More women staying at home because they want to spend time with the kids - is this the reason?

[JustineMumsnet]

Hi all,
Am wrting in the Standard tomorrow about latest research suggesting stay at home mums are increasingly not returning to work because they want to spend more time with their children. Now Patricia Hewitt has said that Mothers who stayed at home had been under-valued for too long by the Goverment. What do you think - in an ideal world would you stay at home full time? Do you feel strongly about raising your kids yourself? If money were no object would you jack in the job and what, if anything, would make returning to work more attractive?
Have to say now I've chalked up four the thought of being a full-time mum is pretty terrifying (call in the professionals I say )

Very much agree with mesenfantsmaman.

My dh would enjoy beinf a sahf,he assures me.
He'd be better at it than I am,that's for sure.

I had to return to work after the birth of my 1st (when he was 9mos until 17 mos). Hated every minute of it. I desperately wanted to be at home with him. Now I am a SAHM of 3 under 5s. For it to be financially viable, I would have to return to my social worker job full-time. But I guess we'd get financial incentives from the child tax credits. My DH is a social worker and not a big earner (when DS1 was born we lived in London and he earned £23000), so for me to stay at home has meant giving up some things. Saying that I would not, for a second, trade in being at home for more hols or new clothes etc. To afford for me to stay at home we downsized our house and moved out of London to a cheap part of the country. We both felt we didn't want our children to be in daycare. No financial incentives would make me change my mind. However, this government has put all of its incentives in getting mums back to work and making the choice to stay at home difficult financially and less of a real choice. I would welcome some form of incentive, maybe through the tax credit system) to enable and encourage mums to stay at home whilst their children are of pre-school age, so that the choice of working or staying at home is a real one.

There definitely are dads doing it. But there are a lot more saying how much they'd like to if they could (Fathers Direct goes on about this. A lot) but sadly the work culture is against them and they'd lose their promotion prospects (well yes, boys, what do you think happened to us - us including the blokes who actually have taken the plunge)?

Rant. Sorry. Hijack over.

I gave up work to spend more time with the children, but if it was possible in my field (law) to have a part time, flexible job then I would do that in preference to being at home full time. As it is, I would have to work impossible hours. So in answer to your question, I did give up work to be with the children, but I also felt forced into it by the lack of part time opportunities.

I think in an ideal world I wouldn't stay at home full time - would like to return to work part-time.

I went back to work full-time after my first with the intention of taking a career break when no. 2 arrived (could have taken up to 2 years off). However, no. 2 didn't arrive as quickly as planned - not until dd was about to start school. The logistics of dropping one child at a nursery and another at some sort of before and after school care were off-putting. Most child minders only work 8-6, I was looking at up to an hours commute each way so fitting in full days work would have been tricky. In addition, the costs of childcare for 2 would not have left much over each month when you include the costs involved in working - petrol, smart clothes, lunches (never would have time to make my own!) plus I had decided I would have had to get a cleaner for a few hours each week to save my sanity...

So I never went back and became a sahm instead.

I have since had a third child and as childcare has got even more expensive (£850 for a full time nursery place here) I can't see that I will go back to work until the youngest is at school at least.

In hindsight, I think I would still be working if I had gone back only part-time after my first. although I would probably have just been working to keep the job open rather than making much money - working part-time you have most of the expenses but less income. I also felt at the time that my employers wouldn't have hired anyone to cover the time I was at home so I would have had to fit 5 days work into 3, for example. But I do think now that it is easier to get flexible working hours from an existing employer, rather than try to find a new job with hours to suit.

I do feel quite strongly about raising my kids myself and did have qualms (sp?) about working full time when dd was little. But I would not necessarily feel that I need to do 100% of the caring - not everyone is suited to being at home full-time and I think it is better for your kids to have a happy mother who works than a miserable one who is always at home.

