Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to wonder why some women 'bother' to have children???

272 replies

babiesblue · 28/11/2009 09:56

I know a woman who had her dc around the same time I had my 1st. Our mothers are friends.
Just recently Mum has told me about meeting up with her and her Mum at some social event.
This woman spent the entire meeting explaining to my Mum about how busy she is at work, and how little time she gets to spend with her dc. Dc goes to stay with grandparents on Sunday evenings so that they can do the nursery run on Monday mornings (so that she doesn't have to get dc ready as she's getting herself ready for work - grandparents bring the child to nursery every morning also and collect in evening). Apparently (at 2yo) dc has never slept through the night, and she's exhausted. Her husbands mother, once a week, delivers a week's worth of food to her house for the child to eat.
And, since I've now had my 2nd dc, she was asking how we all were, and saying that herself and her dh were thinking about having a 2nd baby.
My point is, although I think she's very lucky having all the help from her family, I just can't help feeling that she isn't actually looking after the child she has, let alone would be able to look after a 2nd!!!
Also (now maybe you think I'm being really mean???) she works full-time - fair enough - and isn't home before dc goes to bed most nights (relies on grandparents again), so doesn't really see dc that much during the week, but at the weekends she continues to make arrangements with friends to meet up and go to the ballet, the opera, the theatre (where she saw my Mum), out for lunch or dinner, and so therefore still doesn't see her dc.

AIBU to wonder why she's planning to have another child when she hardly sees the one she has???

OP posts:
Bonsoir · 28/11/2009 20:42

Yes, SM is teensy weensy bit suspiciously overly defensive sensitive vocal on this particular topic

scottishmummy · 28/11/2009 20:45

no not really,at least it started off humorous.
time spent in the sensible and correct corner is never wasted.

only to happy to put folk straight,enlighten them about error of their ways

Bonsoir · 28/11/2009 20:47

Ah, evangelising ...

nemowho · 28/11/2009 20:52

What's the point in having children and then letting some other woman,and a stranger at that, bring them up?Selfish or what!

MillyR · 28/11/2009 20:54

To go back to the original woman whose life we were all discussing, her child does not sleep through the night and hasn't done for 2 years.

She has my sympathy. I don't care if someone is a SAHM or a WOHM, if their child never sleeps through for 2 years they are going to be exhausted. It makes complete sense for the someone to have the child one night a week as that will be the only night a week that the parents get to sleep properly.

I don't think that makes them unable to cope or unfit to have another child.

I don't want to have any more children of my own but would love to look after young children for some of the time again. I would be very happy if in the future I got to look after my grandchildren for part of every week, while they also have FT nursery so both me and my children can have careers. Who says that the Mother has to be the primary carer anyway?

clemette · 28/11/2009 20:55

...
No, won't bother.

spicemonster · 28/11/2009 20:55

You're right nemowho - I'm a selfish cow who doesn't deserve her child

NiceShoes · 28/11/2009 21:20

Bonsoir,why don't you tell us about the slim stylish French madame's who do not work as their husbands are so rich.Or tell us about your unhappy friends who all work. Or life on the 17th arrondissement

purplepeony · 28/11/2009 21:56

Ron says "Why would it make you a better mother if you are at home or ensure that your children are better cared for?"

No one is saying you would be a better mother- just that you would be doing what most people regard as mothering- which is spending time with the little person you have created, presumably and hopefully willingly.

Which brings us full circle- WHY have a child if you simply don't want to be with them (very much at all), and appear happy to delegate so you can spend oodles of time doing other things.

It won't matter to the child aslong as they get love from someone, but what's in it for the Mum?

spicemonster · 28/11/2009 21:59

But you could argue that for men purplepeony. Why do they bother having children if they're out at work all day? Is it just to keep their wives happy? Of course not.

Some women enjoy their careers. And don't want them to stop when they have children. I don't understand why that's such a hard thing to comprehend or, worse, why it automatically puts those of us who choose to work into the 'bad parent' box.

These conversations on MN always strike me as very ironic considering that it was a couple of mothers who set the site up. So thereby going back to work and presumably entrusting the care of their children to others!

clemette · 28/11/2009 22:03

But why do animals have children - surely for many it is just a biological drive?
Since reading this I have been trying to think WHY I had mine. From the pre-conception stage I knew that I didn't want to be a SAHM (not condemening any, just not for me) and it wasn't narcissism/selfishness. I just felt I was in a place where I could give a new person a decent start in life. We had DS largely for the same reason, and partly to give DD a sibling. Also, as DH is an only child and my siblings are pretty disfunctional, it was the only opportunity for our parents to enjoy being grandparents.
Some may ask why we bothered if I had no intention of giving up my own career ambitions. Some DO ask why I bother if someone else is going to look after them all day. I wonder if those same people have examined their own reasons for having children - surely it is MORE selfish to have children simply to fulfil your self?

