Yet another article re: why mothers should return to work

[boogiewoogie]

Just snatching a couple of minutes during a coffee break, will come back. What do you think of this?

"I was condemning women who, FULL TIME, sub-contract home and family to pursue their own personal interests with no payoff."

Well I wouldn't condemn them. If I were home the only basis I would do it would be with full time nanny and cleaner. I don't condemn them at all. But I would think they would be as bored as stay at home mothers who in martyrish fashion armed with the books of the psychologist who best supports their view the baby must be strapped to their bosom 24/7 or else it's damaged for life.

The Idler and other magazines socities are devoted to not working (or doing housework). It was the aim of most British people, wasn't it and what was achieved by our aristocracy - not to work and not to do chores either - the pinnacle of human existence. I bet the male Greek philosophers have written about it either pro or against it as a way of being. Contemplative nuns who do no charity work but devote themselves to the good of prayer are perhaps in that category too.

Are we here to do good either by bringing up children in a loving nice way or good by being the best female surgeon in London or wherever our talents lie or is it fine for us to be lotus eaters with no purpose but pleasure.

A lot of what is said below is true however and the reality is the 70% of women with children who work or whatever it is many want to - we don't all do it because we have to; I have said too much time with my chidlren is never what I'm after and many many do it because they and their partner, when they have a partner can't afford not to work.

The problem for women in careers with promotion(not most women) is you can skew things for life by taking out 5 vital years in your 30s and going back 2 or 3 days a week. A lot of women know that and take a decision to stay home or work part time so going back to the original article/book I hope they do realise the long term consequences if their husband runs away or dies and whoever said you can't live your life worrying about those things is wrong - it's why we all try to have life insurance, pick stable men who earn rather than idle lay abouts and for many of us pick careers even when we are only teenagers which we know will give us some financial stability if tha'ts important to us.

Me too, self-indulgent !

See, I'm definately not PhD material

grrr - "I think indulging myself in stepping off the rat race treadmill" - that is not indulging one self imo - it is called regaining one's sanity and putting life into perspective.

yes life is too short hence not wishing to continue to do what one used to hate.

why do you care so much what other people do when it doesn't impact on you at all. Honestly I have to expend enough energy dealing with my own family life, without taking time to concern myself with other people's choices.

C - are you just writing up now? i loved the lab work, hated HATED the writing but that i think was because i had a load of personal issues to deal with.

I think this thread is great and shows that we should not pre-judge others on their personal choices. My gripe with the original artical is that i felt patronised by the author that i took the "soft option" to stay at home.

mums are great, good mums that is; and that means mums who work and mums who stay at home, just different.

Anna8888, I definately find one harder than the other so in one way I suppose I consider myself self-indulgent to choose part-time work over being a full-time SAHM.

"Cristina - I know a lot about bilingualism (and multilingualism) and the advantages it confers on children."

But you didn't talk about advantages of bilingualism, did you? Your post was about children not speaking two languages fluently being neglected. I said children being brought up bilingual, even by SAHMs who do spend their time with them (like I do, apart from 10 hours a week), even by extended family (such as my parents who come to stay for weeks at a time) don't necessarilly speak both languages fluently. To imply that they are therefore neglected is to make stupid assertions, regardless of how much you say you know about bilingualism. I can give you many examples amongst my friends whose children, brought up here, just don't speak Romanian well. Fact of life, not neglect, you silly woman.

my ds is being brought up multi-lingually -

it is not worth speaking to a child in a language you only know very poorly (i.e bad grammar and bad pronounciation) - you would be better off sticking them into a bilingual nursery or primary school where they can learn whatever language from a native or nearly native speaker.

Grrrr - no, you're not self-indulgent because you are making a real contribution to your family's life. If you have managed to find a good balance between work and home, well, lucky (or clever, or both) you.

Self-indulgence to my mind is pursuing your own happiness and not contributing to your family life ie the silly PhD or women who spend their whole life at the gym/hairdresser/shopping/lunching with their children in childcare at their husband's expense. Which, to my mind, is gross immaturity.

This thread is turning awfully strange. So I guess that is me told. I have the cheek to be doing my degree through the OU (NOT paid for by dh) as I was too busy working two jobs back when everyone else was able to go to uni, I also volunteer as a parent advisor for the council in pupil placement appeals dealing with school placements and exclusions. Not so much a "hobby" as a wish to get back into the routine of thinking outside the home and getting decent contacts and a reference!

Don't have a cleaner or any childcare help, even if I had the money (well, maybe someone to clean the bathroom just, there are 3 boys in this house after all.)

I have no strong opinion on whether a mother goes out to work or stays at home, people are so opinionated on others lifestyle choices when they should stick their beaks elsewhere and sort out their own lives. If you find being a SAHM boring then perhaps work is where you should concentrate all the time, I have yet to be bored, I have yet to have any bloody time to be bored and that is with dts starting school last autumn as well. I would love a couple of hours to sit on my backside, even watching tv is something I do when doing something else! It is unusual I even touch the computer at this time but it is the holidays and after this I have a cd unit to build with dts, any offer of help gratefully accepted.

