What do you think about "not doing anything" when children are at school/nursery?

[morningpaper]

My daughter's peers are starting nurseries ... and I'm finding myself really SHOCKED at the fact that my mummy-friends aren't doing anything with their time while their children are out of the home. I asked a friend last week what she did and she said "Oh I just get home, tidy up a bit, have a coffee - and then I have to pick him up again!"

As I work from home there is ALWAYS some work I can do. I also do voluntary work and could always do with more time to get stuff done.

I also don't understand why their partners are happy with them just taking 'mornings off' to themselves - aren't they a bit miffed?

I'm probably just jealous but I can't help but think that they are just plain lazy! What do other people feel about this?!

Well I felt exactly as your dh did tigermoth

good post btw

much easier being a SAHM with 3 kids that with 1 - more to do = less time to get bored, also work outside the home made more difficult by costs of childcare = decision made.

agree enid - if on a practical, financial level it doesn't make sense to work outside the home, then the decision is made. I am certain it doesn't mean all SAHMS or SAHDS in this position automatically feel fulfilled and happy. Knowing however, that you are saving the family 'x' amount in expensive childcare bills must be a boost to your sense of self worth - assuming your partner sees this too.

Tigermoth, I don't know whether that's because he's a man, I think the danger of isolation is very real for anyone who spends a lot of time away from other people. I remember when I was in my twenties, commuting and stressed and overworking (doing 14 hour days quite regularly) thinking that working at home must be some kind of panacea. Of course, it's not. As with everything, it has its ups and downsides and I make sure I organise regular work meetings and meet up with friends etc. to ensure I don't become a hermit. I definitely don't think it would suit everyone, and for those it wouldn't suit, I'd say, don't do it - FGS, go and get yourself a job outside the home and be happy! But for me personally at this lifestage, it works so well that I can't imagine a job so wonderful that it would make me give it up.

Yes, sorry, take both your points about sometimes people not having a choice. I know I'm very lucky to a) have the choice and b) enjoy it. It would be dreadful to be at home because you had no choice and not enjoy it - just as dreadful as being in a horrible job you hate but have to do because you've got no choice.

Caligula, you have obviously made the best choice for you. If you can live off your earnings and are happy with your work/life balance, then exactly - why change things? You don't have to justify anything - you and your children are happy and you can get by. Am I right in thinking you are a single parent, so you don't have to take a partner's views into the equation? Job done

Yes, being a lone parent makes it much easier in a sense. I'm acutely aware (perhaps more than most) of the danger of taking on too much; I had a friend in the eighties who was much older than me and she did the whole "sisters are doing it for themselves" routine, with 3 children, 2 businesses and no husband, and she simply collapsed with the stress of it all and became a serious alcoholic for about five years. Wherever I can cut a corner, I will - there's no way I'm going to risk my sanity and my children's security by taking on more than I can manage easily and if that makes me lazy, so be it. There are far worse things than being lazy!

Enid - not sure about 3 kids being easier than one. OK, more to do and perhaps less boredom but that means you are infinitely more tired physically. It's much harder to actually go anywhere - takes much more organisation and can be a logistical nightmare. Going for a walk in our National Trust park with a parent with one 4 yr old highlighted this. Friend walks along, no stress, 4 yr old happy on his bike. I had one 4 yr old on a bike, a 2 yr old that didn't really want to walk half the time and ended up being carried and an 8 month old in a backpack who needed feeding and watering as we went round. Some things are just out of bounds if you have 3 - for example I can't go swimming with 3 children (you can only be in the pool with 2) - piece of piss if you only have one.

My SIL has one 3.5 yr old dd and has just left work to work from home for the same company - she is to do 4 hrs a day (contracted to do so) from her living room and she has no childcare for dd. She knows she can rely on dd to sit and watch something, draw on her own etc etc. Now there is no way I could contemplate doing that with 3 boys of 4 and under!

I see your point about childcare costs for 3 but I left work when I only had ds1 so that wasn't my reason for doing so. I left work because I strongly believe that the best place for pre-school children is in the home with a parent if that's possible.

I think Enid maybe meant 3 kids = easier in terms of not getting bored, gdg. Precisely because 3 kids are, as you say, likely to be much harder work than one.

cheers Scumster

good luck to your SIL Gdg...but I bet she'll soon find out that life just isn't like that (the idea of a 3.5 year old happily occupying themselves for 4 hours a day )

Four hours a day? Good grief! What's she going to do, tranquilise the girl?

• yep, she's probably got a shock coming!

I remember when I was discussing my maternity leave with the senior partner in my firm, he suggested that I keep working from home and not take any maternity leave "because you could just put the baby on the floor in a moses basket whilst you work". Even though I was a novice I knew was utter shit this was and just said "I don't think it quite works like that actually". Many times I PSML when I was covered in baby sick and feeling like every new mother does. Yes, he was single with no kids.

