for being a SAHM

If I had a son, I'd wanted to call him Luis-Alfredo, but I admit this was because of a character in a Mexican telenovela.

no problemo - remember your prn i will have a largactil chaser for me too

ooo btw i suggested louis as a name for u

Cheers

mozhe- time for your acuphase

You wouldn't bore me please DO list the activities...Perhaps it is you who are demeaning motherhood by equating it to a job ? It is not a job, and bears no resemblance to one..no pay, no holidays, you cannot get the sack, weren't interviewed etc...I could go on. Most human adults are parents, just as most are daughters/sons/cousins/brothers and so on..but we don't call those familial ties a job.It is just something relatively well off western societies have ' manufactured '. Are you saying only a ' constant presence '= a loving foundation ? I disagree. I too am there 24/7 for my children and provide,( or strive to...), for their every need, but I manage to work too...and it isn't so difficult...it is what most of the world's women do after all.

mozhe - play nicely you are a wind up merchant u love watching it all kick off ooo behave

Mohze,I think that is a bit controversial and insulting.(Probably your intention?) I am a mother who works part-time and to be honest SOMETIMES my job is a breeze in comparison with childcare,despite the fact my job is fairly stressful and demanding.

Full time and indeed part time mothers do not just sit about drinking coffee!!!I could bore you by listing the activities I have done today whilst caring for two small children(1 and 3).It really annoys me when people demean a mothers' role.I feel that the fact that I am attempting to bring up my children to become well rounded human beings is a full tme job in itself.I have no close relatives to do regular childcare,no cleaner,no nanny.Some of my work is very dull and repetitive,but it does not mean that it lacks worth.I would be sad if I were not there to see my children achieve their developmental milestones,share the joys and frustrations of everyday life with them.They need someone to be a solid foundation within their lives,to watch them grow and eventually to fly the nest and gain independence.I feel they need a constant ie someone who will provide a loving foundation and security and be there for them in their early year and years to come.A loving foundation.So do many mothers.I do not denigrate working mothers,that is their perogative,surely it cuts both ways?

I've been thinking about it...perhaps it comes down to this, working mothers do a lot more,ie; they get up earlier, don't loaf around drinking coffee/reading magazines,stay up later, just use up every minute of the day...ime SAHMs do things a lot more slowly,and fewer things too,( a bit like retired people..).A few posts back,( or perhaps on another v.similar thread..), a SAHM gave an account of her day..it seemed to consist of going to the park and buying a birthday present.Things that I would cram around a working day.Just a thought...Perhaps that bit of our brains that deals with multi tasking is also much more developed/active..

nice post nikki - hmmm, the only question is, how much should we charge for BF? yes, you should feel special as a mum, which is why i find this whole thing fecking ridiculous, in being a mother i feel im privaliged to have the best job in the world and i will damned well make the most of it.

I do not think this should be turned into a religeous debate though. Peoples religeons and beliefs are v personal. As are their parenting choices. Its all about respect and allowing others to make their own choices.

This Christian link is sick... ugh... about parents beating children, biblical edict etc. Dreadful stuff. I was looking something about Christian domestic discipline. Of course all this was the norm in England in the 1850s let's not forget. It's just that most of us have moved on with women's rights etc. Thank good ness.
www.nogreaterjoy.org/index.php?id=86&no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=89&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=89

Colossians 3:18-19 reads, "Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them." Ephesians 5:22-29 (excerpts) says, "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church...(25), Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her... husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies..."

I'm sure I can find you a beating bit if I look again. Also probably a different St James version might be even better...

Written to relfect the times and in neither the bible's nor the koran's case in my view representing God's views. Most misrepresented woman (one assumes she's female) on earth.

So how is Christianity as patriarchal as that, Xenia?

I did say the bible too.
I was listneing to a R4 debate on that with a muslim female lawyer and various others on the different translations. They just did one into English and they did change the bit about the beating and that was causing a bit of controversy. I think they changed it into something like chastise or berate rather than the stick issue. Quite a lot of fundamentalist Christians use the bible as authority to beat chidlren. Special paddles of supposedly the right religious thickness are for sale as is the case in some old fashioned Muslim areas too abroad.

But all 6 versions below are hardly saying women can support men and lead nations... it's obviously just as desperately awful as the bible and my own religion is about women simply because it was written by men at that particular point in history. I'm sure what God was trying to tell Muslims and Catholics is that men and women are equal and should have the right to vote, take equal decisions, own their own property etc etc... He probably finds the damage done by men in putting out stupid but perhaps right in their time - ie. a good 1000 years ago, is pretty troubling to him.

