The end of the stay-at-home mum

The whole stay-at-home mums vs working mums conflict will soon be a thing of the past, mainly because no one will be able to afford to stay home.

The number of women in Britain becoming full-time mothers has fallen 24 per cent from 2.7 million in 1993 to just 2.04 million in 2008. That figure is set to drop below the two million mark by 2010 according to the joint YouGov and uSwitch research.

The research indicates increasing childcare and living costs have created a vicious circle where parents cannot afford to remain at home but also struggle to pay fees for nurseries which can cost as much as £8,000 per child.

And because one-earner families are becoming rarer now that a litre of milk costs the same as liquid platinum, bigger families are a status symbol. Or as Sarah Vine put it, 4 is the new 3. Frank Furedi, author of Paranoid Parenting and a professor of sociology at University of Kent, described it thus: to justify staying at home, stay-at-home mums have more children, demonstrating that they are busy and putting effort into their child-focussed "career".

So is the working mums vs SAHM mums debate become obsolete since Caitlin wrote about it in December?  And more importantly, if there are no more SAHM mums, who's going to organise the bisquits for the summer party?

Comments

[Kieransmum]

Well, I hope so BoB! I remember us meeting my (former) university tutor and telling her we were getting married in the final year of our Ph.Ds. She narrowed her eyes, sighed and said "Please, please please don't share a computer."
She was right.

[Baggofbones]

KM - ooh, no. But you will probably be married for a very, very long time if you survived simultaneous PhDs!!

[Jane2]

I agree that working can facilitate a divorce. Someone I know was bullied by her husband into getting a full-time job and as soon as she did he announced he was leaving her for a pre-existing (unknown to her) lover, which he couldn't have aforded to do if she had no income.
I still think one should be prepared for anything, though.
Divorce gets very very mean, and I have seen lawyers fees mounting by £4,000 per week.

[Kieransmum]

Those all sound lovely things to do BoB and I'm quite jealous of the time with retired husband. My husband and I wrote our Ph.Ds in the same house...but that wasn't quite as relaxing...

[Gipsy]

Delilah - the example you site is exactly what I'm talking about. I don't know of anyone who has been thrown into financial hardship simply because they didn't want to chase their husbands or ex partners for money.

I do know people who have been thrown into financial hardship because they did precisely that - the husband or partner fought every step of the way and lawyers fees took up everything that they would have got from the sale of the house etc, so effectively they left the marriage with nothing. As for chasing maintenance - again that can be extremely difficult. All you need is a slimeball of an ex, and you've got years and years of pain for very little gain.

I've seen the other side of it too, where decent men have ended up supporting an ex and left with very little money for any future family. Of course there are those that fit in between and strike the right balance. But you never know what will happen in the lottery of life.

[Delilah]

Gipsy wrote: "I've now seen quite a number of friends thrown into absolute grinding financial situations, where they're working all the hours just to keep a roof over their heads, because the primary breadwinner has walked out or died."

Err .. that's what life insurance and divorce settlements are for.

The main earner's life insurance should cover not only the mortgage (the only one who really benefits from that is the bank) but the loss of income (or childcare) should either or both parents die. That cover is as basic as food or healthcare; but I'm always amazed how many mothers, even WMs, don't know whether they have it.

And the truth is that divorce law is as good or often better protection for a mother than a job (especially of the husband is a good earner) but enforcing it is seen as sooooo unladylike. I've seen more women throw their rights away than get screwed by the system - usually because they would rather face three jobs and a house full of lodgers than keep dealing with their ex. That lets the ex off rather lightly, frankly, and does nothing for the dignity of the ex-wife. Working can even facilitate divorce - consider a SAHM of my acquaintance who was bullied by her husband into starting a business with him; she reluctantly got granny to mind the kids, he left his job and they remortgaged the house. The business was a moderate success, but very hard work, and exactly a year later the husband left her and the business and moved in with a lover of three years' standing. All she got in alimony was her husband's share of the business! He'd engineered this quite cynically because he couldn't afford to leave her while he was employed and she was a SAHM, it would have cost him too much in almony against his salary. This way, it cost him nothing.

[Baggofbones]

"So sorry guys, but sometimes this FTM/SAHM fight can be very trying to those of us who would love it if that were our children's only problem."

J - you are absolutely right. Thank you for the reminder.

KM - yes, I have lots of plans for when the children aren't a full-time job. I shall play the piano more; I shall write fiction (can't do it at the moment as I'm too exhausted by the time they're in bed); I shall do more gardening than I can do at the moment; I shall get a dog (don't tell my husband); I shall re-learn Latin; I shall do more voluntary work; I shall try to tidy the house occasionally. I shall also enjoy spending day-time just with my husband (who, let's face it, isn't likely to be sharing my retirement with me, given the fact that he's 30 years older than me - so I need to enjoy his company now!) So I have no shortage of things to keep me occupied...

[Gipsy]

oops sorry I hit the post key too early.

JJ, your comment sums up for me why I feel it is so crucially important for all girls to plan for being working mothers regardless of whether they want to be or not. A lot of the time life simply forces you to be that way whether you want to or not. And if you have the necessary skills, qualifications and experience, you won't find yourself wiping tables, but instead you could be writing reports and articles after the kids have gone to bed, or be like a friend of mine with two children with cerebal palsy, who can earn enough doing two long days a week as a lawyer that she is able to stay at home the rest of the time, and afford to pay for all the bits and pieces that the healthcare system doesn't (some, not all the therapists that her children need are covered by NHS for example).

I've now seen quite a number of friends thrown into absolute grinding financial situations, where they're working all the hours just to keep a roof over their heads, because the primary breadwinner has walked out or died.

[Gipsy]

>>In fact, it ends up that what you do for money is quite often something you would be doing anyway for interest,<<

That pretty much sums up how I feel.

>>Does anyone REALLY prefer clearing tables in a cafe or plying a cash-register or mopping floors or weighing raisins into bags or anything like that to being at home with their kids? <<

Goodness me no. I've known quite a few mothers who've done those jobs, and they do them because a) they need the money and b) they are jobs that can be fitted around their kids ie while kids are at school or with the times granny is available for childcare. It is the need to earn money (in nearly every case because the woman has ended up solo) and do so in a way that doesn't cost them a lot in childcare that has meant they've taken those types of jobs. But for career satisfaction? No I don't think so. For financial independence or just to have enough cash to live? Yes.

[Jean Jones]

J - your last para says exactly what I was trying to say.

Gipsy - about feeling there need to be two breadwinners - my husband (aged 55) has always been extremely happy to be the main breadwinner and would have been appalled at the thought of being a househusband and FT father. Don't get me wrong, he is a wonderful Dad and the kids are devoted to him, and he does his bit at evenings and weekends and always has, but we have both been very contented with me doing the bulk of what needs doing at home and him doing the bulk of the earning. Traditional but true in our case!

And as to SAHMs having nothing left once their kids go, one way or the other - nope, never ever felt that way. I can truthfully say that I am never, ever bored, I have so many things I want to do and read and learn. I would feel it was a failing in me if I *needed* to have a job to give me something to do as opposed to a way of earning money, but I think that comes from never, in some ways, havinbg got past being a student, which to be brutal is what working in the academic sphere does to you. In fact, it ends up that what you do for money is quite often something you would be doing anyway for interest, apart of course from the tedious necessity of teaching it. I have never had another job that I felt like that about, and I've had a few. Does anyone REALLY prefer clearing tables in a cafe or plying a cash-register or mopping floors or weighing raisins into bags or anything like that to being at home with their kids? Because, like it or not, that's the sort of job the majority of women do and that I've done at different times.

[j]

sorry, to clarify, child B will live for more than 15 years, mentally she will not get beyond that age.

[j]

ACtually my wonderful Mrs A is one of 8 from Scotland and her sister actually *does* run a hotel on the outer hebrides..I quite fancy it some days.

Have held off but ought to weigh in a little bit alongside JJ on the disabled parent front. It is a big difference I think if you have (a) a disabled child who will die young or (b) a disabled child who will never grow up. My brother of course did both- took 28 years to get to any kind of independence and then died anyway. Then my dad died, and that's when I went back to work part-time, having seen the effect on my FT mum of losing all her duty and care overnight and being left with really very little. Child C will do the same thing- take 30 years to get to 8 year old stage and then probably not live for much longer. Child B will never get beyond about age 15. So in my case there is a very strong element of self-protection in working- as there is in my music. I simply cannot allow it to be my entire universe, becayuse there is no natural end in sight.

I guess it also makes me more tolerant, cos I think that if your child is unimpaired then he/she will probably turn out just fine and happy, whichever you choose, and frankly any issues they may have with your working life are peanuts compared with what they would have to deal with if they were seriously impaired.

