To wonder why people have children when they clearly put their career first, by having a 24hr maternity nurse from day one and a full-time nanny from 3 months?

[gogetter]

Call me old fashioned but why bother when you are going to see your child for maybe an hour a day on weekdays?
It's not financially needed for mum to return to work (far from) so why leave your teeny weeny baby with a nanny during the most amazing time of their lifes?

A bit strange I fear!

Why do women find it so necessary to attack each other in the SAHM WM debate. We should be sticking together and fighting for equal rights not attacking the decisions that individuals make. Women being equal in society benefits ALL women not just working women.

By attacking each other we have missed sight of the real issue that we are still not treated equally or paid equally.

Andiem - I agree with you entirely. There are too many people who attacking and then I find myself defending myself and trying to stop myself being equally extremist! As I say I don't want to be called a half wit for my choice to stay at home and I hope that I am not guilty of saying that anybody is wrong to go back to work if it works for them.

The thing is that now I think about it, I don't really know what equal rights we should be fighting for. Who do I want to be equal to? What is an objective measure of equality? I suppose everybody should have the same status, nobody should be looked down on for working or not working but that is hard to do when taking into account everbody's differences both between genders and within genders. It is a minefield isn't it! And not only that it should be about what is best for the children too who also complicate things by all having different needs and wants. Not much chance of putting the world to rights today then.

Good post squiffy.

Obviously it was set up as a confrontational thread and that's quite fun but very people really believe women shouldn't work these days. It's a bit of a non issue, really.

We could do with a bit more intervention. I'd like the Norwegian 40% of boards must be female. I actually sit on a board which at the moment, rarely, has more women than men, and we joked about may be needing a man when a vacancy arose (!) to balance the numbers but I don't see why we couldn't have 100% women if 100% women were the best people just as some boards are 100% male. We could do with a lot more 100% female boards I suppose to right the balance a bit.

xenia - can you post an entirely contreversial thread?
Your most way out thought - could make for some good solid entertainment?

Xenia in your last post 'very.....' what? 'Few' or 'many'? delete as apppropriate. Think very carefully before replying - you wouldn't want to get it wrong now, would you?

Apparently Spain also has legislation similar to Norway. There's a quite interesting study on appointment of women to directorships of FTSE companies

at www.europeanpwn.net/files/ftse2006full.pdf

You are right about the sectorial differentials between the type of jobs done in Sweden public/private, but when this is taken into account - ie when you look at the pay for doing the same job in the same sector - the Swedish gap comes down from around 17% to around 8-12% which is about a 1/2 to 1/3 of the UK gap (depending on what research you read). Most statistics before 2004 for Sweden didn't I think have the breakdowns readily available. There's a good summary of gender pay gaps here

I spent 5 years working for a Swedish company and whilst I have no doubt you are right about the 85% of maternity leave being taken by mothers, this is I think almost entirely due to the public/private gender roles: in the high end of financial services where I worked, the leave was almost universally split with mothers taking first few months off, then the fathers, then the children went to nursery. I saw this again and again, and found that they thought it hilarious that UK women at the professional level gave up their careers to look after children. Not saying it is right or wrong to do so, but its deffo wrong to say that kids suffer for it, else the Swedes would be a bunch of louts instead of a rather docile nation with merely a very dodgy affection for soft rock music

But Niecie you are so right about confusion re: what 'equal' rights to fight for? the last dissertation I wrote was on discrimination and I did find I had to ask myself some very searching questions about my own attitudes Is it right or wrong to push for equal rights (which ignores differences - eg a woman should have an equal chance of getting the 90-hour a week chairmanship) as opposed to diversity rights (which takes account of them - eg we must change the nature of the chairmanship job so that women who need to work felixble hours are not discriminated against)? Different countries follow different paths and it gets very debatable as to which is better/fairer. And there are huge implications for costs: when you look at diversity representation in one or two of the large US companies, they have representation groups not just from the 'usual' groups (gender/race etc) but also have to ensure proper representation at all levels for identified minority groups such as dyslexics and agrophobics..... in principle it sounds fine and noble to take the needs of absolutely every element of society into acocunt, but I couldn't imagine trying to set policy/direction in companies like this....

Haven't read whole thread just some as it is so long, but have to agree with expat.

I work part time, 16 hours. I can't give that job up as I can't afford to, I have to pay bills! I have to work. I can't however work full time as I can't afford child care at all. I work unsociable hours (start work at 6am)to fit in with dh's job.
I do not have family or friends to baby sit either, it is me and dh who are the carers

If I was the earning more then I would be going to work and dh would be part time, simple as that.

If I had a career which I had worked years to reach I wouldn't see why I should give it up totally, and I would also be worrying about paying my over the top mortgage and for my brand spankin new car so different priorities I guess.

I consider myself to be very privileged to be able to stay at home. Many women I know would like to do the same. DH is also very happy that I do. Nobody misses out in our family. Just because I've spent five years out, doesn't mean my career is at a standstill forever. There are very few people bar celebrities and politicians whose working life is so untouchable.I think the original poster didn't realise the impact this question would have. But I do understand where she's coming from.

If you can afford to stay at home, why not? Exactly what are your reasons? It has been proven again and again that young children, babies in particular benefit from strong bonding with one or more adults. Is having a nanny the best thing for your family?

If you prefer to work through your life and not stop at any time, why have children? Is it because you need someone to keep up the bloodline? Is it so you can further the species? Is it so you can leave your money to them when you die? Exactly why?

