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.

Of course you'll get vitriol if the OP starts in the manner she started. Also if after 16 pages and many arguments later some dozzy cow still doesn't understand one jot of why mums might want to work as well as have children.

yes i am already in a shite area thanks! lol!

franca, my home life perked up immeasurably when my devoted but rather crabby and lonely mother went back to work
And we could afford a TV, in due course .

I don't think you are being unreasonable.If 2 parents don't have to work full time then I don't understand why they would work full time if they have children.

I didn't mean you
Our areas are...differently shite maybe?

There you go, another one.

hear, hear BK and marina

OMG there's a typo in my last post that makes me look like a complete idiot!!

Posieparker, you spotted it

what i find abhorrent is the idea that parents who choose to stay at home/work for part or all of their childrens childhood (!) are NOT as valid contributers to society as a whole as those who choose to continue at work full time

the point i was trying to make was that stay at home full/part time parents or work full time parents, everyone is contributing equally and positively just in diferent ways

For me personally I just struggle with pre-verbal children being in professional childcare, rather than being cared for by an adult who loves them. I know someone who did a stint at a respected local nursery - she told me tales that would make your hair curl.

I worked for a while after my children were born (despite it not being a financial necessity) but ultimately gave it up because I didn't feel that I could trust the paid carers to 'do it right'.

There is no moral ground to be gained in being either a SAHM or a parent in salaried work.....I suspect I would have carried on working if I had a local doting grandparent to take on the caring role

well no-one's footing my bills and I agree with every word OBM said.

I also think it's an indictment on our society now that having a parent with you at home can be seen as pandering to a little emperor!

Marina, I have started seeing a therapist to get over 30 yrs (if we take out the 7 yrs she was at work) of maternal devotion.......

So it is ok for babies o be at nursery for 10 hours a day 5 days a week if both parents are working so they can feel fulfilled,not because they both have to for any financial purpose.Sounds pretty awful to me.

again, where are the degrees in this? is carrying on without missing a beat career wise (something many many men get to do btw) when you have children equivalent to compromising, taking some maternity leave time out, looking at flexible working options being around a little bit when they are very small without giving up working? are they the same thing?

i don't see anyone (sane) arguing that mothers shouldn't work. i see an argument that parenting involves some degree of career flexibility and compromise which should be undertaken by BOTH parents. that if there no sense of that at all then perhaps it is not the right time to be a parent?

what is have to work.parents work for many reasons eg financial,self-esteem,maintain skills,stimulation,vocation

there is a danger of a false dichotomy eg parents who have to work are somehow more virtuous or it is implied are better parents than those who chose to work. it is implied they are avaricious,value money and not child's welfare

gross stereotyping is unhelpful, it really is

I don't believe - personally - that my staying at home will contribute to forge a member of society who'll be better than another member of society raised by someone who works full time.

absolutely hmc.

Sophable - but many people have said here and on other threads - and you've been around long enough to have read them - that it's not so easy to go in and out of careers. Don't pretend it is.

There's also the fact that YOU JUST DON@T KNOW before you have children what it's like having them, you don't build up a stash of money to keep you floating till your child is 18 or whatever. Thousands of reasons. There's personal fulfilment too, selfish as that sounds. Some people change 100% when they have children, some less.

Xenia.Am by your posts.Dp and I have both taken turns with childcare.

Yes but,basically for 10 hours a day someone else is bringing up your child.Can't see the point in that really.

I agree with SM. If a child is "damaged" by a parent working then it doesn't matter if they work out of choice or out of need. Indeed, if out of need then it's possibly because they are in a owrse off financial situation, less happy overall etc. Another generalisation. Then back to the question what is the opimum amount of hours a week and till what age?

Sophable, Policywonk referred to the states, I will refer to other countries, like Italy for instance, where flexible work is virtually unheard of. Most of my friends were refused to go part time. Therefore here you either give up working, which seems to be the norm, as Italy is the country with the lowest rate of women going back to work after having a child in Eurolandia, or you work full time, esp if you live in Milan. And Italy has also one of the lowest level of fertility in Europe.

everyone is different aren't they.

That's OK, Doobydoo, you don't have to see the point in everything in life.

onebatmother: " A child's needs cannot be met by the child. They must be met by a parent."

You make cogent points, but your entire premise in based on the above statement.

My answer to your entire post is that the needs of a child CAN be met by fulltime working parent - by the parents personally when they are with the child and by consistent and loving childcare arrangements that the parents put in place.

Like cat64, I have extroverted children who adore nursery. They were clingy because they were people persons at heart. If I never put them in nursery because I thought they were joined at the hip to me, I would never have found out (to my great surprise) how their extroverted personalities just thrived and blossomed by all the comings-and-goings and loads of cuddles at nursery. Nursery met their need for social stimulation and intellectual curiosity better than I could ever do at home with them. I am humble enough to accept that I am not their whole world and gratified that I have the choice to use a nursery and earn a good wage.

But if you think it is wrong and damaging to put babies in nursery for all that time, full stop...then why are those of us who have to do it for financial reasons, somehow damaging our children less than those who do it for "self actualisation" or whatever?
Surely if lengthy hours in even respected daycare settings is suboptimal, then it's irrelevant as to why the babies are there. The babies don't know whether their mummy is a selfish careerist or an essential financial contributor, do they?