So sorry guys, but sometimes this FTM/SAHM fight can be very trying to those of us who would love it if that were our children's only problem.

[Kieransmum]

Ho hum. And I was so hoping that this wasn't going to be the same old row.

BoB had a bad experience of work.
SM had a good one.
Gipsy likes her job, and is confident that she's a good mother.
J doesn't want to live in the Outer Hebrides.

Please, is there anything that I've missed?

Actually, serious question for BoB. I'm SAHM too but have a very clear plan for how I want to be in the workforce, and what I want to be doing, in ten or twelve years time. When your children are old enough not to fill your days, secondary school+, what are you going to do?
I'm not debating, just asking. Surely you must have made (non-career-related) plans.

[Gipsy]

JJ - what sort of tweaked my buttons was that I felt that you were indeed saying that your choices were the right ones for everyone, and I rather felt that WMs and SAHMs were polarised in what you were saying. Thank you for putting things in context, as I can see that you don't mean for your posts to come across as such staunch generalisations.

I don't think that any SAHM, whether they are 100 percent so or just for part of their child's life, is a parasite by the way! It is a bloody hard job being a mother, and those of us that work get a little bit of a break from that while those that don't work a lot harder. I tend to view my time at work as the easy part of my day, and the least rewarding, whereas when I'm being a mum at home it is the hardest part of my day but the most rewarding.

You are never wrong to put across your viewpoint! All viewpoints, as long as they're not negative personal attacks, are good in a discussion forum. It is just that you came across as so staunch in your viewpoint, and it felt so judgemental towards those who do things differently, that I reacted in kind. I can see now that it was just the way you had worded your posts - that in fact you're not being judgemental at all. If that makes sense? Sorry it is early in the morning.

LM put it beautifully and perfectly when she said

>>making sure my husband doesn't feel isolated as sole breadwinner is very important <<

I can't say it any better than that. It is a value that is important for me to teach my son, and my step kids, as well. We all have different ways of putting across our values to our children. This is how I put mine across. It was the comments earlier that sounded like you were telling me, and others like myself, that we weren't teaching our kids values that we were paying someone else to teach our kids values, that I really strongly disagreed with.

I do fully accept and respect everyone's right to put across a point of view - freedom of speech is very very important to me - but at the same time, if someone says something that I disagree with, then I will say so. It doesn't mean that I think you're wrong to say it - just that I think what you've said is wrong.

[Lazy Mummy]

JJ,

Thank you for your thoughtful comments and for answering my (rather nosy) questions; the context does help. I didn't post a response before because it was a rather hectic day & I needed time to think about what I wanted to say (like you, I wrote & deleted a couple of things, I do that more than I intend to).

I agree, I'm sure that anyone with a disabled child views their children differently just as anyone who's suffered from infertility (as Gipsy & I have) views their one child as a bloody miracle whereas their friends who have several, all conceived at the drop of a hat, probably take the size of their large families a little for granted. (That's not intended as the start of a flame war & I'm a little tired & inarticulate tonight, but I think you know what I mean - I said it better elsewhere on AM recently).

There's more I'd like to say but it's late here & I'm tired and have a paper to write before a meeting tomorrow so I'll end by saying that Gipsy's comments mirrored a lot of my own thoughts on the subject. I'm under 45 and to me, making sure my husband doesn't feel isolated as sole breadwinner is very important and a strong reason for me to work.

[Jean Jones]

Nobody has to justify their own choices, except to themselves and their families. That, I think, sums it up as far as I'm concerned. And if an individual and his/her family is happy with their choices (grammar starting to get a bit intricate here...), and stays happy with their choices when the results of them are visible (in our case, when the other kids are grown-up), then what else matters? We chose some things; others choose other things. We feel our choices were right for us, and that's all i can say with certainty. And forgive my old-fashionedness in saying 'mother' when of course I mean 'parent'. It so happens that in many families where the parents are now, say, over 45, it happened to suit both partners to take traditional roles. It did for us, but others will feel differently.

I know not that many people have a grown-up handicapped son/daughter, and certainly not many are in the position my friend with the son who died was in. But both things have had an influence on how I got to where I am now and I thought it might be helpful to say that. Perhaps I was wrong.

Just one more thing - there's an awful tendency in this particular set of comments, it seems to me, to polarise SAHM and WM, as if every mother (or father!) either stays at home full-time for their child's whole childhood, or else works fulltime from the time their child is 3/6 months old. Obviously it's not like that, it wasn't like that for me and it isn't like that for others. I had other forms of paid employment at different times after I had children, some of them involving earning money while at home and some working in the evenings or weekends while my husband took care of the children. I haven't gone into detail about all of them because it's not necessary, but they were there nonetheless. I have not been a parasite, financially or any other way, at any time in my life, and I would be willing to bet that the number of women who are 100% non-earning SAHMs for years at a time really is minute.

[Gipsy]

JJ - I do truly appreciate how lucky I am. My sister wasn't so lucky, with problems that weren't apparent until her child reached 18 months/2 years. I live every second of my life with my son appreciating his very existence. I shan't be able to have any more. I was lucky to have just this one. When I am with my son, I am with him 100 percent. If he says 'play mummy' then that's what I'll do. If I have something to do then I look at ways to engage him in what I'm doing.

I can't be with him all day every day. And even if a parent is, it doesn't mean they're actually doing anything with the child. I love my mum, she was fantastic as a parent, but I have absolutely no memories whatsover of her ever playing with us. Painting, mucking about with play dough, sticking bits of cardboard together - those were all things that we did at playschool never at home. Board games, eye spy in the car, or even simply sitting and playing tickle games or making daisy chains - none of these things were in her repertoire. Like the majority of mothers when I was growing up, she mostly stayed at home but also always worked either part time or from home doing piece work or knitting commissions. We weren't rich enough as a family for her not to work at all.

It is important to me that my son grows up knowing that I consider him important enough to engage in his world and that I will always make the time to do things that he wants to do.

But, just like I can't keep my son from every danger, making sure that he is never in risk at all by keeping at my side all the time, neither can I provide him with the best mother he deserves if I stay at home full time. So, I need to let him be a bit independent, go to the shop on his own when he's old enough, etc. Likewise, I want to teach my son that while my life, and his father's life, won't revolve solely around him he is important enough to us to be a major priority (the other priorities being his older brother and sister).

The best I can do is try to get my work life in the best position possible to fit around him. Which isn't as easy as some other posters here seem to have found it. Good for them if they can do work that can be done in the evenings at home. Of course I'm a little bit jealous. But not every job or occupation offers that sort of opportunity. Like Bushra, it is also very important to me that I have my financial independence, and it is important to me that I'm a good role model for my son as well. And being a good role model means being the best mother or father that a parent can be. For some, such as yourself, that means being a stay at home mother, for others it means mix and match - a little bit of both - and for others such as myself it means being a full time working mother.

I can understand the beliefs of those like SM who feel that it is a duty of all women, to those women that will follow, to have a career and work outside the home. Objectively I can understand the reasoning behind that. But subjectively my gut feeling is that the parent should be able to choose. The point of the story here is that mother's are experiencing less choice in this matter - even if they want to stay at home they can't.

There is one thing that I'm getting through your posts JJ. I get the feeling that you are talking solely about mothers. In this last comment your point seems to be about how I might feel if I wasn't lucky to have a normal child. What about the dads? What if the dad is the stay at home parent - would you still pose the same question to the mother? If the dad is working, does he have a right to feel cheated on that time with a 'normal' child? Should the father also have the right to stay at home with the child throughout the early years just in case they're not 'lucky'? Is it fair to say that only mother's have this right? And then how do you decide who it is that does go out to work? After all someone does - we have to pay the bills somehow.

[bushra]

JJ: who wouldn't? for us it's still a case of boys being favoured more than girls, can you imagine the dismay on some elder's faces when their latest grandchild is yet another daughter? no matter whether your child is a boy or a girl, whether they are perfectly healthy or not, my personal take is 'you've been given an amazing gift here, try not to f*ck it up'. and you can't predict what is around the corner, so take what you have and make the best choices you can make. it's how i'm going about it anyway.

[Lazy Mummy]

Gipsy - Sorry, I wasn't trying to speak for you, but it's interesting that we both read completely different things into what JJ was saying, because the message I got was the one I mentioned.

[Jean Jones]

And something i meant to add to my post yesterday about the different attitude that you develop when your child's period of heavy dependency carries on a lot longer than most - something that haunts me is the case of a woman I knew at work when we were both pregnant with our first child. Hers was a boy who seemed to be fine, and she went back to full-time work when he was 6 months old, putting him into day nursery. At 18 months he started to regress, and turned out to have a dreadful genetic condition that meant he gradually regressed to the state of a newborn and died at the age of 10. She couldn't conceive again. One of the things that was bitterest of all for her, in the end, was that she had, voluntarily, missed a lot of the time when he was like other children and when they didn't know there was anything wrong. OK, this is a rare and extreme case, but she was someone I knew. Long before I had my own handicapped son, she said to me that parents of children like hers would just like the parents of normal children to appreciate how lucky they are. I think she was absolutely right, but then I would feel that way, wouldn't I?

