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”.

Children or jobs?

Try and guess?

As I've said upthread, I'm a Brownie leader which is, obviously, a voluntary role so I'm "doing it for nothing". I don't sit around wondering why society doesn't value me more (although I may feel minorly irritated by individual parents).

Like I said, you're entitled to your opinion.

But "it seems to me" isn't really a valid basis for public policy. I think we should be evidence-led.

It's as if somehow having children and looking after them has no value. You volunteer a few hours a week. They look after their children 24/7 🤔

I had assumed jobs but then I realised that seeing no point in doing something that keeps society running would be a strange take.

You're too hard to reply to do I won't be. Just letting you know. It's like you're answering other posters but quoting me.

And working parents have to do most of the things SAHP do but hold down a job as well.

Neither way is right or wrong but society values what actively and measurably benefits it.

The thing is, DH and I clean our house regularly. Cleaning is work and it absolutely has value, but that value is primarily experienced my my DH and me. We don't expect society to value or recognise that labour in any way - why would anyone else really care?

Obviously there are good and bad SAHP. There are also good and bad nurseries, despite the government’s attempts to regulate settings. Not an easy answer to either of these problems, and I’ve emphasised throughout all of my posts that each child’s situation is unique.

Babies are learning from the moment they are born but we don’t stick all newborns into nursery from birth just because some parents aren’t fit to look after them. It’s not an easy issue, but sticking them all in paid childcare just in case is not the solution.

It would be impossible to compare outcomes across generations with any degree of confidence because there are too many factors other than childcare at play. However, by most measures children today are spending more time in childcare than ever, and are also developing less optimally than in previous generations. Whether that’s related to paid childcare, I have no idea.

Agree with this.

You have a right not to reply to me just as I have a right to continue to reply to you. Isn’t the internet great!

I don’t disagree, I just think that the interests of children during the most critical years of their development should also be considered.

I didn’t go back to work until mine went to school, and I have no regrets whatsoever. It’s about doing what’s right for your own family.

During the work week (Mon-Fri) which is the relevant bit for a thread on SAHMs, DC was with me 1 day. The other four was a mix of nursery (for socialisation) and grandparents (for economy and because they asked to be involved).

You are assuming that having parents who are in paid work is not in the interests of children. That's quite a big assumption to make without evidence to back it up.

There has also been a change in parental philosophy (as there is in every generation).

Many people have the attitude that kids will do things like toilet training when they are ready so they have a more passive approach to development based on (presumably) the latest research. So perhaps their development is different from previous generations.

I was diagnosed with AuDHD in my 50s. If asked, i probably wouldn’t have said I was unhappy and nor would my parents. I was struggling with a lot of things but I kept them to myself, whereas children and adults are now encouraged to be open.

So perhaps that’s why children are seen as less well developed and resilient now - nothing to do with SAHP/WOHP.

Being a SAHM for many women was the only option, many husbands did not want their wives working, and women in the past didn’t have options to get bank accounts or mortgages, then later for others it had been a status symbol, the coffee clubs and lunches etc. Now, we are in a different era where women have fought for their rights but are being held back fro work by childcare costs and held back from promotions because of taking time out, but they are now the major breadwinners in their families.
no one is putting stay at home mums down, if you want to do it and can afford it good for you, but it’s nearly impossible for most families now to have one parent at home and I think you are not really understanding the privileged position you are in to be able to afford it.
I would say it’s also risky business to stay at home, the world isn’t stable, putting all your faith in another persons income when jobs are not secure and redundancies can happen at any moment is I think a risky move.
plus once your kids are at school, there’s several hours in the day where you are just doing nothing, maybe putting a wash on or cleaning the bathroom.
also you are saying you want to be paid by the government for not working.. but at the same time putting down people who are also not working but maybe feeding their kids different food? Is your thought process that you can apply for a payment if you agree that you will home cook meals and not watch tv in the daytime? What a strange thought process?

So do I. My point is that in the absence of clear evidence it’s just an opinion either way.

It’s all well and good to say you want public policy to be evidence led to refute an opinion with which you disagree, but if there isn’t clear evidence to support your position it’s pretty meaningless.

It’s capitalism. Paying a parent to stay home with their baby doesn’t collect any national insurance

It's all short-termism. Noone is thinking of the effect on children and the money they'll need from mental health services because they were traumatised as a child from not having a close and long term connection with a family member.

They'll all need to be validated by internet strangers.

The evidence doesn't support the idea that outcomes are better for children with SAHPs. Consequently, I don't think there is any reason for us to implement policies which actively encourage parents to SAH. Those policies would cost the taxpayer while delivering no clear benefit to society.

And while care workers and nursery staff are paid so badly despite the astronomical costs of using the service, it’s highly unrealistic to expect society to give someone money (which some are suggesting) just because they chose to have kids and stay at home with them.

Evidence for this?

The evidence doesn't support this, though. You might want children of WOHPs to be traumatised but the research doesn't back you up.