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."

Inthegutter - why did you turn my post into some kind of sweeping generalisation that it wasn't?

Foofi, I agree that you can't really make generalisations. Excellent parents can be stay at home, part time working or full time working. There is no law that condemns you just because you work/choose not to work. But this thread interests me for a number of reasons:

• it is still very difficult to move beyond this being a gender issue. One thing I totally agree about with Xenia is that fathers would never be treated in the same way - the expectation is that except in a few rare SAHD situations, dad will go out to work full time. We will only have reached true equality when this doesn't even come into the equation. This is 2007 - women are lawyers/doctors/teachers/whatever. Women are as successful in the workplace as men!
• it's not helpful that there can still be an underlying assumption that 'work' is a dirty word. eg Anna888's post which tbh is pretty patronising, almost sympathising with WOHM who don't have the time to think about interesting world issues! What rubbish! I am a teacher - I enjoy my profession, it involves interacting with people all day long, thinking creatively 'outside the box' and stretches me intellectually. All of which I belive makes me a more interesting person. And I would rather my kids grow up with two parents who have interesting lives than with parents who are bored and/or boring!

'Work is just one way of filling your day - and it has the huge advantage of paying - and the huge disadvantage of being extremely time-consuming.'- Anna888, that is a direct quote from you! I think there are several things which make this kind of post rather unhelpful. First, for many people, work is not an option - in fact I don't know any couples at all who are so well off that neither needs to work! Secondly, why is something that is time-consuming a disadvantage? Raising children is time-consuming. Cooking their meals, putting them to bed, going for walks with them is time-consuming - yet I've always loved doing these things with my kids. I also love my career - it takes up quite a lot of my time, but what's wrong with that? It's an interesting, challenging career which makes a valuable contribution to society - actually I'll be pretty chuffed if my own kids grow up aspiring to have interesting and valuable roles in society.

Xenia, I think that you underestimate how much you are "outside the herd". From what I have gathered, you can singlehandedly afford to send 5 children to private school which is a tremendous achievement and credit to your talents but, percentage wise, that earning capacity must represent a tiny fraction of women.

I do think you are fighting nature a lot of the time, possibly because deep down you may feel a little hard done by because you have obviously worked so hard over the years (I don't mean to be insulting by this).

If you think about it, 1000 or a million years ago babies in northern climates were brought up in caves and forests. How on earth did they survive infancy? By the care of the females of the tribe, their warmth, breast milk, love and attention. I'm trying to be PC here, but honestly I mean mothers and when they died in childbirth, which they did in large numbers, it was other close members of the female community with everyone keeping a close eye on what was going on. I think I read once that you were back at work within two weeks of giving birth so how do you really know what level of care your nannies were providing. And isn't it a bit unrealistic and even unhealthy to expect paid care to love your babies, unlike for example grandparents?

Also babies survived thanks to men. They used their testosterone enhanced bodies to go out their and make the kill for the tribe and also to stay at home and keep the wolves out.

Do we honestly think we know better than centuries old evolution and hormones? Nature has made human babies amongst the most helpless in the planet and our childhoods the longest precisely so that we can learn from our elders and pass on and improve our culture for the next generation unlike for example a fish. This explains everything from cathedrals to computers.

IMO better to accept this and adapt our ecomonic structure eg pay women a proper wage to look after their very young and then make employers provide school hour compatible jobs afterwards. I'd be interested to hear your views on this, Xenia, as an employer.

inthegutter - as usual, you are completely missing the point .

People work for money (as my post points out) but you don't have to work to fill your day with interesting activities. Personally, I know masses of retired couples where neither work and they have extremely busy lives and much more fun and less stress than when they were working. If, in a couple, one half earns lots of money (or the couple has a lot of capital, or another source of income), why should work be the only way for the other half to have a fulfilled life?

On the disadvantage of work being time-consuming - work (especially when it is particularly interesting/prestigious work) tends to take up a lot of time that is then not available for all the other things in life (some of which you mention).

Personally, there are three things, apart from great relationships with other human beings (which is the most important thing) that I think help people enjoy life and live it to the full - education, money and time. It's difficult getting the balance between them right.

FFS Xenia change the record. It's old. It's tired. Everyone on MN must surely know how you feel by now. If your life is so hunky dory, can't you go off and enjoy it?

Wow Rosetip! Don't really know what to say to your post - you've clearly thought this all through and have total belief in what you say but...... Ok, ,my initial thoughts:

• we are NOT living hundreds of thousands of years ago, we are living in the 21st century. How can it possibly make sense to try to replicate survival (and let's be honest, we're talking survival not quality of life) from thousands of years ago? I am not bringing up my chidren in a cave; my partner is not out all day hunting for our evening meal.

