What do you think about "not doing anything" when children are at school/nursery?

[morningpaper]

My daughter's peers are starting nurseries ... and I'm finding myself really SHOCKED at the fact that my mummy-friends aren't doing anything with their time while their children are out of the home. I asked a friend last week what she did and she said "Oh I just get home, tidy up a bit, have a coffee - and then I have to pick him up again!"

As I work from home there is ALWAYS some work I can do. I also do voluntary work and could always do with more time to get stuff done.

I also don't understand why their partners are happy with them just taking 'mornings off' to themselves - aren't they a bit miffed?

I'm probably just jealous but I can't help but think that they are just plain lazy! What do other people feel about this?!

Well most of you are on here during the day?
Hardly working is it?
True though.

sm - sorry I meant before school.

Personally - I still think its best to be there to collect from school so a part time job once all your little ones are at school seems reasonable but to fair I still wouldn't feel resentful because I know what a full time job 'housekeeping' can be!

I went back to work full time when my youngest started at senior school (have been a dinner lady when they were younger which was hard but ideal time wise!)

Dh is abroad working for 10 days, then home for 4. So for 10 days straight I am the only carer/cleaner/cook/bottlewasher etc and when he's home I'm still doing the housework and 50% of the childcare.

Of course I'm going to have 'me' time when the kids are at school.

The phrase 'not contributing financially' when applied to sahps gets my back up too, I have to say. Being a sahp IS a valuable contribution to a family and to society. Agreeing this doesn't mean everyone has to do it but it seems totally unfair to say it's ok to PAY for childcare if we use a nanny/nursery/childminder but if a parent does it, it's 'NOT contributing'. Wtf?

Oh and for plenty of people the maths is
salary less childcare = not financially viable.

what i dont like is the assumption that i will return to work when kids go to school
i have worked b*Y hard with the kids, andif i can get some down time, then i deserve it.
i cant remember the last time i went to the toilet without having the kids come knocking on the door for something.
if it means no holidays abroad, never eating out, no gym etc, well, id rather have time to go to the toilet than be working in a paid job again.

What does it matter? As Fio said way back down this thread: diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks. If we all do what makes us and our families happy (and don't adversely affect anyone else in the process), surely it doesn't matter whether. Live & let live I say (I'm just an old hippy at heart )

Ooh - lost part of my sentence! "..whether we work our socks off all day long or sit on our backsides"

Well I'm at home at the moment with a 10 month old baby and a toddler (at nursery 3 days a week) and I'm due to go back to work when my baby hits 1. I'm going back 4 days a week and both dh and me are very scared about it! I see some of my friends absolutely killing themselves working full time, they spend their weekends running themselves ragged cleaning etc. They never have any shopping in, their kids eat crap and they spend almost no quality time with their kids. Of course it doesn't have to be like that you can be super organised, have a cleaner/order food online/cook food in the evenings but you still aren't spending any time with your kids. In my book if someone spends more days with them than you do they are raising them. So why am I going back to work 4 days?? Because the profession I'm in won't tolerate an absence for longer than a year before my skills would be considered as less than the others and I'd have to re-train in someway. I am scared stiff of finding myself in a position where I'm unemployable. Of course I could do another job but I worked really hard to get to a point where I earn good money and I don't want to go back to the beginning. So I look at those who work and I feel sorry for them unless they honestly think their kids are better off at young ages with a childminder and then I just think they are mad! I look at SAHM's and think "lucky sods" and I know how lucky I myself have been. I am scared to leave myself financially dependent on my husband. He earns great money but what if something happened to him. I'd be raising my kids alone and I want a decent salary to do it. There's no point saying "you can't think like that" these things happen. I didn't put myself thousands of pounds in debt and through years of professional training to find myself up the creek without a paddle sometime in the future. But its something I am doing with fingers crossed behind my back that it all works out!

I think the point about resenting a SAHP is an interesting one, because it touches on the most basic dynamics of a relationship: your values. If both parents feel that for their children, being looked after by a parent is more worthwhile than paying somebody else to look after them, then theoretically they won't resent having a SAHP, because they will accept that what that SAHP is doing is a valid contribution to the family.

Where resentment will creep in, I think, is where one party feels that the other party hasn't done enough to make the work/ life balance fair to both parents (by refusing to build a career, or examining freelance or pt options) or where there is a complete denial that not working in the cash economy is a valid contribution.

The other time it can creep in of course, is when the partner who is working, feels that the other partner isn't fulfilling their part of the deal by doing the job properly. And that's the most difficult bit to negotiate, because you either agree on the basic values or you don't; but if you do agree, then the devil is in the detail.

