Being a mother is not the most important job in the world

clairefontaine

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

"The first few years" is quite a minimising of the first 12/13 years. And does it really get pretty cushy by secondary school? The teenage years?

These are the years I have to think about whether I want to be a mother or not, and even though I like kids, am good with kids, and am patient with them... I'm really not sure I want to have any of my own. It seems extremely tough, and I have gauged that opinion only from an outsider's perspective, let alone actually doing it.

It's a life of perpetual worry. Even when you are "off duty" which is never because you are always on call, you are still worried.

And you will never ever sleep the same way again.

hedgehog2

clairefontaine wrote: »

It's a life of perpetual worry. Even when you are "off duty" which is never because you are always on call, you are still worried.

And you will never ever sleep the same way again.

This^
My main reason to shy away from having kids.
I have serious respect for most mothers who get stuck into the role and devote the time to their offspring.
Its a lot of hard work and the reward might not be there.
Its not selfish to think of it this way in our decade I believe.
The future has never been so uncertain,squeezed resources,increasing population and throw in all the crap like facebook,teen pressure.
It all just spells trouble to me and good luvk to those mothers,I would take a 9-5 anyday.

Femme_Fatale

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

It seems extremely tough....

It can be.

It's pretty damn good, all the same, and I wouldn't swap the experience for anything.

The Corinthian

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

"The first few years" is quite a minimising of the first 12/13 years. And does it really get pretty cushy by secondary school? The teenage years?

Yet, someone who is in employment will be doing 37+ hours per week for a lot longer than 12/13 years in their working life. Not only that, but if they are also a parent - a not-stay-at-home-parent - will have the same worries as any parent, but still be expected to take over from the stay-at-home-parent when they get home from their day's work.

To be then told that their job is less important or less difficult, is seriously gilding the lilly.

Henry9

The point is though that 'worry' isn't a full time job. You can worry and still go to work 40 hours a week.

clairefontaine

Henry9 wrote: »

The point is though that 'worry' isn't a full time job. You can worry and still go to work 40 hours a week.

What has that got to do with the thesis of the article?

The article was criticizing all mothers, working or not, depleting the importance of their role as mothers. And honestly, in her last paragraph she makes a pathetic, reductive allusion to vaginal tearing defining you as a mother. If you have to resort to genitalia references you should get over yourself and maybe get another job, because writing ain't your talent sweet tits. Maybe try, I don't know, pole dancing or prostitution. Or maybe you could set up a bad writers club with your fellow feminist Guardian writer who hopes her daughter remains proud of her gigantic poops.

Should the word be replaced by parent? What difference would it make, parent would just replace mother because that is what the reality is?

Gay dad parents and single custodial fathers are in the minority, so parent would still make people think of mothers.

I, for one am tired of all this social engineering via linguistic games, the Guardian's undergraduate nonsense, and let's face it a very bitter little two bit columnist who is probably jealous.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

The point is if you are a working custodial parent, you essentially have two full-time jobs.

The point he and I have made is that they're not both 'full time' jobs, after the first few years.

Sure, if the child needs constant care due to Down's syndrome or autism, or if you have five or more children, then the child carer / homemaker role could well become a full-time. Otherwise, it simply doesn't add up and claims that it is simply sound self serving.

This is not to dismiss the role, but at the same time we should sanity check statements such as the following:

Like it or not and believe what you like, the moms are carrying most of this load. Single and coupled.

And frankly this, very often, is utter crap. I've met more than a few working parents who after a long day earning the money that pays for everyone in their family, return home only to have everything dumped on them, because the stay-at-home parent 'needs a break', but somehow still managed to spend an inordinate amount of time watching daytime television or posting to on-line fora/Facebook, rather than try to seek even a part time job, so that their partner too may be able to 'take a break'.

The sacrifices that parents make are laudable and to be respected, but when you start hearing comments like the above, is smacks more of sexist self-justification than anything else.

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

The point he and I have made is that they're not both 'full time' jobs, after the first few years.

Sure, if the child needs constant care due to Down's syndrome or autism, or if you have five or more children, then the child carer / homemaker role could well become a full-time. Otherwise, it simply doesn't add up and claims that it is simply sound self serving.

This is not to dismiss the role, but at the same time we should sanity check statements such as the following:

And frankly this, very often, is utter crap. I've met more than a few working parents who after a long day earning the money that pays for everyone in their family, return home only to have everything dumped on them, because the stay-at-home parent 'needs a break', but somehow still managed to spend an inordinate amount of time watching daytime television or posting to on-line fora/Facebook, rather than try to seek even a part time job, so that their partner too may be able to 'take a break'.

