Stay at home mums

**curlywurly**

andrealm wrote: »

You live off benefits, not off of benefits, what sort of grammar is that to teach your children?:p

Yes, I agree that does sound better!

BTW, I apologise, I should have thanked the OP for such an interesting discussion ... I have enjoyed reading everyone's opinions on this topic!

sunshinetours

melb wrote: »

what does "my bad" mean for heaven's sake?

"My mistake"..... for heaven's sake

DaisyFlower

sunshinetours wrote: »

I'm guessing that those who think thsi way may have had bad experiences with partners in the past. A successful "marriage" includes not feeling you are not contributing just because you don't earn a wage. Others have covered that far more eloquently than myself.
The last part of that para clarifies that thought in that providing financially is a pretty small part IMO of having children. Children really don't care whether you have money or not - they just want your time and love. Its not just picking on Daisyflower for saying that, I've heard that sentiment many times with people throwing money at their kids trying to make up for the fact they know they don't spend enough quality time with them

Not taking a suitable career break or re-arranging your career to give that time IMO, especially in these modern times, is a selfish choice for those who choose not to. However there are many selfish people in this world and that I accept is part of life.

Choosing to bring another life into this world and bring up that child is one of the most important things anyone can do. Unfortunately many choose not to see that

No bad experience with a partner and my marriage is fine thank you - i am just not comfortable with the idea of not working and expecting somebody else to fund that choice.

I also dont see providing for a child financially as "throwing money at their kids trying to make up for the fact they know they don't spend enough quality time with them" - most people work to provide a home, food and to pay the bills. Its not selfish to financially provide for a child in any way - its what we are supposed to do as parents. It shows what sort of society we have become if most people think that financially providing for children is a pretty small part of being a parent.

As for "children just need time and love" - do you think only non working parents provide that? I dont think so. So if you are a SAHM does that mean your husband is classed the same as any other working parent and they they are selfish/throwing money at child/not spending time or loving them?

sunshinetours

DaisyFlower wrote: »

No bad experience with a partner and my marriage is fine thank you - i am just not comfortable with the idea of not working and expecting somebody else to fund that choice.

Not a case of expecting "someone else" to fund your choices its a case of seeing marriage as an equal partnership where everyone does their best for everyone involved. However if you are not comfortable that is a good reason to choose what you choose.

I also dont see providing for a child financially as "throwing money at their kids trying to make up for the fact they know they don't spend enough quality time with them" - most people work to provide a home, food and to pay the bills. Its not selfish to financially provide for a child in any way - its what we are supposed to do as parents.

I didn't say that though did I? I said there are many parents who effectively know they don't spend enough time with them and so throw money at the situation to try and somehow better that situation.
Providing for your family's financial stability is totally different obviously

It shows what sort of society we have become if most people think that financially providing for children is a pretty small part of being a parent.

From a childs perspective it is a miniscule part. From a parents point of view it is of course important to provide a safe environment. Its where the point of working and working to keep providing more and more becomes blurred. Many professionals I know choose to have the lifestyle they do and so "have" to work to feed that lifstyle. Like I say its all about choices in many cases

As for "children just need time and love" - do you think only non working parents provide that? I dont think so. So if you are a SAHM does that mean your husband is classed the same as any other working parent and they they are selfish/throwing money at child/not spending time or loving them?

No but the children I see (including ours) have a different sort of relationship with their non working parents from those with their working parents. Where both parents work that is highlighted even more.
There will always be a primary carer in any family, and I know that as I work, my children often will turn to my wife first when there is a problem as that is who they are used to be there all the time for them during the week especially.
The issue I am trying to highlight is when that primary carer is almost split between parents and a childminder/nanny/nursery teacher. When a child spends for instance 50+ hours at a non parents place (nursery etc) during the week that is bound to happen.
in many cases that will be unavoidable because of family circumstances but in many cases it is avoidable but chosen not to be

PS I had no intention of implying anything was wrong with your marriage - sorry if that was implied

DaisyFlower

sunshinetours wrote: »

Not a case of expecting "someone else" to fund your choices its a case of seeing marriage as an equal partnership where everyone does their best for everyone involved. However if you are not comfortable that is a good reason to choose what you choose.



I didn't say that though did I? I said there are many parents who effectively know they don't spend enough time with them and so throw money at the situation to try and somehow better that situation.
Providing for your family's financial stability is totally different obviously



From a childs perspective it is a miniscule part. From a parents point of view it is of course important to provide a safe environment. Its where the point of working and working to keep providing more and more becomes blurred. Many professionals I know choose to have the lifestyle they do and so "have" to work to feed that lifstyle. Like I say its all about choices in many cases



No but the children I see (including ours) have a different sort of relationship with their non working parents from those with their working parents. Where both parents work that is highlighted even more.
There will always be a primary carer in any family, and I know that as I work, my children often will turn to my wife first when there is a problem as that is who they are used to be there all the time for them during the week especially.
The issue I am trying to highlight is when that primary carer is almost split between parents and a childminder/nanny/nursery teacher. When a child spends for instance 50+ hours at a non parents place (nursery etc) during the week that is bound to happen.
in many cases that will be unavoidable because of family circumstances but in many cases it is avoidable but chosen not to be

PS I had no intention of implying anything was wrong with your marriage - sorry if that was implied

Children of school age spend at least 30 hours a week at school, more with after school activities and pleay dates - does that mean they have a lesser bond with their parents in line with your theory?

