumper · 26/03/2025 16:41

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

Show quote history

With regards to deciding to become a SAHP because children aren't coping in childcare, I will bow to your greater experience. I have genuinely never known anyone do this, but accept the limitations of my own experience on that!
Thank you for your responses to me by the way. Its good to hear from someone with a different view expressing it so patiently and politely. I have thought a lot about what you've had to say on the thread.

MrsBennetsPoorNerves · 26/03/2025 17:06

Bumpitybumper · 26/03/2025 16:37

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?

Show quote history

Personally, I would find it really weird if a childminder was posting on here demanding recognition from "society" for the work that they do. Wouldn't you? Surely the recognition comes from those who benefit from the services of the individual childminder, rather than from society as a whole?

It isn't that I don't respect childminders, or nursery workers, or SAHPs as individuals. Of course I do. I respect the dignity of all individuals. I just don't understand the need for external validation regarding a particular choice of childcare.

MellowPinkDeer · 26/03/2025 17:06

LuckySantangelo35 · 26/03/2025 11:59

@RabbitsEatPancakes

you don’t need to do cooking in the day though. A simple sandwich and something fruit or something is ok for lunch

Show quote history

I still cook and clean and tidy everyday even though we are out of the house and I always have, the house still needs cleaning, kids still need feeding, we all still need clean clothes etc ….. it’s laughable that some SAHM think working parents do nothing you they in the day. … we even play with our kids too you know 🤣

FrodisCapering · 26/03/2025 17:10

I very much preferred being a SAHM to two under two than working full time!
It is hard work though, and I have respect for those who do it and those who work.

Amuseaboosh · 26/03/2025 17:13

I'm 15 weeks pregnant, BY CHOICE.
I have a full on career, BY CHOICE.
I also have existing children, BY CHOICE.

I feel respected for being me, nothing to do with choosing to pop kids out. When I'm home with my final baby, I'll still feel respected.

As women, there's no them and us. We're all trying our best and we all have different lives and pressures.

SugarandSpiceandAllThingsNaice · 26/03/2025 17:14

I work full time but currently on maternity leave looking after my 5 months old baby and a toddler DS who is 3 yo.

In my day there was no paid maternity leave or free childcare hours or tax free childcare. I was back to work full time when each baby was 10 weeks old. You really have it fairly averagely easy/hard imho and deserve the same respect as anyone else doing an average job.

spaceisfree · 26/03/2025 17:15

I think we need to be honest that long days in childcare are not ideal for very young children / babies. That's not to say they will be damaged for life, but let's face it, for too many families today, it's an economic necessity rather than a positive choice made in the child's interests, in the majority of cases.

There is a place for nurseries after the age of about 2.5 / 3 years when toddlers start to meaningfully socialise, etc. But a few hours in the day is enough and they really don't need to be there 5 days a week 'to socialise.'

Because of the cost of living requiring two parents to work in more cases than not. things like nurseries that take tiny babies for ten hour days are marketed as 'enabling.' But really mums (and dads) shouldn't need to be rushing babies to nurseries for breakfast and then picking them up at 5 or 6, as millions of parents are now required to do.

And now the govt tell families "oh look you lucky people - you now don't even have to bother giving your school kids breakfast. You can take them to school even earlier because breakfast is now the schools job. Then put them in after school clubs too if you need to."

It might be convenient for parents but you can't tell me any of this is in the interests of most babies and children, except the severely deprived. Instead of breakfast clubs and 'wrap around' care and nurseries that will take babies for 12 hour days, the govt need to be putting children's needs first and foremost. At present, priorities are backwards. They should be incentivising companies to let mums and/ or dads work more flexibly, at least in the preschool years. If not even giving your own child some toast or whatever in the mornings now is being framed as 'progress', I think society needs a drastic rethink.

MellowPinkDeer · 26/03/2025 17:18

spaceisfree · 26/03/2025 17:15

I think we need to be honest that long days in childcare are not ideal for very young children / babies. That's not to say they will be damaged for life, but let's face it, for too many families today, it's an economic necessity rather than a positive choice made in the child's interests, in the majority of cases.

There is a place for nurseries after the age of about 2.5 / 3 years when toddlers start to meaningfully socialise, etc. But a few hours in the day is enough and they really don't need to be there 5 days a week 'to socialise.'

Because of the cost of living requiring two parents to work in more cases than not. things like nurseries that take tiny babies for ten hour days are marketed as 'enabling.' But really mums (and dads) shouldn't need to be rushing babies to nurseries for breakfast and then picking them up at 5 or 6, as millions of parents are now required to do.

And now the govt tell families "oh look you lucky people - you now don't even have to bother giving your school kids breakfast. You can take them to school even earlier because breakfast is now the schools job. Then put them in after school clubs too if you need to."

