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”.

Personally, I haven't said SAHPs should expect external validation.

Which two?

It IS means tested. For the person applying.

But I don't think me being a working parent means I'm any more or less valued by "society". We're all mums at the end of the day, whether you choose to work or not.

Being a parent can be hard whether you work or stay at home. The general trend seems to be with us that work, acknowledge it is hard and get on with it without the need to be "valued by society" whereas apparently society should be bowing down at the altar of stay at home parents who have made a choice that only benefits their family.

We're still none the wiser though how this "value" is to be measured. Annual appraisals? Medals? Certificates? National campaigns?

I don’t think anyone should discount someone else’s personal experiences…. the problem arises when anyone tries to claim their personal experience is ‘evidence’ of some wider societal point!

there is no evidence that being a SAHP results in better outcomes for children. It’s a perfectly valid choice if it suits an individual and their circumstances. But that’s it. No sort of external validation should be needed. Any more than a WOHP should expect some sort of pat on the back for raising their children.

I generally agree with everything you say. Only want to add that the whole thing depends on the individual and it’s important to have as much choice as possible.
Certainly it was an advantage that my kids started school without a squeak, being used to nursery.
In my case I would have liked to be with my children more to do some of the creative things I never got the chance to do when younger. I see things like gardening, cooking as a real treat. I know not everyone feels like this.
Obviously some homes and some parents leave something to be desired.
My own children had particular needs which I did my best to meet outside of my working hours but it was a real struggle. It would have been nice if everything hadn’t been quite so hard.
Everyone's needs are different.

Yes of course. I fully appreciate there are children with health and additional needs who need a stay at home parent and frankly I think there should be more support for them.

Yes, I agree with this - where SAHPs are also fulfilling the role of carer to disabled children, then support should be available for those that need it.

I don't think I've done that, however. In my first post, I gave my personal experience and said that if governments want women to have more children they should probably make it more financially appealing to be a parent (paraphrasing). I was immediately told that it was 'bullocks', that I must be making it all up, that it was rubbish, and so on.

But again, all I've really said is that I think all childcare/active parenting should be more valued, that nursery workers should be more highly trained and it should be more subsidised, and that in an ideal world, the government would make it financially more doable for parents to actually have the choice as to whether they both work or one parent stays at home, without being forced by financial pressures. Terrible, I know!

Fantastic post. I wholeheartedly agree. I’m at the same stage as you - kids now grown up, happy, healthy and well adjusted (as they would no doubt have been if I hadn’t worked!) But like you, I’m mindful of the fact there are young mums on here, and the doom and gloom insinuations that unless they give up work, they might be harming their children could be really upsetting. Even though these are just (bitchy) opinions and not based on any evidence, it’s harder to laugh off when you’re in the thick of it.

My own daughter is in her early 30s, planning to marry her partner. If they choose to have children, I hope they feel confident to make decisions unclouded by some of the nonsense that gets spouted. She and her partner are equally well qualified and earn similar money (very normal nowadays, thankfully) and if they both want to continue working then that’s fine. If one of them decides to give up work, equally fine. I’d find it very odd though if they expect some extra validation for being at home though. Raising happy, healthy well adjusted children is what matters.

Please stop spreading misinformation. I have explained to you that carers allowance is not a means tested benefit. I have correctly stated that one's means are not part of the eligibility criteria and this means that very wealthy individuals with savings and assets and/or a high household income would be entitled, provided they meet the other eligibility criteria. The other eligibility criteria includes a ceiling on how much the claimant can EARN, not on their means.
You posted the information from the government site yourself. Did you not bother to read it?

Yes, the value of the work is overlooked. So is most of the unpaid work women do, it is not unique to early years childcare.

but honestly this sort of thing just makes me wonder what SAHMs think working mums do:

Preparing my baby’s first solids, BF him, reading, playing, taking him outside, talking to him, letting him explore and generally being available.