I have enjoyed my time at home - I am lucky to live in a bustling town with lots to do - would possibly feel different if I lived in an isolated rural area- but am now getting to the stage of planning to return to work. However, my kids have got used to me picking them up from school, taking them to various activites, etc, and I would love to be able to continue this. So ideally I would like a job that is term-time, school hours only, pays enough to make the extra stress on the family worthwhile and is stimulating and interesting. I don't think such a job exists!

Since ds was four months old I've been trying to be a full-time parent and a full-time employee at once. dh is doing his doctorate (and doesn't have funding yet) and looks after ds while I lecture; the rest of the time I'm at home, frequently bf, playing with ds and doing my marking/preparation etc. etc. all at once, or taking ds out of dh's way while he gets some work done. dh is amazing in how he is with ds, but I'm desperate to not let my mothering role be 'usurped' by dh - MI, I do agree on the cultural pressure (btw - oi, the Great 21st Century Novel's mine! ), but it's also an incredibly deep response I was surprised I had. I would love to be a sahm tbh, which is not to say I don't get anything out of my work. dh and I don't want to use childcare until our children hit about 3, and plan to both go part-time when my current contract runs out - if we can manage to get as much in between us as I earn now we'll be OK. We have no great material ambitions though - a car is out of our reach atm, and we might be able to afford a holiday that's not going to stay with friends in, oh, about 15 years.
I should add that dh can be incredibly frustrating in his need to be reminded to get going on his work and have a thought to our future - but as far as shouldering his share of work within the family goes - he's great, he puts his (metaphorical, lol) money where his mouth is, and I am very lucky to have him. I would go as far as to say he is a New Man.

me again. dh was interviewed for the Guardian article. he was aksed if his decision to work 4 days a week has affected his career. His answer (which I wholly agree with) was yes - but if there is someone else more committed to the job than he is, he does not feel it unfair taht they do better. The problem is that when we ask the same question of a p-t wohm mum there is an underlying assumption that the children business is her responsibility, therefore - the assmption goes - she is loosing out career wise, not because she's less dedicated, (like my dh) but because she's a woman who needs to be at home 2 days a week. we STILL conduct all these debates with this underlying assumption. And consequently we are strivig towards a false form of equality. [none of which is to deny that in some circumstances a 4 day a weeker can contribute more than a 5 day a weeker - I'm not at all saying merit can be measured purely in hours]

Being a Sahm is hard work. I am almost a SAHM, I work 6.5 hours a week on a Monday. Drives me crazy when others were I work joke at the end of every monday afternoon, about how my working week is over (like the next 4 days looking after 2 small children from 6am until8am is a breeze). I would certainly like to be a full time SAHM but I need to be at work (not for the financial aspect, but in order to maintain my skills etc - I am a dentist). Mind you I guess I am pretty fortunate that I can do both, mine is a very flexible career for a mother.

Just wanted to add that before I had kids I would never have considered being a sahm - I, my dh, colleagues, etc just all assumed I would go back to work. I was even promoted at work into a new role which started 3 weeks before I went on maternity leave. It was only when I went back to work that I realised how much juggling was involved...

My absolute ideal would be a 2-3 day week at work. That way you spend the majority of your days with your family vut you have a change of scenery.

This would only be ideal if the 2-3 day week job was as challenging as my current full time job and I was not seen as second class employee at work for being part-time. Unfortunately I work in finance and part-time is seen as being for secretaries not serious types.

thewomanwhothoughtetc. - I've always thought that the demand ought to be a 20 hour week so that no parent has to sacrifice career prospects. It was an oversight on the part of early feminists not to remember that if the pool of workers doubled, the hours worked could be halved.

In fact my ideal would be to not work but still have juniors in nursery or other care for 2 days a week so I could do stuff without the little darlings bleating away all't time

the problem is that there will always be someone who wants to work harder. we can't stop them from doing that, should they want to. I am increasingly of the belief that the inequalities are at home, not in teh work place. Only when that is addressed can we have true meritocracy - which may well mean that people (note people, not women) who choose to have kids and want to spend lots of time with them will get overtaken in their careers by the geek in the corner who comes into the office every Saturday to polish presentations. I have always thought that the feminist flaw was not totting up the totality of work - including child care - and dividing it equally, or at least demanding the opportunity to divide it equally. children seemed to get forgotten! (as mine are now, playing upstairs when I should be nagging them into their pyjamas....)

