# To work or not to work , baby due , what to do ! !



## NorthDrum (8 Dec 2008)

Just curious as to people opinions on one partner working or not working (instead of getting child minder or creche etc).

After child minding comes into consideration (any figures would be helpful) what is left to actually spend!! Obviously this depends on what amount of income is being earned, just curious to hear of differant stories! Wasnt sure if this goes in careers or somewhere else as one partner is deciding whether or not a career is worthwhile!


----------



## vandriver (8 Dec 2008)

Our creche in central dublin charges about €980 for a child under one.We never really found this too much of a struggle to find.However,the second child ....


----------



## Mpsox (9 Dec 2008)

We made a decision 2 years ago that my wife would not go back to work after our first. It was made on financial as much as "parenting" grounds. We obviously saved on the cost of childcre, but also on commute costs to work, money my wife would have spent at work(lunch, dinners in the pub with her colleagues in the office etc). More importantly, we're all much calmer as no one is having to rush in the morning to get a smallie to a creche and rush in the evening to get back home to pick her up. If the smallie wants to get up at 7, she wakes at 7, if she wants to sleep til 9, she does that.

I accept from a fianancial perspective it may not be feasible for everyone, but it is worth considering to see if you can do it. There are templates for money makeovers on this site, perhaps you could fill one in and people could give more in=depth advice to you?


----------



## Thrifty1 (9 Dec 2008)

Full time in a creche you are looking of around €900 - €1,000 a month depending on where you live.
A childminder will be around €700 - €800 a month, some will mind in your home, some in theirs.
You would also need to factor in costs such as second car,petrol,train fares etc.
It takes a lot of organisation when you are working full time getting everything ready so be prepared for stressful mornings.
Consider things like making dinners, i know it mad sound mad but since i decided to stay at home i started cooking meals from scratch and saved money rathen than buying frozen food and take aways.

On the otherhand are you the type of person to be happy staying at home all day, it can be very isolating and boring if im to be honest.
Im studying for exams and will be going back to work next year (baby almost 11 months now) so that saves my sanity i couldnt see myself doing this for the long term.
I think these factors need to be considered along with financial ones.
It may seem like a great idea but the novelty wears off.
But im glad i can be with her during these early days.
See how you feel in a couple of months or consider going back part time and you can get the best of both worlds.
Congrats BTW.


----------



## annR (9 Dec 2008)

I agree with Thrifty about the isolation of staying at home.  I don't know what your neighbourhood is like but in many housing estates they are very quiet during the day as everyone is at work.  Perhaps you could put the decision on ice.  Your wife could have a taste of life at home during her maternity leave and afterwards she could talk to work about part time or just resign if that's what she wants.


----------



## michaelm (9 Dec 2008)

NorthDrum said:


> Just curious as to people opinions on one partner working or not working (instead of getting child minder or creche etc).


The best option for the children involved is to be cared for in the home by a parent (ideally their mother).  I think that, where financially practical, families should revert to single-income and care for their own children.  Children grow up very quickly and I suspect many who entrust their care to strangers, when not a financial necessity, may regret that choice down the road.





annR said:


> I agree with Thrifty about the isolation of staying at home.  I don't know what your neighbourhood is like but in many housing estates they are very quiet during the day as everyone is at work.


There are 'mother and toddler' everywhere which are good for getting to know who lives around and about.  Also, once your child goes to school you'll know everybody.


----------



## alaskaonline (9 Dec 2008)

i am a full time single mother (so unfortunately not as lucky as Mpsox wife who used to get her dinners in the pub  ) and after creche and bills paid i have about € 400 (p.month!) left plus the € 160 child benefit for my daughter. believe it or not - we get by and we're not poor or anything is missing. we dont have a car, i dont smoke or drink.
if i would stay at home, relying on state benefits only - i wouldn't be able to survive, so i have no choice but to work!

in regards to the creches themselves - as many advantages there are staying full time home with your wee one - as many are with creches. my daughter wouldnt even look at other people when we were still home (on maternity leave), let alone play with other kids, communicate with others etc. since she is in creche - she is social, open minded and she is doing so many things, i wouldn't find the time to do with her, if i am home. apart from that any doctor will happily confirm that creche children are much healthier and more immune than the ones staying at home 



> once your child goes to school you'll know everybody


 you wait 4 or 5 years to know everybody?


----------



## shaking (9 Dec 2008)

The point of the child been healthier going to creche surprises me; my niece is 2.5 and is minded at home by a child minder she has never had an antibiotic. One of my work colleagues's has their daughter in creche she's 15 months and has been on 3 lots of antibiotics as has my friend's child who's 2 and also in creche. Seems to me kids in creche are always coming down with something - just my opinion!


----------



## alaskaonline (9 Dec 2008)

> she's 15 months and has been on 3 lots of antibiotics as has my friend's child who's 2 and also in creche.


 
this country is a very antibiotics friendly country  serious, the amount of times i had to tell different doctors that antibiotics don't work with virus infections is unbelievable!
the 1st year in creche my daughter was constantly sick, too because of all the kids in one room - each with their own snoddy noses. however, this year (full 2008) my daughter hasn't even had a sneeze (thanks god!) and my health nurse had said/ confirmed to me that as soon as the 1st year in creche is over their immune system is so robust that it takes something very serious to knock them off their little feet while the kids that stay at home til they get to school are being knocked off their feet as soon as they share a classroom with 30 kids - i am speaking only on what i've been told (and what i see with my 7 year old godson who was home the first 5 years of his life....)


----------



## michaelm (9 Dec 2008)

alaskaonline said:


> if i would stay at home, relying on state benefits only - i wouldn't be able to survive, so i have no choice but to work!


The NorthDrum's, it would seem, unlike yourself, have the option; hence the question.  Single parents have it tough.





alaskaonline said:


> in regards to the creches themselves - as many advantages there are staying full time home with your wee one - as many are with creches. . any doctor will happily confirm that creche children are much healthier and more immune than the ones staying at home


I don't think that's true.





alaskaonline said:


> my daughter wouldnt even look at other people when we were still home (on maternity leave), let alone play with other kids, communicate with others etc.


Eh, when you were on maternity leave was she not just a couple of weeks/months old .





alaskaonline said:


> since she is in creche - she is social, open minded and she is doing so many things, i wouldn't find the time to do with her, if i am home.


You have stated you have no option.  Some who do have the option tell themselves that the child is better off in a crèche so they can feel a bit better about handing their kids off for the day.


----------



## alaskaonline (9 Dec 2008)

> Eh, when you were on maternity leave was she not just a couple of weeks/months old .


 if you count up maternity leave you will find that the time you can spend at home goes beyond "weeks"  9 months to be precise and if you're child sticks at you like glue when they're 9 months old, than i dont describe it as "very sociable".



> you have stated you have no option.


 i don't



> so they can feel a bit better about handing their kids off for the day.


 you're not serious are you?  but then again you mentioned those who have the option and if i won the lotto tomorrow i surely re-consider my circumstances


----------



## tara83 (9 Dec 2008)

As someone who's mother worked full time through most of their childhood, I never felt I missed out. I had the same child minder for 10years. In some ways, I would say the oppose. My mother was a happier person as she had interests outside the home.  I have a more balanced view of her as a person and not just a mother who is there to run around after me.  I wouldn't change the way I was brought up.


----------



## Ceist Beag (9 Dec 2008)

Agree with michaelm on this one. We had our first little un in a creche for about 8 months and she was catching a cold/flu at least once a month. Since then we have had her at home and she has never had a temperature since so alaskaonline I certainly don't believe your statement that children are healthier in a creche. We made the decision for my wife to stay at home once our second child came along and we couldn't be happier. Each to their own of course but personally I feel some parents aren't willing to sacrifice certain lifestyle choices to have a parent at home with the children and as michaelm pointed out I think they may regret the time lost out with their kids in later years.


----------



## Thrifty1 (10 Dec 2008)

As regards the health issues of the creche my daughter started when she was 5 months and had never been sick, i cant even count the amount of times she has been sick since then.
Im not working now but still send her for 3 hours once a week and every time she comes home with a runny nose, i honestly dont know if that is going to strengthen her immune system but its never been so bad i have needed to take her to the GP.
Socially before she started she would cry if a stranger looked at her, after a week she was happily smiling and laughing when a stranger spoke to her.

In relation to whether a child is better off at home with its mother, i personally believe in the first year they are but unfortunately thats not an option for many people.
I dont just mean financially either, i may sound selfish but i went to college for 4 years have a good degree, am studying for exams at the moment and will hopefully start my training to become a solicitor soon.
I love my daughter and want the best for her but having a Mam who isnt happy to wave goodbye to her career before it even started and is unfulfilled at home is not best for her.
I want her to grow up knowing women can have a career i want to be a role model for her.

I think its very much an individual choice (taking out financial considerations) and women should not be made feel guilty for wanting to be more than a SAHM.


----------



## Bronte (10 Dec 2008)

It's my experience that creches are good for kids, they have strong immune systems and are better socialised.  I'm glad mine have been through all the diseases/illness that comes with being in a group.  For example mine had chicken pox at a young age, it's great it's over with etc.  The ones that stay at home appear to be healthier because they are not as sick, it's just that they are not exposed to other kids to catch anything.  It was different when we all came from large families and lived in the countryside.  OP your wife should wait until into the maternity leave for a couple of months before making a decision.  Staying at home is not for everyone and your views now may change when baby is born.


----------



## Rigoletto (11 Dec 2008)

michaelm said:


> The best option for the children involved is to be cared for in the home by a parent (ideally their mother). I think that, where financially practical, families should revert to single-income and care for their own children. Children grow up very quickly and I suspect many who entrust their care to strangers, when not a financial necessity, may regret that choice down the road.There are 'mother and toddler' everywhere which are good for getting to know who lives around and about. Also, once your child goes to school you'll know everybody.


 
I totally agree. my wife and I rear our children not the local creche. 
if you can afford it, this is the best way to go. this isnt for everyone some women dont mind handing their children over to strangers every morning, 

I agree with michaelm that many may regret doing this in the long run.  
some mothers have to from economic necessity send their children to creche but it is out of necessity, i think its a bit much when people come on and start spouting rubbish about creches being "good for kids". i would suggest YOU the mother is good for kids (not jane bloggs in the local creche)


----------



## Diziet (11 Dec 2008)

Rigoletto said:


> some mothers have to from economic necessity send their children to creche but it is out of necessity, i think its a bit much when people come on and start spouting rubbish about creches being "good for kids". i would suggest YOU the mother is good for kids (not jane bloggs in the local creche)



And some mothers like their career and would be extremely grumpy if they sacrificed years and years of study and professional development in order to stay at home with their young kids all day every day. Funny how few men do this eh?

It is a choice, sometimes financial, sometimes not. My kids (one of which was in a creche when young, the other looked after by my husband almost full time) seem similarly well adjusted to be honest. The key is not to work stupid hours and to maintain a good home life whether working or not. And believe it or not, there are good arguments for using a creche. 

Personally the idea of mother and toddler groups leaves me cold - I love my kids but don't really want to put up with everybody else's. I'd much rather be working


----------



## truthseeker (11 Dec 2008)

Rigoletto said:


> Ii think its a bit much when people come on and start spouting rubbish about creches being "good for kids". i would suggest YOU the mother is good for kids (not jane bloggs in the local creche)


 
Totally disagree with this statement, children who attend creche develop far better social and interaction skills than a child home alone with a mother. Its also not good for a woman to be stuck home with a child all the time either, many women develop low self esteem about rejoining the workforce at a later date.
I agree with the immune system comments also - although children not in creches dont pick up so many small colds and coughs, it all hits them when they start school as their immune system is weaker than those who didnt go to a creche.


----------



## Rigoletto (11 Dec 2008)

total generalisation. my wife didnt develop low self esteem, nor did my mother and my child is very well advanced socially thank you very much. he attends a multitude of classes (gymnastics etc) and plays (both in sport in the park and in the likes of playzone etc) with other children in our area or friends children. 

just because my son isnt being reared by strangers in a creche does not mean he has a lower immune system than a child abandoned in a creche every day. do you think hes kept in the house like an infant recluse!!?

in relation to the careers, why bother having children if you cant wait to abandon them at some creche door to total strangers, because of your "career" 

so called parents can extol the virtues of creche til they are blue in the face, it sounds like guilt to me. but heh whatever you have to do to console yourself. maybe your childs mammy in the creche can fill you in on what they did today.


----------



## truthseeker (11 Dec 2008)

Rigoletto said:


> total generalisation. my wife didnt develop low self esteem, nor did my mother and my child is very well advanced socially thank you very much. he attends a multitude of classes (gymnastics etc) and plays (both in sport in the park and in the likes of playzone etc) with other children in our area or friends children.


 
I did not say ALL women - I said many women. 
Obviously if a child is exposed to social groups of one form or another (whether it be creche or play groups) they will be assisted in developing better social skills.



Rigoletto said:


> just because my son isnt being reared by strangers in a creche does not mean he has a lower immune system than a child abandoned in a creche every day. do you think hes kept in the house like an infant recluse!!?


 
No - and I did not infer this. The more exposure to the general population a child has the better immunity he or she will build up - that exposure may come earlier (in a creche environment) or later (in school).



Rigoletto said:


> in relation to the careers, why bother having children if you cant wait to abandon them at some creche door to total strangers, because of your "career"


 
It seems to me you believe that women are not entitled to have careers AND children - its one or the other. Thats quite a patronising and bigoted view of the role of women in modern society.



Rigoletto said:


> so called parents can extol the virtues of creche til they are blue in the face, it sounds like guilt to me. but heh whatever you have to do to console yourself. maybe your childs mammy in the creche can fill you in on what they did today.


 
Maybe it sounds like guilt to you because you dont seem to be able to see the bigger picture - that there are many advantages for children in a creche, and advantages for women who use a creche. In the world you seem to live in where women are only allowed be career driven and childless or stay at home mothers its hardly surprising that you 'hear' guilt where none exists.


----------



## ramble (11 Dec 2008)

I think it is clear from the posts that it is a very personal decision.  It depends on a lot of factors not least of which are the individuals involved.  Some parents love to be at home with their babies, some people are better with older children, some babies are sociable and some are not.  People make individual choices which should be respected.  I have worked and not worked since my eldest was born (16 now).  I have always enjoyed being at home with a small baby but once they start walking and get a bit of independance I have to get back to work.  I have met lots of parent over the years and have met a few stay at homes who would be better at work for at least some of the day, for the sake of themselve and their children.  Likewise lots of parents work who would rather not.

The op should enjoy the maternity leave, try to extend it a bit, maybe make prepartions to go back to work, then decide.  You haven't met your child yet nor experienced yourself or your partner as a parent.  Wait and see, talk to lots of people about your options, then decide.


