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”.

Make sure you get the education and qualifications so you have a choice not to be in a minimum wage job.
Choose a nursery with a low turnover of educated early years specialists. DT’s nursery operated on a 1:2 basis for under 18 months old. As twins there would have been the same ratio is either I or DH had stayed at home.

@Amby99 and when your children are at school, are you planning on still being at SAHM (with no children to look after 9 - 3) or are you heading back to work?

💯!!!

Not all nurseries are the same but then neither are parents.

Some nurseries are high quality, as are some parents.
Some nurseries are poor quality but some parents are too.

Every parent I know who was a parent in the 90’s stayed at home and it wasn’t so frowned upon.

This surprises me. I was a parent in the 1990s and I knew very few couples where one parent was a SAHP. A lot of parents (mothers usually huh) went part-time, but I would say at most 20% of the families I knew had a fully SAHP (for which read mother, nearly always).

In fact when my youngest was born in the 2000s I spent longer off with him doing more of the things you mention @Amby99 thanks to longer maternity leave.

I never frowned upon SAHP of pre-school DC, tho it wasn't for me for lots of reasons, but I do recall one very odd conversation with a couple of somewhat defensive mums whose DC were all at school, about whether I would go back to work after my final mat leave, and how there was barely time to do anything between school drop-off and school pick-up.

But those aren’t the only scenarios? I used a childminder as I much preferred that setting from age 1 & worked p/t. I am still p/t in part because I didn’t have a big gap.

I was a child growing up in the 90s and remember very few of my friends (from aspirational working class or middle class families) who had a stay at home mother. I think there is a lot of revisionism or misremembering about what it was like in the past.

I’ve just looked up the figures for the UK and in 1996, around 66% of mothers were in employment. Throughout history, women have always worked and even if they weren’t in PAYE employment, they might have done odd jobs for neighbours or their community to bring in extra cash like cooking, cleaning, ironing, administrative tasks etc. The child often helped the mother or was taken along whilst she worked and entertained themselves.

Also, many working mothers spend plenty of time with their kids. There’s no correlation in life outcomes, school attainment, wellbeing etc. in whether you are the child of a working mother or a SAHM.

With cost of living and the economy and life as it is at the moment, it’s becoming very difficult for most mothers who aren’t incredibly affluent to justify not working to bring in extra cash. Things are tight for so many people. It’s not even just a money issue. Women unlike in the past have more of a chance to fulfil their dreams, passions, skills, become highly educated, innovate, create and grow their careers. They may see that as compatible with motherhood instead of adversarial.

For a lot of women, they are weighing up a trade-off. Should I bring in less money to the household but I can spend more time every day with my children to help nurture and develop them all day or do I do less of this but bring in money that could help my children in the future with uni fees, house deposit, boiler breaking, security blanket for children in case something goes wrong with the marriage etc? Most mothers are trying to make the right decision by weighing up both short term AND long term factors.

There is no societal benefit in you looking after your own child, so it wouldn't be reasonable for the government to pay you to do it. Funding for childcare is intended to enable parents to work, contribute to society through that work and pay tax. It also funds a professional service that is subject to inspections to ensure minimum standards are met. It wouldn't be feasible to inspect every SAHP to ensure the work was being done to standard.

Given the huge behaviour and resilience problems we are seeing in children currently, I would argue that there is a societal benefit in having parents look after their own children. These issues seem to correlate with the increase in working parents and gentle parenting.

Actually it’s often reported that nursery kids are more likely to arrive at school with the necessary skills, socially and physically, than kids that were kept at home.

I notice the difference in children whose mothers spent more time at home with them, they are less “brittle” and better behaved.

This isn't my experience at all. I'm a Brownie leader in our village so I see a lot of the local children once they've grown up a bit. It's virtually impossible to assign certain characteristics to children based on how much time their parents spent at home in the early years. It genuinely makes no discernible difference to behaviour, to confidence, or to resilience.

Agree with @AgeingMillennial. There’s no correlation at all if you look up the stats. If anything, there’s an ever so slight uptick in behaviour and attainment to children of working mothers. But that’s most likely correlation than causation due to the fact that a mother being employed in the first instance is a proxy for lots of other linked things that will effect those outcomes.

During Covid, around 33% of adults in employment were furloughed for months on (almost) full pay. Never has there been a time where that many parents have the chance to spend a long duration of paid time with their children 24/7 in the house and help them with their education, attainment, behaviour, temperament and social development yet children have regressed severely in all these areas.

Apparently studies show that 'moderate' nursery attendance is a protective factor against behavioural issues and helps social development.

No one’s denying it’s ‘work’. Whats at issue is what value you put on that work, that involves taking you out of the workforce and making you financially dependent. You clearly think of it as valuable. Is there a need for other people to validate your decision to stay at home?

I would have thought nearly all children attend nursery from 3 onwards due to the universal 15 hours.

I agree that SAHM are not valued but I can see the logic of some arguments here on productivity and taxes etc.

I was lucky enough to be able to work PT until my youngest was 6, but many women criticise this as I am obviously loosing out financially, career progression, pension etc. and they are right but it was more important to me to have both time at work and time with my kids. I do wish that this was more available to people but currently fewer people can afford. But I think the biggest shift I would like to see is that it is not assumed that this has to be the woman. I think society, incl women just expect women to do it all and that attitude really needs to shift.

Yes, my husband and I did this and we worked. We did shared parental leave and it has worked brilliantly for us. Why is it just about SAHM and not SAHP? Surely it should be about the choice for both parents rather than just one of them.

I have absolutely seen people on Mumsnet claim being a SAHM isn’t work.

Exactly.

I'm not sure why I need to validate someone's choice to step out of the workforce and look after their own child.

DC has no relatives the same age in this country, and none of our nearby-friends had kids that age either. We took the decision when they were 2YO to start sending them to nursery precisely to encourage socialisation and resilience. Being surrounded 24-7 only by people who love you unconditionally, who are never unreasonable, mean, or selfish and who are adults is NOT helpful for a child. They need to be around other kids, and learn to navigate that stuff, but within a safe-space. We paid an arm and a leg for it, but DC was much better off for being sent to a high-quality nursery 2 days a week and making friends their own age than being home with just us or their grandparents every single day.

‘For 2 days a week’, so they were still with you most of the time.

I don't 'value' SAHP. Why should I? They make no difference to my life. Thats not to say I disrespect them, just dont see what im supposed to be appreciating.
The people I value are those who teach my children, treat me when I'm sick, stock supermarket shelves, police the streets, deliver my parcels, cut my hair etc.
What people do to benefit their spouse and children is not something I need to value. Just as i wouldn't expect people who dont use the service I'm paid to provide to value me for it.
As long as their spouse and children do, that's enough, surely? I don't understand the need for external validation of a choice made purely for the benefit of ones own family unit.

I think it would be better to encourage more parents to share the childcare, so you don't have one stuck at home until the kids go to school and then having been years out of the workplace.

Who says they don't need it? And I'm not going to list all the reasons why a child might need a parent at home because I think you already know them.

I think you’ve seen people saying it isn’t a ‘job’. Obviously cleaning, feeding, dressing, cleaning up after, teaching etc babies and young children is work, in that it requires effort, physical and mental.