AIBU to think John Humphrys is going to annoy a lot of mums this am...

[suffolkblonde29]

Today presenter John Humphrys is quoted in The Times this morning talking about his ex-wife -

"Humphrys describes Wilding as “about as near perfect a mother as you can get” – a woman who “got pregnant and said, ‘I’m stopping work and I won’t start work again until the children – however many there may be – are in university.’ And she never did.”

Because that's how to be a perfect mother?! Oh gawd, my DD has no chance....

I don't see what the problem is, in Humphrys' opinion the perfect mother in their situation was the stay-at-home type, and that it worked well for them. It's better than him saying his ex-wife lacked the motivation or capability of juggling childcare with work!

People are too quick to judge. If Humphrys' had said "All women are good for is staying at home and raising kids" then criticism would be justified. But he didn't, did he.

I think the idea that you can 'opt out of parenting' by going to work is astonishing - In my experience it actually makes parenting twice as difficult. Not sure why there is the need to argue that only one way is the right way, clearly everyone is different and every set of circumstances is different, so everyone makes choices as they see fit. A mother's place is 'in the wrong' if you read the DM whatever you do, so no need to do their judgement job for them.
One of the over-riding reasons I wanted to ensure I kept working was the psychological issues caused by my own SAHM, so having a SAHM is definitely not the best situation for everyone.

ROFL at estateagents post!

On my days off I notice quite a few of the local SAHM's spending a fair few hours of the afternoon in the child friendly pubs. Not every SAHM spends every minute of the day engaging in enriching activities and 'making memories' (boak) either!

I'm with Pear, It is a shame that the world has changed to the point where is is considered normal for parents to outsource the care of their own children to third parties

It's a relatively recent phenomenon that women should devote themselves to their children. Poor and working class would have been working either on the land , factories or piece work and the sheer level of domestic drudgery would have left little time for doing say creative craft work with toddlers. Middle and upper class women had nannies and boarding schools. Suggest you take off your rose tinted spectacles and look into cultural history.

it's odd you persist in attacking a teenager

Get over yourself. You come on here and insult parents and then get the hump when they suggest your opinions are naive. I will not post toward you or respond you again.

"You come on here and insult parents", yes, keep trying to manipulate people into disliking me by lying so I stop posting. So clear what you're doing, thank heavens you're finally getting the message I have no interest in engaging with you.

"A few people have said most people hate their jobs. If that's the case why do women get to opt out and leave their DH's in soul destroying jobs which they cry on their way to each morning? Surely you'd share the burden so they don't have to be the only person responsible for carrying the family whilst hating their jobs. Doesn't sound too fair."

Bang on, Capricorn!

Unless of course these women with the menial soul destroying jobs are married to men who have fascinating highly paid careers. Which is possible, but seems an odd combination. As I said, most people tend to choose a life partner with similar capabilities

Parents mostly adore their children and are fully emotionally engaged with them as they grow up, whether they work or don't work.

However, caring for small children (or any other dependent person) is hard work, and I feel really sad that we've now entered a time in our culture where 'hard working' is only a phrase used in relation to paid employment.

I also think working parents should show a debt of gratitude to the hundreds of thousands of poorly paid nursery workers/carers - overwhelmingly women - who have enabled them to hold down paid employment by taking care of their families for them.

Yes interestingly both my grandmothers and many of their friends worked throughout their lives, though with gaps to look after pre-school children; I would say one was upper working class and the other lower middle class by the standards of those days. Some of it probably depended on the availability of suitable work, but neither would have got by without their contributions to the family purse.

Thanks for the article info gasp some interesting posts and views

It's a relatively recent phenomenon that women should devote themselves to their children.

And how recent is the phenomenon that they should devote themselves to obtaining a degree and a middle management position, so they can continue to have 2 or 3 foreign holidays a year and afford two cars, whilst demanding that the state pick up the costs for looking after their children ? I think what's required is a more equal share of child care so that neither partner is is expected to give up their job entirely, however that may be what a couple find suits them. What's not a solution is to encourage the outsourcing of childcare IMO.

