Would you be a sahp?

[UraniumFlowerpot]

I’ve noticed a theme of advice along the lines of never give up your career / income to care for kids because who knows what might happen down the line with the earning partner, you might find yourself single and penniless.

I’m currently considering my options when baby arrives later this year. Hadn’t ever planned to be a sahp but husband out-earns me many times over and I’m finding my career motivation mostly gone by now. Just naturally reached a plateau and got bored. Seems pointlessly stressful to work and put baby in full time childcare for a salary that will realistically make no difference to our standard of living. Current career couldn’t be picked up again after a break, I could return later to something else likely for less money. Current career could, at a stretch, support a family. Potential careers after a break almost certainly couldn’t.

I’ve talked with DH about the vulnerability of giving up work, he’s very happy to pay generously into pension and savings for me — not sure how much difference this legally makes since it would all be matrimonial assets anyway, but the understanding and willingness is there. He’s not pushing me to give up work but definitely values that role a lot. I also already have savings from before marriage that would see me through a transition period if we split, and a small pension (plus up to date with NI payments).

So my question to mumsnet is: What amount of personal or matrimonial assets, or what arrangement with the earning partner, would make you feel comfortable with the decision to become a sahp or substantially reduce earning potential to better accommodate kids?

I think in all honesty op it often comes down to some families can afford it, some can't. And that doesn't just mean the wealthy stay home: some feel they need the childcare but their salary won't realistically cover this after tax so they have to stay home.

If you feel you can afford it and would like to, you need to judge that in your circumstances. Also, some marriages show signs of strain that it is wise to acknowledge, and that makes a difference too.

You are the best placed to go with your gut here.

No because work to me is more than money. It’s a sense of self beyond being a parent, an opportunity to engage my brain in challenge and an opportunity to be a role model to my DC. My DC are secondary age now but I was never a sahm beyond maternity leave

My assumption is that during the working day, a SAHP is doing the household tasks that working parents do on a weekend/when they get chance.

Either that, or they’re doing leisure activities. Which isn’t being a parent, so would just SAH.

I am a SAHP. Technically I’m now a carer for DD3, but I became a SAHP when she was a baby and before her health issues were obvious.

For me the key was equality in the house. I’d never have been a SAHP with my ex - he’d have viewed anything child or house related as my job forever more. Whereas DH sees us as a partnership and the kids are my job while he’s at his job. Beyond that it’s equal.

We have equal personal money after all the bills are paid and savings put away. For some reason that always seems to surprise people - they think he should have more because he earns it.

Our savings are split in both our names - we put 12 months bil/living expenses solely in my name at the start as a safeguard. Everything else is now split equally in whatever is the most tax effective way.

Crucially for me I am not the default parent when we’re both there. We have the same downtime. DH does his fair share of house chores (and some weeks he does more than me if DD or DN have a load of appointments and some weeks I do more if he’s working late).

I have a volunteer role that keeps me up to date training and the likes for my job. Although i had a job in schools rather then a career with a path so not as impactful as some people.

At the time I would have given anything to be SAHP, went with the only option I could afford which was 4 days, then 3 after my 3rd

went back FT when they all high school. It gave me a fulfilling career that I love, the means to leave an abusive marriage without much impact on lifestyle, and I have a great pension

im very glad now it wasn’t an option, but I would have if it had been

This. Even if I didn't enjoy work or didn't feel I needed it for my brain and sense of fulfillment, I would never never never give up the ability to support myself and my children if the worst happened. I've seen a friend go through a messy divorce with no career of her own and it was deeply distressing.

So you clean your cupboard on a weekend and a sahp does it during the week but you’re not reducing your own value to that task only theirs?

It’s a weird assumption to assume a sahp has no young children at home and only spends their time cleaning or on leisure. The most common scenario by far would surely be a sahp caring for their children during the day?

Hard disagree. People often say this - but this isn’t cerebral for me. I like engaging with really difficult problems and looking after small kids (whose brains are, ultimately, completely under developed) doesn’t cut it for me. Some people find child development really interesting - good for them: they can do the childcare. For me, though, it’ll be much better when they’re able to engage more on my level cognitively. Kind of faking it until I make it until then and I’ll bet the house I’m far from alone.

