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”.

Agree with you. I’m not sure what ‘being valued’ actually means to the OP. The way this post is written makes it seem like she wants some kind of financial payment from the government to say well done for looking after her children.

The only reason the government are having to heavily subsidise childcare for working parents in the first place, is because costs of living a ordinary, non flashy life have got so high that people would be worse off working than not. We already have a benefits crisis and if they didn’t subsidise childcare it would be even worse.

My parents are from the Indian subcontinent, though I was born here. They both worked all our lives. Their sisters also worked in their home country. When I went to school in the 70s, there were definitely working mums. This really is not a modern dreadful thing, however much some here try and make it so!

@MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack
“The evidence over time has shown that it doesn't make any real difference to outcomes. You seem to want evidence that it produces favourable outcomes, which isn't the same thing.

What the evidence does show is that family income has a direct impact on child development and life chances.”

There is not a strong body of evidence to show that it doesn’t make a real difference, particularly for very young children spending long hours at nursery.

Most studies that have shown negligible or positive effects have the caveat that the results are applicable to “high quality” childcare. It is unlikely that most UK nurseries would meet the definition of high quality as they are defined by the studies. A parent’s (or even OfSTED) judgement of a nursery to be “good” might be very different to the definition of “high quality” as it is defined in the research.

The government is now funding up to 30 hours of care from 9 months in England. There is very limited existing evidence that this is safe for their development. Nurseries in the UK are often stretched and it would certainly be reasonable to question whether the language input, sensory experience, social/emotional support etc. will be adequate in many of these settings.

”There’s no evidence it will hurt them” is a basically useless statement when the evidence is so thin.

Fair enough, you had a poorly paid job pre-children. My main point, is why the snidey remark, and assumption that “I imagine a lot of mumsnetters would insist they wouldn’t be able to live a comfortable life with what we get.” ? It’s very judgemental - you have no idea of other mumsnetters circumstances or motivations for working.

for many of us, working isn’t just about money anyway. I actually worked for zero immediate financial gain for several years when I had two children in nursery and one in wraparound care, before ‘free nursery hours’ were introduced. I could have stayed at home and had just as much money in the family pot - but there were other reasons for working, not least because I have a role which is pretty essential in society!

great for anyone who wants to be a SAHM - do it! And feel happy to say that you do it because you want to and it suits your own individual family. End of. The extra snidey remarks or thinly veiled wish for the children of working parents to somehow do less well in life are really quite unpleasant and do make one question why the need….

Ok. So if the government said that instead of free childcare hours, you could choose to do the child care yourself and get the money going to the nursery, would that give parents better or worse choices?

I would never have wanted to be a full time SAHM, I like working. But I would like to have been able to stay with my child for longer and to work less. I would like not to be the one on whom the weight of paying the mortgage falls every month etc. But the idea of complete financial dependence on another person terrifies me, so in many ways I'm grateful that it's worked out as it has, although it's been difficult in many ways.

But my child is happy and well adjusted and doing well at school and we have a great relationship and although there's no counterfactual, I'm as sure as I can be that my working FT hasn't had any detrimental effects on her.

I genuinely don't begrudge people staying at home, I can see the benefits of it to the family and I agree that SAHMs deserve respect and should not be told they are boring or lazy.

But you've confidently made a bunch of statements about how happy and well adjusted your children are which you've attributed directly to your spending more time with them than working mums. None of which are verifiable.

I do think that people who have raised children at home should feel happy and proud but I also think those who are in the privileged position of being able to choose how much time they spend with their children should recognise that many other women don't have this luxury and should exercise judgement when they proclaim about how much better this variety of parenting is. It's just basic manners and respect.

Insisting on evidence that proves it doesn't make a difference is silly. It is very difficult to prove a negative.

If it did make a difference, then we could reasonably expect the evidence to show it. Working mothers are not a new phenomenon, and there should be plenty of evidence of the damage by now, if indeed it was damaging. The evidence isn't there, much as you might want it to be.

The evidence is there to support the a positive correlation between family income and outcomes for children. So I support measures which are likely to help families with children increase their incomes. Supporting parents into work through subsidised childcare is one way of doing this. I also support other measures such as the provision of child benefit (without the 2 child cap) and I would like to see much better measures in place to ensure that NRPs pay proper maintenance.

Ah yes this old chestnut a comment I always find ironic as it's usually always directed at working mums by stay at home mums who are only able to stay at home because they've got a husband who's well paying job allows them to stay at home. But of course it's ok for men to work and have kids 🙄.

It's almost as good as "you'll never get this time back". It's never aimed at men going out to work. If time with young children is so special and so precious, why are so many stay at home women comfortable with being men at work and missing out on their childhoods then?

There's always this false narrative on this thread that all women who are working have their children in nursery for 40-50 hours a week and are completely hands off parenting and. A quick Google tells me that this is a relatively small number and only about 4% of nursery attendees attend full time and that would tally with my own experience. Virtually every mum I know works yet our children are only in nursery on average 3 days a week.

This tiny percentage isn't worth all the hand wringing you see on here. And children attending nursery isn't a new "phenomenon". Many children who attended nursery are now adults and the research has been clear theres no difference in outcomes for those children who have parents that do work and those that don't.

It wasn't snide. We literally earn very little, and people who know us well enough to know our income often comment that they 'don't know how we get by' or they 'couldn't manage' on our income, when we actually get along alright, so I was just being honest when I said that. I can understand why it came across differently, though, not having that context.

