Page 6 | AIBU to think staying at home with children is undervalued?

Amby99 · 2026-10-04T20:06:30+00:00

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”.

ScaredButUnavoidable · 05/10/2026 07:51

I worked reduced hours when my children were pre-school age so they only went to a childminder two days week (Mon-Fri) and I was at home with them for the other 3 days as well as the weekend. When they were both at school I changed my job so I could do school hours only.

I have always loved it that I can be at home with the children so much but I accept it is a privilege that not everyone can do it, but I also accept that not many people want to do it either. Every woman is different and should be free to make their own choices and be happy with them.

I hate it that a lot of women don’t have any choice in the matter with regards to how they want their work/life balance to be because whether women want to be SAHP, or work part time or go back full time it should ideally be a choice they get to make, but sadly that usually isn’t the case for financial reasons.

Badbadbunny · 05/10/2026 07:52

WhyIsThereGlitterEverywhere · 04/10/2026 21:09

I agree, I think if the government is willing to fund nursery for 9 months olds an equivalent amount should be offered to parents (mothers or fathers) to help with finances if they decide they’d rather look after their own child instead.

We made sacrifices so that both myself and my husband could spend as much possible with our child instead of using paid childcare and now that she’s in school I don’t regret a single second of the baby and toddler years that I spent with her instead of working.

Edited

I agree, we too made sacrifices, and we don’t regret it at all.

Allswellthatendswelll · 05/10/2026 07:52

boredsmored · 04/10/2026 21:50

But those aren’t the only scenarios? I used a childminder as I much preferred that setting from age 1 & worked p/t. I am still p/t in part because I didn’t have a big gap.

Show quote history

Exactly. I am part time (half the week) and we use a childminder, with my older one we had grandparents until he was three. So they got lots of me and a childcare environment that was like home.
I actually think two parents working part time can a better model than one at home and one at work anyway! It spreads the mental load responsibility and means if the main bread winner loses their job you are in a better position.

TrayMake · 05/10/2026 07:55

OtterlyAstounding · 05/10/2026 05:47

I think it's massively undervalued. When my children were young, being in childcare five days a week with two working parents was the norm, and that's what most of their peers grew up with. Instead, because I had a 'job' and not a 'career', I stayed at home full-time until my youngest started school and then only worked part-time - with them going to a kindergarten two to three days a week from age 3 to 5 (school starting where I am), which I volunteered at, for socialisation.

They were well ahead of their peers when it came to oral language skills, expressing and managing their emotions, being confident in themselves, personal care, reading, writing, and fine motor skills when they started school, and I do think that's because in their formative years, my focus was 100% learning through play, reading to them etc - and because I wasn't tired or stressed from work and had plenty of time to do housework, I could give them my all.

I do notice now that they're in their teens that they have much closer relationships with both me and their father than their peers do, and they have said that, looking at their peers and hearing their complaints, they actually really value and appreciate that I stayed at home, and made them my full focus.

I think that governments who complain about women not having enough children, or those who complain about children not being ready when they start school, really need to understand that raising children is a job in itself, and value it through financial remuneration for active parenting, instead of expecting all parents to feel pressured to juggle work and parenting.

I do notice now that they're in their teens that they have much closer relationships with both me and their father than their peers do, and they have said that, looking at their peers and hearing their complaints, they actually really value and appreciate that I stayed at home, and made them my full focus.

This is a very silly thing to say. And it’s not great to encourage your kids to think women should give up work and do all the childcare. It is about personalities and so much more rather than the fact you were home.

At my 50th recently, both my young adult children gave speeches and said that they often considered me as their best friend. We are incredibly close and they tell me everything, sometimes too much!. But that is just a function of them and me and our personalities and the relationship we have built up over time. Obviously it is nothing to do with the fact that I worked when they were babies.

I also don’t see it as a competition between me and my stay at home Mum friends. We have all done the best we can and some of us have been blessed with a great relationship with our kids. Nothing to do with early nursery or not. Luckily none of us need validation and we don’t need to ‘prove’ we made the right decisions. We don’t need to quiz our kids for validation either!

The fortunate amongst us are close to our children, whether we worked or stayed home.

AmethystDeceiver · 05/10/2026 07:55

Calmestofallthechickens · 05/10/2026 06:37

In my kids’ school at least, the huge behaviour problems aren’t coming from the kids with two working parents.

