AIBU to think staying at home with children is undervalued?

[Amby99]

I’m not ignorant of the fact that staying at home isn’t financially possible or desirable for everyone, and I don’t think children who go to nursery are disadvantaged whatsoever . There are brilliant nurseries, brilliant working mums, and plenty of happy, healthy children being raised that way (and fulfilled and happy mothers)
However, I do wonder whether society (or the government) has become so focused on measuring “productivity” through paid employment that we’ve started to undervalue the work involved in raising a child.
Badenoch saying that the government doesn’t want to “punish working parents” in relation to childcare costs … it made me wonder why being a SAHM is so rarely viewed as valuable or productive in its own right.
Preparing my baby’s first solids, BF him, reading, playing, taking him outside, talking to him, letting him explore and generally being available. It feels like important work, yet because it isn’t paid it often seems invisible.
There are of course many advantages to nursery, and that work can be important for a mother’s identity, finances, career and mental health.
But why does the conversation seem to focus so heavily on encouraging parents back into paid employment, while choosing to provide that childcare yourself is rarely encouraged or valued in the same way? I’m not talking about mothers that sit at home all day feeding their child McDonald’s and claiming every benefit under the sun. I get why they may be encouraged back into the workforce and their children would be better off at nursery. BUT I’m sick of having to feel guilty of my choice to stay home. Every parent I know who was a parent in the 90’s stayed at home and it wasn’t so frowned upon.

I just think it should be seen as a worthwhile and valuable choice rather than something that needs to be justified because you’re “not working”.

I agree, I think if the government is willing to fund nursery for 9 months olds an equivalent amount should be offered to parents (mothers or fathers) to help with finances if they decide they’d rather look after their own child instead.

We made sacrifices so that both myself and my husband could spend as much possible with our child instead of using paid childcare and now that she’s in school I don’t regret a single second of the baby and toddler years that I spent with her instead of working.

Economically it is better to have everyone working and paying taxes, with children in childcare. It is more 'efficient' in childcare where 1 staff member can look after several children, depending on their ages, whereas parents are usually looking after 1 or 2 children at a time. That's why the government are pushing it.

Edited to add - I'm not saying this is my view. DH and I both reduced our hours to look after our DC until they were 3.

It isn't going to be encouraged by the government because they ultimately want tax payers and that is why it's beneficial to offer childcare from 9 months but not to paying a parent to stay at home with their child.

I think it’s less about devaluing SAHPs and more about making sure that you’re not making it impossible for parents to go back to work because childcare costs are so astronomical.

For example, I am a single mother so obviously I can’t be a SAHM. I pay £2k per month just in childcare fees for my kids. That’s absolutely unacceptable when in other Western European countries it’s heavily subsidised.

As far as I was aware, parents that stay at home don’t have to look for work if they’re claiming benefits until a child is 3 - that is support. And people not entitled to benefits have made a financial decision that suits their family so what support do they need?

This feels like such an old fashioned discussion tbh. It’s not aspirational to stay at home and look after children all day. They don’t need it either

Massively! I'm not a SAHM. I've always had to work. But I admire all parents who do stay at home, if they can.
It's sad most parents have to work FT, and makes life so hard. It would be great to have all the chores done, so the family could relax and do fun things. It must be great to be able to do all the reading and fun things without having to worry about rushing constantly. People are always complaining about kids running riot, and (before my time) there used to be lots of parents and grandparents helping out and supporting everyone in the neighbourhood.

I agree there should be some form of tax break to allow stay at home parents for very young children - along with help for nursery fees for those who work.

That’s gives people a choice. Both have value.

The real tragedy is the lack of choice. Women are now expected to return to work, ans it’s no longer possible to live on one wage unless you’re very fortunate.

I don’t think it is looked down on. I’m a SAHM and most mums I know are either in awe because they would find it too difficult/ boring, or would desperately love to stay at home but can’t afford it.

I see being a SAHM in today’s society as a massive privilege.

I agree. There is something wrong when childminding in someone else’s home is valued over childminding your own child.
And as for Kemi B… she talks a lot of nonsense about a few things

If they provide you with an equal amount to stay home as the funded childcare then you should be paying the same tax as a full time working mum would be.

Because we have an ageing population and the government needs the taxes

Because if every mother decided to stay at home until her youngest was at school we would have a crisis in medical care, teaching and all manner of other fields.

This isn’t the 1960s, we now have many many many more ‘essential’ roles that women fill.

