Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

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

231 replies

JustineMumsnet · 10/04/2006 18:35

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 Grin)

OP posts:
Prufrock · 12/04/2006 18:40

Loved the article btw Justine.

Tinker · 12/04/2006 18:42

Link to article?

Prufrock · 12/04/2006 18:59

Don't think it's actually online anywhere Tinker - Justine - could you post it here? I really can't type fast enough to copy it all out!

Cristina7 · 12/04/2006 19:19

"This is what I find so different to talking to RL friends where we all know about what each others working lives were like pre and immediately post baby's arrival."

Couldn't agree more. I think it's also easy to re-model your life on-line. Some do it even IRL. A friend of mine wanted to go back to work after having her child. It didn't work out as the company relocated. She's now banging on how it's for the best anyway, etc, convincing herself that that's what she'd have chosen anyhow. Someone else makes snide remarks about another friend who is back at work, while admitting that her own job was boring and not worth it. I haven't yet had anyone criticize me IRL but if they're bitching behind my back...I don't know and don't really care.

LittleSarah · 12/04/2006 20:24

Am with Gingerbear.

I always thought I'd love to be at home 24/7 but it just is not for me. At the moment, dd (2) is at nursery 2.5 days while I am uni, for me that is a good arrangement, I get to do what I want (a degree eventually!) and still get plenty of time with dd.

Ideally I would like to be with my next child (IF!) for the first 1-2 yrs full time and then part-time til they go to school... however if I hated my job I think I would probably go the stay at home route..

In fact, I'll be back SAHMing it for 4 months this summer! Hmmmm...

LittleSarah · 12/04/2006 20:32

Actually, Fairymum's arrangement sounds great... both partners having a good share. I like that idea... in an ideal world! Smile

hellywobs · 12/04/2006 21:48

I have heard plenty of critical comments about working mums - pretty well every time you open a paper - and as for the NCT magazine/newsletter - one feels harangued if one does not breastfeed exclusively, had pain relief during childbirth, uses disposable nappies etc etc.

I'd rather harangue the mums who drive their kids to school in their totally unnecessary 4X4s or SPVs (when they could walk it in 10 minutes and an estate car would do) and allow their 7 year old children to ram a supermarket trolley into a 65 year old woman THREE times without even making the child apologise (happened to my mum last Sunday).

lovecloud · 12/04/2006 23:12

I dont label myself a stay at home or a working mum.

I work part time whilst my dd attends nursery two days a week and on the five days off, we spend all that time together and I do enjoy it more than working five days a week. I know it would not suit everyone but it suits us fine.

My dd has the best of both worlds - in her world :)

All I know is that if you asked most kids what they would prefer they would say to be be with their mummies more so that is one of the reasons why I chose this way. It makes both of us happy.

I feel like I want to work part time so I have my own time and my dd has her time away from me.

Most mothers who work full time do so more for the need of the money to fund their lives and they feel they have no other option. Others do it because they love their job more than being with their children. That is their choice and when I first had a child I have to admit I did judge mums more. Now I don't. We all make decisions for our families and whatever suits us. People will always have something to say on how "you do it" whether its the pram you buy, bottle or breast, terries or disposables etc. Being a parent can be hard enough. If peoples view offend you then dont ask or join in. People will always have their say.

I think there is so much pressure and high living costs today - we need some big hippy communes Wink

Normsnockers · 13/04/2006 16:19

joelalie

I think you misunderstood what I think the phenomenon is.

The thing that is peculiar about MN is that SAHM's fall into two brackets.

Those who state that for them the expense/commute/logistics make it not practical to work and those who state that they firmly believe it is the right thing to do as small children benefit greatly/need their mother at home.

In RL I have friends who say that they never really like their job and staying at home is an attractive alternative by comparison hence they decided to be a SAHM. Very, very few people on MN say this, I think only 1 or 2 have on this thread.

Pagan · 13/04/2006 16:31

Not got time to read whole thread but I stay at home because it's what I think is best for my kids. And I think this is something that is completely undervalued by government and society. All the govt. seems to want to do is to encourage people back to work but as long as we remain a materialist society that measures progress by GDP then I can't see any huge attitude changes on the horizon. There are many reasons why I think being a SAHP is best for the kids and society and many negatives views on the repercussions of going back to work but I'm not going to get into parping threads right now. Suffice to say that looking after kids full time is bloody hard work, no pay, no training, no colleagues (they all do 'real' jobs), no credit!!

