to want to post on the "For my husband to earn £65,000 per annum and we still can't afford to live"..... thread because it's full???

[chockywocky]

i cant believe its full and and havent had my say.....

given women are the only ones in a couple who can breastfeed - how does that fit in with your worldview Xenia.

I worked full time and breastfed as long as that was practical, i believe Xenia did something along those lines as well.
The answer is that you can express breast milk and feed as a mix of bottle (during working hours) and breast when home and through the night.

The woman you are quoting re SAHM killing brain cells wasn't talking about HE, she was talking about simply staying at home with young children.
I think there is a difference there.

I stayed home with 3 under 5's. Didn't lose any pbrain cells. You are meant to play with them you know and do stuff!

As for expressing - doesn't that take ages and ages? When dd2 was in NICU I spent 6 hours a day expressing on top of travelling to feed her so she could have a bottle while I wasn't there.

But I do think the first 6 months should be a time for mum and baby to be together as I think its important and careers and society should refelct that. This society is amazinlgy child unfriendly and mother-unfriendly.

"It also keeps you going in the 20 + years to 65 nad beyohnd when as a parent you're pretty redundant or have difficult teenagers or a husband who's disappeared if you have fulfilling work rather htan just the gin bottle and a daily trip to the gym or whatever"

So my decision to stay at home is going to result in my becoming a gin addled lonely old crone. Oh please, you are just being silly now!

Surely most working women will retire around that age anyway so we will all be twiddling our thumbs together!

This is what is so frustrating, Xenia. You will run any argument, no matter how obviously illogial, to justify your argument that you are superior to everyone else. Can't you just accept that you are not the ideal to which all women should aspire?

Good for you that you have an island and could afford to live on the interest on your assets alone. I however would rather see my kids and forego the island thanks. There is always a sacrifice to be made, I have made the financial one, you chose the personal one. Neither is better than the other.

Nope, didn't take ages to express, i think my ginormous boobs had gone into overdrive

I did stay at home for the first 5 months and i agree that was an important time for me and dd. I was more than ready to go back to work though. I'm just not cut out for the SAHM role. Different strokes and all that.
Also, in my situation i had no other choice financially other than to work.

Re the losing brain cells, i took that as a tongue in cheek comment? I thought that the poster was describing her own feelings on staying at home rather that stating as fact that all women who SAHM will lose the use of their brain cells. I think it depends on what rocks your boat as an individual, not just as a woman.
I need the daily push of my job to keep me sane, i have an overactive mind and really need to juggle lots of different tasks at once to stop me becoming incredibly bored and fed up.
I am lucky that i can work flexibly though, i do an awful lot of hours but like Xenia and many others i can also work from home and so do bits and pieces either in the mornings before everyone is up or whilst sitting with the kids doing homework etc.
I am totally unsuited to staying at home with the kids in school all day, it would kill me.
I used to fantasise sometimes about staying at home with dd before she was at school age and i did have 6 weeks at home every summer for the first 3 yrs but i always knew that being a full time sahm wasn't a good option for me and dd.
I don't think that choosing to SAHM is an invalid choice, but i do have some agreement with the issues surrounding being totally dependent on a partner for financial stability. So many women have ended up living in very difficult circumstances due to relationships ending and discovering that they actually have very little if any earning potential in the immediate future.

On a different note, can i hijack and be really cheeky? If i remember rightly you/hubby or both are scientists? Can you recommend a decent microscope set for a v bright 8 yr old? very cheeky i know, I've got a thread in chat if you can come up with anything and would be very grateful.

yes, reading furhter down, if you don't like the aroma of Xenia's posts then don't go sniffing them. As is the same for anyone else. There are a few posters who's views are pretty repugnant to me and I just skip them. NOT because I disagree with them, but because they are myopic and ill-informed.

Xenia's posts are always stimulating and readable, though I often disagree with her. Though on the work bit I agree utterly. I love what I do, it is quite a demand, not fantastically well-paid, but I NEVER see it as a heavy burden to carry.

I do really get bored of the SAH-WAH M thing that posters like to crucify each other with. The elements of free will and choice often evades posters in these debates.

'while SAH with babies or small children kills your brain one cell at a time'

This is unadulterated bullshit. It fucking infuriates me that people feel able to make such offensive sweeping judgements about other people.

