Should parents stay at home with their children?

Why rgge references to SAHM ? Should it not be SAHP?
I worked part time betwen my children I was 35 when I had the first and missed the stimulus of work and the social side We didn't need the money as DH was very well paid .
Fast toward to when DD E2 was 21months .DH was made redundant .Guess who became the major breadwinner for 8 years .I thanked God I had kept my career ticking over

Well said, michelle.

I'm actually not sure I agree that having children is a "lifestyle" choice. Reproducing for all forms of life is what life IS.

Many women are now well educated with not just one degree but several. Taking several years out of their career makes it extremely difficult to return to the same level of position they had before they had children. Is that fair - no but it's a fact. So, if a woman wants to remain at least at the same level as previously they need to return to work. Some roles demand membership of professional organisations which means completing CPD each year. No CPD and the membership lapses which means no job in that field as shows basic level of competency. A year out on maternity can normally be accommodated by societies but not 5 or 6. It's then almost impossible to regain that membership without starting at the very bottom again (where u are competing with graduates that are young and eager and will accept lower wages and don't come with the extra "baggage" a family might entail such as sickness and attendance to school events etc. Again, it's not fair but it does happen.

Lots of women also don't want to stay at home 24/7 and crave adult conversations (in the night garden is mental torture!) and the child learns from peers and others how to fit in by attending a nursery.

Stay at home kids tend to be less independent (I've seen multiple kids where they haven't attended nursery / childminder) and they are less sociably adept - wanting mummy to be with them all the time to the point they will refuse to attend an activity and scream blue murder if mum tries to leave...even for 1 hour or cries at the school gate and doesn't want to go to school. They can be the opposite and very aggressive - nipping or biting other children as they've never learned the "rules" of nursery as to what is acceptable as they've never been exposed to other kids as often (other than siblings and sometimes.not even those). And yes, I've seen that too with violent outbursts as they don't get their way.

If you can afford to stay at home with your kids then fine, it's your choice but you shouldn't get paid to do so as its your choice to have a family. Silly mares like that woman on This Morning with 12 kids and wanting another are an utter disgrace. Openly playing the system to gain over £44,000 in benefits. Complete joke. Cap it at 3 pregnancies / 3 kids max - if you want more then you damn well pay for them NOT ordinary tax payers. With a mother like that, it'll be 12 more benefit cheats in the making. The girls will get pregnant to gain a nice house etc and the boys will either end up in prison or sitting on their backsides claiming benefits as she's hardly a good role model is she?

If it is a mum then SAHM is fine. If you don't want someone to know your gender, or if you are applying the term generally, then use SAHP. There isn't a problem!

I'm glad you used the word 'tend' about SAHKs being less independent, alidoll. Mine weren't. I guess they'd learned a bit of socially adept and independent behaviour from their parents .

Plus, there were parent and toddle groups they went to a couple of times a week from babyhood.

My eldest GD is 10 yrs old. My lovely DiL has not worked in all that time. She is a wonderful mother and both GDs are happy and confident. DiL puts 110% into parenting. However I do worry a little about my son, as everything rests on his shoulders, and he has developed migraine recently

There is a lot of criticism of nurseries on this thread, some of it direct some indirect, I wonder how many of these people have been into a nursery recently? I have nothing but praise for the care they provide for my GCs. From babies to pre-school they provide a level of stimulation, education and assessment that would be hard to match. I know that there are some inferior establishments but I think if parents spend time and effort looking for the best care they can find it will be of benefit to their children. I too am shocked at how many refer only to SAHMs. Parenting is something that should be shared and even if marriages break down men should be expected to maintain their relationship and responsibilities for their children

I agree with you Trisher, possibly when I was at the kids stage, men tended to be career oriented, and as has been said earlier on this thread, as a generation, we tended to need or require less in the way of material "stuff" so perhaps there was less need for us to return to work. Yes, parents SHOULD be equally responsible for the day to day needs of their children, but I think women have more of a biological and instinctive bond with their babies, and perhaps that is why we tend to bear the brunt of child rearing?

...and furthermore, michelle, we still live in a patriarchy.

I'm totally in agreement with Phoenix. Why should taxpayers give money to parents who want to stay home to look after their children? In the mid 60's my husband was earning £19 a week and we rented a flat for £4.00 a week. I stayed at home looking after the family, cooking, cleaning, taking the children to the park etc. we didn't have two cars and we didn't go abroad or have all the luxuries that couples want these days. We didn't struggle but we we managed our income carefully. Nothing was bought on HP, preferring to save for anything we wanted, i.e., it took us months to save £49 for our first 3-piece suite which was lovingly cared for because we appreciated how much it took to achieve it. By the mid 70's we had saved the deposit on a terraced house. The problem with the younger generation is they want everything handed to them on a plate without putting in any effort. As generations used to say before us, you cut your coat according to your cloth.

Isn't it dreadful that we don't want more for our children than we had? There should be choice for everyone. Some will want to stay at home, but equally, both men and women who have a rewarding and satisfying job that they enjoy should be free to work if they want, and providing high quality child care is necessary to achieve this. Women bear the brunt of child rearing because they choose to and let men get away with doing less.

My grandparents had more than their parents, both grandmothers worked in the mill,naps did many mothers in the north. My grandparents didn't have to resort to the workhouse as their relatives when no work meant no food. My parents generation has more than their parents and my generation (that would be many gransnet members) had more. As trisher says, why would we want our children to have more than we did.

