Have you ever noticed a difference between children raised by SAHP vs working parents?

[EMC2022]

So I am a full time worker and have a DS. I always see people say things like "Why have a child if you aren't going to raise them yourself?". Although I try to ignore these comments they really do get to me.

DH and I both have well paid jobs and the reality is, if we were willing to change our lifestyle to a bear necessity type of lifestyle we could afford for one of us to give up work. Both of us would be content with being a SAHP but the reality is, we don't want to forfeit the nicer things in life for us or our DS.

I'm also very pragmatic and never want to quit my job and be reliant on my DH wage to keep us sustained.

So I am wondering, for anyone who has spent significant time with children raised by working parents vs SAHP, have you ever noticed a difference?

If you're away for a significant part of the day, you very well might, though.

Why have a child if you aren't going to raise them yourself?

Has anyone here actually heard anyone said this out loud in the last twenty years?

I’m a teacher and I think those in the middle do best. Sahp tend to indulge their kids and they are a bit self-centred and brattish and kids whose parents barely see them also seem to be badly behaved as they are cash rich but time poor. This is a terrible sweeping generalisation and very niche to my very small sample. Though I have tried really hard this year to be present more for my own kids (so I don’t have the answer really!).

But you probably wouldn't know. I remember ds first steps. Well, they were first to us anyway. I have to lie to dd, because I don't even remember hers. Don't remember their first words either, well, possibly ds. I remember words they used to say, but not the first time they said them. I do remember the first time either of them smiled and then laughed. My mum claims to remember my first words, but not the other bits.

All the first this and first that stuff doesn't really matter in the long term either. And let's face it, you can tell kids anything you want when they're older; as long as you repeat it often enough it becomes family lore.

I think older children, teens, benefit a lot from having more time with their parent in the evening. In my experience it was better to go full throttle with my career while the kids were small, get to a highly paid senior level, then plateau professionally during the teen years - be a SME, delegate more, working at home, flexible or part time, senior roles more about big decisions and strategy than running around doing - knowing I can ramp up my career again when the kids go to uni.

To do this I did work long hours when they are small but I’m around the kids A LOT for the teen years which feels positive - and fun!

I'm with you on this. I was a SAHM for years and regret it for so many reasons, one of which s the terrible example we set for your children who are now teens.
I think my kids would have been much better off if they had two parents who worked together to care for them.

No.

However I can tell parents who put too much pressure on their kids regardless of SAHP or not. Those young adults have true self esteem issues.

I’m a working parent and I don’t think (hope!) it makes a huge difference from 5 or so upwards. I don’t, however, think that kids who go to nursery early doors (e.g 12 months) for long hours have the advantages of kids with a loving parent at home or at least one working part time though. There’s a big narrative of ‘put them into nursery, they’ll be fine’ driven by political ideology which annoys me (imo it’s simply expedient to have us women in the workforce and who cares about what’s best for our very little kids) Digressing a bit, I think dads should be incentived to step up in the manner of Scandi countries. The system is broken and kids are last priority here. We don’t even have a well trained early years workforce compared to other countries.

I’m a sahm. I see more SEND in stay at home parents. I don’t know if sahp are doing so in response to their children’s needs, more awareness or time to push for assessment, or in some cases parents have SEND and as a result struggle with the balance of continuing to work after having children. I’ve seen evidence of all of these situations in different families.

I don't know if there's a difference between the two but my mum was a SAHM and I loved it, she did some part time work as I got older but was still around a lot. As a result I wanted the same for my kids and I absolutely loved being a SAHP. I got a degree and a masters degree so my mum being a SAHM didn't make me think all I could be was mum, I just quickly realised that work was generally shit and being a mum was amazing.

All you can do is what is right for you and what you think is best.

I'm a SAHM to my 3 and 1 year old. On this thread, from the very first post onwards, I have been called a helicopter parent who apparently spoils my children, doesn't have a career or ambition, or a life, is having mental health/anxiety issues, and I'm doing all of this out of my own selfishness, and my children are also apparently self-centred brats with no resilience.

Whenever a thread about SAHM comes up on here, regardless of the OPs original intent, it's always full of parents in paid employment projecting their own issues onto those of us who 'stay home'. Why?

I genuinely don't give a crap how other people raise their kids, and am not interested in whether there are any differences between my two children or anyone else's (though, to answer OPs original question, no, I do not believe it creates a statistically significant difference). But why is it ok to label SAHMs in this way? If I started listing random things I thought parents in paid employment were, I would rightfully expect to be put in my place. But I don't, because I don't think of those parents as a homogeneous group I have no respect for, unlike how a significant number of posters on this thread clearly think of SAHMs

I've been both, I have great kids and a lovely close relationship with them. I have a friend who works away a lot, she gets on great with her kids and they have had lots of opportunities but are not close to their parents . I have another friend who worked part time but shared custody she is not close to her kids now .
Every situation is different

Yep. More than once.

I think that parents have to decide what can work for them as as a family. I think that some woman would like to be a sahp but can't do this due to financial circumstances. Then other woman can feel that it's important to be a sahp or their husband feels that this is important.
The reality is that having a sahp makes life easier when you have a baby or small kids because someone is their to bring kids to appointments, school, birthday parties ect.
Then the washing, cooking, shopping and all the household admin is done.

