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 ...

Surfingmummy "I really don't think you can write off the nurtuing instinct that most mothers have."

But then you contradict yourself by saying that it's ok to go out to work if the father stays at home.

Do people still really think that the mother is n°1 parent? (explains why so many are anti-WOHM!)

Xenia- the trouble is that the feminist agenda is not the only objective in life. Some people may want to care for their children themselves for a variety of reasons. So you offend all those prof women in their 30s who take a career break by saying they are selling out. This bit of your argument is hard to swallow and causes offence.

Hi. I did read your post but the underlying feeling seemed to me that the mother "should" be the one there when the child was sick etc - perhaps you just meant that YOU personally preferred it that way.

But when you say "we all have different strengths and IMO should work towards them, dividing labour as appropriate"

I took that to mean you felt women were somehow better "equipped" to look after small children which I have to disagree with.

Despite me having the right "equipment" and long-term bf both DS, I don't feel this gives me an edge over DH in the parenting/nurturing stakes.

most parents prefer not to do that - or as in my case I prefer not to be living on benefit in council accomodation. (Selfish of me I know)

By SurfingMummy on Tue 08-Jul-08 14:41:31

"I know, in this material world, most parents prefer not to do that. (look after children til age 3)

Both DH and myself teach, and are also involved in a lot of humanitarian work.

I'm not saying I only work for the good of the country, but is it really fair or 'right' or even desirable to focus all our efforts on 1 or 2 children for several years at a time?

I have said elsewhere that I have no problem with a parent staying at home with their DC if they WANT to - it's just the assumption that any other option is 2nd best for the child which really annoys me - this has not been proven anywhere and could never be.

My mother stayed at home with me & my DB, I don't remember much about those early years, she always says she was happy to do it.

Staying at home as a sacrifice (if you feel it that way) is counter-productive I feel.

LOL surferMum in my material world the bank wants the mortgage paid and tesco wont send free food. so i work

just lookey at the economic crisis and credit crunch,council threatens 1000's job losses", job losses

You are right SM. So many times these threads run into "well, if she didn't buy tat she could look after her children" lines of argument.

ahh yes the simplistic well just go without something (what like a home?)arguement.yes really?

different people have different PREFERENCES and options for childcare. One size doesn't fit all. Cliched but apt here, i think. Trouble is that so many think that they have sussed it and that all should follow their choice.

"What I do feel quite strongly about, though, is that, in my ideal world, children would be looked after by one or both of their parents until they are approx 3, wherever possible - but I know, in this material world, most parents prefer not to do that."

Gosh - I'm actually astounded that you have an "ideal world" in which you get to dictate other people's parenting choices. By all means make your own decisions, but to dictate to others seems a bit much really.

surferMum what an obtuse and bizzare comment. "As to whether you and your dh work or not, being teachers, that's up to you of course. The only thought I have about your question is that as teachers both you and your dh are replaceable, but as parents you aren't, and that therefore you both owe your dcs more than you do others' dc's"

as parents we dont owe our children anything.they are loved autonomous people not a drain, and as parents are not necesarily paternally driven to only serve our children and sacrifice one's own needs - there is a balance. yes we give unconditionally but also need to make me only time. a balance between all demands

i am VV grateful that motivted vocationally driven teachers to chose to care for the children of many others

"ONE OR BOTH of the parents should take some time out when the children are little" - but in my non-ideal world (AKA real life) there aren't BOTH parents only little old me. Of course I could send my mum and brother out to work to pay my mortgage I suppose.

technically of course - you are replaceable as parents as I know from real life (pesky real life interfering with MN discussion)

Sheesh! working parents who have all foolishly chosen to pursue vocational careers caring for others.Doh they should be at home where they are really needed heh?

rememnber that when you cannot see a GP, Nurse, SW, OT, SALT,teacher because they have summarily been sent home to see their neglected wee ones

fair enough xenia, you're happy to slog your guts out working whilst others who are able to SAH to raise their kids and that's fine. I'm in the latter category and very happy to be able to have the choice of SAH. I enjoy my role and get to see my DS every day of the week, like many others in the same situation . I don't take my situation for granted tho and know i am lucky. I don't think (personally) there's anything wrong with SAHMs, we do a v rewarding job.
big round of applause for all SAHMs!!

as a pp has mentioned most of us will join in the workforce at a later date once dcs are in school or flown the nest . i intend on going back to work when i feel the time is right.

"in my ideal world, children would be looked after by one or both of their parents until they are approx 3"

Perhaps you should have said:

"in my ideal world, my children would be looked after by one or both of their parents until they are approx 3."

chill outr folks, it's only a discussion forum

wow what a nit picking goes on in this forum.

Also, what about those people with boring, menial crappy paid jobs, if they prefer being at home and can manage it, isn't that beter for them? (and maybe their child).