Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Sorry Xenia...

588 replies

duchesse · 02/02/2008 16:58

...for starting that thread when I didn't believe you existed (and I genuinely didn't). I've done some proper research now, and realise that you are real person with fantastic real achievement. I apologise unreservedly for my previous thread, which was genuinely not designed to get at you since I did not believe you existed. I am aghast and incredibly impressed at how much you have achieved, and look forward to sparring with you again some time...

OP posts:
GColdtimer · 05/02/2008 14:17

You are right policywonk, it is all about respecting one's choices.

I remember when I was an angsty teen berating my mum for not voting with the "woman tied themselves to railings" speech. She amazed me when she said that those women did that to give other women the right to vote, not to force women to the polling stations if they did not so wish. Different context but same kind of point I think.

policywonk · 05/02/2008 14:18

Bless you. No, but I think I love you.

MrsMattie · 05/02/2008 14:19

PMSL. Shall we go and get mrs ruffalo and form a mutual appreciation society?

You write well (runs off apologising profusely for being patronising, slightly scary weirdy woman...)

Judy1234 · 05/02/2008 16:21

I'm not sure there is a swing to mothers at home. I think more and more work. So I am the norm and housewives are dying out etc.

I think I was asked quite a few things above., lucye's comment is the most interesting - her very different background and problems over a bad state school. Yes, if you had gone to that really good local public school I am sure you might well be in a different position now. It's why need to take those clever council estate children to good state grammars at 11 or free assisted places at private schools so they can achieve their potential.

I have been out and busy working and I'm not sure I want to argue about stay at home mothers and I've said it all before anyway. If you're consent with it then what anyone says doesn't matter. Same with me as a full time worker - I've always known it was right so anyone saying babies need a blood parent attached to them 24/7 doesn't bother me at all.

"How did you manage to be available to your children if they were having a hard time at school and needed to talk about it, or if they were sick or injured (eg broken limbs) or needed trips to the hospital, or if they got into trouble at school or stopped doing homework and needed you to keep a closer eye on them or go into school to talk to their teachers, etc..." I think Qu answered that. We don't move to a different planet as fathers and mothers when we work. A man I know took Monday and Tuesday off work this week to deal with a 15 year old daughter with problems. Working parents have to do those kinds of things all the time. I might have been out today but sometimes I work in the house which obviously makes it easier in terms of physical access to me. My 5 have rarely been sick in 23 years - whether that's because of the diet they are fed or because we're reasonably well off or because they have good genes or good luck I don't know. But we rarely in 23 years have any sorts of crises of the kinds many families sadly have. If they've had problems they want to talk about we talk about them. Surely working mothers are cleverer and better with children anyway as they are the ones with careers who want to work so they are bound to be better at bringing up children than stay at home mothers who probably didn't have much of a career in the first place, not so clever etc therefore you would expect the working mothers to be better with children than stay at home mothers as their education and emotional intelligence are higher and their ability to work and have a family is obviously better than those who can just about cope with ensuring there is enough milk in the fridge. But I've never said I had any kind of a perfect life. People jump to conclusions because of various physical things I might have but none of that is really the essence of what makes people happy as we all know.

mrsruffallo · 05/02/2008 16:27

There's a surge in women who would rather serve at home than rule the nation..that's what you posted this am 07:25 and that is what I responded to.

pankhurst · 05/02/2008 16:44

"Surely working mothers are cleverer and better with children anyway as they are the ones with careers who want to work so they are bound to be better at bringing up children than stay at home mothers who probably didn't have much of a career in the first place, not so clever etc therefore you would expect the working mothers to be better with children than stay at home mothers as their education and emotional intelligence are higher and their ability to work and have a family is obviously better than those who can just about cope with ensuring there is enough milk in the fridge."

I've just joined this thread. Haven't read any of the preceding posts, but this is really good - haven't laughed so much in ages!!!!

Anna8888 · 05/02/2008 16:53

"A fully-conscious feminism would celebrate child-rearing and home-making as being among the most significant, powerful, important things that a person can do, rather than perpetuating the lie that only out-of-the-home work is valuable."

Very well said, policywonk

lucyellensmum · 05/02/2008 16:57

Is cleverer a word?

pankhurst · 05/02/2008 16:59

I think there should be more hierarchy amongst women:

Fully-conscious feminist
then
WOHM (unconscious feminist but obviously high EQ)
then half-conscious feminist
then SAHM (who can't fill the fridge with milk)
then half-dressed prozzy
then naked prozzy
then...

I think it is GOOOD to have more women slagging each other off. COME ON!

MrsMattie · 05/02/2008 17:03

lol@pankhurst

Xenia: 'Surely working mothers are cleverer and better with children anyway as they are the ones with careers who want to work so they are bound to be better at bringing up children than stay at home mothers who probably didn't have much of a career in the first place, not so clever etc'

Yeh, you sure are cleverer than me!

FFS, Xenia. Read the above out loud. It is utter claptrap. Do you truly believe this shit?

pankhurst · 05/02/2008 17:23

ROFL! NO-ONE could believe that, MrsMattie!

xx

(wipes tears of laughter out of her eyes and holds her aching sides)

It's the funniest thing I've heard all WEEK.

Oh, Xenia, you are such a character! You've made my day.

Judy1234 · 05/02/2008 17:37

It's common sense. You earn £100k a year and have a baby. You love your work. It is interesting and challenging. You spent years getting to that level. You don't want to tidy the house and child mind so you carry on working and you can afford child care.

