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”.

So just let it drop then. No point to carry on digging

I’m answering posts. What is it with people in this thread telling other posters what to do?

🤣🤣🤣🤣

And my working pattern is? And what days and times I work? Please do enlighten us all as well your inside knowledge of if I am working today and my child care arrangements?

Yes, the answer is yes. Why is a different topic. Many researches agree it’s do with the online world.

btw maybe you don’t know but sadly nurseries and schools use screens daily despite the recent advice against it. Some childminders watch TV all day whilst the kids meddle about by themselves

I visited a childminder’s home recently to understand what the difference is to nurseries which we’ve seen a few of. TV in most rooms, centrally (sitting room, dining room and garden room/summer house). I asked how much TV the kids get and she said not too much, just some music now and then. Then a kid aged just over 3 ran in and said do you want to watch some TV?! Let’s watch TV, it’s the afternoon already🤣 Childminder’s face fell.

you can see how a reasonably intelligent parent raising their own kids can make better choices than childless 20 somethings on minimum wage working at nurseries

I agree with you on this actually. Good advice.

I think the SAHPs are essentially saying that it’s more important to them and their families to be at home than to earn money.
At the same time they don’t want to be patronised and told they don’t matter.
Seems fair enough to me.

The comment was in response to a pp who was quizzing someone who is a working parent about why she was on mumsnet rather than working. I was querying why she wasn’t asking sahps on the thread the same. Context.

And that's fine, as long as they don't try to suggest that WOHPs are only doing it for the money or don't care about their children as much etc.

There is nothing wrong with people doing whatever works for their own families, and nobody should be patronised or told that they don't matter. However, if people start denigrating the choices made by others in order to justify their own life choices, they should expect to be robustly challenged on this.

Its not the child free 20 year old on NMW who's making the choices though, is it? They are employees implementing a schedule of activities in line with the early years curriculum, a schedule that should be available to parents to see. They will typically also have been to college and gained an education in the field. They can't just decide to stick the TV on because they don't know any better.
I'm not saying quality doesn't vary, but its wrong to compare the worst of nursery practice with the best of parenting and use that to form a conclusion.

Was that me? Because stay at home mums are allowed time to themselves. But they are still there when their children need them. Working parents are getting paid to work.

I really don’t see that in her post.
I think she’s saying she loves to be at home, but notices many women seem not to.

It’s very strange this aesthetic vision that people have of what the average SAHM mother is as if they are off a 70s all-American poster or TV sitcom where the mother is barefoot by the stove in a large sunlit kitchen with an apron and a large expensive Aga, cooking organic food from scratch after they have collected the eggs from their chickens in the garden and taught their child advanced Latin and how to whittle a canoe from a single piece of wood. This is the vision at the forefront of the stupid social media culture wars on demonising working mothers promoted by redpill-adjacent and Chris Williamsonesque podcast bros.

I ironically think Wife Swap in the 90s gave the most accurate portrayal in showing all the shapes and shades SAHM could be. You had everything from middle-class earthy mothers to mothers with low literacy levels in houses where neither parent worked, had neglectful houses and unruly kids and were relying on benefits to all the types of SAHM mothers in between at all income levels and all parenting types. You saw SAHM making meals from scratch for kids and SAHM giving their kids chicken nuggets and pizza every day.

Looking at the UK statistics, the average household where only one parent works brings in around £20,000k less annual income per year than households where both parents work. It’s simply not the case that the average SAHM is from an affluent household with a CEO husband bringing in 250k. A not so insignificant portion of SAHM will be in households were neither parent works (11% of the UK population according to Google).

The average SAHM is not selflessly sacrificing their earning potential or career or dreams or giving up their high-paying jobs of a surgeon or a lawyer to choose to look after their kids. Most SAHM are SAHM because the job either their education level or skill set qualify for is around the salary equivalent to what childcare would cost anyway so there is no net financial gain to working (and also because salaries for lots of skilled or professional or academic jobs are sadly painfully low). Their household income would be identical if they were working or not working (and therefore not paying for childcare). There is not necessarily a “financial sacrifice” or “giving up” of anything for their kids, however it’s framed. The maximum salary they could possibly earn in the workforce is identical to what childcare would cost. A mother might still choose to work in this scenario though for promotion opportunities, increased future earnings, pension, fulfilment, socialisation, financial security if anything goes wrong in her marriage, all of which I think are very sensible reasons to keep working.

I think it’s so important for people to understand averages, look up statistics and not blindly trust visions they see in movies or social media. There are so many first-time mothers out there guilted into staying at home when they don’t want to and foregoing financial security or contingency simply because of misinformation or guilt-tripping over not apparently “giving up enough” for their child. I’d always tell my hypothetical daughter to never be solely dependent on someone financially. I remember watching a clip of Judge Judy who said it was her one piece of advice to women after presiding over thousands of domestic cases. Your fate is completely in the hands of someone else or Lady Luck. Life can change in the blink of an eye and most never see it coming.

