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 don't get the impression that Xenia is jealous of SAHMs. What strikes me the most is that she feels the need to tell SAHMs that they are wrong. And she spends quite a lot of time doing it, and she's really quite cross about it. It could be that she's holding the banner for feminism as she says, but it doesn't come across like that.

But I've spent many a day alone with a baby or more (being with one is huge luxury if you've a big family) so I've a pretty good idea how I find it or found it over 23 years and it was for me boring and repetitive and dull. I love those special moments breastfeeding and cuddling them but I can't imagine anyone wanting to do it all day every day.

I don't hate other women. I do wonder if I've more testosterone - not sure, but it could be so, that that makes you like argument for argument's sake etc. Perhaps it all comes down to that, hormones etc. Although in real life I'm reasonably concilatory.

I loved being home full time with mine when they were babies. It is not all about cleaning and clearing up sick. There is an enormous freedom in being a SAHM; you set your own agenda. I don't know where Xenia got the idea that "most mothers of under 5s work" - not sure I believe that, but certainly, of all women under retirement age that group must have the highest proportion not in paid employment.

www.equalityhumanrights.com/Documents/Gender/Research/State%20of%20the%20modern%20family%20EOC%20res earch.pdf

This is interesting: "The study has found that there is no link between a mother working and developmental problems for their children. It also shows that formal childcare at 9-10 months is linked to a lower likelihood of developmental problems."

I support Xenia in her personal choices. I just wish she would support other women with theirs.

And it probably has a lot to do with exposure to hormones in the womb.

But what is choice?
Anyway I agree on hormones in the womb, part of one latest theory on why people might be gay too. As ever it all comes back to women being the root of all evil may be even back to the Garden of Eden and now it's what happened in the womb which decides whether our children are gay or straight or very female or more testosterone charged aggressive female but as ever the woman the root cause. Or may be that's a victimhood statement and instead it could be described as the huge power we have and that the misogyny just stems from fear of that power by some men.

Could only be power if we could decide to pump up the testosterone in utero surely?

So Xenia, do you have a longer ring finger than index finger? Isn't that supposed to be a sign of higher testosterone when developing? (Mine's a good centimetre longer and I'm very competitive, so that theory works for me.... )

"I suppose I can see why a mother might work full time, even if she doesn't have to for financial reasons, but what I can't understand it when they don't take time off if their young child is ill. A sick child needs their mother."

Some people can't afford to take time off every time their child is sick. some people have bosses who get very annoyed if you keep having time off. so therefore some of us still have to send our children to childcare if they are feeling a little under the weather.

The reports you are referring to about fetal hormone levels really are very limited in their findings - mostly animal based or dubious samples. And they certainly don't imply that women are at fault for it !

I too support personal choice, and it sounds like Xenia along with the other f/t working mums have enjoyed their experience, so the original poster was being deroragory to wm's. But what actually results from there is the pure derision and contempt for SAHMs, probably in defense.

As I said before on this - it seems women who have had good educations and good opportunities are less likely to give up their careers. And surely that is obvious?

So, maybe the SAHMs are working for the next generation of girls - making sure they succeed at school and then in their careers? So maybe, if they did not have good opportunities, they are making damned sure that their kids do - and that can only be good !?

So we are all working for the same goals ultimately ?

Maybe that is a question to SAHMs - would you want your DD's to have a fantastic 'male-end of the scale' career (don't just say, I don't mind what they are, will love them anyway - I know that really)

children should not be sent out to childcare if they are unwell because with under fives poxes and viruses and v&d spread like wildfire, meaning your childcarer is highly likely to get ill and therefore be unable to provide their service or other peoples kids get ill - it is selfish to send a sick child out to daycare.If you have a nanny - fine, handy grandparents - fine.
This is exactly why i don't charge full-rate if mindees are off sick - so that their parents are more likely to keep them away. I really don't want me or my family ill.

of course a child slightly under the weather is a different story.

Look up the Prisoner's Dilemma and it will give you an idea about life and choices.

"As ever it all comes back to women being the root of all evil..." Woa, that's a big leap you made there. The biggest predictor for being gay is actually having an older brother, so by your logic, maybe it's older brothers who are the root of all evil - if being gay is evil of course

Hormones are the root cause, not women. Our genes, men and women, have spent just as much time travelling through both male and female bodies in their journey through familial generations, so any talk of men/women good/evil is very misguided and purely based on personal expectations or predjudice.

Female's exposed to more androgens in the womb may well have more masculine traits, be tom,boys and have less strong maternal instincts - that's all about individuality on a sliding scale though.

True, about gay men.
I was joking but using the classic misogynistic male argument. Men could construe it as so.

