to find this article on motherhood inFURiating?

[BlooferLady]

Guardian writer in 'motherhood is hell' shock

Disclaimer: je suis TTCing. Erm, for a LONG time!

I didn't want children for years. YEARS! Was violently opposed to it And you know why? Because it looked like one long unending saga of drudgery, misery, isolation and loss of identity and self-respect (I have a large family and thus had the opportunity to observe its effects up close every 18 months or so).

We're TTCing now - hormones and a little wisdom took over, and I would very much like to be a mother. And yet here on MN and in the press I find my old terrors reinforced, and this article sums it all up. Everything I feared is true...

BUT IS IT? By the end of the article I wanted to slap the woman. She complains of her life dwindling to a miserable compressed world of perma-exhaustion, leaking breasts, nappy changes, never seeing her old friends, losing her sense of a professional life, only ever socialising with mothers and mother and toddler groups, bitterly envying women who still go to work, angry with her partner for not helping out round the house...

Someone PLEASE tell me it doesn't have to be like this. I wanted to yell at her, get out of the damn house and DO stuff you moaning bint! No-one MAKES you go to mother and toddler groups - put the creature in a sling and wander round the V&A! Let your partner do a bottle feed in the evening and go out for a boozy dinner! Do some work from home! MAKE your partner help out!

Surely there are people here on MN whose entire character isn't subsumed into the drudgery of being a mother? Who continue to be lively, interested in the larger world, engaged with their friends, interested in their career, happy in their relationships, still maintaining a sense of self and self-respect? For motherhood extends, informs, illuminates their life - doesn't effectively end it! Because if not, I don't want children. AIBU?!

the martyred acceptance is the crux imo,implies it is somehow ok. and by assuming such subordinate role it does send implicit message it is women's work

Some women like it though - they have no role in the outer world so their only kingdom os home. It makes them feel very good that they have massive supposed competence with chidlren. They love to giggle about incopmp[etent husbands, how men are terrible, cannot change nappies, can't cook. They love that incompetence as it gives them some status they otherwise wouldn't have - mother as God, housewife as king of her domain. As soon as the man who already outearns her and probably has better qualifications is also better with the chidlren she can dissolve into tears, her life and world ruined. So she keeps him down by never allowing him the comeptence to become better at cleaning the oven or doing the washing than she is. We need to stamp such women off the planet and kill off the martyr mother.

Xenia, I don't know what's coming over me, but I find myself agreeing with you more and more. Martyrs are my least favourite people! And you certainly do come across women like that.

Perhaps it is partly a generational thing. I've noticed that in Sweden, where the move towards equality happened a few decades earlier, it is very much my mother's generation who do the martyr thing. On the one hand, they have wanted and needed husbands who did their fair share of the housework and childcare, on the other hand they felt very threatened if same husbands actually turned out to be any good at it. They still feel it is their job to be the household expert. My mum (approaching 80) is a fine example of this attitude: she feels she has let herself down by not making maximum use of her higher education, but she has also let herself down by being a less perfect housekeeper than her own mum. And because she is insecure, she has to make sure she does at least keep tight hold of her domain. In actual fact, my dad has been doing a sizeable part of the household work since the 50s. He just mustn't do it perfectly . My generation seems far more relaxed; over there, you very rarely hear anyone my age suggest that men can't cook or mind babies. When I hear women my age suggesting such things in this country, I feel very old, as if I'd suddenly joined a generation of octogenarians.

I absolutely agree that women need to allow men to show competence in the home, both with children and domestic chores, and that far too many women become embroiled in endless cleaning to achieve a media proscribed "perfection" that it is impossible for the male partner working out of the home to contribute equally to.

However, Xenia, again, you reduce the discussion to considering women who work in the home as a homogenous group who think and act the same way, in the same way that you seem to consider those who work full-time outside of the home as inevitably more fulfilled by their role outside of the home. Your rhetoric about "stamp[ing] such women off the planet" is deeply, deeply misogynistic. Do you really think inequality in the home has no relationship to inequality in the workplace and the wider world? What if your full-time work outside the home is cleaning toilets? Stacking shelves? What if it cost you more to work in your "valuable" full-time position than to stay at home due to childcare costs? This is a reality for many women with many, many different salaries.

Even where women have qualified to work in a particular field, it is often the case that the cost of childcare feels too prohibitive to full time working. If you are a physiotherapist, a social worker, a teacher, a nurse, a midwife you contribute through your work to society in a way that is valuable, yes? Yet many, many women who work in these professions find that working a full-time week (with childcare costs rising, in some places, to well over the 60% of net income mark on the average salary) just doesn't make sense when they perform their own cost-benefit analysis. On a salary of 32K, childcare costs for two children in nursery can be up to 22K a year (with take home pay on 32K being about 24K). It's easy to say that the woman "should" return to work because otherwise it "sends a message" about women's value but actually the value judgement has already been made. In a couple where the woman earning 32K is an oncology nurse, if her partner has a salary of 80-100K for setting up call centres, well, society has spoken about who is the most "valuable" long before the children show up. The couple can split the costs of childcare "equally" if they like, but the proportion of the woman's salary affected by paying out for childcare is much higher.

