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”.

So when children are going to school FT are teachers and schools raising them then?

Where are people having to justify why they are spending their time at home? And who are they justifying it to?

I work and I still bring up my children. They might go to nursery a few days a week, but nursery staff don't bring them up.

Bringing up my children was never a ‘job’ - it was being a parent. And I loved it. It was great having a career too.

Who do you have to justify it to?

I think though some people have a hard time separating the "working" part from the "parenting" part.

Working parents are not "valued" or paid for by "society" because they are parents. They are paid for by the organisations they work for the job they do which would be true whether they were parents or not.

Outside of these jobs they are parents doing the same tasks bringing up their children as those that stay at home do. They aren't "valued by society" or however it's meant to be measured any less than those staying at home.

Yes, because that's how they'd be treated under law if it was ever relevant, which would only be for benefit claims. So while it would never be an issue, that's their status nonetheless.
Why does it matter? Its only a word to describe someone without an occupation.

Exactly. The % of working mothers increasing and the % of children having behavioural and developmental problems increasing does not mean the former is causing the latter. Correlation does not equal causation. The number of honeybees and office machinery imports into the UK are also increasing but it doesn’t mean more working mothers are causing that either.

If they're drawing a pension and no longer working, then they're retired.

Personally I would have loved a few more months with my daughter, yes. I went back to work at 10 months. I would have loved 18 months, although I’m sure it didn’t do her any harm.

Do I think the government should subsidise women to remain at home for the length of the arbitrary period when they feel they are ready? No. Where’s the cut off? If I decided I wanted three years off work should that be subsidised because I don’t feel ready to leave her? No.

The sort of flexibility you are suggesting would make the mother’s life easier but there’s no evidence of any practical benefit to the child, so its hard to justify the subsidy.

I can see the arguments in favour of this even if I think its unworkable and unaffordable.

What I find upsetting is when stupid and spiteful people who have the luxury of not having to worry about this tell me they are raising their children better than I am because they don’t have to worry about where the money is coming from.

Interesting your FIL said it was the was the most important job in the world yet one clearly he wasn't willing to do himself if he was a retired teacher. Sort of defeats the purpose of your argument!

Unemployed is the opposite of employed based on the definition of the word. You are either one or the other.

There are situations however where it is used differently as one out of a number of different categories and the person would get labeled as something else such as retired.

People here are connecting the term unemployed as negative and claiming benefits. It doesn’t have to be, if someone chooses not to work as they have other means to support themselves then no issue. People may not work due to lack of ability - illness, caring responsibilities etc, again fine. Doesn’t mean they are not unemployed though they are just unemployed due to something other than not being able to find work.

Probably because it was only a few of them, not all of them. The majority had fine parents, but still wish that they'd had more time and attention from them growing up, and now as teens. You're so insistent on picking things apart. Why is that?

By the definitions usually used, to be unemployed you need to be available for work, but not have work. SAHMs aren’t available for work outside the home so they’re not in the ‘unemployed’ category, though they are considered ‘economically inactive’ I believe.

Absolutely. It's great that women can go back to work when they want to – I know that being WOHPs works best for some families – but I know a lot of women who had to go back long before they wanted to and really struggled with it, and that seems very unfair. I think it should be possible for people to have more choice, especially in the context of a world where many governments want higher rates of reproduction.

There does, though, seem to be a very negative attitude towards those who loved being home with their kids, and think they and their kids benefited from that.

This is also true. 🙂
However, I think the emphasis on this thread is on the preschool stage and the difference between being looked after at home and in daycare,
I think it is taboo at present to discuss potential ill effects on very young g children of being cared for outside the home.
I say this as someone who did use day nurseries for my children from babyhood. Looking back, I wish I had been able to look after them at home myself. I think we would all have been happier.
Not that I’d want to tell anyone else what to do.

Agreed, but some people do see a connection, and would be able to justify their opinion in a very sensible way .

I think it’s debatable whether a parent in full time employment is bringing up their child in the same way as a parent working in the home, who is more likely to be cooking meat from scratch, more able to attend to issues with their children etc.

So people that think unless you stay at home FT other people are raising their children does this mean school teachers are raising children? Shouldn't all parents home educate/school then?

People bring up their children in different ways. Just because it is different, it doesn't mean they aren't bringing them up.

Though I'm laughing at the fact you don't think working parents can cook from scratch. Will it be elaborate during the week? No, probably not but cooking something quick but healthy or using the slow cooker or whatever as opposed to spending more time in the kitchen doesn't mean you aren't bringing up your child either.

Thanks. I work and cook meals from scratch. I think most people do. No fish finger dinners or takeaways here.

I also work FT and cook most of my meals from scratch. I don’t know what “attend issues” means but I assume it means go into school for meetings with teachers if needed. I do this.

This sort of stereotyping is so insulting.

@Amby99 I think it depends on your values. It's also cultural. In Scandinavia all mothers get 1 year maternity leave and the fathers 6 months. Day care from then on is 200£ per month. In the US mothers get three weeks paid leave.

I'm with you; for me my children's wellbeing primes financial success. For some people maternity leave or sahparenting is dreadful because they get bored. I will never regret having spent my time raising my children full time- sometimes hard but very rewarding.

There are free hours. What is it if it’s not childcare?

I retired 7 years under state pension age. I‘m not required to take up work.

This! It is a massive privilege not to have to work. So the government is making it easier for working parents, as it is very hard work to work all day and then have to do all house work on top of it. sAHM don’t even imagine. If helping with some free childcare hours allows some parents to work part-time even better. sAHP do not need any help from government as they are already in a privileged position.