Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Other subjects
Original poster

If you've given up work outside the home to be with the kids, are you happy with the decision?

442 replies

jeangenie · 13/12/2006 10:55

Has anyone on here given up work to stay at home with the kids, even though it meant a financial struggle? How do you feel about the decision now?

(am considering this at the moment,trying to make myself hold back until I'm certain, but finding it hard to restrain myself this morning for some reason...)

OP posts:
blackandwhitecat · 18/12/2006 21:01

Ah, this is where you have to work out your own priorities for your family. Earning shed loads of money is not a priority for us. I hope you're not thinking that because I think it's important to pay taxes I also think that everyone should try to earn as much as they can so they can pay as much tax as they can because I absolutely don't.

I personally would also rather have a family where both parents are around most of the time than one parent being around all of the time and the other rarely. And also during the hours your children are at school I really can't see how your working during at least some of those hours would impact on your partner's ability to do his job. Not, I repeat that I'm telling anybody to go out and get a job I'm just repeating that many of the obstacles are psychological.

blackandwhitecat · 18/12/2006 21:08

'IF I went out to work, dh would have to share school pick ups for a start. That would mean he would not work as long hours, he would not earn as much money and he would not have got the promotions he's had because he wouldn't be putting in the hours.'

But then if you went out to work dh could work less hours thus sharing responsibility for child-care with no loss of earnings, no?

blackandwhitecat · 18/12/2006 21:10

Also, Kitty, if dp's hours are flexible anyway why can he not do the odd school run without it affecting his work but still allowing you to do paid work?

blackandwhitecat · 18/12/2006 21:15

Also, employers should be understanding enough to allow a mum or dad to do the school run or whatever to take an active part in their child's life without it affecting your chances of promotion etc. I think dads in particular are damaged by this kind of long-hours culture but as a result so is family life. If they were to fight for their rights as dads then things might change.

blackandwhitecat · 18/12/2006 21:16

And in some cases if these dads' dps were working instead of being SAHMs it might allow them to say no to extra hours and participate more in their child's upbringing as was the case with my brother in law I mentioned earlier.

Glitterygookwithchocsonthetree · 18/12/2006 21:20

No, if I went out to work we'd have to use childcare so there's money to pay out that we don't now. Plus childcare finishes at 6pm and neither of us do/did a job where people leave at 5.30 so picking up from childcare by 6pm would be an issue.

We did it when I went back to work after ds1 and it didn't work.

Working from home is the 'ideal' option, even though I'm f*cking exhausted the majority of the time as a result.

blackandwhitecat · 18/12/2006 21:21

Ok, sorry Glittery, didn't realize you had pre-school children.

blackandwhitecat · 18/12/2006 21:24

Should have realized though! That must be hard Glittery, there's no way I could work from home. I need the discipline of being somewhere else. In fact, I'm supposed to be doing some freelance internet work right now.

kittyschristmascrackers · 18/12/2006 21:54

B&WC, Dp does indeed do the odd school runs and collects after playdates in the evenings when I'm cooking for the family and looking after the little ones. But if he were to do this more frequently it would impinge on his work time. At the mo he is helping as I am knackered with the 5 kids and being preg and christmas etc. etc.
We have indeed chosen our lifestyle. I think when in 6 years time the next baby ( due in March) goes to school, I will need some me time and take time to catch my breath a little and then I will look to do something, if only to give me some stimulation. I don't know what yet though!!

Wordsmith · 18/12/2006 22:28

I was self employed until recently, working from home. I'm now employed outside the home, part time, 3 days/week (in fact I still do some freelance when I can get it on a self employed basis at home so I guess I'm both).

Hats off Glittery at doing it with no childcare - there's no way I could do that long term. I've got 2 days' freelance work this week, on the days when I'm not 'at work', so DS2 is at day nursery all week instead of just a couple of days. So shoot me. But I can earn as much in these 2 days freelance (before tax) as I can in a whole month at work. Helps with Christmas.

I think that providing both partners are happy with the arrangement, the traditional husband working/wife at home arrangement is probably easiest, logistically. But it wouldn't work for DH and me. He doesn't want to work all hours and not see the kids. And I want to keep up with work I enjoy doing. Luckily he has a job where he works 4 days a week and I have one when I work 3 days. So DS2 is only at nursery 2 days a week. And I'm lucky to have negotiated hours which allow me to do the school run (although DS1 does go to after school club till about 4.45).

I wouldn't ant to feel that childcare and school runs were solely down to me - we share them although I do most because I work closer to the school.

There's no way i would work for an employer who expected me to forget the fact that I was a parent, and neither would DH.

Glitterygookwithchocsonthetree · 18/12/2006 22:32

I think at the end of the day, we all just do what we have to do.

There are no easy answers once you have children. I hate the word 'juggling' but it does describe life with small children, a household to run and, if you work, a job to hold down.

Noone really has it easy (though I must say, my life would be infinitely easier if I was just at home with no work - no doubt about it).

