Join TSR now and chat with students like youSign up now

Stay at home mums have the hardest job and here's why. Watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Red one)
    I have never worked, that much is true then again we are on a student forum where the majority have never earned a living off their own back. So what's your point? Do you also believe that the we as students can't hold political opinions or indeed vote because we don't work? And does working making you mystically have an epiphany that changes your outlooks on everything? :rolleyes:

    Stay at home mums have it the hardest, it doesn't pay and it's 24 hours and the consequences of failing to do it properly are final.
    You can have opinions if you want, but don't expect people to take them seriously. I've never eaten an avocado, therefore I don't think people are going to care much about my thoughts on what an avocado tastes like. Reading about it is one thing, doing it is another. Go work in a warehouse as a picker for a day; I think you'll change your mind about how hard being a stay-at-home mum is pretty quickly. Also, I think you'll find that a lot of students here have worked; a lot of them have to.

    It doesn't pay? I think you should look into what a stay-at-home mum can get from the government; it can pay quite a bit. It can actually pay more than lots of low paid jobs. But yeah, it's 24 hours a day; 24 hours in the comfort of your own home, with no deadlines to meet, no strenuous labour, no poor conditions to work in, etc. You'll find that staying at home with a kid is quite preferable to a lot of jobs.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    What a lot of people on here seem to be forgetting is that stay at home mums are working and looking after their kids and doing the chores, if the mum didn't stay at home they would have to hire someone to babysit them who would often be paid a salary.Stay at home mums effectively do this job plus all the chores around the house, it is very hard to do chores when you have kids around you playing and messing around that still has to wait until later on until the day.Stay at home mums do really earn the cash that would have been spent on childcare and should probably earn more.Also, I am very concerned about children's behaviour and feel that it is getting worse and worse and I feel a strong link is to kids feeling neglected by their parents if their parents work 9-5 and do the shopping and cook and clean then they never get much time to see their children and in my street, a lot of people simply can't afford childcare and don't stay at home and very young kids walk free on the streets causing all sorts of mischief.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lucaf)
    I do actually agree quite strongly with this. If one partner earns enough to comfortably support a family, there is no NEED for the other partner to work. If they do decide to work they are trading time with the kids for more money, which while not necessarily a bad thing I can sympathise with parents who are loathe to do that.

    But to be honest, this is only really applicable when the kids are young anyway. Once the kids are in school they are out of the house for half the day anyway, and it does not take eight hours a day to keep a house tidy. And once they reach secondary school they can sort themselves out most of the time and contribute to chores.
    Agree with this.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Red one)
    Many of you ridiculed me for a recent thread I made where I mentioned that being a housewife and full time mum was hard.

    Here's a video to prove it.

    This video doesn't prove anything, it is an advert for a card company. Sure being a parent is difficult, no one is going to dispute that. But to suggest it's more difficult than anything else in the world is ridiculous. I'd argue that being working parent is harder since you have to balance work life and family life. I'm not really sure why you assume that having one parent instantly equals a perfect family, both my parents work and my upbringing has been excellent.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xDave-)
    You can have opinions if you want, but don't expect people to take them seriously. I've never eaten an avocado, therefore I don't think people are going to care much about my thoughts on what an avocado tastes like. Reading about it is one thing, doing it is another. Go work in a warehouse as a picker for a day; I think you'll change your mind about how hard being a stay-at-home mum is pretty quickly. Also, I think you'll find that a lot of students here have worked; a lot of them have to.

    It doesn't pay? I think you should look into what a stay-at-home mum can get from the government; it can pay quite a bit. It can actually pay more than lots of low paid jobs. But yeah, it's 24 hours a day; 24 hours in the comfort of your own home, with no deadlines to meet, no strenuous labour, no poor conditions to work in, etc. You'll find that staying at home with a kid is quite preferable to a lot of jobs.
    I think you have an issue, much like other posters in this thread, distinguishing hard work and manual, physical labour. There's no denying that working a conveyor belt in a warehouse lifting and moving heavy objects is physically strenous however you would never say it's the hardest job because it requires very low intelligence, it doesn't require much in the way of thought. In the same way, working a coal mine is maybe dangerous because of the ominous chance of a landslide or cave-in but again that doesn't translate, for me at least, as the hardest job.