It might be convenient for parents but you can't tell me any of this is in the interests of most babies and children, except the severely deprived. Instead of breakfast clubs and 'wrap around' care and nurseries that will take babies for 12 hour days, the govt need to be putting children's needs first and foremost. At present, priorities are backwards. They should be incentivising companies to let mums and/ or dads work more flexibly, at least in the preschool years. If not even giving your own child some toast or whatever in the mornings now is being framed as 'progress', I think society needs a drastic rethink.

WOW.

DreadingItagain · 26/03/2025 17:32

spaceisfree · 26/03/2025 17:15

I think we need to be honest that long days in childcare are not ideal for very young children / babies. That's not to say they will be damaged for life, but let's face it, for too many families today, it's an economic necessity rather than a positive choice made in the child's interests, in the majority of cases.

There is a place for nurseries after the age of about 2.5 / 3 years when toddlers start to meaningfully socialise, etc. But a few hours in the day is enough and they really don't need to be there 5 days a week 'to socialise.'

Because of the cost of living requiring two parents to work in more cases than not. things like nurseries that take tiny babies for ten hour days are marketed as 'enabling.' But really mums (and dads) shouldn't need to be rushing babies to nurseries for breakfast and then picking them up at 5 or 6, as millions of parents are now required to do.

And now the govt tell families "oh look you lucky people - you now don't even have to bother giving your school kids breakfast. You can take them to school even earlier because breakfast is now the schools job. Then put them in after school clubs too if you need to."

It might be convenient for parents but you can't tell me any of this is in the interests of most babies and children, except the severely deprived. Instead of breakfast clubs and 'wrap around' care and nurseries that will take babies for 12 hour days, the govt need to be putting children's needs first and foremost. At present, priorities are backwards. They should be incentivising companies to let mums and/ or dads work more flexibly, at least in the preschool years. If not even giving your own child some toast or whatever in the mornings now is being framed as 'progress', I think society needs a drastic rethink.

I couldn’t agree more. Babies and children under 3 need to be with a primary caregiver and form a strong bond.

spaceisfree · 26/03/2025 17:33

What is WOW about families being able to expect a more reasonable work / life balance? The onus needs to be in employers. Much more flexibility for mums and dads so that babies and children don't have to do such long days in nurseries or schools. At the moment, policies are all aimed at parents working longer and longer hours and children spending longer and longer days at nursery or school.

MellowPinkDeer · 26/03/2025 17:36

spaceisfree · 26/03/2025 17:33

What is WOW about families being able to expect a more reasonable work / life balance? The onus needs to be in employers. Much more flexibility for mums and dads so that babies and children don't have to do such long days in nurseries or schools. At the moment, policies are all aimed at parents working longer and longer hours and children spending longer and longer days at nursery or school.

The judgement through that thread was unbelievable.

plenty of jobs offer a work life balance but you still need to actually work, so childcare IS required. That might be long for three days or short for five. Who is anyone to judge on this?!

spaceisfree · 26/03/2025 17:41

I didn't say childcare isn't required. I'm saying families need more flexibility.

SouthLondonMum22 · 26/03/2025 17:41

DreadingItagain · 26/03/2025 17:32

I couldn’t agree more. Babies and children under 3 need to be with a primary caregiver and form a strong bond.

Show quote history

Babies and children under 3 can go to nursery and form multiple bonds with caregivers as well as with the parents. Strong bonds too.

Gogogo12345 · 26/03/2025 17:45

DreadingItagain · 26/03/2025 17:32

I couldn’t agree more. Babies and children under 3 need to be with a primary caregiver and form a strong bond.

Show quote history

How does that work then when both parents work similar hours on opposite shifts and equally looking after kids? Who is the " primary" caregiver or are those kids deprived also

SugarandSpiceandAllThingsNaice · 26/03/2025 17:51

DreadingItagain · 26/03/2025 17:32

I couldn’t agree more. Babies and children under 3 need to be with a primary caregiver and form a strong bond.

Show quote history

They can form strong bonds with several caregivers. It’s actually better for the babies and the parents for the baby to not be attached to only one primary caregiver (usually the mother).

In most of human history, babies weren’t with a primary caregiver. There would be mother and father, older siblings, aunts/uncles, cousins as household were multi-generational and included extended family. The nuclear family is a recent phenomenon and it can be argued that it’s not an improvement in many ways for the health and development of babies.

spaceisfree · 26/03/2025 17:53

A childminder is not a parent. They are not looking to bond in that way and nor should they be. They are there because they are paid (and the pay is diabolically low, but that's another thread).

SugarandSpiceandAllThingsNaice · 26/03/2025 17:55

spaceisfree · 26/03/2025 17:53

A childminder is not a parent. They are not looking to bond in that way and nor should they be. They are there because they are paid (and the pay is diabolically low, but that's another thread).

True, but it’s the same person each and every day so a bond is formed. Most childminders these days are the grandparents or aunts etc anyway

Anyadvicewelcome2 · 26/03/2025 17:55

MesmerisingMuon · 26/03/2025 16:12

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!

