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?

Kitty - yes, can agree with your last post, I hate it when anyone starts preaching that we should all live our lives according to their plan as much as you do.

That's why I was rather shocked at the assertion that my choice makes me a selfish b who never wants to see my kids!

But as you say, it was a riposte to Xenia's statements which can be a bit "out there".

Two wrongs don't make a right!

You know what, we are all trying to make our way in this crazy world, why not just support each other in our different choices instead of attacking each other? Life is hard enough!

And of course theres an added problem that women are discrimubatred against for being mothers, after the kids are at school. But you know, many women have found a solution to this - work for yourself. It is the best of both worlds. And it works very well for most of them, though they could still do with a little support from government.

I don't expect to be judged but I did expect slightly patronising tones from WOHM if I ever complained I was tired and frustrated. Which of course I would never dare. That's one of (minor)probs with being SAHM is that you are never really allowed to complain about the hard work, because it is not considered the hard work of the WOHM.
Most of the people I know who work, love their work, work parttime, are tired but think it worthwhile, and are excellent parents.
But I do feel a subtle bullying going on once your children have reached school age. We can afford for me to stay at home and we don't live beyond our means so why should anyone else care whether I work or not? Except me?

cosette

yet again i dip in for a second and manage to feel thoroughly downtrodden - by a woman...

There are plenty of people on here giving alternate and postive accounts of all female choices NotAnOtter. Theres no need to feel downtrodden by what is, on this thread, a minority opinion.

GLaDOS - I'm not sure that it's true that "Most women choose to stay at home"? Certainly the trend seems to be that more and more are choosing to either work, or to combine working with caring for children. According to ONS, "More than two thirds of working-age women with dependent children (68 per cent) were in employment in the second quarter of 2008.". And although the figure drops when children are under 5 - it's still over 50%. www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1655

Of course you could say that many of those "have to" work, and might choose to stay at home if they could, and that's difficult to quantify.

Cosette - the reason more people are working than staying at home is probably due to the following factors (and others I haven't thought of):

1. The government is encouraging those on low salaries to go back to work by paying their childcare.

1. The high cost of housing. Fewer people can afford to take a few years out of the workplace as a SAHP due to their high outgoings on mortgage or rent.

1. The fact that some companies have offered flexible working making it easier for some people to return to work when their children are young.

I think it is hard to know how many people would choose to be a SAHM if they could afford to. Likewise some SAHMS might be wanting to work but not able to due to cost and quality of childcare, commuting time etc. There will also be people who want to work but can't find a job with unemployment numbers rising.

Riven - while I agree Xenia's posts are over the top, it is still possible to have happy kids doing well even if you are a WOHM.

Weirdly though, the European countries with higher fertility rates are the countries were there is a higher rate of women going back to work.
Italy has the lowest fertility rate in Europe and the % of women in full employment is among the lowest in Europe.
Food for thought?

xenia reminds me of a man. Is that what being a strident anti parent is about then,being a man?

Yes, I think Xenia is very offensive to people who made a different choice, but I actually have many friends who have a demanding career and also children who lead a typical happy/tantrummy/serene/hectic/etc etc childhood.

Cosette, women do chose to stay home with their infants. As for women coimbining working with parenting when kids are older, this has happened for time immemorial.

You need to look deeper into the stats to get a feeling of whats happening - and there are class divides. Middle class women almost always take the years maternity leave, and mostly it is their choice to do it.

happywomble, yes I agree - and the other thing that is difficult to quantify is how many Dads would choose to stay at home if it were more culturally acceptable to take a career break, financially viable etc - in fact all the points you make above.

NotanOtter - You shouldn't feel downtrodden - rather you should be proud for having made the right decision for your family (assuming you are comfortable that you have). There's absolutely nothing wrong with being a SAHP - the only thing that is wrong is the assumption that it should be the woman. That assumption is not the fault of SAHMs and I apologise for inferring that earlier.

Also, more people are working because of longer maternity leave periods and better maternity pay, making it more feasible to hang on to a job.

yes franca, it's about attitude isn't it? it's her attitude to woman who chose to stay at home. I will be fascinated to know what her children feel/do once they have children of their own. if they ever do of course, they might see it as beneath them.

My mother for example had to work as my dad left, she would have worked anyway. We lived off vesta packet food. She bought my birthday cake from a shop etc etc. I would have killed foe a mother who showed some sort of maternal interest

If I am scroungeing off my DH, he has been ponceing free childcare off me for the last 3 years.

Xenia - you continue to go on about how anyone choosing to stay at home is letting their employer down.

Well not all employers are spending 1000s training their employees. I expect that most people who have gone through the training to be doctors and lawyers remain in their fields as it is financially worthwhile to do so and probably hard to take a career break if you are doctor and need to keep up to date.

I have heard of a few people who have been trained by the forces and only stayed for the minimum time which does seem rather a waste of taxpayers money. But this can happen whether you are a mother or not..there are probably a few men who train in the forces and decide its not for them.

However in many cases employers haven't spent any money training their employees. In the media industry there are so many people who want to work there the salaries are not particularly high (certainly not graduate salaries) and the employer does very well (being able to pick the brightest) while the employee is there. If the employee leaves they have tens of applications for the job so it is not as though the employer is losing out is it?

You have not answered my previous post on sunday saying what about people who take early retirement? Do you think they are wasting the employers money and letting the country down by not working the full 40+ years. I don't see any difference in stopping work for 5 years to look after your children aged 30 to 35 compared with stopping work at 60 instead of retiring at 65..you are still out of the workplace for 5 years.

mrsgboring -

Good point mrsg - families need childcare, not mothers.

I love to ponce personally...but unfortunately due to lack of funds I am required to work..

Exactly Jack99. Perhaps all these heated debates would died down if there was a different attitude to childcare in the UK. And that'd happen if everyone could access affordable and high quality childcare.

Happywomble- Xenia would just tell you that those who work in the media should have chosen their career more carefully and realised that the pay and conditions are shite. And she's right.

She's right because of all the women returners that I know, most work within the public sector and use flexible working. Those with private sector jobs either gave up or are at a level where they can afford nannies etc.
(
And I know there will be some of you out there who have managed within the private sector and all I can say is well done.)

If I'd been offered flexible shifts I would have taken them. But I was a contract worker, never got maternity pay, no right to return and those who had staff contracts and tried to go part time were soon shunted out.