Au Pairs - the great debate.

MagicMarker

A post in another forum got me thinking about this.

What are people's opinions on Au Pairs? Or more to the point, parents who feel the need to hire one? Firstly, you're trusting a complete stranger to come into your home and practically raise your kid(s). Now I don't have any kids, but I don't know if i'd be comfortable with my kid 'bonding' with someone the way they should be bonding with me, all because I'm ''career driven''.

For all the women AND men out there, would you prefer to stay career focused and hire an au pair if it was financially viable? Or would you prefer to be a stay at home mum/dad?

I'd prefer to continue working part time so I don't go insane from being deprived of adult company and talking babytalk all the time. I also love what I do, rather than just having a career.
Depends on who's earning more if it happens as well, ofc.

Dudess

bluewolf wrote: »

I'd prefer to continue working part time so I don't go insane from being deprived of adult company and talking babytalk all the time.

Yep, seems to be something all the mothers I know bemoan.

Stench Blossoms

I don't have any kida but I've seen loads of documentary's about how badly au pairs are treated and how bad some au pairs are.

I've spent too many years in college to be a stay at home mum.

Dudess

Dudess wrote: »

Yep, seems to be something all the mothers I know bemoan.

Well if it happens and himself is earning less, guess who gets to stay home anyway

GirlInterrupted

MagicMarker wrote: »

A post in another forum got me thinking about this.

What are people's opinions on Au Pairs? Or more to the point, parents who feel the need to hire one? Firstly, you're trusting a complete stranger to come into your home and practically raise your kid(s). Now I don't have any kids, but I don't know if i'd be comfortable with my kid 'bonding' with someone the way they should be bonding with me, all because I'm ''career driven''.

For all the women AND men out there, would you prefer to stay career focused and hire an au pair if it was financially viable? Or would you prefer to be a stay at home mum/dad?

The problem with this is that au pair's aren't nannies, they aren't supposed to take over the childcare role in its entirety, only perform a supporting role to the parents.

I think most children will bond with their primary care giver to a great extent, but in my observation, they never lose sight of who is actually Mummy and Daddy.

bluewolf wrote: »

I'd prefer to continue working part time so I don't go insane from being deprived of adult company and talking babytalk all the time. I also love what I do, rather than just having a career.
Depends on who's earning more if it happens as well, ofc.

Being in the company of children won't necessarily drive you insane, I work with children and its my choice to be with them and I love their company, their chatter and their challenges. I love what I do, too.:)

I think its very hard to anticipate how much you'll enjoy your own children's company, or how much you'll want to be with them.

Dudess

orla wrote: »

I don't have any kida but I've seen loads of documentary's about how badly au pairs are treated and how bad some au pairs are.

Depends on the home though. Au pairs can be treated superbly.

ntlbell

I think it's a bloody disgrace joe.

Same with people leaving their kids in crèche's etc.

The "career" has become more important than looking after your own sprogs

If you want the career then have it.

if you want the kids, look after them yourself.

disgrace joe bloody disgrace.

GirlInterrupted

GirlInterrupted wrote: »

Being in the company of children won't necessarily drive you insane, I work with children and its my choice to be with them and I love their company, their chatter and their challenges. I love what I do, too.:)

I think its very hard to anticipate how much you'll enjoy your own children's company, or how much you'll want to be with them.

Absolutely, but I've heard all over the place that the lack of adult company can be a killer, a balance really has to be struck. It's the lack of adults really I mean than the presence of children all the time, and if you're really stay-at-home all the time you might find it hard to get out and socialise etc to compensate like you normally would.

Stench Blossoms

Dudess wrote: »

Depends on the home though. Au pairs can be treated superbly.

Ah yeah every situation is different.

I think there is a stigma though that au pairs are like slaves that you pay to watch your kids, cook, clean etc.

ntlbell wrote: »

I think it's a bloody disgrace joe.

Same with people leaving their kids in crèche's etc.

The "career" has become more important than looking after your own sprogs

If you want the career then have it.

if you want the kids, look after them yourself.

disgrace joe bloody disgrace.

This is one of the reasons I don't think I'll have kids in the future. If I were to have kids I'd want to look after them myself and not have them in a creche.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Let's get one thing straight here: ans Au Pair is NOT a qualified childminder or nanny, and is NOT supposed to left in charge of the kids for long periods of time. I think the distinction is thirty hours of week, not counting one/two evenings of babysitting.