    I'm not sure why we are talking about benefit scroungers because that's not what this thread is about, it's about families who are not entitled to state hand-outs because the breadwinner is actually making a decent wage.

    But anyway the most you can get these days with a household full of kids is what 1k a month, before you pay the bills, do shopping etc for me that's not worth having 5+ kids and I imagine it's a pinch to live on 12k pounds a year always worrying how you'll pay for bill X or have enough to buy a pint of milk. The psychological stress again only adds to my argument as is especially the case with single mothers who claim benefits which make up a majority of families that claim benefits, no? Or at least families where the dad is also not working.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Le Nombre)

    OK, but you presented it as though it were a diametric choice, that one either chose to have both parents working part time for an amount similar to what a single parent could earn full time, or one working full time and the other staying at home, when it is perfectly plausible to have both parents work full time. If you want you can even have both parents work very high powered jobs, I know a couple where he is a tax partner in the Big 4 and she is head of corporate for a major law firm, though their kids board.
    I was thinking for childcare, if both are working full time you'll have to pay childcare

    Also what's the point? Why have kid to send them to a school to bring them up?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lucaf)
    I do actually agree quite strongly with this. If one partner earns enough to comfortably support a family, there is no NEED for the other partner to work. If they do decide to work they are trading time with the kids for more money, which while not necessarily a bad thing I can sympathise with parents who are loathe to do that.

    But to be honest, this is only really applicable when the kids are young anyway. Once the kids are in school they are out of the house for half the day anyway, and it does not take eight hours a day to keep a house tidy. And once they reach secondary school they can sort themselves out most of the time and contribute to chores.
    Disagree with the last bit. There's still things you can do staying at home, and I'm glad I had my mum around as a teenager (she worked part time)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What a stupid video. If it is not staged then those are people looking for work whose time you are wasting. It's also incredibly exaggerated, making the video look worse.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm going to add my two cents.

    I notice a lot of you generalizing stay-at-home mums. First off, why would you do that? Every mum is different, and how they feel about the job is different too.

    Having a stay-at-home mum is beneficial to the family, I think. Mainly because the mother is there to guide the child if anything were to go wrong.

    And to the lot of you bashing mums in general; please, don't have kids.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tyrion_Lannister)
    No I didn't. I explained it. But you stating that doesn't make it true. You're just really *****y with anyone who disagrees with you :lol:

    See that's what I'm saying, you're being rude.

    (Original post by Red one)
    ]Yet you delude yourself with this amusing notion that you're going out to work FOR them when it's actually for you.[/B] There's nothing wrong with going out to work and caring for your kids with money however some of us choose to care for them the ol' fashioned way: with love.

    At least have the common decency to admit it to yourself.
    Well **** me that's probably the harshest thing I've read on this site in a looong time, working mothers don't love their children folks.

    Since you'll attack your opposition for being rude Tyrion, which is valid, albeit I think you're both exaggerating each others points as you can't compromise on your opposing viewpoints, I assume you'll do the same with this one for a pretty disgusting statement.

    Anyway, it's not an easy job, BUT that said, it is a fairly simplistic and unchallengeable statement that a single parent working full time to bring in money to provide for their children and having to look after them is in a much tougher situation than a couple where the mother (as this is more the focus of debate) stays at home to look after the kids.

    Also...there is the age and number of kids to consider. Looking after a single child is nowhere near as challenging as managing three. Along with this a newborn baby, a 1.5yr old and a 2.5 year old are much more of a handful than say you having a 6 yr old and an 8 yr old, both of which will be in full-time schooling and thus you have 6 hours without them, doing housework/shopping, which...anyone in the world does, regardless of employment, children etc.

    But as another member said, logic dictates that if looking after your own children is the most challenging job in the world, working in a nursery must be...the most MOST challenging job and god forbid that nursery worker has their OWN KIDS as well, damn......Universe has found hardest job.

    I mean I am male so I may be a tad bias but yeah, I'd accept looking after kids is a hell of a lot more draining than me working full-time in retail. But....I'd rather look after a couple of kids than have Taliban fighters raining automatic fire on me while I'm pinned down without air support.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Red one)

    Stay at home mums have it the hardest, it doesn't pay and it's 24 hours and the consequences of failing to do it properly are final.
    They don't. They do a difficult job. This does not mean they have it the HARDEST.

