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.....

oh my god katiedd

custardo...the thing is Xenia says it is wrong to be a SAHM, and thinks SAHMs are unhappy & bitter. That is why I felt duty bound to defend myself!

I don't particularly follow parenting gurus but happen to have seen Steve B's talk so I think thats why a few things are at the back of my mind. I only quoted Steve B as Findtheriver asked for info to back up what I was saying.

I haven't consulted my parenting books for a good few years and am about to flog them at the NCT sale!

I think at the heart of what Xenia says is some real common sense. I relied on a man when I was married and when he felt like withdrawing that support I ended up on the streets with a new born child.

I will raise my dd to be independent and to realise that if she wants something she will have to earn it for herself. I will have no issues with her being a SAHM as long as she has built herself a level of security first.

Anything in particular Ronaldinhio ?

I'm not married to my partner. I own half of the house and am named on his pension document in case he goes under a bus. He has parental responsibility for both DSs.

Not being married is fine so long as you cover your bases. Oh, and Katie - it's me who doesn't want to get married.

You know, I think the most important thing is that people are able to see clearly enough to be honest about themselves, their motives and their own situations.

I chose to work part time while my children were very small because I quite liked the idea of being around more when they were at toddler stage. (Early months were pretty boring IMO, and if there had been a way to go straight back to work and then start maternity leave at 6 months old then I'd have signed up for it!!!). But the point here is that it is what suited me. I make no claim that it was 'better' for my children. My gut instint tells me that they would have turned out exactly the same had they been in childcare for longer hours than they were - but I can't possibly know can I? And neither can any of us, because we only have one crack at things which each child so we can't go back and test out what would happen if we did it differently.

HappyWomble - at the end of your post you state that your DH chose to stay in his job because he earns more and is HAPPIER in it. Which is absolutely fine. But that's my point - in your case, it seems you were not in a job which was hugely rewarding, financially or emotionally.

I have no problem with a woman who says, 'I don't enjoy my job much' or 'I don't have huge earning power' so therefore I'll stay at home. Just don't claim that you're doing it because it's 'better ' for your children!

Well I am not the happiest sahm in the world. Possibly because it wans't a choice but it was more dictated by circumstances. Or possibly because I'm upset with myself for not having been confident enough to find an alternative.
Plus,I've never believed that under 5s need to be with their parents 24/7.

Fair enough if you don't want to, but if you are left holding the baby your position is weakened.
Yes he has to provide for his children but he doesn't have to provide for you whilst you recover financially from years of being at home with the children, which would be the case in my situation.

i dont get it ....this relying on a man thing...

i dont understand may posts on here that say - my man ran off with a transvestite and took all our money, now i am not sure how much that is , i dont know how much savings we had, i dont know the pin number, i dont know the financial advisor, i don't know the bank, i dont' know the branch

he gave me 'housekeeping' money.

he says as he earns the wages he can tell me what to do.....

first thing i would do is get a job and tell him to sort childcare - cos i might as well get paid cash for hours every day.

i kno, i kno i am stating the obvious

but sometimes women.....just a bit thick aren't they.

i dont understand why in 2008/9 this even needs to be stated.

i really don't.

I can provide for myself, if I need to.

(that was to Katie, not custardo)

'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.'

We're in dire straits regardless of whether he pisses off or not. But thats cos of dd and the fact we've never earned enough to have apension.
Nothing we can do now will change it even if dd passed away tomorrow god forbid.

I think children should get a say in the family dynamic too and their opinion should be asked for regarding how they want to live. Hard to do with a newborn of cousre but there's so many who had a miserable childhood cos their parents weren't happy whether it was SAH or WOH.
Xenia is always too black and white and ignores pretty much everything anyone else says. She can't imagine doing anything differetly and she is extremely lucky to be in a career where issues can be dealt with by throwing money at it. So if one of her kids had been born braind amaged she wouldn't have lost her career but could have paid a specialist nanny. the 95% of the population who earn under 50K don't have that option.
She is so far outside the 'norm' of earnings I don't think she connects with the rest of us most of the time!

What policywonk said about reliance is great. I rely on dh to care for dd because I can't. I actually bring in more with child benefit and DLA than he earns in the 2 hours a week he is able to work. Its a partnership. He removes the dead rats the cats bring in, I cook and shop. He's cleaning the oven right now (but only cos he put a squash in without pricking it first and its exploded in a spectacular fashion )
Marriage is a partnership generally not 'being kept by a man' and both people, and the children should come to a common preference a
s to whats best for each of them.

