If you are fed up of the WOHM vs SAHM debate (I know I am) DO NOT open the News Review bit of the Sunday Times....

[foxinsocks]

just don't do it

I do not intend to be patronising, but it is interesting to me that you clearly interpret it as such...why ?
Bibliophile- not really your father,( I'm assuming you are really a woman...), your mother would have been more important in the development of your sense of self.
WBC- I'm often flumoxed by this 'flexible' working thing...what do YOU mean by it ? because if one of my staff comes to me and says," I need to work flexibly because I've got a 2 year old ", I always say to them," tell me what you want to do"...we go from there..if she or he says,' I only want to work every other thursday on a full moon..." I say' fine ,but you will have to pick another job because doctoring ain't for you'....This of course rarely happens,( although it did once..),most of the time it isn't about less hours,or even different timings really it's about suppport/encouragement/practical help,( one of my junior docs shared my nanny, at no cost to her, for 6 months whilst she sorted out difficulties around a relationship break up...I put my ward manager up for several months+his 13 year old son, housing difficulties..). These things all worked because the junior doc/ward manager and I wanted them to.Is that what you mean ? because I think sometimes people say 'flexibility' when they really want to say," I 'm bailing out '

ooh, let's think, why do your posts sound patronising (not to mention hostile)? Maybe because they are? And anyway, as so many of us think you sound dreadfully patronising, don't you think it might be time to consider that - just perhaps - this that might be your fault and have a think about why you come across so very badly?

Yes Mozhe, a lot of employers think flexibility means bailing out too.

And that's why a lot of mothers bail out. Because flexibility isn't bailing out - it's working flexibly. But if your employer perceives it as you bailing out, rather than seeing it as you attempting to balance the needs of your family with the demands of work, then you are going to be treated as a supplicant and a nuisance at work. And most people don't willingly go to a place every day where they're treated like that.

here's a link with more info and ideas about flexible working

all journos then ladies?

LOL Cowmad.

India Knight is a Sunday Times journo. And an occasional mumsnetter I think. (Not sure, but she certainly rose magnficently to the SWMNBN affair)

thank you whizz i know now!!
(wink!)

I've got to say nobody has ever said that to me before....We differ in opinion and action, some of us,but shouldn't it be ok to say what you think /

Yes, of course you can say what you think, but if, from the comfort of your cushion of wealth and your apparent cheerful indifference to spending all your children's waking hours away from them, you start lecturing other people about how your way is the only decent way to live, and start telling them where they are going wrong in how they bring up their children, you are likely to elicit a somewhat irritable response. Can you not understand why?
You also seem mystifyingly unable to understand that some women like being with their children and caring for them and miss them when they don't see them. You are also, I think, offensively dismissive of the value of caring for children. Just because you don't much like doing it and don't feel good at it, doesn't mean other women feel the same. Or that they might well feel the emotional and financial disadvantages are outweighed by the emotional rewards for them and their children. Some women cannot afford not to work, despite wanting to be with their children, and they have the hardest time of all.

clever bugger once said
while i may not agree with your opinion..i defend,to the death,your right to SAY it..

words for all here im thinking!!

I think there's a difference between defending your right to say something and defending the tone in which you say it.

And also, of course everybody's got the right to say something stupid. And everyone else has got the right to point out why what they've just said is stupid.

Let's see if we can make this thread go on forever, shall we?

Mozhe - I challenge anyone to honestly say they are, a) good at everything in relation to raising a child, and , b) that it takes up all their time, or even a reasonable amount...The question is what else do they do ? Genuine answers on a postcard..

A) Strange question. I'm not sure what you mean by that?

B) Obviously they do all the things which your nanny and domestic help do.

Yes Mozhe, what do you think your nanny and cleaners do all day? And if, as you seem to suggest, you think it's nowt much, why do you bother paying them?
Brilliant posts, bibliophile and caligula.
I used to have a friend just like mozhe. USED TO.
She berated SAHMs as lazy spongers, in some cases, to their faces. Interstingly, she ended up as a patient in a psychiatric unit last year.

Agree that biblio and caligula's posts were brilliant, as usual....

I think the key is that some mums feel it's a duty and responsibility to their kids to be with them when they are young because the kids will benefit from that more than they will benefit from any other arrangement.

And some mums don't feel that way.

I've not read a post here from a SAHM that had anything about it of resentment or bitterness ABOUT THEIR DECISION to be a SAHM. Some resentment of criticism of this decision yes, - fair enough.

Been thinking about this thread. I work part-time but wish I could be at home longer. My job is great ( i work as a music teacher), it motivates me a lot, and I get a great deal out of it. But in my dying moments will I look back and wish desperatly that I had spent just a little more time with my children when they were young, or spent a few more hours at work? They are only young for a short time.

Mohze, your choice to work full-time is yours. What I have concluded after reading all the comments on this thread is that your opinion on working (which you are fully entitled too) doesn't recognise that not everyone wants to work full-time. That's why you have elicited such a strong reaction.

