I am in a state of feminist rage

[EllieG]

...because of stupid reports about working mothers (because fathers clearly have NOTHING to do with it) and sexist DV t-shirts from Topman and then having a conversation with one of the secretaries from work which went like:

Her - 'I think that women who just keep popping out babies to get housing off the state should be given no help' (Me - does anyone actually really do that? I think the Daily Mail just makes it up personally) and then she said 'I think it's wrong when a parent (but she meant mother) doesn't stay at home for the child's first 2 years having a career is selfish'. We were discussing a working single Mum who wants to go on secondment to another city for a bit and take her little child with her (thereby disrupting him for a bit) because - heavens above! - she has said she needs to do this for her career which is quite important in terms of providing for her child's future needs as her feckless ex (who does not agree and is using court to block her move) doesn't give them anything and she is the one who will have to pay for everything and she wants to be able to, and, even worse - She Likes Her Job. Awful, awful woman.

So it's OK to be a single mother if you -

a - just have one
b - provide for it yourself and have no state help (if you have state help are a feckless sponger who should Go Out And Get A Job)
c - don't try and have a proper career though, that is very bad. Especially if you might be quite good at it and enjoy it and might be trying to earn lots of money because then you are hard-nosed career woman who should have child taken away because you are going against you inner motherly nature.

Do you think a child would rather have a babysitter and a hot meal or a parent and no food?

Do you think a child would rather have a depressed, anxious, miserable parent or a motivated, qualified babysitter?

It is never as simple as SAHM v WOHM. There are good parents and bad parents. There are good CMs/nannies/nurseries and bad nurseries. There are good jobs and shit jobs. There can even be lifestyles that mix up all these ingredients.

One working mother with great childcare is providing just as good a lifestyle as a SAHM with a child at home, and if the SAHM is not happy with her role then I'd go so far as to say that the working mother probably has the happier child.

We only have 10% of top earners in this country. WE only have 25% in the HRT bracket. Most people have pretty normal careers/jobs, meaning that they are quite capable of both working and parenting. Even in a situation where both parents work a full-time job with professional childcare to pick up the slack, the parents are still going to be the primary carers spending most time with their DC, taking them to the Drs/dentist/parents-evening/night-time waking/taking time off when sick, etc etc.

The idea that some people have DC and never see them because they are permanently with the nanny maybe applies to less than 10% of the population (especially since highly successful women tend to not have children at a substantially higher rate than the rest of the female population).

Sorry kerry I don't mean to sound like I'm attacking you with post after post, because I'm sure you didn't mean to offend anyone, but the way you've expressed yourself is often repeated by those who would like to see women out of the job market completely and back at home in the kitchen where they belong. Because when people talk about having a parent at home they mean women. It's just an ideological stick to beat women with because they know it's where we're vulnerable - what mother would willingly do something that could hurt or damage their child after all. This plays directly to women's instincts and is simply manipulation

The most depressing thing I find about this whole debate is the assumption on behalf of the you-must-stay-at-home group is that WOHMs don't think about their decision. They come out of hte maternity ward and throw their child at the nearest person they meet on their way to the station to get to their Very High Powered Career.

There may be one or two families for whom that is the reality but it is extremely rare. For most people it is a careful and properly thought out decision which is discussed with employers (especially if there is the option of flexible working) and partners. Whichever decision is finally arrived at is the best one for that particular family and that should be all there is to it.

Incidentally, the only family I have ever met where neither parent saw the children in the evening before bed was where the mum was a journalist on the Daily Mail. She was rarely able to leave work until late in the evening - as she said those 'working mothers damage their kids' articles don't write themselves...

That's the thing though Kerry. You may not mean women, but a lot of people do. And until we have equal paternity rights for men and a situation where a family can live on one partner's average wage or less income, it will always be women faced with the SAHM/WOHM dilemma.

I'm planning on my DH being a SAHD! He's much better at all the domestic-y stuff, and as he already has a daughter of another mother, so he is already in 'daddy-do' mode. He does work, but gets decent paternity leave and can work just one or two days a week when that's over, and we'll make ends meet. I'm sure my friends and coworkers will be shocked and a little upset that I am not feeling like i should stay home, but I make more money, and I like my job, he hates his. This seems like as good a solution as anyone could manage.

If you're the poster I think you are, Kerry (I'm crap at remembering usernames, and never track a poster), you've been through a couple of mills. You know that life generally doesn't work out according to plan; most adults have a few write-offs and re-adjustments along the way.

