will prib regret this, and won't be here all evening to discuss, but just want to knbow why i am not a good role model for the kids if i choose to stay home with them

[mrsjohnsimnelcake]

i am interested in why certain people think that staying home with the kids is not a good role model.
I am university educvated and post grad qualified and have had a professinal role for 20yrs. I have managed and i have taught undergraduates.
I think staying at home for a while with my children is what i want to choose now.
I don't feel that i am teaching them not to expect the best from themsleves in any way- could you explain how I am doing this?

I feel it is the best for me and my kids and i may well change later when they are at school full tjme.
Surely your job is not the only thing that identifies you as a strong role model to children??
i can't really believe this to be the case.... it would seem a somewhat narrow minded way to exist in the world.
I think it is interesting that when you meet people they often ask what you do for a living. The shallow people are not interested if you are a SHAM, the more interesting and dynamic and less conventional people accpet that at some points in one's life different priorities take precedent.
I am still ME and i am still a strong and powerful woman whether or not I go out to work outside the house... and why would it be otherwise ?

peachy, I said in several previos posts, that contribting to society in non financial ways makes yo a good role model, and also that many of my own personal role models are not financial achievers.

maybe that wold be the better qestion to ask orselves, who are our own role models.

Im sure he was Nightynight, just- there are poelpe out there too who are not workshy gits- plenty are fine upstanding men. Even when notr working, myy Dh did all the housework / kid stuff etc, and he did eventually start a small business just to keep his hand in, even though it couldnt be profitable from home (equipment/ licensing etc0

Xenia, your argument fails on so many levels and only really works in Utopia. So far exactly NONE of your posts have persuaded me that I'm less of a person than you are because I don't have a fancy job title. So go on, try really hard to persuade me, or are you just being deliberately obtuse.

fellow women I'm doomed.

I never craved position, power, money. I never wanted to rule the world or the workplace. I've never been ambitious for myself. All I every wanted was to be happy and healthy - so far, so good.

I was a SAHM and was ecstatic to be so. I loved looking after the little darlings { ). I went back to work later but retired as soon as I could.

So shoot me!

Gosh Xenia that's a bloomin great drum you're banging but you don't seem to have many more members of your orchestra

I dont know anyone who is my role model, I am making my own road. Everyone woman I know is a career woman, permanent SAHM or livinga life they hate.

I am trying to prove the non-existence of Dukkha

yes, spiedermama, i jst don't want to be a millionaire either- what do you do when you#ve earnt the million...stop working and spend it?
or try to earn another one??

why doesw it have to be about money????

over and above the basic cost of living... why do you have to earn mone so you cna pay somebopdy to look after your nearest and dearest?

When i was s tudent i think i used to do pretty much the smae as i do now... btu as i have eaned more moeny, i have bought more expensive thinges, eg i always bought HCeddar cheese as a student- now we have brie, gosts chees, organic smoked chesse, i used to buy cheap red wine over 13% , now we sometimes buy expensive wine, and sometimes fizzy wine... and we buy posh chocolate, when we used to buy cadbury's

maybe i am not that imaginative, but the aquisition of more expensive stuff and the purchase of more expensive food- is this really the point to feminism?
or is it to support women to believe in themselves and to achieve their full potetnial, be that earnign momey, raising kids, strting theor own enterprise, or raising momey for charity, voluntary work...whatever!

if I thoght that the only difference me working made to my children, was the acqisition of expensive stvff, Id drop work and go on the soch tomorrow!!

maybe- just maybe- society benefits best from having a mix of people??

I've bumoped heads (good naturedly) with Xenia before on threads on house ownership. It just doesn't make me excited. Neither does having loads more money than now- not enough was hard, but we have enough. Good job really if I want to be a teacher, as they're capping their pay rises.

We're all valid, and our choices as much so

so whay is the argument about finacial responsibilty, and why are we talking about there being more millionares under 40 etc?

when I'm on my deathbed contemplating my life will I be thinking of boardroom successes or times with my family

{hmm]

becase taking responsibility (eg financia) makes yo a better role model? (assming that it wold be appropriate in yor relationship)

Yes, peachy, I think society does benefit from having a good mix of people, but Xenia clearly doesn't think so. I'm not aggressive about it (just curious) but, if you're going to hold such an extreme viewpoint, you really ought to justify them in a better way than, 'well, if you don't work, you're a lazy barsteward'.