[Jean Jones]

If you really want to know:

I worked fulltime till my eldest child was born. Then I was a SAHM until my youngest (of 3) was 8. Then I started working p-t in higher education, which I still do 10 years later. I do not regret anything about any of this. It all worked for every member of my family, including me. I do not prescribe what anyone else should do: it just intrigues me why some people do what they do and am interested to hear their reasoning, which sometimes seems strange to me. No doubt there are many who can't understand the choices my family made. That's life.

[bushra]

J: a village is exactly what i would call it, i have a sister living on the same street with her children, another sister round the corner, as well as three more related families on the same street as the latter. just the fact that they are all living neearby can be quite suffocating, but at other times it really is quite handy!

[Baggofbones]

Delilah - here's a thirtysomething perspective: my own experience of having a SAHM is the one big thing that has convinced me that SAHMing is the biggest favour I can do our children!

[j]

bushra, v interesting as always ( see, you do think about things..)

Its a bit like living in a small village, being part of a big supportive family. Great if you fit in totally and it provides all you ever needed, but for some of us, a bit lonely and claustrophobic.

What I like about your story is the way you are gently renegotiating things while staying true to your traditions and loyalties. I bet there are a lot of younger girls watching you with quite a bit of relief, thinking, I could do that when I'm older...

[bushra]

hey Delilah, here's my soon-to-be 30 take.

i have just returned to work full time after the birth of my first child, he is in a private nursery and loving it.

i can't ignore my background when i post on here, it adds context. i'm a pakistani girl born to immigrant parents, the women stayed at home while the men work, so the typical route daughters take is to marry just after hitting their twenties and having at least three kids by the time they are thirty, staying at home while the mister goes out to work.

we grew up in Birmingham and by '98 were a family of ten kids. we didn't have much money, not that i resent my parents.

somehow i have ended up with an education and a career the teenage me could never have foreseen. but i never felt driven to achieve this, i think there must have been some belief buried deep down that i did not want a repeat of my childhood for my child. much as i love him the childhood also represents numerous let-downs from the dad, if you look at my situation now you'll find that if i had to, my son and i could cope just fine without the mister. not that that is my intention, i just don't like depending on men...

i would love to spend all day at home with my son, and i originally planned to take a full year's maternity leave. but seven months in i could see my son was bored and i was too! not with each other, but sitting at home all day (i moved to bradford after marriage, so have very little social options). right now going back to work for me and nursery for him has been the best thing really. it got a bit wobbly when the elders couldn't hide their dismay, but it didn't take a genius to realise they were just afraid of change.

when either of us is unhappy i'll renegotiate :) i tend not to have an ideal vision of how i'd want my family life to be, i know what i don't want it to be and tend to work in the other direction.

[Gipsy]

>>working parents are dismissive of parenting because they pay someone else to bring up their child<<

LM - no that wasn't what I was 'hearing' from JJ. What I was hearing was that I was paying someone else to bring up my child, and I would say that most certainly I am not. My child goes to nursery 4 days a week. That is utterly unavoidable. How much of those four days he actually spends at nursery depends on the time of the year - half the year hubs can spend the morning with him, half the year he can't. However, I do not think that the carers are nursery are bringing up my child. Far from it. It is our job to bring up our child, it is our job to instill values and teach out child the life lessons that he needs to become a healthy, well rounded adult.

My child spends the majority of his time with me or his dad or both of us.

It is this insistence that, because I work outside the home, I am therefore paying someone else to bring up my child, that I find utter nonsense. I pay the nursery to look after my child during those hours in the day that neither myself nor my husband can. He does painting there, and (his favourite) running around the garden and all those sorts of things.

That is not "raising" my child, as if that were something I simply couldn't be bothered to do rather, than is the reality, something that is vitally important to me. I find that sort of 'holier than thou' attitude of just a few (a very few thank goodness, at least in my experience) SAHMs extremely offensive.

[Jane2]

I like the way JJ wrote out a long post and then deleted it.
I like hearing from SM and Delilah, as they seem to have such strong minds, not mummy-sogged.
I'm afraid that all counsels of perfection melt away as the snows under the heat of passion.
Probably that's what the dustman's girlfriend was driven by, first the passionate sex, then the passionate arguments.
Probably why SM is so unpopular on here is that she is so RATIONAL.
That's not common among people who are at the sharp end of procreating, and therefore may seem a bit unnatural.
Let's face it, if everyone who was of procreational age thought carefully about the implications of everything, the human race would die out.

[j]

Delilah, alternative perspective from a 46 year old. I sat in my massive comprehensive -no back Oxbridge row for us, we had shared CSE and O level classes, 36 CSE and 4 O level people doing their own thing. If you wanted to go to Oxbridge as I did, you taught yourself.

All around me were girls (and boys) doing the bare minimum, getting ready to leave at 16. *The* coolest girl had a boyfriend who was a dustman, cos he earned £100 a week. By 18 she was divorced with two children but it didnt matter as we never saw any of them again anyway.

So my role model for working was, I'd like a flat and nobody else is going to earn the rent.

[j]

BoB you are welcome. The trick is *warm* water for the paints (and they have to be very weak, obv.)

[Lazy Mummy]

JJ - Thank you for responding. I don't think we'll fully agree on this one, but I appreciate you explaining your position. One thing that confuses me though...you seem to criticise working mothers but you've said previously that you work yourself. Am I missing something here?

[Delilah]

BofB, I'm 41. In school I sat in the back row with the Oxbridge set and made fun of the retired female GP who was inexplicably in charge of Home Economics because she often started sentences with "When you have homes and families ..." as if somehow that didn't apply to us. In fact, drying chopping boards and tea towels in the sun to kill bacteria, boiling things, clever food shopping, etc is stuff all parents need to know, fathers too (although the boy's school over the road didn't cover it at all). Home Ec is for dummies, was very much the message given out by my rather feminist girl's school. You're too good for that. Concentrate on your career. The question of how this aspect of life - Home - was going to be dealt while we were flying the world being translators or mapping distant galaxies was never discussed at either the boy's or the girl's schools - too difficult, I expect. Most of our teachers were men, childless women, or women with college-age children. The didn't have many Home responsibilities to discuss. I think we all assumed that we would earn enough to pay someone to cover this, but with absolutely no idea of how much that would really cost. Or that Prince Charming from our high-powered workplace would pay. The thought that anyone worth marrying would be content to do this dumb-ass work never crossed our minds. Most of us, of course, had SAH mothers and didn't actually do much around the house because we were "studying for our A-levels".

In retrospect, I think this rather impractical utopia - as unreal as Dynasty - was used as a life-plan by quite a lot of high-flying girls (and boys) of my generation, even the ones with WMs. Having said that, I've observed that the daughters of WMs have been least likely to opt for part-time work after giving birth. Perhaps they saw first-hand how it could turn into 24-hour, unpaid, sleepless work; or maybe they just didn't have as much of an identity crisis after having a baby as if they had an SAHM as a role model. A fair proportion of them are the ones with at-home husbands. I've noticed, too, that men with WMs seem more likely to support their wives becoming SAHMs, or to stay at home themselves, than men who had SAHMs. Perhaps growing up with a WM makes children more aware of the cost and planning involved in achieving a clean home, nice food, time together, and enough sleep, and that it doesn't just happen by magic.

What are the experiences of 30somethings and 20somethigns in this regard?

[Jean Jones]

Far from it. I was hoping I HADN'T killed it off!

[Baggofbones]

JJ - I hope you weren't hoping you'd killed the conversation off, as I am going to add to it!!

You say, "I do wonder about those who stoutly claim they couldn't even contemplate the idea of looking after a small child, and then have more children. They must be getting something out of it, but I'd love to know what."

I suggest they're either fulfilling some biological need to reproduce (without being interested in the results), or they're fulfilling some weird social idea of Perfect Couple and Perfect Children (preferably with names that all begin with the same letter). I personally can't see why people bother having them if they don't want to do the dirty work.

On another topic, J, I have never thought of the watercolour idea - what a stroke of genius. I do try to play lots of games after lunch that involve Mummy lying down with her eyes shut (and have also been known to fall asleep kneeling on the floor beside the plastic tea-set), but that is truly inspired. Thank you!

[Jean Jones]

Oooer. I have obviously hit on the solution to 'how to end THAT particular discussion once and for all without intending to'...sorry! I'll get me coat...