Pagan · 13/04/2006 16:33

Oh and you can't take a day off even when you're sick!!!

(snivels into her snotty hankie and downs another lemsip)

bourneville · 13/04/2006 16:36

I am absolutely a SAHM (dd 2.8) because I believe it was the right thing for me & dd. I am a single mum, so also believed at first that i had no choice anyway, it wouldn't have been worth it financially returning to work - though the job centre has tried to tell me since that that's not true.

If i could have, I would have returned to work very very part time, if child care were free, after dd was about 2 yo. By very part time I mean only 2 or 3 half days a week, because I thought it would be good for her to separate from me on a regular basis. But now that pre school is looming in september i am going to put off looking at that possibility because suddenly I believe strongly again that I need to be around to provide a stable home base for dd. I will probably feel the same way by the time dd starts school! I think being a single mum factors into the way i feel, being 100% solely responsible for her happiness etc, and there not being a father around to help her learn to separate from me, if that makes sense. i.e. a regular, consistent presence other than me. I feel like it's even more important for me to be 100% there for dd.

And, just, much as i enjoyed my previous job, there is just nothing i can think of that would come close to the value there is in spending time with dd. :) tbh the idea of returning to work freaks me out, even though i could do with a break from motherhood and a new occupation some of the time, and i know i'd enjoy it if it was the right job! But in terms of full time work, I think I have been used to my job being the focal point of my life, and now my focal point is of course dd, so the idea of going to work full time while i have dd just doesn't compute!

mommie · 13/04/2006 16:41

this idea that you shouldn't have kids if you go out to work is nonsense. some of us like our jobs, find good nurseries/have great grannies/nannies for our child and everyone is happy. it's a personal choice, and those who want to stay at home should. those who don't shouldn't. the important thing is that you have a choice

Ledodgy · 13/04/2006 16:51

I agree with Pagan.

Filyjonk · 13/04/2006 16:53

as of today, am officially sahm! (notice letter took effect today, have actually been on ML for a year now).

I'm absolutely SAHM to spend time with kids. Absolutely. I think my kids need a single, consistent person caring for them. When ds was in nursery, not only did I not spend much time with him in the week but a. I was mentally exhausted and b. I could not switch off enough from my job to give him my full attention.

Don't know enough about other kids to comment, but mine really want me around, and I think thats something I want to respect if at all possible. I love my job, and am good at it, but it'll be there in 10 years time. Hopefully.

And money is an object. We've been reduced to sewing nappies and growing our own vegetables! But we're having fun.

Filyjonk · 13/04/2006 16:55

yes agree with pagan re materialistic society also. I feel I'm teaching my kids that time with people they love (quite a lot of time in the case of camping in the rain cos its cheap) is more important than things.

Pagan · 13/04/2006 19:40

The bit that gets me is when SAHP are considered non-productive and not contributing to the economy because they are not doing the jobs that they originally trained for. This really pisses me off, like saying that those of us who choose to stay at home are a waste of space making no contribution at all.

The country is obsessed with 'indicators' and 'measurements' thus things which are not easily measured are ignored in favour of things that are, but that are not necessarily of greater value.

blueshoes · 13/04/2006 21:49

pagan, I do agree that being a fulltime parent is backbreaking work and deserves more credit. But how should the govt be giving credit to it? Of course, for working mums, help can come in the form of tax breaks, SMP etc. But for someone that does not earn a monetary income, is the expectation that the govt (ie taxpayers) should pay you for being a fulltime parent? I think this is where it gets sensitive politically. How to resolve this?

bourneville · 14/04/2006 09:29

um, yes it is sensitive politically but in an ideal world, yes, we should get money for being a full time parent, at least till a certain age! SAHPs are doing a very very important job bringing up their children, it is a vital contribution to society as we are creating the next generation. OK, not contributing to the economy but that's only money... Surely? In my head it sounds ok but it's all very complicated - and of course there are always ppl who would take advantage of that and abuse the system! The next generation anyway is society's responsibility as a whole, so SAHPs being given money to stay at home isn't about just giving money away so ppl can laze around, it would be the govt taking responsibility also for the welfare of pre school age children. If that makes sense. (same way they subsidise child care for working parents, as I think someone had mentioned earlier).

