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”.

You're answering questions I didn't ask.

The phrase you are looking for is "not economically active".

What do you want praise for exactly? Being privileged enough that your family can afford to live on one income? The majority of people do not have that luxury and need two incomes to stay afloat.
I would have loved to be a SAHM but unfortunately that doesn’t pay the bills so I had to go back to work after maternity leave.

Agree. As I approach 60, I am so so relieved I worked throughout and have a decent pension coming.

The thing is, my kids have benefitted from financial success. They are in their twenties and we chat about nursery etc. They say they think I am amazing (ha!) how I juggled work but never missed a school event and was always there for them. Me working meant that we could fund their driving lessons and university fees, for which they are very very grateful. Money doesn’t matter until it does, and my children have had the best start in life from having parents who love them unconditionally, but who also work for money. Money which has helped them have a good start in life. Money is not a dirty word. Kids benefit from parental time but as they get older, money helps. It is not about being ‘materialistic’, though I have no issue with people buying nice stuff. It’s about trying to give them the best start in life. It is a privileged position but I def worked hard for it. And am proud of it now. Full time work with a stressful career and babies was not easy, but we did it!

I don’t care if society judges me or doesn’t value me (though I do a socially useful job). My family value me and I don’t need external validation unlike some SAHMs here. No regrets about having financial success here, it was worth it.

No. I have answered the questions you did ask, and occasionally corrected you when you have said things that are factually wrong, such as when you claimed carers allowance was means tested. That's important as it could lead to someone incorrectly believing they wouldn't be entitled.

I don't particularly value SAHPs but I think that's the wrong question. The vast majority of the value is for that individual family (and that's absolutely fine of course). But it has no value to me and very limited value to wider society/community. Whereas someone paying taxes and providing work/skills in jobs that need doing are providing a different, wider value.

I certainly don't look down on SAHPs. People make decisions that are right for their families and that's great. Both my kids were very "busy" and needed lots of activity and socialisation so they loved nursery. If they hadn't we would have had a rethink. But as a child I was very shy and a homebody and would not have liked it at all! So I totally get its a very individual decision with personalities as well as practicalities needing to be taken into account.

No, as I've said, I'm just talking about my own experiences with mildly autistic children, who have friends with a mixture of parents (both good and bad), who talked about their parents' (lack of) attention and availability throughout their lifetimes, including now as teenagers. Their friends nearly all have full time working parents, and many of those that do have expressed envy that mine have always had a parent who has time and energy to invest into them, to a far greater extent than they do.

Anyway, I wasn't extrapolating, I was sharing my experiences as they've shaped my perspective.

I can only assume given the strangely intensive questioning I've gotten, the picking apart of the validity of what I've said, the insistence that no 'normal' children could possibly feel that way, and the focus on my income, some posters feel very insecure about their own parenting, and have the need to pull apart someone who is quite content in their own, different, choices.

It is interesting that you are so keen to pick apart the choices of other parents based on some casual chit chat (were they even talking to you, or is it second hand information) from teenagers. Pot, kettle.

We all have our own personal anecdotes (fwiw my adult offspring are proud of the fact that dh and I both have careers) …. but they are exactly that - anecdotes and opinions.

You're doing it again. Gracious, you really are very defensive, aren't you?

I haven't said anything to posters on this thread about their own personal experiences, and I'm not sure why you think I've 'picked apart' anything when I haven't.

It's pointless engaging with you if all you're going to do is try to poke holes in my experiences based on your own sense of...well, I don't even know what, but it doesn't seem very productive or rational.

I am in my fifties with thriving and loving twenty-something kids, and am confident in my career, marriage etc. I have no reason to feel insecure. But I worry about the impact of judgemental words like yours on new and expectant mums who may have the weight of guilt on their shoulders. Hence I am questioning you. If you can’t cope with ‘strangely intensive questioning’ aka challenge, are you sure this is the thread for you?

Defensive of what? You're awfully sensitive for someone so sure of their choices.

Stop trying to get someone to stop posting.

👋👋

I think if mothers base their decisions and their feelings about how they and their partner run their family, on what a random person on the internet says, they might not be grown up enough to be having children.

I'm talking about my experiences, and what I found really valuable about staying at home when my children were young, on a thread that's about whether or not SAHPs are undervalued. I would suggest that if people are so triggered by others pointing out what they believe to be the benefit in staying at home, then perhaps it's not the thread for them.

I see little point in engaging further; I've given my thoughts, and perspective, and you're not adding anything new to the discussion.

ahem…. To go back to the actual OP and the question she raised: I genuinely still don’t understand what this ‘validation’ for staying at home should look like?

if you choose to SAH, great, presumably it’s what you want to do and your partner supports it and is happy to be sole earner. It’s really no one else’s business and there is no need for external validation.

I think we can safely say that whether the OP is right or not about being a SAHP being undervalued, it's certainly something that people don't like.

This is exactly how I feel.

I raised my daughter single handed without a penny of financial support from her biological father. Thankfully she is healthy, happy and well adjusted.

It was through no choice of mine but I have no regrets at all and from my personal experience there is no correlation, let alone causation, between having a FT working mother and delinquency, depression or any of those other things we are told we are supposed to be doing to our children. I am big and ugly enough to look after myself and to defend myself from accusations of having neglected my child. I know its rubbish.

But I worry about a kind of surround sound of negativity about working mums, based on very spurious information, which drips into the ears of younger women who may be facing difficult choices about how to support themselves and their families.

Of course we should all have choice and we should be respected however we choose (or don’t choose) to raise our children. But let’s at least base this on evidence and not vague vibes about “sacrifice” and outdated stereotypes about working mothers.

I agree. Surely the only validation you would need is from your family (children and partner). And if you aren't getting that validation then it could be argued if being a SAHM really is in everyone's best interest.

"Society" just needs children to be brought up well as in happy and healthy. This can be done by both working and stay at home parents. Research has consistently shown there is no difference in outcomes.

And get very tetchy about.

That poster clearly can’t cope with being challenged and is writing defensive paragraphs about being questioned.

this is a little unclear… if you mean people don’t like SAHP then I disagree… I think the reality is people don’t care what other people do. As has been said numerous times, SAH if it’s what you want and your partner is happy to support it. The value of it should come from you and your partner. No need for some sort of undefined external ‘validation.’

Why are you challenging her?

Whereas you two are totally chill.

No, I'm just bored with answering all the rather rude, probing questions I'm asked, which appear to serve no purpose aside from doggedly attempting to discount my specific experience, and catch me out on details that are unrelated and benign (like my finances). It's weird, and very pointless.