To suggest that a new mum who "has" to go back to work, reluctantly, after maternity leave, could down-size from her five-bedroom house and thereby afford to stay at home?

[Twoddle]

I have a good friend who really does have to go back to work when her maternity leave ends later this month. She and her husband genuinely can't afford to live without both their salaries so, as much as she'd like to stay home longer, she can't.

Another friend's sister, however, was pulling the "It's all right for some mums, hanging around at home all day - some of us have to go back to work" line. Knowing that she lives in a four-bedroom house and is having a loft conversion and buys everything new for the home and for the soon-to-arrive baby and has a bit of a clothes-buying habit ... well, I tactfully and carefully suggested to my friend that maybe her sister didn't have to return to work so soon if it was important for her to be at home for longer with her child. I said she could downsize to a smaller home, maybe cut back on some spending, and then be able to afford to extend her maternity leave - if she so wished.

Said friend warned me through a steely glare never to say such words to her sister, and the atmosphere was abysmal between us for the rest of the evening.

Was my suggestion so unreasonable, in the circumstances?

Silly me for playing devil's advocate ...

I also don't think men and women are exactly the same other than the obvious, nor do I think they are the way they are out of social conditioning. Womens bodies are designed to have and nuture babies. I don't know why people deny that fact or try to minimise it.

'Womens bodies are designed to have and nuture babies.' - True.
This doesn't mean women's bodies are designed any better than men's, to take a career break of several years, play with their children, take them to toddler group, do the shopping, clean the house and cook the dinner.
Most of the discussion on this thread has been about a parent being at home for an extended period of time, not just maternity leave, which is of course an entitlement to all mothers who have been in work and meet the requirements.
Of course it's up to each family to decide on the best arrangement that suits them. But there is nothing about being a woman that means they are 'better' at the above!!

findtheriver on Sun 06-Jul-08 11:10:35

Also, even assuming that biological 'pull' is maybe stronger for the mother in the early weeks (and I must stress that I'm not saying it definitely is, just that if we assume it is) much of this thread is not about the early weeks of a child's life.

Really ??

Er... yes, really Pinions. As we can't step into our partners shoes, we can't actually know what emotions they are feeling after the birth of their child. I would never assume that my partner's feelings are 'lesser' than mine in anyway.
But as I say, even if there is a stronger biological pull for the mother in the early weeks, then the fact is that a woman is entitled to spend those weeks 24/7 with her child if she chooses (as opposed to the two weeks paternity leave to which the father is entitled).
When we are talking about the later months and years, there is absolutely no reason why the mother, rather than the father, needs to be at home.

When we are talking about the later months and years, there is absolutely no reason why the mother, rather than the father, needs to be at home. This I agree with.

Imagining that the man feels the same as a woman in leaving a tiny baby to go to work is something that I would never ever be able to agree with. Nope.

Certainly, yes, there would be some feeling, but the same feeling. No not possible, come on.

The fact that this argument comes up so frequently shows how strongly people feel one way or the other. What I don't understand is why the two sides cannot respect each others' completely different and well-reasoned viewpoints.

I have friends who just cannot imagine going to work rather than looking after their children. I understand that viewpoint and can imagine myself in a different life feeling exactly the same. The tug of emotion regarding their welfare is so strong that I could easily imagine succumbing to it and looking after them.

I personally have worked while the children are small. The reasons really stack up in its favour: continuity of well paid carerr, progression to higher salary, better standard of living, better future prospects for THEM when they need it, not to mention the fact that I think some (not all) of their childcare experiences have been positive.

It was really hard, but I jumped one way. It doesn't stop me being frequently wistful for the other option, or being emotionally torn at times where the girls aren't 100% happy (which I always find a way to blame on my choices rather than just bad day/good day).

But overall my decision has survived many crises and I will still work.

Live and let live. Much of your resentment is driven by the fact that she appears reasonably well-off.

I agree that it doesn't need/have to be the mum at home with an older baby/child, I think, though, that it should be mainly with a parent/loving relative wherever possible for most the time. Also, usually it is the mum who wants to stay home IME.

I think that's a great post Cloudhopper.

A lot of the heat in these threads is driven by some form of resentment IME. Either the sahm position is resentful of the (usually) higher living standards provided by two incomes or the wohm position is resentful of the calmer pace of life afforded by only having one parent working.

Xenia's political point is a wider issue of course.

'agree that it doesn't need/have to be the mum at home with an older baby/child, I think, though, that it should be mainly with a parent/loving relative wherever possible for most the time. ' - the key words in your post jellybeans are 'I think'...
That's exactly what it is: your opinion. That doesnt make it right. A child can have excellent care from someone who isnt a relative. (And actually I've come across children who have received pretty awful care from people who are relatives).

Totally agree it is just my opinion and it is good that people have choices, I have made several different ones in my almost 12 years as a parent so far. My DD1 was in nursery 8 hours a day and my mum cared for her for 3 months before this. I much preferred (as did DD) my mum caring for her, the nursery (which was excellent) was just so regimented and busy. But I agree with all have to make choices and there are sacrifices whatever you choose.

When we have as many people asking the husband will you be giving up work, after the baby is born as women I will shut up.

By the way I do agree men and women differ and that more women are nurturing and not assertive than men and our brain chemistry is different which is part of the reason more women stay home than men but there are too many assumptions made and women who go back to work quickly because they want to should not be criticised any more than a man who goes back quickly after the birth.

Divorce is a different issue - the husbands of very successful women do tend to be successful too and often will see less of or as much as their wives of the children but a few powerful women have house husbands and they have a good chance of getting the chidlren after divorce. The FT had an article on this a year or two ago - woman marries artiest who never does a day's work in his life and works at home but mother pays for a nanny too. Divorce. Man gets the house, £1m, residence of the children and nanny paid for by mother. Mother if she's lucky sees the children every other weekend. It's the bad deal most fathers get on divorce and it's a very unfair deal.

