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”.

Childcare is paid employment. The people providing said childcare are also paying into the tax system. Parents who stay at home and are out of paid employment and look after their own children are not paying into the tax system.

While I have no great about who provides childcare, it makes no economic sense to take more people out of paying tax and then somehow reward them with a benefit (and of course I am not talking about parents who have to stay at home due to having children with additional or health needs. That's an altogether different scenario).

I always highly valued myself and felt the same from my DH and the rest of my family so that’s all that matters to me.

😬

I'm interested as to how a benefit that would pay mums would work anyway. I'm still a mum when I'm not working, doing everything that a stay at home mum does. I'm still raising my child too, why I shouldn't be rewarded too?

👏👏👏

I really can't understand the superiority from SAHMs when they warble on about their job being "The most important job in the world" 🙄

This of us who work do all those important things too. I don't have a shred of guilt either about providing for my daughter like some people think I should have on this thread. To think the government should pay them to stay at home and look after their own children is laughable!

How women find housework and only conversing with pre schoolers mentally stimulating enough to not go insane is beyond me. After a while day of only speaking to a toddler I'm desperate for adult conversation and after several days of colouring in reading preschooler books and playing toddler games I'm desperate to go and do some mentally challenging work.

I don’t think they really do. It’s just a bitchy cheap shot. Almost like it unnerves them that some of us raise children and work.

Bit of a shit shot really as by that logic, once their kids start school and are in FT education their teachers and schools are raising them!

But do you think families should have more choice? It’s not just about what you or I or anyone can do, can’t do, has done in the past or is doing. Policy decisions can be changed to make things better or worse in future. The government recently decided to invest in funding up to 30 hours a week for 9 month old infants to go to nursery.

Does it matter whether this is in the interest of babies and families? The government could provide funding to extend parental leave instead or along side nursery funding to make it easier for parents to choose what they actually think is best for their child. As you say, at the moment most people don’t have a choice. Current policy is designed to incentivise families to put their child in paid care once they are 9 months old precisely by making it easier to do this and harder not to, but it doesn’t have to be this way it’s just how funding has been allocated.

Families, and most importantly women, have more choices than ever before.

They are paying tax on everything they buy, when they move house, council tax, on interest on investments and so on.

Agreed.
It’s the elephant in the room really.

It never ceases to amaze me how riled up this subject gets people. Why? What does it matter what other people think? What validation is required? People make decisions based on what's best for their family. As long as families with only one working adult aren't claiming UC (and expecting other working parents to cough up for their lifestyle choice - because that means tjey can't afford it) what does it matter?

I personally wouldn't advise any woman to give up work completely, but that's my opinon, people are free to make their own decisions and that's up to them. The majority of people in my office are working parents - we don't go around giving each other standing ovations for coming to work each day 😂

If you are not employed then you are unemployed (or self employed). Nothing wrong with that if it’s a choice you’ve made but doesn’t mean it’s not true.

So is a carer, a volunteer or retired person unemployed?

But they also correlate with other societal shifts:

Abolition of corporal punishment at school
Smacking no longer being socially acceptable and gentle (and permissive) parenting increasing
The advent of the internet
Standards of living increasing generally
The perception of the world being more dangerous than before (obsessions with paedophiles and kidnapping have had their moment)
Credit being readily available and people being less willing to wait for things
A lack of war and times of national strife

And that's by no means an exhaustive list.

Society has changed rapidly and significantly over the last century.

Well the Cambridge dictionary definition is ‘not having a job that provides money’ so yeah

It's sadly easier though to blame everything though on mums going to work and imply our place is at home rather than acknowledged that society and life is constantly changing and how the complexities this impact on young people.

I am studying part-time whilst my DC are in school so I am not just sitting around watching TV during the day. Too much stuff to do...I have shopping to do, laundry, plus need respite time each day whilst my youngest is in school. I will soon be starting counselling sessions due to the amount of stress I am under, so getting a job would adversely affect my mental health at this stage of my life.

Thankfully we are all different. I support women making the right choices for their own family's circumstances.

I was a single mum to elder DS. Me working enabled me to afford holidays, days out, regular after school activities- swimming, football etc. As he’s got older, I’ve supported him with driving lessons, car insurance etc. There is much more to life than the early years.

Carer, no. Volunteer, yes. Retired if over state retirement age, no. SAHP with a child over 3, yes.
Basically anyone who'd be required take up work if they lost their means of support is unemployed.

I know. It’s sexist and insulting in a society which hates children, basically!

What's sexist and insulting? And does society hate children? I've certainly never felt that with my children.

You now have justify why you spend your time brining up the humans you chose to create. If you are not doing that job, someone else is. It’s as simple as that.

So a 55 year old retired person with 100k a year pension who pays more tax than most people in employment is unemployed?

To me unemployed is someone looking for a job, is ready to start work and can’t find a job.