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?

why is there an assumption that you must love your job? As someone else said, I know very few people who really love their jobs. Most people work because they have to (financially) and want to to a degree and I suppose most of us have some things we enjoy about working. There are not that many people I have ever met who REALLY really love their jobs.

I don't think it is necessarily realistic though - there is a whole world out there. The fact is if you only take the 'safe' route all the time you will never know what could have been. You might have ended up somewhere better where you would be happier.

I also think Ronaldinho that some companies are more open minded than others. I know which sort I would prefer to work for.

I plead guilty to writing this but as a single mum if i stay at home i'm going to get the 'benefit scrounger' label. I love being a sahm and i hate the thought of returning to work. i genuinely believe that being a sahm is the most important job ever but when dd goes to school i will b bored at home. i also don't want her to think that getting pregnant, being single and being on benefits is a career choice. it's a shame that society has made me feel like this really.

again i start tu fume at the way motherhood is viewed (esp single motherhood) In my opinion it's a patriarchal agenda to devalue an important role!

I don't know what career you do Brettgirl but you seem to be able to choose your employer, have a large career break and have it do no damage, work freelance and always make money. Good for you but that sort of scenario is not a reality for most people!

I think 'loving your job' is a bit of a narrow way to look at it.

There are so many aspects to working, and yes, some of them will be hugely enjoyable and some of them less so. I find the 'buzz' of my job really good fun, I really enjoy the social aspect of it - I get to meet and work with people who are bright and dynamic, and who, realistically, I wouldn't come across in other contexts. I am really enthused by learning more about my specialist area. On the other hand, there are some office-based bits that aren't thrilling. I do love the money though - even when it was all going on nursery fees, I loved the fact that my children benefited from an amazing nursery!

But life isn't as simple as saying 'love it or hate it'. Same with being at home anyway - some aspects are great, some are dull. I have always loved playing with my kids, reading to them, going for walks, cooking etc. Loved bf too. But I found endless nappy changing a grind, and coffee mornings listening to other mums saying how advanced little freddie was ..... I'd rather have watched paint dry!

Life isn't black and white - thank god - it's shades of grey.

brettgirl2 on Sun 22-Mar-09 09:22:07
The fact is that if you don't get better off by going to work then there isn't any point, whether you are male or female. If either net salary was less than 2k then it would be costing money to go to work!!!

I disagree I worked for a year at a slight loss and then for a year breaking even. THe following year I was a higher rate tax payer. But even if I had not earnt more shortly after it would have been worth it because my job means more to me than a pay packet. I imagine lots of other woment think the same.

Again, my husband would actually have more freedom to do this than me foxinsocks. But who knows what any of us is able to do until we try?

I'm sorry poshsinglemother but I think it is vital that there is someone in the household working to be a role model for any children. Although yes, it's tough and being there for children is particularly important the requirement for 16 hours a week is perfectly reasonable in my opinion. Then as a tax payer I have no problem at all with paying the benefits.

OK fine - if you love going to work so much that it's worth paying for then you're right it's worth it for you. The fact is that for most people working is about having the standard of living they want. I wouldn't pay to go personally and I don't think my husband would either (but again that would be up to him)

You don't need to work to be a role model

I think the parents should support their children. Therefore if there is only one then yes they do.

foxinsocks on Sun 22-Mar-09 10:10:56
As someone else said, I know very few people who really love their jobs.

As a teacher I am surrounded by people who love their jobs, of course we get paid and need that pay, I would happily work for less. In the past I have turned down pay rises and worked days I have not been paid for. I know other teachers who have done the same, for example when our school was facing bankruptcy lots of staff offered to work 5 days nad be paid for 5 or take on responsibility and not be paid. I am sure the same happens in other jobs.

mmm
support can only be given fiscally?
what about parents physically unable to work?
can they not be role models therefore?

sorry wor5 days ans be paid for 4.

'Surely it makes sense that we both do both?!' Maybe to you but not for all families. For us it makes sense for one to do one (paid work) and one to do the other (childcare). We do it all ourselves without 3rd parties (family/childcare).

Relying on dual incomes can be risky in our economic situation. I am glad we only have one job to worry about. Few people are totally financially independent or could manage if their DP cleared off, whether SAH or WOH. Chances are the lifestyle would change dramatically.

For those who say both parents SHOULD work and be equal parties in caring; do you then agree that men should have equal custody/residency in divorce? Do you agree that SAHDs should get custody? (if you are the breadwinner as a mother). Do you want everything equal or just some things?

I am one of the camp that thinks mothers should choose what works for them. I also agree with Riven (i think it was) that why should women try to act as men. Why become wage slaves if they don't want/need to. Time is valuable. Many people are brainwashed to think work is so amazing. Yes it can be for some and can provide social contact (but not always, some workplaces are demeaning) and identity but so can many other things. I feel liberated by SAH and doing things in my own time.

At the end of the day, men and women are different. Many women want to either not work at all or part time. Few want this full on career track that the few want to push on us all. Employees are very replaceable in general. Parents aren't.

It sets a bad example to children if their parents bring them up (entirely) on benefits. Setting the example of being willing to work is part of being a good role model.

There are very few people who are physically unable to work and unfortunately there are many people who are denied work that they would be able to do and therefore end up on benefits. This is wrong but leaving them entirely on benefits is not the right way.

poshsinglemum, I think you should SAH if it makes you happy and works for you! I think lone parents should be supported till their kids are older. You are already doing a job (albeit unpaid!) Usually people who slate lone parents have never been one. Most lone parents (70% of those with older kids i think) get a job when they are ready anyway.

If dp was dd biological father which he isnt I would say that he had every right to apply for custody if not more tbh. He spends much more time with her than me.

I have been a sahm ( 5 years) and now respect dp decision to take on that role. I dont think mothers shouold choose what works for them I think parents should. The only difference between me and my dp is that he has a dick. That has no bearing on who stays at home and who goes out to work.

I think that in the case of divorce equality would lead to shared custody. Some families actually have joint residency. The most important thing surely here is the needs of the children?

And as I have my trusty rampant rabbit I doi kind of have a dick so there is very little difference between us.

Jellybeans - That's fine for people who embrace a certain stereotypical view, that men are somehow hardwired to want to be the sole earner (which is actually a massive pressure jellybeans- I'm not quite sure I understand your reasoning that two jobs are somehow riskier!) and the view that women don't really want to work at all, or just do a very part time, lower status job.

But many of us are on relationships where we do want more equal roles - and we're happy about it! I'm glad that I married someone who sees the importance of being a hands on involved dad, who doesn't see his role as being limited to being sole wage earner while I stay home. And he's glad he married someone who has an interesting career and also contributes financially.

Given that these days, girls are educated to the same level as boys, and not expected to leave school at 16 to be a housewife, it's not that surprising that many of us feel like this is it?

If dp and I split up and he were dd biological father and I carried on working the hours I do it would make sense for him to have custody and for me to pay maintenance.

I really can't see how having two jobs is riskier, if you are fairly equal earners then you may be in the situation where you could subsistence live on either. That's more secure than having one high earner.

What is interesting is that although jellybean's point of view is stereotypical I find her overtness in this actually less worrying than some of the invert stereotypical views that some of the posters seem to hold.

In terms of single parents 16 hours a week is not very much. This leaves plenty of time to be there for the children (which actually when there is one parent I think is very important).