follow from working mums threads, well someone was bound to do it!

[lucyellensmum]

Xenia, i must be one of the lucky ones then because my DP doesnt find his DD hard work, any more than I do - he would love to be around more for her but someone has to shut the bank manager up. Yes it must have been a struggle to pay the hired help at such a young age - does that sound bitchy, then i guess it is - jealousy does that, but well, im Ms average with average house, average bills, average aspirations and i dont see anything wrong in that. I actually worked my arse off for my ordinariness and am proud of where i am. Penis envy maybe xenia - no, thats not nice LE behave - my god, id never be so rude to someone's face but this is a free forum. Our DD2 was unplanned and has turned our lives upside down, was just about to be reaping financial rewards for years of academic hard work so i wondered if i was going to feel resentful to my little one for changing my plans, i was this far from getting a horse, lifetime dream, but thats out of the window now for at least another five years i guess. But actually no, i just thank god for her every single day, every smile, every giggle and every cuddle - shes my little angel and i dont think i would have survived the past few years without her. So here we are, still stuck in our modest terrace in a crappy street in a rather trendy and fashionable seaside town and i am happier (and more knackered) than i have ever been. Xenia please do not take this as a personal attack on you, its not meant that way just putting my side of the coin across. I'm sure you realise you are quite lucky and i certainly recognise you may have had a pair of balls at one time but have worked them off to get where you are so much respect for that - but take it from me, your babies aren't babies for long - i worked when my dd1 was wee (16 yr now) and she was with my parents more than me, i regret it sooo much i can't tell you. I have another chance (thank god - again).

Anna - i know lots of people who work harder than investment bankers,(nurses, teachers, university lecturers (now there's a bunch who deserve their pay packets if ever there was one) or at least as hard with no where near the return, so its not just a matter of degree but maybe a matter of starting points. But its only money at the end of the day and people chose their careers for many different reasons. AGain, im just expressing my view point. And we are far from on the poverty line by the way so this bitter diatribe is not through jealousy just mindful that everyone has a different challenge.

well said ruty. i dont tend to post very often but lurk on threads i find interesting. i read some posts on certain threads and there appear to be hints of oneupman/womanship..... i'm a better parent because i do x,y or z.
being a mother (imo) is a hard enough job as it is without fellow women putting down what each individual is doing for their own family.
fwiw, i'm a sahm who helps out at work when they need me. i was also a sahm the first time around 12 years ago,... think i did an alright job, so am doing it again this time around

Look, this is all getting a bit out of hand isn't it? What I honestly believe is not that there is some 'right' way to be a parent. I think I said in an earlier post that the terms WOHM and SAHM actually cover a huge spectrum. I also believe that whichever path u choose (for those of us fortunate enough to have a choice)should come with a kind of health warning. Let me try to explain: If a working parent discovers that their child is spending too long a day in nursery - ie nursery might be fantastic, and child is very happy but not coping with the last couple of hours of the day, then i think the parents have an obligation to find a solution. it wouldn't be responsible parenting to just allow the situation to continue. (I'm not saying there's an easy solution - thats a whole new thread).Likewise, if a stay at home parent finds that they're spending half their morning watching trashy day time telly and not interacting with their kid, or is dragging their child round endless toddler groups because they're desperate for adult company, then I think they have an obligation to change the situaton. In other words, look at the REAL evidence, which is how your child is developing, socialising etc rather than invalid 'surveys'which can be proved or disproved however you want to look at it. I DON'T have an issue with a parent who chooses to stay at home while their child is pre-school (once the kids are at school is a whole different issue imo,and I can't for a minute begin to see how any parent thinks it's good for their child for a parent to be at home while they're at school.No child deserves the pressure of feeling a parent has just put their life on hold to that degree). Sorry this is so long - and i'm off now to eat chocolate - but i think its important to clarify my viewpoint.

A lot depends on people's views on what we are on this planet for - to be happy, to be good or whatever. Do we think it's morally wrong to be a stay at home parent who sees the children for an hour a day and whose husband pays for a cleaner and nanny? Do we think that idleness and lack of contribution to anything other than the profits of your favourite shops is a moral wrong or is idleness actually a good thing - the Idle, the Slow way etc is a bit of a trend. Some housewives are hopeless - they don't run the house well, clothes are never clean, the place looks like a tip, they aren't good with the children and they're not good in bed. Some working parents aren't much good at their jobs and families either.

In terms of what role model you want depends on your starting point.

Xenia once again you are talking about a very small minority of SAHM - maybe it is seems an inflated number because of the area you live in or the company you keep, but most SAHM do not go around buying clothes and lounging around eating ice creams sundaes watching the cleaner do the housework. I find it very worrying that the role of child carer has been reduced in yours and others' eyes as a menial task not to be done by those with any intellect. As i said before, in am shocked by the misogyny some women come out with. Every woman is different, yes, even women with brains and intellect. I went to Oxford. I am now a SAHM while my ds is a toddler. If i could afford a nanny, or had my mother around, I may well go back to work, but i can't. I do not believe a nursery is the best thing for my son at the moment. And i am happy with my decision. you suggest mothers who do choose this route are not contributing to society. You can disagree with the science all you want, but it doesn't make it go away. Mothers who want to look after their children for the first two/three years of their childrens' lives are in fact contributing to society, believe it or not. It is a very odd sort of Daily Mail attitude you are taking on this point.

can't afford a nanny and don't have my mum around i mean...

same here

totally agree with ruty

I didn't say they all can afford nannies. I was just looking at one narrow category to examine what we mean by worth - presumably some stay at homers do nothing all day as they have servants. Others work harder than their husbands.