The sacrifices that parents make are laudable and to be respected, but when you start hearing comments like the above, is smacks more of sexist self-justification than anything else.

I am really not interested in getting involved in a debate with someone who regularly posts MR activism. I amended my post which you evidently have not seen.

You have seen one thing, I've seen another. The moms I know also work or are single and also work, some are at home with kids while their husbands are deployed in the military.

How many gay men do I know who have kids? ZERO.

How many single custodial dads do I know? ZERO.

She wants to rearrange language to accommodate them. This reminds me of transgender day at the local primary where they got to dress up the principal as a princess. Get it PRINCipal, PRINCess. Guess how many transgender kids there are in the same school? ZERO.

What are you talking about justifications, justifications for what? You have strayed so off topic from the article it's like you sailed off in a windstorm and landed in the South Pacific and it has ZERO to do with the self riteous nonsense printed in the Guardian.

wolfpawnat

It is a fairly important job, without good rearing, kids become a burden on society. But for the most part, it is a 2 person job. I do 90% of the rearing here as himself is working. Parenting is a lifelong commitment, even the pope can step down, as a parent, you never do if you are doing it right. But being the most important can be said about a number of jobs. These days women think childbirth is the ultimate act of martyrdom. It's not fun, but there are 7 billion people on this planet, so it's hardly the most horrific thing ever.

Just never expect a clean home as long as they are living with you. Or a good solid sleep. I am just finished studying for the night now as I can't do it during the day.

clairefontaine

wolfpawnat wrote: »

It is a fairly important job, without good rearing, kids become a burden on society. But for the most part, it is a 2 person job. I do 90% of the rearing here as himself is working. Parenting is a lifelong commitment, even the pope can step down, as a parent, you never do if you are doing it right. But being the most important can be said about a number of jobs. These days women think childbirth is the ultimate act of martyrdom. It's not fun, but there are 7 billion people on this planet, so it's hardly the most horrific thing ever.

Just never expect a clean home as long as they are living with you. Or a good solid sleep. I am just finished studying for the night now as I can't do it during the day.

Well according to the nutjob who wrote this opinion diatribe, you are not a mother unless you breastfed and have vaginal tear, which rules out women who had c sections and did not breastfeed.

That's a lot of women she discounted, both women who adopted and women who did not have vaginal births. Congratulations Guardian, you found your resident female misogynist.

wolfpawnat

clairefontaine wrote: »

Well according to the nutjob who wrote this opinion diatribe, you are not a mother unless you breastfed and have vaginal tear, which rules out women who had c sections and did not breastfeed.

That's a lot of women she discounted, both women who adopted and women who did not have vaginal births. Congratulations Guardian, you found your resident female misogynist.

Ever notice the biggest critics of women.....are other women. I must baffle her, I had 2 c-sections and BF. I am half a woman! :rolleyes: These idiots are becoming too common for my liking these days. Probably obsesses over amber bead necklaces, cloth nappies and has pretentious triple barrelled names for the kids.

Sauve

Mod

Clairefontaine, with reference to your second last post, attack the post, not the poster

pwurple

The Corinthian wrote: »

Indeed, the majority of what you're describing is what single people and childless couples do all the time while employed full time; organising the broadband repair person, renew your insurance, bring the car to the NCT, research the bank account with lowest fees, top up the heating oil. It's what everyone do, without expecting it to be a full-time job.

Yes, what a single person does.... except multiply it up to the size of an average family... 2.2 children... so 4 or 5 people. Take 3 teenagers who you insure on the car so they can learn to drive, plus yourself and husband. Or one daughter who does swimming or rowing competitions, so she needs insurance, team gear, special equipment, plus her brother who plays guitar in a band in the middle of nowhere, and does hurling. The complexity increases as they are all doing different things, requiring different service providers. It is constant.

I know you are be a hands-off parent, who leaves their children to their own devices... or you can be involved.

Sorry, but even growing up I noted all around me mothers who had plenty of free time; the only ones who didn't seemed to be ones who had taken up part or even full time jobs. Having done housework, as an adult, I quickly realized that it's not the time consuming slave labour that it's advertised as and that it would be close to impossible to justify it as a full time job without serious exaggeration.

I'm not saying its impossible to have free time, like I said initially, it's completely self-driven. You can take on all the extra tasks, provide extra services for the family, or you can do much much less.

