Am I being unreasonable? : honestly to wonder why have children if you ......Part II

[Judy1234]

II.... but I can't remembered what I had just been asked and hadn't answered yet.

One point about whether working parents were burying their heads in the sand about damage to children, not reading the literature etc. I think having been a full time working mother for 23 years I have a pretty good idea about what impact it has or hasn't had on the 5 children. I've certainly read most stuff produced. A lot is misrepresented and a lot of studies contradict each other. Bowlby for example studied children taken from their parents and then living away which is nothing like a mother and father there every day for their child.

As for which is more insulting - the original thread saying why have children if you're going to work (only applied to woman apparently - men are allowed to do it with impunity and without criticism) or it's better for children if both parents work it's just part of lively banter on line. It's pretty easy in life to ensure you only mix with people whose views are like yours whether that's in your church, cult, WI, working mother group, class, race or whatever but the internet gives you a chance to see other views like women who think it can indeed be best for babies and relationships and families to return to work when the baby is 2 weeks old.

Someone asked if I went back early because of money. I doubt it. I did discuss with their father before we even married who would look after the children if a nanny didn't work out and he suggested he gave up work although it never came to that. These are certainly conversations people should have before they marry so they do find out if they're marrying a sexist man or someone who won't go 50/50 on chores etc. But certainly the fact you just get 6 weeks at 90% got be back quickly. If I had been in the same job for 8 years and then had a right to 3 months at full pay I would probably have felt that quite reasonable.

The question I was asked - I did post on "accomplishment" on the other 1000 post thread on this yesterday or the day before. I can't remember how accomplishment came up. On the original thread we were asked what is the point of having children if the mother works and then people talked about how good parents fathers and mothers can be (sometimes better than parents who don't work) and work which is clearly true. Those loving parents who work accomplish much too in terms of their relationship with their partner and children and I don't think you can say you aren't with your husband 24 hours a day so you don't achieve as much in terms of getting a happy marriage and ditto with your children - unless we live with them all day home school them and sleep with them we are not accomplishing good relationships with them.

In terms of balanced lives I think most people feel they accomplish things in all areas of their lives, their personal relationships, hobbies and work. No one would doubt that. Does that answer it?

But I do think women have such a huge contribution to make to this country as surgeons, on the board of plcs, as head teachers and engineers and if too many stay home we will lose gains we fought hard to achieve.

In terms of benefits most private sector companies pay 6 weeks at 90% of pay and then after that you get £112 a week maternity pay whether you earn £1m a year or £7000 a year. Some pay more but most don't. If the public sector is paying a lot more that's because public sector wages are so low the only way to keep those women and not waste the money spent on their training is more generous maternity benefits and that is the market working properly. But for women with the usual deal after 6 weeks if they are quite well paid, their husband isn't, they pay a nanny for their other children and they have a new baby and a large mortgage they will have to have saved hard for a good long while if they can suddenly accept £112 a week and not get into mortgage arrears with that. Also you can't just sack an existing nanny because you're at home on £112 a week, can you? You have to carry on with her so therefore that's another reason to go back to work early and anyway it makes things simpler - children keen their normal routines, the baby gets used to things from the off and it all works fine.

As I said on the other thread it would be useful if you employ fewer than 6 people if the state paid the SMP after the 6 weeks directly to the employee and the employer did not have to do all the forms and then pay it back (writing as a mother who has had 2 nannies go on maternity leave and have to deal with all the paperwork for that).

(This by the way was simply a continuation of another thread with almost identical title which got to 1000 posts yesterday)

What about, I have no idea who Xenia is, if Xenia is the Prime Minister? Clearly she's not Gordon Brown! Or if she were the owner/head of an industrial bank that organised loans to farmers in Africa at good rates? Or she ran the biggest women's charity? Is there a job that would justify her work ethic?
Sorry to use you as a guinea pig, Xenia, but I wonder if it's your occupation that matters, if there is one noble enough for poeple to think your actions are justified.

But you only ask the question because you believe mothers and babies should be together all day. That's the real issue. Not all of us believe that. If babies do as well if they are with a granny all day in the week or their father or a nanny then we don't need to justify whether the mother is bad to be away having her hair done or at the gym or writing poetry or stacking shelves in Tesco or making money.

Why do we need justification for women not to be with their children? Obviously there are some limits - a father who goes to work abroad for 6 months in most cases is doing his children a disservice and a mother too because that's too long and not fair on the family but in terms of just workings hard in the week I don't think children suffer at all.

The other issue people over look is that a lot of how children are is their genes. All recent studies of adopted and genetic children show this point. I would guess it's about 50% and environment does matter of course, but even so whatever you do a large part of how your children turn out is more dependent on the genes you gave them and the man you chose to have children with's genes than most parents like to think.

I've been following the original thread with interest.

