To be sick of reading on MN that you are a "good role model" to your dd if you go back to work??

[ssd]

have read this over various posts on MN over the years

usually posters give various reasons to return to work, all viable and good, but then the poster throws in the "good role model" shite

why always harp back to this?

if you love your kids, teach them to respect and care for others, learn manners and discipline THEN you are a good role model

most of us eventually will return to work at some stage and if we don't we will still be good role models unless we are lying about the house taking drugs and leaving the kids to go feral, which I;m sure not too many of us do!

I know I'll get slated on here as the going back to work to be a good role model line seems to be very poplular round here and I'm not trying to wind up posters who use it, it just seems to me people work out of necessity, not to be a role model

And BTW where's all the role models for ds's??? or is just loving them enough?

D'you know what I just did a long post to that effect but you've put it more succinctly Mrs R.

You don't want to be insulted, don't insult others. Simple really.

"Oh but I haven't personally insulted anyone, I've just insulted a whole segment of the population, so it doesn't count"

Well actually, yes, it does.

But a nanny with kids does look after more children, and a SAHM only looks after her own.

I think it is both of you who have an issue with the unemployed and think it is somehow shameful.

If SAHMs are employed, can you explain to me who their employer is?

"There is a very clear difference between looking after your own family and looking after someone else's. "
"But a nanny with kids does look after more children, and a SAHM only looks after her own. "
Not sure what you mean by these statements. Could you clarify them a bit.

"I find it quite upsetting that any parent would consider bringing up their own child as a job."

Whether you consider it a job or not, it is work.

Juuule

I think it depends on the purpose of the form, and often, how many categories there are on the database.

On a lot of forms now you are asked to say what your employment status is including answers such as student, and then you are also asked elsewhere if you have caring responsibilities.

I think there is a distinction between employed and unemployed and also between those with caring responsibilities and those without. They are two separate issues.

Again, there is no shame in being unemployed.

if I was at home and looking after children without earning a wage at all (which I am not by the way) then I would, if called upon, define myself on a form as "principal carer"

Juuule

I am not saying it isn't work. I am saying it isn't employment.

juule 'housewife' implies cleaning loos

what i do in the day is 'mothering'

for all the scorn poured on it here it is all i have ever wanted to do

i am good at it too

millyr 'doh'

it IS employment

it is not PAID

I have a friend who pays someone to collect and have her child after school while she gets paid to have someone elses. Seems abit bizarre.

but just because someone isn't employed, doesn't them "unemployed"
it isn't binary
someone could be a student, or have caring responsibilities, or doing voluntary work.
unemployed means someone who is available for paid work but not in paid work.
a SAHP does not fall into that category.

from here
"Definition of employment (noun)
form: no plural
work; occupation; keeping busy"

I think that I'm employed according to the above definition.

Well there you go, then, NAO I clean the loos aswell as the mothering bit (as does dh on occasion)
.

I think I am a good role model to my kids. I look after them, study and help at school. They see me as being very unmaterialistic (if I worked it would probably just go on more 'stuff') I have previously worked but now SAH as it suits us better at this point in time. They see caring (and maybe even making some sacrifices?) as being as important as paid working. They have plenty of other people around who do it differently too. My oldest DD (12) often says she is glad I am around after schools as some of her friends are 'left on their own' or stuck in school clubs. I do always tell her though that some people have no choice and life isn't that simple etc etc and she herself was in a nursery as a baby while i worked so she doesn't see all or nothing but that it varies and all can be good role models.

Hmm, but as I keep saying, mothers who work outside the home ALSO do the work of a mother. With my kids in school DP and I do everything that SAHM do and work as teachers too.

ohhh to be perfect

what's your point fivecandles?

If every mother (or father if mother didn't want to) with a pre school child took a career break of a few years maybe the jobless total would be less than 2 million.

I think I am doing the economy a favour by not depriving some one else of paid employment for the time being.

I also strongly object to tax payers money being spent on nursery education for 2 yr olds..there is no educational need for nursery at this age. If people want to work fine but they should pay the childcare out of their wages. The nursery payment for 3 yr olds makes sense.

Okay, an example of difference between a nanny and a SAHM.

If you are a SAHM and your child is ill and has the day off school, you look after them.

if you are a nanny and your child is ill and has the day off school, you phone your employer and tell them you're not coming to their house to look after their kids, because your child is sick so you are taking the day off.

I am sure you can all think of other obvious examples.

As for employment, if we are defining employment as any kind of work, then the unemployed do not exist. Even people on the dole have to go to cash their giro and cook their dinner, which is a kind of work. By some of the reasoning on this thread, their is no difference between Jamie Oliver as a Chef and someone who cooks their own dinner in their own house.

fivecandles you can't do everything that a sahm can do. It's physically impossible as you are not there for the hours that a sahm is. I know that when I was wohm I couldn't do as much with my children as I could once I was sah.

I disagree abit there, when I worked f/t DD had been fed elsewhere and hadn't trashed the house all day.

Having a great career doesn't necessarily make you any sort of role model....surely just a woman with a job of work outside the house.
In the same way that staying at home doesn't make you either a scrounger or a brilliant mother.

Sick to death of all this sniping. It's like a nest of vipers around here

Milly of course we understand the difference between someone who is a paid employee and someone looking fter their own children.
the point is that the second category is not "unemployed" because they are not available for paid work.
they are employed in work, even if they aren't paid.

OK I am not concentrating v much on this thread because you've seen one bonkers SAHM v WOHM bash fest you'e seen 'em all, but LOL at the mad world of Mumsnet where the difference between a Nanny and a SAHM needs to be explained.

"their is no difference between Jamie Oliver as a Chef and someone who cooks their own dinner in their own house."

Correct except that one gets paid for it and the other doesn't. Either way someone gets fed.

I agree with happywomble. 2 year olds don't need to socialise, they tend to still paralell play. Also, why should everyone else pay (other than for lone parents etc) for others childcare choices? I also find it a relief that we manage on one wage and not two. That puts you in a very bad position if one of you were to loose jobs, no reserve worker, 2 jobs to worry about in redundancies etc.