Show quote history

I was coming on to say similar.

I think that all of us with older primary aged children can see really clearly that the children with the highest level of behavioral and learning needs tend to have a SAHP or two. We all have different anecdata I suppose, but I see children with 2 working parents at home as having privileges and protections that filter down to behaviour and learning outcomes. More money in the household, higher levels of education, and financial independence for both parents benefits kids hugely.

I suspect that the stats would back this up as well. Life probably feels harder at times when you have 2 employed parents in the home, but it's not just about the weaning years. I don't think the disadvantaged children in our society are the ones with two parents with careers.

TrayMake · 05/10/2026 07:58

OtterlyAstounding · 05/10/2026 06:36

No, there's a huge issue with literacy and numeracy attainment in my country, as well as a lack of social development, which typically comes from a lack of parenting - whether the parents are working or not, to be fair.

But yes, anecdotally I have noticed a huge benefit from staying at home and having more time and energy to invest into my children, and so have my kids. Interesting that you assume it has to be a mother staying at home, and not a father.

Show quote history

Essentially, you are saying you don’t want a world where there are women MPs, judges, CEOs, senior hospital consultants etc. Because it’s largely mums who stay at home but careers are built during the childbearing years.

I’m so glad views like yours are largely outdated. It’s a shame you are passing them on to your poor kids though.

I am happy at how far we have come as women. But seeing your views, we still have far to go.

Backedoffhackedoff · 05/10/2026 07:59

CrispySquid · 05/10/2026 07:43

I'm not talking about child tax credits (which I'm happy for parents to receive). Nobody would equate receiving child tax credits as the government paying for people to "have" children. It's too negligible an amount. What you said was that the government should pay women to stay at home (equivalent to an employment salary I assume?).

Economic and financial considerations are just one of many factors why women aren't having children and the evidence shows that reason is more likely a factor in couples choosing the NUMBER of children to have but does not play as big a part in women deciding whether or not to have children in the first place.

Proof of this is Nordic countries. Scandinavian countries completely undermine the idea that women primarily avoid having children because motherhood would penalise them financially. These countries have very high female employment, heavily subsidised childcare, very generous maternal leave, culture of two working parents and strong employment protection for mothers. Despite this, the Nordic fertility rate has fallen off a cliff which shows that women make decisions about motherhood/fertility not based solely on financial reasons. Despite not being penalised financially for becoming a mother in these countries, women still choose to have less children or none at all. In fact you can see this phenomenon play out in many more egalitarian countries.

Also, there are loads of countries in the world that have tried various tactics to encourage women to have children - forgiving student loans in their entirety for mothers, no tax for life if 4 children birthed, free home for first-time parents, generous up-front lump sum payments for each child etc. None of these have improved the birth rate. Opportunity cost for women is huge now and cultural preferences and attitudes towards motherhood has completely changed. Industrialisation has made the "need" for children who once helped with family burdens once grown almost obsolete and more women than ever are accessing education and work opportunities. More women are just becoming more comfortable in saying that motherhood doesn't appeal to them.

Show quote history

This is it. In the Nordic countries this Brits particularly those on MN seem to aspire to there are no sahm*. It’s a given that everyone has creative, professional or personal value to give throughout their lives.

*yes yes yes I’m sure you know one.

TrayMake · 05/10/2026 08:00

OtterlyAstounding · 05/10/2026 07:10

Some parents would go insane staying at home with their children, and need to be out in the world working, in which case valuing childcare/parenting more might lead to nurseries where employees are more highly trained and held to higher standards, and childcare is more subsidised.

Whereas some parents would love to stay at home during the early years but feel they can't, and would also benefit hugely from staying at home being more enabled by the government, if childcare/parenting was more highly valued.

I think valuing parenting/childcare much more than it currently is, and showing that financially would benefit both working and SAH parents - and most of all, children.

Show quote history

Did you send your children to school? Presumably you didn’t. Because magically at five I wonder how they would cope without your intense focus.

OtterlyAstounding · 05/10/2026 08:01

CrispySquid · 05/10/2026 07:43

I'm not talking about child tax credits (which I'm happy for parents to receive). Nobody would equate receiving child tax credits as the government paying for people to "have" children. It's too negligible an amount. What you said was that the government should pay women to stay at home (equivalent to an employment salary I assume?).