[Jean Jones]

I wrote a long post in response to LM and then deleted it all. But the essence of it was - I can only speak for my own experience of parenting, and inevitably that's coloured how I feel. I am not asking for sympathy, but will say that when you have a handicapped 'child' (aged 18) who is effectively a small child now and will be for the rest of my, and his, life, it sounds a little strange to me when people claim that looking after their own small children for 2-3 years is too much for them to consider. I count *my* blessings when I look at children who are a lot worse off than my son; but to me, now, it seems that
bringing up a normal child is hardly a penance and although I accept that nobody knows how they're going to feel until they actually have a child, I do wonder about those who stoutly claim they couldn't even contemplate the idea of looking after a small child, and then have more children. They must be getting something out of it, but I'd love to know what.

Again (sigh) - this is not an attack on any individual or group. Just an explanation of where I, personally, am coming from.

[J]

Tracey LOL. I was FTM for 7 years and went back to work gradually after that, now with 3 teens I have fulltime job but ten mins walk away.

Can remember oh so well the crashing mammal stage. Have you tried allowing children to colour mummy in? water colour paints (obv so they shower off) and mummy lying v still in dressing gown and pidgies on old towel with eyes closed..aaah.

[tracey]

J I write reports at night (just 2-3hrs) on my laptop, squinting into my diet coke and wondering where my baby put the "h" key from my keyboard.

during the day I am an armadillo, or bear. or today an elephant. who waited for daddy bear to surface before crashing out on the rug and just not even making it to the chair.

when baby makes 2, we will go for part time childminder just 2 sessions a week to stop me being zombie idiot woman. i have to say most days now it's not too bad but the all night chicken pox has finally tipped me over the edge!

[tracey]

"I know some will counter that only very spoilt SAHMs get to spend the school day pursuing their hobbies - but that begs the question: given a blank chequebook from God and the free choice between (a) working and (b) gardening, listening to music, baking (whatever turns you on), what would you honestly choose?"

>> given a blank cheque from God I would buy my brother a house, give a massive amount to Medecins sans frontieres etc, and then spend 3 days in bed with a huge fluffy duvet eating boiled eggs in buns, and sushi. With hot chocolates and flumps and champagne on the side. I would look after my kids but for sure, someone else would do my cleaning and gardening.

I think full time mumming would be enough for most women, these days, when there are so many opportunities to train/retrain later. so e.g. f/t mum for 5 yrs, then law degree / secretarial course / nursing degree / marine biology whatever. Age barriers are being broken down and more people going back to college after kids these days. HURRAY for that.

It is a huge luxury to be able to stay at home with the kids if you want to. I am pro choice and very grateful to have that choice.

(OK I am so tired I just went to sleep on the carpet and now have rug imprinted on my wrinkles, but hey).

[j]

sorry, that was me, have had annamac-type cookie destruction here

tracey I am fascinated by a job that involves being an overnighr bear/ armadillo, give, what do you do????

you're not part of that alleged MI5 plot against Mosley, are you? ;)

("I know some will counter that only very spoilt SAHMs get to spend the school day pursuing their hobbies - but that begs the question: given a blank chequebook from God and the free choice between (a) working and (b) gardening, listening to music, baking (whatever turns you on), what would you honestly choose?"

Not spoilt, bob but certainly very fortunate and increasingly unusual.

I think I would still question if that will be enough for most people when their children are older. My ma had that option (autres temps, autres mortgages) and she has ended up running the local Mencap shop for the last 25 years as a volunteer.

[Annamac]

Tracey: "it also worked to make me look about 200 years old and feel like someone smacked me over the head with a plank."

Heh, glad I'm not the only one :-)

[tracey]

omg what an interesting page lol.
i am a stay at home mum (of 2 preschoolers), but like many women, didn't want to sacrifice my autonomy (financial freedom) and so decided to work at night when the kids are asleep. that way, i could be there for them 24/7 but also support the family.

it worked. in the sense that i am there for my kids, very close to both, and i do provide money.

it also worked to make me look about 200 years old and feel like someone smacked me over the head with a plank.

worth it? i don't know i am to tired to think about it, and anyway i have to go and be a bear now. yesterday i was an armadillo, i think bear will be more within my reach.

BoB - yes, my dh is on his 2nd time round and definitely more grumpy this time! but also endearingly grateful for a 2nd brood and a good dad. in 2010 after we have had a bit of sleep i think we will be having a super time.

[Kim]

I've got a question for Supermother - this is genuine curiosity. You've often said that you earn £200k or more, while your ex-husband earned around £30k as a teacher. Did he never thinking about staying at home to look after the children? Because you (as a family) didn't really need his salary, did you?

[Baggofbones]

Jane2 - would love to, only it's a long way from oop north to the British Library (unless you can make it the BL's Wetherby outpost!!)

Re. nannies. One of my best friends is a nanny (she nannies three children, one of whom is in my son's class at school). She is a superb nanny - she does a far better job than the children's parents would (they are very nice, but completely bananas as parents, hence they throw presents at the children and leave the rest to the nanny). She teaches the children everything you could possibly want children to learn in terms of manners, behaviour, consideration etc, etc, etc.

When I asked her whether she would have a nanny for her own children (if/when she has any), she said she wouldn't consider it even for a second. Her view is that only a parent can bring their children up in the way they want them to be brought up, however marvellous a nanny may be. I'd agree with her (though, that said, I would let my mother bring my children up!!)

I think some people are twisting Jean Jones' words (and views), by the way. Her posts seem very reasonable to me, and definitely not personal. Is it possible that her views just hit a nerve in some readers?

[Jane2]

Sometimes I wonder whether BofB and SM really exist, or are constructs designed by Times to stimulate debate.
They are both SO opposite ends of the spectrum.
I still identify more with SM than BofB.
But that mud hut idea...yes, that wouldn't make me happy at all.
Nor would staying in a marriage for 19 years that was unhappy from year one, and having five children within that marriage. That kind of does my head in.
As for sitting reading the newspaper for the next 20 years or so, well that would be a recipe for insanity for me.
Would anyone care to meet up in the British Library cafe to discuss books etc, and prove we really exist?

[Lazy Mummy]

Jean Jones -

I actually thought your earlier comments about SM and about parenting were a bit off. Perhaps you just didn't articulate them as well as you usually do, but what I heard was similar to what Gipsy heard, that is: basically, working parents are dismissive of parenting because they pay someone else to bring up their child and no one who's paid to look after a child could possibly do it as well as the parents.

Is that what you meant? Because that's certainly what I heard, and if it is what you meant, I have to disagree with you, at least in part.

(That is: some parents are absolutely dreadful at parenting and their children are actually better off in a childcare situation - including scientific research showing this if we didn't all know it anyway. Also, some child carers - eg, the two nannies I've hired - are perfectly adept at teaching & modelling appropriate behaviour, good manners, and also love the children they care for. Admittedly, not as much as the parents do, but certainly, they form lasting loving relationships and are great teachers & role models for the children).

[Baggofbones]

Jane2 - your post appeared while I was writing mine, but it did make me laugh. I shall make sure all Alpha Mummies are invited to my book launch!

Never fear - I shall not still be trying to interest my teens-to-be in glitter glue (I am mostly pretty hands-off anyway, and hope that they will find things to do if I hide behind a newspaper for long enough). And if my son carries on in the same way that he is now, I shall not struggle to be uninterested in his obsession with textile production!!

[Baggofbones]

"You feel in a sense you have the wisdom of a grandparent and the pleasure of being a mother all over again but with a bit more experience this time. It must be how older divorced fathers who remarry younger women and have a second family feel."

Ha! My husband did laugh at this. He feels he is generally more grumpy, less patient, and a lot more tired with our children than he was with his first ones - plus the way he sees it, his experience (and he has much of it...) counts for very little!!

Delilah, your point is interesting ("I think most of our generation seem to have somehow absorbed the idea that parenting and other unpaid jobs are unworthy") What is our generation? Is there a difference between the (general) views of women who are in their 30s (as I am) and those in their 20s or 40s? I would personally find it a turn-off in a man if he were Mr Mummy - but that's not because the job of Mummy is unworthy. I suppose it seems too important to leave it to a man (or, in fact, to anyone other than myself. Hmm).

Annamac - now, you appear to have achieved the Holy Grail of most women (working only during school hours). I still wouldn't want a job myself, as I have things I'd prefer to do during school hours (gardening, piano, reading, writing), but if I did have one, yours sounds pretty good!!

While we're at it, why should gardening (etc) make you less of a person in your child's eyes than going out to work?

(I know some will counter that only very spoilt SAHMs get to spend the school day pursuing their hobbies - but that begs the question: given a blank chequebook from God and the free choice between (a) working and (b) gardening, listening to music, baking (whatever turns you on), what would you honestly choose?

