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”.

Of course they don’t need it. The idea that being a SAHM is some kind of default ideal relates to a tiny blip in human history. The overwhelming majority of women of all periods have always worked, and most of the ones who didn’t’ work didn’t raise their own children regardless.

Truly well controlled studies on nursery attendance are virtually impossible because it’s very difficult to randomly assign children to a childcare setting for an extended period of time. The impacts of nursery vs home environment is highly dependent on the specific nursery and the specific home environment which can obviously differ hugely between children. It’s very difficult to say for sure what the impacts are of either. Studies of children who spend long hours in nursery actually suggest higher rates of aggression and disobedience. Some studies have also shown poorer academic outcomes once they are school aged.

So basically you could use the research to argue either way because it isn’t clear.

One factor that most researchers agree upon are that the quality of the nursery matters hugely. Any study that claims benefits to nurseries will qualify that the outcomes are dependent on “high quality childcare.” The studies usually measure “quality” in a very specific ways, such as on the warmth of adult-child interaction, language-rich conversation and responsiveness, etc. Our nurseries are not rated on these factors in the same way and I think it is likely that due to staffing ratios and the levels of training most nursery workers receive that most UK nurseries do not meet these standards so research dependent on “high quality” settings may not even apply.

It is a fallacy to argue “mothers have always worked.” Yes, some mothers have always worked. Most worked part time or with their children present and if children were in childcare it was with family, friends etc.

Huge proportions of very young children spending hours and hours in formal group care settings is a new phenomenon. There are not
many well designed studies to show us what the effects may be so we really don’t know.

If we compare what we know from research about wider child development, it seems being looked after by a engaged family member who can respond to individual needs and take babies/toddlers out into the world to experience different people and places would likely be better than a group care setting in which very young children spend most of their hours in the same room or few rooms of a single building with numerous other children and paid carers coming and going.

it made me wonder why being a SAHM is so rarely viewed as valuable or productive in its own right

Well, that’s precisely because it’s overwhelmingly done by women. On the rare occasions it isn’t, you’ll get people tripping over themselves to declare how marvellous it is.
Honestly, I could give you my well honed, standard essay, answer on this very subject, posted many times over the years, under various usernames, but I’ll see the direction of travel first before I waste my time again…

Pretty sure I've seen it described literally as 'it isn't work'. Can't vouch for whether the poster was serious or just trying to get a reaction, though.

Where are you getting your data?

Yes, many women throughout time have worked in some capacity but since the 1970s the proportion of women working and the number of hours worked has risen hugely. You can literally look at the statistics:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/timeseries/lf25/lms

Children need good attachments to their parents. Otherwise they attach to their peers, which if you research ends up with a whole lot of problems which we are seeing now in society. Peers leading peers, whom do not have the fully formed brain creates an echo chamber of questionable choices.

I personally think being at home with children is a wonderful way to connect with them and guide them. It sets a good base, which needs to be fostered to maintain a strong enough bond, overriding the peer pressure.

I agree. It is very valuable and not even just to the children. Stay at home parents are often available to help out elderly or disabled relatives and neighbours too saving on social care costs. They're there to support the mental health and development of their own children as well as having the energy to support others emotionally which promotes good mental and physical health. They will be saving the government costs to childcare in many cases as they won't need the free 30 hours.
We live in a pretty poor society right now. People are rushed off their feet trying to do and have it all, some children are being emotionally neglected, people are lonely, they're isolated from their wider family. It really shows in the level of poor mental and physical health, the rise in people who aren't fit to work because of mental illness and hugely stretched social care and NHS services.

That's not true.

Government would prefer women to work and pay taxes, and also pay a huge chunk of their earnings to a childminder or nursery, who then also pay taxes. More money for them.

What is best IMO depends on the child. DS liked nursery, DD hated it. So that’s when I gave up for a while. Years later, both have said that they appreciated me being around while they were at primary school so they didn’t have to go into wraparound care or holiday clubs. Both need quiet time to unwind and being with other people from 7.30am until 6pm would have been too much. I struggle with it as an adult.

You can do this easily as a working mother. How well you raise your children is not correlated to the literal number of hours they spend in your presence. First and Second Generation Chinese and Indian children at school have the highest levels of educational attainment and the lowest rate of behavioural issues (both by an incredibly wide margin) yet are demographics with the highest proportion of mothers in paid employment.

After a certain number of hours with your children each day, you probably get a plateau in outcomes and then most likely diminishing returns anyway. People on here are making out like working mothers are neglecting their kids, barely spending time with them and they are running feral. There isn’t a shred of evidence that shows a statistically significant disparity between the two groups

Great post. In this country we lack high quality childcare, because childcare isn’t highly valued as an important role in society. Hence SAHP not being a valued role as op describes. In Norway, to my knowledge, early years practitioners are akin to psychologists in terms of training and professional status. Trains have carriages with soft plays; society is far more designed around caring for children being a challenging and prioritised essential role. Which is reflective of research that the first 3 years are the most critical to a human’s emotionally healthy future trajectory.

