Please don't post here, just thank FUCK that CM/Spend Time With Your Kids More Thread is DEAD!!

[Sycamoretree]

R.I.P.

My childcare costs are very little. £2 an hour for my childminder.

I'm glad she is so cheap but often I think she should have more respect for herself and the damn hard job she does & charge more!

I always pay her a little bit more as I know how bloody boring hard it is to be with kids all day long...

slave labour.

Yeah. Right.

Tricky one though isnt it? When my childcare costs were at their highest, I'm damn sure that even though on paper my earnings were higher than my CMs, in reality, her disposable income was greater. She was able to earn with no childcare costs for her own kids, and I also believe as a CM, a pretty big chunk of earnings can be set against tax, whereas I was unable to claim tax back on what I was paying her.

Staying at home is bad for my brain.

that's true spicemonster I have gone beyond multi tasking to a new level.

I do try to say very loudly on the phone at least twice a day to a client whilst my boss is standing in earshot, "what's that you say - its not convenient to talk now? Can I call you this evening? No no - I don't mind at all, I'll take your file home with me. No problem"

Wallofsilence, good for you, there's nothing wrong with being a SAHM if it suits, but it doesn't suit everyone. I think it can be hard to admit because obviously the only reason to have a child is to spend every waking second with them It doesn't make you a shit parent and it doesn't mean you love your kids any less. I too would find it tedious - I've tried feeling guilty for that, and I've decided the only people I have to justify my choices to are my son and my husband. They are both happy so stuff everyone else.

indeed bree, you are right

groundhog day again is it?

Dunno Beau, I missed the other one.

I managed to avoid opening it but felt strangely drawn to this thread.

I didnt post on the other one I only posted here because it said not to and I felt that I must!!!

i think the language in the title is OUTRAGous

The interesting question was how much time morally ought we to spend with our children which I assume means properly interacting with them - not having a bath or reading the paper whilst they play. It's an interesting question on parenting and depends a lot on the age of the child. It is not even so much about if you work or don't but take today - Sunday most of us won't be working what's the right amount of time to spend with the child in the same room talking to them or interacting with them? Sometimes it's too much - smother love, child hasn't learned to do a thing on it's own. Sometimes it's too little - only time the parent lifts up her or his head to talk to it it's to tell it to "shut up you b astard I'm watching the TV".

Also how many children you have affects that interaction too and when is only child bad, too much attention, little emperor and lots of children good or not.

YAWNNNNNNNN................

I think that's a very good point Xenia (though not sure about the 'moral' aspect... is it a moral issue, I'm not sure). But yes, although that phrase 'quality time' is dreadful, parenting is, of course, everything to do with the quality of what we are giving to our children.

Viggoswife... not sure if the Yawnnnn refers to Xenia's post, but if so, I'm sorry you find parenting children a boring subject. Perhaps you need to get out more

Not Xenia's post, cross posted. Just the whole rehashing of this subject, with the constant desperation to be right. The WOHM win by sheer force of will and numbers. Congratulations ladies.

I didnt realise it was about winning.
And I seem to remember the thread started with a CM complaining about the people who pay her wages....

I have nothing to add to the debate itself.

I just have two points.

1. I am a SAHM, and that has definitely been the best choice for my family, but I will be returning to work this year and that is also the best choice for my family. I would imagine most people try to to do the best by their family? and yes, 'family' includes oneself.

2)"By chelsygirl on Sun 24-Feb-08 10:23:03
God are you lot still bleating on about last nights thread?

Go spend some time with your kids and GET A LIFE"

This post is HILARIOUS - it actually made me snort. No one had posted for a good 10 hours, then along comes chelsygirl to save you all from yourselves. Genius.

OK, I just have one thing to add to the debate. I find it baffling that there is always an inference that WOHMs get a hard time on here, but I always tend to think that the SAHMs are the ones being sneered at, though it generally comes from someone who is being overly defensive about their own choices so I often feel a bit sorry for them.

It will be interesting to see if you still feel that way when you do go back to work JV.

Let's face it, none of can really know whether what we're doing is 'best' for our family. Because if you're a SAHM, you don't know how your kids would turn out if you were a WOHM, and vice versa.
A good philopsophy seems to be to make sure both parents have happy, fulfulling, interesting and worthwhile lives. Children learn by example. And what I want for my own children is for them to lead happy, fulfilling, interesting and worthwhile lives.

I don't mean that in a sarcastic way btw, I mean it genuinely will be interesting to see if you think SAHM get more stick than WOHM when you become a WOHM.

Yeah, I've wondered that too Bumper.
I imagine as a SAHM I am more aware of sniping towards SAHMs and so it may follow that I'll suddenly become aware of anti WOHM feeling that has actually been there all the time but has gone under my radar.

I shall find out, I guess.

I'm going back part time in april so will either get the best of both world or the worst!

No worries Bumper - I took your post at face value.

Alfiesbabe - I disagree, I think you can know, very much so, that you are doing the best for your family.