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.

It's interesting that so many women on the continent are happy to and indeed want to get back to work after 18 months or whatever and I think we have had RoF posters from France saying the same and talking about the same norms and yet British mothers seem to have a different mind set. Perhaps we have different genes or perhaps state nursery provision isn't accepted or acceptable or I don't know but the differences are interesting.

mrsj, bits of London can be like that. Only women at play groups are nannies in some areas which for some stay at home mothers can be a bit isolating.

Message withdrawn

From www.sweden.se: 'According to the most recent statistics, only about 2 percent of Swedish women are homemakers. However, more women than men work part-time, and the big shift occurs when a couple has children. More often than not, a woman reduces her working hours to meet the demands of children and housework.' I just saw quite a few statistics about more women working part time in Sweden.

I like the German approach actually. I think it is more child centred. [sounds like a dirty word to some I know]

What is it you like about the German approach?

I must say "In Germany, there is no childcare and a working mum is frowned at. " sounds like an awful atmosphere to me. But, I haven't read the thread so perhaps there is something else about the German system that is appealing.

yes I'm intrigued about the German approach too. A society which frowns on working mothers certainly doesn't sound great to me.

sorry i wasn't basing my comment on that statement. I know quite a few mothers who work in Germany and they are not frowned upon as far as i know. from my time in Germany i just find there is a different view of children and their needs, childhood is not something just to be 'got through' as conveniently as possible. I also know for example, that homes for children are run infinitely better in Germany than here, and are 'child centred', in the sense that they run the homes as small family groups that cook together, and each child gets a massage from one of the the carers each night to relax them and get them to sleep. [obviously that would never happen here as we would immediately think of abuse]It is just a very different attitude.

can i just say from a sociological point of view any of us saying 'Oh working mothers are frowned upon in Germany' or 'My grandma flayed us with a whip every day and we turned out fine' or 'my child is cleverer than yours because he stays at home with me' or whatever, is an opinion rather than a statement of fact that bears a wider relevance on the argument.

right, that makes more sense. Certainly any society that thinks one parent should definitely work or definitely stay at home would seem very dictatorial. However, it doesn't seem as if the reality is like that. I'm not sure I entirely agree with the implication that in the UK childhood is seen as something to ne 'got through'. My feeling (and this is a huge topic which should start a new thread!) is that the very early years of babyhood are blown up out of all proportion, through the media, advertising etc, as the be all and end all. Just take a look at the ridiculous range of baby clothing, transport systems etc in the high street. Open a magazine in any newsagent and you'll see celebrities with their latest accessory - a baby. Yet once a child reaches school or teenage years suddenly there's far less focus. Does this mean our children suddenly become less precious? Of course not - it's just that they become less marketable! How is this relevant to the work/stay-at-home issue? Well, I think women can feel under enormous pressure that the pre school years are almost the only ones that count. Part of the reason I have always worked, at least part time, is that I believe my children AREN'T actually going to need me any less when they are 5, 10 or 15 - they'll just need me in different ways. Thats why although they are absolutely the most important factor in my life and in DHs, they arent the only things, and it's important for all of us as a family that we all have fully rounded lives.

I think when children reach the teens, they become the direct targets of the marketing/advertising.

So if most women in say France choose to work and can because childcare is cheap do we think if it cost as low here more mothers would choose to go back? I would think that would be the case and the women want to work and often can't. In other words men rush back to work because they can and it's more interesting than child care and women would too if they had the chance.

What did Blair commit to - a half day nursery place for every 3 and 4 year old? And now wrap around care at 4/5 I think although I'm not sure if that's a commitment. That doesn't address the cost problem for many families.

I think all laws regaring parental rights and working right ought to apply equally to men and women. I think men should get 6 weeks at 90% of pay for paternity leave. And I think women should be praised for their dedication to the job.

I work with a guy wh omeans no harm but sometimes when I'm still here at 6:30pm he sayd "don't you have kids?". He would never say that to me if I was a man. I believe these attitudes in the work place and in society will not change until men are given the same perks to stay at home as women.

Oh yeah... in Blair's word 1/2 day 21.2 hours. So, five hours is a full day? In my world, 5 hours is 1/2 a day.

Maent to say "in Blair's word 1/2 day = 2 1/2 hours"

Must work on typing skills....

I certainly agree. But I do see more men rushing home to let collect children these days whose wives earn as much as then or my taxi driver the other week who fits his shifts around when his wife a nurse is working so they can deal with the children between them.