I've been ft since my dds, now 15 and 12, were four months and six months respectively.

I'm now in a senior position in work, a position I wouldn't have reached had I cut my hours when they were young.

We could have chosen otherwise..if we hadn't moved to a bigger house in a better area, hadn't paid for music and sport lessons, hadn't joined a private leisure club and had had more modest holidays etc...but I grew up in a home with a more modest income and wanted to work for a different lifestyle for my family.

Yesterday was one of the most rewarding days I've ever had..dd1 was playing the harp at a wedding - her first paid gig, which we were all a bit nervous about - but she did brilliantly and came away happy with her fee.

Then dd2 competed in and won a sport tournament. Needless to say, I'm proud of both of them - they're great kids that are a lot of fun to be with now...and I have to say I would have been bored witless if I'd stayed at home with them when they were very young.

In the car, ferrying them between these events, we chatted about their early childcare..along with one of dd2's friends who came along who's also the daughter of working parents and was in daycare when very young.

Their fond memories of their early childcare (not just from yesterday's conversation)...and this comes very genuinely from them...was reinforcement that they've turned out happy with those experiences.

The excellent workplace nursery mine attended put them streets ahead educationally...there was a strong emphasis on both music (the "baby band") as well as learning to read and write and outdoor activities. The nursery nurses in fact did a much better job than I would have.

I'm not saying a parent who stays at home can't achieve the same - but that I do think it's insulting and arrogant to assume all parents who both work damage their children, or that they shouldn't have children.

In my view, the quality of the early childcare is what counts - and that doesn't really matter if it comes from a parents all the time, or a good substitute carer.

I obviously agree with hm and yesterday sounds like a lovely day.

The quality of care does count and some parents are not good with under 5s or can find childcare which is good. Others are good, don't want to work and local childcare is non existent or very bad (including 250,000 househusbands).

Those of us with older children who have done well can look back content we worked and know (as I said on the other thread) that our earnings have also helped the children too. If they can have good care plus the advantages money from female earnings buys, then why not give them both. In the UK child poverty is the biggest indicator of your lifetime achievement/status still so having two wages not one or having for single parents one wage rather than living on state benefits can make a huge different to how children turn out.

I don't think it's relevant to say no child can remember anything before age 5 so nothing before that age matters - and I don't really know anyone who ever says that, but as long as they have love and security and a happy home age 1 - 5 it makes no difference if the parents work or don't.

Of course some people are not at all materialistic and there's nothing wrong with that either as long as it's fair to impose the commune or the self sufficient lifestyle in rural Wales on children and teenagers or whatever. But most children when they get into their teens probably do want to feel they can at least to some extent have some of the things their friends have whether that's a mobile phone, an ipod, music lessons school trips or whatever. And if a mother has not made a career sacrifice and still works there is more chance that that is possible.

Also we neglect how proud children can be of their parents' careers too. We loved to see my father on TV for example and it's interesting to have a parent with a fascinating career you can chat to your friends about. I am sure some of my five particularly as teenagers found anything a parent ever did very embarrassing because that's what teenagers are like, but I do know they like to talk about me to their friends, about work things I've done etc.

A second thread to continue arguing about this?

Can we not all just agree to disagree - that we all do what we feel is best for us and our family and that the choices of others are not a criticism of our choices, and that we all have the right to do things our way and
frankly
it's nothing to do with anyone else how we each manage our lives?

???

The thing is having kids isn't a cerabral act, it's a primal biological one. Women 'work' all over the world to feed their children, only very few are lucky enough to get paid for it and have a good quality of life.

People may 'wonder' about having children, but and decision coming from such wondering is proximate, not ultimate, which is an evolutionary urge and why people still have children in the most wreatched of situations, warzones, death camps, etc. It's logical on a genetic level but not an emotional one.

but any decision coming from such wondering is proximate

Re the op Xenia - you say you found the original thread 'insulting' as some of the views seemed to misunderstand or misconstrue your personal reasons for making the choices you did. But peoples personal choices are just that, their personal choices and people who are ignorant of how those choices were made shouldn't judge - shouldn't judge you and neither should you judge others weak because they choose to be SAHM's or have some battles of wills within their relationships but still manage to maintain those relationships, where the good outweighs the bad.

It seems a bit pot/kettle/black to me, but maybe it will help you learn to stop disrespecting others who make vastly different choices to you. Not if you don?t want the same degree of polarised debate back anyway. If you are ignorant of the reasons for their choices, then that's your problem not theirs - and the same goes vice versa.

I've never said I felt insulted. I've never felt insulted by anyone. I like discussions about these issues which are very important to a lot of women which is why they are popular topics. If some women don't like to debate them it's easy enough to avoid the threads.

