why teh article in the Times mag is cringe inducing

[WarrenPeace]

apart from its "nothing new there" general theme and i DONT CARE whether women work after birth or not at all but sheesh these bits

" i like the role of a fifties housewife"

then one woman bleats on about how hard it is and no status and her cv on her t shirt ( ie she only has a degree fgs) then says her H wants to swap but she " wouldnt for the world"

then laura allen HAS to put a cupcake in. " i dont sit around all day eating cupcakes" er no.

then Layala Rodham SERIOUSLY says "i like to have a hot meal on the table when steve gets home"

OHMY CHUFFING GOD

slouching - no link as the times now charge for the privilege of reading their website

yes, I'm really glad we got married - not so much because of the divorce thing (it'd be a bit sad if I was planning on getting divorced, no?) but in case something happened to one of us. we actually didn't get married until DD was 17m. strangely, DD was planned and that was less scary than getting married! not because of the commitment, but because of having to organise it all, pay for everything and wear a posh dress

The Times is like heroin. I buy it every weekend and each time I end up shouting at the paper because an article is crap.

There wa sone article about women living a 1940s and 1930s life,retro etc.

There was a second article about young housewives and mothers.

Both were interesting. Most women choose to work and that is best for us all and our children.

The best choice of all though was mine - haev babies in your early 20s and work full time at a lovely career, that's the real win win choice everyone should follow. Then you ahve loads of lovely almost gorwn up children when you're in your 40s and a 20 year career which is going well and everyone is happier.

What about the argument that says not enough highly educated focused women who could be successful high flyers in the workplace do stay at home with kids?

(sorry not read article as times pap and not paying to go online)

Not enough stay home? I don't agree with that. Children do better with working parents. However misogynist societies like to suggest otherwise by propaganda. Women and men with brains however know that those are just lies.

There's a good case to be made that you damage your child by being a housewife so never martyr yourself. It is an indulgence to you if you stay home but don't flatter yourself it's best for the children or the husband or society. It isn't.

MathsMadMummy - I was too similar to get written about as well. I would have said about the same as what you said earlier.

Something which no one seems to have touched on, and was a big influence on whether I stayed at home or not, is that decent jobs (career type jobs) for young graduates are few and far between. A lot of my (single, childless) peers struggle to get jobs that they can stick with long term, regardless of their qualifications. In fact,I know of one who has a job I would consider a career. One. The rest have all moved back home, or a working low paid job, biding their time until the jobs are available.

So maybe these women just looked around and thought, you know what, in few years the jobs market will have picked up. I can be a SAHM and when the DC are older, then I can embark on a career. What's wrong with that?

Also I second MMM's

Xenia

The argument is that bright women no longer stay home to raise their kids and therefore the kids do not get the benefit of the highly educated carer
24/7

I know you wont agree but I was the child of a ridiculously educated WOHM who was a shite mother

I have stayed home for mine and brought them up as great kids with brilliant feminist ideals

bloody proud of how they are turning out and as I am lucky enough to 'have my time again' am pleased to be a sahm again

I think people who are content with their choices as I am and you are are fine on these threads. Women who are unsure whether they work or not get more emotionally involved on the issue of whether a parent ought to stay home.

MOst bright parents work as who wants to stay home and be a cleaner and nanny in effect and most of us want broader lives but that doesn't mean they don't talk to their children. We dont' say goodbey and greet them again at age 18. Working parents spend lots of time with children.

Some parents working or not are pretty useless and others good.

Xenia - I do

I agree with PosyPP

I don't think that working outside the home mothers should have the monopoly on being intelligent!!

For those of us who have the choice of staying at home or going to work (which I fully accept is a luxury in this day and age...), choosing to stay at home and look after the children and house etc is perfectly fulfilling and it doesn't involve one's brain turning to mush, far from it.

Many WOHM enjoy going to work, that is fine. But don't assume not going to work is going to be a recipe for inanity.

Each to their own.

I don't think I'm necessarily unintelligent because I am a SAHM.
I'm sure I would enjoy work if I did work.

Equally, I enjoy being at home. It's neither here nor there for me.

Besides, I'm 24 years old FFS, I have my whole life ahead of me to have more children, have a career etc. Choosing one now doesn't mean I have to forever abandon the other.
My mum started her career in her forties, she is doing well and she enjoys it. It's not the law that you have to establish a career before children.

If people enjoy being a WOHM, great, and better than them being miserable at home. I'm really glad I get to do my degree while being a SAHM, as it exercises my brain! I'll be 30ish when I finish a PGCE, that's what, 30+ years of work/taxes, so I'm hardly missing out on a career

How bizarre to assume that intelligent parents would rather work! Have another

I find it really fulfilling being a SAHM, I'm watching my children grow up and teaching them about the world. There is no job on earth that could replace that.