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.

Has this thread reached 1000 yet. Just had a scan of it, did anyone mention the aristocrocy who passed their children on to paid help from birth. These were women that did not have worthwhile well paid jobs but just preferred to let someone else do the mundane tasks associated with bringing up children. The children where normally packed to boarding school at age 7 (think royals then downwards)

Did it do there children any harm . Or have they been continually judged for it.

Well until we get pat/maternity right I can't see how there can be any equality in the workplace. Afterall if I were the owner of a company, let's say a small one, and I had two candidates coming for the same job separated only by gender both newly married in early thirties I would employ the male. Afterall my budget won't allow for an extra member of staff takes six month off when she has her baby......... very sad by so true. Simple economics implies this. Now that woman many not have any children or want any but I'm not able to ask, I then assume that the man won't be taking more than two weeks off.

extra member of staff when the woman takes six months off............ oh dear another typo. And I wouldn't be able to ask if she agrees with Xenia on MN either and so would only have the two weeks!!!

Posie, that bad but so true. Women do not have equality in the workplace based on our biology. Also the right to time off with a child under 5. It would be assumed that it will be the mother that takes that right.

not at 1000 yet then

carers leave is common in public sector,an employee benefit.so whichever parent was the carer takes the leave. obviously non transferable

Fortunatley maternity leave has increased significantly to 6 months or 12 unpaid so no need to put 6 week olds into full-time nursery nowadays.

unless of course one wants to

Havent read all the thread - too long! But I cant believe OP is so narrow minded that she cant understand why someone would want to work when they diodnt have to. i dont have to work but I want to. I love my job. It amkes me who I am. I didnt stop being a person when I became a mother. OP obviously did!

about, depends on your earnings. For 6 weeks only you get 90% of pay. If you earn £100k and have a mortgage (and possibly a lower earning husband to keep, a nanny to pay for for children 1 and 2 with number 3 on the way, you can manage 6 weeks at 90% pay but no way on earth can you afford the £112 a week weeks you get on maternity benefit. Of course if you normally earn £112 then that's fine but a lot of women earn more and then in practice unless they're in the public sector subsidised by tax paying working mothers and others offered a better deal or they happen to be in one of the few companies that offers more than 6 weeks at 90% pay then they do go back. It's probably good for them that they do but I expect a lot dont' feel like that at the time.

Well at least op got an indepth argument discussion going. Of course Maternity Leave is a choice. I did not have that choice early 90's and had to go back at 6 weeks, single mum no hubbies income.

xenia i am an NHS employee and i also pay tax so i dont consider myself a financial burden on other mums

Xenia, I don't think you're right wing enough!!

Oh sorry yes, I realise that 90% pay is only for 6 weeks but rights to take extended time off albeit on a reduced amount is an option. With me it was unless you return in 6 weeks you will lose your job.

If I had had the choice then, personally, I would have had the maximum time with my baby but then returned to full time. Saying that later on I did work part-time even though I was worse off money wise. I wanted to be able to collect DD from school a couple of times a week and it made her happier.

I agree wholeheartedly with riven's point about partnership. Xenia's insistence that sahm's are, at best, whores - at worst, stupid whores - is both offensive and ..stupid.

I have been a "high achiever" with a career that others envy, I have a partner who is very clever but not (yet) well paid, and I am struggling to stay out of full-time employment as long as I can. But I expect, at some stage, to go back to "high achievement".

I am - most certainly - not a fundie SAHM. But I believe that pre-school children want to be with their parents as much as possible and I have tried to make that happen, as far as is possible, and at the expense of other aspects of our lives. It is a short time, after all.

My position is this.
Women who achieve financial success are to be respected.
Women who achieve political/community/family success are to be respected.
Women who stick their fingers in their ears and say la la la are to be pitied.

In this instance, the la la la is the refusal even to look in the eye the possibility that 8am-7pm daycare could be a shit life for a child.

This is the reality for many, many small children, not - sadly - fairymum's enviable situation, where her dp spends 3 hours with the children in the morning and she picks them up at 4.30. I won't even detail the extent to which Xenia's life diverges from the norm.

The difference between my position and that of some of the more fundie WOHMs on this thread is that I can look the possibility that my daughter will mock me - despise me - for failing to reach my full business potential, squarely in the eye.

But they seem unable to look in the eye the possibility that their children need them when they are not there. That those who care for many of our children are just killing time till the end of the day. And that that might not be a good thing.

In order to increase the effectiveness of their fingers-in-ears approach, they focus on insult, generalization, or over-personalization. Anything to avoid examining that terrifying possibility. A possibility which is not their fault, and which requires all of us to stand up together , and demand change.

"rights to take extended time off albeit on a reduced amount is an option"

At £112 a week it really isn't an option for many.

Sorry Xenia just read your post again. It sounds to me as though your choices have been financially motivated. That is not meant as a critisism as I think you have enough flax and I dont wish to add to it.

lol Xenia having enough flax. Enough for a hair-shirt?

Freddysteddy. Its not a lot of money I agree but I think the OP (remember her or him) was referring to families where money was not the main matter. ( As if I say)

Got you now abouteve, assumed you were talking generally about those who use childcare from 6 weeks, sorry.

In response to that point thought - I do think that maybe for those where money isn't an issue but the career is very important taking months off on maternity leave could be seen as very damaging to their career. I can't speak for people in that situation though.

(I agree on the "as if", as well).

Onebat lol. This is how I love mumsnet. Lets face it we are all different and then again so similar. I'm an undereducated lone parent. But I've got so much in common with fellow mumsnetters due to the fact that we enjoy this site and have our childrens best interest at heart. (and love chatting about our DC's)

it is not wrong to use nursery at 6wk, it is individual choice.what is wrong is blanket dismissal

Freddy, you are right. I went back after 6 weeks and someone else had their feet under my desk literally.