Stay at Home Mums

Madmeg But each to their own, quite rightly.

Agreed, there is no universal right or wrong. Each family must make their own way. The tedious arguments to not SAHM are often unkind.

Agree! I would have stayed at hime with my 2 if we could have afforded it. She can so no one else's business! I think it's a case of envy!

I was doing mums hair the other day (she's 82) and said, "i'd spend more time with you girls, if I could have my time over".

We had (I think) a good childhood and according to today's standards, we lived in poverty! No double glazing or central heating (neither came until the 1990's and I'm the youngest born in 1974). We were healthy though, frost on inside of Windows never mind outside! Once a week baths as long as the fire got the water hot enough!

Walked to school every day, we're rural, school is town, old scrappy bikes that we'd go off on long bike rides around the country lanes (I won't even drive those country lanes these days as folk stick to 60mph mentality!!)

Mum was a farmer and worked from age 14 and she and dad split when i was 3 (probably because I have no memory of them together is the reason why I won't take crap off him, I'll stand up to him, he doesn't like it and will sulk!).

So mum brought us up single handed on hardly any money and worked a hard physical job whilst keeping us 4 fed and warm (£20 a week off dad didn't help much neither did the child benefit off the state for 4 children).

She helped my sister by being a full time carer to her 1st grandchild 30 years ago but then realised when the 2nd one came, she couldn't do it (well done to all of you who look after your grandchildren!!)

Mum worked and has said many times, she worked because she HAD to and knowing how much debt she was left in (not her fault either) I can understand it. Only now, when she's at the stage she is of her life, she has regrets!

I think if ANY mum CAN afford (without state help) to stay at home and be a full time mum then do it, but not if the taxpayer is going to have to foot the bill. My niece has an almost 3 year old and says money wise, they can afford a 2nd or her to stay at home, but she doesn't want to do either as she loves her job and she says family dynamics at the moment are perfect, mum, dad, kid & dog! That and they have a caravan and go On holiday frequently in it!

I went back to work when my kids were 13 and 11 and did wish I had done it sooner. My confidence had gone completely and my younger coworkers picked up on that and used it to their advantage.
I think staying at home and working part time at least is a sensible idea nowadays. Unfortunately times have really changed and you just cannot rely on husbands/wives/partners to be there long term. It makes me sad as i remember my mother was always at home and it’s a fond memory for me (not many of them)
For me, I had a sudden realisation that if everything went to pot, I was in trouble as everything was in his name and I felt that need for security.

I loved being a stay at home mum to my first 3, I started work when the third on was 3, the other two were 9 and 11. With my 4th I went back to work out of necessity at 3 months. I think having the choice is what's important.

What strikes me here is the sheer amount of money being earned. Often insufficient money is given as the reason for both parents to work. Here, this doesn’t apply and just supports my suspicion that many people sadly, just don’t want to be at home with their young child. It’s such a shame.

My DD always wanted to stay at home but sadly they couldn't afford it, so she works 4 days and i have my gd and gs after school those days.
I think she finds it difficult now in school hols as they can drive her potty.
She does love her job but finds work and home life stressful.
She does often say it's easier being at work!

Moii

So the nursery staff are insane making a poor career choice singing wiggly worm songs, maybe they're not good enough to look after your child but if you won't do it!

No one has said that, but we all have different talents and skills, you wouldn't enter a cart horse into the Grand National, nor would you harness a race horse in a cart.

I grew up with a mother who stayed home when we were small and returned to work when we went to school, I cannot say it ever bothered me. I had loving and caring parents and that was all that mattered. I did much the same. My son and DiL , have mixed and matched being at home and sending their children to nursery.

Lets face it in the past, the well off employed nursemaids, nannies and governesses while the poor delegated the care of young children to slightly older children because women needed to work, as well as men to save the family from starvation.

How we parent,what we do and how we do it is a matter of personal choice and personal preference. Providing the children grow up loved and secure and able to function happily in adult life, what more is necessary.

Stillness

What strikes me here is the sheer amount of money being earned. Often insufficient money is given as the reason for both parents to work. Here, this doesn’t apply and just supports my suspicion that many people sadly, just don’t want to be at home with their young child. It’s such a shame.

Why is it a shame? If I said it was a shame that people who stayed at home were over invested in their children and didn’t let them go, expecting far too much in return when their children were adults, would that be a shame too? I don’t believe that by the way, but it’s an example of the opposite of what you said. Stop doing down women who make different, equally valid choices please.

It took me 9 years to get pregnant after I got married. I didn't want to leave my baby with strangers after the long wait for her. I was a SAHM for 3 years and then worked part time hours when my husband was able to babysit. Back then (the 1980's) there weren't any mom groups meeting and the neighborhood where I lived in had all children free residents. I took my daughter to the playground and we were usually the only ones there. I decided to enroll my daughter in a preschool for 3 mornings a week at age 3.
I don't regret keeping her home until age 3. I used to work in a child care center and no matter how dedicated the staff is, there's not enough time to give infants all the attention they need when you have several babies in the room. Anyway moms everywhere do what's best for their families and others have no right to judge them for their decision.

Its no one’s business. I would have done anything rather than let others care for my children. There is nothing as precious as your children, no more important job. I loved those first five years at home. We had little money but we managed. I went on to be a working mom and ended up in management, that was not as important though as those years at home.

