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

Pawwed Rig

Exactly. I do not think anyone would argue that being a parent is an important job. Also where one is an involved parent, as outlined by purple below, it can be a time consuming job.
Where one is not involved and takes a hands off approach to their children allowing them to run wild (which I do not think is as uncommon either in Ireland or America* as you seem to be implying) then they are not fulfilling their parental role so to even claim to be a fulltime parent is an untruth.


*although I think that in Ireland it is more visible as we have a more classless society to the extent that everyone lives closer together.

clairefontaine wrote: »

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.

Any article about "mothers", "fathers" or any other all encompassing group is always going to be a nonsense as it is such a general term that it makes the whole article meaningless.

pwurple

The Corinthian wrote: »

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.

My point still is, as it was from the start, that parenting effort does not end as soon as children go to school, as you have repeatedly claimed.

The Corinthian

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Exactly. I do not think anyone would argue that being a parent is an important job. Also where one is an involved parent, as outlined by purple below, it can be a time consuming job.

Except pwurple didn't outline how it would be a 40-hours a week job.

First we were told that it's a full-time job because the worry is constant, until it was pointed out that to worry isn't actually a 'job'. Then that the housework was a full-time job, until I pointed out that there's no way you'd clock up 40-hours a week there unless you were in extreme circumstances. Finally, it became about the time spent in 'involvement' and 'teaching'.

Some of the examples of this that were given were:

Fishing. How often? Going fishing, presuming it's with the stay-at-home parent, isn't a daily affair, is it? So because you take a half-day out to go fishing once a month, that takes so much time that you have to stay at home?

Foreign Languages. I was brought up bilingual. Do you know how much extra time parents have to devote to that? Zero; they just talk to you in the other language rather than English.

Cook. When would a parent teach their child how to cook? Most probably when they're cooking anyway. Even if they devote time especially for cooking, we're back to asking if it's a daily affair - which it's not.

No one is denying that young children are demanding. Or that children with disability require your full-time attention. Or that large families are difficult to handle. Or some family circumstances are such where a full-time person must be employed.

Thing is, once the child is older, most families nowadays don't fall into any of the above categories and it really does seem to be a desperate attempt to exaggerate the workload so as to justify a full-time role - this is why I agree with your statement about quality over quantity of time.

Note, some parents are full-time because they cannot work because they can't find a job that will allow them to be part-time stay-at-home parents, but at least they don't claim that they have to be full-time stay-at-home parents.

pwurple wrote: »

My point still is, as it was from the start, that parenting effort does not end as soon as children go to school, as you have repeatedly claimed.

I've not, and you even retracted your accusation that I did after you accused me of this earlier.

All I've done is say that the effort decreases over time, and by the time the (youngest) child is in their teens, it's realistically no longer full-time. Nothing about it being a zero-hour a week job or otherwise 'done'.

clairefontaine

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Exactly. I do not think anyone would argue that being a parent is an important job. Also where one is an involved parent, as outlined by purple below, it can be a time consuming job.
Where one is not involved and takes a hands off approach to their children allowing them to run wild (which I do not think is as uncommon either in Ireland or America* as you seem to be implying) then they are not fulfilling their parental role so to even claim to be a fulltime parent is an untruth.


*although I think that in Ireland it is more visible as we have a more classless society to the extent that everyone lives closer together.


Any article about "mothers", "fathers" or any other all encompassing group is always going to be a nonsense as it is such a general term that it makes the whole article meaningless.

Well except how would someone who is not a parent have a clue And then Danes to write with such judgemental bigoted authority on the lives of others? I suggest she gets over herself and giver self a tear in the vagina , then she might know what it is to be a mother in her myopic definitions.

*And I don't agree that Ireland is more classless. I have found it to be quite driven by status.

Femme_Fatale

Which pubs are full on children's allowance day? ("The pubs" is quite vague).

