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.

franca, interesting and very good. Are carers in Italy paid a wage commensurate their qualifications and are nurseries generally available/affordable in Italy?

Xenia, surely the children of mothers who stayed at home until their kids went to pre-school then chose to work, grow up with pretty much the same positive views of women?

They grow up seeing their mother contributing and on equal footing with their father. They probably will have little memory of her being at home, certainly not enough to cloud their judgement of women.
But they will have benefitted from the input.

I totally agree that the sort of parent referred to in the OP is rare. The truth is most women work out of necessity. Those women for whom choice is a reality, more often than not adjust their working life to achieve a reasonable balance.

Message withdrawn

Chequers, Does the fact that 3 posters have specifically quoted women who do fall into the category of the OP's, not count then ?
I appreciate they may be in the minority, but there certainly are some.

Well, there are always the anecdotal sisters-in-law, aren't there? who fall into the category - usually. Or neighbours. I haven't the will to go looking for actual references. I'm sure there are several below (or will have appeared while I type this).

Of course there are people who damagingly neglect their children. But the OP's automatic Venn diagram equation that FT working = damaging neglect (while ignoring some careful explanations of why those two categories are not automatically co-extensive) is the problem.

But "I don't understand people who have children only to damagingly neglect them" wouldn't have kicked off a thread though would it? No Shit Sherlock. No replies, no fun.

The other thing that I think Xenia forgets is that the life of the average working mother is a million miles away from her own.

Thousands of women are working in jobs they hate but are doing so out of necessity. They don't return home bright-eyed and bushy-tailed full of the joys of the workplace. They return exhausted and unable to give either their kids or their home they attention they'd like.

Their kids don't always see what a positive experience work is. They see a mother who's pulled in ten different direction often without any outside help.

Nor can they look back and say how wonderful it was that mummy worked because that meant I got to travel around India on an elephant or learned to ski off piste before I left school.

Bink - it was I who quoted my SIL/BIL as an example. I hope you're not implying that I'm lying.

And I didn't for a minute say that they are neglectful; I said that their children were both in full-time daycare from the age of six weeks. I said this because IT IS TRUE. It is true of many hundreds of thousands of babies in the USA, because there is almost no statutory provision for maternity leave.

No, wasn't thinking of your sister in law at all. And my whole point is that FT working (whether being able to choose one's ideal childcare or not) does not automatically = neglect. But the OP thinks it does.

I don't see why if it's a good nanny or nursery with the child that is any worse or better than a blood relative.

Also it's not "women" who all into that category if there are any - it's people, it's as much men who should be castigated if they aren't giving enough hours to their babies as women unless you have a really sexist view point. I never see much finger pointing about absent fathers. It is as if some women seem to think children have one parent and yet loads of the fathers I've known have done hour after hour with a small baby over their arm comforting it. Both parents heavily involved is more the norm.

I do however accept that if someone has been stupid enough to marry a sexist man and don't have the personal assertiveness to ensure equality at home and fairness they may be better off not working than working part tiem because then you often get teh worst of all worlds in terms of career, progression and pay but more importantly in terms of being saddled with all manner of dull jobs at home simply because you work fewer hours.

OK bink

Does anyone else find this thread quite cathartic. You can read extreme arguments, realise they are all bonkers and all guilt about working o staying at home just melts away....

but it's the Xenia's of this world that the OP is aimed at - not the mothers who are exhausted through working out of necessity.

I think the fundamental issue that the OP, and others, have is that they cannot see that a mother might prefer to work than carry out the day to day task of looking after her own children.

This is a perfectly valid point of view and, depending on the work opportunities available to you, probably in many cases an extremely rational one. It is not, however, the only one.

And there I think we need to agree to disagree and move on so that we can all get back to work/interacting with our children.

God, sorry I wasn't refering to the 'neglect' thing that has now become part of this thread.
I was refering to people who don't seem to have made any compromises at all.
This is my previous post :

But I do know a lady who works almost all day. Her mum looks after baby on saturdays. And I too wonder when she is actually being a mum. Why did she bother havving children. She seems to make no adjustment/no sacrifices what-so-ever, for this change in her life. Very odd.
And others have quoted similar situations :
Nailpolish did, and Sophiebbb:"my SIL works full time (7.30am til 7.30pm) and then gives her mum the baby on a Saturday so she can go to the hairdresser/shop etc. She is on a course this week 3 hours drive away from her DS. I must admit I do sometimes wonder at that.... "
I too wonder why

my post was answering cushioncover - the way the thread moves on can make it a bit difficult to follow at times I think

Blueshoes, as I said, we were living in the UK when the dc were small, so I'm not a 100% up to date. In Italy there is a number of creche that are funded by each council, the monthly cost is means tested. They are in general cheaper than English nurseries. BUT while councils in Northern Italy offer a decent number of creches (I'm talking for the under 3s. We have "scuole materne" for 3-6 yr old. Primary starts at 6), southern Italy is seriously lacking (higher number of women NOT returning to work there). Obviously council funded creches are not enough, so there are many private ones, many of which are partly funded by the council. But I believe there is the same requirements in terms of qualifications. I don't know how much is the wage for someone who works in a creche. With less money being pumped in the public sector, the problem is that in the last few yrs, staff have been hired with temporary contracts, which obviously has a risk of higher turnover. In Milan creches are on average fab. And so are scuole materne. In act now I have to run to collect mine from scuola

My issue is not whether someone is a SAHM, works full time or part time, or any thing else, I really couldn't care.
I do have concerns, about, a small % of the population, who have a lifestyle, then a baby comes along, and nothing changes, no compromises at all.
I do appreciate that not many mumsnetters fall into this category. But I thought that was what we were supposed to be discussing.
in the end, this thread had discussed everyhting else, SAHM v working, that old corker. ANd we have to have a bit of 'neglect' thrown in, don't we, or else it wouldn't be a proper thread

Message withdrawn

The kind of mother we are discussing isn't interested in parenting so she isn't on MN.

