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”.

Like I said, I think the system is flawed. But that doesn't change the facts as they stand.

Which we disagree on.

what the OP is saying is that raising your kids yourself is seen as less and there’s pressure to stick them in institutional childcare and pay tax

it’s not a case of “you do you, nobody cares”, it’s that SAPH are made to feel less for raising their own children

Please do tone it down, Mrs B. 🤯
In my post , I said that SAHMs have more opportunity to cook from scratch. This is not a stereotype; it’s simply stating the obvious.
If you only have one child and perhaps have part time employment, of course you can fit most things in.
If you have more than one and are in FT employment, it’s a completely different ballgame.

There have been plenty of sensible and respectful posts on this thread and I don’t see any point in upping the anti with so much emotive language.

I should have thought it was mostly SAHMs who get the stick on MN.
A couple of weeks ago ago there was a post from a woman of 60 who got married young and never had paid employment. The abuse was horrible. Several posters said she had no right to share her husband’s pension. One person just wrote ‘coward.’

If SAHMs can be smug, mothers with paid employment outdo them in smugness IMO!

Don’t think it’s particularly helpful to keep suggesting working parents don’t raise their children…..

It absolutely goes both ways though.

On this thread alone we've had working mums don't raise their children, working mums apparently don't even cook proper food for their children etc.

Do working parents not raise their own children then?

It can do, sure. I did say it was a generalisation. But that does seem to be the general trend I've noticed.

and do SAHM's only raise their children until they start school?

So no one raises their own children by the age of 4?

and I've noticed a different trend. Probably because we have our own biases.

A question I've asked more than once that hasn't been answered...

For the record, I don't think SAHPs are stupid or lazy or selfish. I do think that looking after your own kids involves work. I wouldn't ever describe a SAHP as "unemployed".

Whether or not they are wasting their potential is a matter for them to determine, not me - my own lovely mum did feel that but I know many SAHPs who don't. I don't make judgements about how much intellectual stimulation or adult interaction people will be getting either - I assume that will be different for everyone, and people will have different needs in any case.

I do think it's fine for individuals to say that they would never want to be a SAHP. Equally, I think it's fine for individuals to say that they would never want to be a WOHP. As long as there is no judgment - explicit or implied - towards those who make different choices, I think that's ok.

I exclusively breastfed for the first 6 months and carried on breastfeeding until dd was nearly 3. (And yes, many WOHPs breastfeed for extended periods, it isn't just a SAHM thing!). I honestly can't say that I ever felt denigrated for having chosen to breastfeed - quite the opposite, actually, I think it was those who formula fed, either through choice or through necessity, who constantly felt that they had to justify their choices. And I always felt that was ridiculous too!

I haven't noticed any working mums being told to stop talking up their experiences and touting them as amazing, because they'll make stay at home mums feel guilty 🤔

What was the term when you were raising your kids? If someone asked “what do you do?” what would you say?

OK. One last time in a triumph of hope over experience...
The claimant is not means tested.
This is important, because it means that a person with savings, assets over a certain threshold, or a high household income could recieve it, provided they don't EARN more than £204 themselves.
If it were means tested, a person with savings, assets over a certain threshold, or a high household income could not recieve it.
Do you see the difference? And can you see why the difference might matter, if say, you were the carer for your disabled child, with savings and a partner who earned, but couldn't work because of your care commitments?
And you might read misinformation on here that carers allowance was means tested, and so think you weren't entitled, and miss out on money that was rightfully yours?

If you even dare suggest there are benefits to your children for being a working mum (and, statistically there are) you are absolutely shot down for making sahms feel bad and not value what they do.

I said a different trend, not the opposite trend.

I don't make judgements about how much intellectual stimulation or adult interaction people will be getting either - I assume that will be different for everyone, and people will have different needs in any case.

I'm sure Jane who works as a school receptionist is getting much more intellectual stimulation through her job than she would at home, with time to fit in around her child's naps or self-occupied times to pursue any intellectual passion that she has, along with baby-friendly groups for adult socialisation.

I do notice that most of the working mothers on here appear to have careers, not jobs. There's a real classist vibe, under the surface.

That's nice that you didn't feel judged for breastfeeding.

My point stands. That's not something that's happened.

Are you?

Many people work from home and I find it a million times easier to cook from scratch then I would at home with toddlers hanging off my leg if I was at home with them all day.

Of course it has.

Where has a poster on this thread told a WOHP to stop talking about how much they loved WOH, and how much it benefited their family, because it might make a SAHP feel guilty?

It’s all been explained.

I don't understand how? Obviously he wasn't retired when his children were young. Had his wife been the higher earner, he probably would have stayed at home.