But you can take responsibility for so many things, not just money.

I think from her previos posts that xenia, like me, has been married to one.

yes, bt money is sch a big thing, is it fair to dmp all the responsibility on one partner?

Xenia, start from the one fact we can all agree on - it's women who physically have the babies. From then you start to have choices - palm the dch off so you can go back to the boardroom, or SAH and breastfeed because you feel that to be the best start for your dch? In the meantime, DP supports financially; connected to the fact we started with, which is that it's the woman who has taken a careerbreak to give birth & bf & nurture babe.

After a few weeks/months, you start thinking about your choices again - SAH until dch starts school, or go back to old world of work. But you've changed, little personm at home, must be looked after by - who? Many women want to do that themselves.

And so it goes on. She looks after the dch, he brings home the bacon. It's been like it since the year dot, and is the norm the world over, because its the Women who Give Birth.

Here, now, thanks to tireless work by women in the last century we have a choice, most of us; we have the priviledge and freedom to arrange our family/role/wage-earning to suit us. But you must understand that the reason many of us still SAH with dch & look after house/shopping/cooking while DP brings in the money is because Nature has kind of set it up that way to work well.

i ahve to go now, thanks for the interesting discussion everyone... i haven't regretted starting the thread.
I still have not been convinced that I HAVE to wrok, and feel that the argument that becuase some people have been married to a man who wasn't very savvy with money means that all other women should wgo to aork and become millionaire to be crazy... but that does come round to the recent article that started the debate on the other thread....

so, take care and haev a lovely easter sunday
g'night.

What is so weird about wanting to hang out with the children and family you created. Surely the whole role model thing is about how you relate to each other and how much love and fun you have together.
I do everything to ensure I don't have to go away to work....we have downsized, we budget etc etc
Who you are or were at work means very little to a child. I know mine are far more interested in being in the garden with me, on the beach, hiking, cooking, and just generally exploring their world.
Why on earth would I want to trade the hours I spend with my gorgeous children with a paid employee who has no spiritual, emotional loving bond with my children just so I can go and spend hours within 4 walls working for money that won't make me any happier.
Xenia, I think we are going to end up with a pretty sad society if we don't nurture our own children and we leave it to institutions and hired help. Have we really come very far?

What is so weird about wanting to hang out with the children and family you created. Surely the whole role model thing is about how you relate to each other and how much love and fun you have together.
I do everything to ensure I don't have to go away to work....we have downsized, we budget etc etc
Who you are or were at work means very little to a child. I know mine are far more interested in being in the garden with me, on the beach, hiking, cooking, and just generally exploring their world.
Why on earth would I want to trade the hours I spend with my gorgeous children with a paid employee who has no spiritual, emotional loving bond with my children just so I can go and spend hours within 4 walls working for money that won't make me any happier.
Xenia, I think we are going to end up with a pretty sad society if we don't nurture our own children and we leave it to institutions and hired help. Have we really come very far?

nighty, i don't feel that people dump it all on one partner, mostly people discuss how it will all work and how it will all sort out for them, and then make their decisions.
To feel that one or other party will be dumped on means that the relationship is not on an equal footong and the decision can't be made jointly.... i think to be able to be seen to have an equal say in how the home and finances run is a good example for the children..
not to suggest that if one partner doesn't work then the other one has automatically been dumped on.

right, this reall is it, off to bed now

Tilba well said. It was the 'having it all' thing that made us feel that if we weren't 'having it all' (high-flying career, fancy house, gorgeous dch/husband etc) we weren't doing it right.

amusing to see that feminism was apparently about forcing us all to do the same thing, regardless of our wishes, desires, needs or strengths and weknesses.
i have been laboring under the impression that it was about the opposite of that...

well mrsjohn, I am a bit sceptical abot a joint decision that ends p with the conclsion that one partner gets to retire early and the other one gets all the responsibility. yes, it cold be so - bt from many conversations with my mainly male colleages, I wold say that sole earning men are perhaps less happy with the status quo than their wives imagine. men often cant articlate their worries and fears as clearly as we can.