To think life is a lot easier & more relaxed if there’s one Sahp?

[Boredofwatchingthisonthebox]

Worked all my life, part time as a teen, through college, then Uni, then full time and some weekends.
Had Dc a little later in life and stayed at home for the first five years (worked three hours per week when Dh got home)
It wasn’t always easy, I was tired a lot, but grateful to be home. Life seemed to run a lot more smoothly. I was able to get any chores done during the day/week, there was no washing or cleaning the house or food shopping needing to be done at the weekends.
Now it’s back to full time, it’s all a juggle, we all barely see each other for long in the evenings, weekends are full of chores for one of the days, it’s all rushed etc

Aibu to think that having one Sahp (be it the mum or dad (if the dad were to do everything as efficiently 😆) is a better model?

Well, yes. If there's less to do in a day then life is less hectic. That's just a fact.

whether it's better is subjective though.

I can only imagine the bunfight this thread will end up as. Yikes.

Another option is for one or both parents to work part time.

I had an admin role during school hours, including school holidays off and I always felt I had the best of both worlds.

I think it works well, provided the SAHP wants to be a SAHP, the WOHP is equally happy for there to be a SAHP, they can afford it, and there is mutual respect for what each of them brings to the table, and the effort involved. Also, that there is clarity as to what the role is comprised of, and an understanding that being the SAHP doesn't make you Dobby, and doesn't absolve the other partner of parenting, or contributing to the household in a meaningful manner.

It also helps if SAHP isn't translated into 'lady wot lunches, squeezing the brats in and around your lifestyle', or 'dude wot spends their life gaming, throwing a bag of wotsits at the crotchgoblins when they get a bit noisy'.

When someone insists this is the case, I assume it’s a woman with a lazy partner who doesn’t do his share of household gruntwork or childcare, meaning she’s run ragged and thinks her only option is to stop work, thereby deskilling and disempowering herself economically because Nigel thinks grocery shopping and cooking are specialist skills from which his penis debars him.

Perfectly possible for two FT working parents to raise children and run a household without undue stress, assuming average organisation, communication and, obviously, the shared understanding of everything being shared.

It really depends on the people involved.

It wouldn't be more relaxed for us because neither of us want to be a SAHP so whoever did it would be bitter and resentful.

I also TBH don't feel like we are "rushing around" but I think that's more of a personality thing. I don't like having lots of down time or "chill" time the way that a lot of posters seem to.

I’m not sure I need a SAHP but a housekeeper would be marvellous!

I get what you mean though- Ive been invited to a Leadership event during DH’s board week so I need to find out if he can do the school run or if I need to ask our babysitter if she’s free before I say yes. If DH was a SAHD I’d just say yes without checking as I’d assume they were covering the school run unless specifically flagged.

I was only talking about this today. And yes, if one parent is home it fundamentally makes things easier logistically. Like a previous poster said it’s subjective whether it’s better, but I think for many it really must be.

That one parent makes themselves economically unviable and dependant on the other.
Essentially pays hundreds of thousands in earnings opportunity losses for the privilege to be "supported".
Complertey at the mercy of the other parent.
What a way to live. Like a child.

But at what cost to the SAHP?

We are a family that needs a lot of chill time so life became much easier for us when I stopped working when DS was 4. I am now working again, very part time but even that has had an impact.

IMO the ideal would probably be both parents working 3 days a week. I don't think both parents working 5 days a week is good for anyone but unfortunately it is needed in many families. I would love it if society changed so that it was possible for all people to be part time.

More relaxed, if both parties are happy with their respective roles, sure.
Better, not necessarily. I feel that the security of 2 incomes works better for us.

There is definitely a point where money becomes so tight that it isn’t worth the flexibility.

money can also buy ease. Sometimes having one full-time and one part-time working parent provides the best of both worlds.

One to two part time (even if 0.8) workers is best IMO and most equal in terms of ability to both earn and do their bit to 'run the house'. Highly recommended! An no it definitely doesn't need to be the woman that is PT.

We have adopted a similar approach to you @Boredofwatchingthisonthebox . To be honest though, if I had my time again I would aim for more of a both parents part time approach. It is more tax efficient, it means that both parents have days when they are 'in charge' and are the default parent. Avoids the trap of the sahp always being the default parent even on the weekends. Possibly moving to a situation (job permitting) where each parent has their day in charge as a wfh day when the children are in school/ old enough to occupy themselves in the holidays.

