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?

Oh I see this didn't really move on last night. I can't see where I've insulted anyone on this thread but I can also see that people here aren't really interested in a dicussion, they're just interested in their own pov and in attacking each other .

I don't think it's reasonable that women work and do all the work required to keep a house going. But I am in a relationship where my partner does their share. It must be hard for people who aren't.

In what way are you hoping the discussion will have moved PF.

Are you hoping all the SAHMS will come on and say that they are not a good role model after all.

Or are you expecting Xenia to say she wishes she could have been a SAHM and enjoyed a career break for a few years

Yaay Riven well said lol think everyone else should adopt that attitude and be done wi' it

Riven, your case is exceptional.

Can I point out again that dp and I are both home when the children are. Dp is full-time and still home by 4 pm. I am part-time and manage to be at school gates in the morning and afternoon.

Teaching is not the only job which allows you to do this sort of thing. I know dinner ladies, administrators, financial advisors, GPs, driving instructors, cleaners, air stewards etc who do it too. But I also know families where mum AND dad share the load. Or involve grandparents or before and after school or friends or a combination.

It is possible to combine work and looking after your kids.

And again, Steri you suggest that going back to work means you miss out on developmental milestones and that doesn't have to be the case. Nowadays maternity pay is pretty good. Most women are now in a position to take a full year off work during which time you can be there to breast feed, watch crawling, first steps and so on just like a SAHM. You can then go back to work part-time if you choose to and for example work mornings.

Most developmental milestones do not happen in a single second anyway. Children cruise and then walk across a room pushing a trolly and then take a step here or there. I wonder how many parents (WOHM or SAHM) can pinpoint the exact moment their child started to walk or talk or whatever. And how meaningful is this for the child who won't remember it?

In my own life some of the most memorable and pleasurable experiences with my kids are possible because I work. The feeling of leaving work and going to pick my kids up from school. Taking my kids into my work when their school was closed because of snow and setting up a picnic with a colleague's little girl in a classroom for lunch... But also as I parenting priorities change. When my kids are 18 I imagine they'll be more grateful that I am able to pay for their tuition fees and drive them to university than that I was there to potty train them (which I was). Working also enables me personally to pay for private education so I am absolutely confident that they get the very best nurturing and education while they're at school. For ME if I had the choice again of being at home full time from when my kids were 0-4 or going back to work part-time and being financially secure and able to afford things that for ME are incredibly valuable, priceless indeed, like a good education there's no contst.

Riven, your case is exceptional.

Can I point out again that dp and I are both home when the children are. Dp is full-time and still home by 4 pm. I am part-time and manage to be at school gates in the morning and afternoon.

Teaching is not the only job which allows you to do this sort of thing. I know dinner ladies, administrators, financial advisors, GPs, driving instructors, cleaners, air stewards etc who do it too. But I also know families where mum AND dad share the load. Or involve grandparents or before and after school or friends or a combination.

It is possible to combine work and looking after your kids.

And again, Steri you suggest that going back to work means you miss out on developmental milestones and that doesn't have to be the case. Nowadays maternity pay is pretty good. Most women are now in a position to take a full year off work during which time you can be there to breast feed, watch crawling, first steps and so on just like a SAHM. You can then go back to work part-time if you choose to and for example work mornings.

Most developmental milestones do not happen in a single second anyway. Children cruise and then walk across a room pushing a trolly and then take a step here or there. I wonder how many parents (WOHM or SAHM) can pinpoint the exact moment their child started to walk or talk or whatever. And how meaningful is this for the child who won't remember it?

In my own life some of the most memorable and pleasurable experiences with my kids are possible because I work. The feeling of leaving work and going to pick my kids up from school. Taking my kids into my work when their school was closed because of snow and setting up a picnic with a colleague's little girl in a classroom for lunch... But also as I parenting priorities change. When my kids are 18 I imagine they'll be more grateful that I am able to pay for their tuition fees and drive them to university than that I was there to potty train them (which I was). Working also enables me personally to pay for private education so I am absolutely confident that they get the very best nurturing and education while they're at school. For ME if I had the choice again of being at home full time from when my kids were 0-4 or going back to work part-time and being financially secure and able to afford things that for ME are incredibly valuable, priceless indeed, like a good education there's no contst.

Happywomble - you said "a bit rude of you to assume sahms are poverty stricken and living on benefits."

You misunderstand me. The point I was making was a political/economic one and it applies equally across the social strata.

The whole thing of being economically inactive (or dependent) is a bit of a cop out for women.

Many of the mums at the DC's school come from wealthy backgrounds. They have to in order to afford the fees. But it's still all about women being dependent - only its dependency on men rather than on the state.

