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."

can I also say, dh and I suffer financially (eg. not been abroad in 11 years, go out about 3 times a year, old car, small house etc etc) but the kids don't, we have lots of time to spend with them and teach them sports/play with them etc. so unless you count the kids not having holidays abroad (like a lot of their friends) no, they aren't missing out on the financial side of things

Don't worry about not having holidays abroad.

I think it is crucial to travel and see the world as part of one's education. However, lots of "holidays abroad" with children are very expensive and do absolutely nothing to broaden their horizons - think Club Med, Mark Warner, most package deals in big hotels etc. Much better for the children to wait until they are old enough to save up and pay for their own travels during university vacations, a gap year etc.

You can broaden children's horizons pretty well just by exploring your own county in depth.

snowfun: "I can't believe the posters on here asking Anna "whats so special about the mother to a baby"

do you really think you are so replaceable to your baby then?

I can't believe these posts, is it because so many of you went back to a full time job when your baby was a few months that it suits you to think you can easily be replaced?"

Er, no, you seem to have a chip on your shoulder simply because you happened to work in childcare and disapproved of some of the (ft working?) parents you came in contact with. I totally understand that - I work with a lot of clients (who ultimately pay my bills) and sometimes I think I can do their job better than them!

Since you asked your rhetorical question, I shall answer. I intended to take 6 mths maternity leave, but extended that (rightly or wrongly) to the full 12 months because dd refused to take a bottle. I then went back to work parttime reduced hours EVERYDAY rather than the classic 3 days a week (despite the heavy commute) to minimise separation with dd and facilitate my continuing to bf her, which I did until she was 17 months. We still co-sleep with dd. I am doing the same with ds.

And as for whether I am replaceable, dh and I are and will always be dd and ds' parents. No we are not replaceable. But it does not follow that our children cannot thrive if they weren't looked after by their mother during the day. Our nursery and the carers there are fab!

"Er, no, you seem to have a chip on your shoulder simply because you happened to work in childcare and disapproved of some of the (ft working?) parents you came in contact with. I totally understand that - I work with a lot of clients (who ultimately pay my bills) and sometimes I think I can do their job better than them!"

Blueshoes - you are very confused

snowfun is saying "I replaced parents but I couldn't do the job as well as them" - the opposite of what you say.

I have no doubt there are good and bad nurseries. There are also good parents and not good parents, at home and at work.

A high staff turnover is not the case with my dcs' nursery. I have complete respect for the ladies who sacrifice a lot to pursue their jobs in childcare. I have observed them at work in the Baby room whilst settling my ds in and am happy that they are providing responsive care and have rapport with the children.

How does a working parent know their child is happy, rather than resigned to the status quo? Erm, most working parents still do spend time with them , in evenings, at weekends.

Do SAHMs feel they know their children any less than their teachers because their children go off to school from 9 to 5 everyday? Are they any less bonded? Don't children of SAHMs also kick off at school?

Despite my dcs going to fulltime nursery/school, I am not deluding myself when I say dh and I know each of our dcs better than any other living person on this earth. For the times they are in childcare, we get feedback from nursery staff as well, chats at the end of the day. We see our dcs at dropoff, I peep into the room before pick up to verify that the staff are not hiding anything from me when they say they had a good day. Dcs come back with paint, crafts, go out in buggies, so I know they are occupied during the day.

If a child has always been at home and never attended nursery, there is similarly an assumption that the child is happy and not bored, rather than happier and more engaged in a slightly chaotic buzzing environment of a nursery? I say this in all sincerity because my experience like nooname's is my clingy baby simply thrived in her nursery, to my utter surprise, when I was half prepared to pull her out if she even peeped in protest. The nursery was her making.

With me, my ds is clingy and does not want to explore his environment. In nursery, play gym, he is off like a shot, with the occasional checking in with me. For whatever reason he is more adventurous at nursery, and I don't totally understand it, I'd say it benefited him greatly. Not in denial, I promise.

"With me, my ds is clingy and does not want to explore his environment."

blueshoes - that's because he doesn't see you enough . He wants to stay with you when you are around - and that is totally understandable.

Whereas at nursery etc you aren't there so he can get on with things.

anna, oh no, nursery staff cannot replace parents. My comment about snowfun doing the job better than the parents who use her nursery was because she felt justified in judging them. In other words, IF SHE WERE IN THEIR SHOES, she would do a better job.

Fine difference but important. Hope that clarifies.

Actually Anna, my ds was clingy throughout my year long maternity leave. At that point, I had never left him at all, for more than a few hours during the day (I could count on one hand so rare it was) and never at night.

Like I say, I cannot understand it. Dd was the same. That is why I say I was gobsmacked when they both took to nursery so well.

