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.

I think I was a good mum when I WOH f/t but there are differences and I feel I can give my kids more SAH and there is a certain freedom to not being a wage labourer. However, part of the reason I SAH is due to DH job and shifts. I would maybe work 1-2 days a week if he could look after DC's. I would consider school hours at some point but I think that both of us having full on careers would not be fair on our kids, luckily we can manage as we are as we never built up a lifestyle before having kids, we started with nothing as teenagers. I agree that one needs to be prepared should they need to support themselves (if DH left etc) but the same goes for many WM who couldn't pay the bills on their own wage as they depend on both. I do feel sorry sometimes for kids whose parents never attend school plays or pick their kids up etc but that is up to them, we are all different and have different prioities and most dual income families that i know work reduced hours.

I'm confused. Is the issue more about getting a high powered job as a female and being a mover and shaker in the world of emplyment? I want kids and I want to return to work but I have no ambition whatsoever to climb to the top of my field. Is this ok.

Or am I doing the female cause a diservice by having a bog standard job which barely keeps me financially afloat and makes very little difference to the world.

Xenia - I totally understand why you stick up for working mums but surely it's a total feminist betrayal to do that while putting down women who choose to stay at home? For me personally staying at home would not be my thing (Unless I win the lottery and can use the money to fulfil my dreams) because I am a worker, I like to earn. At the same time I am lazy enough to not work so hard that I am rolling in money and things.

I just want life to go on with a few changes and an extra mouth to feed and person to love. That's possible whether you stay at home or not.

They only feel put down because of their own internal sense of inadequacy. If they felt find about it it wouldn't get to them and that is true for many who are happy with their decision to stay at home.

There are to many comments above to reply to them all. What specifically was I being asked?

I certainly agree men and women differ. I've never been a feminist who thinks we are made identical to men. Read Pinker in today's Telegraph on the subject although you can see why the Telegraph lapped up her article as it suits their women at home demographic. But in part she's right there will always be more women than men wanting to do particular things but that is not to say that we have happy good equitable divisions of labour at home and fairness for all domestically. We certainly don't and we need to sort that out and ensure there is no question of cricising a woman any more than a man if she chooses to go back to school when her baby is small. I still don['t feel women feel comfortable that their friends and family will be saying good on you for going back at 2 or 6 week sor 3 months. They should be no more subject of criticism of that as the father who goes back after 2 weeks paternity leave.

No, Xenia, as far as you are concerned, SAHMs feel put down because you systematically insult them. If you are unsure about the difference between offering your own opinion and grossly insulting other people's choices, you ought to post with more circumspection.

Xenia, you talk a lot of sense. Have not read all posts.
We talked, decided and our children are happy. The key word for me is CHOICE.

Have only read OP, but 3 cheers to Xenia for actually discussing with her husband-to-be how they would function as a couple of parents. If more couples actually thrashed out the important questions before they married, bought property or had children together .... there would still be a lot of divorces but they would happen later.

Gosh Riven you must be SO attractive!! Or he must be ... no I'm sure he's lovely.

Yes it is all about choice - hurrah! Well done. Children thrive in a happy environment - whether parents work or not...however, I think another key thing which factors in deciding to SAH or not is timing of having children too.

Alot of my friends (myself included), have had reasonably high paying responsible careers and at almost 40 having young babies have decided to take a career break to bring their children up. I couldn't bear to do anything else (although thought I would go back to work)and financially am lucky to be able to do so. Conversely, other friends who had their children when they were much younger and now have teenagers are well back into their careers...so again no right, no wrong.

I've also decided to SAH because my husband has a good career, travels a fair bit and I don't think it fair that at least one of us isn't 'constant'. Having said that he does do his fair share (bathing/feeding) because he wants to be involved as much as possible.

But I am intending to set up my own business next year; something compatible with my family....but also something for me.

www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/apr/20/conservatives.children /article in paper today re: pay mums to SAH and that most mums want to work part time or not at all and not all see paid labour/work as their main activity in life.

Situations just vary greatly on this issue, and have a big impact on what decisions are made concerning working parents.

With DS1 I was a single parent, although I had already forged a good career for myself, and I went back to work full time when he was four months old. He thrived at nursery and our weekends were sacred, and I look back at this time as being very happy for both of us.

When DS2 came along I was happily married, but also happy in my work and decided that I would return when the baby was six months old. I did this and he was miserable, extremely ill, and we were all terribly stressed.

When he was just under a year old I gave up my job in order to take care full time of the boys and have not really returned.