Show quote history

I could have written this word for word , I’m also a teacher.
Honestly (and my small kids weren’t “easy” at all) I found it so much easier being a sahm than working. It’s literally double the work when you have to work and raise kids. I also agree it’s even harder working now they are older . I found I had time in between managing the baby and toddlers madness (3 dcs closeish in age) to have a solid routine, get housework done , watch tv , kids could be bunged in the buggy for lovely long walks , nap times , even and a lovely long evening as all in bed for 7/8.! Oh I miss that bedtime 😂
It’s just so, so much more full-on now, I adore my family but it’s very busy managing work and kids and I’m someone who gets holidays with them!!

Styleislost · 26/03/2025 17:56

spaceisfree · 26/03/2025 17:15

I think we need to be honest that long days in childcare are not ideal for very young children / babies. That's not to say they will be damaged for life, but let's face it, for too many families today, it's an economic necessity rather than a positive choice made in the child's interests, in the majority of cases.

There is a place for nurseries after the age of about 2.5 / 3 years when toddlers start to meaningfully socialise, etc. But a few hours in the day is enough and they really don't need to be there 5 days a week 'to socialise.'

Because of the cost of living requiring two parents to work in more cases than not. things like nurseries that take tiny babies for ten hour days are marketed as 'enabling.' But really mums (and dads) shouldn't need to be rushing babies to nurseries for breakfast and then picking them up at 5 or 6, as millions of parents are now required to do.

And now the govt tell families "oh look you lucky people - you now don't even have to bother giving your school kids breakfast. You can take them to school even earlier because breakfast is now the schools job. Then put them in after school clubs too if you need to."

It might be convenient for parents but you can't tell me any of this is in the interests of most babies and children, except the severely deprived. Instead of breakfast clubs and 'wrap around' care and nurseries that will take babies for 12 hour days, the govt need to be putting children's needs first and foremost. At present, priorities are backwards. They should be incentivising companies to let mums and/ or dads work more flexibly, at least in the preschool years. If not even giving your own child some toast or whatever in the mornings now is being framed as 'progress', I think society needs a drastic rethink.

What’s this got to do with the thread?

I also know plenty of working parents who, shock horror, give their kids breakfast everyday.

Why is it just a benefit to parents to work flexibly? Would it not be beneficial even to parents for everyone who can work flexibly, to have the opportunity to?

Daisyrainbows · 26/03/2025 17:57

spaceisfree · 26/03/2025 17:15

I think we need to be honest that long days in childcare are not ideal for very young children / babies. That's not to say they will be damaged for life, but let's face it, for too many families today, it's an economic necessity rather than a positive choice made in the child's interests, in the majority of cases.

There is a place for nurseries after the age of about 2.5 / 3 years when toddlers start to meaningfully socialise, etc. But a few hours in the day is enough and they really don't need to be there 5 days a week 'to socialise.'

Because of the cost of living requiring two parents to work in more cases than not. things like nurseries that take tiny babies for ten hour days are marketed as 'enabling.' But really mums (and dads) shouldn't need to be rushing babies to nurseries for breakfast and then picking them up at 5 or 6, as millions of parents are now required to do.

And now the govt tell families "oh look you lucky people - you now don't even have to bother giving your school kids breakfast. You can take them to school even earlier because breakfast is now the schools job. Then put them in after school clubs too if you need to."

It might be convenient for parents but you can't tell me any of this is in the interests of most babies and children, except the severely deprived. Instead of breakfast clubs and 'wrap around' care and nurseries that will take babies for 12 hour days, the govt need to be putting children's needs first and foremost. At present, priorities are backwards. They should be incentivising companies to let mums and/ or dads work more flexibly, at least in the preschool years. If not even giving your own child some toast or whatever in the mornings now is being framed as 'progress', I think society needs a drastic rethink.

100% agree

Calamitousness · 26/03/2025 18:00

Wouldn’t it be great if we just respected each other regardless of their choices in life but based on their behaviour to us and others.

SugarandSpiceandAllThingsNaice · 26/03/2025 18:20

Calamitousness · 26/03/2025 18:00

Wouldn’t it be great if we just respected each other regardless of their choices in life but based on their behaviour to us and others.

That’s just it though, some posters feel that parents behaviours towards their children ( putting in long hours of nursery from babyhood) is neglectful behaviour and so they do not respect it. I had one parent say I was putting my DC in a “day orphanage” and why’d I bother having kids if I wasn’t going to quit work to be a SAHM.

Which I don’t care about, they’re entitled to their opinion and to give respect howsoever they choose.

Fetchthevet · 26/03/2025 18:26

I completely agree with you @spaceisfree

spaceisfree · 26/03/2025 18:29

I can only speak for myself, but I definitely do respect working mums. Very much. I'm not blaming them for doing what they need to do. That's not the point. The point is that we need workplace cultures that make situations where families are forced to put babies in childcare centres for 12 hour days become a thing of the past. People deserve a better work / life balance and children deserve better than this.