A nanny is what you hire when both parents are in full-time employment, not an au pair.

stovelid

Ntbell, my son is in crèche two days a week.

Whatever about the extra income, my wife would go bat-shit stuck at home. Our son seems to enjoy himself at creche and seems to love his carers, something our friends with older children in the same set-up affirm.

I hate to play the moronic parent trump card, but wait until you're a stay-at-home parent yourself and then decide.

Ditto re: the financial circumstances people find themselves in. Sometimes, it's too easy to judge.

As for Au-Pairs. Any one that I ever knew was exploited. Not necessarily treated badly, but expected to provide a full-time surrogate parent role, including housework, for bad pay.

JC 2K3

I think having hard working parents is a good example for a child. At the same time, parents do need to spend time with their children, but I'm not in favour of stay at home parents, personally. School ends at about 3 pm, if a parent can't manage to be home from work at that time, then I don't see the big deal with an au pair or child minder watching their kids for an hour or two. I don't think that's letting someone else bond with your kids any more than you're letting a teacher bond with them by sending them to school (ditto créches for kids who are under 4).

ntlbell

stovelid wrote: »

Ntbell, my son is in crèche two days a week.

Whatever about the extra income, my wife would go bat-shit stuck at home. Our son seems to enjoy himself at creche and seems to love his carers, something our friends with older children in the same set-up affirm.

I hate to play the moronic parent trump card, but wait until you're a stay-at-home parent yourself and then decide.

Ditto re: the financial circumstances people find themselves in. Sometimes, it's too easy to judge.

As for Au-Pairs. Any one that I ever knew was exploited. Not necessarily treated badly, but expected to provide a full-time surrogate parent role, including housework, for bad pay.

I like the way you make the assumption I haven't done it.

I can't see how a mother would get bored looking after their own flesh and blood it seems absolute bizarre to me.

if you can't afford to have kids then wait till can.

there's just not excuse for handing your kids off for someone else to get "bored" of looking after them.

a disgrace.

ntlbell

ntlbell wrote: »

I like the way you make the assumption I haven't done it.

I can't see how a mother would get bored looking after their own flesh and blood it seems absolute bizarre to me.

if you can't afford to have kids then wait till can.

there's just not excuse for handing your kids off for someone else to get "bored" of looking after them.

a disgrace.

He didn't say bored, he said bat-s*.
Just because you did/could do it doesn't mean it works that way for everyone else and there is nothing wrong with it whatsoever.

MIN2511

Hmmm...

We had nannies to raise us as kids, then off to boarding school at 10. My mum was a full time house wife too

I dunno, i would never quit working to raise my kids. My husband(if i marry ) and i will have to do this together(both working ofcourse).

I will not employ an au pair/nanny... The kids are my responsiblity... We will have to work something out

GirlInterrupted

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I think having hard working parents is a good example for a child. At the same time, parents do need to spend time with their children, but I'm not in favour of stay at home parents, personally. School ends at about 3 pm, if a parent can't manage to be home from work at that time, then I don't see the big deal with an au pair or child minder watching their kids for an hour or two. I don't think that's letting someone else bond with your kids any more than you're letting a teacher bond with them by sending them to school (ditto créches for kids who are under 4).

I'd agree with most of this except two points.

I wouldn't assume that parents who stay at home with their children aren't hard workers, its not called the hardest job in the world for nothing.

I'm neither for, nor against, parents staying at home; if they can afford it and want to, then they should, if not, they shouldn't.

ntlbell

bluewolf wrote: »

He didn't say bored, he said bat-s*.
Just because you did/could do it doesn't mean it works that way for everyone else and there is nothing wrong with it whatsoever.

when your fully capable of looking after your own kids and you decide to pass them on to someone else to do it

that is wrong.

facht.

ntlbell

ntlbell wrote: »

when your fully capable of looking after your own kids and you decide to pass them on to someone else to do it

Maybe after certain lengths of time, they're not fully capable anymore.

that is wrong.

facht.

Typing fact [or "facht"] after something doesn't make it true. :rolleyes:
it remains your opinion only.

ntlbell

bluewolf wrote: »

Maybe after certain lengths of time, they're not fully capable anymore.