'And isn't it a bit unrealistic and even unhealthy to expect paid care to love your babies, unlike for example grandparents?' - Babies/children/adults need love from their parents and other family members. Provided they are getting this, and are also given food, warmth, stimulation etc, WHY should it matter whether they are loved by everybody who has any sort of caring role for them? When your child starts nursery school or primary school, will you expect the teacher to love them? Life is about all kinds of relationships. My children are loved dearly by many people. They also went to a fantastic childminder and a nursery when they were younger. I am absolutely confident that this childcare provided better stimulation and interaction for them than being looked after by my elderly parents (who of course as grandparents love them) would have been!

• your last point about economics -I can't see how your suggestions would ever become a reality. Not all women want to stay at home full time with young children. Not all fathers do. Re: all jobs fitting artound school hours/terms - why should children be denied the chance of good quality after school care to enable their parents to work? I am a teacher - therefore my working day starts about an hour before the school day begins, and continues for about two hours afterwards. Should I not be allowed to be a teacher because my job should fit exactly around school hours??!!

Sorry, but I think your post is all about trying to return to an era of limited choices and polarisation of mothers and fathers.

Anna888 - yes, you're right. I wasnt including retired couples in my earlier post. I DO know a number of retired couples who no longer work and have interesting lives, travelling, doing activites etc. BUT the most interesting retired couples I know are the ones who both had interesting and stimulating working lives! Phases of our lives - single life, partnered life, parenting young children, parenting older children, retirement - don't simply exist in isolation! I tend to find that interesing people remain interesting people. Boring people remain boring.

I don't have much to add to this conversation really except a comment to Xenia's
"On what do the idle rich do -well whatever their sex they do what they've always done - either lots of worthy causes, running their estates, lives or lotus eating doing nothing or drugs of course and seeking the next thrill. Not too different from those on the dole really."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA, Yes I often see people coming out of the Jobcentre and heading off to go hunting with the local Rah's.
Also, that bollocks about 'worthwhile causes' is just what the rich people say to make out they're helping by not working. In reality it's all oneupmanship. I've read all those chick lit books you know, it's all about the right china when you have a coffee morning to arrange fundraising for the poor orphans

inthegutter, of course I'm not advocating a return to the cave era. As an historian and lawyer that would be unlikely as well as just plain bonkers.

I feel strongly that there is a difference between very young children who cannot articulate their needs and school age children who can. Very young children need consistent secure attachments and love IMO. I'm sure that some paid carers are able to provide this, just as some mothers are hopeless. I think the Sure Start programme aims to help children who are neglected in their own homes because in some cases it is much better for young children to be in some form of daycare. I doubt that this applies much to MN mothers who seem on the whole to be very articulate, educated and interesting (even if they are SAHMs!).

As for whether mothers want to stay at home full time, or work full or part time I have no view on this. In fact, I think after school clubs, wraparound care etc are quite good developments as they extend women's choices. I know that I, for one, never expected to give up work for 20 years but events certainly seem to be conspiring in that direction. I do agree with Anna, however, that being at home certainly does not make for being dull and in fact enhances your ability to enjoy different aspects of life (money being a huge factor).

Babies, however, are reliant on us to make the best decisions for them and this is why it's an important matter for social debate.

Rosetip - I agree very strongly with you on the difference between babies/toddlers who cannot articulate their needs and children who can already speak and make themselves understood to teachers and other adults.

I did not feel able to leave my daughter for any length of time with anyone much at all except for my mother and my partner until she could talk. Now that she can (and goes to school) I feel quite differently. Of course, I would still always want to leave her with people who are kind to her and whose company she enjoys.

Rosetip - I see where you're coming from now - that last post makes it a lot clearer that you aren't taking an extremist view in either direction.
For me, the post that sums it all up on this thread was one from themildmanneredjanitor:
'what infuriates me about these threads-especially ones where xenia starts saying that all sahm's are dull and boring and thick and then anna retaliates by saying that running 15 homes and organising 2 holidays a month in barbados while teaching your three year old greek, is that the 'people' they talk about bear no relationship to any real living people i have ever met in my whole life.

it's like you both state your cases, and base your opinions on characters from a joanna trollope novel........ '
absolutely agree with the above. I wish we could have a debate on this without it being highjacked by people who are clearly in very privileged positions and just want to bang on about how wonderful their life is. 99% of the population do NOT live like this. We can't afford to singlehandedly put 5 kids through private school (even if we wanted to -but that's another thread!!) nor do we all find a rich partner or have so much dosh stashed away that we can afford to be SAHM who zap off here there and everywhere while the cleaners and gardeners run the
house(es) for us. It's NOT REAL LIFE FOR THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY. The debate is far more relevant when rooted in the kind of framework that most of us live within.