In a perfect world, all businesses would be intelligently flexible wrt family life. All men and women would take equal responsibility, in real terms, for their children. Everybody would be able to put the pieces together in the best possible way for everyone involved, and all children would get the best possible care in their particular circumstances.

In a broad sense, this is what feminism offers and fights for. I sometimes think it shouldn't be called 'feminism' any more ... but the truth is, we still live in a man's world and it's going to be quite a while before men appreciate the benefits of what feminists call for. So it's still up to women to push forwards, they'll come on board when they get it.

Meanwhile, we've still got women who bear children and children who don't develop according to business rules. For as long as adult lives are dictated by the rules of men's businesses, it's impossible for children to fit perfectly into it (or ageing parents, sick spouses and the rest.) So - for now, we have to wriggle around finding compromises that work as well as possible for our dependents.

There are a lot of parents who are not 'natural parents'. I suspect that isn't divided by gender, tbh. I've seen a lot of couples with a more 'parenty' man, who has to do the nine-to-five because he earns more and wasn't compromised by pregnancy. I've seen a lot of women going barmy with having to speak in two-syllable words for six years and, if I'd had kids, I would have been one of them.

Have you ever thought that - just perhaps - the high levels of women with depression might be connected with the high proportion of women forced into full-time mothering by the economic realities of our male-pattern commerce? How many of them have partners who'd be happier parenting than them, if commerce made sense of it? How many are too depressed to engage fully with their kids, and would be happier at work while their child had a better 'parent', biological or professional?

Do kids still have "The Wheels On The Bus" these days? I literally started hallucinating on the hundredth repetition of that song! Lucky I had training. Some women must feel they've totally lost it when that happens. They shouldn't be forced into that position :(

kerry, how can you know they're second best care? I only have experience of my poor mum bringing me up - but I wish so much she'd not been a SAHM. It wasn't good for her and in retrospect, for me either. My aunt is a childminder, loves her job and is excellent at it. I look at them and think: which, honestly, was the better care? I love my mum, but in all honesty, it wasn't working for her to be doing nothing but parenting us. She needed something else in her life. Not every person will be like that - obviously! - but some people are. And not every child would feel like I did - obviously - but many will.

Btw, the 'child would prefer' argument makes no sense to me - you don't give your children icecream beause they 'prefer' it to broccoli, do you?

garlic - sorry to digress and take the thread off on a slight (but in my defence, related) tangent, but this paragraph is fabulous:

Meanwhile, we've still got women who bear children and children who don't develop according to business rules. For as long as adult lives are dictated by the rules of men's businesses, it's impossible for children to fit perfectly into it (or ageing parents, sick spouses and the rest.) So - for now, we have to wriggle around finding compromises that work as well as possible for our dependents.

I particularly like your second line.

Hired help?

I await the 'I didn't have children so strangers could bring them up' chestnut.

I'm amazed my two children even recognise me or DH.

Thanks, sunshine :)
It's me hobby horse, dontchano.

Hic.

i had my son at around the same time as a friend had hers. both single mum's. she took maternity leave as late as possible as many women do to have as much time as possible with the baby afterwards. initially, like many women, she was horrified at the idea that she'd have to go back to work and worried how on earth she was going to cope with leaving him.

by halfway through her maternity leave those concerns had gone. she knew she had to go back to work for both of their sakes. she had always done a very dynamic job, drove all over the country seeing clients and going to functions and had a very busy social life on top. she was someone who had never really spent much time alone - it wasn't in her nature to do so. she had been depressed on and off throughout pregnancy because she felt so alone - she couldn't go out every night as she used to and she'd moved out of central london to buy a home for her and her child somewhere more suitable.

the baby coming and her falling in love with him distracted her from that for a while but it didn't actually change her core personality and psyche and emotional needs and she was fast becoming depressed and irritable again because she just. wasn't. cut. out. for that kind of life. not not cut out to be a mother but not cut out to sit in the house, to be alone without other adults, to not have a busy schedule and be buzzing around working. when she went back to work she was massively relieved but felt guilty for being relieved which she eventually got over.

apart from all that of course her alternative to going back to work would have been going on benefits.

we used to admire each others differences - her: i don't know how you do it you're such a natural and so good with him and never lose your patience even though you're with him all the time. me: i don't know how you have the energy to be out at work all day and rushing around and still coming home and being a parent after that etc. our choices and values were entirely different but we could respect each others. i don't know why women as a whole can't do that and therefore support each other.