Typing fact [or "facht"] after something doesn't make it true. :rolleyes:
it remains your opinion only.

huh? if there's two "capable" parents and are sharing most duties i dont see why one would become incapable any more

are you going to actually contribute something to the thread ?

Whispered

I don't want kids ever so it's easy for me to imagine getting bored or frustrated looking after a child all day every day. I'm just not a maternal person so that may dictate my opinion but, wouldn't it be better for both parent and child for the child to spend a few hours a week in a creche?

Both parents can work (perhaps one not full time) meaning more income and a life outside the home for both and the child gets to learn how to interact with other children and other adults, sort of like socialisation for want of a better word.

Dee369369

I had an au pair when i was younger, there was 4 children under 6 so the extra help was welcome! and 18years since she left we're still in contact with her and her family and i've gone to france to learn french by minding her children for a few weeks.

I don't see why so many people seem against it yes we all bonded with her but she didn't take the place of my parents at all.

ntlbell

ntlbell wrote: »

are you going to actually contribute something to the thread ?

You mean something more than "my opinion is that x is wrong, fact" ?? Yeah hard to top that one all right...


No, there's really no further point talking to you on this

JC 2K3

GirlInterrupted wrote: »

I wouldn't assume that parents who stay at home with their children aren't hard workers, its not called the hardest job in the world for nothing.

I know that it's not easy. But many parents both work and raise their children. You can't say that stay at home parents have it as hard as them.

GirlInterrupted wrote: »

I'm neither for, nor against, parents staying at home; if they can afford it and want to, then they should, if not, they shouldn't.

I wouldn't deny anyone the choice to be a stay at home parent, but would be against things like extra social welfare for stay at home parents and would frown upon stay at home parents who don't at least have some kind of part time job when their kids are of schoolgoing age. I mean, what are they doing for 6 hours a day while their children are at school? Housework isn't an excuse as families with two full time working parents manage fine in that regard.

stovelid

ntlbell wrote: »

I like the way you make the assumption I haven't done it.

I can't see how a mother would get bored looking after their own flesh and blood it seems absolute bizarre to me.

if you can't afford to have kids then wait till can.

there's just not excuse for handing your kids off for someone else to get "bored" of looking after them.

a disgrace.

If you are a parent, I apologize.

You're not the mother of everybody's child though, including mine, and as such, you should park the righteousness. Even a parent's jurisdiction ends with their own kids. People make their own choices.

And as for going any further here - as in the no-doubt Byzantine and ultimately tedious road that rising to your bait will take me - no thanks.

ntlbell

stovelid wrote: »

If you are a parent, I apologize.

You're not the mother of everybody's child though, including mine, and as such, you should park the righteousness. Even a parent's jurisdiction ends with their own kids. People make their own choices.

And as for going any further here - as in the no-doubt Byzantine and ultimately tedious road that rising to your bait will take me - no thanks.

I'm not the mother, correct, I'm a man.

i have no problem with people making choices and I'm voicing my opinion on it.

I'm not trying to bait you, the OP asked for peoples opinions I gave mine, you commented on my opinion, I didn't engage you.

Dudess

ntlbell wrote: »

I like the way you make the assumption I haven't done it.

I can't see how a mother would get bored looking after their own flesh and blood it seems absolute bizarre to me.

if you can't afford to have kids then wait till can.

there's just not excuse for handing your kids off for someone else to get "bored" of looking after them.

a disgrace.

Only a non parent would have such an overly simplistic view - a bit like single men being rabidly pro-life.
One's "flesh and blood" doesn't make jacksh1t of a difference - if it did, there wouldn't be post natal depression. I like the way you imply a woman is a heartless monster if she doesn't spend every moment with her child. My friends - loving, overjoyed, worried mothers - are chuffed they can do some part-time work. Sitting at home every single day, five days a week, alone, lonely, their husbands/partners not home til late due to the current economic climate, all their friends at work... is misery for them. How the hell is it "bizarre" to want a break from that? Oh yeah, it's bizarre to you - a working man. Therefore it should be bizarre to everyone.
Suggesting mothers should be revelling in the joys of their baby being there (I've heard a glow emanates from the cot and wraps itself around the mother :rolleyes:).... it's like something out of a lame Disney movie. A very young baby is asleep most of the time anyway.

