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”.

Not at all. It’s about what was on the news yesterday with Kemi that sparked my post. I think she said something along the lines of not wanting to ‘punish parents who work’ and she mentioned some people are working less etc and she didn’t think it was fair. It made me wonder what is fundamentally wrong with women or men who choose to spend more time (and less time at work) with their children - that was the crux of it really. It just made me think it’s all just a bit of a rat race now, due to cost of living, you name it! Where actually stepping back for the kids isn’t so praised?

It would give parents better choices. But that's all it would achieve, and at great cost to the tax payer.
Because this could happen in one of two ways. Either its introduced as a new benefit, placing further strain on the welfare bill to pay people who in some cases, have no financial need for it. Which is unlikely to be deemed necessary or fair.
Or it could be made as a payment for services, to parent as provider rather than the nursery. Which would cause additional expense in administration, as we cant just dole out public money for a service that hasnt been assessed as fit for purpose. If we're professionalising it, then there needs to be checks, training, assessment, monitoring, registration and so on.
And what benefits do we get from this cost? Just a rather vague, unevidenced and disputed possibly that it's 'better' for children.

I don’t think insisting on evidence to prove an intervention isn’t harmful before widespread implementation is silly, but I guess that’s an opinion and we may disagree.

I agree that we would expect evidence to show if it did make a different but my point is that there’s very little evidence! There have been very, very few studies examining the impact of group care on children younger than 1.

I’m not sure why you think I want to find evidence that children are being hurt or “damaged.” That’s a strange comment to make to someone you don’t know.

Working mothers are not new, but the widespread use of long hours in paid group care settings is unprecedented and has increased exponentially since the 70s/80s. The government continues to expand funding for these programmes.

I understand the correlation between income and outcomes, obviously this is another factor that is related but it’s not really relevant when discussing the whether the environment of childcare settings themselves is harmful to development or not.

I think if you boil it right down, the issue is with the partners of SAHMs not treating them as equal and not appreciating what they do for the family.

And then SAHMs with unappreciative partners then probably get lots of micro judgments for things that are probably a result of being neglected by their partners - “looking tired/ having let oneself go”, not being able to do anything child free etc

If they have no time to themselves they will resent that and often blame “society” rather than their partner - you see it on here a lot.

These threads always confuse me because I'm never sure what SAHMS mean when they say they need "valued" and even less clear how this is to be measured.

I chose to have kids but I also go out to work in a public service role and I am paid for it. That's generally how the world works. I don't sit about worrying how society values me, quite frankly I don't have the time too nor do I particularly care.

Whatever choices people make and their family is up to them. And surely if your children are happy and healthy then that's all the validation you need. I mean what next? Are the government supposed to take out public campaigns thanking parents for staying at home. Hand out medals?

And the solution isn't just to pay people to stay at home because they want to. Not all working mums work in corporate jobs. I work in social work which has a large amount of working mums. Similar to jobs in health and education. It'd be an absolute nightmare if we were to take all these workers out for five years in both knock on effect on essential work for vital services as well as job retention.

Such a delightful attitude. Yes, we have living costs. Not all of us in society have the option to make higher wages. Bragging? No. I'm not going to brag about a lack of money. Generally people treat that as something shameful (you're no exception).

Anyway, I've given my opinion, and experience, and now it just seems to be about picking me apart, so I'll leave it there.

The thing that’s of value and should be respected (both on the granular level of individual families and wider society) is instilling good values in one’s children and raising them into well adjusted, responsible adults who will have a positive impact on society. And that can be done by working and non working parents. That’s the real crux of it.

Great post.

I think SAHMs are doing a job at the end of the day, but everyone needs to be realistic as to who benefits from that, ie their own family.

It doesn’t make a difference to the rest of us.

But as I say, we should respect everyone.

@MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack

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.

Exactly. Which is fine in principle. Society should value childcare.

The problem is that this invariably leads into a discussion about what form "valuing" should take which can never be credibly answered. And then usually into a rabbit hole about how people who stay at home are doing a better job of raising children than those who work.

Which is a) never evidenced credibly b) upsetting and derogatory to people who don't have any choice but to work and c) if followed to its logical conclusion leads to a mindset where women who work for their own stability and fulfilment are perceived to be short-changing their children. Even if they are often doing it for their children's benefit.

The "value" should be inherent and internal and it shouldn't come at the societal expense of the "value" which people who work are creating.

Genuinely though, most of us wojld be homeless trying to raise multiple kids on one barely living wage income. Or in recipet of lots of benefits, so not really living off of one income. So you must have some pointers for the rest of us. It isn't just a compromise on lifestyle is it? If its so easy, please tell us how.

