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 dont think it's helpful to push the idea that emotions and rationality are incompatible. Or that women shouldn't be able to feel the hormones that are nourishing their babies.

Can’t let this one go huh.

i mean factually, and because you seem so concerned about it, I was hormonal. I still didn’t have my period which strongly suggests my hormones hadn’t returned to normal. So factually my hormonal baseline has not returned to pre-birth status.

also I never said I couldn’t make a rational decision. In fact I said I couldn’t and did. What my hormones impacted was my emotional state because I was reading people saying I was a shitty mother and abandoning my baby by making the choice I was making. It’s a strange state of affairs when we can’t acknowledge that what other people say, or the societal judgments that are made, might negatively impact others. Especially on a thread that is exactly about that very topic.

As a mum of two who both went to nursery 3 days a week from 1 yrs old, i honeslty believe staying at home with them is best for the kids. I think people have convinced themselves that socialising is more important- probably to make themselves feel better which I understand.

But I can honestly and ashamedly say I don't think i could do full time at home with 2 kids. I dont think I'd be the mum I'd want to be (too shouty/too stressed)

I think the mums that do it are incredible and I definitely don't undervalue them.

No, I did, which is why I didn't reply to you. But the other poster quoted me.

Personally, I can't relate. I felt I made all the decisions I knew were right for me with my family, and so while other people's judgements were bloody annoying at times, and really put me off the people making them, they never upset me at all.

You've got to do what's best for you! 🙌 Generally, a happy, stable mum makes for happy kids.

Now that I can agree with.

Me too.

There isn’t a set number of jobs. Growing the economy grows the number of jobs available. More households having more disposable income means people spend more money on none essentials like coffees out, eating out, days out, beauty treatments, going to counselling having a cleaner, getting their kids swimming or sports lessons, a tutor etc etc.

Which all grows local businesses. And results in more corporation tax.

Making funded childcare universal means more parents, especially mothers, will have a choice about whether they want to stay home, or if they want to try to get a job or set up their own business.

You can still choose to stay at home - universal funded childcare won’t negatively affect you. But it will give women more power, control and choice. Especially those that are being financially abused.

It isn't about looking down on people. We need as many working age people to be paying tax as possible. People are more likely to earn more and stay in work if they go back to work after maternity leave ends.

The government funds SMP, as businesses can claim nearly all of it back, so staying at home to look after your children is partly funded by the tax payer.

I haven't argued black is white. I have called out your silly accusations of classism which you argued for a long time you didn't mean, only to finally admit you meant it. Ridiculous.

Good god, I never once argued I didn't think that there was a classist undertone to the attitudes and opinions of many WOH mumsnetters on this thread.

I have had to clarify about why I think people are being classist (people have, in bad faith, tried to say I'm accusing people of being classist for x, when instead it's because of y), but I have always been clear that I think they're being classist, or at least ignorant of and erasing of the experiences of the majority of people.

So to clarify for you: Yes, I think it's classist to make the blanket assumption that everyone has a well-paid, intellectually stimulating, enjoyable career, when that's not the case.

working parents still do all this stuff.

we took our boys to baby swimming lesson from basically new born, they got read to every night. They got home cooked meals that had to be prepped of a morning by getting up 30 mins early to throw in a slow cooker or whatever. We had to cram all the stuff a sahp does spread throughout the day until a couple of hours after work or at weekends.

if you can afford it great but you shouldn’t be paid for parenting your child

Thank you for your kind words and support. It’s rare and much appreciated.

I’m glad you had a supportive nursery and found a way that helped you feel better able to cope. Mums used to have much more informal support and extra pairs of hands around them than many do now, so it can be a lonely path for some to stay at home.

For what it’s worth, I think mums tend to be really hard on themselves, and I’m sure you weren’t anywhere near as shouty or stressed as you feared. I actually don’t agree with society shaming mums for ever expressing their impatience or frustration either. It’s OK to show a full range of emotions, mine definitely know when I am annoyed with them! 😂 Our children love us regardless.

You sound like a mum who cares a lot, a great mum. I wish you well 💐

No matter how you look at it, children of SAHP or part time WOHP get more one to one than those whose parents work full time.

But. It depends on the parents whether that time is quality or not.

I’m older than you by a stretch Mrs B. My mother’s generation was born in the 1920s, when careers for women were only for the privileged few.
When reading my MILs old college's magazine, as a young woman, I always found it so sad how many women wrote of their regret about not having a careeer.
There are so many woman not suited to life at home.
It’s important that women do have a choice of how to live.
Part of that is speaking respectful fully about and to women who have made a different choice from oneself.
I’ve been amazed how much posters on this thread have been ‘reading between the lines’ to uncover implied insults, which I honestly don’t think are there.
I think some people need to toughen up as much as some people need to reign in their language. 🙂

Well, exactly. It's all about how much quality time rather than just time.

and like you said, that entirely depends on the parents no matter if they work or stay at home.

I agree.

Hopefully you’ve made your meaning clear , @OtterlyAstounding . I understand what you’re saying and agree.
Unfortunately, some people are determined to read the message they want to see in posts.
It happens a lot.

Thank you, Sixty.

I'm sure we're all guilty of doing that at times!

I read a study years ago that said the ideal in terms of quality/ quantity is to work part time. It essentially concludes that then there’s enough time spent together and that in those situations the parents are more focused on their kids than if they are just with them all the time.

Which makes sense, although said it was years ago and one study, so who knows really. And I mean that’s the point of this whole thread is t it? That parenting has value. What seems to be the bone of contention is the exclusivity/ number of hours you do it for it to have that value. I am sure there are some sahms that spend little to no actual quality time with their children. Just as there are some working parents who barely see theirs. Same the other way around, some sahps will do loads and so will loads of working parents.

That’s that same for everyone I suppose and I totally agree. Quality over quantity every time. I just don’t agree that you should be paid to stay at home and look after your child.

That was my choice. I worked 2.5 days and was with the boys 4.5 days. I was also very lucky that in the time I was at work, my Dad looked after them for 2 days in our house and my MIL had them for the half day. My husband also went home for lunch the two days my Dad had them.

Coming in at night on the days my Dad had them was a nightmare. Toys everywhere. Kitchen a riot. But he had spent the whole time reading to them, playing and singing with them, taking them out etc, so we were 🤐

But what if you had the choice?

Yes I said that originally if you can afford and you want to great.

but the I felt the OP was trying to saying it’s a job and there be an income attached to it

no i don't think it's undervalued. where i live i it's a sign that the working parent is clearly raking it in, allowing the other one to raise the children, play with them lots, take them on outings, take them to all the extra curriculars, help with homework, avoid wrap around, make them nice dinners, pick them up every day from school, take them to toddler group, breastfeed as long as they want, avoid holiday club and basically just be around and there whenever needed.

It also allows the higher earner to concentrate on their career without the worry of sharing childcare commitments, which has meant in many cases that the children get the best of both worlds: a childhood that is financially privileged, and a childhood where there is always a parent available at home.