Working parents are also there when their kids need them. There are employment laws that ensure they can be thank you very much.

Yes, and of course that cuts both ways.
As I said earlier, IMO, MN has more anti-SAH comments than pro-SAHMs and that’s where the real abuse is happening.
Have read the entire thread and don’t seem to have noticed anybody making negative remarks about mothers in paid employment.
Nothing like the ones I have read on other threads about SAH mothers.
If anyone is seeing negative comments about mothers in paid employment on this thread, I think they’re being over sensitive and reading things into comments that are not really there.
I thought society as a whole has now accepted Mothers going back to paid employment.
Unlike the ‘olden days’ I have never personally heard anyone speaking against it.

Funny because I’ve not seen any negative remarks against sahp, other than stop judging working parents and implying (or directly saying) they don’t raise/ spend time with their kids. No one is actually criticising anyone for being a sahp. Lots of sahps on this thread are making comments about the above though.

I was very fortunate in being a SAHM when my DC were small, rather than return to my office job.
In fact I enjoyed watching them grow and develop so much that I became a Childminder, so technically did resume work. But this was the 80s and 90s. It was definitely easier to manage on one wage then.

You are painting the world in very simplistic and binary terms: there are the "women who love their children, husbands and being at home" and the "miserable, negative people". As if there are two categories of women with a hard line down the middle. You realise it's not either/or, don't you?

I work very long hours (mainly from home and not out of choice) but I also love my child and my partner and being at home. I sometimes enjoy working and I sometimes go out with friends but that doesn't mean I don't love my child or partner. I'm not "miserable" or "negative" because I question the idea that SAHMs deserve some special place in our hearts by virtue of the fact they are at home.

I have friends who work and friends who are SAHMs. All of them bring a mixture of the attributes you list above. My oldest, closest friend is a SAHM and her life is not without its challenges and negativity.

The world isn't neatly divided like this and people challenging your worldview aren't automatically "miserable" or "negative" (or my particular favourite, "bitter"), just because they don't agree with your position about women working.

Why don't you start a thread on that then?

I would contribute.

But this thread is about SAHP, who don't feel valued. And, tbh, given the responses, I can see why the OP feels that way.

I wasn't a SAHP, nor was I a full time working parent.

I went back to full time work when my youngest was in P3. Sorry, don't know the English equivalent. He started school in August and was 5 at the end of December. So he was about 8.

I felt that now he was at school, I could be earning double my salary. I regretted it for ages because I couldn't give him what I gave his big brother. Hadn't thought it through.

I still do sometimes but have told him and he told me not to be so daft.

But the years I had at home with both of them were honestly the best and most hilarious years of my life and I don't regret a single one of them.

People are allowed to feel that way without other parents taking offence!

I agree that it cuts both ways. I strongly disagree that MN has more anti-SAHM comments. I do see those, but I see lots of nasty comments about WOHPs too, so I disagree with your assessment of "where the abuse is happening".

You can dismiss the comments on this thread as people being "oversensitive' but exactly the same could be said of criticism of SAHPs. On balance, I think the comments aimed at WOHPs tend to be nastier and more personal in nature.

In fairness I think there are anti SAHM posts. I have seen quite a lot of stuff over the years along the lines of "don't you miss using your brain?" and "You must be so bored." It does work both ways. I don't think there's any excuse for these sorts of bitchy putdowns of someone else's lifestyle on either side of the aisle purely because you don't understand it.

But this particular thread (and many that have preceded it) is concerned with the question of "value" and the "value" which a society ascribes to women who choose not to work and remain with their children.

I wouldn't ever put a woman down for choosing to remain at home, but I do think that a) it's ludicrous to expect people in an already privileged position to be ascribed additional "value" for doing something which they want to do and is relatively speaking easier and b) I think its grossly insensitive for women who have the luxury of choice to sneer at and judge women who don't.

And... we seem to have come full circle, but I do think worth returning to the fundamental point. If you choose to remain at home you are welcome to your lifestyle but people would be less inclined to judge if you didn't constantly seek to be given extra reward, over and above the inherent reward you already have, for doing something that you want to do. Just enjoy it without the need for validation from people who really couldn't care less and without the need to put them down for things they usually can't avoid.

I don't want to start another thread. I thought you didn't approve of people telling others what to do?

And yes, this thread is about SAHPs feeling undervalued. I've seen loads of threads on this topic over the last 20 years - they appear very regularly. They invariably attract comments which attempt to denigrate WOHPs.

I'm glad you don't regret your choices. I don't regret mine either.

ETA Meant to quote @Differentforgirls but forgot.

Don't know why you're so touchy tbh.

Lol

And just to add I actually agree with OP that society undervalues what she mentions - child rearing - as well as all other unpaid labour associated with women. I even think this is reflected in how poorly nursery workers are paid and regarded. What I don’t agree with is that it only deserves recognition if you do it full time and exclusively.