----------



## jubi (11 Dec 2008)

I have been reading this thread with interest. I hear women saying I have a degree and i dont want to give up my career, well I have  a Masters degree and I have stayed at home for 10 years. Woman always say why cant I have career and a child I am afraid that just the way it is. I wish that I could do lots of things men do but I have learnt life isnt fair sometimes and I am not going to sacrifice my childs wellbeing to prove a point. I cant believe that any parent gets their baby out of the bed at 6.0.clock in the morning to put them in a creche all day. If you want your career DONT have a child its not fair. Babies need security and loads of one to one attention.  When I go to parent teacher meetings I am always told I can tell your son has been at home with you and heres why. Totally self assured, extremely sociable and the really big one not aggressive and attention seeking. A lot of teachers have told me that children who have gone to creches are extreme attention seekers and constantly looking for reassurance. My son knows he is top priority and  he is very independent. My child went to nursery for 9 hours a week at 2 years of age and we went to the libary, the park and swimming. I have never heard someone say I wish I had spent more time at work but I have heard people when their children have got older I wish I hadnt missed so much of my child growing up.


----------



## Complainer (11 Dec 2008)

This Indo article might be of interest

[broken link removed]


----------



## Diziet (11 Dec 2008)

Can someone please remind me at which point we time travelled back to the fifties?


----------



## sandrat (11 Dec 2008)

jubi said:


> If you want your career DONT have a child its not fair.


 
So then women should never work otherwise the population is gonna plummet big time and who will pay our pensions?

Why can't the father stay at home? It is looking possible my other half might be doing the same as his job has a question mark hanging over it around the time I am due to return to work (when my baby will be almost a year old). I am the one with the Masters and I am the one with the higher wage so it makes sense that I be the one to work. You take your child to the library? I'm surprised you do that as there are a lot of women working there who have children at home surely you couldnt support such a practice.


----------



## jubi (11 Dec 2008)

Sandrat

I think it is brilliant you are going to have your child being parented by a parent How novel!!!!. I also thought your remark regarding the library was a touch crass. I know there are women who have to work to survive but there are loads of women who say it is my right to work. What about a child rights. I hear working mums  talking about their 2 foreign holidays, new car etc etc. Please get your priorities straight for the sake of our future generations. I worked full time in a high powered job but before I got pregnant I knew I could not have it all. I thought when I was younger I could now I realise I cant. With regard to my future pension my husband is so chuffed to have a good home life and a well adjusted child he pays into a private scheme for me. We live in terraced house 1 car and no foreign holidays GOD how do we survive. I am also amazed you did not applaud my sons good school reports  and the positive side of being a stay at home mum.  If it so awful to be a mother DONT HAVE KIDS. Keep telling yourselves you are doing for it your children. Further people say what if your child turns out wrong and I say I wont have to feel any guilt for it whereas could a working mother say the same.


----------



## sandrat (11 Dec 2008)

The library remark was because I actually work in the lirbary sector and know for a fact that a lot of women there have children but have no choice but to work. We are stretching ourselves to our very limit in order for me to take all my unpaid leave to stay with our daughter. This has also allowed me to continue to breastfeed her which is of great benefit. My husband will only be minding her in a worst case scenario because we actually can't afford for him not to be working. It is touch and go as to whether he will keep his job and if he doesnt whether or not he will get a redundancy package. We live in a semi detached house in the country with a 35 year mortgage. I never said it was awful being a mother I love being a mother. It is not all about career for me, a very good job opportunity came up for me in the last few weeks and I didnt go for it. We don't all have rich husbands who can afford to pay all the bills and mortgage AND  private pension. Could you not work while your child/children is in school? If i did stay home until my daughter started school I wouldn't be able to sit at home doing nothing with my masters degree that my parents struggled to help me achieve.


----------



## Diziet (11 Dec 2008)

Well you obviously have made a decision that works for you. It would not work so well for other people so kindly stop preaching.

And to be honest lots of kids get good school reports. It mostly has to do with the education and financial position of the parents.


----------



## sandrat (11 Dec 2008)

oh and we don't do foreign holidays or irish ones for that matter, I take you are not a young couple just trying to get by pay cheque to pay cheque


----------



## jubi (11 Dec 2008)

Sandrat

I do appreciate your comments regarding needing to work however I do not appreciate the assumptions made here. We earn a monthly income of 2000 euro and we have a rented house because we did not want to saddle ourselves with a mortgage that would mean our child been farmed out to god knows who.There is tendency in this country that buying a house is paramount. With regard to working while child at school who will mind him in holiday time or if he gets sick. In a few short years my son will be independent and then i will be able to get outside work and another thing I have far more responsibility that i ever had when I worked outside the home. Sandrat you talk about having a Masters and feeling it would be a shame to waste it by doing nothing. I did my Masters while being a stay at home mum took longer than normal, however my greatest achievement has been raising my son to be the well adjusted child he is and to say stay at home mums are somehow wasting their qualifications is extremely derogatory. Thanks again for the sisterhood remark it really warms my heart.

With regard to performance at school studies show that children who attend creche for longer than 6 hours a day are more aggressive, have problems with impulse control and are likely to have problems with forming meaningful relationships in later life.


----------



## Bronte (12 Dec 2008)

I think it's really unfair to sling mud at mother's who decide to work or have to work or want to work.  Just because staying at home suits one does not give one the right to critize other mothers choices.  It's really smug and selfsatisfying truth be told.    Some of us do not want to spend the day with their children, I know I certainly don't (send in the cavelry).  That does not mean however that we love them any less than stay at home mums.  Nor does it mean that one is a better parent and how dare anyone imply that they are a better mother than someone else on here unless they have real grounds for doing so.  I would not be as good as minding my kids as the excellent creche which my kids attended.  It was truly brillant, far better than me anyday.  I don't have the link to the study but I know that women who work and try to advance themselves tend to be high achievers and pass that on to their kids.  I couldn't think of anything worse than staying at home and a man paying for a pension for me and me to be grateful for this, is this 2008?  I've seen demented stay at home mums it does not suit everyone and one should never ever be made to feel guilty about it.


----------



## sandrat (12 Dec 2008)

jubi my mortgage now is less than i ever paid in rent. I am assuming you must have a very good life insurance policy on your husband and him on you because if anything were to happen to either of you who would bring in the money and who would stay home with the child? Also what would happen if your husband was to lose his job?

I will not be made feel guilty for giving my daughter the best I can give. It is hard enough to think about having to go back to work without having someone trying to make me feel guilty for doing it. We do not need to back to times when women had to stop work when they get marrried. My grandmother was one of these women, an award winning nurse forced to leave work because she got married.


----------



## Ceist Beag (12 Dec 2008)

I think ramble put it best on this particular issue ... it is a very personal decision and people make individual choices which should be respected.


----------



## truthseeker (12 Dec 2008)

Whats the point of a mother staying at home who doesnt want to? You end up with a frustrated resentful woman - this cannot be good for any child.

In an ideal world I am sure we would all love to stay at home, raise the kids ourselves, let the ideal world mortgage bank pay the mortgages and bills and sit on a deckchair in the garden surrounded by our children and pets while the hubby paints the white picket fence.

Eh - reality check - life is not that easy. Some women have NO OTHER OPTION but to work - if she stays at home youll have a starving child, oh hang on, he gets to spend time with his mother - its ok if he goes without then?

Some women dont want to stay at home, I dont think any woman should be berated for a decision to work rather than stay home to raise children, some women are less maternal than others, jubi has asked about the rights of the child, what about the rights of a woman to a full life that INCLUDES children but is not solely based around them. 

Female children who see their mothers working take on the same values and work ethic, it helps them to develop ambition and to be high achievers.

Guilt about a creche is just ridiculous, do you feel guilty when they go to school? Bad childcare is not going to be good for any child, good childcare may be better than a harrassed mother who doesnt want to be staying at home, trying to make ends meet on one salary, and wishing she had a life of her own. For the women who want to stay at home, great - do so, but taking the holier than thou attitude that you are somehow 'better' than women who choose to work is misguided back patting IMO.


----------



## Thrifty1 (12 Dec 2008)

jubi said:


> Thanks again for the sisterhood remark it really warms my heart.


 
How can you talk about sisterhood when making comments like you have.
I am one of those with a degree and a baby and i dont remember signing my life away when i got pregnant.
I am at home with her at the moment and am hoping to have another baby soon, but by the time she is 2.5 and second baby (please God) is about 7 months old ill be back working full time and studying to become a solicitor.
My husband is just getting going in his career and is not willing to give that up and stay at home. I love my daughter but i only have one life too and im not willing to throw it away and not achieve something i have wanted since i was a child.
Im not fulfilled sitting on the floor singing nursery songs all day, i love it but i dont want to be doing only it for the forseeable future - does that make me some kind of monster?
My mother stayed at home and i was the clingiest child, i wouldnt leave her side, go on school trips, i was very shy, wouldnt speak in class so her staying at home minding me certaintly didnt make me the independant child you seem to think it would.

Even if i had all the money in the world i would still want to acheive my goal, and i dont think my child will be worse off for it.
I will be getting a childminder and she will be looked after in our home.

What will you do when your child goes to school, you will be out of the workforce for 5 years and i would be quite sure you wouldnt get a job related to your master part time.

Real sisterhood is about respecting each others choices and supporting them not trying to prove you are a better mother.

Im sure my mother would have been delighted if i told her at 17 i wasnt going to college as i was going to have kids and stay at home !!!!


----------



## Rigoletto (12 Dec 2008)

Bronte said:


> Some of us do not want to spend the day with their children, I know I certainly don't (send in the cavelry).
> I would not be as good as minding my kids as the excellent creche which my kids attended. It was truly brillant, far better than me anyday. I couldn't think of anything worse than staying at home .


 
so let me get this straight:

you dont want to spend the day with your children
you're not good at "minding them" whatever the hell that means.
you couldnt think of anything worse than staying at home?
*why the hell did you have children!!!!!????? *


----------



## truthseeker (12 Dec 2008)

Rigoletto said:


> so let me get this straight:
> you dont want to spend the day with your children
> you're not good at "minding them" whatever the hell that means.
> you couldnt think of anything worse than staying at home?
> *why the hell did you have children!!!!!????? *


 
Because she is as entitled to pass on her genes as anyone else. My interpetation of her post is that she doesnt want her life to solely revolve around her children, which is a natural and normal way to feel.

Rigoletto - youre not even the one who stays home, so how can you possibly comment on it? If you were staying at home do you think youd be fulfilled? You get to go out and work and see your kids in the evening - so does Bronte.


----------



## Sherman (12 Dec 2008)

Wow, way to use emotive language in this thread Rigoletto. Your tone is downright accusatory and insulting to women (and let's not forget men) who decide that working outside the home is the right decision for them and their families.

As an FYI to those who think that one parent being with the children at all times is the way it has been since the dawn of time, newsflash - many cultures have for aeons used collective rearing of children rather than the nuclear method we in the West are familiar with (and which some on this thread idealise). As others have pointed out, one solution does not fit all, and there is vigorous debate in the academic and medical communities about which approach is best.


----------



## Rigoletto (12 Dec 2008)

my wife and I rear our children not the local creche. we made a lot of sacrifices when we decided to have children. I have given up a lot in my career for our children. I have turned down opportunities to work abroad or sacrificed obvious promotion as I will not work huge hours over time because i want to see my children. 

you make that choice when you decide to have children. 
we have sacrificed many things because children come first. 

I can totally understand why women may decide to return to the workforce when their child reaches school going age, its the women that have children and cant wait to abandon them at some creche door the minute their maternity leave finishes. the women who comment like bronte that they "dont want to spend the day with their children" i see this as repugnant and wonder why these women bothered having children at all. 

as another poster commented what about the childs rights in all this.


----------



## Diziet (12 Dec 2008)

Rigoletto said:


> so let me get this straight:
> 
> you dont want to spend the day with your children
> you're not good at "minding them" whatever the hell that means.
> ...



try spending all day every day with a small child (do you?) and see how easy it is to get frustrated and to crave adult company. And frankly, being with small kids all day is not exactly intellectually stimulating, is it? 

Who says childcare is supposed to be one to one? We have pretty much lost the concept of the extended family, but the extended family model is what is being replaced by paid for childcare. Or childcare by both parents as a team. Or by friends, family, neighbours. Or a mixture of approaches which changes as a child grows up. 

There are rafts of studies, some showing that external childcare is good, some not. Nothing has been proven either way, apart from the fact that, over a whole population, it is the financial and educational position of the parents that affects the success of their children regardless of other factors. 

Asking people why people have children takes the biscuit in the holier than though stakes.


----------



## truthseeker (12 Dec 2008)

Rigoletto said:


> my wife and I rear our children not the local creche. we made a lot of sacrifices when we decided to have children. I have given up a lot in my career for our children. I have turned down opportunities to work abroad or sacrificed obvious promotion as I will not work huge hours over time because i want to see my children.


 
How wonderful for you - not everyone has that luxury, some people dont have careers, they just work for an hourly rate.



Rigoletto said:


> you make that choice when you decide to have children.
> we have sacrificed many things because children come first.


 
Not all children are had by choice, and not everyone would agree children come first, IMO the family unit as a whole comes first, and if that means that economically both parents have to work or for the sake of sanity the woman decides to go to work - then so be it. Sacrificing a womans choices for the sake of children will end up with unhappy women AND children.



Rigoletto said:


> I can totally understand why women may decide to return to the workforce when their child reaches school going age, its the women that have children and cant wait to abandon them at some creche door the minute their maternity leave finishes. the women who comment like bronte that they "dont want to spend the day with their children" i see this as repugnant and wonder why these women bothered having children at all.


 
Dont you think that some women had children because they want to have a family that they will enjoy in later life - not everyone loves babies!
And perhaps other women had children due to pressure from their husband or family about biological clocks ticking etc...
And other women had children because they became pregnant due to contraception failure.

Its not as black and white as you seem to think it is.



Rigoletto said:


> as another poster commented what about the childs rights in all this.


 
What about the womans rights in all of this?


----------



## Thrifty1 (12 Dec 2008)

Rigoletto said:


> I have turned down opportunities to work abroad or sacrificed obvious promotion as I will not work huge hours over time because i want to see my children.


 
But thats only part of your career you expect a woman to sacrifice her WHOLE career.
I too will not work somewhere thats a long commute, or long working hours, that my sacrifice, the same as yours, why are you better?

What if your wife wanted to go back to work and asked you to sacrifice your career until the children are school going age, how would you feel?
Your situation works for you but you need to understand it wont work for everyone, that doesnt make you right or better.
I think if the family home is stable and both parents are happy the child will be happy.


----------



## Purple (12 Dec 2008)

Rigoletto said:


> the women who comment like bronte that they "dont want to spend the day with their children" i see this as repugnant and wonder why these women bothered having children at all.


 What about the men who don't want to spend the day with their children? Is that repugnant as well?


----------



## Diziet (12 Dec 2008)

Purple said:


> What about the men who don't want to spend the day with their children? Is that repugnant as well?



I was wondering about that as well... One would think that 'mothers' make the children all by themselves


----------



## jubi (12 Dec 2008)

Hi all
boy did i open a can of worms about working or staying at home. My major gripe through all this is that we have sacrificed our childrens welfare in order to be politically correct. I made choices and i take responsibility for those choices. Today we all want our happy fulfilled lives but so what if our kids have to be shunted into second place. We are the adults here and as such a little bit of sacrifice wont kill us but it may harm our children emotionally if we continue to harp on about our rights without accepting with rights come responsibilty. People are attacking me for being a kept woman hey I am not kept at all I earn every last penny of MY MONEY. I am confident that what I do cannot be replicated by anybody else hence my self esteem comes from my WORK within the home. We have been fed this notion that in order to be equal we must behave like men. I want women to have equal pay, make their choices regarding contraception, domestic violence to be treated the same as assulting somebody in the street. I want women to be valued for staying at home and not be treated like brainless morans who are only fit to stay at home with their children, Guess who criticize women for staying at home, OTHER women not men. What I dont want is to drink 12 pints, take risks with my sexual health and belch in public and think it is hilarious, Is this what our previous generations of woman fought I dont think so.


