What is more beneficial for children... A SAHP or 2 working parents and childcare?

[Candlefairy101]

Hi, I'm not trying to start a debut I am just generally interested in people opinions on the subject.

I have been both a SAHP and a mum working full time. With my youngest I have decided to stay at home but with my oldest I worked full time and he spent a lot of time at nursery. I still feel guilt about this (I don't know why I feel guilty about all those nursery hours just so I could finish my degree) because 1) he can't remember it and 2) he has a mum with a career.

BUT now with my youngest I have decided to stay at home and wonder how/if my children will be effected by each decision and difference growing up lifestyle.

How do mum AND dads feel about this subject also DADS do you like the idea of you wife/ partner being at home with the children?

mY mum when growing up was always a SAHP and then did a 360* turn and worked all the hours under the sun (her choose she didn't have to), I was sad because I always felt comfort at school or out playing that she was always at home, always on standby if you know what I mean?

Love to here everyone's opinion x

[LashesandLipstick]

I'm not saying SAHP is superior to WOHP either, I was a bit annoyed that someone said everyone who stays home with their kids is a drain and lazy. I haven't said WOHP are bad parents. Simply that choosing your career over your kids makes me question why you had them. Choosing your career is different to working out of need.

[chairmeoh]

I sort of get your point lashes. However your posts do come across a bit 'holier than though' and your viewpoint is pretty idealistic.

[elderflowerlemonade]

There are a number of good reasons why a good parent might prioritise their career over their child lashes and that would be financial.

By the end of the summer I will have three children and they will need house deposits, university fees, cars ... Life is expensive.

[chairmeoh]

though thou

[LashesandLipstick]

Chairmeoh, wasn't meant to come over as holier than thou, I can see why it seems idealistic to some

Elderflower, take your point but at least while the kids are young surely it would be better to prioritise spending time with them? University fees can be paid for with loans, same for cars, the only logical one I can see is housing deposits, which granted are ridiculous!

[MorrisZapp]

I work full time because I want to. I could pay the bills on part time hours but I like the extra money, I love my job, and I can't bear full days on end spent in preschooler land.

I accept that some people will think me selfish but I'd say to those people

1. Do you think my DP is selfish too?
   

1. Get to fuck.

[LashesandLipstick]

Morris if that's to me, I'd say it depends if your DP works full time or not surely? If one of you doesn't, then it doesn't matter who it is who's spending time with them. If you're both working full time because you choose to, then that's a bit selfish in my OPINION, I'm in no way calling you bad parents or anything, just saying that when asked it's my view that that specific decision is a selfish one.

Just like I'm sure some people would say some of my decisions are selfish ones. And that's fine.

[whereismagic]

It depends on the quality of childcare and the length of it. Our babysitter works as a nanny for a family with 3 young kids where she is expected to be in the house at 7 and looks after kids until 7 - 7:30. So they see their parents precisely 2 days a week. I am also not sure that having 3 - 4 European teenagers a year looking after your kids is a great idea.

[JassyRadlett]

Lashes, there are so many things wrong with your posts I don't really know where to start.

However, it's worth you reflecting that your early childhood memories are (a) distorted at bes, (b) unique to you and (c) lack proper controls that could lead them to be considered evidence.

Speaking as the parent of a three year old who spent half an hour in tears earlier because he wanted to be at nursery today. He is never at nursery on a Thursday.

You seem to have gone out of your way to take a pop at women who work full time and make an awful lot of assumptions that are frankly baseless.

You may wish to start with checking out research on the quality/amount of time ratio of different parenting set ups.

Do you think fathers who work full time, or want to work full time, are selfish? In answering you may wish to reflect on the fact that a third of mothers who are part of a couple are the primary earner.

[MorrisZapp]

Taking a flyer here but I'm betting lashes has never considered a full time working father to be selfish.

It's women who society judges as selfish for enjoying work or preferring some time away from their offspring.

So I call you sexist lashes. That's just my opinion and of course there's nothing wrong with being sexist. I mean no harm and we're all different.

[LashesandLipstick]

Jassy, of course I accept my memories are unique to me and are just that, my own memories, not a study or anything. I'm glad your son enjoys nursery.

I'm not having a go at anyone who works full time, I'm saying that I think it's a selfish decision to work full time if there are other options available. I'm not saying they are bad parents or they don't spend any time with their kids either, obviously they might spend quality time with them at home afterwards

Do I think fathers who work full time are selfish? If the mother works part time, no. If the mother works full time and the father won't consider working less hours, then yes, I do. It's not just women - I think it's selfish of anyone who would choose to put their kids in childcare rather than spend time with them. Again I said choose - if it's necessary that is different

[LashesandLipstick]

Morris I've just answered that to someone else, my view still stands, I don't just apply it to mothers.

