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

We would (and do) cull animals that are over populous.

Can't do that with people - if you expect people to be selfless then should be selfless not only in the areas that suit you.

Kew, I don't consider having biological children selfish though. YOU might, which is fine, several others here don't consider working full time when you have a choice selfish, I do. The thread asked for opinions

As long as returning to work is an option it shouldn't be a question of either or. I read a research where 89% of all new mothers (in the sample) wanted to return to work and only 40% managed to. It's still extremely difficult to go on off the track with your career (for whatever reason) and that I think that just fuels anxiety in these debates. It boils down to whose interests we prioritise mothers' or children's. The answer can be different at different times but it needs to be accommodated by workplace.

the whole family?

You mean adding one adult is a problem?

You think that you child won't have one on one time with you if a parent works 5 days a week?

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.

If you'd read my post properly, you'd see that's exactly what I said. Some people don't see adoption as an option for them. That doesn't take away from it being an available option, and a pretty rational option - it's simply an option that they don't want to avail themselves of for a wide variety of reasons.

So the statement 'If I couldn't have children biologically, I wouldn't adopt' is an inherently selfish one. It's fine, for the reasons I listed above. But it's still a selfish option to choose.

Jassy, I don't understand the confusion. Hobbies depend on the family, same as days out. Money being necessary is somewhat gray, as I said to someone else. However, for arguments sake, a single mother earning £20k is going to find her money a lot more necessary than two working parents earning £100k a year, yes? I think this is going to be very hard to talk about without specific examples if you're going to insist on being black and white. For sake of argument, lets say when both parents are 40% tax payers.

I wouldn't expect someone to move abroad or even to a different city to enable them to work part time.

The 4 days a week thing was me saying that surely that's the minimum those who are highly paid and choose to work long hours can do.

Didn't see studies, are they on this thread?

You cannot give me one reason why having biological children isn't selfish.

Because there is no reason for having children by birth for any reason other than "I want one". I think it's OK personally, selfish doesn't necessarily mean bad. And just because I chose to do one thing over another doesn't give it some mythical status of being better just because it works for me.

You don't seem to see that there are a whole myriad of choices we make (many on behalf of our children) that are selfish - I have no idea why you have decided that your list of Selfish Things are bad for everyone whereas my list of Selfish Things are "we'll just have to agree to disagree"!

Kew, not no time, but I think it's important that a child has a day where it's on it's own (or with siblings at most) with one of it's parents, vs family outings that tend to happen at weekends.

Jassy, sorry for misreading your post. I don't think it's necessarily selfish as there are many reasons why someone might not want to adopt a child, personally I don't think I would be the best person for dealing with the difficulties adopted children often have. That's not selfish surely? Wouldn't it be more selfish to adopt and then realise you can't cope with the child and have to give them up?

I linked to a norwegian study (I think the biggest ever done) on another thread - no time now.

If people want to stay at home/work part-time then any amount of studies saying its just as good (and maybe better) for their child to be in nursery aren;t going to change a thing. Because (surprise surprise) people do what they want within the parameters of whats possible rather than what others think is best.

Kew, I've already said that I don't think a natural instinct can be described as selfish. I don't think animals are selfish when they kill prey. I don't understand why having biological children is different.

Secondly, I draw the line where it causes harm, working full time when you don't have to has the potential to upset your child, hence why I think it's selfish. If your selfishness doesn't cause anyone any harm, then I honestly do not give a crap what you choose to do!

I think it's selfish to have a two parent family because my DS gets me on his own 24/7.

Isn't he lucky.

People are inherently selfish. Selfishness is the right course of action.

There is no evidence that full time working harms a child.

Women universally staying at home with their child is a relatively modern concept.

It's not the work that harms a child, but the lack of personal attention that may sometimes be caused by parental absence due to long working hours.

Kew, I didn't say it definitely would, I said has the potential.

It's up to individuals to decide whether they want to risk potential harm. Like I said I'd never tell another person what to do or voice my opinion unless I was explicitly asked, I think that's really rude.

I must be selfish then because I choose to work full time. I am the breadwinner and I rather like our quality of life at the moment. Offsetting this of course is the fact that I can work from home half the time and my dc are no longer in any organised Childcare. Does this mean I'm selfish and a bad mother?

Tbh - I really can't take seriously someone who doesn't even have kids yet pontificating about the best way to bring up children. The view that free weekends and having a day a week to do fun activities with mummy is the only/ best way to bring up a family is simplistic at best and rather idiotic if I'm feeling less generous.