----------



## micheller (12 Dec 2008)

Firstly, I just want to agree with another poster in that it's a personal decision which no one should try to sling mud at the other 'side' for.

But I cannot believe the amount of posters inferring that staying at home= no life, no achievement, no challenge. I find it bizarre. 
I worked for 12 years, bettering myself and enjoyed every minute of that stage of my life. When I had the twins I switched gear to a different stage. I still read, have adult company, watch films and enjoy varied discourse. As well as watching ' In the night garden' and singing silly songs 

But that is *my* choice now. Talk of this feminist sisterhood is quite old to me, I shouldn't have to have a career to uphold the strides made by women before me. It is a totally individual choice. The same way that if I wanted to head back to my career as soon as my basic Maternity leave was up- that would also be *my *choice. I really don't get why we have to have a competition to see who's best at parenting.

Anyway, just another slant...


----------



## Diziet (12 Dec 2008)

micheller said:


> But that is *my* choice now. Talk of this feminist sisterhood is quite old to me, I shouldn't have to have a career to uphold the strides made by women before me. It is a totally individual choice. The same way that if I wanted to head back to my career as soon as my basic Maternity leave was up- that would also be *my *choice. I really don't get why we have to have a competition to see who's best at parenting.
> 
> Anyway, just another slant...



Well said - it is a totally individual choice. What is right for one person and their circumstances is not necessarily right for another. And in many cases it is not the stark choice of 'career vs children' but a mix of approaches by both parents, which changes over time.


----------



## Purple (12 Dec 2008)

Jubi & Micleller, I agree completely that parents (mothers or fathers) who stay at home to mind their children are of no less value to society and in no way should they be looked down on. That said I also hope that we have moved passed the misogynistic view that a woman’s place is in the home. The point I was making in my last post is that it is not OK for people to criticise women who choose to work either.


----------



## michaelm (12 Dec 2008)

Diziet said:


> it is a totally individual choice. What is right for one person and their circumstances is not necessarily right for another. And in many cases it is not the stark choice of 'career vs children' but a mix of approaches by both parents, which changes over time.


Who could argue with this? Not I. 

However, I think it's also hard to dispute that the best situation for a young child (up to maybe 30 months) is to be at home with it's mother.  That may not be PC, or gel with peoples 'careers', but it is what it is.


----------



## Diziet (12 Dec 2008)

michaelm said:


> Who could argue with this? Not I.
> 
> However, I think it's also hard to dispute that the best situation for a young child (up to maybe 30 months) is to be at home with it's mother.



Or father. Or grandparents. Or really any loving adult who provides continuity and affection. What they do not need is to be messed about - they need love and structure.


----------



## truthseeker (12 Dec 2008)

michaelm said:


> However, I think it's also hard to dispute that the best situation for a young child (up to maybe 30 months) is to be at home with it's mother. That may not be PC, or gel with peoples 'careers', but it is what it is.


 
Only if the mother wants to be at home minding a baby. If she doesnt then its not going to create a happy and loving environment for anyone.


----------



## michaelm (12 Dec 2008)

truthseeker said:


> Only if the mother wants to be at home minding a baby. If she doesnt then its not going to create a happy and loving environment for anyone.


That child really landed on it feet .


----------



## michaelm (12 Dec 2008)

Diziet said:


> Or father. Or grandparents. Or really any loving adult who provides continuity and affection. What they do not need is to be messed about - they need love and structure.


Tell yourself whatever you need.  Do you realise the hours a trainee Solicitor will have to put in to succeed?


----------



## truthseeker (12 Dec 2008)

michaelm said:


> That child really landed on it feet .


 
We dont live in an ideal world, women suffer post natal depression, dont bond with a new baby, are not maternal by nature but would like a family around them when the children are no longer children, want the extra money that her job pulls in (perhaps she wants to set up a trust fund for her childs future?), feels isolated in the home alone with a small child, resents that she is not out earning her own money, has a husband or partner who is stingy with the cash, cant step away from her career for too long without losing out on some good opportunity, may be in a position that her skills will be out of date if she stays off for 30 months and she will be unemployable, may need to meet study deadlines......

Theres loads of reasons a woman might not want to stay at home.


----------



## Diziet (12 Dec 2008)

michaelm said:


> Tell yourself whatever you need.  Do you realise the hours a trainee Solicitor will have to put in to succeed?



I honestly don't give a monkey's about what a trainee solicitor needs or does not need to do. Unless you want to restrict the debate to parents who also are trainee solicitors . 

Everybody has choices, including the choice of how many hours to work, which of course affects their career options. I personally think that the long hours mentality is particularly damaging to family life.

I don't personally 'need' to tell myself anything; I, like most parents, do the best I can for my children within my means and within my long term plans.


----------



## Sherman (12 Dec 2008)

jubi said:


> What I dont want is to drink 12 pints, take risks with my sexual health and belch in public and think it is hilarious, Is this what our previous generations of woman fought I dont think so.


 
This comes close to being the most bizarre thing I have ever seen on AAM (and that takes some doing). 

What on earth are you talking about?  Are you equating the types in your quote above with working mothers?


----------



## jubi (12 Dec 2008)

Hi Sherman

If this is one of the most Bizarre things you have read on aam what a sheltered life you must lead. Are you a stay at home mum lol. With regard to the comment I made I was merely stating that all the positive things I pointed out to do with equality still need to be worked at but the negative aspects of so called equality are plainly seen everyday of the week. Further your comment does this apply to working mothers unfortunately in many cases it does especially the binge drinking. I have friends who work and they drink loads at the weekend and say I am entilted I have been busy all week.


----------



## truthseeker (12 Dec 2008)

jubi said:


> Hi Sherman
> 
> If this is one of the most Bizarre things you have read on aam what a sheltered life you must lead. Are you a stay at home mum lol. With regard to the comment I made I was merely stating that all the positive things I pointed out to do with equality still need to be worked at but the negative aspects of so called equality are plainly seen everyday of the week. Further your comment does this apply to working mothers unfortunately in many cases it does especially the binge drinking. I have friends who work and they drink loads at the weekend and say I am entilted I have been busy all week.


 
Jubi - Ive read and reread this post and I am totally lost. What on earth has binge drinking got to do with being a working mother? A binge drinker is a binge drinker no matter what the personal circumstances! Stay at home mothers can be alcoholic. I fail to see what point youre making here? How is alcoholism  or binge drinking a part of equality between the sexes? And how does it have anything to do with whether or not a woman chooses to stay at home and raise children?


----------



## micheller (12 Dec 2008)

jubi said:


> Further your comment does this apply to working mothers unfortunately in many cases it does especially the binge drinking. I have friends who work and they drink loads at the weekend and say I am entilted I have been busy all week.



That is a huge generalisation. I often say that I'm going to have few glasses of wine at the wknd cos I've had a tough week here at home with the guys!  If anything getting out socially regularly has become more important to me because Im at home all week.
I wouldn't say you could align drinking and working habits to be honest.


----------



## michaelm (12 Dec 2008)

Diziet said:


> I honestly don't give a monkey's about what a trainee solicitor needs or does not need to do. Unless you want to restrict the debate to parents who also are trainee solicitors .


Sorry, my mistake, I was mixing up your posts with Thirfty1's.





Diziet said:


> Everybody has choices, including the choice of how many hours to work, which of course affects their career options. I personally think that the long hours mentality is particularly damaging to family life.
> 
> I don't personally 'need' to tell myself anything; I, like most parents, do the best I can for my children within my means and within my long term plans.


I'm in full agreement with you here.  (Your reply was admirably restrained given the intemperate tone of my post.)





jaybird said:


> Another one of your "I'm absolutely right and you're all wrong whether you like it or not" posts. Predictable at least. . .Men can care for children as adequately as women, the difference being that they don't generally want to, and nobody tells them they shouldn't have children.


Who needs a hug? .  I make no apology for being opinionated.  A man can care for a child but he can't mother it.  I can't agree that the role of a father and mother are simply interchangeable (couched enough?).


----------



## micheller (12 Dec 2008)

But 'mother' is just a word.
The father and mother can physically, practically and emotionally do all the same things. To suggest that they can't really lets down men and lessens the need for them, almost marginalising them within the home.

I know as my OH has to do everything too. With twins, I don't have the eight arms required to 'mother' them both all the time


----------



## Ceist Beag (12 Dec 2008)

micheller said:


> The father and mother can *physically*, practically and emotionally do all the same things.


Ahem .... much as I'd like to breastfeed my young fella I don't think either he or I would enjoy that experience!!


----------



## micheller (12 Dec 2008)

Sorry, ok there's that.
But we Bottlefed so that's why I missed that element


----------



## sandrat (12 Dec 2008)

Ceist Beag said:


> Ahem .... much as I'd like to breastfeed my young fella I don't think either he or I would enjoy that experience!!


 
be careful what you wish for, there is a reason men have nipples afterall
[broken link removed]


----------



## Ceist Beag (12 Dec 2008)

sandrat said:


> be careful what you wish for, there is a reason men have nipples afterall
> [broken link removed]



This post will be deleted if not edited immediately! It's only a matter of time before TV3 dedicate an hour to this topic!!


----------



## sandrat (12 Dec 2008)

it might be an and finally on the news anyway, apparently taking too much motilium can make men leak so if you want to help your wife out give that a go first!


----------



## jubi (12 Dec 2008)

Hi truthseeker,

When i spoke about binge drinking it was in the context of what has equality done for women, As far as I can see women seem more stressed and unappreciated than ever before.They are still predominately judged by their beauty and not their capabilities so wheres the Equality.My argument is that the equality of the sexes has not just brought positive aspects to womens lives but also many negative aspects. We now feel that in order to be taken seriously we must behave like men. Men do many wonderful things in this world but they also are responsible for a great deal of misery and I do not want to be equal to a man. I want to be valued and respected for who I am regardless of gender.


----------



## truthseeker (12 Dec 2008)

jubi said:


> Hi truthseeker,
> 
> When i spoke about binge drinking it was in the context of what has equality done for women, As far as I can see women seem more stressed and unappreciated than ever before.They are still predominately judged by their beauty and not their capabilities so wheres the Equality.My argument is that the equality of the sexes has not just brought positive aspects to womens lives but also many negative aspects. We now feel that in order to be taken seriously we must behave like men. Men do many wonderful things in this world but they also are responsible for a great deal of misery and I do not want to be equal to a man. I want to be valued and respected for who I am regardless of gender.


 
Im not sure in what context you mean women are still predominately judged by beauty, certainly in my job Im judged on my skills, no matter how I look (so long as I am clean and presentable). 
Even in a dating context people tend to be judged on a myriad of factors, it seems a little over simplified to assume that ANY gender is judged solely on looks (no matter what the context). 

Do you not think that there are now women who have more choices available to them because they can earn their own money (if they want to?). 

I dont understand why you think that women are more stressed now (seems like a big generalisation), my own mother didnt work after marraige was and always stressed! I think that depends on the individual and not whether or not they work.

Of course equality has brought some negative aspects, but I would say the positives outweigh the negatives in terms of evening the playing field between men and women.

Women are also responsible for a lot of misery - its 'people' who create misery, not necessarily one gender or another.


----------



## Purple (12 Dec 2008)

jubi said:


> Men do many wonderful things in this world but they also are responsible for a great deal of misery and I do not want to be equal to a man. I want to be valued and respected for who I am regardless of gender.


 I'm sure you mean that you don't want to be the same as men, but you do want to be equal to them.


----------



## jubi (12 Dec 2008)

Sorry Purple,

I have far higher aspirations than been equal to a man. I learnt at an early age that men in general need a lot of guidance I don't need any. lol tongue in cheek


----------



## Thrifty1 (12 Dec 2008)

jubi said:


> Guess who criticize women for staying at home, OTHER women not men.


 
Yes, and guess who critise women for going back to work, also other women.
Why should we care so long as we are happy with our own decisions ?


----------



## jubi (12 Dec 2008)

Thrifty 1 

I am not critizizing women who work, I am being an advocate for voiceless babies and children who are taken out of their warm beds on a winters morning at 6 am to tie in with their parents busy scedules and then left to cry and not given one to one attention which studies show is crucial at least in the first 2 years. Somebody needs to start taking notice of these studies.
When did society begin to disintegrate when mothers decided that they wanted it all.


----------



## Diziet (12 Dec 2008)

jubi said:


> I am not critizizing women who work



Really?



jubi said:


> When did society begin to disintegrate when mothers decided that they wanted it all.



Sounds a lot like it to  me 

cheers
Diziet (who has just been made aware that society's alleged disintegration is her fault and will lose a lot of sleep about it tonight)


----------



## jubi (12 Dec 2008)

Ok Diziet
Explain to me why there is no correlation between children been reared by other people and the society we live in today. We are continuously striving for bigger and better things at the expense of our children so please give me some other reasons why society is falling to bits. Our children see us not taking responsibilty for them and figure why should they take responsibilty for the choices they make.


----------



## Diziet (12 Dec 2008)

jubi said:


> Ok Diziet
> Explain to me why there is no correlation between children been reared by other people and the society we live in today. We are continuously striving for bigger and better things at the expense of our children so please give me some other reasons why society is falling to bits. Our children see us not taking responsibilty for them and figure why should they take responsibilty for the choices they make.



In order to find correlation, you need to state your hypothesis, and the factors that you are testing for, and exclude other contributing factors. I do not have evidence of correlation either way, and I would venture that neither do you.

What you have is an opinion. Everyone has these.


----------



## jubi (12 Dec 2008)

In my masters degree I did a thesis on the effects of taking the mother out of the home and the effect this has had on criminality in society. I garnered information from 2 15 year studies carried out in England and a 10 year study carried out in America. Children in the English study were followed up from the age of 2 years of age until 22 years of age. 80% of children who were put into creches for longer than 6  hours per day were more likely to take risks likely to endanger themselves and others around them. Be more aggressive at school. 62% were seen to have taken hard drugs and astonishingly 72% had broken the law. The main crime being actual bodily harm and substance abuse. The Psychologists concluded from talking to these participants that been separated from their mother at an early age ie before 2 years of age had learnt not to  trust people, to feel isolated in their own problems because they opined that nobody cared about them. They further spoke of feeling abandoned and not feeling secure. I know studies can also show the opposite but you asked me how I could make the statement i did. Please can you tell me why you think it is ok to put any child in a creche for up to 10 hours a day, please tell me how this benefits a baby. I am so not getting it.


----------



## jubi (12 Dec 2008)

Jaybird
Please please answer my final question regarding babies in creches and also read the attachment theory put forward by bowlby and Lorenzos excellent work about bonding and how a child between the age of 6 weeks to 2 years needs a constant primary carer to be there for them. With regard to the study cited earlier there was a 150 children followed from childcare and 150 children minded by their mothers. Further if you read my posts regarding binge drinking I was merely pointing out that equality between the sexes has led to women feeling that they have to be like men in their drinking habits. I was therefore surmising that woman also feel they have to contribute financially whilst raising their children in order to have parity with men. PLEASE READ ALL MY POSTS.  I truly am concerned for children that go to creches and feel that their welfare is being compromised so please stop attacking me.


