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?

Here's some figures - 30% of all divorces are where one party is divorcing for the second or more time.

From the FT:

Britain has the world's 14th highest marriage break-up rate

*The number of UK divorces has been increasing in recent years, with 167,116 legal break-ups in 2004, according to the most recent figures from the Office for National Statistics

*The number of divorces in 2004 was the highest since 1996, but lower than the peak of 180,018 in 1993

*In 1961, 27,224 marriages ended in divorce

*In 2004 there were 311,180 marriages, but just 161,300 of those were the first marriage for both partners. Almost 50,000 were remarriages for both parties

*The number of weddings peaked at 480,285 in 1972

*More than 30 per cent of divorces granted in 2004 involved a husband or wife's second or subsequent marriage

*The average British divorce occurs after 11 years of marriage and the average age at divorce is 42.7 years for men and 40.2 years for women

*The woman keeps the house in 46 per cent of divorce cases, the man in 29 per cent. Divorcing couples split an average of £165,000 in assets

*Over the past few decades people have been tending to marry later in life. The average age for first marriages in England and Wales in 2004 was 31 for men and 29 for women

*Since 1992, there have been more civil than religious marriage ceremonies in England and Wales. In 2004, 68 per cent of marriages were civil ceremonies

did'nt read whole thread.. had just came on to mumsnet to post it though... feck

Fantastic article imo...

oh ffs what happened to taking a leap of faith?

thank THE LORD I don't worry my pretty little head about these things

I got married to stay married, this may happen, may not, but to start off a family and think, hmmmmmm, I better hedge my bets here

no thank you very muchas gracias

What frustrates me about this debate is that there never seems to be any attempt to come up with new ideas how to solve the problem - why is the government so hell-bent on getting all women back into work - why does article only argue for women to return to full-time work - why can't there be something new? More flexible working - for mothers and fathers - for the sake of the children as well as the parents.

I have read the article and the op but not the thread so forgive my probably repetetive contribution - not stopping me put my twopenneth in though

I find it depressing that this article is concerned with marital breakdown and financial risk and very little about how choices are made within families.

I was raised by a sahm who lft school at 15 and was employed as a homehelp before starting her family, we were my fathers 2nd attempt at marriage and kids so he had 3 children to support before me and 2 siblings arrived on the scene, he changed careers in the 1970's and lost his job in the 80's (for a couple of years) - then died in the 1990's leaving my mum a widow in her early 40's - so I was well aware of the risks when I gave up my job to raise my children - I think I have experienced every reason why a women should stay at work!

However - no one can love and care for my kids like I can and I do not want to miss them while i work to pay someone else to look after them - it is a personal (very personal) choice I have no arguement with working mums - I am aware many have little choice in the matter and work shitty jobs for shittier pay to keep body and soul together. Others are fortunate to love their carrers and have to perform amazing juggling acts to keep maintain a foothold in their career. I have a vague lan to return to some kind of work in the future but I am not sure how or what (I have plenty of qualifications but am well aware that a few years out will put me at a disadvantage). My husband has all the pressure of maintaining the family and paying the mortgage - I have to budget hich i hate but the important thing is how precious and fleeting this time with my children is I am not going to be looking back at my life when I am old and grey wishing I had put more hours in at the office! Most of us are wage slaves in jobs that are stressful and unfullfilling living miles from our workplace wih little control over our hours and roles - if my dh leaves me for the sexy little moppet at the office I will survive, if he dies we will find a way. I can'tlive my life waiting for terrible things to happen ....

• I must say I switched off after the 2nd paragraph and then skim read the rest only to find "The Fifteen-Year Paradigm" - oh ffs

what happend to the KIDZ in this 15 year paradigm ?

procast - you say "if my dh leaves me for the sexy little moppet at the office I will survive, if he dies we will find a way. I can't live my life waiting for terrible things to happen ...." quite and one of the things that MAY happen is that you place a 6 month old baby in a nursery 12 hours a day. you have to decide which is worse. your dh getting run over by a bus and you having to make ends meet on your own or you having a very unhappy baby/child in the care of someone else. i know which risk i am not happy to take.

procrast - i agree with your post by the way not sure if that came across in my last post

thank you YR I did get your meaning - I gald you got mine though reading it back I have missed out an embarrasing no. of letters - typing slower than I think oh well

come on xenia, admit it..... you ARE jackie bennet, aren't you??

I think employers should make it easier for mums to work part time/job share so their children don't have to be in the care of someone else all week but the mum gets to keep her career going and retain financial independence. I'm lucky that I can work on Saturdays as my profession is 24/7 so DP looks after the children and I don't have to pay childcare. it means I still earn my own money and get to be with my dc during the week. If we could all do something similar life might be a bit simpler.

I did an interesting calculation the other day. If DH and I were to break up, I would have to pack in my £20k a year job because I wouldn't be able to afford the mortgage and the childcare (he's a SAHD). Yet I'd be earning too much to get any significant help from tax credits and the like. Obviously it's better for the tax payer for me to be on benefits or a minimum wage job.

Slightly off the point I know, but the article does assume that such women are in very well-paid jobs. (I think, I did only skim it),

Do you think you would get custody Twinkle - or would he not get it since he is the sah parent?

I think others who have the dad at home have been very worried about this factor?

I don't even want to contemplate that point Soapbox! It isn't on the cards and I hope it never ever would be.

