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.

Good post MrsS

There is no right or wrong...I think its great that women have the freedom nowadays to make a choice about what they want to do...men have been doing this for eons and alot of men (most hopefully) are still very good parents even if they do work full time (can vouch for mine anyway)

Thanks Policy, you're always so nice to me

Message withdrawn

My mother left me with a nanny from 3 months until I went to school and continued to work until she retired when I was 16. She worked full-time and very long hours. There were some financial reasons for her going back to work, but she also wanted to work so I guess it was more of an option than a necessity. I don't feel remotely neglected now, and I don't remember feel neglected then. I have a wonderful relationship with both my parents (my father also worked full-time). I'm immensely proud of my mum for working in the way she did, but I'd be equally proud of her if she had stayed at home because she's an amazing woman regardless of what work she did.

I have much older siblings who had her at home until they went to school, and I have to say none of us have ever noticed a difference in our upbringings as a result.

This doesn't really contribute much but having read through the thread, I felt compelled to say something. I may, of course, be emotionally damaged or intellectually stunted in some way I don't know about but I still had a very happy childhood.

Am I MrsS? Will have to do something about that

Just read your germaine greer post on other thread, policy, rofl
(now cravenly trying to keep approval)

LOL Squiffy, you are on fire this week

As I mentioned on the other thread, I have a very thick skin so people bleating about the damage done to my children by my working through choice doesn't really penetrate it (although I keep enough introspection to make sure our general modus opernandi is under continual review).

My DCs are 6 and 4 - plenty old enough to have developed into personalites. I know it would suit a lot of arguments to hear that they are lacking in cognitive abilities/emotionally needy/generally hard done by but... erm... they're not. They are both bright (in the case of one, possibly extremely bright), lively, happy, loving, stable, emotionally robust, well-adjusted children.

And bloody right, Squiffy, that change is also going to come from women with family commitments taking senior positions and there being a trickle down effect. I don't think change comes alone from people putting in flexible working requests - you've got to have people approving flexible working requests who have a full empathy for the issues involved.

And to add to Heffa, my mum worked full-time from when I was about seven and pt before, I remember endless "Now, darling just because mummy goes to work doesn't mean she doesn't love you just as much" conversations
I was totally bemused
Why shouldn't she work if she wanted to, was my reaction.She was always at the end of a phone for me when I got home from school (do think that's important)but I was quite happy to be picked up by a childminder and spend a few hours in her company. Mum was clearly happy at work, it was win-win, friends whose mums didn't work if anything seemed to have a lack of respect for them (unfair as I said before, but kids are unfair). She was there in the early years and was great but in a let-the-kids-play-I'm-going-to-read-the-paper-on-the-sofa kind of way which I think is absolutely fine, taught me to be independent and self sufficient which are valuable lessons

Ah MrsS, just searched posts and see what you mean. I'm coming across like a scary stalker.

If we're going to get all anecdotal about it, my mother stayed at home with us until I went to school, at which point she started working part-time. She is, without exception, the cleverest person I have ever met, and ridiculously competent; she just found the development of small children fascinating, and wanted to oversee our development as infants. She also does not have a competitive bone in her body, and simply wasn't interested in the status or money that work offered (although she did appreciate work for intellectual and social reasons). Our home life was pretty hand-to-mouth during those years, but all I remember is a warm, loving, stimulating relationship with my mother. My brother and I certainly have never lacked respect for her or for the choices she made.

Yeah, sorry to drag anecdotes into it, I just wanted to make the point that I never suffered because my mother worked. My siblings didn't suffer because she didn't work. It wasn't what she did that defined her but the person that she is (IMO).

Heffa - i can see why that would be. I was on ML for 9 months with DS, 2.5 years with DD1 and 4 months with DD2. I'm the same person & I love them all the same. Inevitably, I'm less obsessed and intense nowadays than with my PFB. It might seem on the surface that i gave my best to DD1 but then I had a spot of PND too. I bet this is the kind of stuff that research can't really take into account, though.

Sorry heffa, I didn't mean to imply that anecdotes were inadmissible!

squiffy, re. your post: I completely agree that the Scandinavians do these things better than we do. However, it's not coincidental that their childcare workers are better paid and better qualifed than ours are, as a rule. Sweden also has very generous provision for paid parental (NB not just maternal) leave until children are about 18 months old, so I'm not sure it's true that 'all children go into childcare at a young age' - not necessarily before 18 months anyway.