One lady I know was a sahp until her youngest child was in the late part of primary school. From the time her kids were toddlers they were made to do certain little jobs likee putting away their toys. As they got older they were shown and made to do more at home including cooking, washing clothes and ironing. As her kids got older she started to get involved with different things and was not at home every night. She built up a friendship group and had time away from the kids and home. She then went back to work as her kids were at the expensive teen stage and further education was coming up for them.

I think that it good for a woman to try and remain in work even part time after having kid's. The extra money can help out with family finances and your keeping your ni record up to date. Then you can put money into a pension. Also it's a help to have an up to date work history if your circumstances were to change and you need to change jobs for more cash.

Exactly this. In primary as well, It does not depend on whether they have a SAHP or a working parent.

It depends on the "type" of parent they have, involved and nurturing or not, and that is not determined by whether they stay at home or work.

It also depends on the child, some children thrive in a nursery settings others don't.

Every circumstance is different, and you just have to follow what you think is best for you and your family - there is no one size fits all answer to this

Sorry, this was the poster I meant to quote originally to agree with.

Sahm generally quieter children, both parents full time seems to be the louder/attention seeking ones. It will vary amongst that though, and also potentially more the personality traits passed on and learnt are more relevant than the actual situation, as in sahm mums generally likely to be a bit less outgoing and quieter themselves, parents wanting to be in full time work more likely to be very social and full on personalities. Obviously not always the case but as a general trend.

I was a SAHM…financially I didn’t need to go back to work however, my sister had to so she went straight back after her maternity leave ended. I’d say my children were less independent as teens than hers, and her children grew up faster. But we are quite different for instance I would never let my children ever stay with anyone, and she would. Therefore I think it just boils down to parenting styles more than anything.

In my experience, older kids who's parents work seem to be more capable with practical tasks. Mostly because they have no choice and learn a bit self sufficiency.
Apart from that, no.

I've been both. (Different circumstances with each child)
My sahm brought up child (now grown ) much more needy & less independent and even more demanding of my time. I simply gave them too much of me. Every waking minute. Didn't take well to school at first (crying) didn't like sleepovers or staying with family.

My child when I had to work was a considerate and kind and independent enquiring mind. Loved school from day one, sociable.

They are both lovely now. I had guilt both times. Different guilt - but still guilt. I had choice the first time & none the second.

Was it my parenting or their natures or my age or who the heck knows.

But I do know neither of their fathers would even give it a second thought that they went to work...

Food for thought. Women guilting themselves constantly.

You'll do great and so will your kids - regardless.
Love is all you need - naff as the cliche may be

I don't know if its really a choice for many.

I have been a fulltime employee, a SAHM and now work part-time..

Looking at the classmates of my kids, the (few) kids who repeatedly come up in my kid's conversations about being badly behaved are the ones in both breakfast and afterschool club and are at school from 8am to 5.30/6pm.

They then spend most of Saturday doing swimming lessons, drama and activities where midweek coaching isn't required.

When they were younger, I put it down to them being exhausted but now the kids are nearing the end of primary and are still display the same behaviour. Perhaps the kids would be like that anyway though, its hard to know.

I think its very unwise for anyone to say 'why have kids if you don't stay at home with them' and equally to berate SAHP for whatever reason. People's circumstances change and those who would like to work outside the home may not be able to due to e.g. ill health, spouse working away and those who work inside the home may (almost certainly) worry about their family and personal financial situations. Everything can change in a heartbeat, nothing is set in stone so try to make peace with whatever decision you have made for now. .

I was raised by a strong minded career woman who used to say that if she had it back she would never have had children! 😁I knew what she meant and knew she loved me.

That did not mean that I could not be a sahp for a time when I had dcs. The choice was mine and was made with dh, factoring our abilities and circumstances. Likewise, when it was time to stop being a sahp, we decided.

In other words, your children will make those decisions for themselves when the time comes, and I am sure it will not be based on "my mum did this therefore I must too."

It may be "I had a wonderful time with my mother and it stood me in good stead. I would like to give my children the same advantage."

Of course for someone else it could be the opposite!

No, I have never seen any difference between breastfed and bottlefed babies, or children who had a SAHM compared to a WOHM.

As a breastfeeding mum who WOHM, compared to my bottle feeding SAHM for 20 years good friend, I probably have a better relationship with my children. One of my friend's children has been pretty hostile in the last few years and I have no idea why!

I have 3 adult children. There's been a variety in terms of the way they have been brought up. So long as they have had love and support, they all end up in the same place.

There's this exact thread in aibu

I agree with everything you have said.

I do think that having a family is actually quite hard, while an "ideal" is heavily promoted.

I am very aware that most of what we have as a family is down to luck - the luck that nobody got sick, nobody died, nobody has mental challenges, nobody has an addiction, I was loved as a child, dh was loved as a child and so on. From the get go, we had loads of advantages that we did not "earn."

Even with all that, it is challenging.