Wise Ruby Wax - working and stay at home parents

[Judy1234]

In today's Telegraph....

"Dear Ruby

I stopped working when I had my third child. It didn't make sense to continue with my job when I had a stressed-out husband requiring my support and children who needed me at home. It was an agonising decision, but my salary only just covered the cost of childcare.

And we didn't need the money - my husband earns six times more than I did. More importantly, I felt really guilty going off to the office every day and leaving my kids behind.

My problem is this: since I stopped working I feel like a non-person. Oddly, it's other women who give me this feeling. Women who have somehow managed to keep their careers afloat through babies, breastfeeding, nappy rash and all the mayhem of motherhood, treat me with barely disguised contempt. It's almost as if, by staying at home, I've lost the right to have an opinion, or say anything interesting. It's deeply upsetting.

Life is hard enough as it is, so why can't women be allies at least? Why can't we respect each other's choices? Amanda M, Edinburgh

Dear Amanda

I have heard that cry from some of my "non-person" friends when they decided to give it all up for breastfeeding duty. The reason I would also probably treat you with disdain if I met you is that I am secretly (well, not so secretly any more) jealous.

You are lucky enough to have a husband who makes six times the amount you made and that really irks me, as I'm sure it would other females.

But in your position, I would have worked anyway, as all my self-esteem is stored up in my job. I could never have applied the word "housewife" to myself. I'd rather have put a sabre through my head.

Although I admire your sacrifice to the little one, on the whole, I find women who don't work to be just a teensy bit boring with their obsession with schools and stools. Not all, just most.

Perhaps other working mothers are reminded how guilty they feel about abandoning the home. Perhaps we take it out on you. Enjoy your home life."

Thanks Anna8888 - making judgements about my professional abilities now!!
Fortunately, most of my students are able to debate and express views without resorting to snide put downs and lack of respect for others' opinions and beliefs. Of course, they are young people, mostly in their teens and some of them are not yet developed this skill. So when someone shows blatant prejudice in their views we discuss it and look at why prejudice is unhelpful and unfair. It often turns out that the student isn't actually prejudiced; they are simply expressing their views clumsily. So we talk about better ways to say what you mean. Actually the feedback I get from students, parents and my line manager is that my lessons are interesting and stimulating Anna. Thanks for your concern, anyway

It all sounds very PC inthegutter . How lovely.

Working mothers also put a lot of loads of washing on too. The biggest divide is between non parents and parents really. It's just that they fit it around their work too.

The good thing about the internet is you meet people with lots of different views from different walks of life you might never otherwise meet so you have a good chance to think about whether you are unfair prejudiced about different groups of people and it is harder for prejudice to be applied because you can't tell whether someone is black, white, male, gay etc although you can tell by their writing whether they're educated so it's not completely blind in that sense.

It must be a bit dull to think that is it the 3 score years and 10. It probably has a big impact on how you live your life, too. A lot of children benefit from having some kind of original religious exposure even if later they reject it. I fear many parents have only one God - pleasure and money/consumerism thees days. It the aetheists did a better job in terms of values taught o their children I would be happier but the children are usually left with a void, no teaching of moral except that we earn as much as we can and don't look out for others.

i enjoy your posts xenia, they add a balance to things.the liberal side of me wholeheartedly agrees in the sentiment of open forum discussion, generate a response, which then promotes a range and diversity of views. Because of anonymity the down side of internet discussion is that it can elicit an exaggerated response, disproportionately greater than one would generally say in RL

Anna888 - have you forgotten your mannersby all means dispute the content of Inthegutter narrative - but derogatory for no reason, hardly fair, non!

Personally I think religious instruction tends to deaden sensitivity to wider moral issues by teaching that there are moral absolutes. Of course, it would be so much easier if there were moral absolutes... but there aren't.

I like Anna's posts too.
So parents who don't practise their religious heritage or choose a new religion how do they go about inculcating some kind of moral values in their children? Presumably if they're bothered to do it at all (and don't just go for everything is fine as long as no one is hurt) the basics may not be too different from the main religions?

I still always get back to it must be very boring at home. I was in London yesterday (and today) and down in the underground station all 3 posters advertising stuff I had been involved with those companies and that made me glad. It was interesting in a sense. I would really hate not to have had some kind of career, some legacy other than my relationships with men and my children and friends and hobbies.

but xenia self worth and satisfaction are not necessarily derived from paid employment. for some mums their career is children/families. so whether SAHM or working i think what is important is that neither choice is denigrated/derided. imo what is important is individual choices that work, as essentially we are all different. there is no one homogeneous mum - thankfully

This thread is interesting. I read it at the beginning and thought it was going to be the usual WOHM v SAHM thing and I've done enough of those! This seems to have moved on a bit from that.

I think you are right Xenia, in that most parents who teach morals will by default get back to something that resembles most religions. Don't kill, steal or harm others. Try to help where you can, refrain from anger, greed, sloth etc where possible.

Unfortunately, I think that all to often these days there is a default position that says that so long as you are doing no harm it is OK which leads to problems as one person's view of what is OK might feel like harm to somebody else.

However, on the second point of your last posting Xenia you said you get a sense of having a legacy to leave from your job. That is great and I sometimes wish I had a job like that but I don't and nor do the majority of people. We could all work really hard for the rest of our lives and not have the career success that I imagine you have. That means we have to make our mark in other ways. That could mean being a SAHM and raising children who go on to achieve great things. It could mean doing voluntary work which helps a lot of people or it could be just doing our little bit which never amounts to much but which is nevertheless the best we could do. Some people's legacy will leave a far great mark on the world than others.