I think you need to separate out the difference between the different measures of value.

Obviously, staying home has value but it isn't economic value. In cases where a family can't afford to pay for someone to stay home (by loss of income) then it isn't reasonable to expect taxpayers to foot the bill.

Staying at home is a personal decision. Should we normally expect complete strangers to validate our life choices? Do we care what they think?

Personally I couldn't care less what other people do, I just don't want to pay for it.

Indeed.

Which brings us neatly full circle back to "don't ever rely on one other person for everything". Including at the most obvious level financial stability but also validation and respect.

What more evidence do you want that mothers working outside of the home isn't harmful other than decades of research demonstrating that there is no evidence that outcomes are worse? You seem to be determined to set an impossible standard of proof?

Nursery based childcare has been common since the 1990s, so there has been plenty of time to follow these children into adulthood.

It's interesting that you seem in this post to be focused on children under 1, too, given that most working women seem to take the whole year's maternity leave these days. I would be all in favour of extending maternity pay to enable all women to make that choice, but that's a separate discussion.

If families could be given a pot of money to keep as an alternative to putting their kids into funded childcare, I think there’d be a sudden realisation of how little the govt actually pays per child for these childcare places

And you’d have to take of the amount that the working parents then pay in tax, NI etc, as this is money going back to the govt that a SAHM won’t have to pay. Plus working parents are then paying fares, buying food and drink during the day that perhaps has VAT on it etc - it generates money for the govt for people to be out at work.

Society won't value you because you stay at home to look after the children you chose to have. What value is that bringing to anybody else apart from you and your children? I'm not sure what you need to valued for or by whom?

I never said it was easy. Why do my choices and experience bother you so much that you feel the need to pick me apart over them, and question everything?

I think that decision is between the parents, isn't it? I expect had MIL been the higher earner, he would have done.

He was actually always grateful that his chosen career did allow him plenty of time with his children.

As a teacher he was also helping raise other young people.

In case you missed it (which I can only assume you did entirely because your question is frankly odd) money is required to feed, house and cloth ourselves, and our children.

I don't see a job with any higher value. What is actually more important that raising the next generation of humans who are next to run the world?

I value any adult who is able and has chosen to be at home and raise their own children.

I would be interested to know why you don't?

there is no evidence that outcomes for children of working parents are worse. Neither is there evidence that outcomes for children of SAHP are worse!

Those of us who were working parents in the 1990s - and there were many of us - have adult offspring who are now in their 30s, in their own careers and relationships. This really isn’t some new untested phenomenon

Because the government need worker ants. They don’t need children to spend time with those most vested in their wellbeing and interests ie their parents, thereby ensuring their mental and physical health, are maximally catered to. They don’t need outliers, great thinkers, and those who think outside the box.

Sure, maximising wellbeing and achievement works well at an individual level, but at a population level it’s immaterial/irrelevant and doesn’t impact the economy in any measurable sense.

The more efficient method (or rather, regression to the mean) is achieved by placing large groups of children in the care of a transient workforce who are counting down until they clock off, and have minimal qualifications.

Why would women ‘waste’ their education on spending the day with their child. What a waste of someone’s undergraduate or postgraduate degree! Much better to work and generate an income - otherwise what’s the point in the woman existing!

How terribly dull for a woman to spend the day with her child, when she could be making strides in the corporate world. Whatever else will she say when she’s older, if not ‘I used to work for company X’. Think of the deathbed memories people!!! You won’t care whether you were there when your child first started to walk, not when you’ve killed it in the boardroom or got that promotion in place of Neil…

Daycare to the extent it’s being used - think a child spending maybe 1 hour in total a day with their parents, which is absorbed by teeth brushing, breakfast and dinner, is a modern phenomenon. Our children are guinea pigs, and we’ll only learn of the consequences of extensive daycare at a later date - and no your anecdata about your sociable 9 month old who adores his 12 hour day doesn’t count.

And just in case it still needs saying for those at the back… those of us who work do still raise our children! 🤣

News to me! I'm too busy being a "worker ant" to be raising mine 😂. Ironically working in social work so actually the government very does much need me and my colleagues many of whom are working mums out there protecting and supporting our most vulnerable children and members of society!

I think it is over valued and boring.

🤫 naughty!

Well, yes, I don’t understand why being a SAHP need to be particularly valued other than from the other parent of their child. Much like working parents don’t need to be valued by colleagues for being parents.

Working parents aren’t releasing feral adults into the world that are of little benefit to society or the wider world any more than those that stay at home.

If you want to and can stay at home to parent then do so. If you don’t want to, then work.
And some don’t have a choice either way.