The point about fnancial contribution of a full time stay at home dad: I did my sums in detail. Dh and I spent time talking it through. It worked out fine when my so was under state nursery age and needed full time paid childminding. The cost of childminding would have taken a large chunk of dh's earnings. The extra left over wasn't enough to compensate for the stress of us both working. But as soon as ds started state nursery and then school, we were onto 3.00 pick ups and breakfast clubs. That costs less. I did my sums again. It was certainly financially worthwhile for dh to get a job.

I know SAHMs with school age children do contribute financially to the household. Of course I am not disputing that. But not all households can afford for a SAHM or SAHD to do that work. Lucky if so - one parent has a choice to go out to work or not.

I do not earn enough for my dh to not have a job, even if he is saving us holiday and afterschool childcare costs. Simple as that. So no matter how many casseroles he cooks me, school runs he does, toilets he cleans - I would still be pissed off with him if he did not bring in some money. No ifs, no buts, no waiting years for the right job to turn up. We as a fmaily do not have that choice, so he could not pretend we do. Not his fault - just the financial situation we would be in if he chose to be a house husband. And the pressure on me. If he was applying for jobs, studying something that would make him more employable, that's different - we could talk that through.

scummymummy, totally agree with your 11.05 post -if my dh decided not to be a SAHD, I would have to work longer hours. I don't want to work longer hours - I want to spend time with my sons. I would resent it big time.

whoops - meant 'if my dh chose to be a SAHD'

do you know how long it takes the mums near me to look georgous at the school gates? MP i resent your comments - mums have to go home and adjust their make up and hair before they pick their kids up. ofcourse they must change outfits and find the matching bag and shoes before they drive the half mile in their 4x4 and park on the yellow zig zags. its hard work how dar you - how dar you

My dh doesn't resent me being a SAHP at all -it makes his life a damn site easier, becasue wehn I was WOTH I insisted that he did his fair share of childcare and housework. If I hadn't given up my career he would not have been able to continue with his so succesfully once he had children.

And when ds is at nursery I do intend to work, but it will not be full time, and I will not be earning anything like the money he does. I will be taking planty of me time - just as dh does by going off to Chelsea every other weekend, or seeing friends for drinks in the evening. He has a social life centred around his friends who all tend to work in the city as well, whilst I have had to give up mine due to geographical practicalities. So if I manage to get time to chat to friends on Mumsnet or the phone whilst dd is at nursery and ds is asleep I will do.

I do sort of see MP's point - on "my" thread the majority of SAHM's did say that they were not fulfilled just by the childcare and housework - but by the other things they did. But whether they get that fulfillment from voluntary or paidwork, or from so called "selfish" things like going to the gym or reading a good book is up to them, andnon e of us should presume to value the worthiness of others situations.

That's a very fair point Tigermoth - you as a family couldn't function if your DH decided to stay at home, so even if both of you wanted one of you to, it couldn't happen; but if you could afford it, would you then resent it? And if so, why would you? Because you felt he was skiving, or because you would want the option of doing the job yourself? Because I think there?s a difference. Sweeping generalisation here, and of course I?m sure there must be exceptions, but I believe that most men who resent their wives being SAHMs, may do so for many reasons, but the primary one won?t be because they want the option to swap places with her.

Bosscat - I know where you are coming from re not wanting to let skills go stale.

Have two comments:

1. Why should anyone have to justify how they spend their time?
   If someone spends hours watching soaps every week is that OK? Relax while you can can - no point being stressed for the hell of it.

2. It seems that being a parent always results in FEELING GUILTY. Guilty if you work (bad parent); guilty if you SAH (no financial contribution); guilty if you are part-time (partner thinks you are ONLY parttime therefore do most/all of the housework/ food shop etc; work think you are ONLY parttime so won't give you key projects/responsibilities).

I worked fulltime after DD (now aged 5) and will be working 4 day week shortly (currently on mat leave). I did used to get sick of listening to "friends" trying to justify that they SAHM (just get on with it).

Personally I have loved my mat leave and am sad it will end soon, but I also find that some women who dont "work" have little interests other than kids and I don't always want to talk children 24/7.

I'm also told that it's not only up to age 3 when parenting is important - in some way this is the easy bit - let's all chill a bit because in a few years we'll be worrying about our teenagers being offered drugs in teh playground etc etc

v.true Caligula, and Custy its bloody hard work having to wash and blow dry my hair every day after the gym

Calugula, if we could afford for one of us to stop working, would I resent my husbend being a SAHD with our school age sons? Well, we'd have to be very, comfortably off for me not to resent it a bit! Rich enough for me to have sorted out a very early retirement with good pension. If my husband's SAHD-dom meant I had to could not reture at 55, say but would have to work till I was 60, that would annoy me. I would also question how his lack of salary would affect our son's eventual inheritance from us.