Which, I suppose, brings us back to Kim's orginal and very sensible point ("I do think it's better if mothers go out to work because they want to rather than because they have to. What kind of life is that?")

[Jane2]

BofB
I do feel that I ought to mention this..(because, as J pointed out, she and I are a bit older)... When children grow up, they are not nearly so sweet and interesting. They don't want you to make sticky pictures with them, and they can't STAND you hovering over them expressing interest in everything they do...(They call that nagging).
It's a very good thing indeed if you have some interests of your own that call you away from them from time to time, because otherwise they can tend to both despise and take you for granted. They respect someone who has their own life (and they think boiling bones is mad).
Now, having said all that, I suspect you have all the inner resources necessary to create that other life without necessarily going out and working with other people. In fact, I see you as a reborn Jane Austen, quietly observing from your desk in the corner and recreating the scenes you observe with delicious irony.
Can't wait to read your books, if you just tell us what pseudonym you're going to use!

[Delilah]

Interesting post from Sarah about how she didn't like being a "kept" woman - I think most of our generation seem to have somehow absorbed the idea that parenting and other unpaid jobs are unworthy, which is why we also despise men who do them for us. Also the earlier posts about working because we feel it's important to show our daughters that they will have to work too. Aren't we actually modelling an assumption that people are only really worth noticing if they are paid a wage?

This comes from self-analysis, btw - I worked and mothered from exactly the same motives, but in retrospect think it's all a bit cracked. Sometimes it's worth paying people to do something which is often done for free, like sex; should we measure sex by its street value, or its utility?

(Thinking about it, why do we do sex for free? Wouldn't it be more respectable if done for money?)

[J]

"What's interesting is how many people think that working once children are older is different from working when they're younger. To my mind, teenagers need their parent(s) just as much as toddlers do."

I agree with that of course, BoB, I just think that perhaps what they need is different. They are not there most of the day, most of the year, for a start. Plus it does reassure them to see that you have a life beyond them, so they dont have to feel guilty about going to Uni, leaving home, etc.

Plus my eldest is actually rather proud of our jobs, it is cool to have a mum who can fix interesting work experience.

But I agree, he would not have been getting good parenting from me if I'd continued in the city career plus commute. He's happy with the current system of him home at 5, me home at 6, little ones home at 3.15 to our longstanding and much loved Mrs A. till I get back. So it has changed a bit over the past 16 years, as you would expect maybe.

[J]

"The thought of a teenage daughter (who has been queen of the stroppers since day one), menopausal me and a crabby octogenarian on a very short fuse living in the same house... uh, I'm feeling a bit faint..."

Heh heh Annamac, you describe my childhood to a T, growing up with my gran in the house. In fact my ma to this day cant watch "After Henry", that sitcom about Prunella Scales, living stuck between her stroppy teen daughter and her annoying ancient mother, as it brings back the days when my sister would flounce out of the kitchen, turn up her music to bloodclot level, and my gran would then lurch out of her room, saying, "while you're on your feet, dear".....

[Annamac]

Not to mention the fact that by then my husband will be rising 70. OK, now I've thought about it, I take back everything I said about not wanting to go out to work. I can suddenly see the benefit of a job involving lots of travel. :)

[Annamac]

To BoB: yes, but I work, earn money, pay the bills, have a mortgage just in my name (am rather proud of that) - and I have never missed a 9am school run (walk), 1pm pre-school drop-off or a 3.30pm pick-up. It is possible to do all of that, you know. Mind you, my mother did all of that for me too - and worked in a professional job part-time - and I'll still probably be putting her in a home if that time comes - if she doesn't put herself in one first. The thought of a teenage daughter (who has been queen of the stroppers since day one), menopausal me and a crabby octogenarian on a very short fuse living in the same house... uh, I'm feeling a bit faint...

[Jean Jones]

Gipsy - this is not the first time you have taken what I intended as general remarks as a personal attack on yourself in particular and/or all working mothers (of whom, may i remind you, I am one, if only part-time) in general. I don't know you, I haven't taken a particular interest in your circumstances and I am not attacking you, your lifestyle, whatever that may be, or your opinions. I am just, as I said, stating my own opinion. And that is that the style of SAHMing that seems to be what some posters here imagine when they think of SAHMs, that is, the steely determination that one's pampered and hothoused child will spend every minute of every day being educated one way or the other, either by the driven SAHM or else by people paid to teach riding/music/yoga/you name it, while being ferried from class to class by said sahm, is not what I understand to be the point of a child being brought up largely by a parent rather than by a paid carer. That's all. No attack, nothing personal, nothing like that. You may find this hard to believe, but I am not actually prescribing what has worked for my family and children as the ideal for everyone. Everyone does what works for them, with the emphasis on 'works', as in 'makes every member of the family happy'.

[supermother]

Yes, I missed out the rise of the beta man for the alpha woman, what men have done for years, someone pretty who is content to dote on you and do your chores and be there smiling when you get in from slaying the lions or whatever we alpha men and women do. There was an article about beta men like that the press the other day. Some women are happy with that dynamic.

The secret of happiness - it's not mine. I think happiness (assuming we think that's a desirable aim at all - I think it's a rather selfish thing to put first actually as an aim) comes from your brain chemistry and issues which affect that, not your money. But the theory about surrounding yourself with people who have a little less does apparently lead to a bit more contentment. It slightly troubled me that daughter 1 at university seemed to surround herself with much much richer people (rich in the sense of money) but it doesn't seem to have caused her heartache so perhaps the theory doesn't work and it means she got to live in one of the most incredible student houses I have ever seen plus manifold other benefits.

Yes, bit difference between people playing happy families with largely obedient under 10s or in new happy marriages of 4 - 5 years standing with 2.4 gorgeous young children compared with roll forward year 15 - 20 of marriage, 3 very stroppy teenagers (and even a divorce situation like me). You get a sort of slight cynicism - no wrong word I think you just get more life experience, coping with the child who is a teenager. That in a sense has been what is so special about having the twins so much longer after the other children. You feel in a sense you have the wisdom of a grandparent and the pleasure of being a mother all over again but with a bit more experience this time. It must be how older divorced fathers who remarry younger women and have a second family feel.

[Baggofbones]

I do of course mean that no one can ever say never (goodness knows how many positive-making-negative-making negatives were in my original first sentence...)

[Baggofbones]

No, one can never say never - though I can't begin to imagine any universe in which I would want to work with other people!

What's interesting is how many people think that working once children are older is different from working when they're younger. To my mind, teenagers need their parent(s) just as much as toddlers do. I am still vastly grateful that my mother was there to pick us up from school so that we could have our cup-of-tea and Countdown ritual. I don't think she missed a single pick-up in 13 years! (And, of course, she had us every day during the v long private school holidays...). To my mind, it's the biggest favour she ever did me.

I shall certainly not be putting her in a nursing home when her time comes...

[Sarah]

I wouldn't go as far as SM's advice to surround yourself with 'inferior' people - sounds a bit like the queen bee teenage girl stereotype who won't have any friends who are thinner/prettier in case it makes her look bad. However, I do think there's something to be said for having a social group with similar lifestyle and means - being the only one of modest income in a group of super-rich friends must be difficult, being left out of expensive holidays and activities, having to explain to your children why they can't have/do the same things as their friends. And it's nice to have friends who understand and empathise with your problems and choices.

I suspect the same problem can arise within the family as well, when one partner is earning significantly more than the other. I met my partner when we were both at university, however being a little older he left a couple of years before me and got a well-paid graduate job - this created some problems as he was willing to pay for everything and lend/give me money if I needed it, however I didn't want to be 'kept' by him like that, and if it had gone on much longer he would probably have started to resent the situation. Fortunately that was a short term situation as I now have a similar job myself, and while he is still earning more than me due to greater experience, we both have enough to contribute equally to the household and leisure expenses. I'm sure it can be made to work for some couples, however I'm fairly sure I couldn't have stayed in that situation long-term.

[J]

also v interested by BoB. I am always rather impressed by the "desert island" model of family happiness, where all you truly need is one another. Families who move to the outer hebrides to start a new project and dont mind it. It's no comment on my own relationship to say that I have never been able to operate like that.

I do think though that Jane2 and I are older than some other posters. I found that the glow of intense family life was wonderful, but as they hit secondary school it was reassuring for them to know that mummy has a life besides them- and I enjoyed my work.

I feel that some of the posters had a miserable start to working life- Annamac, Delilah and BoB have all said so- and I didnt like my first career all that much either. Something you love, with people on your wavelength, that the kids are fine with- never say never.

And the SAHM friends- I had them too, but when the children were around ten they all got jobs, leaving me with no company during the day :(

[J]

Sm's comments about happiness being the ability to surround yourself with your inferiors...

