to honestley wonder, why have children if you WANT to work fulltime and are not prepared to make ANY sacrifices?

[milkgoddessmakesthefinestmilk]

i don't mean parents that HAVE to work to provide.

i mean the ones that choose to for no other reason, other than they enjoy their job so much.
if you enjoy your job so much, thats great.
but what i really do not understand is why have children?
no one makes any of these parents have children, you can go though life without having children.

this is 100% genuine question, i just do not get it.

I am happy with my parenting decisions. Judge away.

The other thing that I'm always very aware of when I read OPs like this, is that I have yet to meet a mother (or father) who says 'I really don't want my daughter to achieve well at school and get an interesting job. Let's not worry about how she does, or what she achieves; after all, she just needs to find a man, have kids and stay at home'. Let's face it, if you really believe what the OP says, that's the logical conclusion.

Pagwatch - hello
IMHO, I think those that try to be superior and feel the need to compare their life choices with others are looking for vindication that their decision was the right one. What works for a family really depends on the members of that family, and comparing and judging is divisive.

nibbles?

Both working mothers and SAHMs seem to defend their position only by attacking the other. I love being a SAHM, I had a great career ,thank you very much, with a high salary but decided that nothing was more imposrtant than staying home with my children. This was a real shock to me as I always thought poorly of women who chose not to work, as opposed from seeing that they chose to stay at home with their children. I am lucky that my choice is good for my family. Although I have kept my brain engaged with a small business idea that is gradually taking shape, this still does not require childcare for my small children.
I understand that if you train or work your way up to a great position in your career you may not want to lose that, but children in child care full time under 18 months do suffer, not much but enough. Should we have a better maternity/paternity understanding that allows for this career break without penalising the employee? Maybe have better rights for parents, where you have a retrain allowance or catch up if you are in a prefession where time off can really affect performance?
At the end of the day you sleep in your family home in the company of your loved ones and you and you are the only people who truly knows if your working life/staying at home works. Maybe everyone else should do the same??

Message withdrawn

Pheebe, Are you serious? You really say that if I look after my children I am not contributing as much as you? What about parents of disabled children? Disabled people? Do they contribute?
Prof Francesconi "Even the children of highly educated mothers who go back to full-time work early will have lower educational attainment. But the disadvantage will not be as much as it is for less educated mums." A'level attainment drops from 60%-50% They have slower emotional development and score less well in reading and maths tests.
Nobody gets to the end of their life and wishes they spent more time in the office..Nancy Regan

Message withdrawn

No there are numerous programs of research. It has to do with quality time with the child, reading with them before they're tired and helping woith homework. When they tiny they do actually need a little more than a bottle of milk and a nap, interaction and a bit of love wouldn't go amiss.

Message withdrawn

I always used to think that women who had children should look after them, and that it was wrong to farm your children out to other people.

Then I got pregnant unexpectedly just as my career was taking off, and my views changed. I still think it is not good for a young child to do long hours in nursery, and I have been lucky enough to have childcare provided by my family.

I work because I love my career, it is unpredictable hours (acting) so I am often at home rather than working 9-5, and because I have the flexibility to take ds with me if I want to. I don't believe for one minute that I am disadvantaging my child, and I would not be working if that was the case.

I don't agree with Xenia or the OP - it's your choice what you do with your child, and neither SAHM or WOHM are automatically bad parents, both have their good and bad points.

oh fgs!

do what you want and keep your beak out of everyone else's business!

I have friends that work f/t, friends that work p/t, friends that are sahm

all the children seem to have turned out the same, no asbos in attendance from what I can see from my sample of about 15

Posie, please tell me the other studies? the one you are citing by Ermisch and Francesconi was based on population data from chidren in childcare settings 20 years ago. I think you'd agree that women's lives and childcare settings are considerably different now.

In addition, the authors of that work do indeed (as I suggested in my earlier post) that the effect of being a working mother (incidentally upon A level achievements specifically, not wellbeing per se) is reduced the higher up the education and class scale you go (for the mothers in question).

