Stay at Home Mums

Chocolatelovinggran

As I stated in my previous post, after my husband left me ( youngest a newborn)
I had two " choices".
Either go to work - risking being the woman who doesn't put her children's needs first.
Or stay at home and claim benefits, thereby becoming the beloved whipping boy of certain newspapers - the Single Mother on Benefits.
I take pride in the fact that I supported my children by my own labour, tough though it was for a long time.

On those rarer occasions, when a woman walks out on her husband and children, but they do sometimes happen - the attitude towards the man, left to provide and care for them is quite different.

I distinctly remember following such a case and although this was some time since, I think it's indicative of the way women are viewed by society generally as well as specifically in relation to motherhood.

This particular man chose to work full-time to provide for his two children and he received enormous support from people commenting on his position. I believe he was able to rely on grandparents for school runs - he gave occasional 'updates' which were met with a chorus of approval. He was a "good dad", a "caring father" etc, and locally apparently he'd been offered support if he needed it.

It's quite unusual I think for a mother to abandon her children and it's not a decision I could contemplate, not even "in extremis" and I'm sure others posting on here feel similarly. The mother was roundly condemned of course. The abandoned father said little about her other than the fact that she chose to leave him... "it was her choice" he said and she had always been 'difficult'. IIRR she didn't have a problem with drink or drugs, and if there was another man involved, it wasn't mentioned. The condemnation was uniform, and no-one questioned, at least publicly, why she chose to leave. That of course could be because no-one wanted to upset the man, which is understandable - and it was a private matter anyway.

The "single mother on benefits" meme - it used to be almost an obsession with one or two tabloids - largely excludes the father from the scorn heaped on her. Of course he's 'mentioned' but in a "what-can-you-expect", "typical male" manner. The blame is nearly always laid on the girl / woman, almost exclusively. I've only ever heard one high-profile individual roundly castigate such men, and that was Boris Johnson.

In 1995 writing for The Spectator he said "and that brings me to the last and greatest group of male culprits. Most of these single mothers have had the common sense to detect that the modern British male is useless. If he is blue collar, he is likely to be drunk, criminal, aimless, feckless and hopeless, and perhaps claiming to suffer from low self-esteem brought on by unemployment."
"If he is white collar, he is likely to be little better."

Bit of a generalisation there, but Johnson does do overemphasis quite frequently.

My point is that women, especially in their role as mothers, have always been closely observed by society - their choices, whether they choose to stay at home with their children or work, frequently come under intense scrutiny and judgements made on the basis of the feelings or world-view of the observer. Both sexes.

Giving birth is a unique experience and that bond, which can be instant, is hard to define. I belong to that 'club' that would move heaven-and-earth for their child, and I did both stay-at-home and the going-out-to-work bit and both were immensely rewarding and my son was a happy, giggling, boisterous child throughout. I wish I could 'go back' and experience it all again...

But, that's me - motherhood doesn't always 'come naturally', not all feel that bond instantly. Raising a child in an insecure and very economically unequal world is a constant stress and a constant battle; worrying about your child becomes second-nature, and 'guilt' is always simmering under the surface, only balanced by the sheer joy in watching them achieve their milestones. And simply being with them. Women are also human and individual, and I think we should just cut them some slack, whatever choices they make, whether it be SAH or working, and stop judging whether they have or have not 'put their children's needs first'... who the heck are we to judge?

Quote M0nica Tue 10-Jun-25 11:19:31
Anniebach
MOnica , why do you choose to post much on a thread you see as daft and poisonous?
Why not? We cannot be serious all the time

I like daft but definitely not poisonous, couldn’t read such

Anniebach

MOnica , why do you choose to post much on a thread you see as daft and poisonous?

Why not? We cannot be serious all the time

Good points from both of you, CLG and NS.

I don't think M0nica said the thread was "daft and poisonous" - I think she was referring to the put downs as poisonous and that it was ridiculous (daft) to comment if people hadn't got the message from her posts that she felt it was about family choices.

I don't want to rehash the whole debate but I don't see what M0nica has said to be controversial.

As I stated in my previous post, after my husband left me ( youngest a newborn)
I had two " choices".
Either go to work - risking being the woman who doesn't put her children's needs first.
Or stay at home and claim benefits, thereby becoming the beloved whipping boy of certain newspapers - the Single Mother on Benefits.
I take pride in the fact that I supported my children by my own labour, tough though it was for a long time.

I have sat on my hands for much of this thread, as I agree with M0nica that it is futile, as the two 'sides' will never agree.

We are women, and mothers (or we wouldn't care) and all mothers want to do the best we can for our children, or at least to tell ourselves that that is the case.

I agree that we should have choice, but the truth is that many people don't. Not by any means usually for reasons of affordability - TBH, the people with very little money are not making as much of a financial sacrifice as those who could have a lot more but opt out.

Numbers mean nothing here, but for the sake of argument and round numbers, if someone 'gives up' £10k but saves £5k as she doesn't have to pay for childcare, and then saves on tax and yet more in expenses for things like commuting, clothing and other work-related things, she is probably not sacrificing anywhere near as much as someone on £100k who is paying £££ in tax, a nanny, a season ticket to London from the Cotswolds and coughing up for the sort of work wardrobe their job requires. Yes, the first woman has less, but not because she has sacrificed more, so let's drop that argument.

Then there are the vagaries of husbands. Love them or hate them, they play a big part in how women's lives are if they have the money and we don't. Again - forget the numbers - what matters is that if your husband is willing to share the family income you are in one position, and if he is not, you are in another, whether he ears £10k or £100k. And that comes down to luck, even if you think that you were very clever to have chosen the right one (as I did 😇).

