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?

They make it sacred arts when they do initial life stage, good career, top of the game, look good, attract rich man etc etc. Then move on to dependent mother life stage where every bit of the life must be as high achieving as the first stage - so child is total focus of mother, child to be brought up perfectly (like my mother giving me ground up fillet steak in 1961 - nothing but the best)... by the time you get to my age/stage - 5 childen 22 years, been through the traumas of children adolscence, divorce, deaths etc you just get a bit more aware of the harshness of life and compromises but also more importantly the fact that parenting is a compromise art - it's about not doing it as some kind of perfectionist exercise and indeed believing that to do that then you're actually doing it wrong.

If you do it by "the book" you will be disappointed and the poor child will have had the mother's all put into it - a huge pressure. Anyway most women can't afford to do that I'm a perfect housewife mother sexy wife bit because it requires you to claw on to a rich man and they are few and far between and live off his earnings.

On the death point yes, the book and that example of the sister dying, so sad and so common... I just had a work call and the person is off to a funeral next week - someone in her 40s. I seem to be dogged by people dying at the moment. So the book makes that financial point . I haven't read it but I hope it also shows there are about 1000 other reasons many women choose to work too and it's not just a question of having the savings plan and then if you have that being a housewife is okay for all. No not at all. I could start my list of 1000 points why for many women and men they just should not give up work when they have children.

Honestly Xenia, do you live on another planet ? Most women do NOT marry rich men, nor do they go SEEKING to marry rich men, you read too many trashy novels woman ! We are not all f** bimbos you know ! Nor do ALL men only marry you for your tits !

No Xenia, PLEASE spare of the 1000 points !

That should have said "spare us" !

xenia's list:

point 1: money
point 2: no nappies
point 3: money
point 4: no nappies
point 5: money

point bloody 999: money
point 1000: no nappies

Ds and i returned forty mins ago from three hours in the park playing with his friend - and he's just had supper and fallen asleep pronto- so here's one SAHM who is not on MN all day..[at least not when the sun's shining]

Well we'd better go for the 1000 posts hadn't we! Honestly this is hilarious! Why don't we just get real? Of course most women don't marry incredibly rich men and want to sit on their asses all day. Of course most women don't want to spend 24/7 out at work, ignoring their children's emotional needs. Does anyone REALLY know anyone like this? (I think Xenia and her alter ego are fictitious!!) For heavens sake, most of us mothers work inside the home raising our precious children, AND outside the home, getting intellectual stimulation and making a financial contribution to our families and society. And surprise suprpise so do our partners - yes, we can BOTH do BOTH roles! And guess what - most of us are not only able to do both but are bloody good at it!!

And there's the rub isn't it....... I think sometimes theres the teensiest bit of envy of those of us who manage to do both!

Sorry - couldn't resist making that into another post to keep the numbers up!!

Exactly. of course Anna's and my positions are very rare - the money we both have for a start sets us apart and means a different kind of life with cleaning help etc etc whether we work or not.

Most women and men have just about enough to get by and both work. If women give up careers and men don't a lot of women later regret that and when things go wrong they realise their economic dependence on men who stray, disppear or die may not have been so wise but that's only one issue on this. But I was just trying to describe a particular category of formally in work high achieving mother who then moves to the child rearing stage and makes that the next perfect project in which she'll get her Motherhood First Class degree and I'm not so sure that's best for the child.

yellowrose, you've said it all. let's go and talk about something else now. there are so many more interesting topics in the world...

also how can you all (working mothers ans sahm) spend so much time on MN?
the three days I work I only have the time to look quickly after dinner the others I can write a bit while DD is in bed, if I avoid reading a paper, cook, call a friend.

am I just disorganised or I haven't found the shortcuts yet?

no ebenezer - i think you lot are just the tiniest bit envious that us lot actually ENJOY spending time with our children most of the time and don't pay someone else to play with them, so there

and who said we CAN'T do it all ? some of us just don't WANT to do it all, there is a difference you know !

ruty that sounds lovely, pippi, let's go and talk about Italian food in another playground, my toddler attitude is coming to the fore

Actually I love my children, enjoy them, and love my profession too. So does my partner - that's why we both do both. Why would I envy someone who can't/doesn't? And I'm horrified as I'm sure every other sane person on this thread is, at the merest hint that the hundreds of thousands of PARENTS (ie FATHERS AND MOTHERS)who combine working inside and outside the home might not enjoy their children. What on earth gave you that idea?? And yes, let's hope the lovely weather lasts - I had a fab picnic this afternoon with my kids!