----------



## sandrat (13 Dec 2008)

what happens to triplets when the primary carer is only there one third of the time? all taking drugs and robbing cars are they? I know plenty of stay at home mothers around me who dont work but get "the social" and they leave their kids (some as young as 2) to their own devices to play on the road on their bikes and trikes, these kids would be better off in a creche.


----------



## Diziet (13 Dec 2008)

jubi said:


> In my masters degree I did a thesis on the effects of taking the mother out of the home and the effect this has had on criminality in society. I garnered information from 2 15 year studies carried out in England and a 10 year study carried out in America. Children in the English study were followed up from the age of 2 years of age until 22 years of age. 80% of children who were put into creches for longer than 6  hours per day were more likely to take risks likely to endanger themselves and others around them. Be more aggressive at school. 62% were seen to have taken hard drugs and astonishingly 72% had broken the law. The main crime being actual bodily harm and substance abuse. The Psychologists concluded from talking to these participants that been separated from their mother at an early age ie before 2 years of age had learnt not to  trust people, to feel isolated in their own problems because they opined that nobody cared about them. They further spoke of feeling abandoned and not feeling secure. I know studies can also show the opposite but you asked me how I could make the statement i did. Please can you tell me why you think it is ok to put any child in a creche for up to 10 hours a day, please tell me how this benefits a baby. I am so not getting it.



References? 

As you are (possibly) aware, the study population, and the way the study is conducted is central to interpretation of the results. Did you look at studies that showed the positive effects of early child care too?

I still think that what you have is an opinion, not a scientific fact. And of course you are entitled to your opinion. If you want to argue with stats, you have to present your arguments a lot more coherently and leave emotion out of it.


----------



## Purple (13 Dec 2008)

jubi said:


> Sorry Purple,
> 
> I have far higher aspirations than been equal to a man. I learnt at an early age that men in general need a lot of guidance I don't need any.



Some women use that attitude to make a load of money (from men who agree with you ) but I'm not sure if that sort of thing is legal in this country


----------



## annR (13 Dec 2008)

Jubi, it's not all black and white.  Every child who goes to a creche is not taken out of their bed at 6am.  Even if they are they probably don't know any different.  Some kids are part time in creches.  Some creches are bad, some are good.  I agree it seems like a tough station for everyone concerned in situations where they all get up really early, work all day and see the child for a couple of hours at the end of the day but people have their reasons.

I used to think that it would be terrible to have a baby and have to put it in a creche and go out to work. but since then I've seen how well my niece and nephew have got on in their creche.  They love it!  They love all their little friends, and the creche workers.  They spend the whole day playing and singing songs and they're as happy as Larry.  It's very hard to meet those kids and think the creche must be bad for them.  

It's also very hard to imagine how you could match that by staying at home with kids.  Imagine having 2 kids under 5 and trying entertain them all day and do a better job at organising all the activities etc that the creche does!  



> what happens to triplets when the primary carer is only there one third of the time?



Sandrat's on to something here.  Many women just cannot cope with being primary carer on their own with no support.  Back in the days all the women stayed at home and you had your mother down the road and all the neighbours and it was safe to have kids running around the place.  Now you're stuck in a housing estate and all the other mammies are working and you can't let the kids run around and everyone has tiny back gardens.  Sure there are mother and toddler groups but what if they're not in your area, or what if you don't drive, or if you can't manage to take all the kids out together.

The world has changed and most mothers and families have to change with it and do their best.


----------



## truthseeker (13 Dec 2008)

annR said:


> Jubi, it's not all black and white.  Every child who goes to a creche is not taken out of their bed at 6am.  Even if they are they probably don't know any different.  Some kids are part time in creches.  Some creches are bad, some are good.  I agree it seems like a tough station for everyone concerned in situations where they all get up really early, work all day and see the child for a couple of hours at the end of the day but people have their reasons.
> 
> I used to think that it would be terrible to have a baby and have to put it in a creche and go out to work. but since then I've seen how well my niece and nephew have got on in their creche.  They love it!  They love all their little friends, and the creche workers.  They spend the whole day playing and singing songs and they're as happy as Larry.  It's very hard to meet those kids and think the creche must be bad for them.
> 
> ...



Excellent post.

I particularly agree with the point raised about women being in a housing estate thats largely empty during the day and little or difficult access to mother/toddler groups.

This is the reality for a lot of people. I was off work for a couple of days sick recently and the area around my home was completely deserted from 8am through to 5pm because everyone was in work. I had no friends off work and I dont have any family. I was lonely and bored after just 2 days. If I were to stay at home everyday minding children I would feel very isolated and lonely. There isnt a 'natural' support system for mothers in terms of community and family the way there would have been when all women gave up work after they married. This is modern society.


----------



## geld (13 Dec 2008)

I am a mum who works outside of the home....and has to as a result of punitative mortgage rates to feed inflated house prices (we live in a 2 bed in an average area...).  I worked hard to get where I am, but would gladly give it up for a while for my son's early childhood, although this also has its disadvantages, as my employer does not facilitate long career breaks and I can only do the job in one place in the country.A change of jobs would mean a change of country?!
I really needed to post here because I take exception to the discussion and assumption that working mums binge drink.  In my experience of friends/family, it is the exact opposite. Although nobody binge drinks, it is the stay at home mums who drink a lot more.  The rest of us are too exhausted trying to juggle 3 hours traffic/day, home, work (and in some cases studies) that we conserve the little energy we have to give it to our children and family life. A point in case is my best friend. Her son is exactly the same age as mine (days apart).  She stays at home and is a brill mum.  She also gets to go out at least once/week.  I go out once maybe every 6 weeks.  Just don't have the energy to face a late night/a few drinks and dashing out the door with toddler in tow at 7am, or on weekends, feeling that I can give my son the best of me if I am exhausted or hungover on the sofa. She can take her time getting going in the mornings, and does not have to look decent and speak sense to a room full of questioning adults at 9am every morning and continue doing so without a break some days until 4/5pm - on these days I am lucky to find the time to go to the loo, and breakfast, lunch and tea is a muffin in the car to collect my son from the creche in the evenings. So, she goes out.  I don't.  She drinks.  The max I have is maybe 2 glasses wine/week (with meals at home), since any more than that and the time taken to drink it going out, just does not fit into my life.  There is no time.  I have not had more than 2 drinks at a time since becoming a mother.


----------



## jubi (14 Dec 2008)

Geld

When i spoke about binge drinking it was totally taken out of context, The point I was making is that people were talking about equality and i was merely stating that there are aspects of equality that are not beneficial to society in general. If equality means that women are treated with respect and are not made to feel second class citizens then that is what our forebearers strived for. However there are women who believe there equality comes from behaving like men in respect of drinking etc THAT was the point I was making. With regard to working outside the home I also maintain that some women believe in order to be valued they must contribute financially even if it not the best option especially for their children because they see mothering as a devalued profession.


----------



## Sherman (14 Dec 2008)

jubi said:


> Geld
> 
> When i spoke about binge drinking it was totally taken out of context, The point I was making is that people were talking about equality and i was merely stating that there are aspects of equality that are not beneficial to society in general. If equality means that women are treated with respect and are not made to feel second class citizens then that is what our forebearers strived for. However there are women who believe there equality comes from behaving like men in respect of drinking etc THAT was the point I was making. With regard to working outside the home I also maintain that some women believe in order to be valued they must contribute financially even if it not the best option especially for their children because they see mothering as a devalued profession.


 
I find it offensive that you equate being a man = binge drinking.  A small minority of the population, both male and female, binge drink.  Kindly refrain from tarring an entire gender in order to make your points about the desirability or otherwise of stay at home parents.


----------



## jubi (14 Dec 2008)

Sherman

We dont binge drink yeah right. When I moved here 11 years ago I was astonished and still am with the amount of drink consumed. When i ask someone did you have agood night they say great craic 15 pints so they equate a good night to how drunk they are. Further are you deliberately misinterperting what I am saying I am not equating binge drinking in relation to working mums I am merely stating AGAIN please note not all aspects of equality for women is BENEFICIAL TO society in general.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT.


----------



## Sherman (14 Dec 2008)

jubi said:


> Sherman
> 
> We dont binge drink yeah right. When I moved here 11 years ago I was astonished and still am with the amount of drink consumed. When i ask someone did you have agood night they say great craic 15 pints so they equate a good night to how drunk they are. Further are you deliberately misinterperting what I am saying I am not equating binge drinking in relation to working mums I am merely stating AGAIN please note not all aspects of equality for women is BENEFICIAL TO society in general.
> DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT.


 
So you're saying that men have always been binge drinking, but for women it's only in the last 15 years due to feminism?  Maybe you're moving in particularly alcohol-fond circles?

You are directly linking the rise in the occurrence of working mothers (facilitated by, you argue, greater equality between men and women) with a breakdown in society, a symptom of which you argue is increased binge drinking among women.  Where am I misinterpreting you exactly?

Oh, and please don't shout in your posts.


----------



## Purple (14 Dec 2008)

Sherman said:


> So you're saying that men have always been binge drinking, but for women it's only in the last 15 years due to feminism?  Maybe you're moving in particularly alcohol-fond circles?
> 
> You are directly linking the rise in the occurrence of working mothers (facilitated by, you argue, greater equality between men and women) with a breakdown in society, a symptom of which you argue is increased binge drinking among women.  Where am I misinterpreting you exactly?
> 
> Oh, and please don't shout in your posts.


Yea, I find that strange as well. I don't binge drink and I never have. Most of my friends don't either. 
BTW, in many cultures (and most agrarian societies) children are minded in the village by the elderly women and older girls while their mothers work in the fields. Since this is common in Kenya and Tanzania, the place we all came from, is it reasonable to suggest that a mother staying at home with her kids all day in unnatural and communal minding (the Crèche) is the more natural way for children to be minded. My children don't go to a crèche so I have no axe to grind on this one.


----------



## jubi (14 Dec 2008)

Sherman 
please answer one question and then we will leave this discussion. Do you think that on the whole equality has made our society better or worse vis a vis working mothers. Please point out benefits to society especially for  our children and the disadvantages.

Purple your comment regarding the  community rearing children can you please enlighten me is their a high turnover of carers in these communities you are talking about like there is in creches I am puzzled as to how you can equate the two together. In African society the children are better behaved, have excellent values and therefore they would not be as affected being reared by the village whereas our children are already at a disadvantage with regard to  little discipline and a poor moral framework within our society, therefore creche care would be a poor substitute for the moral guidance offered by parents. I worked in Kenya for 1 year and yes there is a saying it takes a village to rear a child but if a child misbehaves they are allowed to chastise the child try doing that here.


----------



## micheller (14 Dec 2008)

jubi said:


> In African society the children are better behaved, have excellent values and therefore they would not be as affected being reared by the village whereas our children are already at a disadvantage with regard to  little discipline and a poor moral framework within our society, therefore creche care would be a poor substitute for the moral guidance offered by parents.



You are coming out with odder and odder huge generalisations- can you see that? All irish children are poorly disciplined, morally starved brats?
Crazy


----------



## PaddyBloggit (14 Dec 2008)

This thread has lost all sense of direction.


----------



## paddyd (14 Dec 2008)

PaddyBloggit said:


> This thread has lost all sense of direction.



to get back on topic, we've sent our first to the local creche since he was 9 months old. Its just round the corner, run by the locals (co. Dublin commuter town) and our child absolutely loves it.

plus points:
- Just a minutes walk away
- lovely staff (and well staffed). Same girls minding him since he joined 2 years ago
- well priced. 815pm
- dropped off at 7.45, picked up about 5.30
- we get a daily report sheet (what they ate, slept, pooped etc)
- they play different games and educational items every day, something impossible to organise as well at home, no matter how hard you try.
- fit kidz
- interaction with other children; some great best friends, great to see them interacting
- meet all the local parents in the same situation. We're not locals so its been great
- cost of changing to single-income is a lot
- child is in a routine. its not to everyones taste, but makes getting them to sleep and up in the morning a breeze.
- kids from the creches are further advanced when it comes to starting school. Its not an important thing; they are only 5 at that stage after all, but this has been verified by a few close friends who are infant and remedial teachers. Our creche has its own sylabus for wobblers, toddlers, pre-schoolers etc.

cons:
- as someone pointed out, they catch every bug. Doc's always keen on antibiotics, so we've become much better at self-diagnosis (the non child-neglect kind)
- cost. its not cheap, whatever the price
- the 'not raising your own lids' argument, and in particular not knowing if its even a valid argument
- burning up haft a years holidays when they can't attend the creche after catching a bug
- they do a longer day in the creche than I do at work


All I know is that we consider ourselves lucky to have such a great creche, and when no.2 arrives in the coming months, we'll do exactly the same, and send both to the creche.


----------



## jubi (14 Dec 2008)

Did i say all children no i didnt, I said that we have seen a decline in childrens behaviour in recent times, Please dont insult me by saying this is not the case. We have teachers assaulted, bullying is rife in our schools, Children appear to have lost the abilty to say please and thankyou, there are 
more and more children being diagnosed with adhd. Our childrens innocence is being eroded. Our children are required to fit in with their parents lifestyle and therefore their own resourses at a much earlier age and they clearly cant handle it. Hence a prolifiration of risky behaviour. Please wake up all parents and smell the coffee otherwise our future generations are in a lot of trouble.


----------



## sandrat (15 Dec 2008)

did they know about adhd 100 years ago? they would just beat the child until they saw sense, maybe changes are due to reduction in walloping?


----------



## jubi (15 Dec 2008)

Sandrat
ADHD caused by higher levels of cortisol caused by stress. I wonder why a 1-2 year old would be stressed 
This article was written by Oliver James who is an emminent clinical psychologist psychologist The article is called blind feminism and it sums up for me what I have been attempting to put across.
  I spent a week in Copenhagen observing 18-month-olds in what is often regarded as the best day nursery in the world. The Danish Government holds it up as the model of its system (three quarters of Danish children are in day-care nurseries by age 18 months), and representatives from all three of our political parties have been shown around it. But the most unbiased of observers would have found it hard to avoid the conclusion that the toddlers were upset by their care. Some became aggressive, others withdrawn, but it was horrifying to see the contrast between their wellbeing at home, where I also observed them, and their manifest distress while at the nursery. 
 Although I admire Toynbee’s writing on many subjects, she epitomises the blindness to evidence found in this area. When Jay Belsky, the distinguished psychologist, published the findings of the Sure Start evaluation in the _British Medical Journal_, it turned out that the programme had not only failed to help the children, but had also led to worse outcomes for some of the most disadvantaged. 
 For instance, a survey of all the studies on its impact found that whereas 41 per cent of children in day care for more than 20 hours a week were insecure, this was true of only 26 per cent of toddlers cared for full-time by their mothers. More recently, a definitive study of more than 1,000 British children by Penelope Leach revealed that children who experienced day care were more likely to be disturbed than children cared for by minders or by grandparents. Most recently, several studies have demonstrated heightened cortisol levels and proneness to ADD. The most consistent finding is that such children are more likely to be aggressive. 
 Interestingly, few if any of the new Labour elite opt for group day care for their own children. They prefer one-on-one nannies. I once heard a new Labour woman minister say, “if women really want to sit around all day looking after their children, OK”. Like the vast majority of senior politicians, she had never done so — otherwise she would have known that it is nothing less than the most exacting of roles. 
 Real feminism requires us to reevaluate the roles of both men and women. Of course, that means women having careers as men do — but not at the expense of their role as mothers. Likewise, it entails men becoming much more involved in caring for their small children and investing less in their careers — at present, by far the most significant pillar of identity for both sexes in the English-speaking world.