A few people have said most people hate their jobs. If that's the case why do women get to opt out and leave their DH's in soul destroying jobs which they cry on their way to each morning? Surely you'd share the burden so they don't have to be the only person responsible for carrying the family whilst hating their jobs. Doesn't sound too fair

I suppose that's because women usually earn less and therefore it's more practical and sometimes essential for them to quit working if they have children. If my dh hated working then it would be only fair for me to be miserable working too. But practically it wouldn't work because i earn so much less than him that it would cost the family more for me to work than pay childcare. Even if we both went part time (not an option for dh's job - but if it was) then to half dh's wage and add what i can contribute financially in the same time would also mean we couldn't afford our house/life/children.

@minifingerz. I do show a debt of gratitude to (former) nursery staff, my cleaner and dog walker in the form of payment. They aren't doing me a favour they are working just like me. I pay them and I'm polite and give them small Christmas presents, I don't need to do anymore than that. Who's looking after their kids when they're working for me? Do they need to pay a special WOHP debt of gratitude to them too?

And that's an important issue koala? why are so many women ending up in lower paid work when they outperform males at almost every level of education?

Ha Munster. That is me and DH. He has an exciting fabulous career and i worked in a call centre! I used to work in a very low paid arts jobs. I wouldn't say it was 'soul destroying' (altho it was for me) but it was glorified admin with a ponced up title and most of my colleagues were married to extremely high earning city types. It's the only way the arts charity sector would survive. Pay women, who are supported by bankers, buttons to do a low paid job with a flouncy title for something deemed 'worthy'. I always joked that the arts charities were indirectly propped up by the city.

My guess it's because of career breaks and part-time work which tends to be in limited roles and offer no prospect of advancement without returning to full time work.

Munster exactly. Why is it that women are the ones expected to sacrifice careers or put them on hold, either because they are paid less despite their education and experience or sometimes because it's assumed they'd go on to be paid less. The whole notion of "women who are supported by bankers" is sexist as there's no reason "bankers" or "high earning city types" should be men.

working parents should show a debt of gratitude to the hundreds of thousands of poorly paid nursery workers/carers - overwhelmingly women - who have enabled them to hold down paid employment by taking care of their families for them

How has it come to this though? That this is such a norm for society? What about the children of the nursery workers? Do they also go to a childcare provider?

Surely it should be a default position that parents stay at home and care for their children while they are tiny and dependent...is this really such an outlandish idea?

Well, I always reckon if it was so fan-fucking-tastic sporking your career to look after everyone else then finding no way back to rewarding work when you are no longer required as a full time carer - men would do it.

JH's ex was the 'perfect mother' because it meant he could go his own selfish way without a shred of guilt about his children. It doesn't necessarily mean she was the perfect mother to their children - they haven't been asked - it means she was the perfect mother for him.

Why get irate about what some bloke says. To the people who are getting irate: at this very moment there are thousands of people thinking things like this. So what? I'd see your point if he was in government making decisions about family etc.

Why is it that women are the ones expected to sacrifice careers or put them on hold

...because women are the ones who are pregnant, give birth and breastfeed. The relationship between a small child and its mother is different from that which is has with its father.

Most women would, given the option, prefer to care for their small children themselves - it is only on MN and in the feminist media that this is seen as such an anathema.

Why is it that women are the ones expected to sacrifice careers or put them on hold, either because they are paid less despite their education and experience or sometimes because it's assumed they'd go on to be paid less.

Because often realistically the family couldn't survive if it were the man/higher earner to give up work- so the only option is the women give up work or don't have dc.

The whole notion of "women who are supported by bankers" is sexist as there's no reason "bankers" or "high earning city types" should be men

But the majority are, aren't they?

What about the children of the nursery workers? Do they also go to a childcare provider?

Often they go to the nursery the parent works at for free or at a reduced rate as part of their benefits package.

Ah that's interesting koala, horses for courses isn't it? I would have hated that sort of job, and for dh and I it always worked best for us both to aim 'middling high' career-wise rather than one of us having a high flying city career.

I've said this before on MN- the thing that I find rather sad now is that after women have said for years that they want greater equality and opportunity, the take up of shared parental leave is minuscule. Shared parental leave is the starting point of having balanced home/work lives for a couple, and believe me many of us 50 year olds are very envious that it wasn't available to us! If couples truly want a balance they'd jump at it, because even if it meant a very short term financial hit for a few months the rewards once both partners are back in work would be huge- it would have set the pattern that it isn't the woman who defaults to being at home.

Depressingly it makes me wonder whether for all the talk of wanting equality, many men are actually unwilling to take time off to look after their own children, or whether it's the women who talk of equality but want to take all the time off...