We now know that DS2 has a chromosome abnormality that causes so many of his problems, and we have taken the decision that whilst I will continue to work part time on a self employed basis I won't as yet be resuming my career.

I feel satisfied that this is the right thing for my family and actually for me! Should both of my children had thrived at nursery and been well then I have no doubt that I would have continued to climb the career ladder, would I have missed out on my children? possibly a little I think.

It's what works for your family that counts.

There are many young women who have children before even taking the first steps in a glittering career, and many women who have children at the expense of their education which unfortunately effects their chances of getting a good career. My mum was married by 19 and had 3 kids by her mid-twenties. She stayed at home because living where we did it was hard enough for my dad to get paid work, let alone my mum and there was no family and few friends around who would have looked after us.

When I was about 9 my mum and dad both started University degrees as mature students. At first it was my dad's idea, just for him but somehow my mum managed to deal with all the childcare issues and complete a degree (she did better than my dad infact) - this often meant leaving us kids (9, 10 and 12) up to our own devices. We did a lot of hanging around in the mature student's common room, walking home from school on our own (2 miles) and getting our own food. We also did a lot of watchig my dad behave like he was a young single student and a lot of my mum knuckling down to do essays.

Sometimes it worked for us, sometimes it was tought. I was lucky to have a SAHM and sometimes a SAHD but I know for a fact my mum was glad to get her own salary and have control over her own finances.

Anyhow - they both qualified and they both got jobs - careers even - after years of farmwork and idealistic back to the land stuff. I really respect my mum for having the balls to prove she was bright and could learn after people had written her off for having children at such an early age. She's not at the top of her career but she is respected and when she retires she will continue to do consultancy work.

She's set me a fantastic example by being a SAHM and a working mum. I don't think either situation damaged me but I do think my mum was on her way to being damaged through 10+ years of being reliant on my dad - she was trapped in many ways. Being the main childcarer and relying on another person for money is not healthy imo. So I will carry on working and I will expect my Boyfriend to carry his share of the childcare load.

Good question Starlight. Xenia's first thread on MN was to say that SAHM's were boring and talked about home/kids and nothing else whereas Xenia has proved she doesn't have a great litany of interests other then self aggrandising.

Red, it?s hardly worth engaging wit. I do so only for the benefit of lurkers.

I have hardly ever started a a thread and I've never started one saying stay at home mothers are boring. I have often said I can't understand how anyone can find 14 hours babycare a day fulfilling as most of it is very boring and it's just like cleaning and clearing up sick and stuff like that and yes bores many women rigid which is why most mothers of under 5s work presumably (and always have done).

A lot of women are interested in the issue of the original post in this thread version 1 where the poster said why have children if you work. I think particularly the thread version I showed a huge number of happy full time working mothers some who have sustained that over many years and have brought up children who have done better by being in that situation than had their mother been at home and that outcomes for children tend to depend on other issues than whether a parent was at home or not on the whole.

I agree that if asked most people male and female would like to work part time and be paid for that. As any university graduate of either sex and I bet that would be their answer too or working man in his 50s.

I'm interested in Xenia's posts as they are IMO quite unusual. There is some kind of disparity in the style and content... I think she would like to give the impression that she is fairly detached from the debate, and yet the aggression behind some of her comments belies that fact.

I don't want to be rude to her, and I don't really mind her comments, but I am very curious as to where she's really coming from.

"They only feel put down because of their own internal sense of inadequacy".

Can't you say that about anyone who is defensive about their choices, Xenia?

It was you, wasn't it, who said elsewhere that all mothers ought to return to work full time after the birth of their babies (or words to that effect). I keep wondering if you are so rude about SAHMs because, deep down, you resent them for the choice they made.

I think its odd to put down other women for their choices, I've read quite a few of Xenia's posts and she often seems to try to imply that SAHM's are people who would not have a good career if they did work. I find that sort of attitude a bit spiteful tbh, but then she says if people are offended its because they're insecure, therefore she must be right in dismissing them. I don't know about anyone else but I read her posts and think 'oh, one of those women who hate other women'. Quite bizarre.

"I have often said I can't understand how anyone can find 14 hours babycare a day fulfilling as most of it is very boring and it's just like cleaning and clearing up sick and stuff like that and yes bores many women rigid" I guess this is the key Xenia has no understanding, I'm pretty sure that most SAMPs pack a lot more into their day than clearing up sick and housework. I, for one, have a cleaner and so don't really do housework, I run (with pushchair) go to parks, museums, libraries and socialise with friends amounst other things.

Well I remember your first thread well. I'll go see if it's in my watched list..