I find the inferences in some posts, that mothers who worked when their children were small, loved and cared for their children less than those who stayed at home offensive.

M0nica

I find the inferences in some posts, that mothers who worked when their children were small, loved and cared for their children less than those who stayed at home offensive.

Yes, I agree.

My children were born in 1965 and 1967. With the first one I went round all the houses on our little estate with a pram outside and set up a weekly coffee morning for six or seven of us - two would run a chaotic but cheerful play scheme, the other mums had two hours off to go back to bed, get their hair done, get on with some sewing, whatever they chose. With number two I got involved with setting up a playgroup which filled a similar purpose. When the younger child started school I did a full time BEd course. Now most mums have no choice but to work so can’t be as involved as I was. I would however have gone mad at home all the time without respite!

I got a A levels and a degree whilst looking after my two children. Then when they went to primary school I went to part tie work.

Monica, It was completely up to you how you parented your children, no one can judge and I am sorry you feel that way. I did what was right for me. The children as long as they are loved and cared for thrive just as well. I think most parents want the best for their children. I am hardly mother of the year my d estranged me..

GrannySomerset

My children were born in 1965 and 1967. With the first one I went round all the houses on our little estate with a pram outside and set up a weekly coffee morning for six or seven of us - two would run a chaotic but cheerful play scheme, the other mums had two hours off to go back to bed, get their hair done, get on with some sewing, whatever they chose. With number two I got involved with setting up a playgroup which filled a similar purpose. When the younger child started school I did a full time BEd course. Now most mums have no choice but to work so can’t be as involved as I was. I would however have gone mad at home all the time without respite!

I've never understood why the perception of Stay At Home Mothers means that in the literal sense!

There were several of us who lived fairly close together with children close in age so we did something similar, although Mums stayed with their toddlers so the children could play together and the Mums have a stimulating chat! Or go on walks, excursions.

It's interesting to look at the countryside etc through the eyes of a small child, too, and can help you have a different perspective and not take such things for granted.

I loved being at home with my 2 children , then I went back to teaching.It was a wonderful time, not at all numbing; we did so many things and I saw all the firsts,like swimming ,dancing ,
Brownies,dressing up and learning to talk ,walk and sing…what a joy!

M0nica

I find the inferences in some posts, that mothers who worked when their children were small, loved and cared for their children less than those who stayed at home offensive.

Indeed. Choice is what matters. The disturbing things about the thread on mumsnet that made me start this thread is that so much of it was about what a boring job parenting is and how the poster should not be a SAHM. All choices should be respected.

It's interesting to look at the countryside etc through the eyes of a small child, too, and can help you have a different perspective and not take such things for granted.

So true!

Norah

Madmeg But each to their own, quite rightly.

Agreed, there is no universal right or wrong. Each family must make their own way. The tedious arguments to not SAHM are often unkind.

I agree. As are the tedious arguments about those who work.

I don't see either 'side' as envious, but often as defensive, given the accusations of not being a 'full-time' mum from SAHMs against those who work, and of living a 'mind-numbing' life from working mums against those who SAH. A working mother is as much a 'full-time' parent as a man who works. I worked after the few years my children were pre-schoolers, during which my husband and I juggled childcare and drew on help from my in-laws who stepped in when neither of us could be there, but worked thereafter, and definitely saw myself as a full-time mother, just as my husband was a full-time dad.

I do not believe that either choice should be subsidised by 'society', but otherwise am firmly in the 'do what's best for you' camp, as I am with everything else I can think of. We only have one life, so we should all make our choices and hope for the best.

If I were in charge, which luckily I am not, I would happily pay from a communal purse for 'a parent' to SAH with children under the age of 3 or 4, and for mothers to have a year or so to recover from the physical consequences of giving birth and breastfeeding each child. I also feel that educating children and their healthcare should be financed by 'society' but beyond that, I think that the upkeep of the adults in a family should be up to them.

PS, I don't think that 'the point' of feminism is to enable all women to do whatever they like. It is to put women on the same footing as men when it comes to choices, and men don't, on the whole, expect others to support their choice (if they make it) to stay at home with children.

Agreed, there is no universal right or wrong. Each family must make their own way. The tedious arguments to not SAHM are often unkind.

Agreed, but often both sides of the argument can be unkind about the other.

Perhaps it might be due to the universal guilt which women seem to carry whatever they do!

Yes. Much the point that I was making.

I didn’t have much choice as we ran a farm, although I always worked part time as well.
There’s a lot that I don’t remember as it really was mind numbingly boring.
Women’s’ Lib was about choice, and if I’d had a choice I would have worked longer hours in my career but, oh yes, I had to give that up when I moved away from London to run the farm.

I never felt remotely guilty about working. I balanced work and running a family. people forget children are not hanging off your apron strings needing constant sueprvision every second for 18 years. Bt the time they are three or four they quite often enjoy downtime playing quietly on their own. I had a working mother myself and it never bothered me. If I needed her, she was there.

My DM and I both shared the experience that the only time we were wanted and weren't there, we were not working, my DM was out shopping and I was driving to my PiL's to collect them for a stay with us.

I believe children thrive best with plenty of good healthy neglect, not constant minute supervision.