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”.

It is an annoying fact of life that we all have to pay for things we don’t personally need or like unfortunately.

I'm a SAHM to 4DC. 19, 16, 11 and 9. They all need me in various ways. Two have additional needs. I don't feel any pressure to return to work and I am classed as a carer to two out of four DC. The time they're at school is my respite time! No family support means I have everything to do. DH works so I do a lot on my own when he isn't around.

What is your measure of an aspirational society though? I wasn’t just talking about myself as a person, I was also relating the raising and teaching of your own child from babyhood to being ready for school as a relevant aspiration for many people in society. It depends on the person obviously - but I would think any society as a whole would aspire to allow citizens to pursue happiness?? And their life goals?

I think we are taking at cross purposes. Some societies are admired and seen as aspirational. They don’t relate to what you’re saying.

It’s unfortunate that there isn’t more support for all parents during the earlier years.
It is not possible for the majority of parents to have one at home full time. It’s not good for your mental health stuck at home either if things are tight.
Two years flexible working hours with the option to reduce hours to three days would be perfect but it would bite women in the ass when it came to promotions in work and wouldn’t work
in many places.

There is no evidence that throwing money at the problem encourages people to have more babies. In fact the opposite is generally true. More prosperous societies in which women have more choices, have lower birthrates.

I didn't say otherwise.

Everything you mention doing in your opening post are things working mums also do. Just not 24/7.

There is also a medium where you can work part time in many roles. I work 80% so i can pick my kids up.

As others have said, Kemi’s proposal is not directed at you.

I also think tbh, work is valuable, and earning more money is valuable. It is much more of a struggle for young people now than it was 20 years ago. Therefore for me, the sensible solution is to go to work and do what is best financially for the family.

Talk about wanting to have your cake …😂

This is what irritates me about these discussions. Why aren’t SAHMs “valued” more? Its so petulant and self-centred.

Who do you expect to do the “valuing”? And have you thought through the implications of all this “valuing”?

If you stay at home no doubt you are valued by your children and hopefully your spouse but why is everyone else expected to “value” you for having won a lottery which allows you to remain at home with your kids.

As a single parent that option has never been available to me. I have worked 10-16 hours a day over the past 15 years to feed and house my child. Its much harder work than spending your time at home with them. I don’t regret it but I do it because I have to, I don’t expect plaudits for doing it, why should you expect extra pats on the back for having married someone who will fund you to do this?

I don’t begrudge you being a SAHM in the slightest but I’m not going to ascribe “value” to you for having chosen a much easier path that was never open the me. Why should I?

I also don’t see why the government should be “valuing” this by incentivising more people to do it. Doing so would make the lives of women who do have to work much much harder than they already are.

The world of work is already pretty discriminatory towards working women with children and it costs us a fortune in childcare. And there is no compelling evidence that children raised by SAHMs do better than those of working mothers. So why, on top of the benefits you already have by virtue of not having to work should you also get fawned over for your “sacrifice” and be lauded as providing some superior model of parenting? Or get some financial support to make it easier?

Because far too many will have kids just to stay at home.

Tbh I think it’s indicative of how insular SAHP can be.

no one sits in their office wondering why society doesn’t value them more.

But a full time working parent can do all that. Mine did. I was reading at 3, and was more than ready for school when I started (unlike many many children (excluding SEN) now from posts on here)

Of course society wants people to pursue happiness but it has no intrinsic value. On a family level it’s great but on a societal level then it doesn’t provide a benefit.

They would if they were doing it for nothing.

Society does allow people to pursue happiness, pretty much in whatever way they derive it. Allow and pay for are very different things.

Exactly this.

I'm part of a friendship group of 7 mums with 7 daughters (heck, some of us have even been to St Ives recently 🤣). Our daughters are all 20 and all at university. Between us we are mums who have never gone back to work, mums who have worked various degrees of part-time, and mums who have always worked full-time, putting them in nursery when they were 6 months old (me). What is clear is that raising children to be successful decent humans, who maintain excellent relationships with their parents has nothing to do with the paid employment status of their mothers.

Then logically, they would simply stop doing it wouldn’t they? Find something where they were valued more

To be fair that is because we don’t need to question it - we fulfill a role for which we are valued (paid) by our employer and on which we pay tax to the government. Therefore we have economic value to society.

Lots of people who don’t work have value to society but economic contributions are what the world is assessed on.

If you want to be a SAHP then fab but you can’t expect others on a wider level to actively admire you for something that has little economical value.

Harsh maybe but as long as you and your family are happy in the role, why do you need extra validation from people that don’t benefit or lose out from it?

I’ve presented it as an opinion because as I’ve explained in previous posts, the direct evidence regarding the impact of group care vs parental care is inconclusive in either direction. The best evidence that I can see is the wider body of well established research around child development in areas such as language/communication, social skills, emotional development, etc.

Given what we know about development in these areas it seems to me more likely children’s needs would often be more consistently met being looked after by a competent family member at home/in the community. I’ve acknowledged it’s not clear in either direction, so I don’t know for sure. You can disagree, but you don’t for sure either because the evidence either way is not clear.

No point in having them then.

Men manage to have children and not get tied up in knots about the value of a SAHP

There’s a massive problem when anyone tries to claim through anecdotes that one particular way (SAHM or WOHM) is better. There is no evidence to back that up: it’s purely an opinion.

like some others on here, I’m now in my late 50s, my children are adults. I always worked, many of my children’s peers had mums who also worked, some full time, some part time, and some who were SAHM. My children still have close friends from their younger days. You would not be able to tell, looking at these adults, whether they had working mums or not. They are all happy, well adjusted people who achieved well educationally and have good relationships with family and friends.

I think with a very small minority (and I’ve noticed one on this thread!) they feel they have to justify their decision to give up work by somehow claiming that it’s resulted in their children being happier/ more successful blah blah blah… It’s as though they can only be comfortable with their choice if they frame it as some great sacrifice they’ve made but they’ve done it to raise their children into happier more successful adults. It’s bizarre! If I had given up work, it would have been because I preferred it (and if my dh was comfortable to be sole earner.) I wouldn’t have tried to claim it made my children ‘better.’ Neither do I claim that my being a WOHM has made them ‘better.’ What matters in raising children is instilling sound values, loving and caring for them, providing an enriching life for them. That can be done (or not done!) whether one or both parents work.

There are many things I am Quite rightly proud of that are a result of my having a career: specific achievements and promotions, the fact I’ve reached a point where I earn good money and have a very good pension. To think my adult offspring are in some way ‘better’ because of my career is not something I would claim! They are happy, emotionally well adjusted adults who have a close bond with us as parents- just as I’m sure they would be equally happy if I had stayed at home. Or if DH had stayed at home.

I completely disagree with the OP that SAHM should somehow be given some extra ‘validation’ - the validation should be that they and their partner want it. If it suits their situation - great. No one else’s business. Just don’t (not so secretly!) wish that parents who work will have children who are in some way less happy/ less successful - you’ll be in for a disappointment!

They must be great fathers.

But they aren’t. Because if they weren’t, they wouldn’t be working.

They are paid for a role that has a financial value to an employer and in turn pay into society, benefitting the whole of society in a measurable way.

SAHP isn’t a paid role because it is something people choose to do to benefit their family. Good on them. I think people should have a choice if possible. But you can’t expect wider society to somehow admire you or value you for it.

You keep attributing things to me that I haven't posted.