Economic and financial considerations are just one of many factors why women aren't having children and the evidence shows that reason is more likely a factor in couples choosing the NUMBER of children to have but does not play as big a part in women deciding whether or not to have children in the first place.

Proof of this is Nordic countries. Scandinavian countries completely undermine the idea that women primarily avoid having children because motherhood would penalise them financially. These countries have very high female employment, heavily subsidised childcare, very generous maternal leave, culture of two working parents and strong employment protection for mothers. Despite this, the Nordic fertility rate has fallen off a cliff which shows that women make decisions about motherhood/fertility not based solely on financial reasons. Despite not being penalised financially for becoming a mother in these countries, women still choose to have less children or none at all. In fact you can see this phenomenon play out in many more egalitarian countries.

Also, there are loads of countries in the world that have tried various tactics to encourage women to have children - forgiving student loans in their entirety for mothers, no tax for life if 4 children birthed, free home for first-time parents, generous up-front lump sum payments for each child etc. None of these have improved the birth rate. Opportunity cost for women is huge now and cultural preferences and attitudes towards motherhood has completely changed. Industrialisation has made the "need" for children who once helped with family burdens once grown almost obsolete and more women than ever are accessing education and work opportunities. More women are just becoming more comfortable in saying that motherhood doesn't appeal to them.

Show quote history

That's true - there are many other factors at play, with climate change and other things discouraging people from having children. Which means that if governments want women to have children, they need to make it desirable.

I do just think that childcare (whether by parents or nursery workers) should be valued much more highly, and that in an ideal world at least, the standard of care and learning through play provided by both should reach a higher minimum standard than it currently is. And that would inevitably involve more money being spent on it.

And on a personal level, I have seen that being a (very engaged) SAHM when they were little, and only part-time since then, has really benefited my children. It's something that they have appreciated in their teens, when they've compared their family to their friends' families. Of course, that is anecdotal.

OtterlyAstounding · 05/10/2026 08:02

TrayMake · 05/10/2026 08:00

Did you send your children to school? Presumably you didn’t. Because magically at five I wonder how they would cope without your intense focus.

Show quote history

Do you wonder? Really? And yes, they went to both kindergarten and school, and settled in very well.

TrayMake · 05/10/2026 08:04

OtterlyAstounding · 05/10/2026 08:01

That's true - there are many other factors at play, with climate change and other things discouraging people from having children. Which means that if governments want women to have children, they need to make it desirable.

I do just think that childcare (whether by parents or nursery workers) should be valued much more highly, and that in an ideal world at least, the standard of care and learning through play provided by both should reach a higher minimum standard than it currently is. And that would inevitably involve more money being spent on it.

And on a personal level, I have seen that being a (very engaged) SAHM when they were little, and only part-time since then, has really benefited my children. It's something that they have appreciated in their teens, when they've compared their family to their friends' families. Of course, that is anecdotal.

Show quote history

Hmm. Most teens give precisely zero thought to their early years childcare. I find it really surprising that your teenagers are spontaneously talking about their gratitude about you staying at home for them, comparing their peers’ childcare, and how they value you as a stay at home mum. I suspect you were seeking validation and they gave it to you!

TrayMake · 05/10/2026 08:05

OtterlyAstounding · 05/10/2026 08:02

Do you wonder? Really? And yes, they went to both kindergarten and school, and settled in very well.

Show quote history

And why did you suddenly think they would cope then. What made you think that they could cope then without staying at home without your focussed attention 24/7?! Why not keep them glued to you till 7? 10?

OtterlyAstounding · 05/10/2026 08:07

TrayMake · 05/10/2026 07:58

Essentially, you are saying you don’t want a world where there are women MPs, judges, CEOs, senior hospital consultants etc. Because it’s largely mums who stay at home but careers are built during the childbearing years.

I’m so glad views like yours are largely outdated. It’s a shame you are passing them on to your poor kids though.

I am happy at how far we have come as women. But seeing your views, we still have far to go.

Show quote history

No, I'm not saying that at all. I think more fathers should be expected to stay home, during the toddler years - and ultimately I think parents should do whatever they thrive with, as a depressed, unfulfilled parent isn't what's best for children either. (Although personally, I know several women who stayed at home or only worked part time/studied while their kids were young, and still have very high-flying careers.)