It's easy to be rhetorical about the choices that women make and what drives these, but in reality, I suspect that there are more women who choose to stay home or work part-time because their jobs are inherently less well paid.

At this point, Xenia, you usually pitch in about how people just need to "choose" better paid work and women shouldn't "choose" supposedly feminine jobs, but society would be in a sorry state indeed if everyone hoped to attain a high-earning salary in finance or law. What you say, again and again in a variety of ways, is that the only thing that matters is money and that social value is defined by what you earn. We actually need public servants. I, for one, would not want to be in the position of not being able to access end-of-life nursing care or physiotherapy if it were needed. I wouldn't want to clean my own loo in a hospice, either. However, these jobs - though socially necessary - are not highly valued. Neither is motherhood. These two things are linked to women's status in society. I'd wager that if all women followed The Law According to Xenia, the money afforded to the Xenias of this world would taper off sharply.

xenia
great post- I completely agree. I hate the whole 'stupid bloody men' thing and find it offensive and demeaning to both people involved.

Working, well bloody well said

Working - you're a genius.
Just brilliantly, brilliantly put.
I don't work because I don't want to. I was a well paid professional in Lahndon and DH earns a fat packet .
I am horrendously happy with my life which is full and varied, worthwhile and invaluable to many.
I have a super competent husband who is hands on and is happy for me to work or not work.
I reckon I'm sorted.

completely agree with xenia this biological predeterminism that women better with kids,intuitive better nurturer is really a folly and social construct.some men are great parents,some women are graet parents.conversely some are dreadful.ones gender doesnt automatically imbue better parenting

and yes imo women do need to work and maintain a social and financial independence for themselves. the actual wage earned isnt the whole issue, its the wider act of earning money,maintain a role and status other than solely parent. childcare costs should be split proportionate,highest earner proportionately pay more

everyone has met and baulked at a precious moments martyr mummy, who engages in a competitive giving things up competition to prove how devoted she is to her children. lives live vicariously through her children.not missing a single precious moment. but it is a tenous life based upon dependence upon someone else (dp/dh) salary,goodwill to maintain a lifestyle

working and participating are agents of change. fluff and fold at home are not

I don't live through my children. I don't even describe myself as a SAHM. I have a cleaner and good sitters.
I'm simply someone who doesn't work. I wouldn't work if I didn't have children. Why would I work? I'm fully protected financially in several ways even if hubby did slope off one day.
Live your life how YOU choose but don't presume to say how others should.

would you recommend not working to your children?do you think it is a good life choice? doesnt it make things precarious and to an extent you must depend upon your partner wage?dont you want to work to contribute to saving for your children future studies for example or are you content this is presumably largely undertaken by your partner

Oh I did work, did you not read that bit?

I worked for years, I earned very well, have savings, a good pension and could go back if I wanted to.

I depend 100% on my husband ( I don't have a partner) but we are a solid team and have always shared . We've been married a long time.
If I worked my children ( 5 of them!) , my husband, my elderly mother and the voluntary stuff I do would all suffer just so that I can say that I go to work.
If you get your identity through your work, great. I don't. Never have. I get it from who I am.

what i asked was "would you recommend not working to your children?do you think it is a good life choice?"...Well do you?

i do get approbation and role from work,i also get sense of responsibility to participate in contributing to my children upbringing and share that equally with my partner

That's excellent Scottishmummy! glad you do!

With five kids, assorted animals etc etc I find that they need me rather more than an office .

I want my children to be happy so if they find they are lucky enough to marry someone with a very generous salary so that they can choose to work or not, even better. And that goes for my son too.

If you are not married SM, ( you say partner so assuming) then you are in a more precarious position even working than I am not working being married.

so you'd be happy for them not to work if they met prosperous partner?is very old fashioned and hoping for a good husband eg rich .and if partner was not prosperous?would that change things

given increased life expectancy,dwindling state support it is v precarious to not work and depend wholly upon a prosperous partner.

"working and participating are agents of change. fluff and fold at home are not"

I'm comfortable with my decision to stay at home with my children whilst they are small, but I couldn't let your impressive-sounding assertion go unchallenged. To take a personal example, can you tell me how my old job - essentially, answering the telephone and keeping the percolator running - has more inherent worth or meaning than raising my daughters?

I've always said that if I had a vocation, or even just an interesting job, or failing that a dull job but with prospects, then I would work part-time. But none of those apply and childcare for two children = my entire wages. Under the circumstances, it makes all kinds of sense for me to be at home for them for now.