And finally let me just say once again, although I didn't want to get dragged into this WOHM/SAHM thing again, but just because I am a SAHM mother now it does not mean that is what I will always be. Perhaps in 10 yrs time I will be super successful at something else entirely but that doesn't mean that I can't be sucessful and happy to be a SAHM for now, nor that it is a waste of my time doing it.

Ummmm.....can't quite see why teaching interesting and stimulating lessons is PC... or maybe that's another snidey comment to avoid responding to the actual issue about prejudice.
Totally agree that religious instruction can deaden senstitivity to wider moral issues. Thankfully, religious instruction doesn't take place in many schools in the UK these days - certainly not among maintained schools anyway. I'm not sure about private schools, and of course there are 'faith' schools, but personally I would not choose to teach in one of them.

well i hope when my wee one goes to school that the teaching isinteresting and stimulating lessons

absolutely scottishmummy. This would prob be more relevant on the Education thread, but the thing that strikes me when parents come into school is the number of them who comment that lessons ARE so much more diverse, stimulating and dynamic than in their day. There are many things I would change in the National Curriuclum if i could, but generally i think the focus on lesson objectives (ie children understanding what the point of the learning is)and the responsibility on the teacher to ensure that learning is made accessible in a variety of ways is all good stuff.I observe lessons regularly as prt of my management role - and of course, you always get a feel of what's going on from walking around the school, and I continue to be amazed by the vibrant teaching going on in our school.

my boyfriend has worked in educational consultancy, and he tells me you need to walk a school meet the HT to understand is ethos and values. obviously some there is huge diversity in terms of quality/delivery/content of teaching

Another answer from Ms Wax in today's paper. But I think the person complaining is sexist. Why should she expect a man to support her? I suppose you could say both parents whatever they earn should pay half the child costs but that's not what happens in marriages where one earns less than the other. You can't have it both ways - equality but then whinge when men don't earn more.

Dear Ruby

I met my partner, a classical composer at a singles party and, to my amazement, got pregnant straight away, even though I'm 41. I'm getting married in two weeks' time. Sounds rosy? Actually, it's the opposite.

My husband-to-be has no regular income, but says he can't take a day job because it will affect his creativity. He's in the middle of composing something that could be his big break (a record label is apparently interested). Even though he'll be staying at home when the baby is born, I know I can't expect him to do the childcare.

So that means I'm going to have to go straight back to work (as a headhunter in the City) and support three people. How am I going to cope?

I don't have parents who'll step in and my future mother-in-law is a mad hippie who lives in a bungalow in Cornwall with six cats. Any advice? Gina N, London

Dear Gina

Boy, did you bark up the wrong tree too late. What do you expect me to say? You have made a mistake choosing the sperm donor. Next time you jump in the sack with a first-night date make sure you get a look at his bank details and any other financial assets before starting a baby.

Lesson learnt.

True but you can want equality and then whinge that they don't earn the same surely.

I don't think this one is really about money - more about attitude - she can't rely on him for help. Surely 2 married people should support one another regardless of who earns what.

I think she must be scared rigid - this time last year she hadn't even met the guy. Now she is having his baby and about to marry him. I am not surprised she is having doubts. If it hadn't have been this it would have been something else. After all he supported himself before he met her. Surely he is still able to support himself now - why is he suddenly a burden on her?

Afraid I agree with Ruby Wax on this one.

Also with Niecie - surely the whole point of a couple (married or not) is to provide mutual support? Be that financial, emotional, intellectual or whatever else.

I think the person asking the question should have made sure he wore a condom. And why is she marrying him if he is so unsatisfactory? If I was a single person, with a high flying job and in my forties I would expect to have some reserves that didn't mean I had to work to make ends meet. Silly bint. I'm with Xenia and Ruby on this one.

She gets to have a baby which otherwise at 41 she might well not have managed and perhaps she wanted it with a man rather than alone. I suspect her answer will be to give him his mornings to compose and hire someone for the afternoons.

Why are these two people getting married at all? He can have the child 50% of the time say, wedenesday to Sat and she can have th child on sun to Tuesday. She will only need daycare for the child Monday and Tuesday. He will then get the remainder of the week to compose his music. Presumably she will then be able to stay in her own flat and only support her and her baby, and Mr Composer can support himself and the baby the remainder of the week.

Good point but perhaps they love each other and want to live together.

You don't need to marry to be in love or live together .

Marriage is a legal contract with all sorts of obligations attached to it. It sounds as if Gina is very dubious about those obligations... so why is she getting married? Why doesn't she save herself the hassle?

Probably because she thinks it is her last chance. She's 41 with a baby - she might think who is going to want her now?

I do think she is getting serious cold feet though. As I say, she didn't even know the guy at the beginning of the year and now she is about to commit to him for life with a baby as well. It is all a bit fast. They have had no time to work through how their lives are going to run from now on - not something you can discuss properly in 5 minutes.

I think if I were her I would postpone the wedding until the dust settles a bit after the baby is born and they have had a chance to see how they feel about parenthood.

Last chance to hvae a baby probably.
True about marriage. The higher earners do badly on divorce as I know only too well so she'd be better off just living with him until the Government brings it's silly new UK laws in to give similar marriage rights to cohabitants.

Perhaps she feels it's right for her to be married before having the baby. Some people are still old-fashioned like that - often depends on their upbringing. (Like me!)