Like I said before, we should be able to choose, and it shouldn't just be the rich ones who get to consider being a SAHM (though with a maid and nanny you aren't really a SAHM at all IMHO.) I am disappointed that there aren't more working from home careers now, which is why I am doing a degree in a non silly subject leading to a home based career. When I had my dts I was in it for the long run, the whole 16 years, but not all of them as a SAHM as they need to learn work ethic.

I have another cousin, same side of the family, who quit work when she got married. No children, no big money involved, her dh works for the council. What she did all day god only knows. They are now getting divorced. Now although I am happy in my role as a SAHM I would have had very little dignity if I had lived off my dh from the start, long before the dts arrived.

Xenia? you would only stay at home if you had a full time nanny? what would you do with yourself all day? I can understand working mums who have a nanny, in an ideal world i guess that is more continuity than nursery but then nursery has its advantages too, socialisation etc. But you would only stay at home if you had a full time nanny? I would be interested to see how you justify that.

Cristina - you are very rude, and you don't read posts properly, so you don't understand them. I am not just referring to my posts today, but to other contributions you have made elsewhere.

But we need to judge and comment a bit otherwise women would still be having the rights Victorian women had - no right to vote, your property became your husband's on marriage, no right to children on divorce, divorce only by court order, no right to go to university or be lawyers or doctors. All those things were denied us not so very long ao at aol and it was only because women (and men) were prepared to step outside the mode of their conditioning and look at what was right and wrong that things changed. Personally I'd much rather we were campaiging to give women abroad who don't have proper legal rights those rights than fussing about who stays at home in the UK but even here I think there's a case to be made that men as well as women should have equal psychological abilities within relationships to request additional paternity leave, to go part time, to dust and hoover etc and that that battle ground remains and we're right to fight over it in a sense to ensure by the time our daughters are 22 their boy friends make no assumptions about who will stay home and boys as much as girls have rights to be housewives etc There is a lot of sexism still to stamp out.

Loads of others issues. Women make pathetic pension provision for example. Why is teh home page on mumsnet got adverts for washing powder? I never give it a second thought. Why isn't it all about pensions or I don't know - other things but no it's mothers pink feminine things like how to wash clothes - our place scrubbing dirt off men's clothes. Ever thus except those of us who work etc

lucyellensmum - quite right, I don't know how SAHMs justify full-time nannies (unless perhaps their husband's job requires a lot of their time and presence ie Ambassador).

I'm not sure rose-tinted glasses always come with built in "perspective" do they ?

What if dh and I both step-off the ratrace treadmill to get perspective (were are not currently being driven mad by working so we don't need to regain our sanity)

My earlier post referred to the need to consider my dh in all of the decisions regarding working and at what level. How is it fair for me to choose but to expect him to then have even greater pressure, like I said I don't sell my soul work to the maximum workwise but I do see the need to bring in more than my fantasy job would generate. I think the needs of the family take precedence unless I am seriously suffering in continuing my work.

Ah sense at last (from TwoIfBytheSea).

Also I used to be a nanny, the hardest part of the job I found was dealing with the guilt of the mother because she was out working very long hours (hence me being there.) Funnily enough the dads never felt guilt, ever. They were happy just being fulltime dad at the weekend.

xenia has said that she think spending only 2 hours per day with her children is enough. one can assume that she can't "take" it for longer than that

i am so glad someone with experience has finally said the unspeakbale : "the guilt of the mother because she was out working"

thats a bloody good point, GUILT, why should women always have to bloody suffer Guilt, i choose to stay at home, im guilty cos we struggle financially and im clearly allowing my brain to atrophy. If i were to go to work i would be guilty of neglecting my children. its swings and roundabouts, but not all working women have the choice i guess, some just have to work to make ends meet, a friend of mine hates leaving her ds but has no choice, no fancy nannies for her either. i think i should shut up now

yr - sure, but Xenia hasn't actually given up work to lounge around all day - she's been busy working to provide for her family. I think it's a bit sad not to enjoy one's very small children's company more than Xenia, but she's not an unconscientious mother - quite the opposite.

It's the unconscientious mothers, the ones who behave as if their husbands were their daddies, that give SAHMs a bad name and who I really don't go for.

I don't feel guilty. But I would if I was out working and had to leave my daughter with a paid carer all day.

Anna - I did read your posts and I maintain your assertion is idiotic: not all children brought up bilingually become so. It's stupid to assert that they don't become fluent in both languages because they are neglected.

Cristina - I didn't make that particular assertion. I maintain: you don't understand what you read.

Yellowrose - yes, that's how I understand it best to bring up a child bilingually: each parent speaks in the language he's fluent in. I didn't teach my deaf son BSL because i wasn't fluent in it, so we stuck to English.