And the financial question: "wait til you can afford kids". LOL at the oversimplification. What if that never happens? Women can't hold off indefinitely you know.

Then again, you're not actually putting yourself in a woman's shoes.

I think being minded now and again by someone other than the mother/father is actually very good for the child - my mother was stay-at-home and I became too clingy to her all together, with the result I'd get really upset if she went anywhere for an hour and left me with a friend.
And it's good for kids starting school - they're already prepared for the fact that there are other people who mind them besides Mammy/Daddy.

galwayrush

Most people with au pairs have to constantly remind the rest of us that they have one. Seems to be a badge of honour with the new breed of idiots the celtic tiger overdraft caused.

ntlbell

Dudess wrote: »

Only a non parent would have such an overly simplistic view - a bit like single men being rabidly pro-life.
One's "flesh and blood" doesn't make jacksh1t of a difference - if it did, there wouldn't be post natal depression. I like the way you imply a woman is a heartless monster if she doesn't spend every moment with her child. My friends - loving, overjoyed, worried mothers - are chuffed they can do some part-time work. Sitting at home every single day, five days a week, alone, lonely, their husbands/partners not home til late due to the current economic climate, all their friends at work... is misery for them. How the hell is it "bizarre" to want a break from that? Oh yeah, it's bizarre to you - a working man. Therefore it should be bizarre to everyone.
Suggesting mothers should be revelling in the joys of their baby being there (I've heard a glow emanates from the cot and wraps itself around the mother :rolleyes:).... it's like something out of a lame Disney movie. A very young baby is asleep most of the time anyway.

And the financial question: "wait til you can afford kids". LOL at the oversimplification. What if that never happens? Women can't hold off indefinitely you know.

Then again, you're not actually putting yourself in a woman's shoes.

I think being minded now and again by someone other than the mother/father is actually very good for the child - my mother was stay-at-home and I became too clingy to her all together, with the result I'd get really upset if she went anywhere for an hour and left me with a friend.
And it's good for kids starting school - they're already prepared for the fact that there are other people who mind them besides Mammy/Daddy.

and as usual your interpretation of my posts are miles off the mark.

This is not about women, when I stated about a "woman" getting bored looking after their child I was referring to his partner not "all" women.

I was the stay at home parent and my FEMALE partner went to work.

So if i thought she was a monster wtf would I be doing having kids with her?

I have no problem with for example both parents doing some part time work, so there's always one parent wit the child.

Or for example the one who works during the week can mind the child on the weekend while the other trys to rid of some boredome by doing weekend work?

There's 101 ways to skin this cat without pawning your kids off on a stranger, so don't try and make me look like some sexist prick here.

It's bizzare to me that anyone would want to pawn their kids off to soemone else while they were more worried about their career than the child man or woman.

I'm a working man _today_

I was a stay at home parent.

I don't need to put myself in a womans shoes, as A COUPLE we decided we would only have kids if we were financially sound.

and by finacially sound i mean getting yourself into a position where you don't need TWO full salrays coming in for X amount of years. if you have both been working i can't see how this would be that hard to achieve?

there's a HUGE difference between being "minded" now and again by someone else than handing your kids to someone every day to bring your kids up yea?

at this point can i throw out the usuall bollix that usually comes now

are you even a parent? :rolleyes:

Dudess

ntlbell wrote: »

and as usual your interpretation of my posts are miles off the mark.

Well then you need to be a bit clearer.

This is not about women, when I stated about a "woman" getting bored looking after their child I was referring to his partner not "all" women.

I was the stay at home parent and my FEMALE partner went to work.

So if i thought she was a monster wtf would I be doing having kids with her?

Hmmm... you specifically said "mother".

I have no problem with for example both parents doing some part time work, so there's always one parent wit the child.

Well some parents just can't afford that.

Or for example the one who works during the week can mind the child on the weekend while the other trys to rid of some boredome by doing weekend work?

Well when it comes to the loneliness/boredom, that's not much use because this is experienced particularly acutely on weekdays.
A break from the child will make the parent appreciate them more too.

It's bizzare to me that anyone would want to pawn their kids off to soemone else while they were more worried about their career than the child man or woman.

