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.

We used to have the most wonderful Au pair who actually loved our children. She stayed us for the full 2 years. I think it depends more on temperament and possibly age of the children than their actual position. Given the choice I would always surround my children with a few people who love them than many interchangeable people who deal with them with a more professional detachment.

I love my children and actually I love my job too I work full time, but have hardly any commute and have about 10 weeks holiday a year due to taking flexileave. That means a reasonable work life balance.

AND I do have older children( age 8 and 13) who are both at school and need me less during usual working hours.

I did NOT love my job when my children were younger.

BUT..... I probalby would not have the job I love now if I had not worked at all when my children were tiny.

I have got the job I want now because (in the main) I kept on working.

Haven't read any of the thread apart from the OP by the way.

F, I think whether you're clean the sex and drugs litter from our parks, man the 24 hour garage, run an international bank, operate on the hearts of children or stay home and look after your children you are worthy of respect. Xenia offers none to SAHMs she insists that they perpetuate the women as slaves myth, although Xenia hasn't mentioned SAHDs, so sexist!
It was a brave choice to take a break in a successful career to care for children, I may have hated it and my job would have been filled and moved on.

duchese, I take it you are an attractive lady and she was an unattractive Au pair.... or are they just movie myths, lol!!

wish I had never got dd a sandpit

She was lovely. Very traditionally Turkish though, brought up in a strict Muslim, so chance of any funny business.

"Muslim family"

no chance.

I need some coffee... Been up since 6:30am

PP, I agree everyone is worthy of respect.

I was referring to "No it means I am brave enough to believe that my children are worth my time." Perhaps you are just expressing yourself clumsily, but this post implies to me that wohms might not think children are worth their time.

Issy, duchesse - yes, I agree with what you say. I think one of the reasons I'm equivocal about group childcare is that my experience of it (DS1 attended nursery for two sessions a week for nearly three years, DS2 attended one playgroup session before I whipped him out again in disgust) has been very so-so, and I definitely didn't get the feeling that DS1 experienced any positive emotional connection with any of the women at his nursery - perhaps part-time attendance doesn't facilitate that.

Sorry, meant to add that group childcare in nursery/playgroup settings is the norm for children, even babies, in this country, and my experience makes me uncomfortable about that. However I accept that some other parents have very positive experiences with nurseries.

Clumsily yes, in haste I din't finish the sentiment. As for the implication I was just talking about my position and not ergo WOHMs etc...
I am struggling not to offend the hard working parent who loves/needs their job and I did love mine but, clearly, not enough. It was not a tough decision, besides I was pregnant with my second when my first was five months and so it was a no brainer about going back to a job in London when I lived in Bristol (at that point I was at a different company to my dp).

How lovely duchesse, pretty perfect! I have to say I am slightly swayed about the whole debate and feel I see other points of view without a pointed finger and I still feel happy about my decision (which is based on emotion as much as anything else) but am really glad to have listened.

Was worried that by the time I finished reading the thread, there would be 1000 posts.

If any of us choose to look back on our lives and the choices we made, we will all do so in the context of the choices we had.

I think debates like this are useful because they reinforce for me the validity of the decisions I have made - for better or for worse. I took all the facts and options, jumbled them up and came up with my life as it is.

Whether these were the right choices or not is anybody's guess, and the Rowntree study has no relevance in that. I didn't think I had the choice to give up work (not purely a financial hand to mouth choice - a life is a long thing and my career was worth maintaining for more than money through the pre school years).

However, as someone had previously stated, none of us has the 'control' child. None of us had the 'control' life either. We can't really know how our choices will affect our children for better or worse.

However, I trust parents to make the right choices for their own children. I have never met a parent who is wilfully ignorant of their children's needs.

Which is why at whatever end of the spectrum you are, I agree with your choices. You were in possession of your unique set of circumstances. And if that included working when you didn't need to financially (like me), then fine.

Oh dear, pp married her boss and gave up work to have 2 babies. Tell me it isn't true? Tell me she married a male underling who was half her age and earned a tenth of her salary and I will withdraw from threads like this content...

But the essential point is that the suggestion of the first post on this thread that women should be home with children and why have children if you're going to work (only if you're female, no criticisms of all the men who work of course because the original post is sexist to the core) is wrong. And there are tremendous advantages to children if their parents work never mind to the relationship between their parents and for the good of society. It's a no brainer which is why most women with under 5s do work.

If housewives are going to start threads saying it's better for children if mothers don't work they have to be prepared to hear the case that it is actually better for children and families if mothers do work. If they don't like to hear that - tough. I don't mind hearing stay at home mother's cases for why we all should stay home because I know I'm right and they're wrong.

It would be great to come back on here when we're all 63 and see if people are happy with how they spend the last 30 years.

I admit I haven't rad all 865 posts on this thread- just the OP. Re: the OP- what a total pile of pooh!

I love my job and I love my dd. Number 2 is on the way and I'll go back to work after his/ her birth too. Loving to work and loving your children are not mutually exclusive.

Just because you have made different choices, please don't judge other people. You sound ridiculous.

Xenia, are you congenitally incapable of using phrases like 'in my opinion'? Your insistence that your own experience is universally applicable makes your posts utterly idiotic.

They do have a Wizard of Oz element to them.
What's really behind the curtain?

His position had nothing to do with whether or not we fell in love, his salary had everything to do with whether I stayed at home. So what if he had stayed at home Xenia? What do you think of SAHDs? I worked fro another firm before his and so his career path was more straight forward. I guess the difference is it is not an issue for us, my writing and child caring (sic) is just as important as his job. This cannot be that difficult for you. I didn't need to work to feel valued, so ignorant to assume that because your self worth is based on your achievements outside of the home that everyone's is. I have no doubt that my other aspirations will be realised.

Xenia, if you are a business leader I feel very sorry for women, and men for that matter, that work for you. I wonder if they feel they can have the maternity/paternity they're entitled to?

Excellent post Cloudhopper!

Xenia, I'm just reading an article about you on the internet. I can't believe you have achieved everything you have at only 46, hats off to you.

BraceYourselfMavis - you've cheered me up with that comment - thanks. Love your name too.

I thought the OP was asking about people who change nothing when their children arrive?

I suspect that the people who change literally nothing have their kids taken into care pretty quickly. Changing nothing means not looking after the extra person, not changing its nappy, feeding it, getting up in the night to it, clothing it, etc...

So, "changing nothing" is a complete red herring. It just means "not suffering as much as I am suffering for my children". And I should imagine that financial security does cushion one from rather a lot of unnecessary change, but that is rather the point of financial security, and why people aim for it.