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”.

I think the classism is more apparent in the way you’ve used someone who works as a school receptionist and it's pretty patronising.

No, I won't tone it down. I've spent the last 20 years reading stupid posts that seek to denigrate working mums, and it needs to be called out for what it is.

I haven't said anything derogatory about SAHPs in general - I have no reason to criticise people for making the choices that are right for their own families, and if it works for them, then I'm happy for them.

My criticism is aimed only at those posters who make nasty digs at WOHPs or try to insinuate that they are somehow lesser parents. I haven't name checked individual posters, and frankly I can't remember who said what in any case, so if you are confident that you haven't promoted negative stereotypes about working mums or made snide comments or sought to portray them as inadequate parents etc, then obviously, my comments don't apply to you.

My own daughter will thinking about having kids of her own in the next decade or so. I don't want her to be exposed to the kind of crap that I read on here from people who feel the need to tear others down in order to big themselves up - and on a website which is supposed to be about supporting other parents! I have no patience for that kind of nastiness, and I don't think we have to tolerate it.

Why would you assume Jane the school receptionist doesn't find her work stimulating? Do you know have any idea what school receptionists do?

See that’s interesting because my thoughts if anyone asked about staying at home would have been ‘oh I could do that.’ I never found being with my children boring and staying at home wouldn’t have been particularly arduous - but I made the choice to continue working while raising my children.

tbh though I’m amazed if so many of these conversations take place in real life. I honestly can’t remember anyone quizzing me about whether I worked/ SAH!

Great. Knew we'd get there in the end.

Has the opposite even happened on this thread? I was speaking more generally as I don't believe either has actually happened on this thread.

The only mention of guilt I've seen is accusing WOHP of guilt.

As an aside. Did your baby take a bottle with expressed milk? Mine wouldn’t and it stressful going back to work when he was 18 weeks.

No thanks to you.

Please note that I was a mother in paid employment and , yes, my children have turned out very well, too.
That doesn’t change the fact, IMO, being a SAHM offers a particular type of nurturing unavailable when a child is in group daycare. This may make all the difference to some children ( and their mothers).
I said ‘cooking from scratch’ as a non controversial general word to imply a style of parenting.
This is not to attack or denigrate anyone. All choices (or nearly all!) are valid if it works for you.
Of course, it’s against a very different situation if you have an involved partner. Not everyone is blessed in this way!

If even one person may have been misled by your misinformation into not claiming a benefit they were entitled to, it's been worth the effort. Thanks not required.

Why is that? My own mother was a school receptionist once we started school, and she certainly didn't find it intellectually stimulating. And I wish I was a school receptionist, instead of the job I have. But there we go.

My point was that not all jobs (in fact, most of them) are probably less intellectually stimulating than what's possible if you're staying home with your child. But most of the mothers commenting here appear to have careers, not jobs.

I understand what you are saying OP. I'm not sure why so many others have struggled to understand the concept of value.
Value doesn't just need to be in the form of payment, but just an acknowledgement that it is just as good (if not better, in some cases) for there to be a sahp.
I don't want to rile up the working parents anymore than they already are, but there will be instances where for many staying at home with the child is better than being put in a nursery setting, due to the quality of care you can afford.

Personally the thing I think is a shame is that it isn't affordable for most people to share being home with the child. E.g both parents working part time, or like in my case, my partner works full time, and I work part time, but we are shift workers so we don't need anyone else to look after our child. (although we are hoping to put our 1 year old in childcare for a day come January) As I do believe that the parent on the whole will be better placed to take loving care of that child, if not simply as they are likely only looking after 1 maybe 2.

I don't think op, wants a pat on the back, more just an acknowledgement that the culture of the country is shifting to the thinking that looking after your own children is not valuable. Where as many of our neighbouring countries in Europe go above and beyond to vacillate either staying at home, or provide fantastic child care with excellent education and training, so they can mirror what you would hopefully be getting if the child were able to stay in a 1:1 setting.

I'd like to say, I'm not suggesting that women shouldn't go back to work, we have just as much right to as any man. I just think it should feel like a pretty normal response to want one parent at home with said child most of the time. Maybe that is easier for me to be of that opinion in a household of two shifts workers...which would lead me to say that if the government need to do anything more in regards to childcare it is to encourage employers to be much more flexible. If someone traditionallly works 9-5 but there is nothing to stop them from working 6am-2pm or 2am-10pm then why not, therefore making it viable for both parents to work more but also one parent to be at home with the child/children.

Seriously this is like being trapped by the most boring person at a party.

Gosh, dh and I have pretty much always cooked from scratch, pre-children, while on mat leaves, as a WOHP, and now with adult offspring…. Didn’t realise it was a Big Deal.

Yes, it has, on page 22 of the thread, and other places too, I think.

No, never.

DH tried to give her a bottle of expressed milk a couple of times while I was on mat leave and she screamed the house down on both occasions. We didn't bother trying again!

I was fortunate in that I was able to work very flexibly around dd's needs when I went back to work, so it was never an issue for us. I guess we might have persevered with it more if we had needed to.

Yes, I used that example because my mother was a school receptionist once I started school, and she didn't find it intellectually stimulating.

Yet again, my very simple and benign statements are being attacked so viciously that it's weird. I've now been accused of being classist for suggesting that being a school receptionist isn't particularly intellectually stimulating, and of not knowing what school receptionists even do, instead of commenters actually engaging with my point.

It's actually really nasty, and I don't quite understand why they're doing it.

Always best to aim for an interesting and stimulating work life, whatever field that might be in: physical work, creative, academic….. It’s certainly what I’ve encouraged with my daughter and sons. No one knows for sure if they’ll ever even have children, but it’s pretty much a certainty that as an adult, you’ll need to earn money at some point. So better to aim for something you’ll get stimulation from.

of course, being with one’s children is also stimulating in a different kind of way. Once again, it’s not an either/or. I got intellectual and social stimulating from work, and different but equally stimulating experiences while home with my kids.

That was like him As if he was being murdered 😆. I bought cup after cup and found one he liked eventually. Still have it!

Yes, and it's not always possible. Thanks to life, mental health, physical health, and other factors, not everyone can get into or sustain a career - and inevitably many people will need to do jobs, not careers. After all, someone has to do them.

My point is that for many people they get no chance to be intellectually stimulated in their jobs, whereas if at home with their baby/child, they have far more hours when baby is napping/feeding/self-occupied to pursue any intellectual passions, or even perhaps study part time to retrain.

So trying to say WOH is far more intellectually stimulating than being a SAHP is a very narrow sort of attitude, only applicable to those who have careers that they love - which isn't the majority of people.

I might be boring, but I'm not wrong.

Bordering on harrassment.

The implication in your initial comment seems to be that a receptionist’s job is inherently less intellectually stimulating or worthwhile than other jobs, which undermines your argument about classism.

I think that's you deciding that not being intellectually stimulating = not worthwhile. Roadworks aren't intellectually stimulating as a job, but they're sure as hell worthwhile.

And I used an example. An example I used because it's a.) a job, not a career, and b.) a job my mum did, and didn't find intellectually stimulating.

Yet again, dodging the point. It's a little pathetic.

Aren't people generally just talking about their own experiences though? I find my career to be intellectually stimulating and my mental health also improved when I went back to work after maternity leave both times.

Of course that isn't going to be everyone's experience.