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 ...

Hang on in there SurfingMummy. The feminist SAHP position confuses a lot of people on MN, I've found.

often the nit picking is necessary becasue people (on both sides) have such a wierd idea of the reality of the other. In your own post you state that as a SAHM you see your DS every day. I think you'll find most mothers do, SAHM or WOHM.

Don;t know really why I'm contributing as I really have no strong views - IO have to work and therefore I do my best to have good childcare for DS and don't spend too much time stressing over what in in my case a necessity.

Perhaps I stress about it less than most because I have the seal of approval from social services. I am offically certified as an adequate parent (despite the fact that I work and DS is under 3 )!

downsizing isnt as easy as you think
we live in a gorgeious house, but no way would we be able to buy something like this now. prices have goneup soooo much, we'd be lucky to get anything.

I meant that I was the main child carer for my DS, and that I deal with all the good and bad times all of the time whereas DH only spends the odd day here and there with him (due to shiftwork). I do know that practically every parent sees their kids every day. Wasn't trying to start an argument.
Yes, we all do what we have to in order to get by whether that means working or sah. each to their own.

I wasn;t trying to have an argument! Honest! I'm happy with my choices - DS is with childminder 3 days, my mum one day and me three days plus of course I have him for about an hour before CM and 2.5 hrs after Cm on the days I work. In addiotn as I'm single I soend virtually every waking minute of his day with him 3 days a week - no popping out to the shops.

On balance he gets a lot of individual attention and possible more than a child who has a lot of siblings, a SAHM and two parents - but I could be wrong. AS I said I don't actually spend much time anaylsing it in real life.

Policywonk

well since we have gone equestrian and nit picking, SurfingMummy you said "in my ideal world, children would be looked after by one or both of their parents until they are approx 3". Yes children a global assignation referring to a majority group of unspecified children, not my children a referring to your children specifically

so chop chop "I must read my own posts more carefully before getting on my(own)high horse".
keep up jenkins

Hey, I am SAHD for next couple of weeks. It ain't that bad. I saw the littlest one when he got back at lunch time today. Zillions of hugs. Spent the afternoon on nice hilly suburbian golf course with great views. The wife got home from her PT job in time to relieve the nanny, sort out music lesson for DC1 and so that I could finish my round. And then I came home to a nice dinner. I am seriously considering how to hatch plan to be SAHD for an extended period. It ain't too bad once you get your head round loss of status. Low point of the day was the cleaner turning up late. I am turning more feminist by the second

OOOOh I'll be a SAHM in those conditions too toughdaddy !

Lighten up a bit guys

Who me?

HaventSleptForAYear: yes you could be a feminist whether you are at work slogging, run your own business or SAHP.

Not you HaventSleptForAYear. Our messages crossed.

Have people been getting their knickers in a twist? The point is that there is a moral duty on women not to cop out in their 30s because like it or not they are ruining things for other women and giving women a bad name and it has to stop and you each have a personal responsibilities to ensure it does stop otherwise things are harder for women who do say on and want to work full time when they have small babies as many women (and men) do.

This myth that a small child needs someone of the same blood group who is also a parent is so strange too. Why is that so?

YES I agree.

with toughdaddy !

But actually I do agree with Xenia here - I don't see why a child needs to be looked after by their blood parent, they are not necessarily (and sometimes not at all) better qualified or even best suited to it.

Work is not that fulfilling for so many. Middlemanagers/professionals slog their guts out for relatively little reward and have no control. Corporate slaves. Bust your guts for the promise of partnership. Only easy for few at the top.

"in my ideal world, children would be looked after by one or both of their parents until they are approx 3". - oh FGS. Why should what anyone else does with their children bother you?? And what's so magic about the age 3 anyway? Other people might replace it with 6,10,16 whatever - it's all subjective. And the comment about people choosing to be teachers was pretty crass. Probably a mother and father who are inspiring teachers, contributing to society and making the lives of other children better as well as their own are going to raise more balanced, happy and successful kids than a parent who has to work in a boring or non-worthwhile job to earn enough to enable the other parent to stay home

Children will learn different things from different people/situations and are adaptable. However, in the 21st century many CHOOSE to look after their own kids because they want to and can. Don't see why some feminist should brand my wife as a sell out because she has exercised a choice which I have as a man.

ToughDaddy - a good reason for encouraging your children to get interesting and stimulating careers!! And children learn best by example - so it helps if you have one yourself!

Sorry I was replying to your previous post ToughDaddy, about people who dont like their jobs

Are we saying that the wife has a duty to put the feminist struggle ahead of what works best for her, the children and me? Where is the sense in that? I am not saying that employers shouldn't do more to facilitate more women who want to/need to go back to work. But it is a big leap from that to saying that those who don't go back are not fulfilling their moral duty.

I don't think moral duty has anything to do with it. This is probably where Xenia and I part company. She takes on a much bigger agenda. I simply think that both men and women choose to become parents, they are both equally capable of loving their children and caring for them, and both equally capable of having stimulating work lives too. So it makes sense to both do both, if you want your children to be raised in the knowledge that they have choices. That's my personal view, no moral duty about it. Though I also think it makes a lot of financial sense in this day and age to encourage our children to see that the ability to earn a good living is imporant!