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.

sure, there will always be a minority who cannot be economically productive because of a severe handicap etc but this is a very small number. The vast majority of adults should be. It's got nothing to do with putting work before happiness. The fact is, for society to run effectively and equitably, we need to contribute economically. Voluntary work is all very well, but the bottom line is, if you are an adult who is not in paid employment, you are dependent on someone else -either through your partner, or through the benefits system, or through inherited wealth. I don't thing there's anything wrong with that to a degree - I certainly intend to enjoy my retirement, and i wouldn't think twice about drawing benefits if eg I were made redundant. But dependence on other adults shouldn't be the norm for the majority of our lives. Why does 'work' have to be synonymous with 'drudgery/not being fulfilled' etc? I am a teacher. It's hard work, but also hugely enjoyable because I'm using my skills, I get to engage with colleagues and have interesting conversations about all sorts of issues, I can impart skills and knowledge to young people, I earn enough to be able to make choices in my life, and I contribute to the economy through my taxes. Other people choose different jobs to match their interests/talents. If I stop enjoying my job, I'll explore ways of finding another way to earn a living. That's how the world works, for both men and women. I certainly don't live to work, or even work to live. I simply see work as one aspect of living life as an adult.

it sounds like you don't support a mother's right to rear her own children ebeneezer and that you feel all women 'should' hand their babies over to someone else in order to contribute to the economy again [as you put it] I respect your right to work. Shame you can't respect my right not to hand my child over to strangers. And anyway, we are taking about pre school aged children, which, unless you are pregnant all the time, does not mean you are not working for the majority of your adult life - it means taking a few years out. I find your attitude dictatorial.

Ruty, what do you mean by "a mother's right to rear her own children"?

Do you mean anyone who has children has a right to stay home and be cared for? Or do you mean a right to make that choice iof you are in a position to support yourself and your children?

I don't think mothers who go to work believe they are "handing their baby over to strangers." It's not adoption or abandoning a newborn to some weirdo picked at random from the yellow pages. That's what's so odd about this debate. The language is as extreme as the feelings.

Read my earlier post again ruty - the 12.15 one. I actually state that the fine tuning of whether one parent stays at home for a while /works part time/full time etc is up to each family to decide, depending on their circumstances. Hardly dictatorial! It's using phrases like 'handing your child over to a stranger' which people tend to find offensive. I would never hand my child over to a stranger. My husband and I are, and always have been, their primary carers. At others times and to varying degrees, they have been looked after by a wonderful childminder and in a wonderful nursery, where they developed relationships and skills which enriched those they developed in our home. Notice that mothers tend not to talk about 'handing their child over to a complete stranger at the age of 4 along with 29 other children' (ie in reception class). That's what I don't get - this huge distinction between pre-school and school, which is entirely arbitrary anyway, because in other countries they might not start school until the age of 7.
The point about economic contribution I stand by: why would any adult NOT want to be working for a major part of their life? Even if you choose (if you have a choice) to stay-at-home for the pre school years, that still leaves the majority of your adult life to work. Not to make work the only focus of your life which totally defines you, but for it to be one important aspect of your life. I defy anyone on MN to say they don't want that for their own children. I don't mind what my DCs want to be when they grow up - teachers,artists, gardeners, politicians, whatever, but I sure as hell don't want them to be an unemployment statistic. I want them to be happy fulfilled adults with a stake in society.

i mean the latter but now we are getting into a whole new debate about income support and who deserves to get it, and again it could all get a bit Daily Mail for my liking. [I've never been on income support btw.] When my dh first came to this country i worked to keep us both because he had to wait for his right to remain indefinitely permit for a long time. I didn't mind doing it and now he works so that i can look after ds. Mind you, if i had to pay for childcare i would basically be working just to cover the child care so it doesn't work out financially for us anyway.

ruty - how can anyone have a right to rear their own kids? I don't understand that at all. (BTW I'm assuming that by 'rear their own children' you mean be with them 100% of the time, so presumably I am not rearing my own kids as I'm working ? Which is news to me.) It can't be a right - I can't afford to so it doesn't matter how much of a 'right' it is...I simply can't. It's like a right to be rich or to have a large house. Nice in principle, not possible in reality.