The institute of social and economic research, Professor Michael Lamb, of Cambridge University.... I could go on but I came accross a research group that used words like neglect where women had worked 30 hours a week and I feel to put any more crap at the doors of working mothers was not really my duty. It is attitudes reflected in this report that is unhelpful. But maybe being informed that both parents working full time when a child is very young could change working practices and the way we (society) view parents and parents rights in general.

chequers, my last post on this thread

i just think too many parents have fell for the you can have it all line spouted by the goverment.

you can do both. of course you can. but you can't really give both work and dc 100% if your simply not there.
its not rocket science.

i just wish more people would accept they actually do not want children or that their lifestyle is not suitable for having children.

personally i think its horrible for babies to be in nurseries from say 8am til 6pm from as young as 6 weeks.
everyday, just because the parents enjoy their jobs so much.
i truely do.
and if you don't well, im glad im not you.

some people do have children that they do not really want, i think its a shame
some babies are in FT nursery at 6 weeks i think its a shame.

i think xenia is bitter and regretful for not being at home with her children, maybe true may not, but thats my take on it.
i find it hillarious how she thinks a nanny is a nanny, ie taking care of the children.
but a sahp [yes parent,not mother] is either a househusband or housewife.
i really find her views v out dated and laughable tbh.

to everyone that says do not judge, how children are raised and treated is everyones business, last week whilst doing the shopping i saw a mother shouting at her baby, and throwing at toy at him, im guessing he was about 11months old sitting in a trolley.
ok it was a soft toy but she threw it in his face.
is this my business or your business? yes neglect or child abuse is everyones business imo

the real question should be, why do peoplehave children they do not want? is it because they want to conform or they feel its what expected of them?
there is nothing wrong with admiting you do not want children, but people just will not do that.

and if people on this thread, do not think in their heart of hearts, its wrong for a 6 week old to be in nursery from 8am till 6pm, really i cannot be bothered, wasting my time explaining it to them, as i said im just glad i am not them.

This is a generational thing, right? I mean, every generation of MN newbies go through this. >

Is it not poss. to link the OP to a previous thread on this. I'm sure there are a few around...

And, OP, do you not consider it to be horribly insulting, insensitive and presumptuous of you to ask this question in the first place? To bring into question the desires and 'motives' of other parents. If you "can't understand" why some people love both their children and their jobs, albeit in differing ways, then try a little bit hard, before wandering on a parenting web site with such an inane question.

There. And breath.

more wine for mei dont mean to offend but i genuinely don't ponder how someone else raises their child -sheesh life is too short ladies i have neither the inclination or interest in justifying my decisions. nor do i wish to berate or quiz anyone else

now it is thursday night - im watching the numnuts on the apprentice replay

and drinking wine

and not bothering about the same ole same ole argument

Woohoo - I've inspired a thread! I feel famous all of a sudden.

AM not going to bother to reply to the OP as I'm sure it's all been said in the 300 messages I've yet to read :-)

Monkeybird I will find you more... dd is shouting, just a minute. the one I was quoting I thought was 1996??

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

Ah well. I'm disabled and can't work. But my kids are happy, well adjusted and doing pretty darn well. And do you know what? I couldn't care less what anyone else thinks anyway. Do what's best for you, if you're lucky enough to be able to choose

Posie I'm not denying that there is research that picks up on the detriments of being a working mother. The JRF report that you mention is interesting because what JRF end up arguing is that parents need more complex choices, so it isn't right to try to force mothers with young children into work and they could be given more options, including the option to stay at home.

The same research demonstrates (now having read the summary a bit more closely - it's here if anyone's interested) that having a working mother means a reduction in the likelihood of a daughter getting pregnant before the age of 21.

It's really not simple at all and the OP is doing us all a disservice. It isn't right to try and make people go straight back to work after having babies; they should have more choice. But neither is it right to trot out blanket statements about one tiny piece of evidence in a big sea. This is one small effect. It's damned good research (the JRF and University of Essex are the gold standard at this kind of thing). But I wouldn't base a whole morality on it.

A direct question to everyone on this thread. Do you think it is acceptable for a 6 week old baby to be in childcare for 10 hours or more a day, at least 5 days a week?

No one really seems to answer that point. It has just once again become a WOHM V SAHM thread.