The expectation is that you’d do both. And both are perfectly manageable under normal circumstances. It’s just a bit boring and relentless.

Nonsense, it’s actually women like you who reduce the value of other women . Staying at home when your children are young does not mean a woman’s life is irrelevant nor does it encourage under thinking or being economically illiterate.
So if a woman is paid for a childcare role she’s suddenly more valuable than if she is doing it for her own children.

I do feel fortunate to be a sahp to my children and no it doesn’t make me a tradwife.
I’m not sure why you think your examples are really relevant to stay at home parenting, why would anyone feel fortunate to be made redundant or come out of work due to illness, male or female? That’s nothing like choosing to make parenting your focus.

So limit the number of your children, if it means it’s easier to handle work, parenting and the normal gruntwork of running a household. And, obviously, don’t have children with a knuckledragger.

Sure, which begs the question of why it’s relevant to bring up cupboards cleaning of both types of parents do it.

But that poster seems to be deliberately leaving out the largest part of a sahp’s day which is the actual parenting.

But it doesn’t have any inherent ‘value’. It’s just someone choosing not to work. There’s no value there. Fine if it works for you, but don’t expect some kind of general validation for it.

Your replies shave really made me giggle. Kudos to you for being so upfront & honest @Piglet89 I agree with so much of what you said and can totally relate. However, queue the usual MN bashing. Someone will be along soon to tell you how sorry they feel for your poor darling unloved DC(s) without a doubt. 😂

I think at least part of the problem is that SAHP is a misnomer. I am not quite a SAHP but three days out of five is a majority.

Stay at home mum conjures images of a life spent in the home which is restrictive and potentially dull. But we’re not home much and we’re in the woods on a beautiful spring morning listening to birdsong. It’s certainly more fulfilling than a morning at work would be. But it obviously isn’t always this idyllic and there are endless rainy afternoons, awful days and great ones. Just as there are at work.

Of course there’s value in being a stay at home parent.

No one is asking for your validation, what an odd point to make.

Or taking dc to the Natural History museum, or baking with them, or reading to them, or visiting a nature reserve or any of the things that sahp tend to value having the opportunity to share during that stage of their lives?

What value is there in paid employment though, beyond the obvious wage?
I love my job and I'm good at it, but if I left they would employ someone else without missing a beat, therefore I would say that my personal value to them is very low. However at home, as a Mum, I am irreplaceable - why wouldn't spending some time away from the workplace to focus on children in the younger years be of huge value???

For how long @UraniumFlowerpot ? My dh is a v high earner, but he got unexpectedly ill in his 40s.

pension wise - it’ll be massively more tax efficient if you both have pots that take you to the same
tax band as pensioners. We didn’t realise that early enough, you ideally want to avoid one person paying huge taxes and the other paying none or a lower rate.

i live in a wealthy area, i know may sahp and we’re all pushing 50, most have had to go back at least part time and it does mean usually retraining (needs a budget) or taking a job much lower than you had pre dc.

Lots of parents see value in the time they are able to spend with their dc.

So do jobs in childcare also have no value?

No amount of money in any form would convince me to give up work! Independence, financial security, structure, adult company. But I would choose to work part time while I had children.

the value of working is that you’re making an important contribution to the state as well as providing financial resilience for your family - no I don’t think my firm cares about me or that I’m irreplaceable, I don’t have to believe that.

it is a balance, as for how much money I’d need - I’d need a lottery win to be a sahp. If you’re in that ball park then crack on.

Don't you have other ways of engaging your brain though, other than being paid for it?

I don't know how long you are talking about being a SAHP, but me and plenty of my friends spent the pre-school and some of the primary years as SAHPs, and have all been able to re-establish ourselves in the work place, to a position where we could support our families. The key to making a SAHP work is having a strong sense of self, and both partners being in full agreement on the family set-up and division of labour.