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?

what are you talking about?
I'm baffled

this bit especially
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).

16 hours what?
Do you mean work outside the home?
If so who looks after the children?

violethill, What I mean by 2 jobs being risky, is that if you depend on two wages to survive, pay mortgage etc, and one looses their job, your income then does not cover the bills. Sounds as risky as depending on one wage to me. Different if your income is vast or extra but most working mums tend to say they NEED their wage to cover the bills/eat.

Also I don't think women should all be housewives. I worked f/t and then p/t. My eldest DD was in f/t childcare. It worked at the time. It was when DH changed jobs that it worked better for me to SAH. Luckily I love being home now. I don't see why I should get a job now purely to 'both do the same things' (ie work and care 50/50) when that would involve hiring a 3rd party to look after our (5) kids.

twinsetandpearls. I think it's good that you think SAHDs should have an equal chance of custody. Too many times I have read that people are scared of their SAHDP getting custody and have even considered giving up jobs. Total equality would mean they should want men to have custody too.

16 hours per week really isn't very much in the context of the average F/T working week I suspect that's what brettgirl meant.

Who looks after the children? - well, there are many forms of childcare, nursery, CM etc. If you work only 16 hours you are going to qualify for a lot of childcare support, so the financial aspect isn't the issue. As we've already seen on this thread, theoretically a lone parent working 16 hours and having financial support for childcare can end up finding that work pays more than is the case where both parents work, qualify for no help, and use the equivalent of one income to pay for childcare.

I'm talking about the constant assumptions with some posters that is will be the woman who earns less/gives up work/works at a loss/picks up the kids when they are ill. It seems to me that they are not really at the point of equality, even though they think they are. I meant 'covert' not 'inverted' lol.

On the other hand blatant views are more likely to lead to daughters seeing clearly what is going on and exploring alternatives/discussing the issues with her mother (which is my own experience)

It is a very complex issue I think and we have a long way to go to really truly achieve equality (and therefore in my opinion be good role models to our daughters)

Yes, that's correct violet and exactly what I meant.

Yes, we can let down our guard and stay home when 50% of the cabinet, boards of banks, senior directors, top 5% of earners aer all female and hwen it is as likely a man as a woman stays home once the baby is a few months old. Until then you have a moral and political duty to keep working and out earn men for the go od of other women and the country which is more important than any duty to yourself and desire to be home or duty to children.

It often costs the state just as much if not more to get a lone parent into part time work. Why not let them SAH while their kids are little and go back to work when they are ready? (as 70% do anyway at the moment, and one would assume many of the other 30% have good reason not to work). Why not go after the absent parent rather than blame the ones holding the baby? The thought of having sole responsibility, doing all the housestuff/DIY, garden, childcare, school stuff and working on top wears me out. I hav every respect for lone parents, whether they have paid work or not.

Well I reject my 'moral and political duty' and continue to SAH! I intend to enjoy it too.

You don't have to totally do what politicians or even society tells you! Do it your own way, it's quite liberating. (Esp when you do the opposite of what GB wants!) No harm is done by looking after your own kids (mother or father) rather than outsourcing it.

jellybeans - I think you have misunderstood my post. I don't think anyone 'should' get a job just to be the same as their partner. I'm talking about people who want to experience both paid work and parenting.

This talk of 'women being like men' is really misleading. Male and female roles have changed massively over the last century. Women have access to education and careers on a scale they never had previously. And yes, I know for centuries women did work, but this was mainly in low paid low status jobs - the difference now is that girls are seen as equal to boys (indeed, even out perform boys academically almost across the board). Alongside this, the male role has changed. In the past, men weren't even there when their wife gave birth! They would turn up after the event and then retire to the pub to wet the baby's head. Paternity leave didn't exist. Father would be straight back to work, and the pattern would be that he'd arrive home expecting dinner on the table and would maybe see the children for half an hour before bed time. The roles were polarised. Times have moved on. Men now (generally) want far more than just to be the breadwinner - they want to be involved in their kids' lives, to be hands on parents. And women (generally) don't want to see all things domestic and to do with the children as entirely their responsibility. That's what I mean by 'both wanting both'.