My own mother was the former... She had paid part-time clerical employment while we were in school, also did work for my fathers business. She had 5 children, and as the person who lives closest to both my father's parents and her own, helped the 4 of them, and two disabled uncles, through old age with hospital appointments, running errands, provisions, cooking, helping handover a farm etc. But we had home help for her to be able to do all this. We had at least one, and usually two aupairs with the family most of the time. It instilled a great work ethic in us all, and we were very independent from a young age, I am immensely grateful to my parents for what they did for us as children. But there were certainly times where I envied families where the parents did not have several other jobs they were juggling, and could spend some time with them.

I know women who gave up their jobs, but in order to justify that drop in income, they now sew all their families clothes and bedding, sell bread at fairs, that kind of thing.

I also know women who gave up work and put their child in creche for the week and have nice lunches with a glass of wine with their friends.

It's entirely what you make it. But you can make it extremely busy indeed.

Seriously, more loads in the machine? An extra five or ten minutes (or are you counting the time while it runs?). Sure more ironing and standing at the clothes line, but how much more realistically? And how often? Not like it's every day.

If you can do 4/5 times the amount of laundry of a single person a week in just 5 to 10 minutes, then you are hired! Come on over, you start tomorrow. Yes, of course it is everyday! I don't think you are even being serious. Have you seen what sport playing children go through in clothes? In irish weather? I have three brothers who all play team sports. We had two washing machines when I was a child, and a string of au-pairs to help with household work.

Sleepy

Home-making isn't necessarily a full-time job but you can certainly make it one if both parents are happy to do so.

My wife is a stay-at-home mother and while the prohibitive cost of childcare was definitely a factor, we both preferred the idea of having one of us there to mind our children when they were under three and to be there to collect them from play-school etc. Once our two started in school, she started looking for part-time work as much for her own sanity as for the extra income (though that's certainly going to help!). As it turned out, the best option for her financially was to become a childminder a few days a week as there are tax advantages and it leaves her free to collect our kids from school and to mind them during mid-terms, school holidays, sick days etc.

Neither of us considered her being a stay-at-home parent to be a full-time job while the kids were in school and while she certainly enjoyed the few hours to herself every morning, it upset her not to be contributing financially and to have to rely on me for money.

I think one has to question the wisdom of one parent working 60/70 hour weeks while the other swans around for 20 hours a week when the kids are in school. Could the stay-at-home parent getting part-time employment help the other to reduce their hours and get to see more of their children? Most of the really successful men I've met of my father's generation ended up having quite poor relationships with their kids due to the fact they simply weren't around during their childhoods.

Maybe this is changing these days as I do know one guy who's hugely successful who's at home to have dinner with and put his kids to bed every night and who takes the kids to their beach house in the country every weekend so they get to have family time with him but, then again, he heads back into the office after he's put them to bed and doesn't get home til late meaning he and his wife have fairly limited quality time together too.

It's not a trade-off I'm willing to make myself tbh. My family are more important to me than material or financial gain. Maybe others have great passion for what they work at and prefer to spend more time doing it and less time with their families so their partner can have a nice life of coffee with friends, morning classes etc. while their kids do more or more expensive extra-curricular activities and the financial gains from their passions mean that when they do spend time with their family it involves more expensive/exciting activities, nicer holidays etc and, as such is, in their view at least "higher quality time".

It's a matter of deciding what works best for your family. For us, spending time as a unit is more important than the activities we spend it doing. Others might find it boring but, while we struggle financially, an afternoon picnic in the park or at the beach as a family is just as exciting to our 5 year old as getting to have horse-riding lessons every week.

Of course, I'm looking at this very much as a parent in a two-parent family. For a single parent, things change drastically. I think I'd be pretty resentful of a co-parent making a uni-lateral lifestyle choice to be a stay-at-home mom and expecting me to finance that. Add in any friction over access and I'd be fit to be tied tbh.

Then again, I can see the case that it might be very difficult for someone who adopts the primary custodian role to find work that makes it worthwhile for them to give up their welfare benefits. I can't see myself choosing to hire someone who'd require very flexible hours unless they were charging significantly below what I'd have to pay for someone more reliable and/or the nature of the work allowed for it (something where end-product being delivered by a deadline was the only thing that mattered e.g. writing, graphic design etc.). From my wife's experience, part-time positions during school hours are few and far between as well.