Jassy, I don't understand the confusion. Hobbies depend on the family, same as days out. Money being necessary is somewhat gray, as I said to someone else. However, for arguments sake, a single mother earning £20k is going to find her money a lot more necessary than two working parents earning £100k a year, yes? I think this is going to be very hard to talk about without specific examples if you're going to insist on being black and white. For sake of argument, lets say when both parents are 40% tax payers.

Ah, but here's the problem. You said people were selfish for working full time unless it was necessary. When asked what constituted necessary, you said enough for a good standard of living, and when asked what you thought that was made up of, reeled off a list of things like hobbies.

So, now you're saying that 'good standard of living' is entirely subjective depending on what the family had pre-children? It depends on the family what they will find necessary? What about non-material necessities?

This is a problem with the argument you've set up - you consider people selfish for working full time if it's not financially necessary, but your description of what makes it necessary, when challenged, is so woolly you could knit a jumper out of it.

If you're going to call people names, you should at least have a consistent basis for which people you are calling those names.

Not sure what you think of me and my DH. We both work full time but compressed into a 4.5 day week each, with a lot of overtime from home after hours. We need my salary to continue something close to our current standard of living, we could manage (with worries - how much is too much by your measure?) without his. Which one of us is selfish? Both? Him? Neither?

I don't think it's necessarily selfish as there are many reasons why someone might not want to adopt a child, personally I don't think I would be the best person for dealing with the difficulties adopted children often have. That's not selfish surely? Wouldn't it be more selfish to adopt and then realise you can't cope with the child and have to give them up?

Having children full stop carries those risks - it's a selfish gamble that is about fulfilling the parents' desires. No two ways about it, really.

I draw the line where it causes harm, working full time when you don't have to has the potential to upset your child, hence why I think it's selfish.

Does it cause harm if you have disposable income but otherwise is fine?

Not giving my dc a banana after they have had 2 has the potential to upset my child. Is it selfish? Does it cause harm?

working full time when you don't have to has the potential to upset your child

A lot of things I do have the potential to upset my child. A lot of those things are really, really good for him.

I know a fair few kids who find going to school, particularly in the early years, upsetting from time to time. Should their parents home educate to avoid the upset?

Jassy, I never said there was a definite standard for everyone. I said there are obvious examples, such as the single mother and the very wealthy family, and other people fall into a grey area. If the family decides they COULD go part time, but chooses not to, THAT is the selfish act. I'm not saying it has to be compared to anyone else's standard.

If you couldn't manage without worries then in my opinion it's pretty necessary you both work

Yes having children carries those risks but there are specific issues that often arise in adopted children, and if someone feels they aren't capable of dealing with that I don't think that's selfish

Nolim, you're going to liken giving a banana to your child possibly feeling hurt and abandoned?

Jassy, then you have to weigh up the benefits of that specific action. My personal opinion on school is that we send kids to school too young, but that's an entirely different debate

This is a great example of someone extrapolating their own personal experience and layering it with generalities. Families come in all shapes and sizes. What works for some families doesn't work for others however some people are unable to understand this. Life is fluid and needs/wants of all the members of a family change over time.

Nulgirl I do understand that - I even said earlier that I'm pretty sure some people would consider some decisions I make selfish. And that's fine! But this thread specifically asked about this one. Not sure why people have got so worked up about someone else's opinion.

If you couldn't manage without worries then in my opinion it's pretty necessary you both work

Or just learn to manage my emotions better and have a different appetite for risk.

We don't need my husband to work full time, or at all. We would manage without his salary. I daresay he would be utterly miserable.

So yes, a selfish decision on his part - not unlike the decision to have a child in the first place which is inherently selfish. But it's a decision that carries no net harm to anyone in our family.

Also selfish is my decision not to give up my job and move to a little flat close to his place of work and live on his salary, possibly topped up with the much smaller amount I could make working part time outside of the major centre for my work.

Each of us makes plenty of selfish decisions each day because, actually, being a happy and fulfilled person is a pretty decent life goal. It's what I want for my child, and if I can deliver it for him and for me, what's not to like?

I certainly don't want my kid, or his impending sibling, to grow up feeling they must subject themselves to a life they are unhappy with because society feels it's more acceptable, with zero evidence base whatsoever.

Sorry if i was condescending lashes, but you are condescending. Using chilcare is not abuse. Being upset is not being abandoned.

You are trying to guilt trip parents who have good salaries because they don need to, and parents who barely make it even because they are "damaging" their dc in order to keep a roof over their heads.