Should parents stay at home with their children?

" can't be seen to waste a good education "

If that is a prevalent attitude (I sincerely hope it isn't), it's a shame. I had a good education. I never regarded being a full-time mum as a waste of it.

Punctuation marks, must always check before posting?

I was driving home at a few night ago and was surprised "and cross" to see a mother riding her bike with a tiny tot on the back at 7pm!!. Actually I could hardly believe it and hope it was a one off. She had clearly collected her child from nursery. I have seen parents, both men and women on many occasions pushing pushchairs after 6pm. Maybe if SAHM were paid tiny tots like the one above would be at home in his bed which is where he should have been at 7pm.

Yes they want it all, the big house-the car and after all girls can't be seen to waste that very good education they've had even if it means someone else is actually bringing up their children!. Mothers today make life so difficult for themselves but they choose to go out to work because if they did'nt they couldn't effort the big house,the big car etc., My time to hide behind the sofa?

Good point, gg.

In repsonse to your earlier post (10:42:34), I don't think anyone is suggesting in this thread that only one person can provide all a child's needs. Being a SAHP does not mean that staying at home with your kids is all you do! I've already mentioned parent and toddler groups, and most kids have other relatives they interact with, including in most cases, their other parent. Also, nowadays, even (yes, even!) the kids of SAHPs go to playgroups or nursery schools.

I am not sure the finger wagging has increased thatbags - it was just not so vocal. When I had my children - in the 1970s - if anyone I didn't know was saying I should do this or that it would, presumably, be behind closed doors or at least behind their hands so I didn't know about it. Now it is all over the internet and the TV and we hear it as everyone is entitled - so they think - to voice an opinion (Just as we are )

What you wanted to do as well.

I'm not knocking early nursery care, the Sure Start that trisher mentioned. I'm just sticking up for people like me who chose to be a SAH parent because that's the job they wanted while their kids were small.

gracesgran I think if anything, the finger-wagging is worse than ever, and that's why childcare is such an emotive subject. You're absolutely right about the spread of good childcare being absolutely the best, I think. However nowadays it's no longer enough to simply bring up your children to the best of your abilities. Bringing up a child has become more like a competition in many circles. Children have to have "the best". I don't mean "stuff" necessarily. Schooling is a case in point. It is no longer enough for your child to go to the local village school like most of us did. Every child has to have the "best", creating competition between parents and schools. When your child is in school, you then have to prove your worth as a parent by being "involved" in that child's education, regardless of how busy with other commitments you may be. Under this sort of pressure, parents try desperately to justify their own childrearing decisions, and lose confidence in themselves. If you are a working parent, you are letting your child down. If you are a sahp, you are lazy. If you dare have children whilst on benefits, you are feckless.

If you dare feed your child fast food, you are a slattern. If you allow your child to watch telly, you are lazy. If you allow your child freedom to play out, you are negligent. If your child doesn't play out, you are risking obesity.

Parents can't win, can they?

But if in the 50s to 70s you didn't HAVE any of those people around, and it cost more to pay for good childcare than you would make by working, you weren't brainwashed by anyone, you were just getting on with what you had to do while your child(ren) needed you.

The brain-washing of the 1950s to mid 1970s still seems to be around. Of course children do not need only one person/parent every minute of every day. The influence of a spread of excellent carers is bound to give them a more expanded view and attitude to life in the long run. We do not expect one person to be able to be everything in our lives; that is why we have friends, extended family and mentors of different sorts. Isn't it a bit of a stretch to think one person - and only that person - can be everything a child needs. If you don't think that and you do think a child benefits from different models around them then organising those people to be in their lives at times that allow you to work and times that enable a child to thrive is just good management.

When my kids were younger - 14, 12 and 5, we went through a patch when we were living in big bedsitter and had a choice of feeding and clothing them, feeding ourselves or paying rent, feeding payment meters etc. I have never felt so guilty at failure to manage, but it did teach priorities.

I can't agree that 'you miss so much'Ana Yes you may not be with your children every waking moment if you work, but a lot depends on the time you do spend with them surely ?I was a 'better'mother to DD1 and enjoyed it more because I spent 2 days a week doing a stimulating job I loved (and which my extensive and expensive education -paid for in those days by the government-had enabled me to do) Though I adored my long awaited and very precious first born, I found much of the time spent with a young baby quite boring. .It got more interesting as she got older and I developed a social circle which included other new parents .
After DD2 I was going to be a SAHP for a bit (partly because of the logistics of child care for two children with a biggish gap,partly because I had adapted to parenthood ) but fate decreed otherwise.
I do not think either of my daughters has suffered for it. They both have first class honours degrees, good jobs and appear well adjusted,lovely girls .Neither have I .Our relationship is good .
Neither of my daughters can imagine not working, even if they had children .It is not particularly to do with money either .I admire anyone who finds total fulfillment in being at home with their children full time but it was not for me or many of my friends .

