The woman should stay at home. Men get paid more even though it is illegal for companies to do so.

Unless the woman has the highest paid job and then the man should stay home.

(ETA: Oops I'm writing from a UK perspective. Dunno what it's like in the US)

Every family situation is unique, and there is no right way for every situation.

That being said, I personally can't wait to be a stay-at-home mom. I just finished my Bachelor's Degree (Double Major in Business Administration and Psychology) but I hope that it will be just an expensive back-up plan, and that I won't actually have to use my degree to get a job.

My mom was a stay-at-home mom, and I feel that I had one of the best childhoods out of all my friends. She was always there to bring me homework that I left home, pick me up and do after-school activities with me, was my girl scout leader (and coach for my sisters' field hockey teams) and all the kids loved coming over for her snacks that she made every day for me.

I feel I always get a lot of flack when I tell people that I just want to be a stay-at-home mom, especially since I have a degree (and I'm super smart- in 5 honor societies). They tell me that I'll be wasting my brain by being a stay-at-home mom. But I feel that that is my purpose in life, and that being the best mom that I can be is the only right path for me.

As for stay-at-home dads... well it's better than daycare! I feel that there should ALWAYS be a parent at home with the children. If you can't afford to do this, than you should not be having kids. If you have family that can watch your children, that is a different situation, and both parents can work, but daycare really wouldn't be an acceptable option for me.

I feel gender roles are changing, and it's actually looked down on now for someone to want to be a stay-at-home parent- it's just expected that both parents should work. I usually don't tell people that that's what I want to do when they ask me what I plan on doing career-wise in the future.

(You may use any comments from me, and feel free to pm me for clarification or any specific questions)

kandy111 wrote:

Whatever is the best situation for that particular family then, I think it shouldn't matter who stays at home with the child/Children.

I agree with this.

And I want to add that daycare is always a viable option.

I think that yes, it is important for a child to have one or both parents at home at an early age... (If not both at the same time at least one after the other until the child is at least 2 years old; children need the attention of both parents) But I think that daycare is also an important part of child development, it helps the child's social skills, nowadays families are smaller than before (one or two child per household) therefore those skills may not be developed that easily at home. (Some daycares accept the children to come once or twice a week!)
Although it's the parent's choice, I would definitely say no to stay at home parent once all the children are at school. If they forget their homework, lunch, gym clothes or brain at home it's their responsibility and they have to develop their independence.
Of course I am not saying go to work and let the child fend to themselves... just that while they are utter importance, the parents don't have to serve their every needs. (find it awful but I was making my own lunches and snacks at 10 and some of my friends were doing their laundry at 12)
But I think that this is more of a cultural issue, where I come from stay-at-home parents are either people who lost their jobs or people with spouse with a very large income. All this saying, you'd have to evaluate the situation of the family first.
(You may use this -if it was of any help-, just tell me if you do so)

kandy111 wrote:

VivienMarcheline wrote:

Every family situation is unique, and there is no right way for every situation.

I feel that there should ALWAYS be a parent at home with the children. If you can't afford to do this, than you should not be having kids.

I disagree.

They're are many things that can arise, & I don't think it's fair to say, if a family can't afford to stay at home with their child , then they shouldn't be having kids. In some cases, some parents won't be able to stay at home at all times, that's what daycare is for.

To clarify the first statement, I meant that there is no right person to stay at home with the child, be it a/the mother, father, or relative- for every situation.

As for it being a fair statement- life's not fair. There are many, many people who should not be having children for many different reasons. Personally, I could never make the choice to have a child when I could not afford to stay at home with them.

Do I think all children will grow up damaged if they don't have the ideal home situation with a stay-at-home parent? No, not by any means. But I don't think that it is the best situation for a child.

I'm also only 22, and no where near an age where people should be having children yet. Perhaps my perspective will change over time, but for now, I can't understand the decision to have a child when you cannot afford to stay-at-home.

Last edited by VivienMarcheline (12-15-2011 21:18)

VivienMarcheline wrote:

kandy111 wrote:

VivienMarcheline wrote:

Every family situation is unique, and there is no right way for every situation.

I feel that there should ALWAYS be a parent at home with the children. If you can't afford to do this, than you should not be having kids.

I disagree.

They're are many things that can arise, & I don't think it's fair to say, if a family can't afford to stay at home with their child , then they shouldn't be having kids. In some cases, some parents won't be able to stay at home at all times, that's what daycare is for.

To clarify the first statement, I meant that there is no right person to stay at home with the child, be it a/the mother, father, or relative- for every situation.