I would say that I play a very very big role in DS's upbringing and am at work through necessity for us as a couple, not choice. To be denied custody after being the breadwinner when I wanted to be at home with DS more than anything would probably destroy me. I would also say I would be more capable of providing for him than DH (though I'd never say that to him). DH is also over 50 and I would have thought that would have bearing on it.

God I'm going to really worry about that now. Can't believe it would even be an issue.

actually emmakana the government IS doing a lot to encourage flexible working and giv eparents the opportunity to at least ASK for that.

OK it still isn't equal by any means, but 10 years ago you got jack in terms of mat benefit (now youget about £100 a week) and it was for about 3 months, now you are allowed to take a year off.

I agree with teh article, it isn't necessarily about SAHM v WOTH parents it is simply saying look at the long term picture.

For all you SAHM whop aim to restart your careers you WILL find it harder than you think. I work in recruitment for accountants and I can assure you getting a flexible well paid job after any sort of career break is next to impossible. I spend my days suggesting PT working to potential employers, I have sent out over 1000 letters in the last 2 weeks, I got one response for a low paid (£12000, pro rata) role The jobs are simply not there, and please don't imagine they ever will be.

I have always worked I am the main breadwinner so there was no choice for me, but I am reaping those rewards now as costs are going down (actually dh pays the childcare when he is working). In the next 3 - 5 years I expect my earning to increase dramatically (not through inflation) and my costs to fall. In my 40's I am seriously planning to save save save as I have spent my 30's keeping afloat.

I usually agree with Xenia (although sometimes it can be seen as banging on a tad )and this article reflects what she says. It is good to be a WOTH parent your kids will not be any worse off, you just think they will e. The 'studies' never lead to really conclusive reasons for me to HAVE to be a SAHM. I seriously believe a child who gets love, attention, affection and a roof over their heads and therefore a reletavly stress free childhood (albeit with a working mum) is better off. Studies show that SAHM are more liekly to be depressed, does that make for a happy childhood?? When you put one study against another that all cancel each other out anyway. Happiness is the key and I am TOTALLY convinced that if a parent is happy with their choices and this reflects in their lives then THIS is what makes a good childhood, sod working or not.

Oh sorry

There have been a few posts on MN about people worried about that aspect. I don't think it matters who could afford to have him - as to make things worse, you would have to pay maintenance to your DH!

Probably best not to think too much about it!

That would only happen if custody was contested surely? A court couldn't just come along and take DS away from me could they? After trying desperately for 4 years to conceive and effectively paying maintenance to my DH's ex for her kids for years I think I'd probably top myself - no kidding!

Twinkle - yes - DH would have to want to have him.

Crunchie - didn;t realise you did accountancy recruitment!

crunchie - you say "The jobs are simply not there, and please don't imagine they ever will be." which illustrates my point really. I appreciate what you're saying about the government's efforts, but the general work culture is that you should work full-time, full stop. Dh would love to work a four day week to have more time with his children, but would never suggest it at work because he would be looked on as a lightweight.

"Happiness is the key" - I totally agree with you there. I keep reading though that most working mothers would love to spend more time at home, if not all their time at home.

Personally, I would have been devastated if I had had to go back to work, I would still feel devastated now. For me there is a very strong feeling that I need to be with my children. That doesn't mean that I think all women should be at home though.

btw yellowrose I find your comment a little bit off, how the F* do you know my kids would be miserable in nursery???

That sort of comment is what fuels the WOTH V SAHM arguement.

This article is NOT against SAHM I am NOT against SAHM. However it is pointing out that SOME (by no means all) women who give up their careers to be at home with their kids may regret it in the future as SH*T happens that cannot be planned for.

Just to explain BTW, my mum was a sahm, my SIL are SAHM, I live in a village where I am seen as an oddity as I am a WOTH mum (FULL TIME NO LESS) I always assumed I would be a SAHM. But do you know I am so glad I am not a SAHM, as I would end up at the school gates next to someone like you!! (although IIRC you home school as you have nothing better to do with your life ;) )

Seriously I am only kidding with teh last point, but please don't make thoe sort of heartless comments.

Phew! DH was shocked as well and has assured me he wouldn't contest it. I feel like crying now that someone could even think I'm not a valid part of DS's life. I guess that's how DH has felt all these years about his other two DCs.

yep soapy went from selling advertising to selling people.

And can I just say my PROUDEST placement is someone who will be starting a job next week 3 days a week in a job that didn't exist beofre I BEGGED a client to see her. He created a role specifically as she was so damn good

Night all, got to go to bed, as have to get up and go by 7.30 to drop teh kids off before they've even eaten breakfast with a heartless childminder who I am sure beats them soundly everyday and never feeds them

Oh and I don't pick them up until 6.30pm when I have to drag them out of there as they have had too much fun all day. Going to the playground with a pile of other kids, makeing easter cards and painting easter eggs, oh and playing football with their friends. Stuck at hoome with me they would be lucky to go to ASDA!!

I've taken people on on a p/t basis. In fact until recently had a term time only, 3 day a week, 1 in the office 2 from home person. It worked okay - would have been better with 2 days in the office 1 at home as person was quite senior and didn;t have enough face time with the various teams.

You can make it work if you want it to! Having said that all of my new recruits are men on f/t basis! It is a shame as this particular kind of work really does suit p/t working. Hey ho!

I was planning to go back to work after dd1 but when I asked for part time my commitment to the job was questioned. (I was a teacher)