----------



## sandrat (15 Dec 2008)

I see nannies mentioned, so it is ok to go off to work and leave the child with a nanny but not in a creche? Were the introduction of new carer to child ratios ever taken into account in these studies? I think a child would be more disturbed if they were minded all day by someone who resented minding them like a mother forced to give up work after having a child.


----------



## jubi (15 Dec 2008)

sandrat

The article actually states that whilst entolling the virtues of day care the Labour ministers obviously didnt want it for their own kids, its a bit like the ministers here where they say state education is brilliant and send their own kids to  private school. Its alright for us but This post will be deleted if not edited immediately I am not risking my own childs welfare by doing it.  Further comment on why a 1- 2 year old might be stressed and the notion put forward in the article that whilst women are entilted to have a career should it be AT THE EXPENSE OF MOTHERHOOD. I am beginning to realise sandrat that you cant answer the tough questions so again WHY would a 1-2 year show heightened cortisol levels in their system from attending daycare.


----------



## PaddyBloggit (15 Dec 2008)

jubi ~ you seem to be getting a little bit stressed. And a little bit overwrought as evidenced by your use of caps.

With all you've written I haven't a clue about what you are trying to say!

Any chance you'd bulletpoint your points to illustrate your stance? (in as calm a fashion as possible)

Thanks!


----------



## sandrat (15 Dec 2008)

article goes on to say that in europe children are minded in their homes until 1 year old. I am doing that well until 11 and a half months. If maternity leave was available and affordable for that long maybe more people would do the same. Please stop shouting in posts, use italics for emphasis if you must. Personally i think that maternity leave should be extended and breastfeeding rights in the workplace should be extended beyond 6 months but in recessionary times I don't see it happening. I was not minded at home by my mother - she had to go back to work when I was 8 weeks old but I don't have ADHD and neither do my siblings. I don't see where in the article he mentioned the medical fact of heightened cortisol levels, did he do blood tests or just observe for a week? Maybe being watched by a strange man for a week made them feel stressed?


----------



## jubi (15 Dec 2008)

Paddy

I am so not stressed, i am bloody angry that children lives are disrupted so that we can have it all and their needs are very much pushed into the background all in the name of political correctness and our acceptance as a society that this is the best way forward.

Sandrat

I totally agree that maternity leave should be extended for mothers.Iflly maintain that  the first 5 years are crucial for the child. The reason I write capitals is because nobody appears to be able to answer the tough questions.Further you pointing out that you survived a working mother with no adhd is not really scientific. Finally the article asks should a womans career be at the expense of motherhood. This for me is the most important question in this whole debate.


----------



## sandrat (15 Dec 2008)

I'm pretty sure having a job doesnt disqualify me from the job of a mother. I don't believe you responded to my comment about children of stay at home mothers in my area being left out on the road to play, is that good for the child? It is about as scientific as a man decided on childrens stress levels based on a week observing them in a creche. Do you not believe that a child younger than 5 would benefit from attending some kind of montessori or play school before attending mainstream school or are schools the cause of adhd too and we should all be home schooling?


----------



## truthseeker (15 Dec 2008)

Jubi - I am lost (and not for the first time) with your posts.

Whats all this obsession with binge drinking? Do you think all men binge drink - thats an extraordinary generalisation to make. Women drank long before they had equal rights in the workplace as men - I do not see the correlation between binge drinking and equality at all!!
I wouldnt think that working mothers binge drink anymore than mothers who dont work - I dont think you can link together binge drinking and working habits, nor do I think you can make thr assumption that all men binge drink - there are binge drinkers out there, personal circumstance varies greatly.

I disagree with your comment re childrens behaviour. I dont think it has worsened with modern society or with equality. I think people have greater access to information than they ever did and if a child assualted a teacher in 1950s Ireland in a remote village in the west no one else outside of the immediate community would have known about it, but today its splashed all over newspapers. Its a massive generalisation to say that children are more badly behaved now than in the past.

You are quoting individual studies, that may or may not have been designed correctly with a large pool of subjects and a large pool of control subjects, taking other factors into consideration.
I could go off and google and find you studies proving the opposite.

At the end of the day all you are presenting (with some very odd generalisations) is your opinion.

You think that women cannot have both a career and be a good mother. This is your opinion. Perhaps you cant. Perhaps for you its one or the other.
But that is not the case for everyone.


----------



## Thrifty1 (15 Dec 2008)

Great post Truthseeker, and i particularly agree with your comments regarding the studies.

Im not going to go into the binge drinking, jubi you must at this stage realise your comments on this make no sense.

After reading (and re reading) your posts i have come to the conclusion you think that women dont want to stay at home as we view women who do as 50's throwbacks and we want to be equal to men and in order to achieve that we feel we must go out to work and earn as much money as our male counterparts. Am i correct?
You also feel that we are willing to sacrifice our children's welfare in order to feel equal to men.

If i am correct and you believe this then that is the most ludicrous view i have ever heard expressed. Do you honestly believe women are that foolish and ignorant and desperate to feel equal to men that we would do that. Can you not for one moment consider that women want to achieve this for themselves?
I do not think that my husband's work outside the home is more valuable than my work in the home and i can assure you neither does he.
I would also be quite confident in assuming there are very few people reading these posts who feel that way either.
Equal does not mean the exact same, men and women can do work of equal value without it being the same this is common sense, i dont know anyone who went back to work for the reasons you put forward.
You unfortunately have a very narrow and distorted view of how people think.


----------



## Diziet (15 Dec 2008)

jubi said:


> Further you pointing out that you survived a working mother with no adhd is not really scientific. Finally the article asks should a womans career be at the expense of motherhood.



Jubi, your own arguments are far from scientific. You have started from your own belief and have sort-of-quoted a bunch of studies as though they are perfect examples of statistical research, with nothing to back up the validity of the methodology other than some rather shrill capitalised comments. You offer no peer reviewed references, and studies of this type can be constructed to show anything the originator wants to show; any statistician knows that. A good researcher analyses the limitations of their methodology. 

I would venture that this is probably not the place for this type of scientific debate anyway; there are countless arguments and studies for and against. Your problem is that you are not happy that people make choices that you don't approve of and instead of accepting that others are making their decisions in good faith, balancing all their individual circumstances you jump up an down and stamp your feet when people evidently don't agree with your arguments. You would probably be heartbroken if all these children who go to nurseries don't grow up to be delinquents . Or by the realisation that all these mythical feminists are not binge drinkers


----------



## Purple (15 Dec 2008)

Is society perfect? No.
Is it better than it was in the 50’s? Absolutely.

Equality means that people have choices. Women may feel that they have to work in order to attain or attain the lifestyle they want for them and their family. That is their choice. This may have a positive or a negative impact on their children (I am sure there are children who would be better off if their mother or father was at home all day just as I am sure that there are those who would be better off in a crèche) but at the end of the day it is not the function of the state to dictate the details of how parents decide to care for their children. 

I do not believe that children are fundamentally worse behaved now than they were in the 1950’s. They might be a little more mouthy but they are less likely to be beaten at home or at school and they are less likely to be abused by those who care for them.

Women may have to work outside the home but they have rights under the law. 40 years ago it was not against the law for a man to rape his wife, it was not against the law for him to turn her out in the street with nothing, even if she was much smarter and earned a good wage if she worked in the civil service she had to leave her job when she got married. Feminism means that women can make their own choices and this also means they can make their own mistakes (just like men) but it’s a damned sight better than being forced to be the prisoner of someone else’s mistakes.


----------



## Rigoletto (15 Dec 2008)

sandrat said:


> I'm pretty sure having a job doesnt disqualify me from the job of a mother.


 
of course it doesnt disqualify you, you merely chose to give that job away to someone else. you have a job and the creche raises your children. 
its your choice to abandon your child, you must really love your job. good luck with that.


----------



## truthseeker (15 Dec 2008)

Rigoletto said:


> of course it doesnt disqualify you, you merely chose to give that job away to someone else. you have a job and the creche raises your children.
> its your choice to abandon your child, you must really love your job. good luck with that.


 
Rigoletto - you are making no sense whatsoever. 

Do you think that a child going to a creche = abandonment? What rubbish.

How do you qualify the 'creche raises your children' comment? Is it impossible for you to see that a child only goes to a creche during the parents working hours? The way you phrase it one would think a child spends 24/7 in a creche, instead of 8-5 (or 9-6 or whatever), 5 days a week.


----------



## Rigoletto (15 Dec 2008)

jubi said:


> Paddy
> 
> I am so not stressed, i am bloody angry that children lives are disrupted so that we can have it all and their needs are very much pushed into the background all in the name of political correctness and our acceptance as a society that this is the best way forward.
> 
> ...


 
excellent post Jubi. 

the long and the short of it is women abandoning their children to be raised by strangers in some creche for the sake of their "careers" (probably dead end nine to five jobs). the only acceptable reason to send children (which you have chosen to have) to a creche is economic necessity. by all means return to the work force when the child is school going age but why abandon them when they need you most?


----------



## ClubMan (15 Dec 2008)

truthseeker said:


> Rigoletto - you are making no sense whatsoever.
> 
> Do you think that a child going to a creche = abandonment? What rubbish.


Exactly. Leaving a child in a creche is hardly abandonment!


----------



## truthseeker (15 Dec 2008)

Rigoletto - you yourself have stated in this thread that YOU work. So by your own standards you have in fact abandoned your own child.


----------



## Rigoletto (15 Dec 2008)

truthseeker said:


> Rigoletto - you are making no sense whatsoever.
> 
> Do you think that a child going to a creche = abandonment? What rubbish.
> 
> How do you qualify the 'creche raises your children' comment? Is it impossible for you to see that a child only goes to a creche during the parents working hours? The way you phrase it one would think a child spends 24/7 in a creche, instead of 8-5 (or 9-6 or whatever), 5 days a week.


 
children are abandoned at creches from as early as 7am and not collected until 12 hours later when all they are ready for is bed. so if they dont see their parents in any meaningful way, i would contend that it is the creche that is rearing them.


----------



## Rigoletto (15 Dec 2008)

truthseeker said:


> Rigoletto - you yourself have stated in this thread that YOU work. So by your own standards you have in fact abandoned your own child.


 
my wife chose to be a sahm and as such she raises my children until i return from work and then i help with the parenting. mother and father not total stranger from the creche.
have you children truthseeker?


----------



## truthseeker (15 Dec 2008)

Rigoletto said:


> my wife chose to be a sahm and as such she raises my children until i return from work and then i help with the parenting. mother and father not total stranger from the creche.
> have you children truthseeker?


 
But this logic contradicts your earlier points - you are saying people are 'abandoning their children' in creches and the kids are only fit for bed by the time they are collected. How are your children any different by the time you get home from work?
By your logic only your wife has a hand in raising them - not the person who works.


----------



## Rigoletto (15 Dec 2008)

truthseeker said:


> But this logic contradicts your earlier points - you are saying people are 'abandoning their children' in creches and the kids are only fit for bed by the time they are collected. How are your children any different by the time you get home from work?
> By your logic only your wife has a hand in raising them - not the person who works.


 
I finsih work early and work flexi time (at the detriment of my career) so that i help in the rearing of my children. 
you never answered my question, have you any children truthseeker?


----------



## sandrat (15 Dec 2008)

I don't have a dead end 9-5 job as it happens


----------



## sandrat (15 Dec 2008)

finishing work early on flexi time probably means starting work early, you still have to do the same number of hours surely so you abandon your child/children to the care of you wife and let her to the raising whiel you work in your dead end job


----------



## ClubMan (15 Dec 2008)

Rigoletto said:


> you never answered my question, have you any children truthseeker?


What does that matter? Where somebody does or does not have children does not determine whether or not they can comment on such issues.


----------



## Rigoletto (15 Dec 2008)

ClubMan said:


> What does that matter? Where somebody does or does not have children does not determine whether or not they can comment on such issues.


 
not it certainly does not i agree clubman but having children does change ones perspective on things. I merely ask the question, if he/she is unable to answer that question thats fine.


----------



## truthseeker (15 Dec 2008)

Rigoletto said:


> I finsih work early and work flexi time (at the detriment of my career) so that i help in the rearing of my children.
> you never answered my question, have you any children truthseeker?


 
Thats your choice. Time will tell if your children turn out to be 'superior' to those who went to a creche.
What standards would you use to judge that? 
What type of differences do you expect to see in your own children as a result of not going to a creche.

Whether or not I have children is irrelevant to my opinion, I believe all mothers should have the choice to work without being made to feel guilty about it.


----------



## Rigoletto (15 Dec 2008)

perhaps if you had children you would see things differently.


----------



## truthseeker (15 Dec 2008)

Rigoletto said:


> perhaps if you had children you would see things differently.


 
Do you have any other predictions on how I may think depending on past/future events?


----------



## Purple (15 Dec 2008)

Rigoletto said:


> perhaps if you had children you would see things differently.


I have children and I don’t think differently.


----------



## jubi (15 Dec 2008)

Purple 

In response to your argument we have it better now, I would ask better for who the women or children. People here talk about the child reared in the 50s being only slightly better behaved,get real please. With regard to being smacked I was reared in the 70s and yes I was smacked on occasion but alongside that I was nurtured and cherished by my wonderful selfless mum.She reared 6 children no family support and my father worked, She is an extremely intelligent women and yes she did make sacrifices for our benefit, guess what we all adore her. The bond we have is unbreakable. We absolutely respect what she did for us. I wonder would i feel the same alliance to her if she had put me into a creche for 10 hours a day. I dont think so.

Thrifty 

You ask the question would woman deliberating jepodise their childrens welfare in the pursuit of their career, I believe they would and heres why, we women have been sold the lie and unfortunately subscribed to it that we only have status if we bring in money to the household, We see mothering as having very low status hence women make the choices they do based on that, not on whether it is a good option for their children


----------



## Rigoletto (15 Dec 2008)

truthseeker said:


> Do you have any other predictions on how I may think depending on past/future events?


 
no predictions. in my experience having children does change ones perspecitives on things, sure maybe one day you'll find this to be true.


----------



## truthseeker (15 Dec 2008)

Rigoletto said:


> no predictions. in my experience having children does change ones perspecitives on things, sure maybe one day you'll find this to be true.


 
Thats a bit of a nonsensical argument - I may as well say to you 'if you were a woman you might feel differently'.

I doubt very much if having children will change my views on a womans right to work after motherhood without being made feel guilty for it.