I just think women should remain say for the next 30 years in trail blazing mode until we've got a bit more of an equal society for men and women and then you can put your children before your country/other women but for now don't take your eye off the ball and keep pressing ahead to break moulds and help your daughters achieve what they want to achieve. In other words make your default position if one has to stay home after say the first six months make it be the man.

,..and make sure any of our daughters who go to Oxford realise that career choice A means they won't be able to go back to work even if they want to because they won't be able to afford childcare and career choice B means they could.

I can see your point Xenia but the problem with it is that it is debatable whether putting your country/other women before your children is actually good parenting. I feel that if you have brought children into the world then their mental, emotional and physical well-being has to be your priority.

I do agree that society is not yet equal and undiscriminating, but plenty of women manage to achieve so much nevertheless.

I know plenty of women in my own family who have combined very successful careers with having a family. And they have done so in far more mysogynistic societies than the UK.

I suppose mine was a bit of a none point anyway as I'd say women working in fulfilling careers are doing their child a service and doing the child good whereas an unhappy mother at home and a lower family income is not in the child's interests so it's not a question of working if you have to and bad for children and better is to stay at home but that working can be better all round - win win situation.

If you love being at home and your husband won't stay home I suppose I can just about cope with that but it's annoying that employers then assume there's not much point in hiring women as they'll all give up work when they have babies whereas if they had as many men as women leaving those women who do work would find things a bit easier. In other words when you do give up work you're in effect kicking working mothers in the teeth and making life harder for your daughters

what tosh!

Why should SAHM's go to work just for someone elses benefit? You wouldn't stay home to benefit a SAHM

I don't think Xenia would stay at home if her life depended on it.

Exactly, so why should we do something for her that she wouldn't dream of doing for us

cos we're menial plebs and she's not

Oh of course I forgot. You forgot lazy and fat

and badly dressed cos we're not off to the office

(ssd getting bitchy now - sorry Xenia!!)

I've been away on holiday and cannot believe how much interest the thread I started attracted!!! It was never about SAHM versus WOHM but somehow they always turn into that!

I've not read all of this thread nor everything from the other thread so I apologise if I'm just repeating the same points that others have made already.

The article does seem rather morbid in the sense that it suggests women must consider going back to work purely from a financial point of view in case your dp snuffs it or you split up. I'm in a fortunate position that I'm working part time as for me, this means being able to spend enough time with my child as well as time in adult company and using my skills to do something that I know I'm good at. I don't love my job though which is why I'm attending evening classes hoping that that will lead me to something that I do enjoy and where the hours are a bit more flexible.

Dh and I are fortunate that we are earning a decent income and that we are able to save for our children's future. Gives you more options after all.

I don't think the financial reasons are the main ones or only ones to work but if 50% of marriages will fail then 50% of the smug marrieds on this thread who assume their husband isn't already playing away and won't leave them for a younger model when he has a mid life crisis age 45 are going to find they're on their own with just whatever they can earn. So sadly it's better to have a career so you can support the children in those cases. No one can be 100% sure their husband won't even get very sick or die or leave but it's good if people do at least think about the issues even if it just makes them keep copies of bank statements, make sure assets are put in joint names, read the tax return nad learn about their husband's financial position even if they don't work. Too many women don't even seem to understand pensions never mind what bank accounts their husband has so even if you are not going to work at least know about the family finances, what he earns, read P60s, keep copies etc.

Many working mums too will find themselves in a financial crisis if/when their DP's leave for a younger model, and they may have to sell their house etc. If most dual income couples rely on both wages to survive, then halving that income will cripple them financially, surely, or are you saying a woman should have complete financial independence in the case of a split?

I do agree that women need to consider the very real possibility of divorce etc, as a SAHM I do by studying for my future and to better my education. However, I believe life is short and we have to do what we want to to get happiness out of an often hard life. If that is work or SAH then great. Time is money too and valuable, maybe more so to many to have time to do as they please than a career. Too often I see people work all hours and hardly have any time to enjoy the fruits of their labour. Equally, some really enjoy their careers and are better parents through working. WHY should we all be/do the same?

Paulaplumpbottom
Sorry, I was being paranoid!

Yes, and if you work full time and your husband doesn't you can lose the children in a divorce and have to pay him. Even if you both work as in my situation you still have to pay him on a divorce if you earn more although still is easier if you both work as more money to divide.

And one of the papers today said women not happy in their marriage or with divorce in the back of their minds work longer hours, more likely to move from part time to full time (because they know it's possible they will break up). It also said men don't do that - they tend to slacken off if divorce is in prospect presumably to reduce their income so they don't have to dole out more money to the wife or because they're too busy in bed with teh mistress to do overtime.

Xenia et al: How utterly depressing to think you need to spend your marriage planning ahead for the inevitable divorce. Self-fulfilling prophecy springs to mind here.

Personally I choose to put my efforts into maintaining a happy, solid marriage and family life with the good man I chose to marry rather than assume I'm going to be binned when I hit fifty.

(I WILL however tell MN if I find any unfamiliar undies in the bed so you can all have a good laugh at my niaivete)

I don't think you are being naive. I think you are right. You can't spend your life worrying about possible negative outcomes. I'm not worried that my husband will leave me either and if he were to pass away I actually would be set for life finacially.