It was aspirational for me and I did it. I loved it.

I don’t think anyone thinks it isn’t worthwhile, I think you nailed it by saying for many it just isn’t possible. I know many mums who would have absolutely loved to stay home with their kids but they as a family just cannot afford it, and the government are hardly going to start giving families £30k+ to cover the salary of one person.

i do think some SAHM’s can be very smug in their “look what I’m doing for my child that you can’t do” attitude and some of the comments on this post also hint at that with the “oh but it’s so much better for the kids” well of course it is but that’s just making women who don’t have a choice feel a bit shit about themselves.

They do it significantly less that a SAHM would. I left my job in a nursery not long after having my child because I was so uncomfortable with the fact that I spent more time with someone else's child than my own, all whilst spending the money I earned looking after other people's DC to pay someone else to look after mine. I got the best of other people's children during the day, doing fun activities with them and watching them develop. I got my own child tired for his last hour and a half of the day.

I think there is absolutely value in what SAHPs do, but that value is primarily for the benefit of the SAHP and their partner/spouse, rather than for society as a whole. As such, I don't think it's really something that governments or wider society needs to appreciate. If you and your partner/husband appreciate having you at home, that's great. I'm not really sure why you would need or expect extra validation from outside of the family.

Society benefits enormously from good parenting, but that's a separate issue - people can be equally good parents regardless of whether they engage in paid work or not.

Why would they? The point is to make it more financially affordable for parents to return to work so that they continue to pay taxes back into the system. Why would they pay someone to stay home with their child (over and above what is already paid in benefits)?

I am not sure I’d say it’s easily done when the hours left are so compressed?

If you work you accept you are outsourcing.

The point isn’t to make anyone feel guilty. It’s a useful topic to discuss because parents need information to make informed choices. Society needs to understand the risks and benefits of institutional childcare given the number of children spending huge quantities of their waking hours in nurseries.

The tremendous growth in a child’s brain in the first three years of life lays the foundation for later learning, behaviour, and mental health. It benefits everyone in society to maximise the development of our children, particularly in the first three years.

In my opinion, because it would benefit society as a whole.

What else should we expect a clap on the back for then? And for society to 'value us' for?

Maybe cleaning our own houses? I mean that's hard work, I could outsource it but I don't, so...round of applause for me? I mean what work that is.

How about driving? I spend half my life chauffering teenagers around, I could outsource it to Uber but usually don't. Yay me.

Maybe cooking? I mean, there are chefs that choose to do that but I do it all by myself 😇

Am I getting any gold stars yet?

You don't get recognition for living your life. Parenting the kids you chose to have is just life and no, I don't think it's 'work' - just like doing any other task to live your life is not equal to actual work.

No need to tie yourself in knots about it. If you prefer to stay home and can afford to do so, good for you, enjoy it. Just don't expect endless adoration from the rest of us.

I don't think OP means SAHPs should get extra value, more that being a mum per se is not valued much at all, so being one who SAH less so?

In any case, it doesn't matter. If you are privileged enough to be able to SAH - and you want to - then obviously it's amazing to have that time when your kids are young.

A child is not a mother’s child just from the ages of 0-4. Your child is your child for life. I know many working mothers who want to bring in more money for the household so they can all have an easier life each day, weather the storm for difficult times they or the family my face in the future, not to have to fret if the car breaks down or the boiler goes, to be able to help their child for a deposit for a house, to pay for their further education, to help them drive, travel, see the world, help with medical bills, sports, music, hobbies, life enrichment etc.

My friend was able to gift her daughter a house deposit simply because she chose to work instead of be a SAHM. She would have told you that missing the odd sports day or nativity play or baking cookies with her child was worth it to achieve this. Lots of mothers are thinking about things they need to do or provide for children in the long term as well as the short term. A child goes through many seasons of their life. Doing the best for your child doesn’t necessarily mean being around your child for the maximum number of hours if the trade-off means they or the family might lose out elsewhere at another stage of their life.

Also it would be incredibly patronising of me to suggest that working mothers only work because they have to. Many mothers choose to work when they don’t have to financially. They have dreams and interests and passions of their own. They’ve worked hard in their careers or education and should be allowed to say that they would like to work in their own right without having to justify it under some zero sum statement of not having a choice. Many women have become the top of their fields in science, business, writing, teaching, finance etc. and raised well-adjusted happy children at the same time. They haven’t seen it as incompatible to motherhood. Day to day practicalities of the two may be tough but they don’t see being a working woman when they have a child as a moral failing. Women are so much more than mothers.

That there’s “value” in being a SAHM would only make logical sense if SAHMs were producing children on mass that were more extraordinary or better for society than the children of working mothers but this is not happening. A good mother is a good mother, regardless of whether she works or not.

I think you are expecting to be valued by the wrong people. I doubt if you talked to sahm or their partners or children you would find yourself undervalued. You are looking at people who made a different choice to support yours which seems a bit silly.

You're entitled to that opinion but I don't think the evidence backs you up.

What is their to value people choose to have children and now raise those children is a choice