I prepared my baby’s first solids, I read to them, I played with them, i bf them for over 2 years, I took them outside, I talked to them, I was generally available (although after a certain point obvs not from 9-5). Working mums still do all these things, as well as work - many going part time of compressing their hours to work and be available. They still have equivalent value and are still not be valued. What you outsource is the physical childcare and some early years development, the parenting stuff still needs to fit in.

Yes so the CLAIMANT is means tested.

No, because the claimant can have unlimited assets and savings.

This is decided by people who think that farming kids out to nannies\ boarding school and destroying any feelings of empathy and care they have by the time they reach adulthood is normal.

working people and their children exist for the labour they can extract at the cheapest cost.

They have no family values and not much humanity.

Of course they are bringing up their child (although I'm not sure that meals cooked from scratch and vaguely "attending issues" are the best measures of that).

I certainly brought up my children myself whilst working full-time. Or at least we did since my husband had a equal hand in the process. We have raised fully functional young adults with excellent values who will be an asset to their communities. Young adults who study, work and volunteer, and who are thoughtful and kind.

And yes, we cooked from scratch, took time off work when our children were poorly, and attended every appointment and parents evening. We washed their nappies, read bedtime stories every night and helped them with their homework. We taught them skills, supported their passions, and encouraged them to volunteer in their communities.

Having two full-time jobs hasn't stopped my husband and I from bringing up our children with any less effort or success than any SAHP. Nursery attendance was simply another one of the myriad of experiences we provided for them and, like most working parents, we put the extra effort in and made sure the time we did have with them was the highest quality.

Yes. And I got notice that I could apply for it for my child. And guess what? I wasn’t eligible because I EARNED TOO MUCH.

Of course to all of the above! I certainly didn’t mean my post to imply any of that. I think ALL choices should be respected for whatever works for each individual family.
My personal experience is that when I tell people my choice to not return to work is often ‘oh I can’t believe you’re going to stay at home. I could never do that’ which is what I meant by people not really seeing seeing it as valuable JUST because I’m now longer not earning XYZ a year. But as others have said, to MY family it is valuable and that’s all that matters I suppose. I don’t think SAHP’s are worthy of a ‘medal’ other people have sarcastically suggested on here. At a basic level - I just mean choosing to to be at home all day with your children is just as valuable as earning money for your family. It’s a trade off for everyone!

It seems like posters are being pernickety over precise wording - I think it's obvious you're talking about the fact that a person can earn too much to be eligible, so not everyone can get it.

It seems rather unfair honestly, because it seems (I may be wrong!) as though a person can have zero assets or savings, and be scraping by while earning over the limit and thus be ineligible, while someone else can have several million pounds in savings and assets and be able to live off those savings comfortably for life, but be eligible because they don't work?

Yes, but that doesn't mean it's means tested as such.

You can claim it with any amount of assets, but there is an assumption that, if you're earning above a certain threshold, then that may conflict with the expectation that you spend 35+ hours a week on caring responsibilities.

FWIW, I think the logic is deeply flawed. I think the earnings cap is too low and the carer's allowance itself is pitifully low. And of course, many people will combine work and significant caring responsibilities.

But technically, I still think it's correct to say that it isn't means tested.

Sure, except you list parenting things are being those things of value which suggests that working parents don’t do them?

I can tell you, they do.

Yes and at the time I got DLA for him which isn't means tested.

And I dont. I got DLA for the exact same condition which was because he needed my help 4 times a day.

There's a lot of commentary I notice online (and comments in person) that says a person being a SAHP is stupid for doing so, or selfish for doing it, and that they're wasting their potential - or that the person criticising could never do it because they need intellectual stimulation, to talk to adults, or to use their minds (as though SAHPs can't do all of those things, albeit without earning a wage).

Much like with breastfeeding and formula feeding, I notice a dynamic where breastfeeding mums/SAHPs are expected to be self-deprecating and downplay how great they find it to be lest they offend others or make them feel bad, while formula feeding mums and WOHPs can talk up their experiences and denigrate the others, without considering it unfair.
(Of course, this is generalisation.)