I'm not against working Mums but this is going too far.

[Intefering]

Name changed regular.

A friend of mine has 3 young children with a partner in the military. He is due to leave in 3 or 4 years time I think.

Said friend has told me that she will be re-joining the Navy when her youngest starts reception in 2 years time, several reasons why, money issues, she's worried that after 8 years being a SAHM she will be unemployable, she loves the Navy and nothing else career wise interests her.

AIBU to suggest that this is a ridiculous idea?! I doubt she's considered all the time away from her DC, how her DH will cope picking up the slack at home on his own. Yes she may have loved the Navy but that's behind her and she should concentrate on her responsibilities as a wife and mother.

I'm trying to advise her as her friend but I can't see past her incredible selfishness, how can she have all these kids just to abandon them? She's worried that in 18 years time when all the kids have left home she'll be in a miserable job having watched life pass her by, I really want to tell her that she should of thought of that before getting pregnant.

AIBU and if I am can someone tell me how this will work because I really can't see it.

Maybe I have missed something here, but I still agree with the children need their mum til 7, then need their dad til about 13, then need mentors and role models in the community to finish their education.

And she's back!!

With a new homespun theory!!

Mum til 7, dad til 13. Did you pick those numbers out of a hat?

teeheehee 120, what do you base this theory on? And what do mums do once their kids finish needing them at 7?

I am preying you are being sarcastic.

listenup,children of working parents have mums.they arent feral neglected weans.mum is available to them when shes not at work

woohoo - based on that theory I will be only required to look after one of my children after November this year when DS2 turns 7........

oooooooo I wonder, what happens if the dad isn't really involved? Does that mean they're DOOMED.................

and anyway once the kids are at school we're arguing over 2.5 hours a day that kids of working parents 'miss out' on...

toccatanfudge youre not a (whispers) single mum... are you? Well, with the childrens father not involved I should expect that you will be getting you first asbo in the post any time now. Shame on you. doomed indeed.

interfering - what's the problem?
Her DH retires (early by UK standards!) on a full public service, index linked pension. For those whose don't know that can mean several £100's per month from age 36-38.
She then re joins and can also start earning said pension (still worth a lot even given current financial climate). What's the problem?

Judging by that theory I should have bailed out long ago, as my kids are much older than 7. Damn and blast, they still live at home, we cook, eat and talk together. I'm obviously getting it all wrong!!!! ROFL

I think the problem with the op is that she is saying 'I feel this really strongly, hence I must be right and anyone who disagrees risks harming their children'. Which is crap. Children need a strong and healthy attachment to their parents, after that is established they can cope with separation and it won't cause them long lasting harm.

The other thing that irks me is the claim that being a parent means always putting your children first. That is also bollocks. A family is a dynamic unit and all members of the family need to be happy most of the time for it to work. If you are continually sacrifcing yourself 'for the children' how does anyone benefit in the long run??

Yes, while children are very little and very vulnerable, you do have to put your own needs aside quite a lot of the time, just to make sure they can stay alive but once they are off to school I think the balance shifts and it can become harmful and stifling to continue in the model that the child comes first and foremost.

I think my job as a parent is to equip my child to have a healthy and happy life. I won't achieve that if for first 18 years of of her life I lay down mine. That isn't teaching or guiding her well.

Disagree if you like, but note I am not saying 'and I feel so strongly about this that if any of you disagree you must be crap parents'

SnoBear - I do hope that was aimed at the OP and not me as the last poster

I've obviously been on MN too long. I'm shocked at some of these posts. Long live the days of Cod(etc)...and welcome back.

I'm off.

no,no hang about i love a dem working mums all avaricius mums and handbags

Oh well if you are a single mum then OPs arguement is reversed because everyone knows that being a SAHM is the right and virtuous thing to do by your children but if you are a single mum you must work every hour god sends. Come on!

The problem is orienteer

(whispers) the female of the pair should never (gosh, no!) do the job that takes them away from home

(teeny, tiny whisper) The male should never (ever) do the bulk of childcare (happily, and in agreement with wifey) No. No. No.

oh shit - you're right foureleven - I'd totally cocked it up haven't I

I've just put the kettle on - anyone want a tea or coffee?? (it's all fairtrade ethically sourced blah blah blah for your materialistic working mothers ).

that is quite right caramel. Women are better at childcare anyway. And men better at earning money.

Oh apparently 5 glasses of wine makes fourelven quite sarcastic!

oh actually no - I'd better take the Dr P off the table - I've been swigging it out of the (2ltr) bottle

oh what you drinking four - I have a bottle of french white in the fridge and some, ermmmm Bucks Fizz >>

common tart.

yes, was taking the piss, tis straight from the bring up boys book. if the cap fits..

always nice to feel welcome tho..