Xenia - The reason us SAHMs get so wound up is because you are so narrow minded and cannot see the world from any point of view other than your own...yet you claim to be intelligent..if you are that intelligent you will be able to see the bigger picture of the world, and that there is no right answer - not every mother is suited to staying at home with her children for 5+ yrs, not every mother wants their children brought up by some one else for 5 yrs while they work full time.

While you may be in the position to afford the best nanny the majority of the population are not. Therefore if mothers work often their children are left in nurseries (which are of varying standards) or with childminders who are also of varying standards. When these mothers get back from their full time jobs they may be too exhausted to cook properly for their families and too tired to read to their children or play with them. Maybe the mothers feel fulfilled with their jobs but the children are not as happy as they would be with their mothers around more often.

Also when you are working full time and your children are ill you have to take time off etc. which is not convenient for company. I have always been able to look after my children when they have had chicken pox etc without putting anyone else out.

You seem to be of the opinion that us SAHMs are doing nothing while we are at home. However many of us are making a valid contribution to society without being paid - such as being involved in NCT (I'm not but others are), helping out in the local primary school, raising money for schools or other charities etc.

I think you also think that SAHMs are stupid. Well many of us went to top Schools, have good A levels and degrees and have had 10 yrs or so of a career. When my youngest starts school I will still have over 25 yrs left to have a second career. I was not that happy in the career I had for 10 yrs so have enjoyed having a few yrs off with my children and will then hopefully embark on a different career. I appreciate that it is very different if one is a doctor or dentist and it is not always possible to have a career break. But hopefully people in these professions are able to afford the best childcare.

You also appear so used to earning millions that you are unaware that one can be perfectly happy on a lot less. We are living very happily on one income and are able to have lovely holidays, eat well, buy nice clothes etc.. The state primaries here are so good that one does not need to pay for private education.

I expect more marriages break down when both parents are working full time when the children are young as the parents are probably under more pressure and stress.

There is also research that suggests that boys in particular need their mothers a lot in the first four years. I have a relative who went back to work full time when her boy was weeks old and they do not have the easiest of relationships which is very sad.

I don't think both parents need to work full time from the child's birth to set an example to the children. By staying at home with my children while they are young I have given them emotional security and by the time they are choosing careers I will probably be working anyway. I think the best one can do for ones children is to bring them up in a happy home and give them a good education (which does not always have to be in the private system!).

I'm still intrigiued about the island. I'd never want one - I don't fly for eco reasons (so even if we had oney we wouldn't go abroad). Is it uninhabited? If not, do the locals mind being owned? What about hospital treatment? Food?
Are we talking primitive or luxury resort?
I'm so nosey

"While you may be in the position to afford the best nanny the majority of the population are not. Therefore if mothers work often their children are left in nurseries (which are of varying standards) or with childminders who are also of varying standards. When these mothers get back from their full time jobs they may be too exhausted to cook properly for their families and too tired to read to their children or play with them. Maybe the mothers feel fulfilled with their jobs but the children are not as happy as they would be with their mothers around more often. " happywomble

OF COURSE SOME MOTHERS HAVE TO WORK TO PAY BILLS rther than some fancy to keep up with the big boys and keep our brain cells working.

other than that i agree Xenia is practically myopic.

can't find the thread about a microscope (that'll be lack of brain cells [wink}) so I'll answer here.
We had the same problem wanting one when the dc's were home educated. the science kits sold for children are pants and proper microscopes cost ££££££'s. There's a company called...buggered if I can remember. It sells to schools but this was 8 years ago! If you google science kits (we didn't have the internet back then!) there's a whole bunch but make sure they are KS3 level rather than crappy ELC ones from companies that sell to schools.
Wish I could recall that name!
Ask on the Home Education section too. Someone there might remember as Home edders buy all this sort of stuff.

custardo - yes you are completely right. Some Mothers have to work out of financial necessity. I would never criticise people having to work to make ends meet.

The thing I object to is being told that if I'm a SAHM I'm stupid and not doing the best for my children.

I also think there is a general pressure from the Government to get all mothers back to work and all children in nurseries as soon as possible, which seems sad.

happy, it's not just about mothers. Fathers make the decision to work too, but rarely take any flack for the effects (real or imagined) on their children.