The Rowntree report did find that fathers' employment also had a detrimental effect, but that is was less significant. This might have been why the report did not 'harp on about it' as much. I don't think it's at all true to say that socio-economic factors skewed the results of the study. The study was conducted on siblings, who by definition have the same socio-economic background.

You go on to imply that those who don't prioritise the earning of money are 'lazy'. This is simply unsupportable. You claim not to 'sling mud', yet you call SAHMs 'kept women'. That sounds like an insult to me.

However I agree that it's important to get women into the top positions in all careers, and that this can only be effected by women remaining in work.

Men choose how much time to spend with children too. Where is all the criticism of them? Where are the comments why did you have children if you go back to work so quickly or go on business trips away?

Also I spot some jealousy on this thread. if a woman earns a lot or has a husband who does why should she not pay others to do work for her whether it's cleaning or some childcare? Is there some better moral position if a woman has a hard life - is that what we're sayhing - it's fine to work as long as your life is a veil of tears and it's really hard but not right if you can afford to employ a nanny and go on skiing holidays? Instead we should be saying to those women - well done you - good example to others to get ahead.

Xenia - since there is a hell of a lot of competition on this thread there is bound to be some envy too .

Agree with what you say.

Anna and Xenia agreeing, wow, has this happened before? Or does it take 666 posts to get there? If we all carry on for longer will we all agree with each other?

Message withdrawn

'if a woman earns a lot or has a husband who does why should she not pay others to do work for her whether it's cleaning or some childcare?'

Two things bother me about this sentence - first, that it's assumed that arranging childcare is the mother's responsibility, and second, that looking after children is equated with cleaning. I think one of the things that concerns people in these debates is that childcare is not analagous to putting out the bins, or sweeping the floor. It is a great deal more important and significant than that.

Message withdrawn

No competition here, partner works get paid nicely thank you. I have full access to our money and have interests and hobbies outside of my children. I think it is difficult for some on either side of the debate to understand the other's position. A SAHM can feel like she is a success and can have children (including daughter's that do very well) and WAHM can have healthy and loving relationships with their children.
Whether I work or not has no impact on the lifestyle I would want for my children, no financial advantage worth leaving tem with anyone, for me.
Xenia I understand why you attack others to defend your position but I really don't think you should. If you know you're doing the best for your family then that's all that matters, when you attack SAHMs it makes me think you protest too much??

It never shoudl be the woman's repsonsiblity and I never allowed it to be in my marriage. In fact one thing all pregnant women should ensure is that their husband as much as them is thinking about childcare, visiting nurseries or advertising nannies. It was never my responsibility. So I agee. That's a key issue.

Looking after children involves a lot of cleaning, anyone with 3 under 4s will tell you that. You spend half your time taking loads of sick off you and the child and messed up food. Working parents do a lot of that too. But a lot of us, male and female, would not like 12 hours a day of it. That does then to my mind become domestic drudgery and boring. So yes, like time with them but happy to work in the day and then be with them after that. That's the best balance for most women and let's not forget most women in the UK and probably the EU of under 5s do work and always have done even my great grandmother who had 17 children worked.

"No competition here, partner works get paid nicely thank you. I have full access to our money and have interests and hobbies outside of my children."

What is that statement if not competing?

Chequers
your story reminds me
my mother had four daughter. i was the last. She married my father at 16 and had not been educated beyong the age of 12 after her mother died and she had to raise her younger brothers.
She brought up my sisters to be like her and they all learnt to cook and clean the house while my four brothers did nothing ( i know butthat was all she knew.)
Well i was really advanced at school and she refused to raise another 'housewife' so I was not allowed to cook and clean etc and was treated like one of the boys.
i left home to go and work in the city and had to live in a small studio and i starved and lived in a heap because I was clueless.
I had a fantastic career but am now at home full time.
All my three sisters have children and well paid jobs they love outside the home.

I have always thought that was quite funny/ironic. Certainly it stops me worrying about example affecting outcome - my daughter will not be affected by having a mother at home if my sisters are anything to go by...
I am sorry - that is ot but your story just reminded me

Posie, but don't forget who starts 99.99% of this threads on here? is it WOHMs or is it SAHMs? Doesn't that tell you anything about the protesting too much bit?