NOELallie · 19/12/2006 08:08

I agree with B&WC. I'd rather my kids spent some time with both of us, than all their time with one and very little with the other. More and more I realise how lucky I am - I work 9-3 so that I can do the school run (with some leeway at both ends) and I work 2 days at home. If my kids are sick I can work extra days at home. It's a totally flexible arrangement. DH is self-employed so he can take time off he needs/wants to for school things but obviously it costs us. Working this was is great in terms of the kids but we are always struggling finanicially. In purely finanical terms it would make most sense for me to take a job in Bristol, earn twice/three times as much and commute - but being out of the house from 6.30am until 7pm is not me idea of perfect parenting for either parent.

NOELallie · 19/12/2006 08:10

"..I must say, my life would be infinitely easier if I was just at home with no work - no doubt about it). "

I hear you glitterygook!!! or if you could make the housework just go away when you work...

drosophila · 19/12/2006 08:38

Not that I am a big fan of Cherie and Tony but why do you say -

'Cherie and Tony, not such a good example of hands on parents'

how can you possibly know what kind of parents they are. Your view of his political ideas are fine cos they are out there to be judged but your views of their parenting- explain please.

Also I know several people (including myself and DP) who are much more successful after having kids through promotions and new jobs because we have kids iykwim.

A friend of mine got 3 promotions in 6 years because before having her DD she never really thought it was important. I know a few others like that. People can rise to the occasion.

kittyschristmascrackers · 19/12/2006 09:25

I think it is very, very likely indeed that the Priminister who is very busy and often abroad doesn't see that much of his kids. His wife is also scooting off all over the place. So, both are away from home alot of the time, withoout their children, I think we can agree on that. don't call that very hands on, perhaps when they are there, but they're not there very often are they? I'm sure the children are very attached to their nanny and that she is very hands on.

drosophila · 19/12/2006 09:32

Kitty I think you are being unfair. I remember once reading that Cherie's Mum helped out a lot and to me that is the most natural thing in the world. The more family that help in the bring up of kids the better I say. kids need to know that they are loved and cared for by more people than their parents.

Bugsy2 · 19/12/2006 09:41

There are a small minority of people in the UK whose husbands earn such huge amounts of money that there is no need for the wife to work. I imagine that in the awful situation that these couples broke up the husband would be sufficiently well off that the ex-wife could still choose not to work as she would be supported by the maintenance the ex-husband would be providing for the children.
HOWEVER, that is not the case for the majority. For more ordinary mortals, who husbands/partners do not bring home such collosal sums of money, if it all goes tits up (divorce, death, long-term illness) then the wife will have to become an economic provider - how ever "traditional" her views may be about family life!!!
I cannot reiterate strongly enough that women should take a long-term view of their future prospects & think very hard about putting all their eggs in one basket.

kittyschristmascrackers · 19/12/2006 10:03

Drosophila, maybe I am. I am not feeling very magnanimous at the mo I'm afraid. I have the bah humbug christmas spirit I think

Wordsmith · 19/12/2006 10:12

Kitty it's amazing that you know just how good our dear leader and his wife are at parenting just by the fact that they both have high powered jobs. Why don't you leave that judgment to their children? I know several people of my age (40s) who felt completely smothered by the fact that their mothers had no other role in life than as a wife and mother, and found it very difficult to 'let go' of their kids as they grew up. But if I said every woman who stayed at home and didn't WOTH was breeding disillusioned adults, you would tell me where to get off - nd rightly so. So what's the difference?

kittyschristmascrackers · 19/12/2006 10:38

Wordsmith, I can make judgments if I wish. YOU are making a judgment that they might be ok parents. If I want to say that in all probability they are not around for a large percentage of the time and that doesn't gel with my idea of what makes a decent parent then i'll say that.

Yes we can all quote examples of rubbish and disillusioned sahms, and so there are. Perhaps the Blair children and others like them whose parents are actiually physically absent for a great propetion oif time, don't mind it atall. What I am saying, and it is my right to do so, is that being absent from your children by choice, for a large amount of time is not my idea of great parenting. You might think that's and it's your right to say it and think it too.

Wordsmith · 19/12/2006 11:19

The point is, Kitty, that I'm NOT making a judgment. How can I? I don't even know them.

Bugsy2 · 19/12/2006 11:43

Classic diversionary tactics. Create a mini-argument within the argument so that we are actually debating whether or not it is ok to judge & not actually discussing the merits of staying at home with a financial struggle & the future welfare of a currently working mum!!!

kittyschristmascrackers · 19/12/2006 13:15

Ah Wordsmith, having to know someone is not a prerequisite when it comes to passing judgments. Now luckily I have never met DB or CB and of course I do not know what goes behind closed doors, but it is nevertheless my opinion based on the fact that they spend a good deal of time working away from home and therefore away from their children that this is not a great parenting tactic.
What I am saying is they would certainly not have been the first people to spring to mind when giving an example of a good parenting work balance.

morningpaper · 19/12/2006 13:19

The Blairs children are 20, 18, 16 and 5 by the way!!

morningpaper · 19/12/2006 13:20

Oh no I think they are actually all two years older than that

I think only Leo is still at home?

They are hardly running around with a brood of needy toddlers