Trishers positive comments about the quality of care offered in mist nurseries is correct. I've never seen rows of crying babies. I picked up my twelve month old last Monday because he'd developed a temperature. He was on his key workers knee, being cuddled and cared for. The other babies were involved in all kinds of activities. There are strict regulations about the ratio of under 3's to staff, a maximum of three and often two. A day book goes between home and nursery, detailing activities, food, snacks etc. I'm a regular there and the atmosphere is good.

there us no one size fits all, surely as grandmothers we want to support younger women, doing their best, as we did. I include both parents but the focus seems inevitably to revert to mothers

I think nursery days for babies and little tots are too long.
Some parents are prepared to live quite frugally to be at home,some prefer a certain lifestyle which requires two salaries.
On the other hand,if mum gives up work for several years and the marriage/relationship fails,she is in a stronger position financially if she has kept her job,which will benefit the children.

Having a first child also changes perspective.
Parents may have commuted daily and were content with their surroundings ,but now desire better surroundings /schools etc. for that child.

At the end of the day,it is up to the parents to decide,but I think that childcare within the family and playgroup is best,if it can be arranged.

Parents who strive to provide for their children in the best way they can ,should not be criticised.
However,those well off who don,t wish to give up their posh cars and fancy trimmings are quite selfish in my opinion.

Points well made on SAHMs and the effects on children with and without this benefit/luxury (depending on your perspective).

At the other end of the spectrum is the huge plus to society that SAHMs had in the context of caring for the older members of the family. I don't think successive Governments took account of that when facilitating young women to go out to work full time.

All unpaid and undervalued imo. Too late now to rescue the metaphorical baby from the plughole.

I don't think it is our place to say what other parents should or should not do regarding their choice (if indeed it is a choice) as to whether or not to look after their children at home, get grandparents to take on childcare, employ a childminder or nanny or put their child in a crèche or nursery.
My DGCs go/went to a wonderful, caring , multicultural and friendly nursery. They learned to mix with other children enjoyed (or not!) the nursery Christmas play, their annual Sports Day (!) and excellent activities.
For reasons of timing DD now also employs a nanny for part of the week who is also wonderful at outdoor activities, craft work, playing, encouraging literacy and numeracy work and seems indefatigable!
Every parent will want the best for their child, but must also work with the bounds of what is possible.
Who are we to judge?

Thinking about this post has brought up something quite irksome.

There are many mums and dads in the UK who both need to work in order to earn quite a basic income to rear their children.

There are many others who are able to be at home with their children because we provide them with their living needs.
My last neighbours were of the latter...mums sunbathing with cans of lager while the children wandered off.

I do think nursery is a long day,as I posted,but on reflexion,I feel sorry for mums who have to work and miss their children.

I think it is up to individuals staying home isn't an option for some people my dil stays at home but they struggle at times they have no savings so don't have fancy hols they have a car (which we helped buy) because there is no work locally for son and local transport is poor where they live anyway . My daughter does work but dg only goes to nursery 2days a week and she loves it by the way . They are not well off and are trying to save for a house . I worked part time as I enjoyed my job and children were looked after by hubby or family and i felt we all benefited from this arrangement .

Should parents stay at home with their children?

Yes
Otherwise you miss so much.

I forgot to add selfish,and to express as with everyone else here,it is my opinion,my input to the discussion.All of us are equal to each other.
Yes I think at least one parent should stay at home with children.What is the point of having them,and yes be what you want to be,good luck to you,but not if it means putting the children in a part time orphanage.We have all(or most of us)made sacrifices,I still am,that's being a parent.The kids come first,they can't speak for themselves.

I know many mums who work full time and they all went to university and had no intention of being stay at home mums.They take maternity leave then after that there babies go straight into nursery right through till primary school, going to uni gave them well paid jobs so they can afford extortionate Childcare fees.Think it is a sign of the times these days.

Marmark1 do you think schools are "part time orphanages" as well?If not why not? Nursery offers exactly the same experience as school. Have you ever been inside a good nursery school? They are incredible places where children are offered a wide range of experiences. For example I recently took part in a "Forest school" at my GD's nursery. It was great to see children of 3+ let loose in a wooded area whilst being carefully supervised. They climbed, built dens, hid and chased each other, all the things modern living keeps children from doing. Staff supervised, shared ideas and monitored children all the time. We went once a week for 6 weeks and in that time you could see the children develop confidence and skills. Oh and children do have a voice, if you asked my GD she would undoubtedly insist that she wants to go to nursery.

Otherwise you miss so much.

My daughter would have 'missed so much' if I hadn't gone out to work, such as food on the table and a roof over her head!

And yes, I did choose to have her, as did my husband, but it didn't stop him leaving us for another woman two years later, making sure he never had a steady job afterwards so wasn't liable for maintenance...

Some of us have no choice

thatbags interesting and thought provoking comment re having children NOT being (in essence) a lifestyle choice, but what about those that deliberately choose NOT to have children? That must surely be a lifestyle choice, and if so the opposite must/should be true?

Both dils have good careers that they have worked hard for. They stayed home for a year then went back to work to maintain their standing at work..
It took me many years to get back to where I left my career after children. No regrets, just different times.
The grand children have all gone to wonderful nurseries where they have learned a lot and got on with other children of their age. This has been their parent's choice and it has worked well.

pheonix if people decide to have children it's their decision so they finance it themselves.