I think it's difficult nowadays to be either a SAHM or a working outside the home mum.

To be a SAHM you need to financially able to live off only dp/dh's wage, not everyone is in this situation. We are not. I need to contribute financially to teh household coffers. I did originally work full time, but as mentioned, found it bloody exhausting and I could not be all things to all people. I now work 3 days and find this the perfect balance.

Personally, I would not choose to work full time again or to be a SAHM. I am fortunate enough to have a good job with flexible employees.

Not sure if Mums are choosing to stay at home because they want to be with their kids or if it's just too bloody difficult to oraganise child care, juggle sick kids, pay for child care, then the nightmare of school holidays when kids are in school...........

Yeah I think jobs should be re-standardised as 17.5 - 20 hours per week. Then it is up to everybody if they do 1 job or 2. I its not part-time or full time. Its fulltime or double full time.

That would be brrrrrilliant

Over here in Germany there is currently an enormous panic about the practically stagnant birthrate. Most of the cultural discourse surrounding it suggests creating oodles of nursery places for women who 'want or need' to go to work. Fathers get left almost entirely out of the equation - there was even an articlr in my favourite newspaper last week suggesting that if women/mothers challenge the father's role as provider he will have no incentive to stick around . One very good thing which is happening, though, is that a payment will be introduced of 67% of the last net salary for the SAHP for the first year of the child's life, of which two months have to be taken by the mother, two by the father and the rest is up to the parents. I can't wait. I think something like this would take a lot of pressure off a lot of people.

I am well paid and about to have second kid. When I factor in cost of getting to work, cost of cleaner as have no time to clean own house, cost of ready meals and takeaways as have no time to cook meals and 50 hours a week CHILDCARE. It really is barely worth it.

I truly do not know how people who earn lower salaries say 15 - 25k do it as once tax gone and childcare there is barely anything left surely.

What is this FREE NURSERY place. Isn't it 3 hours 5 days a week - ermmmmm which jobs fit around that then???

I am currently a SAHM, through choice and most days I love it (no-one loves their job everyday)however, it is financially difficult for us. I wish the government wasn't so focussed on getting parents to go back to work and would recognise that SAH parents are 'working' too and doing a very important job. I feel that there should be incentives for parents that have chosen to be at home. If I was an OFSTED registered parent could I claim the childcare element of Tax Credit? Seems silly to me, that if I went out to work and left my children with a childcare professional, they would recognise that, but surely no one is more qualified to care for my children than DH and I are, and there is no recognition of that.

Justine, how about mentioning that after you've been at home for X NUMBER OF YEARS WITH YOUR KIDS IT'S VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO GET A DECENT PAID JOB THAT FITS ROUND THE KIDS WHEN THEY EVENTUALLY ARE IN SCHOOL?

Think that sends many women back to work as much as anything else.

(sorry for the caps lock!!)

Flum - the way people on low incomes manage is either by family looking after kids, or tax credits. If you're on a very low income, 70% of your childcare costs are paid for. For example, I earn just over 9K but the govt gives me well over 8K in wtc and ctc. Without that, I wouldn't bother because I couldn't afford it.

FastAsleepBunny said she wouldn't need 2 be at home if her kids were school age...My kids need me more now than ever they're at/soon 2 start school. I see so little of them as it is. Most days I go up 2 school 3x for school & preschool. In my ideal world I want 2 help out in their classes, go 2 their plays * sports, attend ther PTA meetings. Take them swimming, host play-dates. I cant work & do all that.

However, I feel loss of status coz I'm "only" a SAHM now.

oh & ditto what ssd said about Pay rates & juggling the schedule.