Agree with fivecandles, there are plenty of ways to work around school hours, I work 4 days at the mo, when dd starts school I'll do 5 short days simple as.

Yes I'll be gutted to give up a full day off but that's how it works, still be there for her.

Well quattro - I am temporarily dependent on DH for income. He is dependent on me for the children being looked after and everything else. If he gets made redundant the situation could easily reverse. Why is this a problem for society?

My DH and I do not come from wealthy backgrounds. We have earnt all our money ourselves and paid off the mortgage before 40. We are careful with our money and live within our means.

Most mothers are good role models whatever their choices. Some people are just so insecure about their own choices they have to derogate women who make different choices than them, like Xenia, et al. It's a no brainer.

happy, I agree with QC. Personally I couldn't stand to be dependent on anyone financially. For 'society' where couples agree for one partner to stay at home as a full-time parent is doesn't have to be a problem. Where it becomes a problem for society is where parents cannot afford to do this and then become dependent on state benefits. It also can become a problem for the usually woman who chooses to do this if her partner is no longer able or willing to support her and her children financially or if she wants to return to work and finds this difficult.

In my own case I think both dp and I would resent working to provide for the other given that we have jobs where we can combine work and childcare (and given that individually we'd have to work harder to compensate for the other partner's loss of income and therefore be less active in family life). We see both earning money and caring for our children as joint responsibilities. Obviously this isn't the way everyone feels and that's fine.

This academic year, my DS has been ill so often that his attendance has dropped to 80%.

All that time off. I work pt and flexibly, so in terms of work, it hasn't been a problme. But for most people, having to take something like 20 days off to look after a sick child, is a killer. Their employers would simply want to get rid of them. You can combine work and school if you have a) a sympathetic employer b) hours which can be juggled (I would not have been able to juggle it if I was doing full time) and c) a continuous run of luck with your children being healthy. My luck ran out this year, but it didn't matter because I had the other things in place. For many women, particularly lone parents, the sort of academic year my DS has had would have spelled the end of their jobs. You only need one bad run of luck for it all to go tits up.

I'm not sure that I buy the idea that the financial dependence is temporary either. There are undoubtedly careers - mostly in the public sector - where people can pick up where they stepped off the ladder. But for many (usually women) it means pin-money jobs, and that has all sorts of ramifications.

It conditions society's expectations of women and it can lead to women not being taken seriously when they do remain in the workplace.

I'm a bit uneasy about this idea that it's so terrible to be financially dependent on someone else. "For richer for poorer, for better for worse" - if one partner in a marriage became ill, unable to work for some reason, then they would a) have to accept financial dependence on the other and b) the other would have to accept financial liability for them. I think it is dangerous to have a kneejerk horror of that, because although I know that logically, one will say "oh it's different if that's the case and there are unavoidable reasons for financial dependence" but if your whole psyche is geared towards finding that totally unacceptable, then I think you would have a problem shifting gears to deal with it. I'm not accusing anybody btw, just thinking aloud. Financial dependence on someone else may not be perfect, but it is far from being a terrible form of slavery. Anyway there are many people out there who think that being financially dependent on an employer is at least as problematic as being financially dependent on a spouse. (Although in many cases, the former are more polite and less demanding. Though not all.)

That's what I've been saying QC but also one of the first things to go if you're stretched for money is saving for the future - yours and your children's.

When I went back to work part-time and had to pay for my kids' childcare I was barely breaking even BUT I held on to my job and I was contributing to my pension and NI and if I'd got sick I would have continued to be paid and dp and I started saving for the dcs from the year they were born for university and beyond.

Obviously there are many SAHMs that can do this too but only where the partner who works is bringing in sufficient income.

Can't help thinking there's an awful lot of pressures on both partners to do their respective work where one is entirely or almost entirely responsible for either earning or childcare too and these aren't shared. And also I know a lot of SAHM who whle their dp may be ok with them not going out to work set restrictions on how their wives spend their time and money even wehre this is subtle and possibly even unconscious. My SIL feels she has to run around the house looking frantic when her dp comes in to 'justify' the fact that she's still at home for example.

HerBeat, that's exactly how I feel about being financially dependent on a man. A kneejerk horror. Honestly it's anathema. I couldn't contemplate it. I would hate it even if it was enforced through illness for example. I'm paranoid about this and it's one reason why we have critical illness and life assurance and savings.

"My SIL feels she has to run around the house looking frantic when her dp comes in to 'justify' the fact that she's still at home for example."

Wouldn't her DH actually prefer to return to calm rather than chaos?

Well, it is calm but also busy. She's a bit obsessed with cleanliness and organisation because (she feels) that she has to justify her position given that her husband is paying for it. I do actually know a lot of women in this position.