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

[Thurlow]

Is there a line that says what is a good standard of living? What is a good salary?

Because it seems so very related, what do you think of the 15 hours of EYFS schooling 3+'s get - all those SAHPs putting their kids into nursery when they aren't at work, tsk.

Look, I'm not deliberately trying to have a go at you. But I think I read that you are expecting at the moment? It's a whole different ball game once you are trying to juggle real life and a real job and a real child. As a PP said, you might think it will be a dream to stay at home and raise your child but find out that the reality is you're not cut out for it, you're depressed, you're not managing to find enough for your child to do (socialising etc) and everyone is going to be better off if you work and they go into a childcare environment they love.

[Thurlow]

if you chose to work full time rather than part time when your kids were young, I'd probably be confused as to why you'd do that.

Seriously, can you not imagine that two people within a relationship might both want a career out of the 40-odd years they are going to have to work?

[TheMotherOfAllDilemmas]

I suppose it depends on what kind of person you are. I know that I'm a better parent when I'm working, as then the time with DS becomes precious, we do a lot of interesting stuff, and both benefit from having a routine. He also gets to do more exercise running around in the after school club than plonked in front of the computer/TV at home.

When I was a SAHP, CBBies was always on, we were bored, days just merged into each other and we weren't doing almost any interesting stuff, mostly because there was not plenty of stuff to do around us or we didn't have enough money to pay for nice activities every day.

[LashesandLipstick]

Jassy, there's evidence that the desire for biological children is natural for one. No I'm not someone who claims natural is superior every time, but if it's a natural drive it's not the same as making a cold, calculated decision. Secondly, because it doesn't harm anyone else. I feel very sorry for children who's parents choose to work full time when they don't need to as I don't think it's fair to them. Choosing to have biological children doesn't directly harm children who are not adopted as you had no tie to those kids in the first place - you wouldn't necessarily adopt them if you'd chosen to not have kids

[Kewcumber]

lashes - but you're not disagreeing with me, you agree with me that its selfish it seems but you just want them biologically. It isn't a selfless decision at all - choosing to have children biologically is an entirely selfish decision.

That doesn't mean its bad for your child - it's just selfish on your part, just what you want and what makes you happy, right? You have the right to be happy when it doesn't hurt anyone else, I'll concede that...

...just like working full time when you don't absolutely have to.

[Bramshott]

It's really a non-question. Children live at home with you for at least 18 years, and in that time most families will go through more than one combination of parents working/not working/working part time/working from home/working outside the home/travelling for work.

You might just as well ask "what's more beneficial for children - living in the city or living in the country?"; "what's more beneficial for children - having their own room or having a playroom?" or "what's more beneficial for children - eating a vegetarian diet or a mixed diet". You do what works for you, and your family, and your children, at one particular moment in time.

[morethanpotatoprints]

For us it was me being a sahp because of dh work and having a stable parent for continuity. For others it may be completely different.
I think it's key to do what is right for your family at that time.
It turned out that I never went back to work and spent most of my time running household and looking after the family.
Now, with lots of time to myself, still lots of energy to enjoy myself the sky is the limit.

[JassyRadlett]

Claiming JSA when you don't need to harms others as it takes that money away from someone who doesn't have a choice.

Well, it doesn't at all. That's not how the benefits system works. You don't get turned down for benefits because the quota for that month is full, and the govt is going to bump up people's benefits because the claimant level is lower than modelled.

You keep making value based statements - a 'good standard of living' (what does that entail?), concepts of 'harm' (what about evidence of benefit and harm to children based on childcare choices mentioned upthread?), 'stupid/silly ideas' (you won't say where the line between a good idea and a stupid one lies). Can you see how problematic that is when you are making statements about other people?

[LashesandLipstick]

Thurlow,

The reason I didn't put a salary on it was because it varies by region. There's a grey area (are two cars necessary? Well depends whether you live somewhere with good links etc) I completely accept that

I don't really like EYFS type things either, I don't think children should be in school type environments that early.

Yes I am, and I fully accept that I might find certain things harder than I'm anticipating. However even in that situation, I wouldn't work 5 days a week unless I absolutely had to. Even if I loved my job. I think you can at least give one day to your child!

And as for reasons someone might want to work in a relationship, sure - their own money, equality, adult company - but I don't think you should put that above your kids

[Kewcumber]

if it's a natural drive it's not the same as making a cold, calculated decision

Ha ha ha - ummm, yes it is. Sex is a natural drive and I manage not to fall onto the penis of any able man I meet. If you weren't able to control your natural drive to procreate then everyone would still be having 12 children (or a lot less sex so either way one of the "natural" drives loses out)

[MythicalKings]

DH and I had a long discussion about this before we got married.

His mother was widowed when he was a year old and she went back to full time teaching and he was minded then at nursery. He felt very strongly that he did not want this for any DCs that he had because it was a very unhappy experience. He feels his poor relationship with his DM was because of this. She was a SAHM to his elder brother and they had a much better relationship.

This coincided with my thoughts and observations as a teacher and seeing the experiences of our friends. So we saved and saved until we felt we were in a position for me to be able to give up work for a few years. It worked well for us.

We didn't have as nice a house as some of our friends or holidays abroad, a newish car and every modern gadget but we have no regrets even though it was a struggle at times. It's what was right for us. I worked part time in the evenings teaching adults until DS2 started school, then I worked part time for a few more years.

People have to do what is best for their family.

[Kewcumber]

I've never seen a nursery for a child under 4 that feels at all like a nursery EYFS or not and nursery is not the only childcare if you don;t want to use it.