Self esteem tied up in a job
Fucking loons IMHO

Xenia, I think you must move in very dull circles. Why do you continiously feel the end to criticise others who make different choices to you?
Of course, there are boring SAHMs as there are boring working mothers-and you are coming across as one of the latter, frankly.
I suppose you got the debate you wanted on here, with everyone feeling defensive about their choices.
You never talk about anything joyous or happy or interesting-maybe it's your life that lacks something?
And is Ruby Wax really wise in your eyes? I must say it's not a description I would use.
And isn't it interesting that only the dull and boring mothers turned up at your sister's party? Hold on let me think.....

Piffle - you are right

Actually, it is psychologically pretty dangerous to have too much of one's self-esteem dependent on one's job. Jobs come and go and most people reach retirement these days and have many years when they no longer have a job.

Self-esteem ought to come from being a valued member of your family and community.

Anna8888 I'm sure it's pretty dangerous to have too much of one's self-esteem dependent on any one thing! I agree that it should partly come from being a valued member of your family and community; I also think it can often come from being valued by your colleagues, your clients -in my case the young people I teach. It makes me feel good about myself and my contribution to society when they tell me I've made a positive impact on their lives. Of course jobs come and go - I've worked in many different jobs/roles and I like to think I've learned new persepctives each time before moving on. And as I said before, the chances are if you've had a rounded and fulfilling work life, you'll probably value and enjoy your retirement more. After all, the term retirement does rather imply that you were previously working!! The fact that jobs come and go is irrelevant to their impact and significance. I've also had some great friends whose company I've enjoyed and then moved on from. Doesn't mean the friendship was a waste of time! My family are the constant core of my life, and the most important thing to me; my friends, travelling, my career, the arts and so on are also pretty important.

My self-esteem comes from tight tops tbh.

Even after children Victorian? Lucky you. I am heading seriously south after 3 lots of breastfeeding. In fact, I recently saw a plastic surgeon to discuss botox (sad, but true) and he whipped out a file of photos of boob jobs/tummy tuck combination ops without any prompting from me! In case anyone is interested, he said the majority of his clients just want lifts now and not enlargements. This is why I'm on the "going back to work" thread as I may have to save up.

Yo know I would not prefer to be at work or at home. WTF does that make me?

I am home at the moment sick and dd is in nursery and ds in school. Despite being quite ill I am sooooo bored. I soreted out our finances yesterday but today between bouts of sleeping I just feel low (could be the illness).

ANyway each to their own I say.

Wonderbra's Rosetip

you are all too verbose.

ruby is far more succinct aND funny to boot

I am a SAHM. I dont feel offended by Xenia's comments. Many disagree with her but at least she brings a consistent alternative perspective.

I was very career-oriented pre-children. I gave it all up when DD1 was born and haven't regretted it. I'm often knackered and stressed with the children but I stand by the choices I have made. I am lucky that I dont have to work (yet) but I also realise it is important to respect the choices other people make.

By insulting each other then the 'argument' is actually lost on both sides.

FWIW - i thought the Ruby Wax was response was good, and interesting

I am disgusted at the personal attacks on Xenia. She should be able to come on here and give her opinion, without some people coming down on her like a ton of bricks. She has calmly stated her pov. I'm a SAHM & I don't feel affronted by her views at all, I wonder why some of you would? Careful, or you'll prove her point!

Frosty, I'm with you completely.

I don't mind. And I do post/think/write about lots of other subjects but not on here.

On the love thing we all draw our own boundaries. Some people send their children to board at 7 which I regard as abusive and yet I'd leave a 2 week old at home with a nanny (yes I did know what care was given - she stayed for 10 years, me or their father was often at home - he has 9 week school holidays so could check she was good with the children and she was so it wasn't that you leave them and have no idea about how they are cared for any more than if you leave them with granny or their father etc). Other thinks nursery school is an abomination and won't leave them until school at 5 - something people like Anna are happy to do. Others won't leave them at school at all and educate at home.

Self esteem from tight tops.. well may be. That's not exactly the feminist position and isn't always wise for long term mental health as your looks go but your career and family relationships (hopefully) don't so putting all the esteem into looks is bad and one of the principal issues for women my age + coping with losing that in which you placed your all - your looks.

(ps I never thought breastfeeding had any impact on breasts at all but may be it is so).