If the polarised roles work for you, then fine, no problem, but is it really so hard to understand why they don't work for many people, and why the way most of us are raising our children in the 21st century means that our own kids are likely to want both.

Oh and please jellybeans, whatever your views, please don't insult us all with the

'looking after your own kids (mother or father) rather than outsourcing it'

rubbish. Try to understand that all parents look after their own kids. I wonder if you tell your husband that he 'isn't looking after his kids' or 'isn't raising them' just because he goes to work?

I'm sure it does cost more but I think that it is an investment in the future if the children see their lone parent working. It isn't very long since it was perfectly possible to stay at home and not work at all claiming benefits until the child was 16. Therefore for a whole childhood there had possibly been no income at all from work in the household. It is probably true that many do have a good reason but the reality is that many don't. Of course if support can be gained from the other parent then that's fine.

Also remember if you were working for 16 hours then you wouldn't be doing childcare for those!

Jellybeans, can you not see why people wouldn't consider you a role model? You have said yourself that you are not interested in doing your moral duty and that you make decisions based on what is in the best interests of you and your family and what you find enjoyable. Surely you can see that if society doesn't figure in your moral choices then society is unlikely to see you as a role model?

I think, though, that people are realising that you 'can't have it all' and I know lots of women who don't want to work as they have tried it and felt they missed out/juggled too much. Others are happy to earn while their husband stays home. Whatever works, why have a rigid mould. I like our 'polarised roles' and feel a good example to my DDs and DSs. I think my voluntary work (local school) is just as important as paid work also. They see that there is value in unpaid work as much as paid work.

So then you are not a SAHM. You do unpaid work outside of the home. Why do you define yourself as a SAHM in this debate?

Well I don't see it as my moral duty to do paid work so why would I? If we needed the money then yes I would work, I have done in the past. What I said in context was 'No harm is done by looking after your own kids (mother or father) rather than outsourcing it. ' I never said outsourcing it was wrong, just there is no harm in doing it rather than outsourcing. My eldest DD was in fulltime childcare from a baby, I outsourced her care, no problems with that phrase for me.

I think having the freedom to 'make decisions based on what is in the best interests of you and your family and what you find enjoyable' is actually fairly key to equality.

I do see myself as a SAHM. I have a small baby so am on a break from voluntary work (I am going back soon, have been doing over 5 years) and I study 16 hrs a week with OU but am on a break for 5 months.

'Having it all' is a stupid, meaningless phrase.

Being a parent and doing paid work is not 'having it all'- it's just getting on with living life to the full. If it's women who don't want to work because they feel they are juggling too much, then it's likely they have picked a partner who isn't supportive and isn't doing their fair share. Why should women juggle any more than men? For many of us, marriage is a partnership, and we both share the joys and the pressures.

BTW, I don't think the moral and political arguments are the deal breaker for most people - I don't work because I see it as a moral duty - I do it because I have an interesting job which I find fulfilling in a way that complements the fulfulment of parenthood. However, I do see Milly's point. We are all part of society.

I did used to enjoy my paid work (mostly when I went p/t), was glad of 'the break' at times, even though it was hard work and 12 hour shifts. I liked DH doing some one on one parenting, good for us all really. He still does this while I am at uni/college/voluntary work. I never hated working. It just happens that SAH suits us all best now. I work/don't work according to our current situation. I guess most people do this.

Jellybeans, you are now saying that you do voluntary work and go to university. So you are actually a student, not a SAHM. Why do you say that you are a SAHM? I do not think most people would define a university student as a SAHM. You have roles outside of the home and family; some people do not.

Sorry Jellybeans, to clarify, I mean that taking a 5 month break is not different from someone in paid work being on maternity leave IYSWIM.

So millyR I too am a student, freelance worker and I er run a toddler group (Although giving that up soon) Does that make it all better?

I too work/don't work according to our situation. I still think I'm a worthwhile person.

As I've said before - there is more to society than people who go out to work.
There are plenty of people who do unpaid work and contribute plenty to society. As a SAHM I see it all around me.

I do not know any SAHM who do not contribute in some way outside the home. Honestly I cannot think of one.