incidentally i was probably ok with it because i had been very ill prior to conceiving my son, had had to leave my career and had gone through a long period of isolation and coming to terms with being out of the push and thrust of work and hectic social life. for her having her son and having to stay at home was like the massive crisis i went through when incapacitated for work.

yes her son spent a lot of time in childcare - more than most i expect and more than i would see as, 'ideal' in an ideal world but that was the nature of her job and the kind of salary she needed to earn to support him. but would he have been better off with her at home? honestly (and she would agree), no. he really did get better care by being at nursery and he was very well provided for and will have every financial benefit as he grows up.

according to what you're proposing kerry she should not have had children if she wasn't the type to be able to make those sacrifices. so a woman who hasn't got it in her to give up her career should not have kids? apart from anything else i doubt she even knew that about herself until she found herself home on maternity leave. she could still be a great mum providing a good stable home and lots of love and cuddles in the morning and at night and there all weekend. i can't honestly think that someone has the right to say she shouldn't get to have children because she is a person who needs to have a fulfilling career.

sorry for the very long post but i think putting it into real life scenarios moves away from generalisations and being able to write off individuals as a generic group.

shit that's epic - feel free to skip sorry.

oh and realistically i was only a sahm because i'd had to stop work. if i'd still been in my career when i fell pregnant with ds i'd have really had no choice but to carry on working. i had a mortgage to pay and a good career i was progressing in.

would it have made me a bad mother? no. i don't think so. i'd have dropped ds at nursery in the morning and picked him up after work and done what i had to do in between. he'd have been there with me all night in my bedroom, up with me in the morning whilst i got ready and fed him. with me on the bus to work playing eye to eye and picked up again after work repeating the journey and the mealtime and bath and cuddles and in my room all night again and we'd have had all weekend together. i'd very definitely have still been raising him despite the fact he hung out in a nursery in the daytime 5 days a week.

i'm actually finding myself in a what if train of thought now. my experience of motherhood would have been very different. i'd have been a teacher and a mother. i imagine after a stressful day at work seeing his little face through the door at nursery would have been lovely and the switchover moment from work mode to love mode. i actually think it would have worked very well.

sAF are you also startsAFire and why all the deleted posts?

i had my posting history deleted due to trouble with mra types plastering my posts on hate sites. years of being open and sharing stuff on here probably added up to making traceable if someone went through my history with that purpose. shame but better to be safe.

ah sorry to hear that. I thought it was this thread only and started to wonder how rude you could have been!

yeah i'm worried it looks like that all over the site

Good posts Saf.

I think your first post highlights how, in fact, 'choice' has very little to do with it. Yes we all have a choice about how we react to things, but for most of us one choice is way more practical/realistic than the other and naturally pushes us down a particular path. It's never a true choice.

Only 1 in 5 women use professional childcare in this country. The others rely on a mix of family and friends, with grandparents providing most childcare. That's hardly 'hired help' and according to the Children's Report commissioned by the govt. a few years ago, that sort of set-up, where a child has strong links with people beyond the immediate nuclear family, is ideal. It reduces the incidence of depression in a family and has a significant effect on child abuse stats.

And people who use professional childcare benefit in a similar way. In the case of nannies/CMs the relationship often transcends the professional and the 'staff' become family friends. I know this is the case with my CM. In nurseries there are proven social and educational benefits for children and again abuse is lower than in comparison to children brought up in isolated nuclear families.

There are advantages to all set-ups. A well-though-out, well-implemented childcare arrangment that allows a parent to work poses no harm to a child whatsoever and can actually be highly advantageous to all concerned - child, carer and parents.

Likewise, a willing, engaged, happy and positive SAHP who hase chosen that role, is the ideal person to care for a child.

There is no right and wrong.

THe only 'wrong' about all of this is the impact of money. Despite all the reports saying that children benefit far more from 'all the best things in life ar free' type stuff and that materialistic benefits are massively over-rated, the truth is that being a poor SAHM sucks.

The only really salient point is that children from poorer backgrounds generally do significantly less well than those from better off backgrounds. This can be ameliorated by various factors (mother's educational background being key), but it's not easy. Doesn't matter how clever you are, you are never going to be able to give your child the same experiences and opportunities as someone better off. You may well bring them up to be a better/nicer/cleverer person, but some of their life-chances will have been limited despite all this.

If people really truly believe that having a parent SAH is so vital to a child's welfare then as a nation we need to put our money where our mouth is and subsidise it the same way we do the NHS and education.

But I suspect that many of those who say a child should have a SAHP are also the same ones who go on about benefit scroungers and single mothers who completely screw up the arguments because they cannot possibly work and be a SAHP at the same time.