There is a big problem with that of course. My son got upset when younger as he didnt come first in some history test. I said that mummy could easily fix it, no problem, for him to come first in every test from now on.

Only problem, I would have to move him to a truly terrible school. Or of course he could stay where he was, surrounded by people on his wavelength, and be pleased for them when their talents were recognised. His choice.

Even assumingthat you can control who moves to your village/firm/circle of friends and somehow arrange for any competition to "disappear", how do you manage to be superior on every count?

Isn't happiness more aligned to peace of mind, which comes from knowing that you are doing something you have made a thoughtful choice to do?

[Annamac]

Of course, when we talk about "work", we all probably have our own different concepts of what that actually means, based on our own experiences. For me, "work" (that I like) is something I do in my office at home, on my computer, when my daughter is at school and my son is at pre-school - and I also do a few (very) early mornings and late nights. I absolutely hate and detest working with other people. And if I had stayed in the first career that I entered post-university, I'm quite sure I would have morphed into the demonic boss from hell eventually. I work best by myself and preferably for myself. If I even consider going back to working in some of the environments I was in pre-freelancing, I feel a bit unwell, frankly.

As for SM's theory of happiness, she's expounded on that before and it rather made me feel sorry for her. What a horrible pressure to put on yourself; to always have to be the best-off in any given group. Sad. My theory of happiness is to learn to be happy in your own skin, warts an' all (and feeble earning-power and all).

[Baggofbones]

I have said elsewhere that Jean Jones should stand for PM - and her recent post reminds me to say it again!

There's no point commenting on her post, as I'd only be saying what she said (but less eloquently). Jean - thank you for saying it all for me!

[Gipsy]

>>Many parents feel that it's one worth doing well, and by that I don't necessarily mean pasta pictures and riding lessons. Time, communication, setting examples of love, care and unselfishness, that sort of thing.<<

Are you seriously saying that any parent doesn't think that parenting is about teaching their children values etc? Of course the vast majority do.

>>That's what I think is important and what paid employees, by their very nature, can't provide in the same way as a parent.<<

Totally 100 percent agree with you there. It isn't the job of paid employees to do that. It is the job of parents to do that. And like all mothers, whether they are working outside the home or working in the home, that is precisely what I do.

It is simply your opinion that both parents who work outside the home expect paid employees to do this - an utterly silly notion really. Just as SM's opinions are hers, so I'm not going to get too upset by this remark.

Jean, you are more than welcome to come and meet me for coffee at any time, and see exactly how I am as a parent. And please do review all my posts, as I don't think you'll find me or any other working mother saying that teaching manners, responsible behaviour and right from wrong should be given over to some paid employee.

[Delilah]

This does seem to be drifting towards the old SAHM/WM pointlessness again. SM is pointing out the bleeding obvious but let me also point out that a clever girl has (or should have) a third option: marry a man whose job or lack of it allows him to be responsible for home and children so that she can work full-time and still come home to a cooked meal, pleasant home, happy children, and money in the bank rather than the local nursery and takeaway. Increasingly, that is what American professional women do.

Having said that, like BofB I found the workplace a tremendous let-down. Thank God I no longer have to pretend to be fascinated by the partnership's latest marketing swami or sit around massaging unpleasant people's egos as a substitute for actually DOING something.

[Jean Jones]

Nothing personal, SM, and I mean that, but...
1. Bringing up children, and doing it properly, is work. It may not be work that SM feels is worthy of her, but that doesn't, in and of itself, make it something other than work. SM does not dictate universal truths; she expresses opinions and tells us about her own feelings, that's all. And since she pays people to look after her own children, it follows that it's a job. Many parents feel that it's one worth doing well, and by that I don't necessarily mean pasta pictures and riding lessons. Time, communication, setting examples of love, care and unselfishness, that sort of thing. That's what I think is important and what paid employees, by their very nature, can't provide in the same way as a parent.

2. SM said "The secret of happiness is to surround yourself with people who earn just a little bit less than you rather than a lot more and then you feel content. Make sure your mud hut is slightly better than all the others in the village".
This truly shocks me. The secret of happiness is to feel yourself, in material terms, superior to everyone around you? Sheesh. I don't really know what to say to this except boy, am I glad I am not SM and even gladder that I have not brought my children up to feel this way. I can't think of a quicker way to ensure you are NEVER happy if you truly believe this.

As I said, I don't mean this as a personal attack on SM. Just an attempt to provide a little balance.

[Baggofbones]

Your cookie-eating computer did give me a laugh, Annamac!

Do I ever want to interact with other adults on a professional footing? Um, no. I did the head-hunted-high-flying-academic thing, and hated it. I much prefer sticking leaves onto cardboard circles with toddlers and pretending that we're making pizzas. I have lots of local friends who are (oh yes) intelligent SAHMs, and our conversation does sometimes stray into child-free territory.

But perhaps one big reason why I don't feel the lack of adult conversation is that my husband is also at home all the time (allegedly working, but physically present). We just happen to get on very well together, and so I can always go and say hello to him if I'm feeling in need of adult company.

So far as jobs are concerned, I hope I never have to work again as long as I live. I can see why other people like working, or why they might feel a duty to do so, or why they might have no choice but to do so; I count myself extremely lucky not to be in the latter category. But it's just not for me.

(Stop reading now, Supermother...) When I was at university, I had thought about advertising for a wealthy husband in Private Eye - see, I never planned to work. Sadly, my husband isn't hugely wealthy. Bah, that's what love does for you.

In response to Annamac's point (that children need to see that money has to be earned): that's the only thing that bothers me slightly about our set-up. The children will probably grow up thinking that you just have to stay at home, and money will find its way to you, which may not be helpful. Then again, they may both rebel and become full-time accountants or something...

[Annamac]

Ooops, that was me being anonymous. Computer clean-up ate my cookie (or something).

I'm actually slightly surprised by my own reaction to BoB's post. I sort of believed that I am working because I have to (because I _do_ have to), but now I realise that I do also feel that I have a duty to work. Hmm. The only period in my life I really didn't want to work was when my children were babies (and I managed to avoid having to work then through a combination of extreme belt-tightening and ingenuity). But I think showing my children that they have to work to earn a living is an important part of parenting.

[Jane2]

I like Supermother's posts. I agree with a lot of what she says, it's just that I could never have done what she's done.
Have a baby at 22? I was far too selfish and still interested primarily in having a good time and finding out more about the meaning of life.
I actually agree 100% that all women should maintain a position in which they can be independent if they need to, in case of domestic violence or something. But in reality, I fell into the trap of not looking very far into the future and not maintaining my newly-qualified earnings level and then improving it as I could have done if I'd always worked full-time.
I calculated the costs of childcare (paid out of taxed income) and decided that working from home, followed by working part-time and sharing a nanny, gave me the most take-home income compatible with not leaving my babies 10 hours a day. So that's what I did. I never gave any thought to my pension, until I was in my forties. I get everything that SM says, but it is a counsel of perfection that few can aspire to.
What I can say, is that if both partners are teachers, there is a good chance of moving up the housing ladder, because they can economise on child care (no need to pay during the holidays) and importantly, they can do up houses in the holidays (before they have children of course). I've seen dual-teacher partnerships do very nicely along this model.
Interestingly, I don't get BofB at all. I always wanted to carry on with my work, just not full-time. The thought of never having any life of my own outside the family and the children was suffocating. Honestly, BofB, don't you ever feel just a teensy little bit like interacting with other adults on a professional footing, ever?

[Baggofbones]

Sarah: "You will probably want to go back to work at some point when the children are older".

Says who?!

Personally, I'd rather boil in hot oil!

[Mumofboyz]

Supermother - I have a "professional" media-related career and compared to my sister (who is a teacher) or any really low paid worker I guess I earn a fair amount, but I would still struggle to make a profit over and above childcare at a perfectly standard nursery out of my own earnings. So it's all relative - and not all of us can be (or want to be) City types! I think bright girls should be able to choose a job they will actually enjoy, and still be able to combine it with a family.

[Sarah]

I think Supermother has a good point - it seems a fairly common thing for women to decide it isn't worth them going to work, because their salary isn't significantly more than the childcare and other costs (funny how men's work is rarely dismissed in the same way). Aside from your own self-esteem and sanity, there's the long term view to consider. You will probably want to go back to work at some point when the children are older, and taking an extended 'career break' to stay home with children does nothing for your prospects, as your skills become outdated, you lose touch with contacts in the industry, lose confidence in your own abilities etc. Also while you might not earn much now, there's the prospect of future earnings - in many careers these can shoot up dramatically as SM says (investment banking by any chance SM?) but even in a 'normal' job you can expect your pay to go up steadily if you keep working and building up expertise and gaining a reputation, but you may never realise this potential if you drop out.