If you cannot afford to have one parent at home, you clearly don't have a choice, and I think that's normal. But that's why we have maternity pay and child benefit, family tax credit etc, etc. It is possible for all women to stay at home for the first
few months at least.

I love how career orientated women who have worked years to reach their job all have 'over the top mortgages and brand spankin new cars' to worry about

Sweeping comments and silly generalisations (from all sides) are what drive me nuts! Surely we are all more intelligent than this, irrespective of our life choices!

However - the more enlightened and sensible discussions - (thankyou squiffy) are very interesting!

Yep, you get what you pay for but you have to pay for what you get.

very true mrs m? but do all women who work in good careers have those things to pay for? You forgot the jimmy choos!

Mrs M but why doesn't that apply to your husband? Or does the y chromosome excuse him from those arguments or his is role just to spread his seed?

Many women work through choice and I'm surprised housewives find that so hard to believe. We know it's best for our families and us and yes our children are fine, sometimes better off than those with stay at home mothers.

On the Sweden etc thing it is helpful that next year in the UK men may well have 6 months paternity leave so we may nmove to woman off 6 months, father off following 6 months. A lot of those continental parents do want a parent home for the first 6 months to a year but they tend to have much fairer marriages and lives without the career sacrifice British women have forced upon them by sexist men and wrong societal conditioning.

(Go-getter gives mrsm big cheer)

Why doesn't what apply to my husband? My husband makes his lifestyle choices, I make mine, fortunately they fit together. If I wanted to be in a career all my life I would have found a more home-making kind of guy. Probably.

OK, MrsM, you're a born-again SAHM. Just accept, can't you, that some of us do not want to make the same choice as you?

I wanted children, not a career change. Fortunately, my daughters seem remarkably unscarred by the care they've received.

I totally agree with MI. I too love my job and have been lucky enough to find good childcare.

I consider myself very privileged to be able to go out and work part-time. Many women I know would like to do the same. DH is also very happy that I do. Nobody misses out in our family. Just because I've spent three days a week working since my children were born (7 and 4 yrs ago) it doesn't mean my career is at a standstill though I have had to make compromises.

If you want to work, why not? It has been proven again and again that young children, babies in particular benefit from strong bonding with one or more adults. Is staying at home the best thing for your family?

If you prefer to stay at home, why go back to work at all?

I took 7 months maternity leave and that was perfect for me and my family. Going back to work has given me and my children the degree of independence I'd like us all to have.

lol, bundle!

Squiffy, Thank you for a the reasoned argument. It is interesting - can be a case of 'lies, damn lies and statistics' though. The research I found was for 2004/5 written by a Swedish academic who had looked at the home/work balance of Swedish women, given their favourable childcare and maternity leave policy. She had actually chosen to have no children as it appeared that she didn't believe she could dedicate herself enough to her work if she had them. She says that she doesn't think the legislation is really having the desired effect of creating equality (whatever that is ). I wish I could remember her name but it escapes me at the moment.

I can't understand why the Swedes find it so laughable that professional women should give up work for their children. As I have said all along it should be up to the individual. Equality of choice. Arguably, and I say this with caution, it is better for a child to be brought up by intelligent, well educated mature person who loves that child, than the various and ever-changing staff of a nursery. Of course I am not saying that all nurseries are badly run or staffed by imbeciles, that would be as wrong as saying I am an idiot for staying at home. What I am saying is that it shouldn't be looked down upon just because I prefer to look after my children than get somebody else to do it, if I think I can do a better job.

So what was your dissertation for if you don't mind me asking? Sounds interesting.

Xenia's at it again - if SAHM are supposed to find it so hard to believe that some women work through choice, why do WM find it so hard to understand that not everybody finds the 9-5 tedium so much fun and would prefer to stay at home. Live and let live. I find office work mundane and pontless - frankly in the long run what is the point of it and who gives a damn? That is my opinion and you are entirely entitled to yours. We don't have to agree with each other to understand that there is more than viewpoints.

As for wanting 40% of a boardroom to be women - surely you would want to be there on merit rather than to fill a quota? And why only 40%, not 50% - patronising nonsense - its like saying we will let some women in but not enough to take away the male majority. I am surprised you would even consider this. Smacks of social engineering if you ask me.

sorry, forgot to credit MrsMarvel's inspirational writing style

Bundle you took 7 months maternity leave. This post is about people (not just women) who put their baby in straight from delivery into 24/7 nanny care.

really?

i thought it was a thread discussing different people's experiences, regarding things like legislation, family finances and personal preferences.

blow me down.

ps thank you for reminding me about how much mat leave i took , i nearly forgot.

motherinferior - I exactly do accept that not all women want to give up their career to have kids.

Nobody has said anything about wanting children as opposed to career change except you!

Why are you WMs so blinking defensive? There's no attack going on here. Not on my part anyway. I'm getting really teed off by WMs' lack of interest in understanding both sides of the argument, often getting offensive. It's not what I need. Thanks very much.

As quite a lot of people on this thread have said, they'd have killed for a nanny to support them in those early weeks. And incidentally I know more than one person who did have full time support in those weeks but because it was from relatives, you see, it doesn't count.

I think you will also find, sadly, that five years completely out of the workplace does gouge a massive hole in a lot of women's careers.

er...'If you prefer to work through your life and not stop at any time, why have children?' sounds pretty 'it's kids OR jobs' to me.