I enjoy my children but I don't want to spend more time with them. I'm like many father although there are also lots of workinng mothers and fathers who would like to spend more time with the children.

yr and I are the same - "and who said we CAN'T do it all ? some of us just don't WANT to do it all, there is a difference you know ! " I conversely to yr don't want to be with the children for many hours a day and prefer the work side. She prefers the being home side. What I wouldn't like is to send the chidlren to board at 7 or go to work before they're up and get home after they sleep on a very regular basis. This morning I left before they were up but that's rare and we've enjoyed time tonight and that was all fine, really nice. it can also do them good to realise there are lots of things in their parents lives and they are one of them rather than that they are the bee's knees, spoilt to the core and mummy and daddy can't do anytyhing except serve the children's needs. No spoilt little Emperor, your parents actually sometimes might want to do other things and have a life, a working and social etc life aside from you and the sooner you realise that the better.

Now the telegraph has their own version - maybe they have been reading mumsnet:

"...So what are the options? You're damned if you go out to work, and broke if you don't. One getout for the conscience-stricken parent is to persuade either your own parents, or your mother-in-law, or possibly an aunt, to mind the babies for a bit. It's commonplace in eastern Europe, but only for the lucky few here.

What we can at least do - policy-makers as well as mothers - is be honest about the costs of our choices. Our present priorities don't look so hot if they mean that our children are paying, emotionally, the price of our mortgages and credit card repayments. If that really is the deal, then it's time for a rethink."

There is nothing wrong with not wishing to be with your children 24/7 esp. as your youngest are 8 (they don't NEED to see you all day, do they, most go to school at that age). However, as usual you confuse babies/toddlers whose needs are rather different to an 8 year old at school or an 18 year old at university. You are the daughter of a psychologist I seem to recall (?), so you of all people should know that.

In fact, no I don't prefer being at home. I never have. What I have done is put my baby's/toddler's needs ahead of mine. That is not some great martrydom saintliness. I also don't look for a payoff, i.e. hero worship from my son in return for the years of sacrifice I made for him ! How absurd ! I see it as my primary role as a mother.

Where the feminists go wrong is to bang on about the rights of the mother in isolation of everything else. What happened to motherhood then, is it just another phase in a woman's enslavement ?

The feminists' (al la bloody Toynbee in the Guardian) latest hero is the female naval officer who has just come back from Iran. So now we are told we need to leave our children behind and go and fight in a (illegal) war to prove our worth as women, to show 'em we have "balls" ? How about being a pacifist ? How about not wishing your child to become a semi-orphan ? Good for her for joining the navy, but do we ALL have to do it ?

If you are such an extreme feminist, like one of my friends, you would be best off not having any children, in my view. You can't always give YOUR needs as a woman and the needs of your child the same value. You just can't. You are seriously delluded if you think you can.

Happy Easter everyone !

upwind - if we go by the UN research, we have the unhappiest children in the developed world (together with the Americans). If you go by the research done (interestingly by a right wing think tank) that we have the most anti-social teenagers in Europe, you have to wonder what is so fab about parenting in the UK ?

It seems to me that we don't actually have a country full of spoilt little Emperors as Xenia would have us believe, but one full of very unhappy, neglected ones.

yr, but we just disagree about the needs of babies, don't we? Yes, my father and brother are psychiatrists and I've read as much as most people about what babies need for good psychological health. For me I thought two parents and a loving nanny who stayed with us for 10 years was a pretty good method, baby in our house house one or other of my husband or I home by 6 every night, baby often sleeping with us, breastfeeding, very close emotional relationships with us all. I didn't feel any damage to the children by that method whatsoever and 3 of them are 18 or over now and seem fine too so I'm pretty happy with that choice.

I do think mothers should stay home for them because they can't bear to be parted or because they would earn so little working there's no point - if they feel like that but not stay home because they think it benefits the child because in my view it doesn't. That is the key difference I expect between us - that difference of view over the best care for under 3s.

Xenia - maybe if one or both parents can be home by 6 every night there are arguments that toddlers won't be harmed by them both working (though I don't agree that under 12-18 months that that is responsible parental behaviour if they have the financial choice).

But in my old jobs that has never been possible, and in my partner's it isn't either - he's home between 7.30 and 8 pm and I am really happy with that, my sister's husband is rarely home before 9pm and travels internationally for about 50% of the time.

So what happens to children whose parents are in that position? I know plenty of children who go for days without seeing either parent.

Going for days without seeing your parents are terrible I agree. Its not an argument against childcare or working parents. Its probably poor parenting or a very poor childhood, but you have just as many unfortunate children whose mums are SAHMS. Again, you are just pointing out the extremes.

