To hate how mums always have to sacrifice their career...

@watermeloncougar Quite. That’s my situation too. I’m a senior academic (not Oxbridge only Russell Group thoug!) and I’ve got 2 academic children.

To be honest I would be disappointed if my girls wasted their education to facilitate and become financially reliant on a man. Luckily, I am quite confident that they won’t.

In the end most people (whether stay at home mums or going to work mums) are doing what they want to do most based on the options they have. The argument they are doing what’s best for the kids is grating from either side because, like most preferences in how kids are raised, it doesn’t make a great deal of difference and there are pros and cons to either option for kids. There are pros and cons to both for parents as well. Unless you are independently wealthy then staying at home with the kids is a risk to your long term financial security. There will be many people it works out fine for but also many it doesn’t. If you work then you do miss out on the best opportunity to see all your child’s “firsts” and you don’t get to spend as much time together. That may be something that is really upsetting/hard for you or it may be something that you are perfectly happy with.

There is a big element of socialisation involved but in the first 6 months plus there are also biological differences that will factor in. Much of the time you’ll still have a lot of hormonal stuff going on throughout first months that will make you feel an element of discomfort being away from your baby. If you have a crash section or a difficult vaginal birth it can easily take 6 months before you are fully recovered. Also if you end up breastfeeding then it’s challenging to return to work before they are established on solids (been there and did it and no one I know who did found it in any way straightforward). It’s always going to be hard to make changes but to me the answer isn’t more women going back to work faster as it just wouldn’t be something that would work well for the majority. We could do with men being offered the same options for paid paternity and better funding for maternity/paternity leave. Many corporations (& our government ) could do a lot better at acknowledging the structural barriers to women getting into senior positions given the way things are now and revising how we assess people. We’ve started to assess on impact rather than throughput at my work and since we did I’m one of many working mums who is suddenly looking pretty amazing compared to male peers. I’ve seen a lot more examples of women being promoted into more senior roles since it came in. They’ve also increased paid paternity leave so it’s normalised that everyone takes a break when they have kids. More good quality part time roles and flexible working hours also help. In the end having a set up where all different types of people have the opportunity to progress and succeed is good for the business as well. It’s surely much easier to provide good products and services to a very diverse population if your leadership is a bit more representative of that population 🤷🏼‍♀️

I'd be so happy to stay at home and enjoy the 18 month old. They grow up so quick.

I see it as mums are lucky because they often get to go part time to spend time with their young children; whereas dads often have to continue working full time and miss out on time at home with their children.

And?

@Bloomingbloms well, as I pointed out earlier, many of us manage to have kids who've gone to top universities and got themselves into good careers without needing to jack in our own good careers

Of course I'd be happy with them being a SAHM, as long as the family could afford it and they were financially protected long-term. It's hardly a crime, is it.

We had quite a few children and yes, I've put a lot into supporting their education in various ways. Is this not allowed either?

So you will be happy with them being SAHM? In spite of all that investment in their education, presumably with a well paid career being the aim?

I’m also finding the idea of you being a SAHM being such a driving force in their educational success decidedly patronising!

rumun88 - sorry to hear that. I hope you were able to get support at the time?

Did your husband like it? Did he like missing the sports days and shows and pick ups and drop offs? Or did those things not really matter to him?

I know some people who are SAHMs but they only see their kids in the morning and few hours in the late afternoon because they have a nanny. My neighbour even has a night nanny as well. They just say they find babies boring and they can't cope with it so they go out all day shopping or to the gym. There is one family where the children live in a self-contained part of the house with the nanny. All three of them. I can't tell if she works or not or what she does. He works but is rarely in the U.K. For years, people at the school thought the nanny was the mum, until one day she came to a show. Never seen again though.

Yes I agree with that.

Exactly.

A baby with an unhappy parent for whatever reason is never going to be in the baby's best interest. Be it for a minor reason such as wanting to go back to work or one of your more extreme examples.

Children growing up into well balanced, happy and resilient adults is the end goal. There are numerous different ways for that to happen. If it needs one parent to not work, or to only work very part time to enable that to happen, then that's fine, but it's only one way of many. Not a better or worse way, just one way.

Well yes, there would come a point that if the mother was too ill, disinterested or the situation was too risky, and if the father was unknown / useless / dangerous and no other family able or prepared to take the child, then you have to have them fostered. But, usually, they would try a mother and baby residential unit first (where funding allowed) and psychologists and / or psychotherapists would try and support the relationship in the early months. But they do always put the interests and safety of the baby first yes.

Because I'm assuming that's what the mother wanted. They wouldn't force it because it wouldn't be in the baby's best interest.

SouthLondonMum22 - again if depends but, when I was working, we wouid go to great lengths and great cost to keep mums with babies at that age, even where there was serious mental health issues, abusive partners, learning difficulties, unsafe living conditions or addiction.

" I said you clearly judge women who work full time while at the same time have no problem with fathers doing that"

Again, it's very circumstantial @Sissynova. There are limitless scenarios - where would you even start? it's very personal. It's true, it was important to me to be around for pick-ups etc because I found, over the years, that's an important time, but that doesn't mean I judge families who can't do that for all sorts of reasons. Everyone has to weigh things up and think about the long term as well as the short term.

Congratulations OP and hope you enjoy the new job!

@Lambiriyani
In the early years isn't it better for children to be raised by their mother instead of a stranger?

Jeez , you really are a piece of work!

You did also say though that it would be better for a baby to be in a nursery than at home with a SAHM who is miserable. Does that not apply at 12 weeks?

If it does apply, why would you judge since she'd be doing what is best for her baby?

As a Dental nurse do you a discount on your own teeth cleanings?

Just curious

Im actually not repeating myself at all. You are misreading post and going on whatever rant you want. I didn’t say you judge working women, I said you clearly judge women who work full time while at the same time have no problem with fathers doing that. I don’t doubt you have no issue with a mother working a limited number of hours entirely around their children’s school hours for example.