My unreserved apologies(307 Posts)
It seems I have upset MN posters.
I am sorry if you have been upset by me. I apologise.
I wont do it again.
Ah, but see, I was born in North London, I don't need to live there now like some kind of desperate Northern Arriviste.
I have a colleague who has a daughter at Habs though and he is ALWAYS moaning about missing school things because of short notice. So. And he neither has a drink problem nor, so far as I am aware, a tumultuous love life.
Ahh, Moridon, now I see what you didn't like about my post. I never intended my post to be anything other than anecdotal (surely better than Xenia speculation?). Using phrases like 'IMO' and 'IME' is MN speciality. Why can't I do the same? FWIW, I've represented my RL experiences pretty accurately as so I regret not a single word. The people I know who fall into this group are top level civil servants, business owners and one city stock-n-shares type if that helps.
Xenia might not have said exactly the same about SAHM as what I wrote about high earners, but I expect many would find what she describes as at least as objectionable, if not more so.
I personally find the phrase Women at home present an image to chidlren that women earn nothing, serve men and clean and do childcare (and in some cases provide sex) far more objectionable than you implying I have a drink habit .
I don't know where we got to in this thread but I do agree that Feminists, on the whole, do women a disservice.
The biggest gift a women can give to herself, her children and society is to be there for them emotionally, physically and spiritually. Women rule the earth - why can't feminists see that? No one needs money to rule the world!
Xenia and Jabed both despise state schools, but whilst Jabed despises their pupils because they're an ill-educated rabble who throw chairs and swear and hate his clever child and wouldn't employ him, Xenia despises them because their stupid parents failed to own enough money and now they're all going to be forced to study NVQs in Hair and Beauty before earning a deservedly low wage as a cleaner and then staying at home with their own manky offspring, thus completing the circle.
It goes without saying that both are wrong, and I find little to choose between them. Xenia's blithe sweeping and offensive statements and her utter lack of any sense of how rude and ill-informed she is are grating, but then Jabed's passive-aggressive balls is pretty irritating too.
I think they both know how irritating and grating they are Original, it's what keeps them posting.
LeBFG The fact that Xenia may or may not have insulted you personally or generally in the past is completely irrelevant to your ridiculous post upthread.
And her views have more of an anchor in reality than yours. We do have a serious problem with the perception of women in the workplace because of the reinforcement of stereotypes arising from SAHM. We do not have hordes of medium earners roaming the city pissed and shagging everything that moves. Tumultuously.
Mordion I think it's arguable that there did at least used to be widespread and tumultuous shagging which reached its zenith around the time of Big Bang.
Although, to be fair, being pissed and having a tumultuous love life does sound kinda fun.
I do feel sorry for poor Jabed. I bet he started this thread thinking it would be all about him.
@yellow No more than among the SAHMs of my acquaintance. Being a shagger is no respecter of income bracket. Nor is being a pisshead. It's ridiculous to claim otherwise.
Obviously I was still at university when the Big Bang happened though so maybe it was just one long orgy in the city right up until the point at which I began working when suddenly, magically, most people transformed into hard working and, basically, worried, drones. But somehow I doubt that. People like to demonise those on medium incomes but it's very infantile, don't you think? We both know it's not really like that at all.
I don't think many people on this thread are feminists tbh Colleger. The way the parenting choices of women are being disparaged. Very little analysis of why people make the choices they do and no analysis (or mention) of the men's choices. Childcare is most definitely still a female responsibility. Even to those who claim to have devolved it. They are still focussing on the choices women make rather than the men's choices.
Feminists, in general would like childcare to be afforded a similar status as salaried work in the Patriarchy and more flexibility around the workplace for everyone. At the moment the choices women make are still loaded because society is still set up with men's child free interests at its heart.
I think things did change then yes. I think the eighties were probably different from what went before and what came after.
I'd be quite open to being a pissed up tumultuous shagger, as it happens. Apart from the whole not drinking thing. And the being spectacularly ugly. Oh, and the fact that these days everyone is working incredibly hard just to stay afloat (by which, typically for professional services partnerships at the moment means ahead of the projected pension liabilities), and there's no time for drinking (heroic or otherwise) or conspicuously tumultuous shagging either.
Anyone who cons a woman into thinking that staying home minding babies and cleaning is some kind of higher really interseting calling is really trying to chain her to a rather dull sink. Very few weomen want a life like that. They want instead a balanced life in the wider world where like men they have a nice family life and earn money. That is the reality.