From 2008 I think they plan to give men additional paternity leave of £112 a week for 6 months if their wife doesn't take her second 6 months.

agree about the ridiculous stuff on offer for little ones ebeneezer. i think tho that often is is marketed and then bought by parents who don't have time/inclination/understanding of what little children really need. [Not talking about anyone here btw]

Oh, £112 per week. Now there's a joke if ever I heard one. If my DH said he was giving up work for 6 months for £112 per week, I'd tell him to get up off his arse and go to work. Now who is going to take that? Men typically take two weeks of holiday rather than the pat leave now on offer. I'm sure that must be because it is paid at 100%.

That's what most women get once the first 6 weeks at 90% pay is up.

Yeah, and I certainly wouldn't stay home for £112 per week. Who can live on that? So, if we want equality, men should get 90% of their pay for 6 weeks and then £112 per week for the remainder of the six months. The same benefits as women. So, the mum could stay home for six weeks, then dad for six weeks. And together they could be there for the first 3 month without huge financial sacrifice.

One reason I went back to work quickly of course when I was 22. The SMP was just not enough to pay the mortgage etc as well as my other reasons. If instead we had minimally charged childcare and most men and women taking up to a year off on almost full pay and then a culture as in these other places where men and women then do go back to full time work we would get a fairer society.

yes agree that teens become targets for marketing themselves, but i think the difference is that with babies/toddlers it's the parents who are being targeted. eg if you don't buy X travel system at some ridiculously inflated price, or dress your child in a different outfit every day of the week then you're somehow failing them! The baby/toddler business is a huge industry. Then suddenly it's as if 'oh kids have reached about 4 or 5 now, let's ignore them until they hit about 12/13 and then we'll target them with all the teenage stuff'. Makes me feel VERY cynical about the media/marketing world. I think the reason this seemed relevant was to do with this concept of the continuum of parenting. I just don't believe in a huge 'cut off' point between pre-school and school age. Apart from anything else it's so arbitrary - in another country the school age would be different anyway! Someone referred on a much earlier post to WOHM 'paying someone else to play with your child'. So what's the real difference with handing your child over to school for most of the day once they're 4? (Apart from the fact that you don't have to pay?!). I'm not making any judgement here, simply pointing out that it's all a continuum. At the most extreme, a parent who desperately wants to control their child's environment might home educate, never let their child be cared for by another adult etc. I've even known a few mothers who are reluctant to let their partner have an equal share in parenting. At the other end of the spectrum would be two parents who both hand over as much responsibility to another carer as soon as possible and have very little to do with hands on parenting. But as i've pointed out before: these are extremes and very rare. Most people are somewhere in the middle, and I believe we all have a responsibility to our children to try to maintain this bablance. A child should be neither emotionally neglected, nor made to be the entire focus of their parents' lives. I can't see a huge distinction between a child of say, 2 or 3, spending time each week with a childminder/nursery and a child of 4 being in a reception class of maybe 30 kids for 6 hours a day. In fact you could argue that having interaction with other adults and children is better preparation for life. Our children are more precious than anything to each of us, but ultimately they are not 'ours', we don't own them, they have their own lives to live. That's why in a way i can't see the relevance of this whole SAHM/WOHM debate. How we work out the finer details of whether the mother stays at home for a few years, or the father does, or whatever, is not really the main point. The main point is that to raise independent and well rounded offspring,we should all, mothers and fathers, have interesting, dynamic and economically productive lives outside the home for the major part of our adult lives.

'So if most women in say France choose to work and can because childcare is cheap do we think if it cost as low here more mothers would choose to go back?' I think some would but not most, after all some believe strongly in SAHP. I read a very good government study once which said there were 3 main 'types' of mothers (regarding their desire to work- of course some wouldn't have the choice at all) A small number were 'career driven' wanting to work f/t and have f/t childcare, An equal number wanted to SAH, the vast majority (60% I think) wanted to combine p/t work with caring for their children. So maybe if more mothers were to work, the best way would be more flexible work patterns and home working opportunities. But I don't think that having low cost childcare would suddenly mean all mothers return to work as some don't want to, some areas that have piloted low/free care had a very low take up.

Ebenezer, I know what you mean about the fierce marketing aimed at parents of babies. Particularly new mums. And the creation of anxiety is powerful in marketing/advertising. Some people love shopping though. They get a kick out of that let's assemble a layette, trip to John Lewis for the pram consultation sort of thing.

I think the guilt stuff comes later and is more concerned with choices about education, working or not working, how you feed them, after school activities etc.

Some people may need or want 'interesting, dynamic and economically productive lives' but for me the main thing is happiness in life and what you have got. Just because you see one way as the right way doesn't mean it IS right for everyone. Time is valuable to me, and I also highly regard those people who for whatever reason are not 'economically productive' for whatever reason. The age old live to work or work to live. My nan never worked since she became a mother but did highly important voluntary work. She is happy and so are her grown kids.

btw I meant people who aren't 'economically productive' because of mental handicap or caring etc.