It depends how much money you’ve got really doesn’t it. If you’re loaded then having a sahp would be lovely but it is going to be coming at a trade-off.

It really depends. I think in an ideal scenario, there would be one parent at home, but only if both parents were happy with it, the financial implications weren’t a problem and that crucially, both roles were seen as important by both partners, and society as a whole. It would also be great if BOTH parents got to work part time (if they wanted to) rather than the mum being the default part time person.

Generally, I do think things are easier if at least one person is part time/flexible or at home. Having said that, I think if both parents are ambitious, career driven people, who have no interest in part time or being a SAHP and would be really resentful of doing so, there’s no point in them doing it. I think that there should be the option for all parents of young children to share work and parenting so that if they want to be with their children more, they can be. I find it really sad when mums (or dads) have ‘no choice’ but to return to work even though they’d like to spend more time with their young children.

For me, when I had only school aged kids, term time, school hours job was amazing, I loved it. Paid terribly though. Now I am a SAHM again as have a younger child as well, and I probably won’t work again until they start school. However that’s a choice and a privilege. (And there are significant additional needs with two of my kids which also makes it harder).

I don't know if having to rely on one income is great even if it's a large one.
DB works full time and earns well but is self employed SIL works very part time. I know my brother gets stressed about the financial responsibility being all on him.

We both work 5 in 4, DH cleaned the house top to bottom today, I did drop off on my way to work he did pick up and swimming lesson, I cooked dinner when I got home while I was waiting for them to get back. House is clean and tidy for the weekend, I picked up a click and collect grocery order after the gym last night. There are only 3 days a week here where we're both working but we benefit from two decent salaries, and both having good pensions to look forward to. We're both on annual leave for half term.

I think it depends. Whether you have a flexible job, how much of a financial sacrifice being a SAHP is.

I was a SAHP for 3/4 years and was pretty miserable but I have a flexible job, an active partner and we were broke when I was a SAHP. I don’t regret it as it was the best choice at the time. I do think home life needs attention and time but I don’t think the solution is always having a SAHM.

If we’d been better off previously (we had almost zero money for activities so I was entertaining toddlers, alone apart from one cheap playgroup once a week) or if I had a worse job now then I might think differently.

This is the dream set up I think. Truly equal and both feel valued and get to work and be hands on parents. Would love this to work for us!

Not if MN is indicative of the problems such an arrangement brings.
My BIL/SIL ( in their 60s now) had that arrangement but they have a solid relationship.
I had that arrangement with the ex, and there was no respect at all for what I brought to the arrangement; and a lot of entitlement and inequality.

YES

It never crossed mine or my husbands mind to go back to work after my daughter was born.
This was early 80s.. l don't think many of my friends went back to work .
My sisters didn't in the 70s.
We brought up the kids. Did all school drop offs and pick ups ( walking). The cooking and cleaning.
Sometimes all the shopping.. but usually go together one evening ..
Weekends was family time.. day trips out.. or to the park / coast etc.
My husband was a senior lecturer.. today's money would be hundred grand.
There is so much emphasis on both parents working.. if they can afford only one working.. why not.
I just didn't want to leave my kids until they started school.
I cherished and looked forward to the school holidays.

I think I had a similar stroke of luck to you OP, to be in a job that allowed me to drop down to token hours while the kids were pre-school age and go back up to more hours when I wanted to - I think that's really unusual and very fortunate. It's not really possible to project from that to a universal truth of better for all jobs and set ups.

The financial penalty was minimal as we avoided childcare costs, lucky enough to have really nice school pre-schools etc. However, I look back on it as the best thing for us as I was able to spend a lot of the early years with my parents, not knowing I would lose them within ten years - I'm glad I wasn't rushing about then and wouldn't change it.

Well yes it’s obviously easier if one person has ~7.5 hours less work to do a day.

But there are other considerations, mainly financial. Not just in the immediate (less monthly income) but in the future there’ll probably be a smaller pension pot than if both continued to work. Even if the working parent contributes to the SAHP’s pension, it’s probably not going to compensate completely, and also that is additional money that is cut from the monthly budget.