    The measure of how hard something is is variable depending on risk, enjoyment and labour. Also personal opinion.

    People choose to have kids, and choose to be stay at home mums. People enjoy it. As such, I'd say the enjoyment and choice factor makes being a stay-at-home mum 'easier' than, say, being forced into a job that you hate and is also physically and emotionally taxing,
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tyrion_Lannister)
    Disagree with the last bit. There's still things you can do staying at home, and I'm glad I had my mum around as a teenager (she worked part time)
    I can't think of anything you could do that is as time consuming or difficult as a job. Whilst I still admit it is not necessary to work if the other partner is earning enough, once it reaches a point where the kids are in school most of the day, with mates on their days off, contributing to chores and capable of surviving alone unattended for a few hours it is ridiculous to compare being a stay at home parent to a full time job. The only time I can see that being justified is when the kids actually need constant attention and supervision, and that simply is not the case once they hit the teens.

    I mean, my mum works part time too. But if she decided to work full time the only difference would be that a bit more housework would need to be done at the weekends.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joey11223)
    Well **** me that's probably the harshest thing I've read on this site in a looong time, working mothers don't love their children folks.

    Since you'll attack your opposition for being rude Tyrion, which is valid, albeit I think you're both exaggerating each others points as you can't compromise on your opposing viewpoints, I assume you'll do the same with this one for a pretty disgusting statement.

    Anyway, it's not an easy job, BUT that said, it is a fairly simplistic and unchallengeable statement that a single parent working full time to bring in money to provide for their children and having to look after them is in a much tougher situation than a couple where the mother (as this is more the focus of debate) stays at home to look after the kids.

    Also...there is the age and number of kids to consider. Looking after a single child is nowhere near as challenging as managing three. Along with this a newborn baby, a 1.5yr old and a 2.5 year old are much more of a handful than say you having a 6 yr old and an 8 yr old, both of which will be in full-time schooling and thus you have 6 hours without them, doing housework/shopping, which...anyone in the world does, regardless of employment, children etc.

    But as another member said, logic dictates that if looking after your own children is the most challenging job in the world, working in a nursery must be...the most MOST challenging job and god forbid that nursery worker has their OWN KIDS as well, damn......Universe has found hardest job.

    I mean I am male so I may be a tad bias but yeah, I'd accept looking after kids is a hell of a lot more draining than me working full-time in retail. But....I'd rather look after a couple of kids than have Taliban fighters raining automatic fire on me while I'm pinned down without air support.
    I'm not sure why you quoted me, because I didn't say working women don't love their kids
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tyrion_Lannister)
    I'm not sure why you quoted me, because I didn't say working women don't love their kids
    Erm...you read my post right?

    You seemed to be continuously attacking one member for being rude in getting her point across, which she may have been, though it avoids a sense of bias if you will be prepared to reprimand someone on your own side of a debate if they post something akin to what you're complaining about, something much more offensive IMO.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lucaf)
    I can't think of anything you could do that is as time consuming or difficult as a job. Whilst I still admit it is not necessary to work if the other partner is earning enough, once it reaches a point where the kids are in school most of the day, with mates on their days off, contributing to chores and capable of surviving alone unattended for a few hours it is ridiculous to compare being a stay at home parent to a full time job. The only time I can see that being justified is when the kids actually need constant attention and supervision, and that simply is not the case once they hit the teens.

    I mean, my mum works part time too. But if she decided to work full time the only difference would be that a bit more housework would need to be done at the weekends.
    Running a house is a job. And spending time with your kids, taking them places, supporting them.

    I'd have been very upset if my mum worked full time in my teens. I'm 19 nearly 20 now
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joey11223)
    Erm...you read my post right?

    You seemed to be continuously attacking one member for being rude in getting her point across, which she may have been, though it avoids a sense of bias if you will be prepared to reprimand someone on your own side of a debate if they post something akin to what you're complaining about, something much more offensive IMO.
    I did, but I didn't get what you meant But I do agree it's offensive to state working women don't care about their kids, I just have sympathy with red one because when I've mentioned it on here, I've been attacked, as have others, so it gets annoying
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joey11223)
    Well **** me that's probably the harshest thing I've read on this site in a looong time, working mothers don't love their children folks.