All sorts of things come into play. It's not about virtuous self sacrifice on either 'side'. There are definitely elements of selfishness depending on whether you prefer to be in charge at home and be the 'lady of the house' or to have a career and get validation from that. We are all different, and neither is right or wrong.

My own take on it all, which I won't bang on about too much as I have said it all before, is that it should be a level playing field (insofar as these things can be) and it is not fair to expect one group to pay for the other.

I absolutely support choice, but as in most areas of life, choice costs money, and I object to some people being forced to pay tax and NI to prop up society when others are able to benefit from the things the other group pay for without contributing a penny. I think it's absolutely reasonable to pay for mothers of babies and toddlers to look after them until they can go to nursery (aged about 4?) but not that it is ok for women to SAH for the rest of their lives, not pay tax or NI and expect a pension at the end of it because others work and pay in.

MOnica , why do you choose to post much on a thread you see as daft and poisonous?

Monica you are a joy! To say this thread is poisonous is pure fantasy. No one has said one way is right the other wrong but some people make something out of nothing for amusement
I guess.

Iam64

As our seventies posters said, a mother’s place is in the world. So often though, it’s in the wrong 🙈🌞

It seems that often women are held to account in a way that men seldom are - which was the case even before we had the right to choose...

And of course, some women are still fighting for that right in other countries.

In the USA, there's a professional - I don't know if he's on the board of an educational department / university or what and I've forgotten his name, but he stated that women should be discouraged from further education and focus instead on preparing for motherhood. I think he mentioned that women are not having a sufficient number of babies. Though reading his further observations on women it became clear that he had a huge problem with feminism.

In the USA having and educating children, not to mention their health needs, can be a crippling cost... perhaps he ought to look into that whilst decrying women for delaying having children...

I don't know if he has a daughter / daughters (or even if he's married) but if he has, I hope she/they rebel.

i chose to be a working mother in 1979. when DD started school. I had always intended to get back to work as soon as was racrcal, but the childcare facilities we have now were not available and we had no grandparents near by. I was ingenious in covering all care needs.

It was only recently DS realised that the reason that he and his sister were able to do so many sports courses at the local sports centre was because I worked next door to it and would drop the children off to do a three hour gym, or swimming, or judo course, while I nipped into the office, put in 3 hours work.

@NotSpaghetti, this is exactly what I said. Everyone here, no matter the choices they have made or the situations they have found themselves in, has put their children first.

Just be glad you have a choice.

Iam64

As our seventies posters said, a mother’s place is in the world. So often though, it’s in the wrong 🙈🌞

Yes! 😁

Photoshp students ..

Iam64

As our seventies posters said, a mother’s place is in the world. So often though, it’s in the wrong 🙈🌞

In the wrong indeed. On the mumsnet thread that I referred to, posters were piling in on.this poor woman who wanted to be a SAHM as if she was irresponsible and nuts. It made me so mad.
As I used to say to my Photos how students who were very excited with all the things you can do with it to change photos ... "Just because you can do something does not mean you should do it." It us the same with women's freedom to have a career. It should not become an obligation, but a choice to be made after proper consideration.

As our seventies posters said, a mother’s place is in the world. So often though, it’s in the wrong 🙈🌞

As we can't go back and change anything, I think we should all be kinder to ourselves (and others) in accepting that we (all of us) did the best we could subject to the circumstances we were in and taking account of our special aptitudes and abilities and the restrictions around us.

👏👏👏

Woman are born with 'original guilt'.
Starting with Eve.

Anniebach

Yes, a world away, I would make the same choice now,

I didn't quite use the quote function correctly.

I did agree above, I'd not change my choice.

As would I, afterall sahm is a valid choice as is having a job.

Most people don't have choice now as the cost of living is so high.

Most mothers put their children first,*Musicgirl*.
We just do it in different ways.

I think the choices we make are always ours and some may turn out to be "just right" and some are "not so right". I think we should just "own" them - but in context of our lives at the time.

As we can't go back and change anything, I think we should all be kinder to ourselves (and others) in accepting that we (all of us) did the best we could subject to the circumstances we were in and taking account of our special aptitudes and abilities and the restrictions around us.

I do regret some things in this period of my life, but on the whole I think I did OK - just like others who made different choices.

I know hat my husband and I made some unusual choices but mostly I believe we'd do the same again.

Let's not run each other down

Quote Allira Mon 09-Jun-25 14:22:54
Anniebach
Yes, a world away, I would make the same choice now,
I realise I must be old enough to be the mother of some Gransnetters!! 😂

Me too, and Grandmother to their children

Allira, you probably are old enough to be a mother to some of us. As we know, we have a wide age range on here and some great-grandmothers as well as grandmothers. At sixty, I am plenty old enough to be a grandma but am not yet, so I will be quite an elderly grandma if it ever happens. It doesn't worry me, though. Very occasionally, women become grandmothers in their thirties - the same ages as my older two children. Technically, I suppose I am old enough to be a mother to someone in their early forties. Certainly, the first children and teenagers l taught are now in their fortes and fifties!

Viceversa, my three children were all nineties babies, too, in fact my oldest is 34 today. Yes, Allira, it is a world away from the sixties and seventies, but it is also a world away from 2025. Dickens, your post makes so much sense. Like you, I have been a SAHM and a working mother. I was fortunate because much of my work was at home as a private music teacher and accompanist and I was able to work around them. My children were always my first priority, as os the case for everyone here.