And you would be howling if they were all decimated ‘because kids need their mum more than you need her’.

Of course childminders are going to be valued more outside of your immediately family as they are providing a service and ensuring that multiple families are able to work.

I also think comparing it to the past is a false equivalency as mothers were not expected to spend all day supervising & interacting with their dc. My mum was a SAHM but did courses with a local college which had a crèche, pretty much all her friends & neighbours were also SAHMs so you always had someone to socialise with whilst the dc amused themselves. Family was local so she had lots of hands on help & there was always a childminder who would have us for a few quid.

Childcare can be prohibitively expensive. I didn't just want to return to work, I wanted to return to my specific workplace. If I hadn't, I'd maybe have considered a couple of years at home but as it was I didn't want having children to mean I had to give up a job I enjoyed. We're lucky to live in a relatively cheap part of the country but for people with larger mortgages, sometimes paying for nursery just isn't viable even with professional jobs. I don't think it's fair mothers, and it usually is mothers, should have to give up their jobs. A pp is correct that childcare in Britain costs vastly more than most of Europe.

It’s not just the kids you take on as a SAHM, it’s all the chores life brings you. Medical appointments, health visitor reviews, cleaning, shopping, cooking, washing. I’m on mat leave and I have 2 DC, a toddler and 4 month old. I am due to return to work in March and I’m wondering how I’m going to do it all! Yes I have DH but he works shifts. He cooks when possible but I don’t think he’s lifted his hand to a duster for years. My day starts at 7, and ends around 10 when I’ve got everything ready for the next day I can relax. My toddler does still go to his childminder 3 days a week because it’s good for his growth and our health visited us to carry on with his routine post baby.

my own personal choice is I’d rather still work. I’m cutting my hours when I go back to coincide with the DC’s childminder hours. I feel I need some away from being the mum and organiser of the house. But I do take my hats off to those SAHM’s because it’s not easy

I agree. I always worked full time because I never had an employer that would agree to part time and I wish very much that I’d had more time with my children when they were young. It is my life’s biggest regret.

That said, I’ve had a fun career that has been very good for my confidence and mental health, I’ve learned a ton and we’ve never needed to worry about money, which is a luxury. But time has been the scarce resource, not money. I notice the difference in children whose mothers spent more time at home with them, they are less “brittle” and better behaved.

Preparing my baby’s first solids, BF him, reading, playing, taking him outside, talking to him, letting him explore and generally being available.

All the above are also done by working parents. Do you not think working parents talk to their babies or play with them?

Each to their own but when I was growing up and a young woman, being a SAHM was grossly over-valued.

I don't like the idea of a small child being put in a nursery all day every day from early morning. Most (usually mothers), work part time for the early years and as long as the child is well cared for during the work period, it works out.

Of course I do. But obviously if they are at work at a 9-5, the feeding and the playing and the interacting gets done via nursery staff. Which isn’t unhealthy, I’m just saying a lot of ‘work’ is also involved being a SAHM - that wasn’t an exhaustive list

It’s crazy - you stay at home and raise your kids with love and care and time and individual attention And society sees you as being pretty worthless.

you go to work at a minimum wage job leaving your kid in the care of a minimum wage nursery worker so your child is getting far less 1:1 attention and being ‘cared’ for by a barely qualified 18 year old who is responsible for multiple children in a room rather than a home by a stranger rather than a loving attentive parent and that is seen as being good.

the world has gone bonkers

precisely 🤯

Well that’s one way of making your preferred side look amazing while thinking up the worst possible outcome for the other.

Loads of kids are not taken care of properly by parents. They feed them junk, put the TV on 24/7 and they have no routine. Nursery is better than a crappy parent because they have routine, decent food and activities.

I personally don’t think it’s looked down on. I think it’s commendable - my mum did it until I was about 6 and I’m the youngest of 3. I credit a lot of my early development and support as children to her efforts.

So no, I don’t think it’s frowned on now, I just don’t think it’s remotely possible for most couples to financially do. If they can do it, they’re possibly risking retirement or costing their kids their uni/car/wedding funds (which is fine!) It’s a serious financial decision as women then aren’t paying into their employment pension, getting the the matching top ups “free” and putting towards their NI. I think many many couples would have one parent stay home but they can’t afford to. The same way I think some grandparents would love to retire to help with grandchildren but they can’t afford to not still work. No one looks down on retired grandparents or SAHP, it’s just not as widely possible in 2026.