The Corinthian

pwurple wrote: »

Yes, what a single person does.... except multiply it up to the size of an average family... 2.2 children... so 4 or 5 people. Take 3 teenagers who you insure on the car so they can learn to drive, plus yourself and husband. Or one daughter who does swimming or rowing competitions, so she needs insurance, team gear, special equipment, plus her brother who plays guitar in a band in the middle of nowhere, and does hurling. The complexity increases as they are all doing different things, requiring different service providers. It is constant.

You're completely exaggerating. For example, even were all the above the case, what then?

Insurance, once done, that's it for a year, if not longer (as you can just renew it thereafter. The swimming gear - again, once done, it's done. Lift to the band "in the middle of nowhere"? How often is this? Once a week? Twice? And of course they have to have a lift, because being old enough to play in a band, they're not old enough to take a bus.

Thing is that almost all of these tasks are things that only need to be done once in a blue moon. Sure they may make your day or week Hell, but they won't make every week Hell - and that's what it comes down to.

And sure, other things will come up, but so what? More things that need to be done once in a blue moon. Are you suggesting it suddenly becomes a full time job? If so, I'd fire you.

I know you are be a hands-off parent, who leaves their children to their own devices... or you can be involved.

Ohhh... the guilting attack! Or you can be the type that ends up spoiling their children, to the point that as adults they're infanilized and incapable of functioning normally too. Or you can encourage them to stand on their own too feet.

Being involved does not imply you need to run after them 24/7, or otherwise smother them.

I'm not saying its impossible to have free time, like I said initially, it's completely self-driven. You can take on all the extra tasks, provide extra services for the family, or you can do much much less.

I've seen this approach; the create work for yourself so as to look busy tactic. Generally involved cleaning the house from top to bottom seven times a week, despite the fact that to do so, so often, is a pointless self-indulgence.

Beyond that, it would be very difficult to take on, or invent, sufficient tasks to make it a full time role.

My own mother was the former... She had paid part-time clerical employment while we were in school, also did work for my fathers business. She had 5 children, and as the person who lives closest to both my father's parents and her own, helped the 4 of them, and two disabled uncles, through old age with hospital appointments, running errands, provisions, cooking, helping handover a farm etc. But we had home help for her to be able to do all this.

Yet we're talking about nowadays, where you won't get five children (according to you) but two or three. As for additional commitments such as disabled relatives, family businesses, children with autism (as was suggested earlier) and the like, how many really have such commitments and why are such cases being repeatedly used to 'prove' a full time role?

If you can do 4/5 times the amount of laundry of a single person a week in just 5 to 10 minutes, then you are hired!

Really? So how long does it take to empty the washing machine and put in a new load? Same for the dryer, and failing that to hang up clothes? About the only thing that takes up any real time is ironing.

So, to go from one load per week (for a single person), to 4 or 5, will add about 30 minutes loading/unloading. Might keep the washing machine busy all day, but you're free during that time. If you have to have no dryer and have to hang your clothes up, another extra half-hour, TBH. Ironing really depends on how good you are, but I'd guestimate an hour or so.

That's two hours more than if you were single - per week. Full-time my arse.

The Corinthian

Sleepy wrote: »

Of course, I'm looking at this very much as a parent in a two-parent family. For a single parent, things change drastically. I think I'd be pretty resentful of a co-parent making a uni-lateral lifestyle choice to be a stay-at-home mom and expecting me to finance that. Add in any friction over access and I'd be fit to be tied tbh.

Such unilateral lifestyle choices may be made regardless of whether it's a single, two-parent or childless family, I'm afraid; although the childless stay-at-home homemaker is very difficult role to justify socially anymore.

However, where it comes to mothers, and returning to the original topic, the danger with propaganda such as 'being a mother is the most important job in the World' is that it lends credibility to such unilateral decisions, making them sound like sacrifices, when in reality they're often anything but.

Henry9

clairefontaine wrote: »

What has that got to do with the thesis of the article?

It's got to do with the posts claiming its a full time job because if the worry involved.
Like y'know your daughter might become the victimIMF a social media campaign to out her as promiscuous.
Of maybe not like 99.99% of children.

pwurple

The Corinthian wrote: »

Ohhh... the guilting attack! Or you can be the type that ends up spoiling their children, to the point that as adults they're infanilized and incapable of functioning normally too. Or you can encourage them to stand on their own too feet.

Guilting attack on whom? As if it wasn't clear already, I am not a stay at home parent. I work, and moved house in order to live close enough to schools so that my children can walk to them unaided. I have no intention of spoiling my own children. I do intend for them to have more skills than the basic set provided in school though. To be able to have another language, shoot, cook, repair a bike etc. And to be able to read and write at a higher standard than is provided by state schools. Maybe they'll even eventually manage to know the difference between "too" and "two".