Also just to point out op that the stuff you mention ‘preparing first solids’ etc is actually stuff many women still get paid for while doing. It’s called ‘maternity pay’.

Do you think only SAHMs breastfeed?

I haven’t read all of these posts (I wasn’t expecting so many responses) but no that is absolutely not what I meant. Value doesn’t just come from money. I meant more in the ethical sense that staying at home raising a child, is still a lot of ‘work’. The people in my personal life, value going to work more, they value having more disposable income etc etc. I’ve just experienced a lot of eyebrow raisers when I say I’m staying at home, because that’s what I personally want for myself and for my child.

but from some of the posts I’ve read it seems that a lot of people do still respect people staying at home with their child, just as much as women that have jobs AND still do all of the child stuff when they are home :)

So you’re presumably talking about a few people who know you well in real life and know your family income. Not “a lot of Mumsnetters” as you claimed.

Well then, you've got to do what you wanted, then. Although I'm sorry you didn't have a DP to help carry the weight of responsibility.

I've shared my experience, that's all. I think that being present for my children so intensively has been hugely valuable for them. They agree now that they're grown up teenagers, so that's me happy. If other people have other experiences, good for them.

I think that when you click on a discussion thread, you should expect to hear a variety of opinions politely stated, and that's what's happened. It's not unmannerly or disrespectful to think that being a SAHP is better than a WOHP, or vice versa. It's just disagreement.

I don’t think anyone is devaluing people being a SAHM. I think it all depends on your personal circumstances. I reduced my hours when the kids were younger and it gave me time to spend with them and on my career. I managed to get a big pay increase when I moved jobs too. I don’t think I would have those opportunities if I was a SAHM. I saw my parents divorce in my teens and my mother was only able to hold onto the house because she worked full time. Earning gave her a choice not to put up with a bad relationship and not all relationships are bad before the kids come, it’s usually after.

I think more flexible working which is happening under Labour is a good thing. But I think that also includes WFH.

Oh, I absolutely agree that it's a lot of work. No dispute from me about that at all.

But why does the conversation seem to focus so heavily on encouraging parents back into paid employment

Because they need more tax payers and women between 30-45 are the largest demographic of tax loss. Thought that was obvious.

My point was that most people would not think they could live a comfortable life on our income, because I've never met anyone who's thought that unless they were on benefits or otherwise equally as poor. And given most Mumsnetters on here have talked about 'careers', I imagine they're making a good amount more.

Anyway, it wasn't snide, just badly stated.

I think that when you click on a discussion thread, you should expect to hear a variety of opinions politely stated, and that's what's happened. It's not unmannerly or disrespectful to think that being a SAHP is better than a WOHP, or vice versa. It's just disagreement.

Of course. This discussion has been going on for as long as I've been on Mumsnet (far too long).

I just feel that people with the luxury of choice in this equation should not be telling people who don't have that choice that they are doing a better job of parenting their children.

And (and I realise you didn't start this discussion) the whole point about "valuing" SAHMs just strikes me as silly and self-serving for the reasons outlined above.

But I accept that there's no way to "win" this argument and I don't want it to turn into a pile-on.

You've said on a previous thread that your DH barely earned a living wage. You do realise that for most people that wouldn't ve possible? Perhaps your circumstances are unusual (did you have housing costs) or perhaps you were happy lubing in poverty. But its hardly something to brag about.

Why on earth should you be respected for looking after your child? Everyone looks after their child, whether or not they go out to work as well. It's pretty basic really.
Why do some SAHMs need validation? If you have a chip on your shoulder about it, it's a pretty easy fix, get a job outside the house and there you go.

I think on a human level you’re absolutely right. People who stay at home with their kids are doing something very valuable and should be seen as making a contribution to society.

I don’t think it’s better or worse than going to work full or part time, and using high quality childcare, but it’s something that we should value people for.

I don’t think it’s controversial to think that!

I think it’s on a very granular level, as it’s often members of their own family or friendship group that SAHP feel undervalued or slighted by.

Economically maybe it is better to have everyone out at work, I’m not an expert!

But I think for everyone’s well being, it can be much better to create a society where it is possible for families to afford to have one parent at home, or both parents working part time (I think the two part time working parents is probably the ideal model, although perhaps govts wouldn’t like it as the family pays less tax that way).

Everything costs so much these days and no one has a minute to rest in their day (or many people don’t). Life has become exhausting!

I think they’re irritated there’s no Best Mother prize giving.

Everyone should be respected though, just as human beings.

Unless perhaps they’ve committed some kind of heinous crime (and even then there’s basic human dignity).

Is it because there are two meanings of the word respect that there’s a difference of opinions - a. Treat as a human being, b. Look up to?

I think staying at home with small children is equal to going out to work so it shouldn’t ve looked down on. It shouldn’t be treated as akin to doing nothing with one’s time.

(For disclosure - I have always worked full time and was self employed when I had my kids so didn’t get any paid time off)

It's human to want recognition and validation for the work that you do. Many of us will be getting this from paid work.

For SAHPs, the only real appreciation that they can expect to see is from their partners, and perhaps eventually from their children, but this is not always forthcoming so perhaps that's why they end up looking for validation "from society" instead.

Because from the government’s perspective, value is an economic measure, and you’re not contributing to the system, but presumably still taking out (using the nhs etc).