I could stay home and let my husband be the only earner but why should he shoulder all the pressure? What happens is he loses his job or falls ill? This way we have a backup in case our lives change - we cant see into the future.

So because i work even though technically I dont have too i'm selfish and only doing it to throw material items at my child. Never mind that my child is at school for the majority of my work hours so wouldnt be with me anyway. If you view working as selfish, then do you expect your children to never work once they have their own families. Are they not entitled to a job they enjoy? - doesnt have to be a high flying career where you work all hours.

jetplane

I have been both a SAHM and a FTWM and I loved both for different reasons. I had a good career when my DD was born and took a year off but part time was not an option 20+ years ago in my chosen career so I returned to work full time and loved it, the adult company at work and the family life at home. I lasted a year before I gave up because it was exhausting trying to juggle both, we were always busy catching up with housework and preparing for the next day. We cut our cloth (alot) and I stayed at home and I loved it and when DD went to primary school I was lucky enough to work part time in school hours and went to uni and retrained. I totally loved looking after my family by the time my husband came in the chores were done the tea was on and it was family time. I increased to full time when DD was older.

I consider myself lucky to have had the opportunity to choose and as for depending on my husband to provide for me financially we continue to depend on each other financially, emotionally and physically its just ying and yang surely. Far from being disappointed in whether my daughter should choose to be a SAHM or pursue a career my wish is that she is fortunate enough to have the choice, many people do not.

tooldle

Happy parents, happy child. Some of us work beacuse we want to, other might work because they have to, others choose to stay at home. I do not see how anyone can say that the workers are not good parents particularly in regard to bringing up their own children.
I am highly educated (PhD) and work in a University. I work because I want to. I know many other women of similar age to myself who all choose to work. In fact I cannot think of a single friend or colleague who gave up work to stay at home full time.
We have managed to juggle our hours around. I am the early riser and get to work for 7am. DH takes our child to school, with me collecting at 3.20pm. A lot of my friends have similar arrangements, or have reduced their hours slightly.
Imagine if all working mothers packed up work. Think of all the essential professional roles that would then be vacant and the impact on each service. We are short of medics as it is. If all my colleagues threw in the towel and became SAHM's where would the replacements come from? It's a five year degree course to get to most junior training post. Women are an essential part of any workplace. I don't have an issue with people staying at home with their kids if that is what is right for them. I do have an issue with the very same people telling me that I am a bad parent by choosing to work. Each to their own.

lostinrates

onlyroz wrote: »

To the people here who say they have degrees and then chose to become a stay-at-home-mum - I find that quite shocking that you would choose to do that when you could contribute so much more to society .

Many of us use some of our time to donate our skills for free...to charities or to help others succeed....

I have done less of that recently but hope to be doing more voluntary work soon. Once my new micro business is more self sustaining. At which point I'll also be an employer.....but also a sahw. TBH volunteering skills and being a good employer seems to me pretty darn good for society! Better than me taking a job we don't need financially and depriving people who do need work in a time of job shortages.

And, when added to the desire of wanting to spend time with each other, its perfect for us. I wouldn't presume to suggest what works for us would be suitable for everyone but its great for us. And the very main benefit for us is that we see each other when he has time off, my time is flexible...but not empty.

onlyroz

tooldle wrote: »

I do have an issue with the very same people telling me that I am a bad parent by choosing to work.

Agreed.

Having both parents working often means that you can take your kids on better holidays, or live in a bigger house. Doesn't this make your kids' lives better? And I believe that I spend enough time with my kids - any time lost during the week is made up for at the weekend, in any case. It's often about quality time rather than a quantity time - and if you're an educated woman in an interesting job then you can have much more interesting discussions with your kids than if you're at home all day.

To those "stay-at-home-mums" who say they run their own businesses or are following educational courses, then great. If only there were more people like you...

lostinrates

onlyroz wrote: »

Having both parents working often means that you can take your kids on better holidays, or live in a bigger house. Doesn't this make your kids' lives better?

I think it depends. The piece reference by OP, which I didn't read...refers to ''high fliers''. Now, while for all moneysavers more money is a good thing, I presumed that this means that safe and reasonably nice housing and some extras weren't immediate issues in this context. (and would never, ever comment otherwise) However, in our situation if BOTH of us worked for employers, going by the last five years there would have only been one holiday with both of us for a child! Now that wouldn't be better IMO. It wouldn't be ''enough'' for either of us...not the going away, just the time with each other.