Mothers at home matter

It is a matter of choice, but both choices need to be supported. At the moment help is available to buy child care, but no help is available to offset loss of earnings/pension rights. That does not make logical sense.

Attempts to make a comparison (indeed a value judgement) between the effects on children of either choice are impossible because you cannot control for the variable of quality. A devoted mother or a struggling or abusive mother? A good child care facility or a bad one?

It is about respecting either choice. Unfortunately emotions run high on the topic because no parent wants to feel they have made a bad choice for their child's one chance at childhood.

Good post @ 15.50 Doodledog.

None of us did.

However, how long do you think a mum should remain sahm? Until the youngest goes to primary school, until youngest goes to secondary school, until youngest is 16, until youngest is 18, until youngest is 21, until youngest is ...?

Callistemon21

I'll leave you to it.

It always ends up with self-righteous mothers who went back to work when baby was a month old disparaging SAHMs as lazy.

I wasn't being self-righteous, nor did I disparage SAHM mothers as lazy.

Callistemon, I hope you didn’t think my comment was aimed at you. You’ve ne er suggested those of us who worked weren’t involved in bringing up our children, though others have.
Tedious to be having the same back and forth. I’ve been sahm and full time working mum. I know which suited me best and don’t need to justify it.

Callistemon21

I'll leave you to it.

It always ends up with self-righteous mothers who went back to work when baby was a month old disparaging SAHMs as lazy.

sadly, and vice-versa!

Great post Casdon.

The key thing is surely that our children's life chances aren’t affected by whatever decisions we make about working or not. Harvard carried out a big study, mentioned in this article, which indicates that that isn’t the case. Basically, it’s down to personal choice, although it does of course suit different narratives to claim one option is better than the other. All I know is, my children thrived with a working mum whereas I would have made a terrible stay at home mum.
www.newyorkbehavioralhealth.com/are-stay-at-home-moms-better-for-our-kids-than-working-moms/

I'll leave you to it.

It always ends up with self-righteous mothers who went back to work when baby was a month old disparaging SAHMs as lazy.

I never said that.

I didn't go back to work simply because there was no-one else.

No GP, no nurseries in those days and childminders were more or less non-existent.
And father worked away.

The majority of us did both - SAH until the DC were settled in school then worked in a job which fitted in with school hours as well as possible.

Tedious to keep reading thst those of us who chose/had to work, didn’t really bring our children up, we left it to someone else.
Total nonsense.

Some of the comments on this thread have been disgraceful

As you quoted Luckygirl and me, I assume you mean our posts are disgraceful Doodledog.

I refute that rude suggestion.

Callistemon21

^Not only that, but it is disingenuous to pretend that being at home when children are at school is anything close to a full-time job, unless you have OCD or otherwise feel the need to stretch out housework to 10 hours a day^

As I said, SAH doesn't mean sitting on your backside all day.

Helping at playgroups and similar activities, school governor, PTA at an older child's school, going into school to listen to children read etc doesn't mean it is paid work.
It is all contributing to society.

Not everyone was lucky enough to have a DH or partner who arrived home at 6pm every day.

Indeed.

Nobody thinks SAHP sit around all day, they have plenty of work to do running their homes. Everyone contributes in their own way.

I posted something but it hasn't appeared, perhaps because you posted at the same time, Fleurpepper
How odd!

NO family at all, to help out either.

''Not everyone was lucky enough to have a DH or partner who arrived home at 6pm every day.''

oh for sure, mine certainly did NOT. He worked nighs, week-ends and got home late. So we just had to have a third hand to balance things out.

'mad to go' NOT 'made to go'

I had the CHOICE- and chose to work, once the children started school.

Me too, well, I re-trained.
But I had a number of years at home because my DC are spaced out!
Nor did I have any family who could help out, the one Grandma who lived not far away worked full-time herself.

Not only that, but it is disingenuous to pretend that being at home when children are at school is anything close to a full-time job, unless you have OCD or otherwise feel the need to stretch out housework to 10 hours a day

As I said, SAH doesn't mean sitting on your backside all day.

Helping at playgroups and similar activities, school governor, PTA at an older child's school, going into school to listen to children read etc doesn't mean it is paid work.
It is all contributing to society.

Not everyone was lucky enough to have a DH or partner who arrived home at 6pm every day.

yes + 1, thanks.

I'll put my hands up- I was lucky. I had the CHOICE- and chose to work, once the children started school. Neighbours and OH's colleagues thought I was made to go to Uni at 29, and then to go on to teach in local comprehensives (rather than the jobs I was offered in private schools). Both Unis I applied to asked me to justify myself- twice I was told that surely my OH had enough on his plate without his wife going on to play at studying! Thank goodness he was 100% behind me.

