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!

am I alone in noticing that xenia is always right and her way is the only way

kerala - have you never judged anyone?

she is in the law...she just knows how to word it right ;)
or maybe she is that disillusioned that she feels it's o/k/ that others have no right to judge whilest judging harshly those that disagree

It really isn't that simple and black and white. I doubt that in this day and age there are many women who spend the whole of their dc childhood at home doing nothing else but childcare and domestic stuff. However, many women choose to stay at home whilst their children are little and would cost them a fortune in childcare costs. Others take a career break later on when the children are older and need more emotional support. There are also plenty of mothers who work part time but are home at the same time as their children. Where do they fit into this rather simplistic argument? The children have all the benefits of the SAHM but their mother is still working. Where does she fit in - working mother or SAHM mother? Is she going to be devastated when her child leaves home or indifferent?

Let people decide for themselves what they think is best for their families and stop trying to stick labels on people. We all work it out our own way and most people end up as well balanced reasonable and likeable human beings.

Anybody read 'They F**k You Up' by Oliver James. Interesting discussion on nature/nuture debate. He would disagree that we are 50% the result of our genes and has some very convincing arguments to support it. That is why being somebody's mother is so important. We are the product of our upbringing and our contribution as mother's doesn't stop when we give birth.

3andnomore you have a point. i think she protests to much. as if the more she says it she might believe it herself.

2shoes - I agree with you. She is a bit strident in her approach. Makes me wonder if she has doubts.

someone further down did mention that those harshest to judge are just jeallous...

gogetter - all the time!
But this is such an emotive issue I judge its safer to keep your thoughts to yourself...

good post niecie

boring kerala. In RL fair enough we are not going to walk up to each other and slag off SAHM or vice versa but MN is a bit more 'free spirited'

Ha - I am boring no this debate is seems to appear weekly in various forms

3andnomore - you see that is what i find astonishing. that you do think those people are somehow worse. why should it all be about status in those cases?
Maybe they have a fulfilling life even though they dont work and dont want that to change, in the exact same way that some parents dont want their careers etc to change.
Why judge them as the worst just because they the disposable income to enable them to make those choices?
what i am trying to say is that everyone makes choices in their life and finding that one persons reasoning justifies the exact same outcome whilst someone elses reasoning doesnt is complete double standards!

if you are going to criticise parents for not being at home rearing their DC's then at least be consistent in your views towards it. Either it is right or it isnt.

I have a friend who is a solicitor in the city. She has all the accesories, hampstead flat, big car, massive flat screen tv etc and to her a baby was another one, palmed off on a nanny straight away. Her reason for wanting a baby? It would look cute when she takes it skiing. I kid you not.Not evryone is maternal for the right reasons.

I love my dd, more than I can express or could have imagined.

I love my job, I have a good career and I'm the main earner in my partnership with dp by a big margin.

So I work full-time and it's great. I do miss her if I'm at work on a long day and I do love spending time with her when I'm not at work but overall the balance is right for my family. Dd is very well cared for by her grandparents when I'm at work.

I can't imagine being happy being a SAHM, I really can't, even if it were financially viable. I may reduce my hours a little if we have another dc so that I can spend the same time with each child individually iyswim but I really don't think I could give up work and be happy.

dal, I think I am old and ugly enough to hold my own views without being told I have to view this that way because I view that this way....for me there is a difference, sorry...
the difference to me is, I personally can not see the point in that....so, possibly going to have my nails done or going under the sunbed and meeting my girlfriends for a citylunch is equally important to working on ones career...to me that is a waaste of time at the best of times, but even more so if it goes on cost of your children....do some women really just wnat to be incubators then?

and I know I said that badly....

From a personal point of view, I gave up a good career cos I couldn't bear to leave me kids. I don't regard myself as "just an incubator" however, I'm a woman with brains who put her time into volunatry work helping othere, but where my baby could still be with me. Yes I suffered financially (I certainly couldn't afford to get my nails done or lunch with girlfriends) we didn't ahve a holiday for 5 years but my kids would've suffered more if I wasn't there for them. IMO, of course, everyone is different.

fair enough 3nomore. I find the sweeping generalisations and assumptions made about people with money and life choices they make just ignorant to a large extent.

Lots goes on behind closed doors and no one really knows what the truth behind a situation is. It just seems if you have money - then you are villified for your choices more than others are.

surely If woman want to work good on them(admiration for them) and If they want to stay at home(or have to) good on them. why the debate. what suits one person won't syuit everyone.

3andnomore - still intelligible, and I tend to agree, probably due to some sort of protestant work ethic or underlying utilitarian thingie - I'm sure that lunching / looking after self etc can be fulfilling for the person involved, but I can't see any sort of net societal benefit in it, which I struggle with a bit. I can see that with WOHM, SAHM, and SAHMs with help who do charity work or something.

I think she meant when the child was 3 and old enough to ski itself!

dal I suppose you are right...I am probably really ignorant and jeallous...what can you do....
however, I don't think that having money/being rich means one will be happy, I am not a materialistic kind of person , I suppose, lol! (Can't afford to be )

However, lets just put these scenarios out there:
1.
both parents work in a good job and neither wants to give it up, which is fair enough, but of course they also want kids...so nanny will be hired....parents will possibly spend the time they don't work with teh Kid and appreciating this time together and enjoying it!
Kid will understand this one I think....work is important, but so am I...and Kid, even when grown up will hopefully not become bitter about it...it was done for the "right" reasons.

2. rich dad, mum stays at home, still hires nanny, so, she can go and do as she always did, she doesn't want the child to have to much of an impact on her life. She still wants to go and have those darn nails done, the citylunches, I mentioned, wants to have time to spend money on those Jimmy choos(?), wants to have her hair done all teh time, wants to have the facials, teh spas and whatever...which is all memememememememememememememememe...isn't it! Kid is, possibly, in this case in reality better off with a loving caring mum....but when they start to understand what is going on, do you really think this will do much to their self esteem? I mean, well, I would not like to come 2. fiddle to facials, etc.... that is, I assume where possibly the phrase the poor rich Kid comes from....

I am sure there are also mums that stay at home and still have a nanny that still will spend loads of time with their Kids...but, I don't know, I do have this niggling feeling that those will be in the minority...call me a cynic

oops, in teh 2. scenario it was meant, Kid is probably better off with a loving caring NANNY

You're not a cynic 3nomore. I think anyone who doesn't realise that they'll have to modify their way of life (To a certain extent at least) when a child comes along is both selfish and living in la la land.The idea of leaving a baby with a nanny so you can lunch and shop leaves me cold. Maybe I'm just jealous that I'll never have the opportunity though!!!

Nooo, didnt say you are ignorant. and lets not even go there with jealousy. I DID not open that can of worms.{grin]

Lets take another scenario.

One parent rich. Hires nanny. Other parent actually has fairly serious health problems that they don't want to the world and her mother to know about as they are a very private family. So they put a good face on things; from the outside seems to be quite a frivilous set up (cue comments - why do THEY need a nanny...)

Their private problem, they find a solution. People judge. They dont say anything otherwise it isnt private anymore. Is that fair?