Are they both still clingy when you are around? Or has nursery cured them of clinginess?

millie, thanks for the link to the study. It looks like it could provide some of the answers I am looking for. It is quite weighty so will print it out when I get into the office on Monday.

Right now, need to give my employer his due! (working from home) ...

Anna888 I don't think the cause of clinginess is the absence of the person to whom they cling - not at all. It is just down to the personality of the child. My DS1 would have gone anywhere with anyone, from the minute he crawled and still would at 15. DS2 was a different kettle of fish altogether, when he was very young he only ever wanted to be with me. He didn't go to nursery, I didn't go out to work, he was very very seldom so much as babysat and he didn't start school until the christmas after he turned 5 (because imo he just wasn't ready). He is still a quiet boy (he is now 12) in company and at school but he is no sap and actually has more inner confidence than his apparently very out-going big brother. Like it or not you are born with a personality and your care can only affect it to some extent.

Swedes - I completely agree that children are born with a personality and that their upbringing is far from entirely responsible.

However, I have a very clingy second stepson whose clinginess has developed throughout his childhood and has undoubtedly been affected by his life experiences (he was a very easy baby who could be left with anyone).

From what I observe, and comparing with other children, my dcs seem to be clingy by nature. They are both high need babies, could not be put down, vocal. Dd had separation anxiety from 5 months.

Nursery did not cure them of their clinginess (I wish). No, I always say they are like different children at nursery, eat well, sleep independently and most importantly, play with toys, have their little friends, sociable. At home, the staff will not recognise them, exact opposite. My dcs have brief periods at home of being more independent, but generally still want me to be carrying them, or at least to be in the same room as them. Which I do try to oblige. They will accept dh as well. But not always the aupair.

I thought babies didn't usually apprecaite the concept of separeteness until 6 months anyway? So you can always leave a tiny without complaint, they only object once they understand the concept of separateness.

Hmm, I use the word clingy, but I am not too fond of it. The word I prefer is 'cuddly'. Boy, are they cuddly.

But that is great too. In a baby, inconvenient, but it does get better. Dd is now 4 - when parents were asked to observe their little girls at ballet class in school, I was the only parent whose dd ran up and gave me huge bear hugs at the end of the class.

Agree that personality plays a big part. My dcs are all about personality. Poor care can contribute, and both mothers and fathers have a role to play in ensuring that their children are nourished emotionally.

Swedes - my stepson was easy until about age 4/5 (his older brother was much less easy to leave but is now much more independent).

blueshoes - but "cuddly" and "clingy" are absolutely not synonymous or interchangeable.

My daughter is immensely cuddly but not even slightly clingy.

Swedes, that is what the health visitor said. The books seem to say that. Not in my dd's case. My babies could recognise me and dh from a very young age (a few weeks?).

That is why I distrust books. Mn is much better at comparing the full range of experiences. I have the privilege of discussing high need babies with other parents on such babies on this board. Never found another parent with one in RL.

In fact, my daughter as a baby was not cuddly at all (to my mother's immense frustration). Cuddliness has developed over time.

I agree, anna, about the difference between clingy and cuddly. I would say my children are both clingy and cuddly.

The only truck I have with clingy is that it has negative connotations and implies that a child is not securely attached.

If clingy is a sign of insecure attachment, then why is it my dcs are still clingy despite being attached to me day-and-night? My babies would never allow themselves to be put on the floor with toys and just get on with it. They wanted to be on my lap, in my arms, preferably me standing up and walking around, interacting with them or showing them things. Often, even with dh helping, and dancing attendance to them, with me, they were still restless and well, clingy.

I never encountered other babies like this in RL. At least on mn, I can discuss this type of baby

MY DD24 is shy when strangers come to the house but not at all shy with people she meets outside of home. Even in her pushchair, she tries to say hello to absolutely everyone we pass.

blueshoes - I think it is immensely difficult to discuss the "clinginess" thing and judge whether it is excessive or not when one does not know a child personally and have a good idea of how much time and attention a parent is giving his/her child.

One parent's perception of "clingy" is another parent's perception of "normally independent".

Sibling personalities and relationships also affect a child's clinginess. For example, my very unclingy daughter clings to my partner like crazy the minute her brother (my younger stepson) is around, because he clings to his father. She is asserting herself because suddenly there is competition.

Anna888 To be honest it sounds as though she is jealous rather than asserting herself.

Swedes - no, she's not jealous at all.

oh yes, the sibling competition thing. Have 2 cuddly (still prefer this word) children and its like world war 3 at home. I now have to carry a baby in one arm and a pre-schooler, in the other, to avoid these jealousies. They are sweet, really, just hard work. But they give lots back as well. I digress ...