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”.

Here we go with the stereotypes again. I work four days a week. So does our husband and all our meals apart from a Friday which is oven food night are cooked from scratch.

And what "issues" do I need to attend to? If they are sick, me or my husband stay at home with them. We attend all their medical appointments. If school or nursery had any concerns, me and my husband would go in.

No you are not as you can afford to stay home without doing. No one has said that everyone should be employed.

Tell that to the person I replied to!

But the opposite is also true as well. These threads always paint staying at home as the absolute best thing for children and that children who have a stay at home mum have a superior upbringing to those that don't.

The thing is it isn't always in the children's best interest. There are frequent posts from SAHMS who are burnt out, exhausted and resentful from carrying the entire domestic and childcare load themselves. No one under these conditions is going to be providing the best care to their children. There also frequent comments from teachers in reception/early primary year's who says they notice how much better children who attend nursery are at school readiness and how much better the behaviour is than those that were at home.

The things is, we were never designed for the entire responsibility of bringing up one child to be on one parent. Are nurseries the perfect solution? Of course they aren't, but I'm not convinced that one parent taking on the all the responsibility of all the childcare is any better either.

Yes it works for some people but equally we see parents on here who say they worked and they still have as equally close and loving bonds with kids who are now adults who went to nursery. They are not the damaged, traumatised with poor relationships to their parents that some people like to think they are.

We're all mums and parents. We all bring up and raise our kids whether we work or not. No one way is better than another.

You would have been had you tried to claim benefit until you reached retirement age. This has been the law since 1996.

laughing at the stereotyping on here - clearly some people can’t get their heads round the fact that many of us cook from scratch as well as work. Or assuming that if we go back to work, we must have found maternity leaves boring. Or maybe we value financial success over our children’s wellbeing (Miaow. That cliche is particularly catty!)

The reality is less sensational. The reality is that we love and prioritise our children just as much as anyone else. My children were always the most important precious people and part of my life by miles. I never found being with them boring. Work is another aspect of my life. I’m good at my role, it’s important and brings a different experience alongside raising my children.

My children are now grown into happy well adjusted adults :- sorry to disappoint the minority on here who’d like to believe otherwise! I’m sure they would have grown into happy well adjusted adults if I’d SAH too because - shock, horror- it’s not an either/ or. And at pushing 60, I can look back on a successful work life and look forward to an excellent occupational pension.

But that is only available if you can afford to stay home, which for the majority is not possible. You can’t put child’s wellbeing ahead of financial wellbeing as financial wellbeing is necessary for child’s wellbeing.

Which I didnt. So am I unemployed? No.

Well you weren’t employed so yes you were unemployed. But that is not a bad thing. You could afford to be.

I am not unemployed. I'm retired.

Why does it matter?

Before you reached retirement age, you met the legal definition of unemployed. It just wouldn't have been something you had to face if you never needed to sign on.
Why does it matter? Unemployed simply means without occupation and in a group of people who would be expected to work by the DWP. Its not a pejorative.

Why did you get involved?

Ok. How does the DWP communicate with me that they expect me to work?

It depends on if you are using the dictionary definition or the government definition which varies by government. Based on dictionary definition you are unemployed. Based on government statistics definition you wouldn’t be (in the uk at least).
I am struggling what you find the issue to be though, it’s not a negative thing to be unemployed if you are able to financially support yourself by other means.
Also, lots of people retire from one career and then go on to something else - they are both employed and retired.

@Ellusivesleep I always thought putting kids in a working nursery eg very early to very late for most of the week was supposed to be a very last desperate resort for mums who can't cope /can't not afford to work to keep a roof over the head /abusive husbands etc .

It seems to be very acdpeted now though.
My sister worked where they train nursery workers in a college she said she wouldn't have left her pets with them let alone kids.
She had to go into many to asses them and again wasn't impressed at all.
It's a very emotive subject but yes it's undervalued !
I

But they don’t expect you to work, if you can support yourself. No one is forced to work if they can afford not to.

What, in the imaginary scenario that you had needed to sign on?
You would have made an online claim, and if successful would have been issued with a journal and a work coach. Largely communication would happen through the journal which you would have been expected to check each day. You would record in there your job search efforts and they would leave you messages and instructions relating to job seeking. Sometimes you may have to attend in person meetings with them or have a telephone appointment.
However given you presumably didn't sign on, none of this would have happened as your unemployment was not something the DWP needed to be concerned about.

Jesus.

Obviously. But if you have to pay 2000£ per month in childcare and your salary is about that then the choice seem pretty easy to me.

But it isn't though. While there a lot of young kids in nursery only about 4% are actually in full time.

There seems be some myth that's always perpetuated on here of significant numbers of babies in nursery from 7.30am-6pm every day when the reality is, most go on a part time basis and even then are not in for 10+ hours there.

Staying at home to care for anyone (children or relatives) has forever been undervalued. Caring is seen as women’s work and reflects society’s value of women. We have a long way to go.

No, just a person on MN patiently answering your questions about the law and the DWP as you requested.

When you send your kids to school, is your job done and you are no longer raising your kids?

Because you are extrapolating from your autistic kids who discussed their childcare at length, and whose friends had abusive parents, to the whole of parenting. That’s the argument that you used. Your situation is far from representative of the norm. The idea that teens sit around discussing their early years childcare with each other is really rather unusual.