I despise the stuff that Xenia writes about SAHMs, but let's not be just as bad by targetting women and letting dads off the hook, eh?

in an ideal world both parents would help with the children 50/50. I've done that with dh even though he worked and I SAH. When he got in at 5.30 I handed him 3 kids and went cycling
At weekends he had to do 50% of childcare and housework.
I did choose to SAH even though its meant we've always been skint and that choice had little to do with DH. If I'd wanted to work he'd of cut down on his hours.
Now, after 17 years at home, he will be very part time while I do a Masters degree. I can't care for dd so he will be her carer, only working school hours while I do this Masters and think about p/t work. I've ebeen offered a job in the witness care programme for courts as a disability officer. Still thinking about it as dd has some major surgery coming up and my health has gone downhill. i might find it too much.

'There is also research that suggests that boys in particular need their mothers a lot in the first four years.'

Have tried to avoid this thread but this is the type of spurious comment which really annoys me. What research? Show us your evidence. And what about all the research which would contradict this statement anyway? Because we all know that different pieces of research will come up with different conclusions about the same topic.

What does 'a lot' mean anyway? Quantify it.

Could it not also be argued that boys (well, children actually) also need their father a lot too?

Is it not possible that a child is disadvantaged if the mother is at home 24/7, but only because the father works a 70 hour week to enable her to do that?

Do 'we' (society?) believe that mothers are intrinsically more important in parenting than fathers?

Yes, Xenia's posts can be extreme, and I don't agree with all she says. But she argues her case coherently, and at the end of the day she is happy with her lot, which is more than can be said for some of the other people who post who are clearly seething with resentment.

I work, I have always worked, though chose to do part time for a period when my children were pre-school, and my DH also had a period of part time working. We see parenting as a joint activity - not the domain of either one of us. And the same with our working lives - why would either one of us want to give that up totally, when it's quite possible and achievable for us both to work and to be parents?

I'd be more interested in coming back when I'm 70 and seeing how the children turned out.
Nurseries are not an acceptable alternative to a parent or grandparent even offering one to one care.
Plenty of us plan to persue a Xenia type career when the children have gone to senior school.
I don't intend to be on the scrap heap at 45, I have another 20 years at least of fulfilling work and I may combine that with the odd gin and trip to the gym if that's all the same to you.

Find the river - stephen bidhu's book did a lot of research into the impact on boys particularly without a main one to one carer, it didn't have to be the mother but it did have to be consistant, which is unlikely in a nursery setting. I read it to believe that the parents/family were the best option, nanny 2nd best (providing she's capable and caring of course), then a childminder with a nusery setting being the worse for a young boy. Girls fair better because some are more independent.

findtheriver - I think Steve Biddulph is one of the people who has mentioned boys needing their mothers in the first four years. The relationship with their father is then important in the next years. I think I've read elsewhere that boys are less suited than girls to the nursery environment when they are very young.

I think my arguments are coherent..you just don't agree with them!!

Xenia does not really ever answer other people's post she just repeats the same thing again and again.

I'm still waiting for her answer on all points of my previous post.

Find the river "Is it not possible that a child is disadvantaged if the mother is at home 24/7, but only because the father works a 70 hour week to enable her to do that?"

Well - my children see their father every night after he gets back from work in the city - he starts very early in order to get back to see them.

I am not seething with resentment..I'm very happy..that is why I am saying I am at least as happy as Xenia and I'm a SAHM! Not everyone is happier working while their children are very young.

I also see parenting as a joint activity. It has worked well for you that you can work part time. In our case DHs salary was higher and he was happier in his job so it made sense for him to be the main breadwinner..I have not chosen to work part time but I think its fine if others do.

You SAHM should stop getting on your high horses a second and see what Xenia is about in general.

What she is saying is that relience on men is NOT good a good way to be - full stop.

The original OP pissed me off, not becasue she had £65k a year or whatever, but that she felt she SHOULD NOT have to support herself too.

SAH if you want, that is fine, BUT be prepared that when your DH pisses off with another woman you are going to be in dire straits, or when it comes to retirement youw ill have NO money, and be prepared that by staying home now - for a few years, or whatever - if not just aout the £1 you could ear now, but about the £2 you could earm if you stayed in work and got promoted.

Yes it may cost all your income now and not appear to be finaniclly viable to continue working, BUT in some jobs (and I know in Xenias) you work for a pittence until you are qualified and then can jump up the ladder rapidly. So yes you appear to working for nothing, but staying in work, keeping up with the policies, legislation, qualifications etc mean in future you could be on teh big bucks.