And yes, Mozhe, you should be able to say what you think. However, you also have to accept that there may be consequences to what you have to say and the way in which you say it. Not meaning to lecture, just trying to clarify I guess.

Ok so gonna add my two or maybe ten pence worth having thought about this thread for the last couple of days.

Firstly - flexible working is supposed to be an arrangement that allows a parent to go back to work after having a small child (and before it is 5) that still allows her to care for her child but also fulfils the needs of her employer. Part time is totally different and unfortuately does not have to be offered to suit someones schooling hrs etc. Its a shame more employers don't consider this wehn deciding the hrs though or maybe more parents might go back. In my experience, this has never been about bailing out but has been about a person trying to keep their job on whilst trying to retain some of their hands on responsibilities as a mother. Take me for example, I had a baby and loved it. Before I had a baby, I had a job I loved - what to do?? I didn't want to give up my job but I knew I could not handle working full time so I went to my employer with a proposal and now I work 27hrs a week which allows me to maintain my job but also have lots of time at home with my lo. So I wasn't bailing out I was trying to have my cake and eat it and it works and I like it.

Now, secondly, does anyone actually care what the next person does, be it hands on caring for their child full time or going out to work and sharing the care???? Its each indiviudals decision and it should be respected. And as for all this suffragettes dying being disrespected by women returning to their kitchens (referring to orig article) I think you'll find that those women died for a right to choose - and that wasn't just about in govt it was in everything. Just the same as the women who burned their bras in the sixties and fought for legal abortions, rape to be legal the list goes on. So if a woman chooses to stay at home then good on her and if a woman chooses to go to work then good on her as well as they are both exercising their right to choose what they do with their life that all those women died for them to have!!!!!!

Phew - bit of a ramble but I'm starting to get quite irritated with people sniping at each other all the time over something that is essentially none of anyones business but our own. Why do we so easily gang up on each other.

Their soapbox moment over.

God I need a fag!!!

I agree with you gremlin, I think the problem is that mohze seems to be insisting that every mother should work rather than accepting that we now at least have the right to choose not to work for a couple of years whilst our kids are small. Many of those of us who have made that choice have had successful careers, role model mothers who worked, nannys, cleaners, the lot and chosen to give it all up to spend a bit of precious time with our children just becaue we can. Please mohze, accept that intelligent women are capable of making intelligent choices?

well I do find looking after two small kids actually takes up pretty much every waking moment actually

so fecking shoot me

even when I am on MN I am bf.

Today I worked till 3, picked up the two ds's from school at 3:30, called in at the shop and got them home for 4. It then took me until 6:15 just to get our dinner on the table. It was a simple meal, but it still took that long because the ds's were there. There were fifty-three interruptions, consisting of breaking up fights, picking ds2 up after seizures, answering the phone, finding lost toys, picking up and soothing during crying fits, answering some intelligent questions from ds1 about something he was watching on tv which involved me leaving the kitchen...etc..etc. I didn't play with them once. Most of the time I wasn't even watching them, I was trying to cook the meal despite them. We finished eating it and talking at about 7, then it took me till well past 8 to get them ready for bed, due to a repeat of the above interruptions. Work in the office up to 3 pm was a breeze compared to this, and when they were pre-school and I only worked p/time, every single day ran along similar lines, with housework thrown in. That's what people do all day. They look after their children.

Great post Droile.

My only observation in all of this is that I think parents should earn their own money and not be dependant on the other parent. Why? Because 2 in 5 marriages end in divorce in this country and you can bail out of an unhappy marriage a lot more easily if you have a job to go to. If you've carried on working in some way (even if it is voluntary work eg NCT, school governor) you will be a lot more employable as a result and the knowledge that you can earn your keep and keep the children is priceless. While being at home all day with kids requires many skills, they are less likely to appeal to an employer than somethng tangible like a paid job, being treasurer for the NCT or helping to interview a prospective headteacher as a governor.

You DO need to be prepared for your other half to go off with the secretary and you won't necessarily get half (or more of ) the money....it may sound like a terribly and sad argument but it's the one thing that my mother instilled in me - I must have my own money.

That sounds very familiar Droile - even the working until 3. However I'm working at home today with DS#2 - the other's are at school. Life's a breeze with only the one, in comparison. I think it's easier when they are at school. And as I can so a little gentle housework while I'm at home and possibly prepare dinner it isn't nearly so manic when they do come home. I think the problem with the hectic school-till-bedtime bit is that you are trying to fit in everything that you might have done during the day.

that's a nice positive outlook on life hellywobs!

Droile, I'm waiting for someone superior to come on and tell you why you're being inefficient and rubbish at it and how your kids would be much better off with a nanny who would do it so much better than you. (And who somehow is worth paying and respecting more for it when she does it, than you are when you do it.)

I kind of agree with Hellywob, plus having a job is about contributing to family income and maintaining self as an independant entity at same time. But I am SAHM because I have a pre-schooler and every PT job I go for I get turned down because I have too many qualifications. When they see my CV they assume I SHOULD have been a career woman until the bitter end. Gah! Can't win!!