If we really could afford it? AS long as his non-salaried status put absolutely NO pressure on me, timewise, so I had as much child time or me time as I wanted, AND I liked the job I had, then fair enough. Must dash, haven't 100% answered your question have I? sorry

I've been lurking on this thread for some time and thought i'd add my twopenneth... i'll probably be the thread killer but nevermind I can handle it...

I am a SAHM for my one yr old, as i believe when children are tiny the best place they can be is with their mothers in their home environment. Although i feel that dd and i are both now ready for me to go out to work part time i have another baby due this autumn so finding work right now is not easy! However I have every intention of going back to work part time/ freelance if possible next year and dd and bump are already booked into a nursery for 2 days a week starting next year when bump is 6 mths old.

I have to say i feel guilty about not working as yes i do do the housework but i see that now as my job, along with looking after dd. I'm enjoying my SAHM status as i know it won't last forever (I hope so anyway as i can't wait to start working again!) but i also feel that there's a time when I will need to start contributing back to the family in a financial sense. DH feels under pressure to provide for us all financially and I don't particularly like having to live on HIS money. I enjoyed my financial independence and I felt I worked hard for several years to get to where i was before i left work.

I would like to start working 2 days a week, rising to 4 when the children start school. I see the time when the children are back at school as a time for me to concentrate on my career, and if i can have a day off in the week to get on with the housework uninterrupted that would be great. I know from when i was working full time that it can be quite easily caught up on at the weekends so one day off a week would be wonderful and more than ample IMO!

Yes, looking after children is hard and yes, i understand that i haven't yet had the experience of looking after more than one but i don't feel that I am 'owed' any down time when they start nursery/school. I didn't have time to go out for coffee with friends nor sit here writing forum messages at the computer when i was working so i feel my life now is much more leisurely. If I had been working full time for the last year i wouldn't feel like i was 'owed' 6 hours a day off in a few years time. My dh doesn't feel like that and he has a really heavy going job so why should I? I hope that makes sense and that i haven't caused offence!

I hope very much to find work that i can fit in as close as possible to school hours as i think it's sad when young kids are left until 6pm at an after school club 5 days a week. The 'wraparound' childcare system is in my eyes something i would like to avoid as i believe in being with my children as much as possible outside of school hours. For that reason i think being a SAHM is fairer for the children therefore what i'm saying is this: If you can find work that is family-friendly that's great (it's a shame it's hard to find though!) What i can't get my head around though is the idea that the SAHM feels she is 'owed' several hours off a day when that isn't what you'd normally expect to have waiting for you if you were working full time!

wysiwig - very true about when kids are young being the easy bit. I'm dreading them hitting teenagehood. And yet conventional wisdom says that's the time for me to take up a full time, stressful career - just at the stage when my kids are discovering sex and drugs and rock'n'roll, vulnerable to peer group pressure, working out their moral and ethical positions on the great issues of life, making enormous educational choices (which presumably I'm supposed to have the energy and time to have developed enough understanding to help guide them on) developing their adult persona, I'm supposed to believe that the heat is off, and I can throw my energies and brainspace into something else. Well, I guess I'll find out when I get there, if that's a viable proposition.

What really riles me is that I'm not allowed to earn more than 80 odd pounds a week before my carer's allowance is affected. I'm still caring (and my son in residential care would cost the state a fortune as he requires 24 hour care/supervision).

I would like to contribute more (we need the cash to be honest) but I would have to be bringing in at least £200 a week to make it worthwhile losing my carers allowance (to give a significant ifference between 80 quid plus carers iyswim). Which then means that I would run into childcare problems etc. So I stick to earning pocket money. If I'm a full time carer and saving the state loads of money then surely if I choose to sit up late working for financial reward then I should be allowed to.

40 pounds a week to be a full time carer- talk about a vocation.

off the plot a bit but I'm interested how much value is applied to financially contributing- I'm saving the state cash, but costing our family money I guess.

I do find the 'oh I really admire SAHM but I couldn't possibly do it I'd be bored stiff" comments really rather patronising. (not remembering any specific ones but something that's always said in these conversation).

PinkFluffPudding - so you feel that you are living off your dh's money? I always find this really bizarre. What happened to 'all that I have I share with you'?

But you are right, looking after one 1yr old is nothing like looking after 3 under 4!

I've never felt guilty about spending dh's earnings it's our money!

Me either - I just don't think of it as £x is dh's and £x is mine.