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”.

Not quite. You made the link and inferred as such as by your own words; your mother didn't find it stimulating.

It suggested that you see that kind of work as inherently less worthwhile or intellectually demanding. That’s a fairly class-based assumption, and it seemed at odds with your criticism of classism in the first place which is why I said as much. Not pathetic, just an observation.

Yes, hence why I pointed out that not everyone's work is intellectually stimulating, and that most people don't have careers, but rather jobs - given that people might not think of that.

I have noticed that most (all?) of the WOHPs on this thread have got careers and are probably firmly middle class, and I think that there is a classist undertone to some of the arguments, which ignores the experience of the majority.

I think you’re misunderstanding my point! You’re a parent, so I’d imagine that like I did with mine, you encourage your Children towards a work life which they find interesting - whatever that may be. Some people love working outside, some like creative pursuits… I’m not talking about specific jobs, professions or whatever. Quite aside from whether people end up having children, the likelihood is that they will, as an adult, need to work to support themselves. So better to aim for something that they will get satisfaction from. It also means that if at any point they are in a position to stop working, they’d be choosing that as a positive decision, not stopping something they prefer not to do anyway.

Ah, so you can't engage with my point in a good faith fashion, but just want to dodge it and make insubstantial jabs. Good to know.

If you think replying to you when you keep quoting me and asking me questions, then calling me boring is ME harassing YOU, then please report me. Otherwise I'd thank you not to make unsubstantiated public allegations.
I'd strongly suggest you leave this now as I don't appreciate being accused of harassment.

I don't know why on earth you think that's relevant in any sense whatsoever, to the point I was making. (It's not).

Getting the last word in, eh?

And if someone has an intellectual passion aside from their work, then I agree, that can be pursued too. There are a number of activities I’ve undertaken as evening classes, or in my own time, as I’m sure many of us do.

What point were you trying to make; that SAHPs may find being one more stimulating than being a school receptionist? No doubt some people do and likely enjoy it more as well however that doesn't negate my points (not jabs - I'm not being personal with you).

I would have left it ages ago. I didn’t accuse you of harassment. I said it was bordering on it. Happy to leave it now though. Thanks!

😂

Nasty.

How do you make that argument though? How do you know what "jobs" and "careers" posters have. I haven't seen anyone state what their job or career actually is? Even I've just stated the area I work in, not what my actual role is.

I never understand this difference between a job and a career. I mean if you're working you have a job, whether you choose to advance in it is irrelevant. I have a relative who is a police officer. They have no interest in making a career out of it but they are still paid very well out of it. Being middle class has no relation to whether your job is a career or not.

Sorry, how so?

I haven't been personal and was addressing certain points made before this poster started getting rather het up with me and telling me what to do.

It's just outright trolling now. Utterly pointless, I think. But gosh, this thread has really made me wonder what working mums truly think of women who chose to stay home when their children were little.

Nothing good by the looks of it.

You haven’t been personal? Jesus 😱

Feel free to quote me where I have been...

Alright then, to clarify: many (probably most) people are in lower paid jobs without much scope for advancement, that aren't intellectually stimulating.

So to say that work is more intellectually stimulating than staying at home as a blanket statement isn't correct. And the repeated assumption that everyone has intellectually stimulating careers struck me as a very narrow viewpoint that seemed a little classist (or rather, perhaps, just ignorant of the fact that a lot of people are not in those posters' apparent positions in terms of career and earnings).

I was simply pointing that out, as an alternate viewpoint that doesn't seem to have occurred to some posters here. Presumably, because their experiences are different.

I truly don't care if someone wants to be a SAHM. As long as they don't try and tell me that I don't raise my own DC or don't have a good bond with them or whatever, I have no issues with SAHM's.

Ditto. And to return to the OP, maybe therein lies the rub. We don’t care! It’s their choice for their family! But the fact that the OP raised the whole issue of some extra ‘validation’ for being at home makes me wonder why just being at home isn’t enough for her…

It's been deleted by mumsnet.

I don’t expect medal for working full time and parenting so I don’t care what others do. Whatever works for your family but no one else cares or will congratulate you.