"Six translations of Qur'an 4:34:

1. "Men are superior to women on account of the qualities with which God has gifted the one above the other, and on account of the outlay they make from their substance for them. Virtuous women are obedient, careful, during the husband's absence, because God has of them been careful. But chide those for whose refractoriness you have cause to fear; remove them into beds apart, and scourge them: but if they are obedient to you, then seek not occasion against them: verily, God is High, Great!" (Rodwell's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)

2. "Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is high, supreme." (Dawood's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)

3. "Men are in charge of women, because Allah has made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah has guarded. As for those from whom you fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted, Great." (Pickthall's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)

4. "Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God's guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them; God is All high, All great." (Arberry's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)

5. "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in their sleeping places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great. (Shakir's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)

6. "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whom part you fear disloyalty and ill conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance) for Allah is Most High, Great (above you all). (Ali's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)

Ali's additions of words (in brackets) to the Koran in order to change the obvious meaning, remind us of Jehovah's Witnesses who inserted the word [other] several times in Col 1:16-17, into their New World Translation (sectarian paraphrase). Jehovah's Witnesses inserted the extra word several times in order to soften the plain fact that the passage teaches Jesus is not a creature. Likewise, Ali inserted the word (lightly) to soften what the Koran says. If Allah really wanted the word softly inserted, he should have done it himself. "

Xenia

I am a Muslim and I'm really tired of the 'Koran tells men to beat women' issue....the translation of the Koran from Arabic does lose some of its meaning and Islam in no way sanctions the beating of women. It has been interpreted by scholars that this verse means that when a woman has transgressed, then the man may very lightly lay a hand or finger on her as a warning of her behaviour - very similar to laying a hand on someone to get their attention - no more than this.

Also, Islam places much emphasis on mothers -the saying is that Paradise is to be found under the feet of mothers and the status of a mother is much revered in Islam. A breastfeeding mother must be paid by her husband for breastfeeding her child as it recongises the hard work involved in breast feeding. Also, if a woman does work in Islam, she is entitled to keep all of her wages to dispense of as she sees fit. I love that - makes me feel really special as a mum

i don't think the sort of thing you talk about is morally RIGHT. if i did i would not be an active member of Amnesty International or a supporter of UNICEF or a trustee for another charity i shall not name. it depends on what you do about it though, if you simply criticise and do nothing about it it is pointless.

do you feel we also have a MORAL obligation to say the sorts of things you said about the French on the other thread Xenia ? what you said about the French just came across as pure and simple prejudice. saying French men spend all their time taking mistresses for example isn't a FACT it is your stereotype of the French from the papers you read (the Telegraph any one ?)

i read what you say about other cultures, but tend not to take them terribly seriously because they come across as prejudice, not based on any sort of reality i am afraid, sort of a bit like your description OTHER mummies !

I think we have a moral duty to criticse other cultures that are wrong. It's when we stand by and let child brides, female genital mutilation, women not being allowed the vote etc that we actually in effect condone that is done. Some things are just objectively and morally wrong and it doesn't matter if they are part of a culture or not. Many cultures on this planet permit men to beat women. It's normal, historical and natural and indeed even in the bible and the Koran but I would expect most mumsnetters to say it's wrong. Not just that it's wrong in the UK but fine in Africa.

oh and i love freedom of speech, yet stop myself from persistently critising other cultures (i.e. men who have 2 wives, the French, the working classes, etc. that is NOT my definition of freedom of speech, it is just rude).

"but forcing parents to work when they'd rather be at home with the child is counter-productive and, again imho, damages the cause of equality in the workplace"

mamhaf - excellent point, i said as much on the tax credits thread.

lol @ "slink back to your kitchens with guilt".
Xenia, you are not a government or an abuser (at least not a physical abuser) but your stance against SAHMs is misguided. I think you will find that some spend a lot of time in their kitchens and some hardly go in there at all. Just as there are all sorts of WOHMs there are all sorts of SAHMs. They are no more likely to be dim, working class, unqualified, stepford wife-ish and pathetic than WOHMs.
Just a thought, but have you had your testosterone levels checked recently as the agression and anger you display may point to some hormonal imbalance?

interesting point mamhaf. Maybe worth starting a new thread to discuss them.

Actually, I have more of a problem with WOHMs or WOHDs who would clearly rather be a SAHM/SAHD. Imho there's a tendency to think the employer owes them a whole lot of 'rights' which they might have the right to request, but might also be refused on perfectly legitimate grounds.
For instance, IABU in thinking that a dad employed by the same company, whose wife, also employed by the company and on paid maternity leave, has the right for paid time off to accompany them to a regular immunisation session?
A whole new debate, I know, but forcing parents to work when they'd rather be at home with the child is counter-productive and, again imho, damages the cause of equality in the workplace.

I don't think being a SAHM is unreasonable at all. I am and am proud to be. I worked full-time until I was 41 (went back to work following birth of DS). I am now in the fortunate position of not having to work - so I stay at home and look after my children. I love it. I realise just how much of my DS's childhood I missed and am making up for it now. In a few years, when my DD (5) is older I shall go back to work - in the meantime I enjoy caring for my family.

I don't feel any guilt for staying at home. But I do think I should vote at every opportunity and contribute to the good of the community in other ways (than going out to work).

yep...couldn't have put it better.