As for it being a fair statement- life's not fair. There are many, many people who should not be having children for many different reasons. Personally, I could never make the choice to have a child when I could not afford to stay at home with them.

Do I think all children will grow up damaged if they don't have the ideal home situation with a stay-at-home parent? No, not by any means. But I don't think that it is the best situation for a child.

I'm also only 22, and no where near an age where people should be having children yet. Perhaps my perspective will change over time, but for now, I can't understand the decision to have a child when you cannot afford to stay-at-home.

I would like to politely disagree with pretty much everything you have said!

I have 2 children, I had the 1st when I was 19 (10 days before my 20th birthday) and my 2nd at 22. It is up to no-one but me and my partner as to whether we should have had children yet or not!

And how do you 'work out' if you can afford to stay at home or not? I have been a stay at home Mum since my oldest was born, he is 7 now. I can 'afford' to do this, as the UK government 'top-up' my partners earnings with housing benefit, child benefit, tax credits. (Some people disagree with the UK benefits system, but that is kind of irrelevant here)

My Dad always says, if he'd waited until he could 'afford' to have children, I still wouldn't exist!

And now I  will post my opinion on the subject And I am happy for you to use as many/few of my opinions as you like

Like I said in previous thred, I am a stay at home Mum(SAHM) in England. My sons are 7 and 5.

I decided to be a SAHM becauase I wanted to see my babies grow up. I think that MOST of the time, it is best for the child to have one parent at home, be that Mum, or Dad. I say most of the time, because some parents, as much as they love their children, just aren't great at being with them all the time. One Mum I know, her daughter is 2 1/2. When she is with her Mum, she is wearing nappies. When she is with her childminder she is in knickers!

There is also a Dad at our school, who is a single SAH Dad. When he was with his (no ex) wife, he stayed at home, she worked, as she HATED being with the children 24/7. He has since had another daughter, who's Mum left him, he is doing a fab job on his own!

My Dad was also a SAHD for a few months when my brother was a baby. My Mums maternity leave was coming to an end, she was going to resign from her job, but then Dad got made redundant. They decided it was silly for them to both be off work, not to mention impractical as they had a mortgage etc to pay. So Dad was a SAHD until he got a new job, then Mum handed in her notice! Dad used to drive round to Mums office when it was her lunch break, and she used to breatsfeed my brother in the back of the car!

I also agree that a parent only needs to be at home when the children are (Ie out of school hours) I am hoping to go to college in September, and eventually get a job that fits around dropping/picking the children up.

My mom was a stay at home mom. I always (and still kind of do) kind of wished that she wasn't. I liked not having to have babysitters and having to go to day cares or after school programs, but I think she would have been a lot happier and a lot less lonely if she had a job or somewhere to go that is not home so she could quit being a wife/mother for a bit during the day. Sometimes she's just a real downer. She's been out of work for so long and with the economy how it is even if she wanted to get a job now I doubt she could find one.

I agree with the person above who said whoever is the "bread winner" should remain working while the other parent stays at home- be it the mother or father. I don't think gender really matters when it comes to who is working or not.

I like Vivien's idea that there should always be one parent at home, although it is unlikely for that to work out for everyone. While some people can't afford it, others just don't want to. I don't think I would like to only be a stay-at-home mom.

I also think it's great to have an education, even if your end goal is to stay at home with your children. Not only does it set a good example for your children, it is also a good back up plan if something should happen and you have to return to work. I don't see why one should give up on themselves just because they want to dedicate their life to their children?

I think people should do whatever is right for them. Some people want to stay at home with their kids, some people are dying to get back to work after having kids! I think as long as the child is well-looked after, it doesn't really matter that much. I do think that kids are generally better off with a family member, but some people don't have that option. Some people HAVE to work after they have kids for financial reasons, and that's not their fault either.

If a parent is going to stay at home, I don't think it makes any difference which one it is. I agree with everyone who said that whatever parent has the better job should stay in work. When I was born, my mom had a better job than my dad, so he quit to take care of me. I think in my case, that was for the best. Not only did we have my mom's better wage, but my dad taught me to read and write by the time I was 3, my mom would never have had the patience for that

So yeah, I think each individual case is different and there is no one RIGHT thing to do, it depends on the person/couple. I know when I have kids I'd like to stay home with them, but I'd definitely consider going back to work maybe when they started school, just cos I enjoy working. My mind could change though, who knows!

Growing up my mum was a stay at home parent and I feel that is the way it should be, one parent should be a stay at home parent, however I also realise this is sometimes not an option.