The "career" sh1t is always thrown out (also, see opening post) - it's more about sanity really... oh and the need for a second income in some cases.

I don't need to put myself in a womans shoes, as A COUPLE we decided we would only have kids if we were financially sound.

That was your choice - it doesn't have to be others'.

and by finacially sound i mean getting yourself into a position where you don't need TWO full salrays coming in for X amount of years. if you have both been working i can't see how this would be that hard to achieve?

What about the mortgage? Mortgages went nuts in the past few years - and please don't mouth off your usual sh1te about people being stupid with money during the boom. Even a reasonably priced house had an insane mortgage up to the recession.

there's a HUGE difference between being "minded" now and again by someone else than handing your kids to someone every day to bring your kids up yea?

If one parent works two or three mornings a week, then yeah, that to me constitutes being minded now and again... hardly "being brought up" - such melodrama... "yeah?"
Are you even a parent? You say you are, but your views on parenthood are so simplistic, I'd have my doubts.

NTL bell. You live in cuckoo land.

I am a working mother. My husband has a very well paid job. We don't have a big house. I left work last May and returned in January because it was crippling us trying to live on one salary. It was also very unfair that my husband; who has worked so very very hard to get where he is, who does exams every few months to keep on top of his career, who gets paid good money; to have to think about whether or not he could afford to go for a couple of pints after work or buy a t-shirt! It was stressful.

Yes, I would like to to pick my daughter up from school every day and take her home/out for the afternoon etc but it's not an option. You have no right to call people who don't spend every waking moment with their children, a disgrace.

ntlbell

Dudess wrote: »

Well then you need to be a bit clearer.

Hmmm... you specifically said "mother".

she is the mother of their child no?

Dudess wrote: »

Well when it comes to the loneliness/boredom, that's not much use because this is experienced particularly acutely on weekdays.
A break from the child will make the parent appreciate them more too.

huh? if they're working weekends they're two days away, you think asking a parent to mind their own child 9-5 for 5 days is asking too much?

Dudess wrote: »

The "career" sh1t is always thrown out (also, see opening post) - it's more about sanity really... oh and the need for a second income in some cases.

So work evenings? work weekends? both do part time? as i said 101 ways to do it

Dudess wrote: »

What about the mortgage? Mortgages went nuts in the past few years - and please don't mouth off your usual sh1te about people being stupid with money during the boom. Even a reasonably priced house had an insane mortgage up to the recession.

Well no one puts a gun to your head to buy a home, you can always rent? works for most european countries but not here?

the boom is only the last couple of years? what about before it? what about now? if you saved up a decent deposit and didn't want a 3 bed

again it comes back to the point of if you can't afford it then wait?
or make the adjustments so you can? it's fairly straight forward

Dudess wrote: »

If one parent works two or three mornings a week, then yeah, that to me constitutes being minded now and again... hardly "being brought up" - such melodrama... "yeah?"
Are you even a parent? You say you are, but your views on parenthood are so simplistic, I'd have my doubts.

well i would of thought most people with au pairs are working 5 days no? thats the idea of them usually?

no some men come on the internet and pretend to be girls for lesbian sex

I come on to it to pretend I'm a parent to piss people off:rolleyes:

CathyMoran

When I was younger I nievely thought that I would love to stay at home and mind kids, if and when I had them...then I looked back and saw what staying at home did to my mum, she never got back into the swing of things after having us and ended up being very isolated, she never worked again which was very tough on her, she was a very bright individual...

In an ideal world I would love if my husband could stay at home if and when we are lucky enough to have another child (we miscarried our first), I am not very maternal and my husband is a wonderful carer. I did not do what some women do and go for the richest guy who could let me stay at home with kids, I went for the man I love, should I be punished for that and not be allowed to have kids?

Having said that, when we were expecting our child I did look at creche and the thought of putting our child there upset me a great deal - maybe my opinions will change if I hold our baby in my arms. We could just about do it financially but it would be a struggle, I would like to send any child to private school...I think that we would compromise and both work 4 day weeks...as to an au-pair, it might be good for the child/children to pick up new language skills but I would be scared that the au-pair would not be good enough with children to look after mine.

ntlbell

ntlbell wrote: »

So work evenings? work weekends? both do part time? as i said 101 ways to do it

when do you expect the child to spend time with BOTH parents at the same time? Do you not think that this is a necessity? A FAMILY should spend time as such and if there is always one parent working how can they do this? where is there time for the marriage (or relationship) if they can never spend any time together?