You work the till at tesco on £12k a year. You have a baby. Of course you'll stay home.

So surely the cleverer better qualified mothers with better education are the ones who continue to work and are better with children too because of their brains, education and coping abilities.

chocolatedot · 05/02/2008 17:37

Quite frankly, in terms of sheer stupidity the "cleverer" remark just says it all.

Judy1234 · 05/02/2008 17:40

The 7.25am poist I just read - I said we "and we don't want to lose it all now because there's a surge in women who'd rather serve at home than rule the nation." I didn't say there was such a surge. I meant if there were (heaven forfend if there should be) then it would be a disaster but thankfully there isn't and more and more women choose to work.

pankhurst · 05/02/2008 17:44

(cannot hold her own wee...)

100k! (chortle)

12k! (howl)

oh, stop stop! You're killing me!

Better with children!!!!!

Hah hah hah hah !!!

(rolls under the table and stuffs an old trainers in her mouth)

karen999 · 05/02/2008 17:47

I agree with Xenia in that if you earn £100k and love your job, can afford childcare, then you are going to go babk to work......however I cannot see the connection that this makes you better with children??

Judy1234 · 05/02/2008 17:51

Education, reading about childcare, better knowledge of psychology and childrearing, better knowledge about good foods but more importantly how to handle children's emotional issues. I am sure anyone with any level of education and even an IQ of 90 can be a very loving mother and yes children need love most of all but in terms of bringing on children, being able to deal with conflict with them, handling their lives and education more educated women do it better. You see the biased media in the UK never puts these points about why working mothers are better in case they hurt the easily hurt feelings of the stay at home mothers who cannot cope with challenge and views different to theirs and who are upset by it but those who are secure that they made the right decision to stay home have nothing to fear from counter arguments just as I don't care if women say to me I ought to be home with my children.

TheFallenMadonna · 05/02/2008 17:52

Well, I'm going to deal in stereotypes here I guess, but no more than you Xenia.

Surely it is a matter of household income (as you so often point out - a child has two parents).

Generally I would reckon that higher income women would also have higher income partners. And vice versa.

And two people on a lower income are more likely to require a dual income. So giving up one would be a much bigger deal than giving up one salary where both partners were higher earners.

And this is (anecdotally of course) is what I tend to see in real life. Beibg a SAHM is a bit of a luxury really, financially anyway. And not everyone can afford it.

How that works with your idea that intelligence is directly proportional to income I don't know.

Anna8888 · 05/02/2008 17:54

I know plenty of women who earned over £100k (sometimes very much more) who gave up work to bring up their children. It is precisely the level of education that enabled them to earn those sums that afforded them the ability to recognise that they would put their education and skills to better use at home and with their families than in the workplace .

MrsMattie · 05/02/2008 17:55

Are you trying to convince yourself, Xenia?

IorekByrnison · 05/02/2008 17:56

Xenia your posts are full of such extraordinary assumptions.

The ability to earn £100,000 a year might well indicate good organisational skills and a keen desire for material security, but I'd love you to explain how it indicates a high degree of emotional intelligence.

Can you provide one shred of evidence that this is the case?

pankhurst · 05/02/2008 17:59

ha ha

(pauses) er, hang on.

(stops confused mid snigger)

wasn't there a hierarchy of mothers a minute ago?

12k a year tillworking titwit was at the bottom.

100k a year EMOTIONAL GENIUS was at the top.

Where's EDUCATION coming into this? (wonders out loud) Now where do I put SAHM mum WITH EDUCATION?

?Under titwit???

Or just above?

[hmmm]

lucyellensmum · 05/02/2008 17:59

No, Really, shoudlnt it be "the more intelligent woman?" or the "more clever"...i'm not entirely sure about cleverer.. saying it out loud to see if it works...hmmmm.

I think you summed it up there Xenia - 100k a year and i would find that hard to give up, not in the least because i would have thought if your income is at that level, your outgoings will match, you're bound to have bigger house, higher mortgage etc. So in a way, being on a lower wage is almost easier to make the decision to be the SAHM. I think that has been the bone of contention for me. My "career" for what it is worth, is academia. I think the average wage for a first time post-doctorial position is 25K, which is a fair wage. But not enough to make me want to not be a SAHM. In the long term i guess i am being short sighted, and my decision is also influenced by personal circs and the fact that i am probably not going to stay in science, at least in university based research. It isn't just the whole, "but DD needs me" argument. Its also the whole thing of having to be ultra organised, have issues with childcare when it goes wrong, there is a problem at nursery, DD is ill and cannot attend etc etc. I just don't want that level of stress in my life thankyou very much. My salary wouldnt cover a nanny, and im not the sort of person who could have another person in my house. I would be uncomfortable. Thats just me.

If i were to earn double that, then i would, i suppose re-think, as we do struggle financially but my getting a job at this stage would make little difference to the overall picture. I also do DPs admin for him so would have to do that on top of everything else. In a few years time when DD is at school, i may well go back, depending on what happens with our business, as i may need to do that full time (fingers crossed).

IorekByrnison · 05/02/2008 18:02

Policy what a brilliant post. Mrs M is right. You should be getting paid for this.

pankhurst · 05/02/2008 18:02

MrsMattie,

If you are going to carry on stating the obvious, you are going to spoil the fun! Of course that's what's hapening, but she's making a joke out of the emotional intelligence thing and the better with children

it's self-deprecatory humour

(tuts and mutters to self)

god, some people on this thread just don't get it, do they?