I wasn't ever a dedicated mumsy type and my ex was a disaster, so I had to work, but we had a "trainee nanny", which suited us at the time. With my second family I worked from home as a typist and this was even better, especially as DH is seriously disabled and I could care for him at the same time. I'm so sorry for people who want to be full-time parents and are forced by economic necessity to work, but I do sometimes wonder whether we do expect too much (we are in council house, haven't had holiday since honeymoon and I have to buy charity shop clothes, shoes costing less than £15) and if furniture wears out, buy at local auction rooms. And - surprise, surprise, no car - we use public transport. Not good in this area, but fortunately, MIL has small car and will take us if absolutely impossible to go to appointments any other way.

But the poor need nursery care even more than the well off. Sure Start was a programme set up after extensive research in the US which showed that early education reduced the numbers of youngsters who later in life became involved in anti-social behaviour and crime. A strong well run nursery system benefits all. (Sure Start has of course been cut back by the Tory government)

I wonder what some of you think of as poor.Do you really catch the same buses as me,do you sit in the same waiting rooms,sometimes for hours

Marmark

Probably. Whyever not?,

And so I am also agreeing wholeheartedly with Bags.

I so agree that a child is not just the parents' child. He or she is also the nation's child. We must all get it right.

I agree that kids definitely don't need designer gear etc,they need care,stability,guidance and love,all of which are free.So no, you don't have to be rich to be a parent.But you do need to be able to provide a good home,and a good home life.I wonder what some of you think of as poor.Do you really catch the same buses as me,do you sit in the same waiting rooms,sometimes for hours,

I am not sure if we should even be looking at a suggestion that people should not have children if "they cannot afford them".

I wonder if those in favour of the "Australian Points System" designed to fill the gaps in their population - realise the Australians also have a pretty generous Maternity, Baby and Child Allowance system because they realise the child is not just the parents child it is the nations child. With dropping birth-rates and growing ageing we need to make it worth people having children - otherwise, afford it or not, they won't.

Well said*thatbags*.As usual there is so much truth in what you say. I have always thought it is not too expensive to bring up children if you are prepared to trawl the charity shops and make use of freecycle.I chose to do this anyway because I believe the maxim to live more simply so that others may simply live.

Your surgeon doing your knee op might also be a mother of young children using the skill and expertise afforded her by her education and, not before time, acceptance in the workplace on an equal,footing with men.

Overall, we did more than 'afford' our kids. What I gave my kids by being their primary educator as well as carer when they were of preschool age is priceless. So I say this: a pox on your "if they can't afford" and your false "matter of choices". I think society should support poor people who have kids, mainly for the kids' benefit. You never know, that surgeon doing your replacement knee operation in your old age might be one of those kids.

And, you know what, those kids turned out to be highly socially conscious and helpful members of society.

Bloody scroungers.

PS When my older kids were small, we got free milk for them and a rate rebate because the family income, a salary from the University of Edinburgh for an essential team member of the Human Genome Project, was considered by the council not to be enough. Whose 'fault' was that? And why shouldn't we have had kids while we were young and healthy and ripe for it?

Some of you have expressed the opinion that society should not 'fund' other people's children, that people shouldn't have children if they "can't afford" them. There are two answers to that that occurred to me while I was making my coffee just now. One is about deciding what counts as can't afford, and the other is to do with one's definition of "society".

Firstly, then, what counts as not being able to afford kids? Do you need to be able to buy a pram and a cot and new clothes for the baby? Or will a box or a drawer and a sling for carrying the baby when you go out do to begin with, and then secondhand cot and pram later on? Likewise clothes and bedding. Babies don't care what they wear and so long as they are not too hot or too cold it doesn't really matter. And, obviously, you don't need to prepare a nursery all newly decorated and what not. The questions are endless. What counts as not being able to afford kids? And what if you can afford it, by some pre-agreed notion of judgmental people of what counts as affording, and then you hit hard times not through your own fault?
I bet there are plenty of grans reading these forums who "made do" when their kids were small.

I don't like the argument that people "who can't afford" shouldn't have kids because it's hard to define what is meant. Also, what gives people who are not poor the right to judge and decree on other people's right to have kids? See my point yesterday about the Normal Life Force.

The second point is about whose kids they are. Obviously they are their parents' kids but what are kids for when they don't need their parents to keep them alive, when they become independent members of society? They are for society, to fuflfill society's need for road sweepers, shopkeepers, teachers, doctors, entrepreneurs, etc, etc, etc. Why shouldn't the society that needs young people to replace the old fogeys (that's people like me I'm talking about so don't go all silly and take offence) take part in paying for the upkeep of kids whose parents were either hapless or careless in life? Don't we all have a responsibility to everyone?

Saying taxpayers shouldn't have to help care for kids of the hapless and the careless is like saying they shouldn't have to pay into a state education or health service. In short, it's selfish.