That's our own choice, and maybe it's too 'middle-class' to pamper our children by giving them these extra skills, but it will be during the years well after toddler-hood where this extra time gets spent. As I currently employ cleaners and childcare, I really don't forsee the cleaners going by the time the children are 12-13. I'll probably have to increase their hours.

The work does not diminish as children age, it changes.

hedgehog2

Sure every child need to shoot

Henry9

What is this nonsense anyway?
If you're driving your children around like a glorified taxi service, maybe stop doing it. Buy them a bike or a bus pass, rather than claiming its a full time job.

Organising insurance? LOL, so being a mother is mostly admin?
Sounds very important.

I think the motivation for this is to claim parity with those who go to work for a living.

It comes in handy if you're disputing the rightful home for any assets in the event of a divorce.

This way the stay at home mother us entitled to 50% because she 'raised his children' and thats 'most important'

The Corinthian

pwurple wrote: »

Guilting attack on whom?

I'm sorry but telling someone one can be a parent "who leaves their children to their own devices... or you can be involved" is a pretty loaded statement.

To be able to have another language, shoot, cook, repair a bike etc.

Sorry again, but you're changing your argument. One second it's a full-time job because you're doing everything for the child now it's because you spend more time with them. Not the same thing.

That's our own choice, and maybe it's too 'middle-class' to pamper our children by giving them these extra skills

They're hardly going to learn many skills if you're doing everything for them.

The work does not diminish as children age, it changes.

Unfortunately you've not managed to demonstrate this at all.

SeventySix

Henry9 wrote: »

I think the motivation for this is to claim parity with those who go to work for a living.

A stay at home parent has parity with those who work for a living. My husband is at home with our child. I believe that his job is far more important than mine. How could I not? He minds her, nutures her, is shaping her into the person she will become. I am working on insurance websites. My job pays the bills but his is the one we will be most proud of.

Henry9 wrote: »

It comes in handy if you're disputing the rightful home for any assets in the event of a divorce.

This way the stay at home mother us entitled to 50% because she 'raised his children' and thats 'most important'.

This is a nasty cynical thing to say. The vast majority of stay at home parents choose to do it for the good of their family. Or is it only mothers you have an issue with? Would a stay at home father not be entitled to 50%? Or are fathers so self sacrificing that they wouldn't even think such a thing?

pwurple

hedgehog2 wrote: »

Sure every child need to shoot

Why not?

Henry9 wrote: »

Organising insurance? LOL, so being a mother is mostly admin?

Not being a mother. Being a parent who lives with their children. It's mostly a lot of things combined... yes, of course admin included.

It comes in handy if you're disputing the rightful home for any assets in the event of a divorce.

This way the stay at home mother us entitled to 50% because she 'raised his children' and thats 'most important'

Yikes. Bitter divorcee alarm!

The Corinthian wrote: »

They're hardly going to learn many skills if you're doing everything for them.

They won't learn anything without someone teaching it to them either. Did your parents ever take you fishing? Speak to you in a second language? Show you how to cook? Teach you nothing other than to toilet train you and let you off?

The Corinthian

Henry9 wrote: »

I think the motivation for this is to claim parity with those who go to work for a living.

I don't think that's fair. Sometimes circumstances are such that it's makes sense even financially for someone not to work - remember, we will in a World where you're sometimes better off on social welfare than working. Sometimes there are practical reasons too; while children are already in school at 7 years of age, that doesn't mean you can take on a full time job, and part time ones are not the easiest to find (depending upon your profession).

However, I would agree that this is sometimes the motivation; sometimes the person does not really want to work and would prefer to be 'kept'. For bonus points, being a married stay-at-home parent, dependant on their spouse, means that they're guaranteed that they'll be on the receiving end of the spoils of any divorce.

In my experience, such people (and I've known at least one man like this, BTW) tend to be the ones who hark on most about how hard and full-time their role is, who never even try to look for a part time job (although they'll swear that they would if [INSERT_EXCUSE]) and often are also not terribly good parents, let alone homemakers.

That's not to suggest at all that all stay-at-home partners are like this, but there's no shortage of those who are and who use things like the glorification motherhood to justify their lifestyle choices.

SeventySix wrote: »

This is a nasty cynical thing to say.

Maybe. Does it make it untrue though, just because it's nasty and cynical?

The vast majority of stay at home parents choose to do it for the good of their family.

