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."

hey it's my opinion that I'm doing something better
I'm very lucky I have the choice to not work - I fully appreciate that aspect.
I am degree educated, fluent in 2 foreign languages and have excellent opportunities if I wanted to pursue them employment wise.

I feel it is more important to see my kids through their formative years by being at home.
So from where I'm sitting I'm right because it's right for me and it works for my family.

Actually FWIW dp has shag all input as he works a 2 hr each way commute away.

But that's another tale

Piffle, I agree with you. My dc1 recently started reception and I am so glad that I have spent those important pre school years with her. I cherish my time with ds1 so much and I can see how formative these years are and how much I enjoy this time in my life.
I will be back to work when they are both at school and I know I will look back on this time as a wonderful period in all of our lives.

mrsruffalo & Piffle - Excellent posts. I agree.

I keep saying that people should do what works best for them and their families. Never mind what Ruby Wax or anyone else has to say.

to put another view my wee one has been in nursery since 6months old and i wouldn't change that for the world, great staff, lovely friendships, range of activities that is my wee one's formative experiences.

It's pathetic that this has turned into yet another 'SAHM vs WOHM' thread.

Piffle: "Tis more the dire thought of someone who does not love them teaching them their formative language and moral conduct."

Anniemac: "Wsa trying to stay away from this thread and the suggestion that workign mums don't have input into DD's formative years and moral upbringing - how insulting!"

Anniemac - what point is there in misquoting Piffle and then getting cross with the way you misquoted her?

Piffle in no way implied that working mothers have no input into their DC's formative years and moral upbringing.

This is where these threads degenerate into silly slanging matches.

FWIW, I belong to a large association here in Paris on bringing up children bilingually. One of the major issues that has been addressed recently is how parents in bilingual families who work full time (mothers or fathers) pass on their language and culture to their children when their children are being cared for all day by childcarers who are not of the same language/culture as the parent. It is recognised to be a major issue. So, yes, working parents (mothers or fathers) have less influence on their children's linguistic and cultural development that stay at home parents.

Are we really surprised by this?

Anniemac - OK . I know that you are sensitive about this topic - and that's as it should be.

As I said yesterday, I am perplexed only by those mothers (working or otherwise) who are not concerned about the input they have on their children's upbringing.

I never said you were not having input
I said I belived I was doing the best by my kids as I saw fit.
Also given that most of the CM's and nurseries in my area, make Vikcy pollard look over qualified and litertae, I feel I've def made the right choice.

this is only my opinion, it in no way makes what anyone else is doing better or worse.
It is my firm belief that I am the person wh should be the main influence on my kids for their first 5 years - lesenign after age 3 for socialising reasons.

No need to explain or justify your choices I am not criticising anyone. Merely explaining why I feel mine is right for me

Tis ok I know Annie enough and know what she was trying to say, no offence taken at all

As I said before I know thi is a sensitive issue but we should be able to express what we love about our lives without feeling defensive.
I am a SAHM and I love it, both my sisters are working mothers and they love their lives too!

I really wouldn't insult anyone because they are different to me and I don't expect to be insulted because of my choices-I just don't undrestand it.
Working mothers, I salute you
SAHM I salute you too!
As Love Angel says, why does this have to be a battle?

'dp has shag all input'..... I think this comment from piffle is the saddest thing I've read on the thread.
I agree with anniemac - I'm glad my partner and I both see working and parenting as joint pleasures and responsibilities. When you both share the responsibilities, roles don't become polarised, and you will probably find it easier to raise a contented and balanced child who has positive relationships with both parents.
How does it benefit a child to have one parent at home all the time if the spin off is that they hardly get to see the other one?

'So, yes, working parents (mothers or fathers) have less influence on their children's linguistic and cultural development that stay at home parents.'- there may be statistics to back up your quote Anna8888, but that doesn't attach a value judgement to it. I think it's probably fairly healthy for a child to have a range of influences on its development. To take things to there logical conclusion, should we wrap our children up in cotton wool, never send them to school and have them live with us til they're 18 so that we can provide the sole input and influence? Surely the whole point of life is that it is a journey on which we learn and experience through being part of the big wide world.

Lots of stay at home mothers who married well (financially) have nannies. I am sure I would if I were in that position so I could pursue all the various interests I have or even give attention to one child whilst the nanny has the other or others as has often been the case in our family with 5 children.

