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?

This means I have even been able to do the things that you might assume are a SAHM's prerogative like helping the children get changed after swimming lessons and even, if I'm free, whip up the road to watch an assembly!

sounds like you have it well & truely sussed 5c...well done!

A*

It isn't a competition to see who can organise their life 'best' though, is it? And 'best' is meaningless as it would mean different things to different people anyway!

For some people, being at the school gate every day is not a necessity. For me, reducing my hours and always being there every minute that the kids weren't in school would have meant compromising my work life to the extent that I wouldnt have got the promotions which make my work life interesting and what I want it to be. Obviously if my kids had been unable to cope without me or DH at the school gate, then we'd have had to re-think - but fortunately they were always fine!! It's about looking at everyone in the family and making the best decision, and being honest enough to realise whether it's actually your kids you there 24/7 or you needing them!!

your kids needing* you there

I would not be allowed to regularly swan into school 15 minutes before I start teaching. I would also not be able to cope.

I did think that too twinset! Who are these people who breeze into the classroom at five to nine?! (well, fivecandles obviously!)

I guess maybe some part timers may literally just turn up and fulfil their contractual obligations, but most teachers would find this very limiting and frustrating.

I dont think 5candles is just fulfilling her contractual obligations, she says herself that she takes work home.

On the odd occasion I get into work about 8.15, the school day starts at 8.50 and I find that quite stressful in terms of being ready. But I do get stressed quite easily.

I wasn't suggesting that she was doing the bare minimum twinset - but I do find it odd that any teacher could regularly drop their kids at 8.45 and then start work! As you say - way too stressful to enjoy the job and feel on top of it.

You could do it if you had to and everything was set up the night before I suppose but then you could not pick up the kids.

My dd used to attend the nursery attached to my school when I worked part time. So I could drop her off, pop over at lunch and picker her up. But she would be in my classroom from 7 in the morning until nusery started at 8 and even though I would pick her up at 4pm again she would be in my classroom for another hour. But I was lucky that I was able to do that, most jobs would not allow it,

Although I am about to sit by the river and do my marking with a radio and a picnic, not many people have that luxury either. We are lucky!

Thought I would catch up on the usual SAHM/WOHM argy bargy on mumsnet.

Have obviously spent the morning in slavery, servicing my husband in return for board and lodging.

Will now commence skivvy duties while reminding DD1 and DD2 that their place is IN THE HOME

I am sorry that you are offended Happywomble. You are right in that I am implying that society is being affected by women's decisions to remain economically idle. Of course it is, how could it be otherwise? We are all affected by one another's decisions.

"If you are as well educated as you claim to be you should take a more broadminded view of life and not look down others who do things differently."

Well I am not sure that I am looking down on people's choices, I think I am pointing out that those choices have an effect beyond that of the immediate family.

Not everyone has choice though, and it is important to remember that. There was a post lower down the thread which pointed out that for many women, it would be literally impossible to afford the childcare for two children. That's irrefutable as an argument and points towards a need for more and less expensive childcare to be widely available.

Quattrocentro - hallelujah! The main barrier to women returning to work is affordable childcare.
And that includes wrap-around care at school age too, which in our area is so oversubscribed, you have to get the child's name down practically from birth. The same goes for decent nurseries/childminders.

I would also add that I agree society is affected by women's choices to stay at home and help out in the community.

I know lots of people who do this and also help out with childcare for other parents who work.

You can contribute massively to society and not be paid for it...

I'm with Happywomble on this one. Riven has made some excellent comments on this thread too. Unfortunately, they don't seem to count for much, coming as they do from the mouths of SAHM's.

Of course, we are all being oversensitive at being told we're crap role models for our daughters because we're staying at home. We're domestic drudges, intellectually unchallenged and therefore any DD or DS we have will have an unnatural view on life. We're contributing to the detriment of society by remaining economically idle. We're servile and in servitude to (God help us here) MEN!!!! How else could it be otherwise???

I have heard very little WOHM bashing on this thread. What a shame the favour can't be reciprocated. Thank God this kind of attitude is mostly restricted to MN.

Good point Smallorange. I think our primary schools would collapse if not for the help of unpaid SAHMs.

What's annoyed me about this thread right from the beginning is the assertion that only paid labour, where a woman goes out of the home, is considered valuable.

Anything else is letting the side down, economically and socially irresponsible and a sure indicator that our kids will become nobodies.

The contribution which many SAHMs make by supporting others, caring for their kids and providing much needed childcare for WOHMs is vital to the existence of the working population.

AND I believe that my child is best suited to having her mum at home when she needs her.

A point which Expat made on the-elderly-are-undervalued thread is that in our capitalist society, work that is unpaid will necessarily be undervalued. I think that is true.

"AND I believe that my child is best suited to having her mum at home when she needs her."

I would second that point for my children, too.

it's exactly the not so subtle undertones in that comment that WOHMs find demeaning.

Crops up often on here, usually very cleverly worded but the insinuation is WOHMs aren't appropriately available for their children.

Nonsense I'm available whenever she needs me, I don't have to be actually there, physically in the house, i support and contain and parent her just as musc as a SAHM does.

my kids must be thoroughly confused . I have been a F/T WOHM, a SAHM and a P/T WOHM .

Poor kids what sort of role model am I providing for them ?

I don't find it demeaning. I am sure that I not always available to by children. But why should I be? They're not toddlers. They are 7 and 10, which is old enough to understand that the world does not revolve around them and their needs, and that their parents have other responsibilities because we have other people outside of our family who need our help, both in our paid work and our volunteering work. And my son already volunteers by his own choice.

Many people, both WOHM and SAHM do not spend their time putting their own child first all the time because they care about the rest of the world. I really dislike all this I look after my kids 24/7 or I work a 70 hour week to buy stuff for my kids. There are people in the world other than a woman's own children.

I wasn't trying to be subtle

My children do benefit from me being there for them. Such as the time my older daughter took ill at college or the time when her tooth broke and she was in agony until I arranged an emergency appt with the dentist. I've lost count of the number of times I've been called to school to pick them up. Or, in primary, take something in that they'd forgotten. Or been able to help one of my teens when they went through a rough patch at school and would come home at lunch unable to go back.
I'm sure there would be ways around these things but it has made all our lives better to have someone at home or close by to deal with them.

Oh and I now home-ed 4 of them because we believe that is better for them so I have to be there for them most of the time.

I was pleased to go back to work asa role model for MY sons.
ok?

pmsl at economically idle!!

And that brings us back to the point that was originally trying to be made. We make the best decisions we can for our own children.

That's why I carefully stated that for my daughter, my being home is best for her. She knows other people exist in the world and I sometimes have other priorities. She also knows that she is my number one priority. And before anyone starts thinking about PFB-ness, that other old chestnut on here, she is unspoilt, well disciplined and academically capable, partly because of the time she's spent with me, with various carers and now at school.

Like Iotascat (your comment made me lol) my child has experienced ALL forms of parenting since she was born 8 years ago - I've been a WOHM, WAHM and am now a SAHM.

We all do the best for our kids. It's just that best is a subjective word and what one person thinks is great another will think is rubbish, which is exactly what we've seen on this thread. I know I'm doing what's best for me, my child, my circumstances. Ok?