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 in my view.

Don't be so.patronising.

I'm not entirely sure what your "view" is.

My post was about how if we decided to have mums stay at home for five years every time they had a baby, it would have a knock on effect on vital services like social work, health and education all of which have a significant amount of working mums working in them.

I'm not sure what difference me being part or full time has to do with this or even why I would need to mention it.

Your five year thing is a CAREER BREAK. Btw I worked in Education and my husband worked in Social Work. There isn't a recruitment problem in either and people take career breaks.

I live in a different country from you. But you've lost the argument by getting personal. Like you all did with @OtterlyAstounding

6 months before you "joined" .

What on earth are you on about? What argument have I lost? I've absolutely no idea what you're on about.

And how do you know what country I live in or when I joined? People change usernames you know!

It's sad. Look at the state of us and where we are as a race.

Ultimately we are mammals that are biologically programmed to rear our own offspring yet in the civilised world, it is frowned upon to raise your own babies. World's gone bloody mad.

I was very fortunate and stayed at home to raise my DC and I didn't miss any of their childhood. We lived on a farm with a busy but very hands on involved DH. There is no amount of money in the world that you could have bribed me with to take that away. Once a childhood is over, it is over.

Spending it all with them was priceless.

I'm the same. The experience of my two was the best experience in my life and I job shared so they got other experiences too (grandparents, both sides).

Unfortunately this thread has proven the OP right.

Having children was the best thing I ever did. Having a career is the second best thing. It’s not an either/or 😊

I dont.

Most definitely. I've never been quite so questioned or accused of lying/embellishing as I have on this thread, and all for sharing my experiences being a stay at home (and then later, part time working) mum, and what my children have said relating to it. It's a little weird.

Guilt.

I do have to wonder that for at least some people, yes, given the responses. There seems to be a real anger towards people who value spending time with their loved ones over and above the attempt to scrape a little more material gain.

Wow! You really think parents value work over their children? Can’t fathom how some people even think these things

I love being a parent and loved working. Everyone is different. If you can afford to live off one salary and one of the parents wants to be a SAHP then feel free. You can’t moan about not being able to step back on the career ladder where you got off, or having less savings or pension though cause that’s all part of the decision you made.

If you are relying on benefits you don’t have a choice. Back out to full time work when your child is 9 months old please.

Not parents, mothers. Lets be clear.

The judgement is only aimed towards working mothers.

Exactly.

It's 2026. It isn't a choice I have to make, I have and love both.

That's not at all what I said.

I said value spending time with loved ones, vs financial gain. People can value their loved ones without wanting to spend all their time with them. For instance, I value my mum more than my part time job, but I would rather go to work than hang out with her for my usual working hours every week!

Here we go, let's pretend that wohps are all guilty about not being sahps.

I genuinely have nothing to be guilty about, personally. My dd is an adult now, happy and thriving, and I have zero regrets about having worked when she was little - why would I?

I have friends who chose to SAH with their kids, and I was genuinely happy for them because they was what they wanted to do. No anger, and no resentment here. Their kids are adults now too, also happy and thriving.

My issue isn't with individual people who choose to SAH. I think it's a perfectly valid choice if that's what you and your partner both want. And I absolutely recognise that it can be hard work sometimes and that people might feel unappreciated if their partners do not seem to recognise their contribution to the household appropriately.

What I do have an issue with is people demanding recognition "from society" as if being a SAHP is somehow a sacrifice that people make for the public good instead of simply being a personal choice that happens to work for their own family. And I also have an issue with people assuming that having a SAHP is somehow inherently better for children when the evidence simply doesn't back that up

I'm amazed it has taken so long, usually comes up before now.

I could be a SAHM if I wanted to but I very much don't want to, in fact, I made the choice to have a shorter maternity leave both times. Guilt free with no regrets.

I don’t think it is. The only reason it was me who went job share with our two was that I earned less. If I had earned more than my husband, he would have been happy to.

Agree. My husband would've loved to be SAHP, and was a very involved dad as it was, but he was able to work longer hours, and I wanted to be at home too – and as the mum I outvoted him, haha.

Ok. But this isn’t about people who make that choice. It’s about people who don’t. It’s not a competition. Both choices are valid. But this thread has turned into a criticism of people who chose to stay at home.