Fewer women than men even if we get rid of conditioning and inequalities and unbalanced domestic arrangements and sexist men will want to lead companies - that's true and if you're an employer of women who you want to train up for those roles from their being graduates that in fact is a very relevant issue you're not allowed to think about. on the other hand plenty of organisations like that don't want too many people wanting promotion so it's very convenient they have 50% female entry but only 1% or 10% of women at the very top end. That then becomes a reason to hire more not fewer women because you get rid of the promotion issue later on as they leave anyway.

(My ring finger is very much shorter than my index finger but I'm not sure if that test works to measure women's testosterone, perhaps just men's).

i would just like to respond to a point made earlier on abouut self employment. If you are self employed, all you get is maternity allowance which is roughly the same as SMP. no six weeks full pay/ six weeks half pay of an employee. So if you are self employed, you have the double whammy of losing business (which may be permanent) and no mat pay. I started going into my work when my LO was 2 weeks old and will be the first of my antenatal group to return to work. BUT, i can now choose my hours - 9 till 5 three days a week so i can truly aspire to having the best of both worlds

"the original thread saying why have children if you're going to work"

I don't think the original op was saying that at all. I think she was refering to parents who have children and then put them in nursery 8am-6pm five days per week. Meaning by the time the parents picked the child up and got home it would nearly be bedtime meaning the parents haven't have any time with their child.

I also think when the op said about making sacrifices, i think she meant either one or both of the parents should cut down the working hours to be with the child more. I also don't think she was aiming at ALL working parents but rather those who are fortunate enough to not have to work for the money yet do ridiculas hours for their own benefit. Becoming a parent does mean you sometimes have to put your own wants second and put the child first.

Scanning through the other thread though, i think it is appauling, especially as most people saw it as an attack against ALL working mums which i don't think it was. And those who did the attack on SAHMs (yawn) are imho, just as bad and if not worse than the op.

"I don't think the original op was saying that at all. I think she was refering to parents who have children and then put them in nursery 8am-6pm five days per week. Meaning by the time the parents picked the child up and got home it would nearly be bedtime meaning the parents haven't have any time with their child."

I know someone who puts their child in nursery 8:30 - 6. She doesn't go to bed til 10 so has plenty of time with her parents.

I'd lay money that you had a bit more than your fair share of androgens in the womb Xenia that has give you that competative drive

May be. I'm the first born child which usually has that impact too.

Many parents put their babies in child care from 8 - 6 and go back to full time work and bring up happy children. I do personally prefer a nanny or granny or parent or childminder but I doubt if the nursery is well run and has consistent carers that's a problem either. I just don't think there is some book hwere it is written that a baby needs to spend X hourjs a day with the mother or Y with the father or Z with someone else to make it happy and well adjusted. What it needs is some kind of primary bond with its parents, to know people come to it when it's distressed and a nice regular routine.

Do you think your own mother's experience made a difference too?

Maybe Xenia but i don't think attacking SAHMs is the answer to this arguement.

Yes, women often mention their parents' experience as part of a reason to work or not. I know my mother spoke so often about various hilarious experiences as a teacher over 13 years before she had me. We also all knew how frustrated she felt at home - she was very clever and hated the fact my father was getting all this glory as revered psychiatrist, on TV< patients saying he'd saved his life and she'd sit there saying and I did 5 loads of washing this morning.... She never said she'd martyred herself for us and she was very good with under 5s and may be under 7s but she certainly wasn't a happy housewife by any means

Of course parents make a big difference to how we feel about ourselves, but I know of no youngster who wants to eminate their parents.

Of course, one can have an advantage if you have a parent established in the profession you choose

Yes,there was a report abotu that a couple of years ago that said that kids were better off with someone they knew. But it also depends what it's environment is Xenia. Parents are usually good at unconcioulsy attuning their children to their environments, for better or worse. So a child might grow up neglected (in a cosy middle class sense) in a huge working class family but is well attuned to their environment to best survive and look after themselves. The concept of 'happiness' is different and a very modern concept to chase, although people have always preferred being content to not, to many it was unatainable in the long run - life has always been hard for the majority of people, something we in the west don't seem to get these days.

That doesn't mean when we have the organisation and resources to help people attain contentedness that society shouldn't contribute of course. And better access to compassionate childcare (if it's not readily avalable within the home for whatever reason) may increase discontentedness within the child but then lead the child to flee that envirionment and build a better life fopr themselves and their kids - which is what I did I;ve just realised writing this. There are risks in that of course. Many flee but end up worse off, as prostitutes, etc. So life really is just as hard for some in the west than elsewhere.

Quality of life (and maybe more importantly death) in the west may well be at it's pinnacle. I can only think it would be improved by the allowing of voluntary euthenasia. And improvement in materinty and childcare services, which will have to come by an increase in pay reward and then status for the workers.

its not it's