JustineMumsnet · 14/04/2006 09:52

Here's the article and many thanks again for the input.

Copy starts:
We’re almost halfway through the Easter holidays round our way and, like more than a few others, I have to confess I can’t wait to retreat to the
sanctuary of the office.

Yet new research suggests that far from running for the cover of a 9-5, mothers now want to stay at home to bring up their children . More than
half of mothers who do not work (53 per cent) said it was because they wanted to be with their children - a clear rise in the past three years.

Can this be right? Would we all choose to spend our lives humming the tune to The Wheels on the Bus whilst internally debating whether nappy sacks look better in blue or apricot.

The government - indeed politicians in general - is at a loss for what to do with working women. Having spent most of its time in office trying to encourage mothers back to the workplace, Labour now appears to be contemplating a u-turn. The health secretary Patricia Hewitt this week admitted that mothers who stayed at home have been "under-valued" for too long and her own working hours: I always loved being with my children, and if I had my time again I would do more."

The Health Secretary is not alone - part-time work is the holy grail for mothers (and quite a few fathers). Flexible part-time work is the holy
grail with knobs on. But could Ms Hewitt, who had her first child when she was press secretary to the then Labour leader Neil Kinnock, have got away with a 20-hour week?

Would Neil really not have turned a hair when his press secretary suggested she clock off at lunchtime to catch the egg and spoon race? The truth is that most high-flying jobs require 120 per cent from the people who do them, not
50 per cent. Which is why, according to lots of mums on Mumsnet, the website for parents, they gave it all up. Of course they wanted to spend some time with their children and when the choice is a either a 70-hour work week or being sidelined – they chose to spend even more time
with their children than they originally bargained for.

Those in less well-paid careers, meanwhile, are skewered by the exorbitant cost of childcare. However much you love your job, the daily commute is hardly worth it if by the time you’ve paid the childminder you’re barely in profit.

What mothers most want, judging from the postings
on our website are flexible and part-time solutions in the work place and more affordable. Making child tax deductible, or allowing partners to transfer their tax allowances to one
another, as the Conservatives are said to be considering would be the obvious places to start.

The need for parents to move in an out of the workplace at different times and on different levels is more widely accepted. Both political parties are signd up to the principle of encouraging a "work-life balance" But the tax system still does a pretty lousy job at
recognizing the strains on working families - and we all bear the strain for that.

Justine Roberts is co-founder of www.mumsnet.com
Copy ends.

OP posts:
Cristina7 · 15/04/2006 16:25

Good article, Justine.

Bourneville - "same way they subsidise child care for working parents". Are you referring to childcare vouchers? They sound good but it doesn't happen at all incomes or in all workplaces. Nursery places for over 3s are subsidised for all, WOHMs and SAHMs.

Prufrock · 15/04/2006 17:20

My solution would be to make child benefit for children under school age a "wage" for parents- so at least £100 a week (for one child at a time). This could then be used by SAHP to SAH, or by working parents to contribute towards the cost of childcare and work. And by making it a non-means tested benefit you would remove the stigma of being a parent (single or otherwise) "living off society" and send a very strong message that our society values teh act of producing teh next generation of workers.

homemama · 15/04/2006 18:55

I have just reread this entire thread and I can't help feeling that working mums somehow feel morally superior to those of us who choose to stay at home.

There seems to be a lot of 'oh I could never be one of those women that just stays at home. I need to be exercising my brain.' As if those of us at home are a different breed who find fulfilment in singing nursery rhymes and attending NCT coffee mornings.

There may well be women for whom this is all they want. Being a long term full time mum is, IMO, as valid a life ambition as any other. However, there are many of us who do miss work, who do crave the social interaction and the pressure that comes with a normal working environment.

Personally, I see it a a personal sacrifice for me to be at home. But, it's a sacrfice I felt willing to make. However, I don't see that that choice makes me better than anyone who chooses otherwise. I just don't see why so many working mums view SAHMs as Laura Ashley wearing, cake baking, tea drinking, parochial thinking dullards!

expatinscotland · 15/04/2006 18:58

I don't get that sense at all, homemama.

Please remember that the vast majority of WOHM do so b/c of true financial necessity, NOT due to wanting to live an extravagant lifestyle.

I have to work to feed my kids. It is not a choice.

Greensleeves · 15/04/2006 19:02

Well-put, homemama. I get thoroughly cheesed off with those insulting stereotypes too.