I don't agree with "not judging". Although we all need compassion and until you are in someone's position you cannot know entirely why they decide things, but in general in life some people do things that are wrong which in my view includes say smacking children and certainly also abuse of children and a variety of other things and those of us who say nothing when something wrong is done are in a sense guilty of condoning it.

A lot of people are also conditioned into thinking women must serve men. They then aren't making a "choice" when giving up work although they think that they are. They are following the pattern of their childhood, their religious conditioning or the culture in which they live. Just as some women who return to work may not necessarily be choosing but simply following how they were conditioned as children. We make many fewer choices than we think. There is less free will at large than we like to think.

havent read all of this, but my friend is a midwife, has been for years, and she lost the WHOLE of her pension because she didnt go back to work after 6mnths leave, and then her salary reverted to basic level, despite being a senior ,specialist midwife...now THAT is ing.
she is now working nights, and looking after dc 50/50 with her partner.

"As for which is more insulting"

To whom if not to you? There's nothing wrong with a bit of emotion now and then

Loved your post, harpymum. Your children sound lovely and it is great to sit back and take pride in their (and your) accomplishments.

Smaking children is a very different kind of 'choice' than being a SAHM. I'm not sure compassion is what is needed, though it is nice; tolerence would be nice in many cases though.

You're ideas about female 'conditioning' and equally on biology are fine, but they are just opinions. I've tried to tell you a lot about the scientific consensus about psychosexual difference to no avail as it doesn't fit with your opinion. Again fine, as long as people know that that's all they are; opinions not facts on how women 'should' behave - not that there are any facts on that at all anyway.

Some of if is culture and unbringing - much of it is biology too. It's finding the nuance within that, enableing women to make choices being aware of that nuance, that balence between nature/nurture and not being made to feel guilty by people who take their personal expereinces as the norm when they are not - such as your decision to be a fulltime working mum from the time your children were born. Most women want to care for the infants. That is not saying their is anything wronmg with women who don;t want to, but the majority do and while the minority has a voice, it will always be a minority.

Life is about hard choices - we have it easier in the West, but it's about as good as it's ever going to get.

Has anyone ever asked Xenia why she finds it so urgent to take time from her important work and children to berate the SAHM's on an internet forum?

Asking a general question as I know there have been many conversatins on this topic and I don't want to re-invent the wheel, but I am genuinely curious.

'On the original thread we were asked what is the point of having children if the mother works'

A straw man is being set up here. Not a single poster on the original thread said this - the OP was very careful to talk about parents of both genders, as were most who followed her. I'll happily disown any posts that seem to imply that childcare is more the responsibility of the mother than the father, but I think you'll be hard pressed to find more than one or two on a thousand-post thread.

xenia, why are you turning this into women this women that.

ive said all along right from the off, im talking about PARENTS

you are cleary changing your tune xenia, before you where saying sahms, stay at home, as they never mounted to much and sneering at tescos shelf stackers, yes you where the only one to do this.

and now your trying to turn it around to

"justify whether the mother is bad to be away having her hair done or at the gym or writing poetry or stacking shelves in Tesco or making money."

point 1. your the one that keps turning it onto women not PARENTS

point2. you was the one [only person on the whole 1000+ posts actually] sneering at tesco shelf stackers, and saying that this is the sort of job most stay at home mums did before, choosing to stay at home
as they never amounted to much.

and as you have seen there are many professional women on this thread,myself included, that have choosen to stay with their children, so now your arguement that most sahm never amounted to much, is clearly seen by everyone as not true, your trying to, make out you didn't say that.
lol

still think your bonkers

you are very rude and clearly losing the debate.
its always a sign of someone losing the debate when they start telling fibs and twisting the truth.

although you forgot to tell us your views, about oaps, and those that retire early.
i would actually be interested in hearing those views.

anyway, i shall retire from this thread now, as we are off for sunday lunch with some working parent friends of ours
who have both shifted their hours to accomadate their little one.

did the other one hit 1000 posts?

Yes bero. Looking for something to read?

Xenia, I was wondering if there is a job other people would feel was worthy enough to leave their children, whether it makes a difference to how people feel about the whole debate.
And can you tell us all what you think about SAHDs, do they lose masculinity? Not amounting to much anyway??

Thank you for asking PW

I am better (happier too, thank goodness), ds2 a bit better, ds1 was incredibly not-himself yesterday - it was actually quite horrid, he was all hot and leepy and whispery and had no inclination to do anything, not how I know him at all - but seems back to normal today. Onwards and upwards

Is it worth reading? I usually avoid SAHM v WOHM, even though I have done SAHM, WOHM FT and PT and WAHM, so feel supremely qualified to make pronouncements

sleepy not leepy

Ah, sorry to hear that DS1 was unwell, but glad that you are all improving now. You've had a rough time of it.

Is the thread worth reading? Dunno, how much of a masochist are you? You could always just read my posts