[JassyRadlett]

Jassy, there's evidence that the desire for biological children is natural for one. No I'm not someone who claims natural is superior every time, but if it's a natural drive it's not the same as making a cold, calculated decision.

That doesn't stop in being an inherently selfish one, both for the reason Kewcumber mentioned, and from a global perspective.

Secondly, because it doesn't harm anyone else.

The children who remain in care because people choose biological children over adoptive ones? Your explaining away of people who 'don't choose to have children' is illogical. If someone decides they want a child, they do not fall into that category. You decide you want a child - the choice that only a biological child will do is, yep, harming children waiting to be adopted.

And it's fine, because being an adoptive parent is really tough, and not everyone is cut out for it, and it doesn't make them a bad person or a bad parent to their biological children.

Can you see the parallel?

[morethanpotatoprints]

I thought you have to be job seeking to get JSA not a confirmed sahp. I think this has always been the case, although admittedly in more recent years the rules are more stringent. I think you have always had to attend interviews/ be available for work.

[Thurlow]

Oh, the lure of any kind of organised and structured childcare when you've spent a long and rainy day in a house with a bored three year old who doesn't want to paint, or do water play, or make something out of playdoh, or join in with your wonderfully loving and constructive role play, or read or a story, or do anything but hit their six month old sister over the head with a plastic toy and whine about how bored they are and how they just want to go and play with their friends...

It's a special kind of pain, that one.

[JassyRadlett]

Kew - I agree. Lashes, have you seen any settings that do EYFS for under-school aged chlidren? I think you might be surprised.

[LashesandLipstick]

Jassy, I don't mean in the sense of quotas, I mean in the sense that the government comes down like a ton of bricks on welfare and starts making cuts left right and centre.

Good standard of living - able to afford food and days out/hobbies without worrying about money. There is variation on what this is, there's no set amount, different areas for example have different needs.

Are you referring to people's parenting being bad and so the child is better in childcare? In that situation then yes it benefits the child.

The line between a silly idea and one that isn't is to use a bit of common sense. I get so angry on forums when you're debating sensibly and someone has to come along and give a ridiculous example to derail the topic. The line is quite clearly there. Choosing to give up work when two incomes are not necessary is different to choosing to give up work when the money is necessary. I don't know how else I can explain that.

[LashesandLipstick]

Jassy - you're making the assumption there that all people who want children but couldn't have them biologically would adopt, which isn't true. I don't think I would have adopted for example. So I fail to see how I'm directly harming children who are in care, because I wouldn't have had one anyway.

[LashesandLipstick]

Jassy, sorry should have replied in the same post, I have seen some settings and while I don't think they're horrible, I still think kids on the whole would be better with their families.

[Kewcumber]

I think you can at least give one day to your child! - are you planning on working weekends too?

Despite what your fixed ideas would have you believe I work part-time flexibly from home and at one point gave up work to live on benefits to do what DS needed. I could just as easily have argued that any parent who chooses to work at all is selfish because I didn't.

I feel that your very fixed ideas come from a lack of experience of different model of parenting. When your children are older, you will look at them and their friends and be totally unable to work out who had the SAHP, the WOHP, the part-time parent or a combination of all at different times. Mostly you do (selfishly) what feel right to you and if your child doesn't thrive then you jiggle things around a bit until they work.

[Kewcumber]

I didn't say you were harming anyone. I said it was selfish.

If you couldn't adopt I don't think you should have bio children - there's no need. Plenty of people in the world. We can rely on migrants to keep the UK going in the future. And if the UK drops of the map as a country - who cares what difference will it make?

It's just selfish to keep populating the world just because you want to.

[LashesandLipstick]

Kew, a day in the week where it's just the two of you rather than the whole family. Where you can focus solely on the child rather than your partner and other relatives.

I do take your point that you can't pick out of a line who's parents stayed at home and who's didn't (same with bf vs ff, cloth nappies vs disposable etc), I don't think it makes a massive difference in how they turn out. But I think it can make a difference in how they experience childhood.

I agree with moving things to suit your child

[LashesandLipstick]

Kew, so you think animals are selfish too I take it? Any species that breeds is automatically selfish?

[Kewcumber]

You can't have it both ways - either people should be selfless or not - you can't pick and chose which things which are selfish that you think are OK because you want them but denigrate other people for doing selfish things that you don't think are OK.

[JassyRadlett]

See, there's the problem again. What kind of days out? What kind of hobbies? What size of home? What level of worrying about money? When is the money really necessary?

What makes me irritated in discussions of any type is when people use subjective, value-laden statements such as 'common sense', 'sensible', 'good standard of living', when anyone with a thread of what I consider to be common sense can see that these are so personal and subjective that it undermines their entire argument and makes discussion almost impossible.

Out of interest, how far from your current home and support structure would it be sensible to move to enable one parent to work part-time? Would it be within the UK? Within Europe? Further afield?

If the line were clear, I wouldn't have asked my question. You wouldn't have people making different choices about where they live, the jobs they take, etc to fit different models of child raising that they consider to be the most beneficial for their families.

And thus, statements that people who work more than 4 days a week if the other parent works full time (I think from reading your posts, that's what you endorse?) are selfish, unless there are no other options (realistic, sensible, common sense) are really very silly indeed.

On the question of benefits/disbenefits - I'm referring to studies cited upthread (and elsewhere) about children in nurseries and not in nurseries, and the impact of those situations regardless of parenting (parenting being again, subjective and difficult to control for).