----------



## sandrat (15 Dec 2008)

I have an unbreakable bond with my mother too and she worked for all my childhood


----------



## Rigoletto (15 Dec 2008)

truthseeker said:


> Thats a bit of a nonsensical argument - I may as well say to you 'if you were a woman you might feel differently'.
> 
> I doubt very much if having children will change my views on a womans right to work after motherhood without being made feel guilty for it.


 
well neither i nor you could become a woman even if we were married to mrs bobbit. but i did become a parent and that did change the way i felt about a lot of things. i am merely stating that in a thread about having children and creche's etc your opinions might be coloured if or when you have children.


----------



## Purple (15 Dec 2008)

jubi said:


> Purple
> 
> In response to your argument we have it better now, I would ask better for who the women or children. People here talk about the child reared in the 50s being only slightly better behaved,get real please. With regard to being smacked I was reared in the 70s and yes I was smacked on occasion


 Things are better for women and children. Women because they asserted their rights and children because they no longer live in poverty, fear and abuse in schools where ill-trained teachers used often brutal force to compensate for their own shortcomings with the likelihood that a large proportion will face emigration to spend a lifetime as unskilled labour in another country.  
Children are growing up in a different world and I don’t think their behaviour is any different relative to the behaviour of the adult population. If the points the generation 




jubi said:


> but alongside that I was nurtured and cherished by my wonderful selfless mum.She reared 6 children no family support and my father worked, She is an extremely intelligent women and yes she did make sacrifices for our benefit, guess what we all adore her. The bond we have is unbreakable. We absolutely respect what she did for us. I wonder would i feel the same alliance to her if she had put me into a creche for 10 hours a day. I dont think so.


 I grew up in the 70’s and 80’s with a stay at home mother. I am no closer to her than friends are to their mothers that worked. Anecdotal examples add nothing to the discussion.


----------



## jubi (15 Dec 2008)

Sandrat 

how did you get that bond between 5.30 and 6 o clock when you had that wonderful concept called quality time. Suddenly little johnny is told you have my attention now whether you want it or not but hey it will make me feel I am fulfilling my motherly role. The child may feel tired, not want to talk. He may have a bad day at school but hey by the time mum gets home she is so tired he doesent bother to tell her, whats the point he figures it happened hours ago.


----------



## michaelm (15 Dec 2008)

Obviously people can and should do what they believe suits their own family situation in relation to childcare.  Some mothers will have no option but to work, some may have an option but may be disaffected, clinically depressed, resentful or overwhelmed in relation to their child, and as a result the child may fare relatively better in some 3rd party childcare arrangement.  Those with options and without issues should recognise that the choice they make may have a long-term effect on their child.  Anecdotal stories notwithstanding, longitudinal studies confirm the common sense intuition that, in general, young children fare better at home with their mother, or father.

------------------------------------------------------------------
The Families, Children and Childcare study for Oxford and London universities, which followed 1,200 children  from three months until age four, concluded that those looked after by  their mothers do significantly better in social and emotional  development than those looked after by others, who are 'definitely less  good'. The study found that children fared best at home with their mothers,  followed by nannies and childminders in a homely situation, then  grandparents and other relatives, with day nurseries at the bottom as  the `least good'. It also revealed that young children in nursery  daycare tended to show higher levels of aggression or were inclined to become more withdrawn, compliant and sad.
     ------------------------------------------------------------------
Other research undertaken by Professor Jay Belsky, Director of the  Institute for Studies of Children at Birkbeck College, London, found  that children who spend more than twenty hours a week away from their  parents, in childcare, from an early age, are likely to be problem  children, more aggressive and less well-behaved.
     -------------------------------------------------------------------
In September 2005 the study - Transition to Child Care: Associations  with Infant-Mother Attachment, Infant Negative Emotion and Cortisol  Elevations - undertaken in Berlin by Professor Michael Lamb of Cambridge  University and others, showed that toddlers starting at daycare  nurseries experienced high levels of stress in the first weeks after  separating from their mothers, and showed continuing mild stress for as  long as five months. Their levels of the stress hormone cortisol doubled  during the first nine days. More recent Australian research also found  elevated cortisol levels in infants and children in childcare centres,  even up to the age of six.
     -------------------------------------------------------------------
A February 2006 review of data from the Canadian National Longitudinal  Study of Children and Youth by the C.D Howe Institute compared outcomes  for children in Quebec whose parents had use of subsidised childcare,  with those of other children in Canada. A wide range of measures of  child well-being were studied, from anxiety and hyperactivity to social  and motor skills. For almost every measure, researchers found that the  increased use of childcare was associated with a decrease in well-being.  They emphasised that aggressive behaviour and fighting increased  substantially. This finding was consistent with evidence from the US  National Institute of Child Health and Development Early Childcare  Research Network (NICHD) who found that, through the first 4.5 years of  life, the amount of time a child spent away from his or her mother is a  predicator of assertiveness, disobedience and aggression.
     ------------------------------------------------------------------- 
   In late 2006 an eminent group of British childcare experts raised  serious concerns about the long-term effects of putting very young  children into day nurseries. They called for an urgent national debate'  on whether children under three should be cared for by anyone other than  trusted and familiar figures in their lives. The group included Sir Richard Bowlby, the president of the Centre for  Child Mental Health in London, whose paper.Bowlby laid out all  available evidence about the best way to care for children, particularly  in the crucial period between birth and the age of 30 months. He  concluded that rather than funding daycare nurseries governments should  make it easier for parents to use their childcare allowances to pay a  grandmother or other relative to look after their 
children, or to use it  themselves as 'pay' to look after the child themselves.


----------



## truthseeker (15 Dec 2008)

Rigoletto said:


> well neither i nor you could become a woman even if we were married to mrs bobbit. but i did become a parent and that did change the way i felt about a lot of things. i am merely stating that in a thread about having children and creche's etc your opinions might be coloured if or when you have children.


 
If it works for your family for one parent to stay at home - great. It doesnt work for all families (for a number of different reasons).
I am a woman and I know I would not like to be a stay at home mother. I would prefer to work.


----------



## sandrat (15 Dec 2008)

jubi said:


> Sandrat
> 
> how did you get that bond between 5.30 and 6 o clock when you had that wonderful concept called quality time. Suddenly little johnny is told you have my attention now whether you want it or not but hey it will make me feel I am fulfilling my motherly role. The child may feel tired, not want to talk. He may have a bad day at school but hey by the time mum gets home she is so tired he doesent bother to tell her, whats the point he figures it happened hours ago.


 
Well my mother is a nurse so not in a dead end 9-5 job, sometimes she worked nights sometimes she'd finish at 4 sometimes 6 sometimes 9, she would be off 3 days a week sometimes at weekends sometimes not. Don't know about you but I didnt go to be at 6pm!


----------



## pinkyBear (15 Dec 2008)

Only you can decide whther or not to be a SAHM - however my mum was "forced" to be a SAHM by the state as she had to quit work when she got married. As a result of this she has been adamant in my sister and I being financially independant and always making sure we had our own money.

There was an article in one of the papers about Micheal Lynns wife who chose to leave nursing when she got married - so she could devote herself to married life  

My mum cut out the article and made my sister and I read it - and again she stressed that no matter what happens in our lives make sure we always have our own money...


----------



## truthseeker (15 Dec 2008)

pinkyBear said:


> Only you can decide whther or not to be a SAHM - however my mum was "forced" to be a SAHM by the state as she had to quit work when she got married.


 
So was mine. She hated it. 
As a result of her experiences I would never give up my financial independence.


----------



## pinkyBear (15 Dec 2008)

I would agree truthseeker. My SILs have large families and husbands in brilliant jobs - the girls don't need to work and both do - albeit job sharing. 

The way they see it is - great balance in life, they control their own pensions, and they still get quality time with the children...


----------



## ClubMan (15 Dec 2008)

Why the focus on _SAHMs_? What about _SAHFs_?

For what it's worth I am the sole earner, I have a 3 year old son, he is in creche and I find some of the comments on this thread from certain posters about what this might mean in terms of his overall welfare and development to range from asinine to outrageous.


----------



## Bronte (15 Dec 2008)

ClubMan said:


> Why the focus on _SAHMs_? What about _SAHFs_?
> 
> For what it's worth I am the sole earner, I have a 3 year old son, he is in creche and I find some of the comments on this thread from certain posters about what this might mean in terms of his overall welfare and development to range from asinine to outrageous.


  Asinine and outrageous is too tame.


----------



## Ceist Beag (15 Dec 2008)

Bronte said:


> Asinine and outrageous is too tame.



Agreed. As I mentioned before we made the decision to have a SAHM but I would never dream of making some of the comments/accusations being made on here by some people. I only hope their children don't pick up the same disparaging attitude that their parents are portraying towards others on this thread!


----------



## truthseeker (15 Dec 2008)

Ceist Beag said:


> Agreed. As I mentioned before we made the decision to have a SAHM but I would never dream of making some of the comments/accusations being made on here by some people. I only hope their children don't pick up the same disparaging attitude that their parents are portraying towards others on this thread!


 
Attitudes ARE passed along from parents to children. But they also pick up moral values from their peer group.

The sad thing on this thread is the black and white 'i am right and i am better than you' attitude. There is an intolerance running through some posts that astounds me. Its just narrow mindedness - I feel sorry for any children brought up in an environment where that kind of attitude prevails.


----------



## shaking (15 Dec 2008)

I'm amazed at what some people are posting about creche going children, I went to boarding school from the age of 10 - God only knows how that will be interpreted!


----------



## paddyd (15 Dec 2008)

shaking said:


> I'm amazed at what some people are posting about creche going children, I went to boarding school from the age of 10 - God only knows how that will be interpreted!



You took the words out of my mouth. I also had a stay at home mother, but went to full-time boarding school.

I am a big defender of our local creche, and will certainly send our next baby there too. Its been a revelation for our children, and they learn and develop far more than they would at home, no matter how much we all try our best. The syballus and daily activities they learn would put the best of us to shame if we were to organise it ourselves at home.

Children need the interaction with other children. You can't possibly give 12 hours per day interacting with the child, its just not possible. In the creche it is, for the 8-10hrs they are there.

One important point though: Sure, in bad creches, the children can only pick up the bad behaviour, but if you have a good one, its the way to go.


----------



## Thrifty1 (16 Dec 2008)

jubi said:


> we women have been sold the lie and unfortunately subscribed to it that we only have status if we bring in money to the household, We see mothering as having very low status hence women make the choices they do based on that, not on whether it is a good option for their children


 
You are deluded, honestly you are. No one has sold me a lie, i dont feel like i have a low status because i stay at home. I dont feel under pressure to bring money into the household.
I want to go back to work because i want to achieve my lifelong dream.
My husband is happy for me to stay at home but he understands i need more than this.
I feel isolated,lonely and crave some intellectual stimulation, the only thing that keeps me going is the 2 hours of study i do a day.
If i am to wait until my child (and any future children) are school going age ill be about 40 and far too old to start any career then, my dream will be over.


----------



## jubi (16 Dec 2008)

Thrifty

I am not deluded. I am however astounded that the only thing that keeps you going is studying 2 hours a day. The thing that keeps me going is knowing that I am doing the right thing by my child and that it will pay dividends for him. Yes I get bored but so what. I made a decision to have a child and therefore he is my responsibilty not any body elses. I do wish mothers today had half the backbone of our previous generations of women. Before you had a child what did you surmise your life was going to be like one long bout of excitement and stimulation if you did you are the one who is deluded or did you think I will have a child as long as I only get the exciting bits. 

Truthseeker

You surmise that people are being judgemental and therefore pass this on to their children .my son is not reared in a vacumn. The most telling thing he said to me once was why do mums leave their kids to go to work. I said some have to do it no choice but others dont want to be at home and be with their children all day. His response at 7 years of age was well why have them. I pondered that and in fairness found it difficult to answer. He stated that he felt sorry for the poor children who have to get up early at holiday times because he said they cant relax like he can.


----------



## sandrat (16 Dec 2008)

oh for god sake , quoting your son to try and made us feel bad. I pity his future wife to have a mother in law like you and a husbadnw ith attitudes like that. Working parents get holidays too and term time etc for school holidays


----------



## truthseeker (16 Dec 2008)

Jubi - Im sorry, but a 7 year old is not intellectually developed enough to make decisions about the rights and wrongs of parents working!!!


----------



## Rigoletto (16 Dec 2008)

sandrat said:


> oh for god sake , quoting your son to try and made us feel bad. I pity his future wife to have a mother in law like you and a husbadnw ith attitudes like that. Working parents get holidays too and term time etc for school holidays


 
no one can make you feel bad. i suggest you are doing this all by yourself. 
Jubi is a mother making a point. surely shes entitled to do that?


----------



## Rigoletto (16 Dec 2008)

truthseeker said:


> Jubi - Im sorry, but a 7 year old is not intellectually developed enough to make decisions about the rights and wrongs of parents working!!!


 

riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight and you'd know truthseeker!


----------



## truthseeker (16 Dec 2008)

Rigoletto said:


> riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight and you'd know truthseeker!


 
Having been a 7 year old once myself I think I can comment on their intellectual development!


----------



## jubi (16 Dec 2008)

Truthseeker

What is so intellectual about saying why do mums have babies and not mind them hardly rocket science. Oh sorry I forgot to say my son is in the top 2 percent in iq tests and therefore he is well capable of having intellectual debates. His teacher has stated that my son has required him to often think before he answers questions from.


----------



## Diziet (16 Dec 2008)

jubi said:


> I do wish mothers today had half the backbone of our previous generations of women.
> 
> Truthseeker
> 
> ... The most telling thing he said to me once was why do mums leave their kids to go to work. I said some have to do it no choice but others dont want to be at home and be with their children all day. His response at 7 years of age was well why have them. ...



I must say this thread is very entertaining. Previous generations - when was that golden age exactly? If you can narrow it down for us it would be helpful.

7 year olds are brilliant (like all kids) at looking for approval. In other words, getting the cue from their parents and telling them what they want to hear.

For myself, I am quite content with being a bad mother and a terrible, terrible human being altogether  It's an absolute miracle my kids are as balanced and normal as they are. As for Thrifty, keep studying and best of luck. You are a fine example to your kids.


----------



## pinkyBear (16 Dec 2008)

> His response at 7 years of age was well why have them. I pondered that and in fairness found it difficult to answer.


 
I am really surprised at your response because a woman has to work, in your head you are thinking why is she having a child! 

If we could actually look at womens working habits years gone by - not all women had to quit work. There were female teachers, nurses.. More ofen than not these women reared a family.
My granny worked on the family farm - while rearing 7 children. As did alot of other women of her generation.

I'm sorry jubi - wile I think you live in a nice world in that you have a choice not to work - you dont necessarily live in the real world where unfortunatly alot of women do not have that choice and they raise perfect children.


----------



## Vanilla (16 Dec 2008)

Hilarious thread. Couple of posters taking the mick, I'd say? Otherwise I think I've found contenders for my personal award of person I'd like least to have to sit next to at a dinner party.

Somebody said they are in training to become solicitor and there was a comment that one would need to put in long hours to qualify/progress. That might be true of some of the larger high pressure firms, but certainly wouldnt be my experience of small to middling size firms. Indeed a career as a solicitor can be fairly flexible- endless possibilities of part-time/flexi-time/working from home etc.