Hardly a healthy family life.

ntlbell

Deleted User wrote: »

when do you expect the child to spend time with BOTH parents at the same time? Do you not think that this is a necessity? A FAMILY should spend time as such and if there is always one parent working how can they do this? where is there time for the marriage (or relationship) if they can never spend any time together?

Hardly a healthy family life.

the same way they do when they're both working?

when they're both not?

ntlbell

ntlbell wrote: »

the same way they do when they're both working?

when they're both not?

alot less time together as a family then!

Right now, I get to spend the whole weekend and every evening from 5 o'clock with my husband and Daughter. If I decided to work evenings and weekends I would be running out the door when my husband was coming in and then at weekends be out of the house while they are spending time together. That's not right for us.
So, I would get to spend the two weekend evenings with my daughter and husband. Yeh, real good family life.

ntlbell

Deleted User wrote: »

NTL bell. You live in cuckoo land.

I am a working mother. My husband has a very well paid job. We don't have a big house. I left work last May and returned in January because it was crippling us trying to live on one salary. It was also very unfair that my husband; who has worked so very very hard to get where he is, who does exams every few months to keep on top of his career, who gets paid good money; to have to think about whether or not he could afford to go for a couple of pints after work or buy a t-shirt! It was stressful.

Yes, I would like to to pick my daughter up from school every day and take her home/out for the afternoon etc but it's not an option. You have no right to call people who don't spend every waking moment with their children, a disgrace.

I dunno not being able to go to the pub after work to drink pints wouldn't concern me if I was able to spend more time with my child

I guess my priorities are offski.

beer - kids beer kids...your right, it's a tough choice.

You're a very lucky woman.

JC 2K3

CathyMoran wrote: »

I would like to send any child to private school...

This attitude depresses me.

But that's another topic, I guess...

S.I.R

MagicMarker wrote: »

A post in another forum got me thinking about this.

What are people's opinions on Au Pairs? Or more to the point, parents who feel the need to hire one? Firstly, you're trusting a complete stranger to come into your home and practically raise your kid(s). Now I don't have any kids, but I don't know if i'd be comfortable with my kid 'bonding' with someone the way they should be bonding with me, all because I'm ''career driven''.

For all the women AND men out there, would you prefer to stay career focused and hire an au pair if it was financially viable? Or would you prefer to be a stay at home mum/dad?

paying someone to stroke stuff from your gaf over the space of several weeks...



sounds like a good job.

ntlbell

Deleted User wrote: »

alot less time together as a family then!

Right now, I get to spend the whole weekend and every evening from 5 o'clock with my husband and Daughter. If I decided to work evenings and weekends I would be running out the door when my husband was coming in and then at weekends be out of the house while they are spending time together. That's not right for us.
So, I would get to spend the two weekend evenings with my daughter and husband. Yeh, real good family life.

Well lets look at the options.

Both go to work full time and let your child be brought up by a stranger

get to spend a small amount of "familiy" time together in the evening before they go to bed.

or

both work part time?

both bring up your child, both get to spend time in the evenings and weekend?

one work full time, one work 2/3 nights a week

you get your child brought up by their parent daily and spend weekends and 2/3 nights a week together?

there is lots of ways to do it and adjust that will benifit the child rather than pawning the child off to strangers

iDontReallyCare

Dudess wrote: »

Well then you need to be a bit clearer.

Hmmm... you specifically said "mother".

Well some parents just can't afford that.

Well when it comes to the loneliness/boredom, that's not much use because this is experienced particularly acutely on weekdays.
A break from the child will make the parent appreciate them more too.

The "career" sh1t is always thrown out (also, see opening post) - it's more about sanity really... oh and the need for a second income in some cases.

That was your choice - it doesn't have to be others'.

What about the mortgage? Mortgages went nuts in the past few years - and please don't mouth off your usual sh1te about people being stupid with money during the boom. Even a reasonably priced house had an insane mortgage up to the recession.