I don't find Xenia insulting, sometimes a bit OTT but that's hardly surprising given the deliberate misunderstanding of a lot of what she's posted. I notice how the SAHM jump all over every word Xenia says but don't have anything to say about various posters saying nursery is not an acceptable alternative to parents/grandparents, that the only reason mums work is because they can't afford to SAH & that women SAH because they don't want other people to bring their children up. My son is almost 4 & initially was looked after by his nan when I went back to work when he was 6 months old. He then went to nursery even though it was a stretch financially because I believed he needed the additional stimulation & social interaction with other children. I work because I love my job & wouldn't quit regardless of how much dh was earning. If nursery is bringing my son up how is it that he is better behaved, with better manners than a lot of other children there. A good nursery reinforces what you teach your children at home. I, like most working mums, make sure I spend plenty of quality time with my son evenings & weekends & he absolutely does not suffer because I go out to work & I very much resent anyone saying otherwise.

'I have no problem with a woman who says, 'I don't enjoy my job much' or 'I don't have huge earning power' so therefore I'll stay at home. Just don't claim that you're doing it because it's 'better ' for your children!'

Well, some women belive it so thats their opinion and they are right to state it. Its what I believe. One partner should stay home till the kids are 5.
Thats just my opinion but in the real world its unlikely to happen for financial reasons or both partners want to work.
But Its still my opinion and I don' need to pretend anything different.

'think children should get a say in the family dynamic too and their opinion should be asked for regarding how they want to live.'

I see where you're coming from, and I agree that the children's needs should of course be taken into account, along with mother and father's needs. But I think it's very dodgy to think that children should be 'consulted' about what their parents do or don't do regarding work. And besides, most families have more than one child, or varying ages, so what they want or need isn't very often the same anyway!

Claire, that's a fair point but a difficult one. I absolutely agree that many women make a positive choice to work because that's where they feel happiest - no problem with that one. I absolutely do think that if a parent is much happier at work than at home, then that's the right choice for both them and their children.

For me, I did stay at home because I didn't want other people to bring up my children. so I can't object to other people saying that.

As for nurseries - it's a very tricky subject isn't it? I've never seen a nursery, playgroup or childminder that would offer my children the quality of love, warmth, comfort and stimulation that I do - but then I haven't seen many nurseries/playgroups/childminders full stop, so I don't claim that my experience is exhaustive. And that's the point - I can see that my experience is not universal, and I don't feel entitled to heap insults on those who have chosen to do something different. Xenia, OTOH, does.

I didn't say it was easy
But I do think kids should be consulted once they are of the age to understand. Its their life too. maybe they hate after school childcare or maybe they get fed up being at home with mum. I don't think parnets should put their lives/careers first. Its a family.

i have had quite a few older women come and work for me doing evening shifts at m&s exactly because their husbands have left them near retirement age, or because their husbands' businesses which they relied on fininacially have failed as they've got older. it seems to happen a lot.

these are women who spend their days looking after their grandchildren while their daughters go out and earn their own money. then they work late shift with me to earn enough to pay for basics for themselves.

it makes me very very sad for these women, finding themselves in the shit due to being reliant on their ex.

I've never been inside a nursery to be honest. I hope to god the carers in them aren't like children's nurses!!! (in the hospital we use. Kids are left to cry and are treated prtty brutally). I wouldn't ever leave dd alone in a hospital without either me or her dad staying in with her.

why don't they work day time and not look after their grandchildren? If thats what they want?
I can't even get my in-laws to babysit, not once in 17 years. MIL always put work before everything, even before her dying grnaddaughter. But thats her. Family isn't as important as work 'to her'

and that leaves her with no-one to care when she is old and frail I reckon.
Another thing to consider. Maybe career minded kids will park you in a home cos society doesn't value family bonds and caring?

'I have no problem with a woman who says, 'I don't enjoy my job much' or 'I don't have huge earning power' so therefore I'll stay at home. Just don't claim that you're doing it because it's 'better ' for your children!'

Well, some women belive it so thats their opinion and they are right to state it. Its what I believe. One partner should stay home till the kids are 5.'

But what are you basing your views on needmorecoffee??

Fair enough if you happen to believe, instinctively, that a parent must be at home all the time until the child reaches 5, but it's no more than that - your opinion. There is nothing magic about the age 5. Or any other age come to that.

If you make a choice because that's just what YOU want to do, then fine, just as some people decide to live in the town, some in the country, some people choose to send their kids to private school, some don't. Just don't use spurious arguments to back up what is essentially a personal choice, not borne out of any evidence or research, just your choice.

at your hospital nmc.

I know it's not the same (in that it was a one-off), but when DS1 had to spend a few days in hospital, we organised shifts to stay with him - me and his baby bro during the day, DP in the evenings and my dad overnight. I think the hospital staff thought we were lunatics, tbh.

I didn't but just pointing out you claimed women didn't say it was 'better'. They do, and velieve it too, just like some women belive its 'better' to go out to work.
Depends on what you judge as 'better'. Money and enjoying a job or enjoying kids or both.
Everyone is different but you made a generalisation.
My kids were beter off with me home cos they needed to be home educated.
As for research, there's enough supporting both sides to make your head spin!

my evidence is for my kids alone obviously. I neither know or really think about other people's. Its the only judgement I can make. The evidence is my kids did better with me at home.