Today my MIL has had niece so SIL can make phonecalls for work. However, MIL works full time so she can't be doing this every day!

Day 1 and already she's called in the troops!

I didn't realise this thread was still going. I have been thinking about it a lot after starting the original big rumpus and having to dodge the barrage of homemade muffins being thrown at me.

Before I had children I don't think I ever KNEW anyone who was a SAHM-with-kids-at-school, which is why meeting them now (and realising how many of you there ARE!) is a big culture shock and surprise for me.

GDG wrote:
"PinkFluffPudding - so you feel that you are living off your dh's money? I always find this really bizarre. What happened to 'all that I have I share with you'?"

Unless you are VERY well off, and have total independent financial security, and a big fat pension pot already sorted out, then by deciding not to return to paid work you ARE by a large extent living off your husband's generosity - both now and in the future. You are currently relying on the exchange of your husband's money for your housekeeping skills, and you are also replying on the fact that he won't leave you for a younger model at some point in the future and abandon you to a pensionless future.

A lot of women think that if 'the worse' happens and their marriage falls apart then they will be fine with half the house/pension/savings - actually of course this is rarely the case and the average husband's pension is probably inadequate for one person, never mind split for two, even if you are that lucky.

(I must admit that from reading all the posts, Lima seems to be the only one who's NOT relying on her husband's present/future generosity.)

This is, at least, the way it seems to me.

I am in the position where we will never be financially 'well off' enough for a financial contribution from me AND DH to not imperative - not because we have high standards of living but because we are responsible for our mothers as well as our children. I am surprised that there are so many women here who honestly HAVE the choice of whether to work or not.

(And I mean part-time work, not full time work that impinges on childcare.)

I think the problem Morningpaper can be finding that ideal 'part-time job'. Having given up a career to be a SAHM when the kids were small, and made the necessary lifestyle sacrifices to do that; I then found it was very hard to compromise from 'the ideal' when it came to returning to work. (Having always picked the boys up from school myself, and been there for them at that time of day, and realised how important that time was; I wasn't prepared for them to go to a childminder or nursery after-school.)

As a result for the last two years I have worked fewer hours than I would have wanted to for less pay, but the only alternatives were full-time, which just wasn't an option.

I have just been offered a TTO, basically school-hours (32.5 hrs) job, which is a dream-come-true for me. But such jobs are not easy to come by.

MP - I work so I'm not 100% reliant on dh's money either.

And for reasons I'm not discussing on MN, I know I have future financial security so dh can go ahead and leave if he thinks he'd get a better deal elsewhere

Morning paper - longtime now since my post on this thread - but I have financial independent from DH - my own pension etc (and during my present maternity leave continue to pay half the mortgage!) That's how we've always done it. TBH we couldn't afford for me to give up work, but only because that was never the intention so we have always spent/lived/holidayed based on two salaries.
Long live the choice for everyone, I say but please please, SAHMs don't come the old "you aren't there for your children" with me. That's the bit that irks me.

Also I do not want to end up with a job I don't like (agree with roisins thoughts here). Thought: is having kids the great excuse for people who don't like their jobs to give up ????(sorry I know some mums don't earn enough to cover the childcare so doesnt make sense).

wysiwyg, i did hate my old job so our dd was born at a perfect time (I'm a sahd). Can't say I miss work at all.

But Wysiwyg which bit of "you aren't there for your children" don't you like? I think if it implies that you aren't there emotionally, then it's offensive, but if it's a plain observation of fact, (for example, if the kids come out at 3pm and parents aren't home till 6pm that means they aren't "there" for 3 hours) surely it's just a plain statement of fact? It may or may not matter about those extra 3 hours per day, depending on the child, mother, family, how you arrange the rest of your time, etc., but why should you be irked by it being noticed? (Unless of course, it is being used to imply that you're not emotionally there for the child, in which case I can understand you being irritated by it.)

And yes, I think having kids can be a great excuse to give up a job you don't like. What better excuse is there? Seriously, I think having kids can make you evaluate your job - funnily enough, for me, having my first baby made me change jobs (to get a much higher paid one) because having him around made me feel that if I was going to have to work ft and be away from him (which I did at the time) I may as well make it worth while by earning a hell of a lot more money!

i have had the not there for your child emotionally comment from a woman whom i know gave up her job because she didn't like it and having a child was the excuse - now that combo really does irk!

I choose to go back to work part-time after both mine were 6 mths old. However, since becoming a single mother I have no choice & have made all sorts of compromises professionally. Wysiwyg & Roisin it is amazing how necessity will make you take jobs you don't particularly like!!!! (I do appreciate that you are talking about circumstances where you do have a choice)

Sorry, that should be "chose"