Sunday Times article about working women by India Knight.........

[ssd]

Did you read it and if you did what did you think?

FWIW I agree with her, will probably be stoned now.

I have skim read this thread plus the India Knight article - you can't bloody win. She says mums should stay at home but if we are to believe Lowry Turner ( vomit, btw)all mums who stay at home are lazy intellectally stunted lard- arses who can't be bothered.
Each to their own but let's not forget the financial pressures which exist.I work in teaching, part time and am lucky as the money is pretty good plus I get the paid holidays. Lots of people do not have this . And if the tax system made more sense things would be different for many people - let's say one party works and earns 50k: not a bad London salary but heavily taxed. Now let's say both parties work and earn 25k each - same salary but loads less tax. Most working mums have to work so people in the rich and priveleged position of that Phoebe fannycatcher or whatever her name is can just eat cake as far as I'm concerned!

This thread has made me alternately , , . But off to open a savings account for the YEARS of therapy ds will doubtless need because of the fact I put him in nursery and went back to work (never mind that dp has him 3 days...)

What on earth is the problems with 'me' time? Does putting the family first mean that you can't possibly sit there reading a book alone with a glass of wine and no kids, go to yoga once a week, go out to the pub with your mates occasionally, or, heaven forbid, have a night away from them once in a blue moon? That's what me time means, for those who can't understand it. It means time to pamper yourself without having to owrry about what your children need. I really cannot see what the problem is with that. Or is any manifestation of oneself as a being independent from one's children offensive?

Just found something by IK that I agree with while searching for braindead drudge article:

"According to recent research, cash is now the gift of choice for newlyweds. Can?t anything be done to curb this repulsive trend? I understand that people who have lived together for years don?t need toasters or fish kettles (actually, nobody needs fish kettles). They?re all set up and need nothing.
Why, then, ask anything of their guests? Or if they?re so intent on said people forking out, what?s wrong with a donation to charity? Asking for wads of money is just trashy beyond words.

From now on I?ll be boycotting any wedding that suggests cash as an appropriate present. It isn?t."

Figured I'd add it to the thread so people could parp on two fronts (if poss)

I don't like the actual phrase "me-time" - much like I hate the term "playdate".

But the actual concept of having time to myself in which to do my own thing? I'm all for it. Don't want to be physically attached to my children at all times. Oh.

no wordsmith that is not what putting the family first means
I just object to the phrase
it's hideous, imho

HM, cash as a wedding present is an ancient tradition. It's nothing new (which is why it's probably only just come to the attention of India Knight.) In some religions (sorry, can't remember which) cash is pinned to the bridal couple's wedding clothing, is it not?

hunker you are a lightweight
I have both my children physically attached to me RIGHT NOW
I am also discussing the finer points of Goldilocks and the Three Bears
AND mumsnetting
thisis called multitasking

I agree about cash at weddings

vile

But did you find the braindead drudge article?

Can't concentrate on anything else now. May have to fork out the £10, to save my sanity.

OK, as long as it's just the phrase and not the concept!

its the phrase wordsmith

its horrible

also its a privilege, not a right

What's a privilege, not a right? Time to oneself?

look, can I jsut say, I had preschool chileren at times they were in 10 hour childcare 5 days we week. We survived it. No problems! it is fine in the end. I never agonise now, honest!

DS is asleep atm - I guess I could go put my big toe in his ear or something, HC? He might wake up though and then I'd have to stop MNing

But I'm well and truly attached to the other one - so does that make up for it?

WS, I know that in some cultures money is a tradition, but when it's just because people can't decide between Eternal Beau china or a whole set of Lilliput Lane so they ask for cash instead, I'm afraid I agree with IK

I have no idea what your time is, stinkweasel. I guess most of us don't have any regular time, just the occasional time like a trip to the pub with your mates once a month or something. My evenings at the moment are mainly spent ironing or working, whcih I certainly wouldn't call time.

I refuse to discuss what is and what isn;t me time because that will give credence to its existence as a phrase and it is a blot on the space of teh English language imho
I am a mother
I am a parent
I do stuff I want to do but I fit it in around the other stuff I have to do
I don;t need to schedule it in
that's it really

space??? wtf am I talking about
FACE I mean

Noooo, that's too martyr-like for my liking! Tell me it's not so!

I have a right to time to myself. Please? Just a little one?

It's better than (braces self) "family time" [nauseous shudder]

HSC - I think we're saying the same thing really, aren't we. But if it makes you feel better not to refer to it as that word then fine.

It's probably not a right, but it's definitely desirable, to get time away from your children.

OH GOD

and -

as opposed to really shabby time I suppose