I know Ormrion. It's weird, this idea that if you work you're not also bringing up your children, like you've vanished for ever and the kids are nothing to do with you anymore. Time and time again, out it comes - the language of abandonment and negligence and irresponsibility and absence.

Yes. It's always the language that makes this debate so emotive in the end.

your last two paragraphs seem to be at odds with each other ebeneezer. In the first you say you support a parent's right to work out whether one of them stays at home and in the second you ask why on earth anyone would not want to work for a major part of their lives.

Didn't mean to offend about the strangers thing. I am sure there are some good nurseries. But i do think age matters on that point. When my child is 5 he has much more independence, he can talk to me and tell me if he is upset or if anything is troubling him, and the advantage of socializing with other children is much greater at that age. I do support mothers' right to work and i support the right to good childcare. For personal reasons that i don't want to get into i do not believe it is right for my 2 year old and i think after working for twelve years i should have that right. I have to go out now [and take ds out too!] so forgive me if i duck out of the conversation.

and i am getting jumped on for my feelings on childcare when many of you have said quite offensive things about SAHM.

If you meant me, Ruty, it didn't offend me. I just don't get it. I just find it puzzling. I can understand a whole range of choices but not the choice of what seems to me often innacurate language.

well you can hardly know the people who run nurseries very well. Sure, they have qualifications and are vetted and everything, and i am sure children are perfectly well off there, but i don't feel it is right all children. Some do better there than others i feel.

Oh thank God. Did you guys just say that if I go to work then I don't have to raise my kids myself. That's fantastic because the 4 year is doing my head in these days.

Yes isn't it marvellous, Eleusis? Just pop out of your house, grab a stranger and say "here, will you look after my kid, I'm off to work. Call me every year with an update will you. Better still, put it in an email. Gotta go. Very busy."

No, my posts are NOT at odds with eachother. I repeat, it's up to each family within the constraints of their own circumstances to decide whether one parent stays at home and for how long. That is NOT a contradiction with saying I can't understand why someone wouldn't be working for most of their adult life. Unless you deliberately have a large number of children spread out over many years and choose to be at home with each one until they go to school (eg if someone had 4 or 5 children with a 5 year interval between each which would be utter madness and I don't know anyone in that position!!) then the majority of your adult life, your children are in school, college, university,work themselves. Why would anyone feel that they can't go out to work in this context? I think this is a really important issue, not because there's only one way of doing things, but because many women still in this day and age end up lacking confidence and feeling bad about themselves over the work issue. I meet so many women who intended to just be at home for a few pre school years with their children and then feel under-skilled, out of touch etc. I am a secondary school teacher and I teach some children who STILl have mothers sitting at home, getting bored, or doing menial jobs because they have some misguided belief that their children need them to be at home by 3.30. That's why I totally agree with OrmIrian and NKfffff - what exactly does 'rearing your own children' mean? Being with them 24/7? Never letting them have a babysitter? Never sending them to playgroup? Never sending them to school? Expecting them to forego college to be a companion to you? Everyone has to draw a line somewhere and say 'Yes, I gave birth to this child, but he isn't 'mine', I don't 'own' him. From the moment we give birth, our children are gradually moving towards independent living. Surely responsible parenting means enjoying each stage,not hurrying it along, but not shackling our children to us either.

I agree with eb. It's that continuum issue which is interesting. My sister slept flesh on flesh with her sons until they were 5. She might find a stay at home mother who doesn't spend 24/7 with their under 3 tantamount to bad mothering. How much time should the child spend with that attached person or not? Some cuontries regard the UK as a cruel nation that prefers animals to children, sends children away to board and doesn't sleep in the same bed as them largely, hardly breastfeeds at all and starts them at school as young as possible. So I suppose looking at my French example even if we had French prices childcare here mothers may still not choose to go back to work when the chil is 18 months because of cultural differences like we don't in the UK have French post birth stomach exercises, beauty stuff or whatever they go in for there.

I do suspect though that quite a lot of British mothers would go back to work if they were paying say £1,500 for a full time Finnish nursery place as someone I met was telling me about in his homeland. He was paying that a month in the UK.

I've always thought as long as children were bonded with 1 or two adults it doesn't matter if they only see their father at weekends or have a nanny in the day as oong as they have the consistency comfort and certainty of a regular routine and people they love largely being there in their lives. It's the changing and wrenching which isn't good for babies in orphanages etc I don't even think a new nanny each year matters although I did 20 years ago having observed the different way the children relate to their parents and their carers.