I have been a stay at home mum for 18 months now, but next year I will be returning to work. I will only be working 3 days a week and 2 out of those 3 days my son will be with my mum, but on the 3rd day he will be in day care for the day.

I don't think it matters if the mother or father stays home, each family has a different dynamic and what works for one family may not work for another. You need to figure out what is right for your family and work with it.

I also don't think it is fair to say that you shouldn't have a child if you can't afford to stay at home with it. If that were the case there would be a population crisis. Not a lot of people can afford, or actually want to just be a stay at home parent. Whilst I would love to stay at home with my son, we simply can't afford it and I don't think I should feel bad or guilty about having a child because I can't afford to stay at home with him full time.

You can use my comments for whatever although it's a bit weird to quote random internet people in a paper.. I am from the UK (not living there - but that's where my opinions are mostly based )

So first off to answer the actual question I think dads and mums can both be great stay at home parents. As others have said, whoever has the better job plays a role, but also whoever enjoys their job most, or has more of a "career" than a job could also be important. And of course the most important is who WANTS to stay with the children, because they're who you're doing it for.

Personally I find it kind of strange when the dad is the stay-at-home parent. Not because I don't think dads can do a great job. It's more that I can't understand the mum in that situation. I myself have always wanted to have kids and be a stay at home parent. I just can't imagine wanting to become a mother but NOT wanting to spend your kid's precious childhood with them! I know that every family situation is different so it's not always the case that the mother simply cares about her kids less. And I'm not sure why I think that women should necessarily have a greater interest in family than career. It's just that that's how it is for me and I have a hard time understanding women who don't feel the same.

(I guess it might be partly because I was brought up by my mother alone. I actually had 2 dads but they were both mostly useless fucks when it came to my upbringing. My heart melts when I see or hear of a guy who is actually a good dad, but I guess the back of my mind is thinking "Why isn't the mother there to MAKE SURE he is being a good dad?")

Now to go off on a tangent like everyone else has done Like I said, I want to be a stay at home mother. Particularly in the early years. I can't imagine leaving a baby in nursery before it can even walk and talk. I know some people HAVE to do this. Especially in the US, where there seems to be so little help available for parents. (That's why I'd never say to an American parent that I think it's outright WRONG to not stay at home. It seems a huge number of them are forced back to work just weeks after their baby is born. I *would* say that knowing this would make me want to wait and wait to have a baby, til I could afford not to work, but of course, babies aren't always planned.) Over in the UK I don't think it's ever fully necessary to work when you have a tiny baby because of government maternity leave. Women generally only go back early if they have a really high powered career where staying at home is losing out big time (or may cost them their job.) That is the thing I don't really understand - why have kids in that case - but again, that's just me, I try not to be judgemental!

So yeah. I would REALLY want to stay at home with my kid til it was at least 2 years old. Then I would probably be having or planning a second kid, so wouldn't be rushing to work then either, but from now on we'll pretend I'm talking about the age of my youngest potential child. In the UK I believe as it stands you can get 15 hours of nursery care a week for free once the child is 3 (someone correct me if I'm wrong.) That to me would be a potential time to start a part time job if I felt desperate to get out of the house. In England and Wales kids start school at 4. But I can't imagine wanting to rush into full time work then. I mean if you work 9-5 that most likely means kids having to attend some type of care both before and after school, probably at least 2 hours for the latter, which is still a long time for a four year old. You know and then you get home, you have to cook straight away, eat and then you might have an hour to spend with the kid before you have to get them ready for bed. I don't want to only have an hour a day for my child (bearing in mind I would like at least 2 children anyway so call it a half hour.)

So I would still be considering part time work only. Probably until my kids hit at least 10 or so and they could potentially get themselves to and from school alone (Depends on where we live of course), be unaccounted for for a couple of hours in the afternoon (alone at home/out with friends) and be able to help out around the house a little bit to save me some time.

I think I would be perfectly happy to never have a job though. I don't have one now and I'm ok. I would love to throw myself fully into motherly pursuits. There are tons of things to do at home even when your kids are older and don't need constant attention. And they still value the time that you give to them.

I was always glad that my mum was home a lot more than many of my friends' parents. I would have hated after school care and such. My mum worked part time because she couldn't afford to work full time and pay for someone else to take care of us. (She wouldn't have earned enough.) When I was very young, she mostly did childminding, so she was at home and working at the same time. Apart from minor jealousy issues I had with other kids taking her attention away from me I think that's a good job to have when you have kids of your own.

Last edited by Typhani (02-19-2012 10:42)