"But I intensely like the idea that if you choose to stay at home you somehow have to justify your choice by making out that you are doing something 'better' than if you don't. You're not. You're just doing something different." Yes, I agree with that. Obviously some but not all stay at home mothers like to think they are doing the right thing or have some kind of moral high ground but I don't even think it's a neutral issue - home or work; I think work is better for everyone. Most working parents probably don't hold my view and think instead it should be up to the mother or father whether one of them stays at home instead of being a political issue which is very important for male female relationships and the position of women in our society. Never mind that it's excruciatingly dull being a housewife and you are very very subsidiary to and reliant on male earnings in what I regard as not acceptable in 2007.

You are a very fortunate person though Xenia, aren't you, in that none of your five have special needs? And I'm not at all sure why SAMDads are such a problem for feminism.

inthegutter - you have misunderstood.

The point was not that parents should be their children's sole input, but rather that when a parent does not see his/her child enough, it compromises the transition of the parent's heritage.

tranmission not transition

Ok Anna8888 - so the question is about whether a parent sees their child ENOUGH. How do we define what is 'enough'? Because this I think is a really tricky issue. Making this into a SAHM/WOHM debate is narrowing what is really a much broader issue. There are so many factors to consider. Eg a family where both parents work outside the home may well be one where both parents therefore take equal parenting roles. A family where both mum and dad have interesting and stimulating careers, and are coming home refreshed and ready to enjoy time with their children, may be more beneficial than a situation where mum is home all day but maybe bored and watching daytime tv or going to endless coffee mornings rather than interacting with her children. Also, if the father is then sidelined because he's working god knows how many hours a day bearing the full brunt of having to support the family, then that's hardly doing his relationship with his kids much good is it?
I think Xenia has a very extreme view, and therefore many people find it hard to accept, but one thing I think she gets consistently right is the view that BOTH mum and dad are parents, and therefore the more 'equal' the roles are, the better for the kids. 30/40 years ago parental roles were far more polarised.I'm sure we all remember other children from our childhoods where the father was a very remote figure who just went out to work and came home to have his dinner put on the table for him. Maybe some of us even had fathers like that ourselves. I know in my own family, mum was the one who stayed at home and kept house and looked after the kids, while dad disappeared off to work. It certainly didn't do a lot for my relationship with my dad, and I'd also say it didn't do a lot for my mum, who was every bit as capable as my dad, she had a degree and would probably have been very successful if she'd lived in another era when it was more acceptable for mums to have a life outside the home.
I still maintain that this is an issue of balance. Happy, stimulated and interesting parents raise happy, stimulated and interesitng children.

But in the gutter, I think the point is that people can have fantastic rewarding experiences being a sahm, something that Xenia refuses to acknowledge.
I truly do not know have any friends who would rather watch daytime tv than interact with their own children and there are plenty of people in mind numbing boring jobs.
My husband and I have a fantastic and respectful relationship-I find all this talk of traditonal man/woman roles quite quaint and old fashioned, tbh. When I was preganat wiith dc1 and still working myself we both decided that one of us should be at home to look after the baby rather than put her into a nursery and I really wanted to do it, plus my husband earned more than me.
We haven't looked back really. I feel much happier and fulfilled than when I was working and dh has a fantastic relationship with his children. The wage earning aspect doesn't come into it really, it's our money.

mrsruffallo - great! You've obviously got it sorted! And I agree that Xenia is an extremist in that she refuses to acknowledge that people like you exist. But I still think that for most people it's not such a black and white decision. Many people, particularly those in interesting careers, don't WANT to give it all up completely, or would find that the knock-on of giving up totally is that they might take 15 years to re-establish themsleves in a stimulating job. Some parents have strong feelings that they don't want their child to go to nursery at all (as you describe) while others don't hold such a strong view and are happy for their child to spend time in such an environment. As I said, it's all a spectrum. At the most extreme, I have a friend who home educates precisely because she wants to maintain total control over her child's environment and learning. For most people, this would be far too extreme and they would prefer their child to have more opportunities to interact and learn in a broader context.
It's great that you feel totally fulfilled with what you doing, and that your DH feels totally fulfilled with the arrangement too. But don't assume that others who share the roles differently are any less fulfilled!

mrsruffallo - exactly