Rearing your own children and phrases like putting them with strangers are just emotive comments some SAH mothers make which we can all ignore because they are clearly not descriptive of what parents, male or female do.

As to whether adults ought to work or not that's a very different subject. Plenty of stay at home mothers in the SE at least have nannies and housekeepers and may tend to see the children for as much time a day as a working mother. Do some say you only get the kudos or "pure stay at home motherdom" badge if you're at that coal face tolerating toddlers for solid 12 hours a day with no help and then you get the brownie points but only then?

absolutely xenia. I know some SAHMs of pre-schoolers who have a nanny (not many admittedly, but perhaps it's more of a London/SE thing). The irony is they probably WOULD class themselves as 'staying at home with the children' even though in reality they may spend no more time with their kids than a working parent! And likewise the SAHMs I know with older children who are at school. Does it make you a better parent that you're sitting watching daytime TV and finding pointless things to do to fill up your day just so that you can be there to pick up the kids every day at 3.30? Because I would argue that's it's infinitely better to be using your skills in the workplace and sending your children to an after school club several times a week. Xenia comes in for a lot of criticism, but she's always said that children need love, continuity of care and adults who enjoy spending time with them. What can be wrong with that?

But Eb, surely that is as much of a caricature of SAHMs as talking of "dumping babies with strangers" is of WOHMs?

It's an extreme,not a caricature, in that not many mothers are like that, but sadly some
are. I teach in a secondary school. The other week, a mother approached me to ask if there is anything she can do to help out at school. she hasn't worked since having children and her youngest is now 12!!! She's a lovely woman, but seriously lacking in confidence and very bored too. She is an intelligent and articulate woman who is now in her late 40s and she clearly doesn't feel she has the confidence or skills to achieve her potential. I just don't understand who she thinks has benefited by this. Certainly not her children - they're not particularly confident or sociable themselves. Certainly not the family finances. It just seems very sad.

Interesting point on how much time SAHM spend with the kids.

Gave up work 3 months ago to 'spend more time with the kids'. Gave up fantastic nanny, cleaner, gardener, ironing service, ready meals etc.

I now find that having to do look after three children (1 at school) and do everything else, I have less time to play with the kids than I did before.

What am I doing wrong? I had visions of loads of 'quality time', but it's not quite working out.

GG, my advice to you would be to get back to work ASAP full time but I'm a bit biased on this topic. Anyway I get more time now with the twins at 45 than when the oldest 3 were coming up to age 8 and I was neearly 30 and the reason is more organised here, have someone in every morning in the week to wash and clean and tidy, child care so I can spread myself between several children, work more based at home and I also suspect by the time you get to child 5 you just get more used to it and better at managing a house. perhaps mothers of 1 and 2 children never quite get the years of practice parents of larger families get... not sure, rambling off point here.

Our greatest indulgence when the twins were very little was having someone on Saturday mornings which sounds dreadful if you both work full time in the week but my exhusband was teaching the piano all day and I was trying to drive the older ones to various things and actually I never felt the twins were deprived on Sat am. Instead of being in a car driven around and me trying to quieten them they had someone they knew for years - she now has them after school here, whose sole task for 4 hours was the interact with them. I suppose we all just work out the best compromises for us.

As for the issue of whether adults should work or not not easy to answer. Contemplative nuns would say a life of prayer was as good a life as teaching or being a mother. the Idler or a Victorian living on unearned income would say a life of leisure is jut the job and many stay at home mothers without help regard the age 5 - 10 years as a bit of time off after what can be very very hard work looking after small children all day before they go to school.

Geegee, I had that experience with mat leave for DS1 (second child). I spent my time doing house work, not spending quality time with the kids. After 3 months of mat leave I was ready to claw down the door to get back into work.

If I was wealthy, staying home to spend time with the kids and get involved with some more meaning ful activities would be nice. But, I am certainly not giving up my job to do the dishes or scrub floors.

I find that having a hosekeeper allows me more time with my DD. She comes in the mornings so I can play with DD instead of doing the housework. This doesn't mean I don't have housework to do but it seriously limits it. I only have to do an hour or so in the evenings