For many, it is not a choice, but a necessity. I totally respect them. I know some who had enough money to not work, have housework and garden help, and several kids at private school. I would not dream of questionning their choice- but they'd better not curl their lip at mine. I have absolutely NO doubt whatsoever, that me working added massively to our children's experience and future success.

Well said Doodledog-all of it!

I stayed at home until my children started school. That was my choice, and my husbands of course. Then I was lucky enough to get a part time job in a school then gradually as the children got older, a full time job.

When I was at home with the children and anyone I met asked what I did for a living, I told them I was a Household Manager.
Because that’s what I was and I was proud of it.

Callistemon21

Luckygirl3

I was a SAHM for 5 years, but I managed not to devote myself to housework. I'm all for a bit of mess - I certainly did not dash around tidying up after my children.

I agree, SAH doesn't mean sitting on your backside or doing endless housework!

No, but nor does working mean that your children are brought up by others (I know you didn't say that, btw ).

Housework and real child-rearing (as opposed to minding) is done by all parents. Anyone can keep children safe after school for a couple of hours before the parents get home, but family values and morals come from the parents. Not only that, but it is disingenuous to pretend that being at home when children are at school is anything close to a full-time job, unless you have OCD or otherwise feel the need to stretch out housework to 10 hours a day.

In my own experience of volunteering, it is mostly people who can offer professional expertise who get involved. Volunteering doesn't just take place during school hours - many working people give up weekends and evenings to help out, and in any case, volunteering is, by definition, voluntary, and not to be used to score virtue points over those who don't want to do it, whether they work or not.

I couldn't care less what other people do, but do get annoyed when SAHPs complain about scroungers or people not working. I'm not equating staying at home with scrounging, but I think it is often forgotten (or left unsaid) that if others didn't work to pay for things like schools, the NHS and all the things used by SAHPs who don't pay for them, the 'choice' about whether to work wouldn't exist. Many women have no choice about working, and they tend to be the ones without high salaries or accountants/FAs to minimise their tax spend, so they fork out tax and the NI payments that SAHPs get free, on top of the cost of childcare and commuting. In many ways, they subsidise those who can afford to choose to stay at home, only to be patronised by them for doing so.

It does raise my hackles when I hear someone who has never contributed to anything other than their own family say that people on low wages should work longer hours, or be forced to take whatever job they are offered. A husband's taxes are based on his earnings, and are not intended to cover the shortfall from his wife (or vice versa), so the tax breaks given to single-earner families are potentially higher than the money spent on benefits. AFAIK there are no figures for this, but it would be interesting to see how much NI contributions and loss of taxation (if that could be counted), as well as things like pension credit that goes to many of those who haven't paid enough to get an earned pension actually costs.

As I've said before, I am not suggesting that it should be compulsory to work, or that pension credit shouldn't exist. I would scrap free NI 'contributions' though, on the grounds that if a couple can live on one salary when one of them is working they should do it when the earner retires, unless their income falls below the threshold for pension credit. Maybe if that happened workers could retire earlier, instead of the SPA being pushed back further and further? I would much rather see NI paid to those who do work but whose wages are kept low so their employers don't have to pay their contribution and the workers don't qualify for sick or maternity pay, or a full pension.

I repeat that I couldn't care less how other people spend their days, so long as they don't sneer at those who choose a different route. Some of the comments on this thread have been disgraceful.

Callistemon21

growstuff

Callistemon21

Housework was tedious and pretty brain frying but not raising children

I agree.

Anyway, housework etc still has to be done whether you are working or not working outside the home unless you can earn enough to pay a cleaner.

Or you can organise things, so children help with housework.

Well, yes, you can when you are a SAHM too.

Children can help by doing chores.
But the majority of the housework falls on the shoulders of the adults.

I'm not disputing that, but I know that my own children did more housework than many others.

grandtanteJE65 - completely agree with every word of that! Well said!

Far be from me to belittle any of you who stayed at home and brought up your children, but I found the article and most of your responses to it deeply disturbing.

Why should mothers automatically be the ones to "stay at home and bring up their children"?

Surely in this day and age the proposition should be that one or other of the children's parents should have that possibility?

We that were young in the 1970s fought long and hard for equal pay for equal work, irrespective of whether the worker was male or female.

We changed perception of parenthood so young fathers changed nappies, bottle-fed their babies , took children to creche, kindergarten and school just as often as mummy did.

We changed perception of men's jobs and women's jobs, so women are no longer few and far between as brick-layers, carpenters, MPs, doctors, or ministers of religion or men as kindergarten teachers, midwives, or nurses.

Do you really want to think that your great grandchildren will be brought up without this basic equality of the sexes?

"Mothers at home matter" what a title !

Children matter but unless the parent who stays at home is given the right to contribute to pension funds etc as if he or she was working outside the home, few parents will be unable to make that choice.

More importantly, unless the parent whose work consists of bringing up the children, really wants to do this job, it will not be in the children's best interest that either Daddy or Mummy stays at home.