In your opinion. Maybe you're right. Maybe not. Personally, I wouldn't say vast majority, but I'd probably say majority; given this I don't know. But let's not get carried away and start stating our opinions as fact.

Or is it only mothers you have an issue with? Would a stay at home father not be entitled to 50%? Or are fathers so self sacrificing that they wouldn't even think such a thing?

Personally I'd be equally critical of either gender, it's just that it's more common that mothers take up this role - social convention and prejudices, lack of paternity leave or even rights to their children and the like tend to make things turn out with stay at home mothers being the vast majority of cases, so it's natural that mothers will be more usually cited.

Actually this entire thread is predicated on a statement about mothers alone.

The Corinthian

pwurple wrote: »

Yikes. Bitter divorcee alarm!

I've never married, but I can certainly understand and agree that there is more than a grain of truth behind what he said. Now, would you like to put this view down to being my being bitter about something too, rather than addressing the argument?

Did your parents ever take you fishing? Speak to you in a second language? Show you how to cook? Teach you nothing other than to toilet train you and let you off?

Of course, all of the above and more - and it still didn't amount to a full time job for either of them. So what's your point? You're still no closer to demonstrating in any way that it is a full time job.

SeventySix

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's not to suggest at all that all stay-at-home partners are like this, but there's no shortage of those who are and who use things like the glorification motherhood to justify their lifestyle choices.

Is this a fact or is it just in your opinion, that these people exist?


IN MY OPINION - the vast majority of people are trying to do their best by their familes. I believe that most stay at home parents are doing their best and are doing an important job. To me, they way Henry phrased his comment suggested that any women, considering taking time out of her career to mind her children, would be thinking about how good it would look if she and her partner divorced, and how much she would get. I dont belived this to be representative of women in general.

The Corinthian

SeventySix wrote: »

Is this a fact or is it just in your opinion, that these people exist?

A fact on the basis that I've witnessed some. Even you seemed to concede that they exist.

I can't say if they're a minority, majority or whatever though, because naturally I've not witness every one of them.

To me, they way Henry phrased his comment suggested that any women, considering taking time out of her career to mind her children, would be thinking about how good it would look if she and her partner divorced, and how much she would get.

I agree with you there and even responded to Henry's post accordingly.

However, there are some pretty nasty pieces of work out there too, who in reality are looking after their own interests and use their children as a justification for their actions.

Both good and bad people exist, which is why concepts such as "being a mother is the most important job in the world" are so dangerous; they're good in that they give recognition in a society that increasingly looks down on people unless they're waged, but they're bad too because they enable the parasites.

Sauve

Mod
This thread is getting a bit personal now, rein it in a bit please.

Pawwed Rig

clairefontaine wrote: »

It's been we'll established, at least in the US, and probably in Ireland too, that kids who have parental,involvement in homework, kids who do extracurricular activities etc, will do better and be more successful.

This is a good point. However a fulltime stay at home parent is not necessarily involved in this manner. I think the main point is that it is the quality of the time one spends with their child rather than the quantity which is more important.
2 hours a day doing activities and learning exercises is better than the full time stay at home parent that sits on the couch all day watching daytime TV.

clairefontaine

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

This is a good point. However a fulltime stay at home parent is not necessarily involved in this manner. I think the main point is that it is the quality of the time one spends with their child rather than the quantity which is more important.
2 hours a day doing activities and learning exercises is better than the full time stay at home parent that sits on the couch all day watching daytime TV.

I agree. However, the article was smearing "mothers" in general, and now the conversation has turned into women who are at home with the kids regardless of their circumstances. Mothers are more than their vaginal tears. Really demeaning obnoxious thing to say.

She is writing in Britain. I can't say I know what the state of play is there in terms of long working hours for adults, travel etc, or their homework demands, etc. I kind of know what it is in Ireland, much less demanding than in the US for example, where you are expected to do longer hours, less vacation time, ,ore competitiveness among students, a no child left behind program which has added infinite strains on teachers and parents, mothers in the military, fathers in the military, people don't have grandparents to rely on like they used to back in the day, etc. You have three kids, that's. lot f homework, a lot of driving to activities, and a lot of housework.

She's comparing mothers to surgeons and saying ow much more important a surgeons jobs is, well maybe, but someone had to raise that surgeon, someone had to buckle down and do their homework with them, and take care of them and pay for them too. They didn't become a surgeon all on their tod.

To judge an entire constiituency of people, based on people who sound like they come out of trash tv is misleading at best and bigotry at worst.