THAT IS WHAT XENIA IS SAYING, SHE IS SAYING PROTECT YOURSELF, DON'T RELY ON A MAN TO DO IT, as you will be on teh sigle parent boards moaning abiout 'how much I gave him by supporting him to work' etc etc if you are not careful

XENIA is about taking control of your life. She does it by earning multi - millions,that is her bag. It doesn't have to be yours if you don't want it t be. However she is presenting a case to show you it CAN be done, and to stop moaning about lack of money if you COULD get out and earn some.

The way I look at it was that I was never going to allow my DH to be in charge of my life, I earn more than him, if I didn't I woudl still work for my personal pride. I don't want my kids to think that not having a career is an option (I have 2 girls) I want them to feel they could achieve anything, but that they should do it for and by themselves, not relying on anyone - husband/parents whatever - for financial handouts.

Luckily I don't earn what Xenia does and my DH knows he would get jack if we split, not evem tyhe house - perhaps a wide screen TV and a sky + box.

Crunchie, that's what you think - and you're entitled to think it. (As it goes, so far as the concerns about pensions and so on are concerned, I think the government should do something about it - and I believe that they recently have?)

Xenia is far, far more insulting than you realise/acknowledge.

this leads perfectly to quality versus quantity, of course you can be at home all day and not be a hell of a lot of anything - whereas you can be at work and have a few great hours with your child

its about the quality

i don't think steven biddulph can be classed as an expert in anything quite frankly, parenting (self proclaimed) gurus make me wantto puke, if you are going to cite research esp. on mumsnet , you really do have to be exact about it - becuasethere are a helluva lot of edumicated women out there who would argue your research.

the truth is no matter what research was put before us as mumsnetters , someone can go away and find the alternative argument.

there is no definitive answer on this one

as we have all said many times on threads like these - it comes down to this

we are making value judgements on each others parenting.

somepeople have no choice but to stay at home- childcare etc

some dont have a choice but to go to work, for financial reasons.

but by saying one choice is better than the other - you are inferring someone elses choice is WRONG.

and thatswhere the argument is.

we haven't gone into thebenefits for the mother mentally.

some people cannot stand being at home all day, get v. depressed, weepy and hate their chilrren for reducing them to nothingness. but once they have found a work life balance the kids and mum are happy.

some mums cry ont he way to work, they can't bare it.

one doesn't make you a better parent

i disregard most things xenia says, i am positive that she is an alter ego of a regular mumsnetter. and you are right womble, she rarely answers a counter argument.

we all make our choices to fit best with out family. some of us dont have very much choice at all but we still do whats best for out families.

there is no right and wrong here.

Woah happywomble - calm down!!

I have no idea about your particular circumstances so I wasn't implying that your partner is/isn't around!

My post was making the point that life is very complex, shades of grey, not black and white. Which is why to quote specific pieces of 'research' is pointless.

Yes, I've read Steve Biddulph - I think he makes some pertinent points but tbh I thought there was an awful lot in his writing that was very woolly and vague. At the end of the day you have to remember that books like 'Raising Boys' are about an author and publisher wanting to create something fairly accessible, written in pretty simple user friendly language to make themselves a pile of dosh! Have you ever wondered why there's been such a plethora of parenting books appear over recent years? Along with the TV programmes
TBH I would say that anyone who reads someone like Biddulph, and then translates that into 'Right, got to have mother at home 24/7 for the first few years, then it's all change, mum picks up a glittering career and dad takes time out because that's the time boys need him' is plain daft! And would also be lacking in the basic instincts of parenting. And apart from anything else, many of us have families with a mix of girls and boys, so how can we provide the best parenting for them all.

The courts might disagree that a man you married would get jack shit from you.

How have we become so bitter that relying on the man you marry and trust becomes something to ridicule ?
I would be in big trouble if DH left but I also put down the deposit on our first house from my career days so am entitled to half of it and half his pension and I like to think he's clever enough to bear all that in mind before shagging some 20 year old huni.
The people who are most vunerable are the ones who have children with a man without being prepared to marry him and that's what I shall be drumming into my girls, if you aren't good enough to be his wife then you don't have his children.

(Yes, I personally cannot stand Steve Biddulph.)

Anyway, I think that it is incredibly unfair that the high cost of childcare in the UK makes it financially impossible for some parents to go back to work.

Anyway all this stuff about 'reliance' (as in 'SAHPs 'rely' on their partners') show how in thrall you are to prevailing beliefs about the Great God Money. There are other ways in which partners rely on each other. It's just that the work that (mostly) women do in the home has no material value placed on it, so those of you who never go out without your money blinkers perceive it as being entirely without value of any kind.