I'm not passing any views down to my kids, either; they're quite capable of making up their own minds. But I do think that good parenting and childcare should be much more highly valued.

OtterlyAstounding · 05/10/2026 08:09

TrayMake · 05/10/2026 08:05

And why did you suddenly think they would cope then. What made you think that they could cope then without staying at home without your focussed attention 24/7?! Why not keep them glued to you till 7? 10?

Show quote history

The most formative years are birth through to 3. They're like little sponges at that age, and personally, I wanted to make sure they soaked up as much as humanly possible. Obviously, as they get older they naturally want and need more independence, and it's great to see them confidently going out into the world.

You seem very offended by my choices and my experience.

OtterlyAstounding · 05/10/2026 08:10

TrayMake · 05/10/2026 08:04

Hmm. Most teens give precisely zero thought to their early years childcare. I find it really surprising that your teenagers are spontaneously talking about their gratitude about you staying at home for them, comparing their peers’ childcare, and how they value you as a stay at home mum. I suspect you were seeking validation and they gave it to you!

Show quote history

Not at all. They brought it up with me out of the blue, thanks to conversations they'd had with their friends.

FayeLP · 05/10/2026 08:12

ExhaustedRaccoon · 04/10/2026 21:35

It’s not just the kids you take on as a SAHM, it’s all the chores life brings you. Medical appointments, health visitor reviews, cleaning, shopping, cooking, washing. I’m on mat leave and I have 2 DC, a toddler and 4 month old. I am due to return to work in March and I’m wondering how I’m going to do it all! Yes I have DH but he works shifts. He cooks when possible but I don’t think he’s lifted his hand to a duster for years. My day starts at 7, and ends around 10 when I’ve got everything ready for the next day I can relax. My toddler does still go to his childminder 3 days a week because it’s good for his growth and our health visited us to carry on with his routine post baby.

my own personal choice is I’d rather still work. I’m cutting my hours when I go back to coincide with the DC’s childminder hours. I feel I need some away from being the mum and organiser of the house. But I do take my hats off to those SAHM’s because it’s not easy

I do all of those things AND work. It isn’t either or - if you’re working, you still have to do all of the domestic things, just in much less hours of the day.

Staying at home with pre school age kids is hard work and should be a choice. Staying at home once kids are in school means you have 6 hours a day without children at home to get all domestic things done and that is a luxury, not something that needs to be ‘valued’.

AgeingMillennial · 05/10/2026 08:15

Nursery has been wonderful for both my kids. My nieces and nephews never went, and 3 of them are very shy and struggled a lot with school - 2 now have EBSA and don’t go, the other needed a reduced timetable and a lot of stress from his mum before he could build it up.

It has never really been normal for kids to spend all day at home with 1 parent. Kids have traditionally been raised in communities with a wider range of caregivers, usually relatives. Nursery sort of mimics that I guess.

AgeingMillennial · 05/10/2026 08:17

TrayMake · 05/10/2026 08:04

Hmm. Most teens give precisely zero thought to their early years childcare. I find it really surprising that your teenagers are spontaneously talking about their gratitude about you staying at home for them, comparing their peers’ childcare, and how they value you as a stay at home mum. I suspect you were seeking validation and they gave it to you!

Show quote history

I suspect the truth is being a little bit stretched…

My mum stayed at home and I barely remember it. We don’t speak now.

5128gap · 05/10/2026 08:19

TrayMake · 05/10/2026 07:55

I do notice now that they're in their teens that they have much closer relationships with both me and their father than their peers do, and they have said that, looking at their peers and hearing their complaints, they actually really value and appreciate that I stayed at home, and made them my full focus.

This is a very silly thing to say. And it’s not great to encourage your kids to think women should give up work and do all the childcare. It is about personalities and so much more rather than the fact you were home.

At my 50th recently, both my young adult children gave speeches and said that they often considered me as their best friend. We are incredibly close and they tell me everything, sometimes too much!. But that is just a function of them and me and our personalities and the relationship we have built up over time. Obviously it is nothing to do with the fact that I worked when they were babies.

I also don’t see it as a competition between me and my stay at home Mum friends. We have all done the best we can and some of us have been blessed with a great relationship with our kids. Nothing to do with early nursery or not. Luckily none of us need validation and we don’t need to ‘prove’ we made the right decisions. We don’t need to quiz our kids for validation either!

The fortunate amongst us are close to our children, whether we worked or stayed home.