I wish that MN threads about women working didn't always get taken over by Xenia or what's she's said.

I think if you want to be a SAHM it should be because you enjoy it and believe its personally best for your child and your family-situation that you are at home. I think if you become a SAHM because you think childcare harm your child or equals neglect, then you might be disappointed when your child starts school and you realise that the ex-nursery children are just as happy,confident, clever and close to their parents as your own child.

Obviously anna I disagree with you that if a parent has a choice to work and they choose to work whilst the child is under 18 months that ia irresponsible but that's because I don't believe studies show babies are harmed by both parents working and you do. We won't resolve that on this thread.

On time of getting home why would anyone want to be married to someone who gets home so late anyway? What sort of married life is that and why do even housewives accept it or choose men in that position? Perhaps I am more a home balanced person that I think. Most people I know who have young children in the City do try to get home for the baby's bed time - either hte mother or the father. Sometimes they do alernatte nights and yes sometimes the father's colleagues look askance at hime leaving but so what? I know a barrister who leaves at 4 every day except the days he is in court to do the school run after school and takes every single school holiday off. If men want that contact with their children and are in those kinds of jobs where you have that power then they arrange it. If I only got home at 8 or 9 I'd just be very tired, never mind if I had children. Of course periodically you might work on a big thing and be home late but most parents of under 3s try for that not to be the case. My brother is a fairly successful psychiatrist, has children under 4 and leaves work by 5.30 or 6 every day.

But one positive thing Xenia does is to highlight the issue of why we make such a distinction between mothers and fathers, when in fact BOTH are parents, and BOTH no doubt love their children equally. Anna makes an interesting point about a parent not being home until 8 pm or later, or spending half their time away traveling. What about the need (and responsibility) of THAT parent to spend time with their child? The danger of these polarised viewpoints is that it can mean the child has a wonderfully close bond with one parent, but at the expense of the other, and surely that can't be good for the child.The supreme irony of this SAHM/WOHM debate is that often the only reason the mother CAN be a SAHM is because her husband has a highly paid job which takes up ludicrous amounts of time, and therefore restricts HIS parenting time. My partner and I are both teachers. We have never been able to afford for one of us to be at home full time.(Though we both enjoy our jobs and believe we are making a valuable contribution to society, so would both choose to work at least part time anyway). The upside of this position is that our children are growing up knowing that their parents have equal skills and talents at working inside and outside the home. Neither of us has a monopoly on childcare/housework/professional lives. My own experience was of a mother who stayed at home until I was about 10, and then took very low status jobs 'to fit around the children', and of a father who took the traditional money earning role. I don't think either got it right. That sounds harsh, but its true. My mother would have benefited from getting out there and having a life that didn't revolve around us kids. In turn, this would have pushed my father into being more hands on rather than feeling the pressure of being the sole earner. Of course, this was some while ago,1960s/70s, and I like to think society has moved on from then. Certainly when I look at my children, they are far more self confident, ambitious, and are as close to their father as they are to me.

Xenia - I think we live in totally different worlds.

All my friends have, or have had, demanding hours in their careers. They are business people with serious responsibilities, people working in finance, in law, in management consulting, in academia. They all work in the global economy and travel around the world in their jobs. That used to be my life, and it will be again. It is LOTS of people's lives, not a tiny minority. All sorts of jobs are being outsourced to other countries these days and even middle-managers have international travel demands. I don't want an unambitious partner, just as my partner doesn't want me to be unambitious. And we are ambitious for our children, in the widest sense.

Personally I have never wanted a suburban, commuter-type existence. I wanted to see the world and work (in responsible, interesting jobs) in different countries, languages and cultures. I have done, and I continue to move in those circles. I think it is lovely to live in a city centre, with all the stimulation that entails, and lovely to live in a rural environment, but I can't stand modern suburban life and I certainly don't want to expose my children to it more than I can help. It is so culturally impoverished.

FairyMum - great post. Yes, fine to be a SAHM if you are a) fortunate enough to be able to afford it and b) because it's what YOU want to do for that particular phase of your life. DON'T do it for negative reasons ie: because of some misguided belief that your children will be harmed by childcare or because you're afraid you can't cope with work and parenting. And just as a good WOH parent ensures that they are not compromising their childrens needs, I think being a SAH parent should come with a similar 'health warning'. Make sure that you don't monopolise your children, to the extent of pushing out your working partner. Don't assume you're going to get some payback through your children being cleverer/more well adjusted/grateful to you for being at home - they won't be! As a teacher (primary school for many years) I saw children coming from nursery/childminder/stay at home parent - there is no evidence in reality that any one way is better.