If one parent works two or three mornings a week, then yeah, that to me constitutes being minded now and again... hardly "being brought up" - such melodrama... "yeah?"
Are you even a parent? You say you are, but your views on parenthood are so simplistic, I'd have my doubts.

The modern choices are,

Have kids, worry about them later. One must still have a life?
Buy a house, sure we can't afford it but we should have one.
Read above for kids.
We are stupid and should have thought this all out.
I am fat but I'll convice everone my size is ok.
I must be all about me.

So many choices but so many more excuses.

ntlbell

ntlbell wrote: »

I dunno not being able to go to the pub after work to drink pints wouldn't concern me if I was able to spend more time with my child

I guess my priorities are offski.

beer - kids beer kids...your right, it's a tough choice.

You're a very lucky woman.

ha! yeh you focus on the beer. Jeez you'd swear he was a raging alcoholic!!! Funny thing is my husband never goes out after work for beers but wouldn't it be nice to have the choice after working so hard? Oh by the way, my daughter attends private school, does guitar lessons, french class, drama class, so I think it's clear where our priorities lie, a happy child.

Yeh, you're right, your priorities are offskis! you clearly don't think all that much of spending time as a full family unit. You're partner is a very lucky woman ha!

Dudess

ntlbell wrote: »

you think asking a parent to mind their own child 9-5 for 5 days is asking too much?

It's isolating and lonely for many of them, yes (all, in the cases of the mothers of young children whom I know).

So work evenings? work weekends? both do part time? as i said 101 ways to do it

If it's because of loneliness, that's no use - weekday mornings are the killer.

the boom is only the last couple of years?

Last "couple of years" yeah? That implies two years. If I recall correctly, this country was swimming in money in 2001.

what about before it? what about now? if you saved up a decent deposit and didn't want a 3 bed

The women I know who have young children became mothers between 2002 and 2008 - when property was extremely expensive. As you know. A 3-bed will be needed for a family.

again it comes back to the point of if you can't afford it then wait?

Oh right - til the woman's 45 maybe? Oh wait... menopause time.

well i would of thought most people with au pairs are working 5 days no? thats the idea of them usually?

Au pairs aren't childminders - the OP got mixed up. And this thread has changed course to simply focusing on the second parent going out to work at all - even just part-time. I think full-time for both parents would be too much all right - but I'm not going to judge those who have that going on without knowing their situation. It could be a myriad of other things besides career focus - parents are so exhausted all the time anyway, I'm sure they'd prefer not to have to work full-time hours if they could avoid it.

I come on to it to pretend I'm a parent to piss people off:rolleyes:

Well you do say things to contradict it/come across as inconsistent in that regard. I'm not saying I'm fully confident you're not a parent, but I have my doubts - merely going by what you post yourself.

CathyMoran

JC 2K3 wrote: »

This attitude depresses me.

But that's another topic, I guess...

Its not the be all and end all, no...all schools cost money nowadays in any case...I ended up getting a better start because I was home schooled for a lot of my first year because I was ill...which I suppose brings us back to au-pairs, ideally a 5 year career break when the children are young?

iDontReallyCare

CathyMoran wrote: »

Its not the be all and end all, no...all schools cost money nowadays in any case...I ended up getting a better start because I was home schooled for a lot of my first year because I was ill...which I suppose brings us back to au-pairs, ideally a 5 year career break when the children are young?

Interesting. How do you feel you turned out as a person? Did it help you for life?

ntlbell

Deleted User wrote: »

ha! yeh you focus on the beer. Jeez you'd swear he was a raging alcoholic!!! Funny thing is my husband never goes out after work for beers but wouldn't it be nice to have the choice after working so hard? Oh by the way, my daughter attends private school, does guitar lessons, french class, drama class, so I think it's clear where our priorities lie, a happy child.

Yeh, you're right, your priorities are offskis! you clearly don't think all that much of spending time as a full family unit. You're partner is a very lucky woman ha!

eh?

if your both in work and when we were doing it only one of us were working how do we spend less time?

with all that private buisness going on it doesn't look like you were stuck for money then?

your story has some serious holes.

ntlbell

ntlbell wrote: »

Well lets look at the options.