Posted by a very flawed working mother! My poor children, will have to start saving for the bail money now instead of uni fees.


----------



## truthseeker (16 Dec 2008)

jubi said:


> Truthseeker
> 
> What is so intellectual about saying why do mums have babies and not mind them hardly rocket science. Oh sorry I forgot to say my son is in the top 2 percent in iq tests and therefore he is well capable of having intellectual debates. His teacher has stated that my son has required him to often think before he answers questions from.


 
Im not inferring he is not an intelligent child, but a 7 year old simply wouldnt have the worldly knowledge to understand the various factors involved in a debate over women with children working.

Dont you think its possible he is reflecting back your own attitudes at you?


----------



## Don_08 (16 Dec 2008)

Vanilla said:


> Hilarious thread. Couple of posters taking the mick, I'd say? Otherwise I think I've found contenders for my personal award of person I'd like least to have to sit next to at a dinner party.
> 
> Posted by a very flawed working mother! My poor children, will have to start saving for the bail money now instead of uni fees.


 
LOL.   Was reading this thread in amazement I must say.   God love my poor daughter if I was at home with her all day every day.  We'd both be driven demented.   

Jubi, was just wondering if you had any daughters - and if so what would be your ambitions for them???  Obviously no point in going on for further education if you expected them to give up work as soon as kids came along.


----------



## Thrifty1 (16 Dec 2008)

jubi said:


> Thrifty
> 
> *I do wish mothers today had half the backbone of our previous generations of women*.
> 
> You surmise that people are being judgemental and therefore pass this on to their children .my son is not reared in a vacumn. The most telling thing he said to me once was why do mums leave their kids to go to work. I said some have to do it no choice but others dont want to be at home and be with their children all day. *His response at 7 years of age was well why have them. I pondered that and in fairness found it difficult to answer*. He stated that he felt sorry for the poor children who have to get up early at holiday times because he said they cant relax like he can.


 
What ARE you on about, what backbone? Do you mean because they didnt go off to offices to work? It was because for most of them that wasnt an option not because they CHOSE not to do it.

So you have your child up on that moral high horse with you, well done just what society needs another person who thinks they have a right to judge other people.

Children years ago were up at the crack of dawn on school holidays working on family farms, my mother had cycle 9 miles to and from school every day - i wonder what your boy genius would think of that?


----------



## Thrifty1 (16 Dec 2008)

Vanilla said:


> Somebody said they are in training to become solicitor and there was a comment that one would need to put in long hours to qualify/progress. That might be true of some of the larger high pressure firms, but certainly wouldnt be my experience of small to middling size firms. Indeed a career as a solicitor can be fairly flexible- endless possibilities of part-time/flexi-time/working from home etc.


 
That was me Vanilla, yes exactly,i have 3 friends recently qualifed, worked in small town solicitors, none worked more than normal office hours - 9-5.
I have no intention of putting in 70 hours a week in big Dublin firms.
One girl works for home also a day a week.


----------



## Rigoletto (16 Dec 2008)

Diziet said:


> For myself, I am quite content with being a bad mother and a terrible, terrible human being altogether .


 
you are seriously being way too hard on yourself.


----------



## Rigoletto (16 Dec 2008)

jaybird said:


> Which generation of women were the perfect ones jubi thnks we should all emulate?


 
ones that prized their children above their dead end jobs. ones that actually chose to rear the children that they chose to have rather than off load them onto someone else (usually a creche) to rear. 

so dont go burning your bra or giving you babies gin, that cant be the answer jaybird and it is reckless of you to suggest it.


----------



## truthseeker (16 Dec 2008)

Rigoletto said:


> ones that prized their children above their dead end jobs. ones that actually chose to rear the children that they chose to have rather than off load them onto someone else (usually a creche) to rear.


 
What about the ones who dont have 'dead end' jobs but actually have fulfilling careers? Should female doctors with children throw away the career to raise the children (as just one example)?



Rigoletto said:


> so dont go burning your bra or giving you babies gin, that cant be the answer jaybird and it is reckless of you to suggest it.


 
lol - classic, havent seen such a funny comment on AAM in a long time!!


----------



## Rigoletto (16 Dec 2008)

jaybird said:


> ITS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS WHERE MY CHILDREN SPEND THEIR DAYS OR WHETHER OR NOT I WORK!


 
there you go again putting the word Business in the same sentence as children. 
children are not a business and please rethink the bra burning, its terrible for the carbon footprint.


----------



## truthseeker (16 Dec 2008)

Rigoletto said:


> there you go again putting the word Business in the same sentence as children.
> children are not a business and please rethink the bra burning, its terrible for the carbon footprint.


 
What was that whooshing noise?
Oh yes - it was the noise of Rigolettos credibility falling off the thread.

Rigoletto - now that youre making such funny comments I cant take anything you said earlier seriously!


----------



## Diziet (16 Dec 2008)

Rigoletto said:


> you are seriously being way too hard on yourself.




Oh but I am not, Rigoletto. This thread has shown me the error of my ways. I am a terrible, terrible human being. I have no backbone, unlike those wonderful, mythical women of previous generations. I have chosen to work over staying with my wee babies at home. Surely that must make me unfit for whatever it was I was supposed to be doing? I don't know, with all that equality and binge drinking I have been doing lately, I keep forgetting.

And worse of all - where's my bra???? Oh heck, I burned it!!! The shame.


----------



## Purple (16 Dec 2008)

Keep this going guys, it’s the funniest thread in ages.
Who would have thought misogyny could be such a laugh.

To any women poster getting upset; don’t worry your little heads about it, just get back to making the tea in your dead end jobs


----------



## Brianne (16 Dec 2008)

I am a middle aged woman who has three adult children whom my husband and I reared with the help of child minders while we both worked full time. To stay on topic and answer the OP's question, sorry, nobody can answer for you. You have to make the decision based on your personal circustances, your family's well being( working ourside the home with children is hard going and you need to be organised so as to have a stress free time as possible with the children and spouse), your families economic situation and the quality of childcare available. In every situation, there are pros and cons. Anyone who tells you that there is one right way has a lot to learn; if you , your spouse/partner and the child are happy , then that is the right way.


----------



## truthseeker (16 Dec 2008)

Purple said:


> don’t worry your little heads about it, just get back to making the tea in your dead end jobs


 
How many sugars Sir?


----------



## Purple (16 Dec 2008)

Brianne said:


> I am a middle aged woman who has three adult children whom my husband and I reared with the help of child minders while we both worked full time. To stay on topic and answer the OP's question, sorry, nobody can answer for you. You have to make the decision based on your personal circustances, your family's well being( working ourside the home with children is hard going and you need to be organised so as to have a stress free time as possible with the children and spouse), your families economic situation and the quality of childcare available. In every situation, there are pros and cons. Anyone who tells you that there is one right way has a lot to learn; if you , your spouse/partner and the child are happy , then that is the right way.


 Well said!


----------



## Thrifty1 (16 Dec 2008)

Brianne said:


> Anyone who tells you that there is one right way has a lot to learn; if you , your spouse/partner and the child are happy , then that is the right way.


 
The voice of experience, well said Brianne.


----------



## jubi (16 Dec 2008)

Don 08
If I had a daughter I would tell her to think long and hard before having children. I would advice her once she has children THEY must come first regardless of her own desires and wants and if she truly feels she cannot make that sacrifice in the best interests of her child dont have children.


----------



## jubi (16 Dec 2008)

Sandrat


Thanks for the comment re my future daughter in law. I cant possibly comment on what she will think of me, however she may thank me for giving her an kind, caring, non aggressive, independent,emotionally stable husband. The other point is that if you truly believe you are doing the best for your child live with it. Dont feel guilty about it. I am amazed that so many women feel guilty about their choice. I dont because I am happy with what I have done, so should you be otherwise dont do it.


----------



## truthseeker (16 Dec 2008)

jubi said:


> Don 08
> If I had a daughter I would tell her to think long and hard before having children. I would advice her once she has children THEY must come first regardless of her own desires and wants and if she truly feels she cannot make that sacrifice in the best interests of her child dont have children.



I would NEVER give that kind of advice to anyone!!!
People have to look after themselves first, then their kids - no point not looking after number 1, you might not be there to raise the kids if you dont look after yourself. That kind of an attitude breeds co-dependency - which is a nasty place to be.

Its all just about pushing guilt on people. Its not a healthy balanced world view at all. Insular, unhealthy - indoctrinating a child to believe there is only one way that is the right way - not encouraging someone to follow their dreams.

I would think thats more damaging to any child than a creche.


----------



## sandrat (16 Dec 2008)

jubi said:


> Sandrat
> 
> 
> Thanks for the comment re my future daughter in law. I cant possibly comment on what she will think of me, however she may thank me for giving her an kind, caring, non aggressive, independent,emotionally stable husband. The other point is that if you truly believe you are doing the best for your child live with it. Dont feel guilty about it. I am amazed that so many women feel guilty about their choice. I dont because I am happy with what I have done, so should you be otherwise dont do it.


 
At the moment I am a perfect mother, I am still breastfeeding my 7 and a half month old daughter and don't intend on going back to work until she is a couple of weeks short of a year having used all my paid and unpaid leave and holidays from 2008. Of course then I will return to my "dead end job", This apparently makes me a bad mother. I hope to return to work 4 days a week using my holidays to take one day off per week. My husband hopes to take 1 day off a week parental leave. This is the maximum we can afford but it means we will spend 4 days a week "rearing" our daughter and she will spend 3 days "abandoned". This is the best we can do so this is the best for thing for us.


----------



## jubi (16 Dec 2008)

Truthseeker

strangly enough although I put my son first I still take care of myself, Guess what I read, listen to music, visit friends and lead a happy full life, Further when you talk about co -dependency not being healthy do you mean it is wrong for my son to rely on me to care and nurture him. This post will be deleted if not edited immediately I must pack his little case tonight and send him off incase god forbid he needs me. this notion of yours suggests that we should all live an individualistic life and adopt the im alright jack attitude, brilliant philosophy if I was living on a deserted island.


----------



## TLC (16 Dec 2008)

Don't understand all this "bored" crap comes from - I'd rather be bored at home with my child than run ragged for little or no money at work!  It's only natural for a small child to want to be with their mother, they are only young for a short time - extra toys, designer clothes, fancy holidays don't make up for a parent not being there for the child.  They will only be 2 years of age once remember !!!   Do people not realise that when you have a child something 'gives' - your life is changes for ever - that doesn't mean it is a bad thing.  Go on - give it a go - stay at home & you will enjoy your child - seriously they are a gift - until they are teenagers of course - then they are just pains in the A....
From a mother of 2 who are now in their 20's - back at work since they went to 2nd level -  was sometimes frustrated being at home - but haven't regretted it - honestly


----------



## putsch (16 Dec 2008)

Am interested to see some of this home based vs career woman placed in historic context. I was brought up by a home based mother in the 60s and 70s. Lots of my friends had mothers that worked - despite the marriage bar it was quite normal. Mothers worked on farms, in the family shop, other businesses, went back to teaching or civil service as widows, taught drama or sports in schools etc etc.

The idea that a working woman is new or the result of modern financial aspirations or neediness is wrong. There's a harking back to a mythical "Enid Blyton" world that only exisited in fiction in the 1950s. Get real. In most of history men and women worked. Hello there?


----------



## Rigoletto (17 Dec 2008)

TLC said:


> Don't understand all this "bored" crap comes from - I'd rather be bored at home with my child than run ragged for little or no money at work! It's only natural for a small child to want to be with their mother, they are only young for a short time - extra toys, designer clothes, fancy holidays don't make up for a parent not being there for the child. They will only be 2 years of age once remember !!! Do people not realise that when you have a child something 'gives' - your life is changes for ever - that doesn't mean it is a bad thing. Go on - give it a go - stay at home & you will enjoy your child - seriously they are a gift - until they are teenagers of course - then they are just pains in the A....
> From a mother of 2 who are now in their 20's - back at work since they went to 2nd level - was sometimes frustrated being at home - but haven't regretted it - honestly


 
excellen post! Hear hear!


----------



## Bronte (17 Dec 2008)

jubi said:


> Don 08
> If I had a daughter I would tell her to think long and hard before having children. I would advice her once she has children THEY must come first regardless of her own desires and wants and if she truly feels she cannot make that sacrifice in the best interests of her child dont have children.


 It may be a funny thread but this is a truly sad comment.


----------



## Bronte (17 Dec 2008)

sandrat said:


> At the moment I am a perfect mother, I am still breastfeeding my 7 and a half month old daughter and don't intend on going back to work until she is a couple of weeks short of a year having used all my paid and unpaid leave and holidays from 2008. Of course then I will return to my "dead end job", This apparently makes me a bad mother. I hope to return to work 4 days a week using my holidays to take one day off per week. My husband hopes to take 1 day off a week parental leave. This is the maximum we can afford but it means we will spend 4 days a week "rearing" our daughter and she will spend 3 days "abandoned". This is the best we can do so this is the best for thing for us.


 Not only are you a perfect mother now but you will be too when you go back to work. You do not have to justify yourself in any way on here. You will always be the best mother to your child. There is no reason why the best for you is not the best for you both.


----------



## truthseeker (17 Dec 2008)

jubi said:


> Truthseeker
> 
> strangly enough although I put my son first I still take care of myself, Guess what I read, listen to music, visit friends and lead a happy full life, Further when you talk about co -dependency not being healthy do you mean it is wrong for my son to rely on me to care and nurture him. This post will be deleted if not edited immediately I must pack his little case tonight and send him off incase god forbid he needs me. this notion of yours suggests that we should all live an individualistic life and adopt the im alright jack attitude, brilliant philosophy if I was living on a deserted island.


 
Co-dependency is when your happiness is dependant on someone elses and when you make unwanted sacrifices at your own expense for someone elses well being. You said you would tell a daughter that a child must come first regardless of her own desires - thats encouraging co-dependency.

Do you think its healthy to pass on an attitude to a son that a woman must give up work to raise a child? 
How do you think that will affect his view of womens place in the world?

Would you discourage a daughter from further education or a successful career if she expressed an interest in having children someday?

I dont think that its bad form that you stay at home to raise your son - but this holier than thou attitude that every mother who works is a bad mother and that only your way is the right way is very narrow minded.


----------



## Diziet (17 Dec 2008)

TLC said:


> Don't understand all this "bored" crap comes from - I'd rather be bored at home with my child than run ragged for little or no money at work!



How about for a *lot* of money? Would that work better?

Some women (shock horror) have good jobs these days.


----------



## truthseeker (17 Dec 2008)

Huge assumptions on this thread that women work in 'dead end' jobs, or they are 'run ragged for little or no money'.

Do people realise that women actually hold jobs where they earn just as much money as male counterparts!


----------



## Rigoletto (17 Dec 2008)

of course they do and more power to them. 
without women in the workplace the economy wouldnt exist. although some glass ceilings exist they are rapidly being broken through by intelligent successful women. 

heres my point:
i totally understand women going back to work from economic necessity. full stop. 

i understand women returning to the workforce when the very early formative years of a child have passed (some children dont attend school until nearly 5 depending on dates etc) i truely believe that children need their mothers certainly up until school going age and that this is preferable over a creche any day. survey after survey has proved this. 