[YesThisIsMe]

Over the past twenty years I've paid out at least ten grand in insurance of various kinds, but only got about 150 quid back in claims. Clearly it would be better for my family if I'd just spent the money on a round the world jolly for us all. Unfortunately I only know that in retrospect.

Picture four women in their seventies:
A) I worked all my life bar two maternity leaves. I didn't hate my job, it was reasonably satisfying, and although the toddler years cost a bomb in childcare I earned a fair amount of money. And the DC grew up fine. But when I think about all the dashing about, all the missed sports days, all the holidays my teens spent alone and the possible impact on DH's career of having to pull his weight at home, I sometimes wonder whether it was worth it.

B) I was a SAHM and I was there for every single event in my DC's lives. I kept my time active volunteering and playing sports, and the ability to work flat out with no childcare constraints definitely helped DH get those vital promotions. I'm sure I did the right thing.

Meanwhile in a parallel universe:
C) Thank heavens that when DH had that nervous breakdown and was unable to return to work my job paid enough to keep the family bills paid and keep us off the breadline.

D) When DH ran off to Guatemala with his secretary I hadn't had a job for ten years. The minimum wage zero hours jobs available didn't pay enough to pay the mortgage or pay for holiday childcare. But fortunately UTC was more than enough to live on and I found the job centre very understanding.

Now of course not all these outcomes are equally likely. And for some women childcare costs and logistics make WOH literally impossible. But if these four outcomes are relevant to you you should consider all four of them before making that choice.

[NickyEds]

Morris. No one would ever think your dp was selfish. In fact I fear that the sexism is so ingraned that the question would rarely even be asked much less an opinion on his parenting formed. I'm a SAHM and when friends and I have discussed it there is a lot of hand wringing goes on about how they hate to leave their kids and they wished they could SAH. Couple of glassesof wine later they "admit" that they love their jobs and would much rather work. As if this is some shameful thing. You can bet your bottom dollar their partners aren't sat there worrying about it.
As a SAHM I can totally see that it's not for everyone. To infer that women are selfish for not wanting to do it is ridiculous. "Why have kids at all if you're just going to farm them out" is up there with "You'll be in the workhouse when your dh starts shagging his secretary" in SAHvsWOH bingo.

[Nolim]

These threads eventually (or in this case very soon) include someone saying "why did you even decide to have dc if you are going to do x" where in this case x is go back to work, as if it is a form of abuse. It is not.

[NickyEds]

Yes you you should consider all four of them before making that choice.

Sorry but this annoys me a bit too! The assumption that SAHPs haven't gone through the same thought processes as WOHPs just because they haven't reached the same outcome! Have you considered how hard it might be to return to work?? No! Not for even a second did it enter my tiny mind!!

[Viviennemary]

I don't think it's good for children to see stereotypes. That is Daddy always earning the money and Mum looking after the children and doing housework. That's my personal opinion.

[IrianofWay]

Having a roof over their head and food to eat seems to be fairly beneficial.

[LashesandLipstick]

Irain I've said several times I'm referring to those who could work less but don't, not those who work long hours because they need to

[elderflowerlemonade]

But lashes, we 'could' all work less if we all relied on benefits or similar.

[LashesandLipstick]

Elderflower that's not really a suitable option though because that would take money away from those who need it, so not really what I was getting at!

[JassyRadlett]

I'm not having a go at anyone who works full time, I'm saying that I think it's a selfish decision to work full time if there are other options available. I'm not saying they are bad parents or they don't spend any time with their kids either, obviously they might spend quality time with them at home afterwards.

Then you are actually calling any parent who works full time selfish. There is always the option for a parent to give up their job, sacrifice their and their children's financial stability and future security, abandon their future prospects and fulfilment in a work related role and focus 100% of their time on their children, ignoring the fact that to do so would bring a marginal if any benefit to their child, ignoring the potential disbenefits of the choices they made.

There is always a choice. It's simply for most people, the choice is either an unappealing or deeply irresponsible one.

In talking about your memories, I was simply pointing out that your emotive language ('devastated') and partial personal anecdotes didn't actually do anything to back up the rational basis of your own decisions, let alone your view of other people's.

[elderflowerlemonade]

Lashes - look. The point is that everybody has a different standard of what constitutes a good life.

A parent who doesn't want to spend every waking hour with their child is not a bad parent and nor does it make having the child pointless!

[LashesandLipstick]

Jassy, I thought it was obvious that the decision I was talking about was a reasonable one. While obviously people have the choice to bankrupt themselves, it's not sensible. I should have specified sensible decision. Sorry.

I'd say it backs up my own decision, surely we all do things with our children based on what we like and dislike about our own childhood? Not particularly relevant to others' circumstances though

[JassyRadlett]

Elderflower that's not really a suitable option though because that would take money away from those who need it, so not really what I was getting at!

You talked about 'available options', not 'available options that are personally palatable to me'.