Both go to work full time and let your child be brought up by a stranger

get to spend a small amount of "familiy" time together in the evening before they go to bed.

or

both work part time?

both bring up your child, both get to spend time in the evenings and weekend?

one work full time, one work 2/3 nights a week

you get your child brought up by their parent daily and spend weekends and 2/3 nights a week together?

there is lots of ways to do it and adjust that will benifit the child rather than pawning the child off to strangers

First of all, part time jobs are very difficult to come by (I tried very hard to find one). Unless you want to work in tesco on minimum wage or something and if that's the case you clearly need to do alot more hours to make up the difference so that argument fails.

secondly, I personally don't "pawn my child off to strangers" she gets looked after by her grandmother. BUT, if a child does happen to be cared for by a non family member. If they are there from the time the child is born then they're not a stranger to the child.

ntlbell

Dudess wrote: »

It's isolating and lonely for many of them, yes (all, in the cases of the mothers of young children whom I know).

again it's about finding a way to do, not not to do.

You go to a friends? a mother/fathers group? local coffee mornings? there's always something that can be done dash of creativity, bit of imagination, and if there's NO group, fecking start one.

Dudess wrote: »

If it's because of loneliness, that's no use - weekday mornings are the killer.

Oh right, I wasn't aware it only came on weekday mornings, that sounds like a meidcal issue more than anything else, maybe they might want to see a GP.

Last "couple of years" yeah? That implies two years. If I recall correctly, this country was swimming in money in 2001.

Dudess wrote: »

The women I know who have young children became mothers between 2002 and 2008 - when property was extremely expensive. As you know. A 3-bed will be needed for a family.

well if you restrict yourself to only being capable of raring a child in a 3 bed then yes a 3 bed is what you need.

I would of thought 2 would be fine with a view to going to 3 at a later stage maybe? but again, you find the way to do not not to do.

Dudess wrote: »

Au pairs aren't childminders - the OP got mixed up. And this thread has changed course to simply focusing on the second parent going out to work at all - even just part-time. I think full-time for both parents would be too much all right - but I'm not going to judge those who have that going on without knowing their situation. It could be a myriad of other things besides career focus - parents are so exhausted all the time anyway, I'm sure they'd prefer not to have to work full-time hours if they could avoid it.

Well you do say things to contradict it/come across as inconsistent in that regard. I'm not saying I'm fully confident you're not a parent, but I have my doubts - merely going by what you post yourself.

I don't know what to say, I've never heard of someone pretending to be a parent before and I've never been accused of it.

lets go with I'm a troll with no kids I pretend I do for fun.

ntlbell

ntlbell wrote: »

eh?

if your both in work and when we were doing it only one of us were working how do we spend less time?

with all that private buisness going on it doesn't look like you were stuck for money then?

your story has some serious holes.

oh yeh, serious holes! cos I'm lying about being stuck for cash, yeh, that makes sense! I want the best for my daughter. Why shouldn't she learn an instrument, learn another language, have the best education? and because I was paying for these things with only one parent working I was literally smashed, we could barely afford food come pay day. So, should I stay at home, tell her no you can't play the guitar, you can't do drama, you can't go to that school, instead, you can stay at home all day with me? Why should I? She's happy and that's what is most important.

ntlbell

Deleted User wrote: »

First of all, part time jobs are very difficult to come by (I tried very hard to find one). Unless you want to work in tesco on minimum wage or something and if that's the case you clearly need to do alot more hours to make up the difference so that argument fails.

secondly, I personally don't "pawn my child off to strangers" she gets looked after by her grandmother. BUT, if a child does happen to be cared for by a non family member. If they are there from the time the child is born then they're not a stranger to the child.

Oh I see working in tesco is above you, but I thought it was to have a break from the kids it wasn't about trying to aspire in a career? so which is it?

Well I'm glad it's a familiy member it makes a really bad sitaution not so bad.

ntlbell

Deleted User wrote: »

oh yeh, serious holes! cos I'm lying about being stuck for cash, yeh, that makes sense! I want the best for my daughter. Why shouldn't she learn an instrument, learn another language, have the best education? and because I was paying for these things with only one parent working I was literally smashed, we could barely afford food come pay day. So, should I stay at home, tell her no you can't play the guitar, you can't do drama, you can't go to that school, instead, you can stay at home all day with me? Why should I? She's happy and that's what is most important.

No, you go to work while she's in school?

it's never that complicated.