    Since you'll attack your opposition for being rude Tyrion, which is valid, albeit I think you're both exaggerating each others points as you can't compromise on your opposing viewpoints, I assume you'll do the same with this one for a pretty disgusting statement.

    Oh please, spare me the ****ing theatrics... We've had several people call stay-at-home mums scroungers even when they're not claiming benefits yet I don't see you sharpening your pitchfork for those posts. Does it have anything to do with you being a hypocrite? If you're going to be holier than thou at least have the decency not to display a flagrant double standard in your ostensible self-serving righteousness. You know what's funny Lucaf said the same thing in a more implicit manner yet you haven't quoted him why is that?


    I don't see how asking someone to admit that they're working for themselves instead of deluding themselves with the idea that they're trying to do it for their kids is harsh. If both parents HAVE to work then they should since they NEED the income, however, you'll find that many households don't need two working parents and would actually benefit from one of them being a stay-at-home. You're replacing the time you'll spend with your kids for earning potential which is selfish. I stand by that statement regardless, and I will no renounce it to assuage your sensibilities. Of course everyone is free to do as they wish and I don't have any intention to dictate people's lives.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    My mum raised my 2 brothers and I and shared this duty with my dad, as they both worked. My older brother and I went to daycare and had child minders as well. I think day care was the best. Then my mum decided to go to university full time, which was cool because by that time my brother and I were in school and my dad would pick us up and my mum would come home by 6. Then she got pregnant with my young brother, whilst in university. Then by the time my brother was 3 months he went to Nursery. After, she had graduated she was unemployed for ages and now works full time. When my mum came home she did the cooking, cleaning and etc spent time with us. Was she being selfish and doing a half arsed job? No. Evidence: We are a very close family and we came out absolutely fine

    OP Can you stop suggesting that you are being selfless, you want to be a stay at home mum and there have been plenty of women that have dine this before you, even if you sent your children to day-care it is not going to affect them at all, it may actually be better for future social skills. Stay at home mum is hard but it is not the hardest job in the world. I am so proud of mum, she makes me believe that so much is possible, especially since she was literally immigrant from Nigeria that got a stay in this country. If she was stay at home mum, I am not going to lie, I probably would not have the same respect for her as we would have been dirt broke and living in a council estate
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tyrion_Lannister)
    Disagree with the last bit. There's still things you can do staying at home, and I'm glad I had my mum around as a teenager (she worked part time)
    Very true, most of them spend their day on Facebook post and liking crap.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Red one)
    I think you have an issue, much like other posters in this thread, distinguishing hard work and manual, physical labour. There's no denying that working a conveyor belt in a warehouse lifting and moving heavy objects is physically strenous however you would never say it's the hardest job because it requires very low intelligence, it doesn't require much in the way of thought. In the same way, working a coal mine is maybe dangerous because of the ominous chance of a landslide or cave-in but again that doesn't translate, for me at least, as the hardest job.
    So your definition of hard work is work that requires intelligence? That is another element of hard work, certainly, but I just gave you some examples of jobs that are traditionally hard work. My point still stands though: go and become a cosmologist, then tell me how hard it is to be a stay-at-home parent. Parenting certainly doesn't require any intelligence; have you met the average parent? I'm surprised some of them know how to breathe.

    (Original post by Red one)
    I'm not sure why we are talking about benefit scroungers because that's not what this thread is about, it's about families who are not entitled to state hand-outs because the breadwinner is actually making a decent wage.

    But anyway the most you can get these days with a household full of kids is what 1k a month, before you pay the bills, do shopping etc for me that's not worth having 5+ kids and I imagine it's a pinch to live on 12k pounds a year always worrying how you'll pay for bill X or have enough to buy a pint of milk. The psychological stress again only adds to my argument as is especially the case with single mothers who claim benefits which make up a majority of families that claim benefits, no? Or at least families where the dad is also not working.
    I didn't use the word "scroungers", I don't think like that. I just replied to what you said; you said they don't get paid, I told you that they do. And, anyway, if we're talking about a family where the other parent is bringing money into the house, then why do they need to get paid? Presumably their partner agreed to be the one to bring money into the house.

    I think you'll find a lot of things can be stressful; some people find going out and socialising a stressful thing to do. Stress is pretty much a guarantee for most jobs, it's not exclusive to parenting.
 
 
 
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.