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!

Do you know when I wrote this post originally, hand on my heart I was sure that I would have a few more people agreeing with me, if not the majority. I now realise I was very wrong!
Very good debate though, I hope no one takes offence in these kind of discussions they are just an on-line form of entertainment where people can speak openly probably in a way they can't in RL.

MrsMarvel - I mean that you seem somehow lacking in social skills and self-awareness if you attack and don't even realise that you're doing it. You'd be interacting with "real" people when you go back to work and I don't think you'd be throwing insults around for too long.

gogetter: sigh

MrsMarvel: "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?" followed by "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". sigh

There's no hope really, is there?

but who are you Cristina

lucyellen no offence meant to you - unless you are a rich couple with a brand new baby, pawning it off as we speak so you can pretty much have the same life as before yr baby, just with a few more household staff costs.
I am not ranting about working mums in general..............

squiffy double sigh

in sympathy i meant squiff

gogetter - x-posts, sorry. I appreciate your last comments.

sqiffy - sigh back at you? give me the finger if you want, it's a lot more direct.

however i do share your sentiments regarding the couple in question

Gogetter, of course people take offense!

or should I say the comments before last.... just can't keep up to speed...dropping all those balls now

MrsM, you wrote: "I feel my going to work will benefit the family rather than detract from it."

Describes how a lot of us WOHMs feel.

blueshoes, she says it when it suits her.

Bundle

So I'm not throwing insults around then am I? I do have some modicum of intelligence? Squiffy? Bundle? Why the patronising (matronising)?

Squiffy - course sounds interesting. Is it leaning towards a legal or a human resources type course (I realise that it is probably multi-disciplinary but I was wondering on the emphasis - don't answer if you think I am being nosy). Anyway, if you have the time why not do it? As I have said before, I don't think that people should attack one another - so long as people are happy with their choices the rest of us shouldn't judge. I'm doing an MSc in Psychology - I do it when the children go to bed. In my experience it is rarely as clear cut as saying you are either a SAHM or you are not. Yes, I stay at home with my children but I am not a domestic half-brained drudge because of it. I do have other interests and so do a lot of other SAHM once they have got passed the baby stage. We can't all be written off, can we?

Anyway, according to MN News children of middle class working mothers are more likely to obese!?! More research to 'discuss'.

MrsM, " 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."

So being able to talk/communicate is the test of when a parent is allowed to leave the house to work? What if your children communicate to you that they still want you at home? A teenager might not say it - which is all the sadder.

The point I am making is that all tests about whether a parent should stay at home or not is purely arbitrary. It all depends on the family, the child, the circumstances. And it could very well be that a child still thrives even though both parents return to work very early in that child's life, but put in place a solid infrastructure which endures not just for the first few years but throughout that child's life.

My lady boss works far longer hours than I. Her children - left with nannies from a young age - are the most well-behaved and loving (yes, to her as well) I have ever seen. You have to see it to believe it.

Does anyone watch Greys Anatomy? There's a great episode there where the nanny runs over the kid - mum fires nanny etc??????

Sorry, Cristina, just read back through the thread and I do now see who you are.
Perhaps it would be more socially aware to introduce yourself before you cast insults. "Better polish those social skills before returning to the workplace then."

i think people are defensive because this is such an emotive subject. This whole debate has been done to death and i find myself on both sides of it. I dont want to go back to work, i have to, no choice, i suspect however once i am there i will rather enjoy it. I know lots of working mums with wonderful children, the same for SAHMs too.

Why does there have to be so much guilt, i feel guilty for being a SAHM, not providing a stable background etc - i can earn more than my DP yet he is still bearing the financial brunt of things. Now i guess i will have to feel guilty on top of missing my DD when i have to go back to work. Its pretty much a no win situation being a mum sometimes, well at least it feels that way just now.

introduce herself? it's a message board, not a cocktail party

MrsM - heh?

Well thats just silly. A teenager is at school most of the day so surely most mums would work then?!