I do have an example close to home - my partner's ex . He wonders why she had children.

Yes chequers, that is true.

Message withdrawn

Chequers, you ask how many of us fall into the category of working as an option and not a necessity, and wonder that there are no posters other than Xenia to whom this might apply.

There are plenty of us here, but to be honest it generally pointless to try to respond with any kind of intellectual rigour because you just find yourself asking why you bother? No-one is going to change their views....

FWIW I see that Sweden has encouraged women in careers, has enshrined in law that certain % of female representation is required across industry and politics (since 1972), and sees virtually ALL children going into childcare at a young age (and certainly well before the cut-off point where the likes of Biddulph claim 'Mental Health Problems' will occur. Yet Sweden does not seem to be overflowing with problems and teenagers run riot. Amazing, that.

I also saw in the Rowntree report which everyone has been quoting that the authors had to admit that Fathers working long hours ALSO had a detrimental effect. They also found there were socio-economic factors skewing the results. They found "a strong positive association between the parents' occupational status and subsequent A-level attainment" But it obviously didn't suit them to harp on about this bit.

I also happen to feel that if you are looking at what your children need then you are somewhat lazy if you don't factor into that consideration the need for the best education that you can possibly afford them (be it state in a 'good' area with expensive housing, or private), as well as any number of other benefits that might accrue. But no, it comes down to a slanging match of "I'm right you're wrong". Every single time.

FWIW I am glad that I am not a kept woman but I don't go around slinging mud at women who are. Just because I chose to use the education I was blessed with to try to get to the top doesn't I think automatically qualify me to be insulted by others (not that I really care TBH). And it is usually pointless to try to point out the bleeding damned obvious when people say "You should be able to work more flexibly, be able to factor in some career breaks and so on" - nice words but two simple flaws. (1) why are we saying this to women and not to men too? Hello? and (2) How do you think this epiphany of cultural change is going to make it's way into our worlds without at least a few women getting into the boardrooms and forcing the issue down the throats of all the men for who it is blatantly not in their interest to open up their closeted world to some serious competition from the girls? If people who are career-minded don't work our best to try get to the top and make life easier for the next generation then we end up going backwards as a society.

But people don't normally want to hear that stuff.

Off now to collect my mentally damaged and neglected child from pre-school. Can't see it myself when I look at his happy face, but there you go. I'm obviously the blinkered one.

yes, my female boss told me "I have a naany who does EVERYTHING for me". As my boss is on a six figure salary plus car and bonus with a husband in the city, I am sure she can afford it.
She also is in the office at 7am and often still there at 7pm...I am told, I work 9-5 and rush home to my family.
I do, therefore wonder why my boss had children. She then elaborated that she spends all day on saturday with her DS, "mummy and DS day" (I don't know what the father does on saturday) she then complains that although 3 yo DS eats fish pie cooked by his nanny till it comes out of his ears during the week, he won't eat fish pie in the mega posh restaurant she takes him into on their "mummy and DS day" and I so nearly said "poor sod, he is probably wondering who is this stranger he is with and why is he in a restaurant rather than in the park". But I didn't.
She did take her full years maternity for DD though, but logged in from home to send emails during this time..while, no doubt her "nanny did everything".
I do find that parenting model very strange...but if the nanny is super then the children are probably really well cared for, even if it is not their biological parent providing that care.

Message withdrawn

I wasn't saying that all women work out of necessity (I don't) I was saying that Xenia forgets that many, many do.

Look, it's not rocket science to know that it's not ideal for little ones to rarely see their parents. But most families don't fall into this category. Nor is it difficult to see that good quality childcare is not only non-harmful but can be quite beneficial to a child.

Agood quality nanny or nursery has surely got to be a more positive experience than being at home with a mummy who spends the days wishing she were at work.

Also, some women are just crap at the whole water play/sequin sticking/PVA and tissue paper collage making thing. It does not make them a bad mum. Much better for their child to be with an enthusiastic nursery worker who loves that sort of thing.

The truth is that until most of us have children we have no idea what the reality will be like or how we will respond to the experience, which turns your world upside down.
I had some rosy idea influenced by the media of sahm-dom and spouted a lot of crap when pg for the first time about being in no hurry to get back to work, without in any way thinking through the financial consequences of this (I'm self employed, let alone how someone used to a very exciting career would enjoy life at home with a colicky newborn
So no surprise, like many on here, I found that - although I adore and worship my dds and think about them and their needs constantly - I am not a particularly brilliant sahm. I find it dull, lonely and repetitive day in and day out. I now know I'd be miserable and unfulfilled if I didn't work so in the end I went back part time fairly early. I DIDN'T KNOW THAT BEFORE. Should I not have bothered to have children? Obviously not imo, my dds are incredibly happy and lively, they know how much my dh and I love them and I really feel when dd1 asks me why I work I am teaching her important things about self sufficiency and the work ethic (not to say sahms don't work bloody hard because I have nothing but admiration for them, but ime children don't count what they do as work, unfairly).
Other friends feel differently, they love sahm and gave up incredible careers when they realised how much they enjoyed being with their children.
What is important ime if you're going to work is the best childcare you can afford. We go without foreign holidays, a new car, new clothes, sky tv etc, so we can employ a brilliant nanny who adores the kids and enriches their lives by not being a grumpy old bat as I would if I were home full time. I am a bit at people who do go to Thailand three times a year, drive bmws, shop in Gucci and then send young babies to a nursery saying nannies are too expensive. It does happen, I've seen it frequently. But each to her own