The fact the press continuously suggest wrongly that a working mother but never of course a working father damgaes a child is something women need to work to corret and indeed show the opposite - that there is little as a mother or father you can do better for your child after you love and care for it as all working parents do anyway, as earn it a better standard of living (unless you want to live in North Korea - which I am reading a book about at present or a commune or some society which is very different from ours).
Affording childcare similar status to paid work defies reality -0 it is low paid and any idiot can do it and all women at all times in history and men have tried to outsource most of it as soon as they can afford it because it's as dull as ditchwater.
What women need to do is ensure their man does at least 50% of the dull domestic stuff they get lumbered with and not tolerate even for one day a sexist man. Before you get pregnant suggest he visits nurseries or drafts the advert for the nanny.
A newbie daring to chime in here but surely anyone representing a 'caricature' viewpoint 'a la Xenia/Jabed', is simply intending to spark debate, challenge a particular viewpoint and ignite lateral thinking?
Isn't that what Jabed and Xenia are doing on MN and don't we need more like them, to get us stirred up enough to think and respond - whether that's for or against their views?
I wouldn't take anything said on MN to heart but might use the 'provocation' to rethink an old opinion. Probably neither is as extreme in RL as they come across on an internet forum, so why attack back so personally?
Re. outcomes for children - the evidence cited here seems to me to enhance the view that mothers are crucial in and out of the home, if their educational attainment (rather than the father's) has such an impact on children's 'success and wellbeing'.
Doesn't this suggest that it's not the quantity but the quality of contact between mother and child, plus probably some genetic inheritance thrown into the mix too, that matters, rather than whether the mother is full time in the home?
Someone else has probably said this more eloquently and I'm merely thinking aloud....
You're a very odd poster Mordion. My views have an anchor in reality because ....err, they are my reality. I appreciate yours and Xenia's reality is different to mine. Why can't you appreciate mine too?
Clearly high/medium or any level earners don't roam the city pissed and shagging because they are...erm, earning. I posted what I said because I think you need to have a particular mind-set to want to bag loadsa money. I do stand by this, ridiculous as it may seem to you. Similarly, you have to have a different mind-set if you decide family is more important than money and to work on building relationships at home.
I have always thought children aer 50% nature and 50% nurture and I still remain of that view. I have non identical twins so that is a good test too and I have 5 children so lots of compare.
Despite what I write about working mothers I know what children want most is parents who are content. So if you are home and moaning all the time, on the wine by 5pm or cocaine or donuts and everything you say to them is negative or get home from work and you are nag nag nagging those poor children whetehr you are male or female they won't be happy. Most parents are not contented when doing 24/7 childcare or 24/7 work and not child exposure. Most of us want a balance which most working parents of either gender achieve and is best for children and parents.
A lot of being a parent of either gender is how you interact with those children. Is the relationship fraught with trouble and upsetting - we allk now how much parents can f uck up their children etc or are the family relationships fun and loving. I don't rate highly my income, our lovely home or anything like that above the fact that I and I think the children are happy. I rate very very highly calm, peace, laughter. Most parents are happiest when they have work and children and some leisure in their lives. As children get older you get more spare time and it becomes easier. Perhaps that is why men and women 50 - 70 are apparently the happiest of any in the country. In that case the best is yet to come for us all and we are lucky.
No, notforturning, because both are rude and dismissive and frequently offensive. Two of them is enough.
Some people like being at home when their children are small, some would like to but can't, some prefer not to. Fine by me.
I am glad you have mentioned happiness Xenia. Isn't that what it's all about really?
Actually, i suspect it's not 'mothers' that are important but 'the main caregiver'. Or both parents. Historically, mothers have been more involved with their children so the research we have is predicated on that assumption/previously fairly accurate fact. These days it's becoming less true. Things are changing, not fast enough for sure, but change is definitely happening (that's why there is such a debate, really - if there were no changes afoot nobody would feel threatened). I think in the case of my own children, DH is easily as influential on them as I am. Or at least, we both have massive influence and generally speaking it coincides. For myself and my sister, although our dad worked full time I think he did have a big impact on us, and he was much more involved in our intellectual/cultural lives than most of our friends' fathers. That is even more the case with DH and our DCs.