ijustwanttoaskaquestion · 28/11/2009 22:20

Not read all the posts - when i had DD1 i was very young (19) and a single mum. I lived with my parents and they were fantastic baby sitters etc. Then i left home and started university when DD started school - i worked too, DD spent pretty much all her time with my parents - i hardly saw her. Even when i was home, it got to the point when she would prefer to be with my parents It has made for difficulties with our relationship now she is older. I have DD2 now, big age gap, and my mum cant look after her the way she did DD1. Thats pretty tough, however, i have a better relationship with DD2. If i had my time over, i would have done things iwth DD1 very differently.

The issue wasn't my working, but the extra time my DD spent with GPs, which is what you describe in your OP. I don't regret working, but i do regret allowing DD to spend her weekends wtih GPs too because it suited me better at the time.

bibbitybobbityhat · 28/11/2009 22:28

"Some women enjoy their careers. And don't want them to stop when they have children. I don't understand why that's such a hard thing to comprehend or, worse, why it automatically puts those of us who choose to work into the 'bad parent' box."

Agreed. Agreed. Its not. It doesn't.

This is not a thread about mothers who work. Why is that so difficult to comprehend?

loobylu3 · 28/11/2009 22:34

Ijustwanttoaskaquestion- that's a really honest post.
It isn't an issue of working/ not working at all. It is wanting to spend time with the children and build a close relationship that is important, not just relying on grandparents/ other carers constantly.

MrsMattie · 28/11/2009 22:38

God, losing the will to live with this 'debate'.

To the OP - grow up.

WAMwannabe · 28/11/2009 22:50

-Mrs Mattie regarding who says women have to be the sole carers?! Ummmm NATURE says it. Lol. Hence the fact WOMEN have the babies, lol ;) Im not agreeing either way, just stating a point!
x

clemette · 28/11/2009 22:55

Hmm - but all babies are born to females, and there are very few species where the "mother" is the "sole" carer.
Not at all relevant really, but I am having an evening of animal analogies...

WAMwannabe · 28/11/2009 22:56

SORRY MEANT FOR MILLY R not Mrs Mattie :D

purplepeony · 28/11/2009 22:57

spice- no-one, including me, has said that if you are a mum who works you are a badparent- in fact I have been at pains to stress that is not what I think.
What I have said is that if you appear to not want to spend your time with your child- be that time when you could work, or time when you don't work and regard that time as "leisure time" it does beg the question why have children.
The same applies to men. I know some very high-flying men in stressful jobs who devote their work-free time to their children. I know some men who don't work all hours and who don't spend any time with their children. I also know men and women who decided they wanted to spend all their time doing other things apart from raising children, so didn't have any.

posieparker · 29/11/2009 07:38

'Posie, no chip just lingering irritation at being told that YOUR way is the right way and people who choose a different way are somehow inadequate as parents.
You may be at home with your children but you are also judgemental and prone to swearing at complete strangers. If I had my own judgy pants on I might wonder if that makes you a better mother than me ...'
clemette

manure/shit....same thing to me.

And I do not think MY way is the only right way, I happen to think some people aren't cut out to be SAHP, my DH being one of them....but I am not equipped to leave my dcs in day care full time. I guess I have to swear at you because you spout such nonsense.

gobsmackedetal · 29/11/2009 08:46

Wow! I can't believe this si still gong on.

clemette nbot all babies are born to females. Male sea horses are the ones who get pregnant. Male ostriches (sp?) hatch the eggs that the female lays before she deos a runner and duck couples take turns during the the incubation period in order to relieve each other.

And nature says that women have to be the sole carers because the babies are born to them? (can't remeber who said this). Such non-sense. It's not a cause and effect thing, you know. Unless you're talking about parthenogenesis, in which case the one and only individual responsible for procreation should be solely responsible for the offspring they create. but since we're talking about humans, who bioligically HAVE to have two parents and who have been for millions of years a social species, 'tis b**cks

gobsmackedetal · 29/11/2009 08:47

I know this is not relevant to the OP but I found the OP boring anyway. I do enjoy though the other convos this has created

ssd · 29/11/2009 09:08

scottishmummy, you didn't let me down

you should write a book woman, your patter's hilarious!

MillyR · 29/11/2009 09:18

Wamwannabe, you need to go and read up on some basic anthropology.

clemette · 29/11/2009 10:06

Gobsmacked, I did not know that about male seahorses.
Posie, you are a numpty - plenty of people challenged your view but you only swore at me. You must let go of the BC past petal!