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.

Maybe we need a symbols to shine in the sky like the people of Gotham City had for Batman that could call Xenia to the rescue.

all mother's make sacrifices - too true. any woman who thinks having babies is an easy ride, is very wrong.

why are people feeling that they have to justify their position? how many hours worked etc.

if you work - well done, you must have a great job. if you stay at home - wonderful your helping to create a new person and improve your society.

why do are women at each other throats about this issue? again, i think it's just rumores spead by the editors, of the unobtainable (the perfect work/life balance).

Staying at home with your children means clearing up endless shit piss and vomit in my experience...

Message withdrawn

"personally i think its horrible for babies to be in nurseries from say 8am til 6pm from as young as 6 weeks.
everyday, just because the parents enjoy their jobs so much."

I agree.

But milkperson (cant remember your full name). That's just it. I wouldnt want to be you either being at home all day with kids.

But the 6wk old in nursery for 12hours a day is quite extreme IME. Especially with better maternity benefits these days.

Have a read of the book by that Vanity Fair journo (Leslie summat or other) and WHOLE LIBRARIES of feminist argument for some of the reasons why women work.

Cos I'm not sure I can be arsed explaining it to you.

"babies to be in nurseries from say 8am til 6pm from as young as 6 weeks.
everyday, just because the parents enjoy their jobs so much."
well, that would account for about 0.001% of the population, then.

Well I didnt have to drop at 6 weeks because my career means that I am entitled to decent maternity leave and pay. If not, then I would have been a 6 weeker I'm sure.

Alittleone - why is it judgy to wonder why? It's human nature to wonder why people behave in a way we don't like. I wonder why people go on holiday to bake themselves like crisps on a sun lounger for 12 hours a day, my idea of hell. Doesn't mean I can't question their motives without judging, they'd probably hate what I chose to do.

Message withdrawn

i sacrificed toilet paper

I was going to say the exact same blu and cushioncover.

Nurseries don't take 6 week old babies

What rot

I so agree about sun bathing type holidays!

Indeed. I wonder actually just how many 6 week olds are in full time nursery right now? I imagine it's, well, not that many. And I'm afraid that those that are there will be the children of people who HAVE to work; as those who work because they choose to will, most probably, have a nanny.

Now, something I don't understand: just where is this "you can have it all line spouted by the goverment"? Link please?

I have a little bit of sympathy with the OP actually.

I know a family where the 2 oldest children have attended breakfast/after school/holiday club since they were 5 years old. They often look rather tired and one of them told me he doesn't like having to go every day, especially during the school holidays. 7.45am to 6.30pm is a long day for a child imo.

Hercules - really? You would have left your baby at 6 weeks old all day at a nusery? Do you honestly think you could have?

but Danceswith, it is quite judgey to assume that one (having a job) negates the other (caring about and bringing up properly your children)

If it were to pay the mortgage then yes of course.

I understand the OP's question, I'm assuming she's referring to women that go back full time when the baby is just a few weeks/months old, and I've asked that question myself before(usually when gazing into the eyes of my tiny baby thinking I could never leave them!). I do wonder why couples have children for both to agressively persue careers in spite of their family situation. There is evidence that supports negative outcomes for children who's mother returns to work (by mother I am assuming both parents) full time before they're 18 months, which stands to reason.
Nothing in life allows you to have your cake and eat it and that's why ONLY women suffer financially for having children, only women suffer career wise for having children and only women are pulled apart by others for whatever choice they make.
Part time seems pretty ideal if you want both. I am the niche of not needing to work, but then I write and have nearlt four children six and under!!

Ooh, another reason for me is the example I want to set to my own children especially my daughter.

Chequers - thanks, i normally don't post on threads like this but with our recent news on DH i have just been amused why people who have been judgey about me working FT (including a SIL) are all of a sudden "oh well done you" . So it's all of a sudden ok because my DH has MS.

I love my job, I love my child - and happen to think that I'm pretty good at taking care of both.

It's MN that is the real threat to my performance as a mother and employee.