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?

Soapbox

On the "staying for the sake of the children" issue - the consensus (this is very broad) among psychiatrists, counsellors etc is that unhappy couples breed children who have a bad parental/family model. Divorce is a positive factor when it is amicable (as it is, in this case) and when children then receive a more positive role model from parental remarriage.

Since, in our case, both my partner and his ex-wife have new partners and everyone gets along, the children are much happier than they were (everyone - friends, teachers, shrinks etc remarks on this).

I don't know why you think I am unambitious or haven't achieved anything... I have achieved a lot in my life, by anyone's standards I have really done a LOT. But right now, at the moment, my priority is my family life.

Anna - you are doing it again!

I never said you didn;t know love - I said I would be more willing to listen to your views on relationships once you have had an 18 year long one with your DP, in other words a relationship that involves raising children.

In any case, you are rather hoist by your own petard - you said you suspected Xenia had never been in love - yet by your own admission don't like other people to assume things about your life!

Well my mother had a life of much achievement before children too - but I did mean her lack of ambition and achievement post having children.

But if happy parents are important for the children - why is a mother's happiness WOTH not also important, if it makes her happy?

I don't think anyone is giving you "you don't know love", Anna. Most people are aware that such an accusation would be unnecessary, inappropriate and cruel, even if they knew enough about you to come to such a conclusion, which, as you rightly point out, they do not. I think people are just pointing out that you, similarly, know f all about Xenia's experiences of love and, even if you were privy to her personal experiences, innermost thoughts and desires, it would be wrong for you to use this knowledge to try and best Xenia in an internet debate.

I am really sorry to read about about your boyfriend dying. That must have been awful.

Why do people think the sahm/wohm debate so often becomes polarised and personal? I'm sure that usually people can see people make other life choices and not rush to judge. Yet this one particular issue is like a scab that gets picked at over and over again.

What matters (as I have always said) is that BOTH partners need to be happy in their relationship.

Xenia always says that ALL women should work etc etc all the time.

Lots of women and lots of men aren't happy with that model.

I have absolutely no problem with any model where everyone (father, mother, children) are happy. I do have a big problem with a model FOR OTHER PEOPLE that makes Xenia happy. None of her business.

pippi - no worries of course you don't have to buy it - i would be happy to give you my copy except i still use it

procrast - thanks, i believe sisterhood too !

taking ds to zoo today, nice sunny weather, he will love it

scummy - it was a long time ago. My partner's brother died of Aids in his twenties, so we both have deaths in our past to contend with.

But it influence your priorities in life and highlight very clearly that you want and ought to spend time with the people you love. They might not be there tomorrow.

anna - you are right - working is a fact of life for most of us so why are you so dismissive of Xenia's lifestyle? I think working life can be a battle - i was made redundant shortly after i returned to work after maternity leave (only woman of child bearing age in my office and only one to be sacked ) - sexism still exists in the workplace!

taylor - I'm not "dismissive" of Xenia's lifestyle. I just don't like the way it pushes people into second place after money and social ambition.

I think most of us have some experience of life not turning out how we wanted it to or expected it to. I think this is exactly the thing the article is pointing out though.

This article says "work is the best insurance policy against risk".

This thread is a bit like throwing ideas around in response to an essay title "Work is the best insurance policy against risk - discuss".

I like the posts that celebrate work. I think work can be fantastic. There is pleasure in a job well done, in the exercise of skills, in working as part of a team, in being rewarded financially. I assume that's why lottery winners often continue working. It satisfies something in themselves.

I dont know anyone who work just for themselves. I find work fun and interesting, but I also work for my DH and my children. To provide for them, support them, to enable my children to go attent nursery and for my family to be around a happy person!

fairymum - great.

Did you never, ever have any qualms abotu leaving your children in paid care?

I think instead of all the bloody sniping each camp does at each other, we should be trying to make it easier for women to stay at home with their children if they want to, or return to work full or part time if they want to.

No? It can't be beyond the wit of so many intelligent women to come up with a new way of doing it, can it? At the moment we have expensive childcare, limited options for MOST women, businesses aren't child-friendly in the main and all most women can do is bitch about the ones who do things differently.

FFS!

Soapy, agree with your defence of Xenia on this thread - not that she in any way needs defending!

Anna, no never ever. I dont think of it as "paid care" or "paying others to bring up my children" though. Both me and DH work, we bring up our children together and they are lucky enough to attend a fantastic nursery and great after-school club. They are great much-loved children. The proof is in the pudding in my case.

I do agree with Hunkers post, but also think women wanting to be SAHMS is a red herring. I think the solution is more of a balance between work and family-life and dads more involved in childcare. I think SAHMS generally mean less involvement from dads at home unfortunately.

FM - in what way a red herring?

FM - that's a lovely socialist ideal, but it's just NOT going to happen.

In France, where I live, there is a 35 hour week, as you probably know. The point of the legislation was create more jobs (with shorter hours).

It's an economic disaster.

And I don't think SAHMs mean less involvement from fathers at all - not my experience. On the contrary, SAHMs can mean that life is less stressful for all the family so the father can have more time with his children.

However, I DO think that in a lot of families where there is an SAHM, this is because the father has such long working hours that it is not practicable for the mother to work. So then the father is seen as less involved.

Anna, I am Swedish. It is happening in Scandinavia and its not just a socialist ideal.

I think people talk too much of children of working mums not spending enough time with their mums. If I didnt work, my children would see more of me, but much less of their dad. I would not want my DH and the children miss out in this way.

When I talk to my Scandinavian friends, I hear three stories:

Norway - lots of childcare provision of high quality, fortunately Norway is very small country with excellent natural resources and can afford a very generous social policy. Some worry about quality of schools by international standards.

Finland - lots of backtracking on the mothers out to work issue, mothers now paid to stay at home in the early years because childcare too expensive. Schools excellent so parents generally not worried about children's development when they go back to work later.

Sweden - social costs currently too high, also back tracking on early years nurseries with more maternity/paternity leave to keep costs down, women predominantly in (inflated) public sector, private sector still male-dominated.

How does that sound?

Anyway, I dont really care what other people choose to do, but I do find it very frustrating that at least where we live the SAMHS are very vocal when it comes to for example after-school clubs. We are lucky enough to have an excellent one at our school now, but had to really fight for it. Strangely it was the SAHMS who came to all meetings and voted against it eventhough it woudl not affect them in the slightest.One mum stood up and talked about how sorry she felt for children in after-school clubs. How irritating.

FM, women who protest that much about WOHMs are fecking jealous of them, IMO. Going to a meeting to argue against an after-school club?! FFS!