I have aproblem with women who have children and the moment maternity leave is up they are racing off to dump their child in a creche. when creche fees are deducted it would seem that they end up working for a relatively small sum. some of these women do not work as rocket scientists for NASA and are not one 200K a year so the idea of "career" in some of these cases is hilarious. I genuinely dont see why these women bothered having children just to hand them to someone else to rear. 

of all of the parents that dump their kids at a creche every morning at some ungodly hour, how many of them were put in a creche by their parents?


----------



## Purple (17 Dec 2008)

Rigoletto, parents do not dump their kids anywhere.

Question; why, in your world, do men not get charged with the same "crime"?


----------



## Diziet (17 Dec 2008)

Purple said:


> Rigoletto, parents do not dump their kids anywhere.
> 
> Question; why, in your world, do men not get charged with the same "crime"?



I suppose because in some parallel universe, men are 'breadwinners' and have 'careers' while women have 'dead end jobs'. The idea that men can look after their kids does not exist in that universe. 

I hope you are clear now Purple


----------



## Mpsox (17 Dec 2008)

it's a pity that this post has got so emotional as this is an important issue for many people. 

From the OPs perspective I am sure they are wondering what kind of a can of worms they have opened

All I can advise is this

Firstly, do your finances carefully and decide if it is financially worth your while going back to work. Financially you may need to decide to change your lifestyle and if so you need to be prepared to do so. In my own case, my wife wanted to stay at home and to make it work financially, we moved house further out from Dublin, reduced the mortgage and I have a longer commute as a result. 

Secondly, emotionally, are you prepared to hand your baby over to someone else to mind them?. That may not be a question you can answer right now, but it's a question you need to answer in your own mind

Thirdly, Assume for a second that financially you can make staying at home work and don't want to hand the baby over to someone else to mind, there is then the risk of being at home with lgreatly reduced adult interaction for a couple of years and a smallie going "wah" and this may scare you. Ultimately it's up to yourself to address that but you may need your partners support as well. In my wife's case, she joined the local mother and toddler group and goes there every week, but she also does a night class and some volunteering at the week-end which means I am baby sitting whilst that is on. 

What we've done works for us and any morning I am queued at Newlands Cross in Dublin and when I see some toddler in the back of a car staring at a DVD screen or asleep in their seat, I never regret the decision. We're all calmer and don't have to rush to pick the smallie up in the evening and if she wants to sleep til 9.30am(as she did this morning), off with her. Having said that, I fully accept it won't work for others for a lot of reasons. I'm not going to comment on whether or not a stay at home mum is best for a kid or not. It's how I was brought up and certainly my little girl is happy, but I can't say she wouldn't be if she was in a creche.

One other thing I would say, the Cork Examiner published a summary of the results of every audit done into all the creches and playschools a few months back. Whilst a lot were fine, sad to say a lot were absolutely awful and in some cases, dangerous. If anyone on here knows the link to that report or the summary from elsewhere, can I suggest they post it on here?


----------



## Purple (17 Dec 2008)

Diziet said:


> I suppose because in some parallel universe, men are 'breadwinners' and have 'careers' while women have 'dead end jobs'. The idea that men can look after their kids does not exist in that universe.
> 
> I hope you are clear now Purple




Thanks Diziet. Is there a magic wardrobe or something that we can use to visit this other universe?


----------



## truthseeker (17 Dec 2008)

Purple said:


> Thanks Diziet. Is there a magic wardrobe or something that we can use to visit this other universe?


 
Most local creches are in fact 'portals' to the otherworld.


----------



## Kate10 (17 Dec 2008)

Can't believe some of the posts on this thread ..didn't think there were so many people out there with such old-fashioned attitudes.

Both of my parents worked full time.  My Mum was back at work one week after having my oldest brother - in those days you were supposed to give up work when you married and you certainly did not get maternity leave.  She was a teacher and had to take off her wedding ring when she went to interviews or she would not be hired  ..I thought we were past all that??

My parents raised 7 happy, healthy, well-adjusted and moderately successful children.  We are all going home this Christmas and will have a great time together.  Four of us are married, all happily, and three have kids of their own.  Between us we have two accountants, one doctor, one solicitor, one IT guy, one trainee solicitor and one consultant.  Not exactly delinquints!!  My parents both got scholarships to secondary school and my dad did not go to college until he had worked his way up.  They both worked bloody hard all their lives to give us fantastic opportunities.  They could not love us more and we always knew that.  We also knew that they had confidence in us and in our abilities - they didn't need to be there all the time for us to be happy and secure.

Why on earth people think that staying at home full time is the be all and end all of parenting is beyond me!!  I've news for you people ..it's only a very small part of a very big picture!  Surely this should be obvious???


----------



## DeeFox (17 Dec 2008)

A very interesting thread.
What about the single parent families?  Due to tragic circumstances, my father was left on his own with us as a young family.  He had no choice but to work full time.  And, I think of myself as a balanced, well rounded person.
To those who are arguing that mothers (and not fathers???) should not consider going back to work until the child is almost ready for school does this mean that single mothers should forget about trying to better their own and their childs circumstances through working and not relying on state benefits?


----------



## terrysgirl33 (17 Dec 2008)

Can I ask, how many parents who are recommending going back to work when the kids are in school have school age kids?  My oldest started Junior infants this year, and it has made us much much busier as a result.  My mother (and many other parents) have also said that one of the most important times to be around is during the teenage years, a toddler in a creche can only get into so much trouble, but the possibilities for a teenager getting into trouble are almost endless.  The older my kids get, the more I realise that the early years when the child can be looked after full time by a creche/childminder are the easiest to combine with working full time.

FWIW, I don't think there is one perfect way to raise kids.  Some do well in creche, some do well with a childminder, some do well being looked after full time by their mum, some do well being looked after full time by their dad.  In the end, most parents are doing their best, as are most children.  

It's also useful to remember that nothing lasts forever.  You can go back to work, give it three months and see how work and your childminding solution is working out, and then decide whether or not to resign or keep working.  Equally, you can give up work, give it a few months, and apply for another job (or not) if you feel it isn't working out.


----------



## micheller (17 Dec 2008)

If it's really sooo bad for all our children and society, and if 'survey after survey' proves this; shouldn't the government care more & attempt to make it more financially viable for us to raise our own children *if we so choose*? 

In the absence of this, it is not possible for many 2 parent families to have a stay-at-home-parent and a working parent. That is the financial reality, and not for lots of holidays- for mortgages, bills and living expenses.


----------



## Purple (17 Dec 2008)

micheller said:


> If it's really sooo bad for all our children and society, and if 'survey after survey' proves this; shouldn't the government care more & attempt to make it more financially viable for us to raise our own children *if we so choose*?
> 
> In the absence of this, it is not possible for many 2 parent families to have a stay-at-home-parent and a working parent. That is the financial reality, and not for lots of holidays- for mortgages, bills and living expenses.



Then in a few years we could have comely maidens dancing at the crossroads while we live in frugal comfort... I can see it now...


----------



## Vanilla (17 Dec 2008)

Hang on a minute, I earn more than my husband, so that makes HIM the 'bad guy' by the standards of jubi and rigoletto! Phew!


----------



## Purple (17 Dec 2008)

Vanilla said:


> Hang on a minute, I earn more than my husband, so that makes HIM the 'bad guy' by the standards of jubi and rigoletto! Phew!



... and my wife earns more than me so she's off the hook as well (and I don't care about being a bad father so I'm all right as well )


----------



## Vanilla (17 Dec 2008)

Purple said:


> ... and my wife earns more than me so she's off the hook as well (and I don't care about being a bad father so I'm all right as well )


 
Thank god it's just an economic thing- I was worried there was a social element or something.


----------



## Purple (17 Dec 2008)

Vanilla said:


> Thank god it's just an economic thing- I was worried there was a social element or something.



God no


----------



## micheller (17 Dec 2008)

eh lads, I'm all for choice. And I used the term parent, not the mother.
The first comments were tongue in cheek


----------



## Purple (17 Dec 2008)

micheller said:


> eh lads, I'm all for choice. And I used the term parent, not the mother.
> The first comments were tongue in cheek



I took them as such, apologies if that didn't come through in my post.


----------



## micheller (17 Dec 2008)

oh sorry Purple 
It's gettin hot in here and you just can't tell


----------



## Purple (17 Dec 2008)

micheller said:


> oh sorry Purple
> It's gettin hot in here and you just can't tell



It's not possible to take this thread seriously and anyway, it's only the internet.


----------



## micheller (17 Dec 2008)

it's true


----------



## sandrat (18 Dec 2008)

jubi et al can't post now its been moved to LOS


----------



## michaelm (18 Dec 2008)

micheller said:


> . . it is not possible for many 2 parent families to have a stay-at-home-parent and a working parent. That is the financial reality, and not for lots of holidays- for mortgages, bills and living expenses.





micheller said:


> I'm all for choice.


Who wouldn't be all for choice? But you are surely aware that Government policy is to have both parents working and they have deepened their tax individualisation policy over the last number of years which has pushed the stay-at-home option out of the reach of many more families.


----------



## micheller (18 Dec 2008)

Yes, which is exactly why I said that if it was important to the state/ society you'd think they could make it a more financially viable *option*.


----------



## michaelm (18 Dec 2008)

micheller said:


> Yes, which is exactly why I said that if it was important to the state/ society you'd think they could make it a more financially viable *option*.


Ok. So can I infer that you think that because Government tax policy (borderline social experiment) makes it less viable, that it is not then important to society? If so, I submit that the Government have got it wrong: on the basis that the Government gets practically everything wrong, notwithstanding the broken clock rule - even a broken clock is right twice a day.


----------



## micheller (18 Dec 2008)

I don't think that it is wrong to work outside the home for whatever reason people do.

I'm telling you that I think it would be nice if the government made it a more financially viable option to mind my children if I so choose.
So that my choice, for me (but also I'd bet for some other people too), wouldn't be made around financial circumstances.

I don't think I can really add anything more to this thread anyway...


----------



## Bronte (19 Dec 2008)

micheller said:


> shouldn't the government care more & attempt to make it more financially viable for us to raise our own children *if we so choose*?
> 
> .


 Believe it or not I completely agree with this.

I think it's a pity the other posters cannot contribute as it was actually a serious subject.


----------



## Bronte (19 Dec 2008)

terrysgirl33 said:


> My mother (and many other parents) have also said that one of the most important times to be around is during the teenage years, the possibilities for a teenager getting into trouble are almost endless.
> .


  I also agree with this, I think it's a very important time in a child's life and it's good for a parent to be there for them through these difficult years.


----------



## Purple (19 Dec 2008)

Bronte said:


> Believe it or not I completely agree with this.
> 
> I think it's a pity the other posters cannot contribute as it was actually a serious subject.



I think some posters take issue with the misogynistic assertion that mothers should be at home raising their children and the inference that those women who do work outside the home when their children are small are bad mothers and are engaging in some self indulgent pretence that their “little job” is anything more than dead end time filling.

I do agree that the government has engaged in what is tantamount to social engineering and I agree that this may well have negative social implications. Where I take issue is when it is suggested that mothers shoulder the blame. I thought that sort of sexism went out of fashion in this country in the 1970’s.


----------



## Sherman (19 Dec 2008)

Purple said:


> I do agree that the government has engaged in what is tantamount to social engineering and I agree that this may well have negative social implications. Where I take issue is when it is suggested that mothers shoulder the blame. I thought that sort of sexism went out of fashion in this country in the 1970’s.


 
I would argue that the move to individualisation of tax credits etc. over the past few years has been a deliberate move_ away from_ social engineering.


----------



## micheller (19 Dec 2008)

Sherman said:


> I would argue that the move to individualisation of tax credits etc. over the past few years has been a deliberate move_ away from_ social engineering.



Can you explain why; or detail what you mean?


----------



## Bronte (6 Jan 2009)

Purple said:


> I think some posters take issue with the misogynistic assertion that mothers should be at home raising their children


  I understand that but we believe in free speech and it's important everyone gives their view whether we like it or not, that's where I was coming from.  
 Sherman the tax changes forced women to work who otherwise would have stayed at home. That is social engineering.  The non subsidising of childcare forces people to have less children etc.


----------



## Purple (6 Jan 2009)

Bronte said:


> Sherman the tax changes forced women to work who otherwise would have stayed at home. That is social engineering.  The non subsidising of childcare forces people to have less children etc.



It didn't force them to work, it made it more attractive to work. Not the same thing (there was no coercion involved).


----------



## Sherman (6 Jan 2009)

Bronte said:


> I understand that but we believe in free speech and it's important everyone gives their view whether we like it or not, that's where I was coming from.
> Sherman the tax changes forced women to work who otherwise would have stayed at home. That is social engineering. The non subsidising of childcare forces people to have less children etc.


 
I would argue that anything which treats one group, in this case families with children, as any different to another group, using the tax system, is social engineering. How could it be social engineering to treat every individual as an individual irregardless of their particular family situation?


----------



## casiopea (6 Jan 2009)

Please ignore, my question didnt really contribute to the thread.


----------



## annR (6 Jan 2009)

terrysgirl33 said:


> Can I ask, how many parents who are recommending going back to work when the kids are in school have school age kids?  My oldest started Junior infants this year, and it has made us much much busier as a result.  My mother (and many other parents) have also said that one of the most important times to be around is during the teenage years, a toddler in a creche can only get into so much trouble, but the possibilities for a teenager getting into trouble are almost endless.  The older my kids get, the more I realise that the early years when the child can be looked after full time by a creche/childminder are the easiest to combine with working full time.



Thanks terrysgirl for this post.  I've often thought the same, partly because I remember what a relief it was to come home to my mother from school.  Out of interest, how do parents of school going children manage?  What do the kids do after school, who picks them up etc?  I'm on maternity leave at the moment.  I'll try going back fulltime and I hope my baby will be happy in the creche.  But when she starts school I would prefer to be able to pick her up and take her home myself.  I draw the line at the child being ferried to some other venue to wait for me to finish work - I think it's too long a day.  Especially because I think school is more like work to them than the creche is for babies.  From what I remember anyway!
However I'm also aware that I may not have that choice to work part time or be a SAHM .  . . I think this government has done squat for families.  If that's the case I'll have to do my best just like all the previous generations of women/families.  I'm sure that they all wondered if they were doing the right thing.  Surely being in a happy family is ultimately the most important thing.


----------



## ice (16 Jan 2009)

Thrifty1 said:


> I dont just mean financially either, i may sound selfish but i went to college for 4 years have a good degree, am studying for exams at the moment and will hopefully start my training to become a solicitor soon.
> I love my daughter and want the best for her but having a Mam who isnt happy to wave goodbye to her career before it even started and is unfulfilled at home is not best for her.
> I want her to grow up knowing women can have a career i want to be a role model for her.
> 
> I think its very much an individual choice (taking out financial considerations) and women should not be made feel guilty for wanting to be more than a SAHM.


 
Nor should a SAHM but made to feel guily about her choice. There are lots of well educated, intelligent women who choose to stay at home. This does not mean that their children will not know women have a choice. 

Each situation is different. The SAHM V working mother is always going to be an emotive topic. Each situation is different and its difficult to generalise and say 'this is the best way'
Whats best for your family may not be for the next.


----------

