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 do agree with you , it’s undervalued.
I was initially a SAHM because of lack of childcare options at a reasonable cost back in the 90s .
Then I had 2 more children ( one disabled) so it became really difficult and I had to be a SAHM .
Had some funded childcare been available I’d have worked part time

Ok paying for child care though?

I didn't know free childcare was means tested?

I think this seems like an "ideal" like BF or similar .Most people today have to work .Two incomes are more or less essential now .Also many young women who are well educated dont want to stay at home .If you can obv thats good.

Crying at @Ziggedy’s description of children with their parents for one hour a day, absorbed by tooth brushing and breakfast 😂

then I had an awful moment of thinking ‘oh god this might actually be a serious post!’ (And then 😂 some more!)

You can do as u like but if u have no pension other than state

I halved my hours when mine were small. Retired at 60 on my works pension.

It may not your aspiration, and it’s not mine either, but it for others and it’s not something to look down on. My mother was a SAHM and without a doubt it was definitely better experience than what I can offer my kids as a working mum.

Well if everyone didn't work ever then it wouldn't be productive would it.
It's cool to be a SAHM if your partner earns a salary to support it, but it's better to have at least some of your own money.

Once someone's kids are at school SAHM isn't a full time job, so what's wrong with encouraging everyone who is physically and mentally able to work at least some of the time? It's good for the person, their employer and for society.

Why can't you job share?

• *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.

I work and did all these things with my kids. Working parents aren't keeping their children in solitary confinement, to only be allowed out to nursery you know.

I never understand this view that some some SAHMS have of working mums. I still read, play and spend time with my kids. I take them out to activities, bake with them, bathe them, clothe them, look after them when they are sick, nurture them and support their development. They have a close and loving bond with me.

The only difference is for 3 days a week they were at nursery and the rest of the time they are looked after by myself and my husband. And that seems to be the general trend for most working mums I know.

I don’t have anything against working mums, I want mums who want to work to be able to work and mums (or dads!) who want to be with their toddlers to be able to be with their toddlers. Currently it is very difficult for parents to choose to stay with their children for longer if that is what they want or feel is best.

I was fortunate to be able to work very flexible part time hours to make ends meet when my child was very young and my husband and I were able to stagger our schedules so that we didn’t need paid childcare. It was hard but worth it as we didn’t feel she was ready to be in nursery for 10 hour days but I appreciate most people don’t even have this option. I have no doubt that this was the best course for our child but it was financially and logistically very difficult at the time.

Whenever a friend or family member feels forced back into full time work when their tiny child is 1 or a bit younger I feel awful for them, because I so clearly remember how awful that felt. I want parents to work if they feel that’s best for their family or child, but I also don’t think it’s fair so many don’t feel it’s an option to stay with their child longer if they think that would be best for them.

The government decision to fund childcare but not parents looking after their own children makes it harder for parents to choose what they actually feel is best for their own children.

Why would I need to job share? I work part time as it is, I have no desire to reduce my hours further.

My point being myself and a large proportion of my colleagues are working mums. This idea that we should all be paid to stay at home would mean there wouldn't be enough people to job share with anyway not to mention the impact on essential services were woman just to be taken out the employment sector for 5 years every time they had a baby.

I thought the point you were making was that you work full time. So you're a part timer.

Who is mixing up career breaks with being a SAHP.

I never mentioned anything about working full time. I'm not quite sure where you got that from!

It isn't because it isn't paid directly to the person as a welfare benefit. It's a service that people can access free of charge, like the NHS, schools etc. We are discussing a proposed change to this whereby the money is instead paid to the parent.
If this isn't to be in the form of a professional contract, then it becomes a benefit. An earnings replacement benefit, similar to carers allowance. Carers allowance also isn't means tested, but does carry earnings restrictions for the claimant.
And of course, paying carers allowance of £86 per week is significantly cheaper than other care options, so unlike this proposal, even without means testing, is public money well spent.
I can't imagine there being much, if any, appetite to introduce a new benefit that increases the household income of a family where one adult chooses not to work without a means test. Even with it would be an extremely hard sell.

Totally agree
sad that these days it’s almost impossible for parents to have a choice.
my children are all teens now but I’m so glad I stayed at home to look after them - best years of my life!

Carers allowance a IS Means Tested, what do you think the earnings restrictions are? It’s also not like the NHS or even schools as everyone has had access to both. This would only be for parents. Also, free childcare obviously increases the household income. Your getting free money to pay for something you would otherwise have to pay for yourself. Plus free childcare can be claimed for all children. Not just those who have parents work. So it wouldn’t be a hard sell. It’s like many other benefits. PIP eg. You get that if you work or don’t.

You clearly didn’t say you work part time.

Carers allowance is not means tested. You can be a millionare and get it. You can have a partner earning six figures and get it. What you cannot do is earn more than £204 from employment and get it. Because as I said, it's an earnings replacement benefit, not a means tested benefit. It's an important difference.
Yes, free childcare does save money for parents. But it comes with the advantage of enabling parents to work and pay tax, which paying them to stay at home doesn't. The reverse in fact.
PIP is entirely different. Disability is not a lifestyle choice. It is a circumstance people do not select and that is known to be linked to higher expenditure and reduced earning power, which the benefit can offset a little. PIP also helps people who can work do so.
I find it surprising you think people would see someone's lifestyle choice in the same category as a disability when deciding where public money is spent. I think its a minority view.

https://www.gov.uk/carers-allowance/eligibility

• your earnings are £204 or less a week after tax, National Insurance and expenses

You've completely confused me. My point was about working mums. Me being part time or full time was irrelevant to it.

Btw I never mentioned lifestyle choice. That was you in this post, bizarrely.

@Differentforgirls I think you’re getting confused on these threads. Take some deep breaths 😂