In our house there are some areas which are definitely 'mum' or 'dad'. some of the 'mum' areas are what you'd expect - hair is a biggie (DH either can't or won't deal with DD2's long curly hair and she definitely won't let him try anyway), some of them aren't. Same with the 'dad' areas. But mainly, we are either conducting a war of attrition over some bit of housework neither wants to do, or we are just all mucking in with the vague idea of doing as little as we possibly can get away with of the boring stuff so we have plenty of time for the interesting stuff.
LeBFG Whereas I think it is you who are odd. And also wrong.
I posted what I said because I think you need to have a particular mind-set to want to bag loadsa money. I do stand by this, ridiculous as it may seem to you. Similarly, you have to have a different mind-set if you decide family is more important than money and to work on building relationships at home.
You may want to stand by your opinion but that doesn't make it right. I earn rather more than the figure you chose to attach to those insulting personal characteristics - what were they now? Oh yes pretty objectionable, self centred So do many of the people I work with on a day to day basis. Some of them earn way more. Very few of them are either objectionable or self centred and those that are have become financially 'successful' despite not because of those characteristics. And what possible basis do you have for saying that SAHMs are the only people who think that family is more important than money? I think that family is more important than money but you can't live on air and wishes. It's because I think that family is more important than anything that I work in order to, you know, keep a roof over our heads. Most of my colleagues also clearly think family is the most important thing (I chose the particular role I am in because of this, in fact.)
Your imagination is clearly very poor - and you are choosing to attribute all sorts of negative characteristics including not valuing family to people who have taken a different path to you because of this. Possibly this is out of envy, but maybe its just out of ignorance. You are cut from exactly the same cloth as those who think all SAHMs are thick. Exactly the same cloth.
Interesting point, Mordion, about data being based on the fact that mothers were/are involved with children more and so their educational level was/is the most important factor.
So it follows that as men become more involved with the day-to-day childcare/input, their level of educational attainment will have greater impact too?
Why is educational level a factor, I wonder? What about extremely high achieving intellectuals who have no ability to do the nurturing side of childcare - whether male or female - versus those who attained little educationally but are very good at tuning in to their children's emotional needs?
Are there hidden and unmeasured factors within those studies mentioned, like not just educational attainment but also happiness or ability to be warm and nurturing with children etc etc?
Have there been any studies done on men who have brought up children without women around - whether that's a mother or any other significant females?
Is it IQ level or educational attainment or EQ plus IQ or what - in caregivers -that elicits thriving children?
I imagine those who attained little educationally but are very good at being loving and caring produce little mini-mes just like the rest of us do, to a greater or lesser extent. If education is seen as an incredibly important thing, then the kids will either go with that, or rebel against it - but that idea will still be one of their central touchstones whether or not they buy into it or vehemently oppose it. If education is seen as way down the scale of relevance, then I imagine there will be less to either buy into or rebel against. And perhaps that might be no bad thing? A bit like faith, perhaps? It's an issue (either in a good or bad way) for those of us who grew up in households where there was religion, but for those who grew up in households where it wasn't a thing, it's not a thing for them either, generally, right?
Educational attainment is measurable, and there is a strong correlation between that and good outcomes for children.
Those who are well educated tend to have wider horizons, which means that SAHMing and finding it dull are not inextricably linked. Unless of course you are limited in your thinking and cannot conceive that it is possible to have a vibrant life without paid employment.
I certainly wouldn't find being a SAHM dull. I would love it. Although I don't imagine there would be any more housework done than is now, and I certainly wouldn't suddenly stop being dyspraxic or start being interesting in things I can't do (like cooking). But it would be absolutely brilliant.
However I'm reasonably convinced my DCs would view such an outcome with horror.
I think most people, including myself, would agree with your post, Xenia Tue 09-Oct-12 14:34:55. The important bit for me being what children want most is parents who are content..
I know of more women who would prefer to stop working than would go back to work in the first year of their DCs lives. It seems to me more women in our society would be happier working less not more. Women being the main caregiver in our society (all societies) is no coincidence. In general, it really is what women want.
Oh, Mordian, get it right. I'm wrong, in your opinion. Perhaps I've just had the misfortune of meeting some pretty objectionable rich people - I would never say something as crass as ALL rich people are like the ones I've met and I think that's where you are (deliberately?) misunderstanding me. I've only stated things are they are based on my experiences.
If you are really working just to earn the basic things such as a roof over your family's head you wouldn't need to be earning so much. You could easily work part-time with your kind of salary. So, perhaps to some extent you are choosing earning money to spending time at home. I have no comment to make except that is your choice.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.