My ex worked the same hours I did and the older children chose to be with me so there was no chance they would live with him (and he didn't want them anyway).

Great post, Cloudhopper.

When we have as many people asking the husband will you be giving up work, after the baby is born as women I will shut up.

Xenia with the greatest of respect that will never happen, or not in our lifetime.

If you reply well why shouldn't it well that's a different story.

It just will not happen. Everything else aside I think that the majority of women would choose to stay at home in the short term or at least work lesser hours.

That is why it is assumed that the man will go to work and the woman will stay at home. Not because they are forced into doing so but because they choose to.

When men can breastfeed and give birth I see perfect equality!

I wonder whether more men wouldn't choose to if they felt that they could make that choice though?

I know a dutch couple who each work 4 day weeks, and put the kids in nursery for 3. One looks after them on Monday and the other on Friday. They are very happy with this. I think in some other northern european countries there is more of this kind of thing. Participation of women in the workforce in Sweden is very high. I spoke to a political analyst about this who said that the tax these extra workers pay covers the cost of 15 months m/paternity leave (to share), and nursery care for all children from aged 1. If that's true, with a bit of political will to get started then surely any country could take steps in that direction.

I think part of it also depends on how confident you are about your marriage, and about your husband's career. I'm confident enough about my marriage not to fret about jacking in my job, but not confident enough about my dh's commitment to working, as he finds his job v.stressful. So I'm determined to keep mine going so that he can have the option to retire early while not having to worry about providing for the kids and our retirement.

They tend to more than men for all the reasons on the thread and because they marry men who earn more. If you look at stats where the woman earns quite a bit more often she does carry on working. Where her wage would only be pin money she gives up.

But the reasons why women might choose to be the primary care giver beyond the initial baby period are not reduced to "because I want to" are they? There is a huge amount of pressure on women to be nurturing (there have been threads on this) whereas men risk being considered peadophiles if they are too friendly with children. Women who take time off for their families are disadvantaged in the work place on returning, but because it is expected (and I know that that brings a whole other can of worms with it) it is not considered strange when they do so. It is much harder for a man to do the same thing, because it is much less usual. Women frequently earn less at the point when couples decide to start a family, so the economics look more sensible for them to cut back at work etc etc

Where it is possible for both parents to play an active role in parenting, and keep a career or job going as well without too much stress all around surely this is the best solution all round? I know a number of couples where this has been possible, and the men have been just as happy as the women to spend time with their children. Certainly in my own experience dh was much happier being a SAHD than I am being a SAHM (although I wish he didn't go on about that!)

It is getting easier for men as more and more take time off and more and more couples find they need to negotiate it and perhaps even both argue because they both want to be home.

1)For me, there is no question that work place practices (eg paying women less) mean that it often makes more economic sense for the woman to give up work. I was very happy to be SAHP but my more talented wife earned quite a bit less and I seemed better able to navigate the macho work environment. So DP gave up work for a 5 years because that worked best for us.

However, I think that it is ludicrous to suggest that we betrayed the feminist cause that we both care about by deciding to "sacrifice" DP's career progession.

2)A man volunteering to be SAHP is seen as being a bit unusal and as noted by KatieDD et al, he is often given hero status or something like that.

I suspect our children's generation will have more varied parenting options as society and work practices are slowly changing in relation to gender.

Hello ToughDaddy!

It has to be said, I've frequently heard women on MN say that they couldn't give up work because they earned more than their partners, so it made no sense.

Kind of a double edged sword, that one - yay on the equality front, boo sucks on having the choice to stay home front.

LittleMD you are your usual incisive self. :-)

The observed negative pay differential that women suffer is relevant although not always the key driver in the SAHP decision?

I think it is the usual driver. Most of the women I know who carried on working full time had lower earning husbands. I think I earned 10x my children's father for a good few years. Where the husband earns quite a bit more and the wife's pay would barely cover the cost of a nanny she might well stay home. Where the husband earns £500k even if hte wife could earn £60k she migh well stay at home (but have a nanny too). It seems often to come down to economics. If we asked the women on the thread who work full time and did when their chidlren were babies if they earned more than their husbands I bet most of them did or it was a similar amount and they couldnt' afford the mortgage on one wage. In other words money can be key thing.

Xenia- some good points. I am still disagreeing with your earlier point about intelligent SAHM betraying the feminist cause. Otherwise we agree.

I don't mean to betray the feminist cause! I just don't wish to operate at a financial loss every month.

I think Xenia should set up an Agony Aunt thread. Maybe she could tailor what she says to mners in need of advice, so that it is less theoretical and more practical.

By now we all know how she feels, and although I 90% agree with her, I still don't work. I'm a relatively intelligent SAHM. I'd love to know how I can sort out my 'career'. Can it be done? Have I left it too late? Am I destined to pack shelves when my children are asleep?

Xenia, please start a Aunt Xenia thread. I promise not to call you Auntie.

I often think that if men and women both go to work, shouldn't their hours then be reduced? (Rather than both slave away full time and end up with the same financial rewards, when society adjusts to the dual income; house prices rise etc and end up both working for the same reward as a single earner used to). With all the modern appliances etc, shouldn't that free us for more leisure time and not more time to work? Wouldn't both parents working part time be better than both working full time?

Some posters on here have lucrative jobs but many people I know hate their work and get crappy pay and treatment. They resent not being with their kids. At the end of the day alot of them are working to line someone elses pocket and are paid less than the work they are doing deserves. I don't think it is possible to say that all paid work is fullfilling or that staying home is not fullfilling.