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!

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?

GMTA (great minds think alike)

Having a nanny to support you or a relative to help you is different from going away and leaving your child to them entirely.

I haven't got answer to any of my questions. You guys are good at preaching and sneering but not so good at responding.

Which questions? The rhetorical 'why have children if you don't want to look after them' one?

I don't know why people have children. They have them for many different reasons. A huge number have them because it's the socially expected thing to do. Others have them because they have an overwhelming biological drive to reproduce. Some have them because they get pregnant and don't want to terminate the pregnancy.

And we work, those of us who do paid work, for all sorts of reasons. I work at least in part because I don't want to be like my mother, unhappy and frustrated and a terrible mother, incidentally, because of being at home with her children.

Niecie - I get all my shite opinionated views from the MSc in Employment Relations at LSE that I'm doing at the mo (as a hobby kind-of-thing). Mind you, I'm not sure I should be confessing on this thread: given that I also work, I must be seriously damaging the kids by studying as well....

staying at home isn't the be-all, desirable option

'If you can afford to stay at home, why not?'

That probably applies, at the moment, to me in that my partner now - finally - earns a reasonable amount and we would Scrape Through. I continue to work, after about five years in which I was the bigger breadwinner, because I don't want to ditch things now. I like my work. I have new work opportunities opening up, finally. If I ditched them now, I'd probably not get them again. So I'm working the same hours I have done for the past six years.

Message withdrawn

Isn't "why have children" a completely separate question from "should you or shouldn't you look stay home / spend a substantial amount of time looking after children"?

Because if it's not, doesn't the premise have to be "the reason for having children is that you want to stay home and look after them"?

That doesn't sound particularly worthy, to me, anyway.

Like I say, a career change.

I love my children. I also don't want to be with them full time.

Thank you for answering. Your answer goes part way to explaining your views on SAHMotherhood. Mine too are influenced by my own experience. I'm not knocking working parents, mothers or otherwise, but I do think there's a point when what the mother / parent's needs and wishes go against the child's and the child's should come first.

gogetter - i think your op is niave, i am at the moment a SAHM, if i dont get a job soon we are going to lose our house, so it is financially essential that i return to work, despite it breaking my heart. Reading posts like that only makes my situation even more heartbreaking

As I say I feel privileged and lucky that I can stay at home. We're talking here about people that give up their children at birth to Nannies, even when they can afford to stay at home.

Sorry you're in this position, I'll be there soon though as my stay at home time is running out...

Mrs Marvel, you wrote: "but I do think there's a point when what the mother / parent's needs and wishes go against the child's and the child's should come first."

As a WOHM, I am happy with the childcare my dcs are getting. Their needs do come first. They are happy. My dh and I are happy. WOTH is not putting the child's needs in the backseat.

All this talk about leaving children with "strangers" or "bonding with employers" (not you MrsM, other posters) just smacks of ignorance. Most likely by people who have never used high quality childcare to begin with, on a regular basis. My hats off to all the loving and hardworking ladies (and man!) who keep my dcs entertained most of the day. The proof is in the pudding.

my children's needs come first MrsMarvel and I object to your implication that WOH means that this is impossible.

my children have been looked after by broadly the same small group of childcare professionals for 4 years at nursery. it was chosen carefully and I turned down other options like cm's or nannies because it suited me and my children. others like MI have had good experiences with eg CMs.

if i could afford to stay at home i would, i chose to put my career on hold but it is putting too much pressure on my DP and we frankly have NO choice. I feel guilty enough.

MrsMarvel "There's no attack going on here. Not on my part anyway." Better polish those social skills before returning to the workplace then.

I find it strange the implication that our children need us more when they are young (say, below 5), than when they are older. Surely we have heard mums saying how their children need their parents' emotional support more, when they are in school and as teenagers, than when they were babies (who were happy to be looked after by anyone so long as they were held, fed and dry).

So MrsM, if you are thinking of putting their children's needs first, perhaps you should seriously consider delaying your return to work. Isn't that what having children is about?

Oh and I don't WOH because I am Scarred Emotionally, I work because I like my job. And I like having a bit of money sloshing around in the domestic economy of the Inferiority Complex too, if I'm honest, after year of sloshlessness.

Lucyellensmum - Naive? Ok yes I understand that I could be called naive if my post was titled 'Why do people have children when they have to go back to work' and targeted at working mums in general - however if you scroll up a few you will see that this case is in a regards to a planned preg by a wealthy couple who are prioritising a lot of things before their BRAND NEW baby. They are not financially struggling by a loooooooong stretch and are handing their baby straight into a maternity nurse who is handing it straight to a full-time nanny as soon as it is sleeping through the night. Their involvement is the bear minimum and the baby is barely kicking 7 lbs.
I think there is a perfectly justified reason for having a maternity nurse as well as a nanny and if you are forced to go back to work then so be it, I'm sure your situation suits that choice.

However in this particular case the baby seems more of a burden than a joy. Surely the first 5 years are critical as a 0-5yr old can't exactly whip themselves up a bottle of formula or change their own nappy? Basic needs would probably be the reason mums stay home in the first few years?

i remember a friend telling me that she wanted maternity leave when her daughter was 5 - I didn't know what she meant at the time (I was pg with dd1) but now I do

Cristina - who are you and what do you mean?

yes, i fully appreciate the tender needs of an under five. So my decision to go back to work before she starts school is hard enough as it is without those who are lucky enough not to have to make that decision making me feel even more shitty about it.

Blueshoes - the difference between under 5s and over 5s is that over 5s are generally capable of communicating their needs effectively and are more independent in a practical sense. I am going to work later than usual because my youngest has disabilities and her needs have stretched over a longer time than average children. She's now on the verge of that independence reached by most children at around 5 and I feel my going to work will benefit the family rather than detract from it.