In answer to your later question... I'd like my daughters to do whatever makes them feel fulfilled. I think most people need to feel useful, that there's a value to their contribution both to their families and to the wider society. I do feel that there's a value to mine, even if you don't.

I know a couple who retired at 35 and 37 respectively having made a fortune in property development. I think I would find it hard not to have the social outlet of work and the particular mental challenges it brings, but I think it has to be recognised that there are a great many people who would gladly walk away from work if they had the money to do so (lottery win, inheritance, other windfall etc). I often think if I won the lottery I would use the money for a specific work-related purpose that would also enable me to spend time with my kids: dh is adamant he would rather retire and never have to darken the office door again.

It's just a different viewpoint, not a grand statement on working women etc. In the same way, some people do genuinely find that spending time with their children is more fulfilling than being in the workplace. I don't see it as subscribing to subordination simply because it is not my choice and I also gain satisfaction from working.

There are as many different reasons for staying home/going out to work as there are women and men with children. Unfortunately, a lot of these reflect broader social and gender inequalities. However, as well as this, there are people who really want to embrace this part of their life as the whole, and that can be a preference. If all things are equal and you have a million quid in the bank and fantastic opportunities for re-employment, the moral and ethical discussions just fade away. That's not the case for the majority but presumably it is for some. As before, women are not a homogenous group and - to quote the MN catchall - it's not really possible to extrapolate too much from individual circumstances.

presumably emma you go back to work when dd at school?cant fanny about at home whilst child at school. yes cost of childcare can be prohibitive im not disputing that

but work is more than financial or break down of tasks.is a financial contribution via taxes and ni,accumulating for your pension, is ability to make financial and social choices a wage brings, is ability to talk about work to your dd, work is demonstrably shown to increase haelth and socio-economic outcomes

With reference to the idea that working = participating = being an agent of change, whether you like it or not SM, the early experiences of children do shape our society. I choose to work because I enjoy work but I cannot understand why women in jobs that they don't enjoy are supposed to prioritise these over their children out of some sort of moral/ethical necessity.

There's often derision on here to the netmums adage: "happy mum = happy baby" but being a martyr to work if it's not what you want or need to do is surely not something to model for the kids, either.

I think what's far more interesting is why women feel threatened by the choices of other women or, if not threatened, why they feel the need to use derisory language to discuss different paths taken by women in life?

what made me laugh was when this article said we are in 1950s. I actually asked my 90 year old what things were like in 1950s for mums and babies - no washing machines, no tumble dryers, no disposable nappies, no maternity leave, no cars, no internet, no support group as such. All baby clothes were wool - you had to iron everything. She said it was very tough as after the war you had nothing. When she got married she had to give up her well paid job.
She could not believe the amount things we have now for babies - she turned around and said how lucky we are. I am loving being a mum - breastfeeding my baby at the moment. I think we are so lucky to have what we have - it could be better but we are getting there. Articles like that in the guardian put back the cause for parenting. We have choices unlike our mums or grannies

you just have to look on the threads in relationships to find threads saying 'I am a SAHM, I want to leave him but have no money, nothing, he pays the mortgage, he owns the house' etc. etc. Or 'I am a SAHM, dh won't give me pocket money'.

I think if you make the choice to be a SAHM, then you still need to try and keep financial independence and so so so many women don't. Make a pre-nup, get some proper money put aside and make sure you can stand on your own 2 feet should you need to. Make sure the insurance is in order and is enough to cover the mortgage etc. etc.

I wouldn't criticise others choices but I do think making a choice where you don't work but then not insisting you still keep some financial independence is never a good thing.

is this thread now a SAHM Vs WOHM thread?

I work part time. by the time I have paid for child care I earn absolutely nowt but I love my job. It's ''just'' a shop job but I do need to get out of the house and meet paople in a non-baby related environment.
Working part time i get the bets of both worlds; time with dd and time for me. Work is my break
I am simply not cut out for being a full time SAHM but fair play to you if you are. At the end of the day it's a personal choice but I don't want to end up unemployable.

Well I do both DF. Thought I'd been arguing with myself a lot lately

I think for some people it is like that. I have friends who have changed completely in the time they have had children. Fixated with having a certain size of family they have had one after another, dwindling finances, lack of relationship with the DH and no social life - the fact that they are miserable doesnt seem to stop them. On the other hand I have friends with four or five kids who excel at family life, enjoy every minute of it and are the same as I ever knew them.
Some people seem to slip into the roles given to them, DH sods off to the pub or stays late at work every night, DW spends time permanently with children as almost the sole carer. Does it have to be like that? Of course not.

We made a concious decision to have one child despite always thinking we would have two or three because we found the first one much harder than we though it would be, and we didnt want to change our lifestyle too much. It works for us because we to discuss all the time how we parent and what is important to our lifestyle. I am lucky that we both agree though as if my DH did want another I would do it, even though that would tip the balance and probably send me round the bend!!!