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!

I know a couple who earn lots of money he works full time she works very part time, they dont do much for there very large salery in terms of time. they have 1 child and I judge them for their choices as they spend so much time feeling sorry for themselves 'having to both work' when it is bollocks. they have been on 5 holidays this year already (expensive ones) they always eat out, they have 4 cars between them and they have a cleaner and gardener everyweek and decorators constantly.
they moan about how their childcare is not good enough for their child and they own two houses.
it bugs me how they feel so sorry for themselves for 'only just being able to afford their huge mortguage and having to work'
what total weirdo's imo

oh, and I thought premeditated organisation of childcare is a good thing. Otherwise, the parents would be accused of "dumping" their child onto any stranger or employee ...

I was in two minds about going back to work. Once I decided that I would it took nearly 5 months to get DS into a nursery - so I will be booking in next LO asap - yes, before he is born. Just in case

( I was talking about mums who don't work and have all the staff etc, didn't make myself very clear)

i also had my nursery place booked when i was 3months up the duff, had it all planned.returning to a career i had to, but most importantly wanted too. on mat leave i continued to read journals and research and intenet to stay up to date

I'll also be keeping DS in nursery during my maternity leave too. Even though I will be a SAHM.

but gogetter is talking about a mother who is working.

if u dont work but can afford paid help eg mat nurse,nanny,gardener etc - wahey good luck to u i say

why plan to be pregnant at a time in yr life when you are in a job that has no flexibility?
I just can't grasp the concept of people wanting to have a baby but then in the months of their pregnancy also planning to have a full-time parade of staff to care for it from day one - literally. Not 6 months down the line FROM DAY ONE!
There's a different between being organised on giving your child the best schooling to planning on how many times you can get someone else to feed it in the first month.

(Gogetter moves her chair closer to preggerspotters)

I don't see my children for more than an hour most weekdays. It's a fact of my working life which is pretty well unalterable.

It is curious to think that there might be random acquaintances potentially judging me for that. There are many people in similar positions who are simply unable to downsize without changing careers entirely.

people plan because it suits them, they want too, and the biological clock ticks for us all - so what if they have parade of staff - up to them isnt it - what is the big deal - none really whatever works for each mum, so does not fulfill your preference - so what - be happy with ur choice, respect someone else individuality/choices too

Quattro - how old are yuor children?

9 and 7. It has been like this since they were three months old.

yes I understand that you can;t grasp the concept gogetter.

But very few "professions" are flexible unless you work for yourself. So in essence you are saying you can eitehr have a career as a woman or a baby but not both.

Alternatively perhaps the people you speak of are scared at beng left alone with a baby. I was (scared that is) but didn't have the choice of outside help (maybe I would have got some if I had loads of money), though my mum was virtually a 24 hr nanny for the first month and I relied on her heavily.

I am at home with my ds (2.5) and I love to be with him, so I do feel lucky that I can choose to stay at home, but alot of the stuff I do at home is just boring and mind- numbing (and more to the point sometimes lonely), i.e. housework. It has nothing to do with bringing up my child (the part that I like) and everything to do with being a general skivvy.

If I had been in a high-powered job that I liked and was well paid and enjoyed the company and adult conversation of my colleagues then I can't honestly say that I would NOT have chosen to stay at work over doing constant hoovering and cleaning. And that is not to say that I don't like to spend time with my ds and that I wouldn't have missed some of the things that staying at home affords me the luxury of witnessing like the first words etc.

However, most of us lead complicated lives and make choices that have to fit in with very differing experiences, desires and even necessities. So, I certainly try very hard not to condemn people because their choices would not have suited me, my personality and my own situation.

Life is rich and people are interesting because they are different (that is what I like most about being with my son - seeing his personality change and develop and it is also what I liked most about work and what I miss most about being in a working environment - all the different personalities - although MN does do some way to fill that "chatting to interesting folk" void )
Rant over...

I think the big deal is the baby who is being passed from staff member to staff member who is not emotionally attached to the child for longer than a few years.
No matter how fantastic yr nanny is - they can not be a replacement for a parent.

No 'in essence' kew that is not what I am saying.
I think that the maximum amount of maternity/paternity leave should be exhausted. Then I'll keep my judgemental trap shut!

passed from staff member to staff member

don't think I will continue with this it isn't really a discussion. You can't see why a woman would want to work during the week and think it is "strange" unless they are forced back to work for financial reasons. I don't agree.

FFS gogetter, give it a rest. I'd say you are the onw with issues.

You are making alot of assumptions, though, gogetter, about childhood attachments and how and why they form.

If a nanny is just one of many care-givers, parents included, then perhaps the child bonds with lots of different people and feels adored by lots of people. That doesn't sound so bad to me.

so you think working professionals should take a year off and you don;t think it will have any impact on theri career. Even if staying at home with a baby knowing they will be sidelined will drive them demented?

It's pretty standard for men to only see their kids for an hour a day during the week. As long as kids have consistent care by someone who does care and good quality time with parents rest of the time dont see any issues here at all.

Gogetter - this is a big deal in your mind because it justifies the choices you have made. It might not be a big deal to the children.

Me personally - I was simply incapable of staying at home - even had I had any financial choice in the matter - which I didn't. But the choice (or lack of choice) I made actually suited me personally.

I like to think that it suited my children too - on the basis that a happy and fulfilled mother made for happier children. Before anyone jumps on me from a great height - I know I could be deluding myself.

Eleusis - take me away - I'm wasting my breathe, take me away please....

very true gogetter.

by the way, I am very happy for other people to make diferent choices to me but it doesn't stop me having an opinion on it.

stop being so british and have an opinion!