Show quote history

It is a silly thing to say, because it ignores so many variables that work together to dictate the quality of relationship between parent and adult child. I think the most important of which is simply personality. Some people grow up to discover they genuinely like their parent as a person, they gel and enjoy each others company and so are close from choice. What PP describes is a relationship built on gratitude for sacrifice made, which isn't the same thing at all, and at its extreme can be rather unhealthy as its implies obligation.
(Not saying pps DC don't like her and their father of course. I'm sure they do. But it's not solely the care they recieved as children that would enthuse them for their company as adults.)

PeasOff · 05/10/2026 08:20

STTE. It may be valuable to their family but not society as a whole because it means one less person contributing towards taxes and productivity ect.

Many working parents do all the things you describe in your OP whilst also working FT/PT.

EvieBB · 05/10/2026 08:21

Backedoffhackedoff · 04/10/2026 21:16

This feels like such an old fashioned discussion tbh. It’s not aspirational to stay at home and look after children all day. They don’t need it either

My eldest absolutely needed it. She hated being separated from me. Youngest DD not so much.
Eldest DD screamed and had to be prized off me when she started nursery at age 3. Other DD barely glanced over her shoulder to wave bye to me and skipped in.
Every child is different..
I relished the time I spent being able to stay at home and focus on them and build a close and beautiful bond without having the stress of being an employee for someone else. Of course not everyone has that luxury financially ....or couldn't think of anything worse than staying at home. Each to their own. You do what is right for you and your family's mental health. Neither option should be vilified. Both should be supported

OtterlyAstounding · 05/10/2026 08:21

AgeingMillennial · 05/10/2026 08:17

I suspect the truth is being a little bit stretched…

My mum stayed at home and I barely remember it. We don’t speak now.

Show quote history

They quite genuinely did. They're both high functioning autistic (with friends who are the same) and perhaps talk about a lot of odd topics that most teenagers wouldn't, including appreciating having me home after school hours throughout their lives. Add to that, one of them has several friends with outright abusive/neglectful parents, most of whom spend a lot of their time at our house because they prefer it to their own, so they hear 'I wish my parents were more like yours' a lot. Perhaps we're outliers, but that's just my experience.

EvieBB · 05/10/2026 08:22

PeasOff · 05/10/2026 08:20

STTE. It may be valuable to their family but not society as a whole because it means one less person contributing towards taxes and productivity ect.

Many working parents do all the things you describe in your OP whilst also working FT/PT.

I couldn't as I had chronic fatigue. It took all my energy just looking after them and running the household

AgeingMillennial · 05/10/2026 08:22

OtterlyAstounding · 05/10/2026 08:21

They quite genuinely did. They're both high functioning autistic (with friends who are the same) and perhaps talk about a lot of odd topics that most teenagers wouldn't, including appreciating having me home after school hours throughout their lives. Add to that, one of them has several friends with outright abusive/neglectful parents, most of whom spend a lot of their time at our house because they prefer it to their own, so they hear 'I wish my parents were more like yours' a lot. Perhaps we're outliers, but that's just my experience.

Show quote history

How are they doing now?

Differentforgirls · 05/10/2026 08:23

5128gap · 05/10/2026 07:33

Then equally, society needs to understand the risks and benefits of being cared for full time by a SAHP.
We seem to have these discussions through a rosey lens where the child with the SAHP lives an idealic life of constant one to one bespoke care by the person perfectly qualified to provide it, purely on the basis that they had sex and created a child.
The child exists in a world of home cooking, imaginative play, crafts, and carefully curated social opportunities. Their home offers every equipment and activity a nursery could provide and parents are fully knowledgeable as to the early years curriculum and how to impart it.
No parent ever sits scrolling their phone while the child watches Miss Rachel on repeat. No child is dragged round the supermarket, left in the gym creche, given a screen while the parent meets their friend for lunch. No parent is bored, resentful, stressed or impatient. No parent has odd attitudes or beliefs, issues or baggage that would benefit from balance.
I'm sure there are SAHP for whom all this is true. But how do we possibly assess that in order to make generalisations about the care children recieve under this model?
The closest we can get is to assess outcomes. So we'd need to look at adults from generations where the model was more widespread. Are boomers and gen X happier, more confident, better citizens than millennials and gen Z?

Show quote history

We certainly moan less.