[supermother]

What do parents do who don't earn much? Well it's hard. We knew tons of them in London because my ex husband is a teacher. So you earn £30k or less and you're a man bringing up 3 children and keeping a housewife. In those cases often the wife then does work. One ended up robbing a children's holiday fund (!) - it must have been particularly bad for them - fairly posh, on a teacher earnings and surrounded by hugely rich boarding school children. The secret of happiness is to surround yourself with people who earn just a little bit less than you rather than a lot more and then you feel content. Make sure your mud hut is slightly better than all the others in the village.

I (and my daughters) have picked a career where your earnings will shoot up as you go on. So I could have baby number 1 when I was 22 earning £6250 in those days and half our joint the salaries were the nanny's cost. BUT I knew there was potential to earn £XXX, i.e. a huge lot more and as I always thought I was pretty good (very important issue for women to know they are brilliant and can be the best at what they do in the UK and then go out and get that.... many need a kick to get the right mind set as much as anything else...) it worked out over the long terms and she's now 23 and those years when we certainly couldn't afford any baby equipment or clothes new for a start, never bought orange juice as too expensive, no hair conditioner, economies I suspect many people just wouldn't make 20 years on was a kind of investment in my career that paid off.

So girls need to avoid low paid careers or marry rich men or have low expectations if they want their life to be a little eased.

[Delilah]

Pleased to see that Alex has brought up the tax-and-credit thing again - see my post below (sorry about the self-publicity but I can't be arsed to write it all out again).

As regards house prices, they stay high because we'll pay them. When the majority of people can't afford them - because incomes are too low or credit is too tight, or both - they'll drop. The reason house prices are so high in London is because the Government has made no effort to decentralise the economy - none - and companies still, in this internet age, feel that their working head office has to be in Knightsbridge rather than, say, Woking (or even Harrogate). Having said that, I had a friend who moved to Swindon a few years ago because, he said, the number of international companies opening offices there had turned it into a sort of Silk Road of international commerce. Probably true, although I never troubled to go along and find out - but those who sneer at Swindon may be missing out as their local schools and services collapse under the strain of mortgage debt (I gather those in Swindon are pretty good). I know that the American companies I have worked for regularly move their head offices to reflect things like enormous house prices and plummetting services.

My father, by the way, didn't have a mortgage until he was nearly fifty. Didn't see the point, as he was constantly moving; and did just as well renting and putting money in affordable real-estate-linked investments here and there. Remember - most of your mortgage payment doesn't pay for your house, it pays the bank for the privlege of lending you money.

[Kieransmum]

Totally with you Gipsy about our choices being about more than self-gratification.
Totally with MOT about it often being post-rationalising, rather than principles first reality later. (That is, muddledly, what I was trying to say).
Totally with Lilly when she says that her child will benefit from the interaction with her.

[Gipsy]

Yes perhaps I am just being too prickly MoT.

Can I blame the time of the month?

Normally I sit where you do - there really isn't a WM vs SAHM thing in my mind or life. Everyone's situation is just so different it is impossible to make such a generalisation.

I just tend to get a bit over-defensive whenever I see a blanket statement about mother's who work, or about mother's who stay at home.

[Jane2]

Alex
I'd like to know more about the coming collapse of the middle class!!
Actually, my 50-something friends are already onto this, and are often to be heard discussing the future in very dismal terms, but I'd like to see academic research on the subject.

[mumoftwo]

The way I interpreted Lilly's comments was that she was explaining/justifying to herself that she had made a good choice (correct me if I am wrong Lilly!) Actually, what comes across in the first part of the post is how much Lilly would have liked to carry on working and how much she values her qualifications and achievements, only to be hampered by practicalities and money. I found that when I was a stay at home mum, I thought nothing was so important as bonding with my child and being there 24/7. Mysteriously, now I work full-time, I feel making a contribution to the world with the skills I have beyond mothering is absolutely crucial. What I'm trying to say is that although I'm sure some people make their choices based on pure principle, it's amazing how many times principles follow reality rather than the other way around. I've seen 'attachment parenting is my life' mums ditch the SAHM when a book deal came on the horizon or they simply had to have the money and equally, women who wanted to work be happy to ditch the job and do SAHM thing when they felt bullied at work/the great child-minder left, or they fancied a change after a few years. That's not to say that none of us live by our principles, more that we do engage in post-rationalization too, which tells us we did the right thing even if things might have been otherwise.

[Gipsy]

I rather resent having my life reduced to down to something as selfish as self-gratification. That most assuredly is not the reason I work.

You might feel that only stay at home mother's can do the best job at helping a young person grow up in the world. I totally disagree. I think that being the best mother you can be is the way to do that, and for some of us that means staying at home and for others it means going out to work.

I do a very good job at helping a young child grow up in the world. I can do this just as well as a working mother as I can if I stayed at home. Better in fact, as I know that I would be a rubbish stay at home mother.

I'm sorry if this reply makes this thread degenerate into yet another SAHM vs WM thing. I just couldn't let that one slide, although I did try.

[Lilly]

I am a stay at home Mum. I had a job that required 'out of normal office hours' work in addition to the standard day which meant that a creche/nursery was not an option for me. My relations are hundreds of miles away so my options for childcare were limited. We looked into nanny sharing, we even looked into getting someone to live in our house but my low salary meant that with every option, we would have lost money.

I really feel that this is a story that is not being told. How many people are only just breaking even in going back to work? How many people use parents/relations for childcare to lower costs?

I am sad to have left my job, I achieved a first class degree from a top university and have had a successful career to date. I never thought I'd be a stay at home Mum, and it was a hard decision to make when the 'norm' is to go back to work, but I feel that our child will benefit from my interaction with her. I am not ashamed when I am asked the question 'what do you do' to say that I am helping a young person to grow up in this world - a job that I think is more important at the moment than the self-gratification of being able 'to focus on my career'.

[j]

What I remember from the 70s is that first time someone lent a mortgage based on two incomes rather than one. Everyone said, disaster, house prices will now rocket. And they did. Most of the second income goes on paying higher housing costs/

Its stamp collecting really, the house isnt worth any more than it was in 1970, it just costs more because that is what someone is prepared to pay for it.

[Alex]

"People have higher expectations of what they should be able to afford, in terms of good food, gadgets, home furnishings etc. and aren't as ready to skimp."

You should watch Elizabeth Warren's lecture on the coming collapse of the middle class. She says the idea that consumerism and high lifestyle expectations are to blame for women going out to work is wholly inaccurate, and she has the thirty year stats to prove it.

Though it is US data, it make interesting reading for Brits. In the US, the average family now spends less on appliances, furniture and clothing than it did back in 1975. The only areas where average families have spent more are: housing costs (though their houses have got smaller), childcare costs (which they never paid before) and taxes.

[Vicky]

The vicious circle is there because more of us expect a share of the financial rewards of modern life. We expect a nice home in the best area and the best schools - but so does about 90% of the population.

As a non-parent who picks and chooses work, I don't get the working mothers v SAHM thing. The unspoken work divide seems to be between those with dependents (and so need to earn income) and those without.

[j]

On NS's point, I suspect that confidence is the key. If you feel always that something wonderful is happening next door- more fun at home, better weather, better job- and your life is slipping away then I guess you might be frustrated whatever you choose.

Older people can help us remember that life takes ages (if we are lucky with our health) and that five years here or there is no big deal really. Life doesnt slip away that fast.

I still spend most of my cash on childcare- I did my childminders tax return last night so am very aware of how much she costs me with on-costs of NI etc- and I always will as my youngest will need 24/7 care for life. I'm not really working for money exactly, more for the balance of being the kind of mother I want to be- there fulltime when they were small but now, networked into a wider world, and showing them that we all matter, me included.

[j]

well Bushra, having a bit of senstivity to what people think makes you more effective, not less, so dont underestimate it. OTOH it can cripple you if they start to undermine your own self-esteem, and we are more vulnerable to that in any new set-up- new job, new baby, new country, new working pattern, whatever- than we are in something familiar. So dont let them make you feel inadequate!

[Sarah]

Apologies for the misquoting (Lucy/Eluned). To clarify what I meant - it's not that I think women and men are exactly the same, or that being a mother or a father (or non-birth parent) is the same. Of course it's not. But with a few very privileged exceptions, having to work in order to feed and clothe and house yourself and your family is just part of life, this is the way it has always been - if you find that 'sad' then it is the human condition that's sad, not the particular situation of women in the 21st century. Women and mothers, with the exception of the rich, have always had to work, often outside the home - it's just that until relatively recently they were restricted to certain roles, generally menial and low-paid. I see it as an improvement that women now have access to a wider variety of means of making our living.

