Mothers at home matter

What a calm, reasoned and sensible article! ??

It was a pleasant read until ‘reach out to your MP’.

Really good article.

I was a full time mum because I didn’t bring children into the world to farm them out to others to mould their personalities.

Had it been a financial imperative that I worked I would not have had children.

Jaxjacky

It was a pleasant read until ‘reach out to your MP’.

So ignore that bit. I did.

I totally agree that mothers should be able to make that choice. Unfortunately, the economic situation of a lot of parents takes away that choice.
One of my DILs stays at home with her children and the other works part time. They both sent the children to pre school part time, for the social benefits that gave the children.
I was able to have the choice stay at home with my children and am glad that I was able to.

The trouble is Espee people’s circumstances change, often after they’ve had children.

Esspee

I was a full time mum because I didn’t bring children into the world to farm them out to others to mould their personalities.

Had it been a financial imperative that I worked I would not have had children.

I felt the same, espee, about wanting to bring up my children myself if only because I and their father were the ones who cared the most about what they were taught, especially in their early years.

Re your second point though, bringing up one's own kids is work and that's what people have been ignoring for too long just because it is technically unpaid.

Brilliant baggs! Thank you! You won't have ever had an argument from me.

It's frequently a disaster for women of course and makes them very vulnerable.

Baggs

Esspee

I was a full time mum because I didn’t bring children into the world to farm them out to others to mould their personalities.

Had it been a financial imperative that I worked I would not have had children.

I felt the same, espee, about wanting to bring up my children myself if only because I and their father were the ones who cared the most about what they were taught, especially in their early years.

Re your second point though, bringing up one's own kids is work and that's what people have been ignoring for too long just because it is technically unpaid.

I, too, stayed home, worked raising our children.

My husband worked extra hours, second jobs, weekends (whatever it took) for a few years until his main job was enough financially.

There also the cases where the father would like to stay at home and look after the children and the mother wishes to work. These may be few but the changes should not be one sided.

I have one main disagreement with this article and that is the role of parenting should be considered not necessarily of just the mother. I have no doubt there are fathers who if asked would like to work less hours and spend more time caring for their children, why should it only be the mother who has the option.? To my mind the ideal solution is two parents who only need to work a certain number of hours each and together earn enough to maintain their lifestyle and who both have time with their children. Of course there will be families where only one parent wants to provide childcare and that would be fine. But extending the option only to mothers isn't acceptable.

Jackiest crossed posts- great minds etc.

Galaxy

It's frequently a disaster for women of course and makes them very vulnerable.

I would argue with your sweeping statement and use of the word 'frequently'.

kittylester

Brilliant baggs! Thank you! You won't have ever had an argument from me.

Indeed.

Certainly no argument on this topic!

I think its 1 in 3 marriages that end in divorce, if that's the case as a stay at home mum you are vulnerable.

Galaxy

I think its 1 in 3 marriages that end in divorce, if that's the case as a stay at home mum you are vulnerable.

Vulnerable to what?

Divorced persons settle and perhaps go to work outside home.

Either person of the couple. Everyone is vulnerable to divorce.

Stay at home mum, 4 kids, not alot of pension coming my way, still working at 68, yes you do become vulnerable

Oops divorced at 55

Because you havent got work experience etc to get a job outside the home. You will be much more financially vulnerable than someone who kept working. You will be less likely to have gained promotion etc and the options open to you will be less well paid. I worked part time when my children were young it has without a doubt impacted the money I earned decades later.

And I agree with Glorianny, about both sexes, the article doesnt seem to include men in the raising of children.

Norah

Galaxy

I think its 1 in 3 marriages that end in divorce, if that's the case as a stay at home mum you are vulnerable.

Vulnerable to what?

Divorced persons settle and perhaps go to work outside home.

Either person of the couple. Everyone is vulnerable to divorce.

Stay at home mothers lose years of work experience at a critical time in their careers. Statistics show that men and women have similar earnings until their late twenties, when many women give up full-time work for a family. As a group, they never make up for lost ground.

I was a full-time mother, and I loved every minute (well, nearly every minute). It never really occurred to me to do anything else. No doubt we’d have been richer if I’d earned -I’d had a good job - but we’d also have been a lot more stressed and harassed.

As it happened, my husband died (cancer) when the children were nine and six. Our good insurance made sure I could still stay at home and give stability to the children’s lives. They have grown up happy and successful. I have lots of interests, so I ever felt held back by domesticity.

No regrets at all.