However I understand that parents and especially mothers want to be with their babies, that's perfectly good and natural. I really wish we didn't have this artificial and false distinction between 'working' and 'staying home' and I would be really delighted to see more child-friendly workplaces, onsite creches, provision for breastfeeding/pumping etc. And I think flexible hours and working from home when possible are all steps in the right direction; employers need to understand that having children is something that people do, and always will be, and that we need to find ways to make paid work and parenting more compatible. Easier said than done, of course!

[mumoftwo]

Hear, hear, KM. I felt highly ambivalent about returning to work after my second, even though she was cared for by my husband (a true learning curve for him, and for me). With my first, I simply couldn't have got it together to go back early on, I took a while to find my feet as a mother and think it would have been awful for both me and her, so being a SAHM was ideal. However, I now enjoy being a working mum immensely, and am not sure which path I would take if I had another. I guess what I'm trying to say is that all this SAHM/WM dichotomy is a bit false, one can do both, be both, identify with one at one time and with another at the other. The key for me has been to challenge my belief there is one right way for me to mother and to be a mother.

[Kieransmum]

Bushra, to be honest I think very few people have it completely sorted, in the sense that they decide what kind of life they want and then arrange it perfectly. Most of us, like NS, are muddling on in a mixture of the possible, the practical-for-now, the planning-for-the-future-when-the-kids-are-older, and then our choices arise from that. Circumstances change, and I myself have noticed how differently I feel about things now I am essentially SAHM (which I didn't CHOOSE, interestingly, it just sort of happened). I'm glad it did happen but when I was studying full-time I would have said very different things to now. Sometimes I think you have to do both to be able to see the advantages and disadvantages of each.

[NS]

I am a SAHM but would like to work. However, because I decided to change careers after I went on maternity leave with my first, and am now pregnant with my second, I would have to take a pay cut to get a job that I actually like and that would mean all or the vast majority of my salary going on childcare and work-related expenses such as travel, work clothes, actually getting my hair cut on a regular basis, etc.. Ideally, I would go back to work when this next babe is 18 months so that pumping at work would only be a once-a-day occurrence instead of every couple hours like it would be with an infant. I plan to breastfeed until at least 18 months and ideally up to 2 - 2 1/2 (or whenever the child decides to wean) so it's tough even thinking about going back to work until the babe is old enough to not need milk so often.

As it is at the moment though, we are barely making it on one salary. We just bought a house in September and the mortgage payments, insurance and rising food costs are killing us. Not to mention the fact that we'll have a car to run and maintain come August because we feel we finally need to get one with baby number two due around then. I nearly lost my mind this winter due to being stuck indoors a lot with my daughter and know that if I don't have the means to get out and about next winter, I'll go mad, especially with a toddler and a newborn. It's like a big, vicious circle that I don't know how to get out of. So bloody frustrating.

How do those of you who go back to work but don't make much after childcare feel about that? Does it still seem satisfying and 'worth it'? I just worry that I will go back to work, not see a difference to our lifestyle or finances and then feel REALLY resentful all over again. :-(

[bushra]

J: you're absolutely right, but it's more playing nice than actually being nice ;)

Jane2: get off the internet?! how does one go about that, exactly?

i know, i do need to keep going and get on with things rather than wondering what people think, it only trips me up.

[Lazy Mummy]

Lucy - you are correct. Breastfeeding in the UK went out of fashion somewhere between the 40s & the 60s and has actually had something of a resurgence since feminism in the 70s. Also, sure, you can't breastfeed at work you can pump and most larger organisations have facilities for that. So, can't blame the rise of the WM for lack of breastfeeding culture.

(Though as an aside, I did actually breastfeed in the office when I went in for handover meetings towards the end of my maternity leave & everyone was v. professional about it - all the men I worked with at the time had wives who'd breastfed & 2 other women were pregnant).

Eluned - I agree that if you feel bonded with your baby, it's sad if you can't take the time you want/need to be with her/him and feel rushed back to a crappy job. BUT I take offence at your suggestion that mothers are more attached to young children than fathers are. I think that's patently rubbish and many of the fathers I know (my own husband included) would call you on it.

Also, there's probably a vast difference between leaving your baby behind to pull pints in Threshers where you might have low income, crappy hours & little respect from management (and little control over your schedule) and leaving it to run a company or negotiating a major deal or be a lawyer or a product manager for a large software release that affects millions of clients worldwide.

[Lucy]

Supermother's point about breastfeeding is fair, but does anyone know what's happened to rates of breastfeeding as against women staying at home/ going to work? I thought the decline in breastfeeding was more of a social/ cultural thing? I know you can't (often - I'm sure it's possible in some work environments) breastfeed at work, but I thought breastfeeding declined before such large numbers of women started working just after having the baby?

Btw, not to open a can of worms ;-) of course - when do people think is the best time to go back to work after birth, assuming you do intend to go back?

[supermother]

Some of us are delighted to get back to work quickly to get a break from a crying baby in the day, men and women, we find the commute such a break - to read a book in peace, then to wear normal office clothes, be treated with respect, praised, paid hugely and then go home to a gorgeous lovely baby and a comforting breast feed - it's wonderful to have had that perfect balance. Being home with a baby is not the perfect balance and it leads to inequities in the home, problems in a marriage and a loss for women in so many ways never mind being politically unacceptable. Althoguh I certainly accept men and women are different and despite our appalling breastfeeding rates in the UK it makes more sense for the woman to take the first months off of any leave when a chlid is born.

[Eluned]

You quoted me Sarah. I wasn't calling anyone who works for a living sad, as in, like, lame, haha. I meant the situation is sad, as in, unhappy. Because most families are reliant on two incomes, mothers who want to be with their children full time have to go back to work sooner than they'd like. I don't think that's an improvement on the situation women were in in the early twentieth century, when they weren't allowed to work if they were married regardless of their wishes.

'But arguing that women need special treatment and should only have to go to work if they decide they'd like to play at 'careers' as a hobby is just insulting to all of us.'

What's wrong with special treatment? Men and women ARE different and I think this blanket rule we've got at the moment is awful. Mothers are more attached to their young children and breaking that attachment can be damaging, there are thousands of books on the subject. To carry a child for the best part of a year, go through the most physically and emotionally arduous but wonderful experience when giving birth to them, watch them grow on your milk and then a few months later be expected to hand them over for someone else to look after so you can get back to paid work and 'take responsibility for yourself', is an appalling thing for society to suppose of us. As if procreation is just a selfish indulgence, not like 'real work', and time spent on it should be minimal.

A lot of my friends who've had babies have gone back to work under duress and it's horrible; they miss their children. They don't want to be bored in Threshers serving drunks whilst their baby says her first words but they have no choice. I can't help but think that this was not what the Pankhursts were aiming for.

'It's arguably sad any intelligent woman thinks child care and serving men and cleaning is a proper way to spend their time but let's not get into that.'

What do you think of your own hired help, Supermother?

[Jane2]

Bushra
bless you my dear, I totally agree with J: chill out, get off the internet, stop worrying and relax.
What this is all about is, that all of us do what we have to do, within the limits of what we are able.
Don't worry about what you "should be doing".
Some of us can't stand being at home, others can't bear to leave our children, most of us compromise in many ways but it all shakes out at the end.
We all love to talk about it, though, and that's what keeps the whole thing alive.
I could go on all day. As General Smuts told Winifred Holtby in South Africa in 1925, "I could talk about my daughters all day."

[Lucy]

Sarah, you weren't quoting me (Lucy), names are posted below, not above. I do sort of see what you mean, but if someone (mum or dad) who's had children is having to tear themselves away each day to make a living while someone else is paid for looking after the child, that surely is a bit sad? Both for the parent and the person looking after the child. I mean, isn't it a bit of a shame that looking after children isn't financially at least reasonably rewarding?

Kieranmum: the North! the Midlands! Yay! Brought up near Nottingham and living in Chester-le-Street ... I knew there was something good about this area...

[M]

Ha hal, yeah. The Americans make names like that up for things like Triscuits and bisquik.

[M]

Well, yeah. The Americans make names like that up for things like Triscuits and bisquik.

[j]

what, like cophee?

[M]

Oh, I thought bisquits were some achingly hip/chic thing that people who live in London know about and have at garden parties. but then I wasn't sure.

[j]

"all the regulars here (e.g. Gipsy,J, KM) sound like you have your heads together and have a good awareness of 'alpha mummy' issues. is it bad that i haven't given so much thought to these things?"

Bushra, what with your in-laws giving you grief for working outside the home and waiting for your childcare to fall over, and now you feel guilty that you dont have time to have thought this all through- I am wondering if you are just too nice :)

I have been back at work since 1998. You have had back three weeks. Give yourself a break and have a cup of tea with your feet up- there is plenty of time to think these things through.

I think Bushra is spot-on (and what's this nonsense about us having our heads sorted? We've just argued for so long we've lost the