And how many children do Henry and Corinthian have? People can get very uppity when it's pointed out that non parents can't fully comprehend what it's like to be a parent until you are one, but it's true. I say that as a non parent.

The Corinthian wrote: »

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.

Five or more children? What about three or four children? You cannot genuinely believe that's not a full-time role.

I'm not saying parenthood is the most important/hardest job in the world, but it's still pretty important/hard and there's major undermining of it on this thread.

Sauve

Mod

The personalisations and poster attacking stops now. If a discussion can't be had without reducing it to bickering, it'll have to be shut down- something I really would rather not do.

clairefontaine

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Which pubs are full on children's allowance day? ("The pubs" is quite vague).

And how many children do Henry and Corinthian have? People can get very uppity when it's pointed out that non parents can't fully comprehend what it's like to be a parent until you are one, but it's true. I say that as a non parent.

Five or more children? What about three or four children? You cannot genuinely believe that's not a full-time role.

I'm not saying parenthood is the most important/hardest job in the world, but it's still pretty important/hard and there's major undermining of it on this thread.

I think what he saying it is not full time while they are in school. So six-7 hours Monday -Friday, September through June, subtract bank holidays, subtract Christmas and Easter Breaks, subtract winter break, subtract weeks out for the flu, chicken pox and other illnesses, subtract parent teacher conference week, subtract teacher training week, etc.

So once you subtract all those days, it's not full tme.

Femme_Fatale

Ah I see - their reasoning is "Full-time job = 24 hours a day and no free time/holidays" which is of course the case with all full-time jobs outside the home.
And of course it gets "pretty cushy" once the child starts secondary school - teen years are a breeze.

Actually, being a parent involves more hours than any job outside the home.

clairefontaine

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Ah I see - their reasoning is "Full-time job = 24 hours a day and no free time/holidays" which is of course the case with all full-time jobs outside the home.
And of course it gets "pretty cushy" once the child starts secondary school - teen years are a breeze.

I'm not really sure exactly what the reasoning is, that is if there is any. But I think it's along the lines of this:

While they are in school, from 9-3, Monday to Friday, bar school holidays, summer time, illnesses, etc, you are free to go to work. And when you come home at 6 or 7 pm, that's plenty of time to cover homework, laundry extra curriculars, quallity time, cooking, cleaning, errands, bath time, bill paying, sorting out emotional or relational challenges with your children, and of course personal headspace.

Yeah no biggie.

wolfpawnat

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Ah I see - their reasoning is "Full-time job = 24 hours a day and no free time/holidays" which is of course the case with all full-time jobs outside the home.
And of course it gets "pretty cushy" once the child starts secondary school - teen years are a breeze.

Actually, being a parent involves more hours than any job outside the home.

Sure the teen years are easy

My daughter was born 18 weeks ago, since she was born I was out of her company for 1 hour. I do EVERY feed, EVERY nappy, every last thing since the moment she was born. I know intern doctors suffer horrific hours, but they don't have that. I am not a martyr and I don't care, it is my role and I chose to have it, but it is a fulltime job. There is no holidays, no bank holidays. The days I am vomiting or have a migraine, my kids still need me to feed and care for them! It is the same for 99% of parents, to dismiss the role of a parent is rude and illinformed. I would love to see people work for a company for the conditions parents go through. My utmost respect to the hands on parent that works and then cleans and cooks and everything else!

clairefontaine

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Sure the teen years are easy

My daughter was born 18 weeks ago, since she was born I was out of her company for 1 hour. I do EVERY feed, EVERY nappy, every last thing since the moment she was born. I know intern doctors suffer horrific hours, but they don't have that. I am not a martyr and I don't care, it is my role and I chose to have it, but it is a fulltime job. There is no holidays, no bank holidays. The days I am vomiting or have a migraine, my kids still need me to feed and care for them! It is the same for 99% of parents, to dismiss the role of a parent is rude and illinformed. I would love to see people work for a company for the conditions parents go through. My utmost respect to the hands on parent that works and then cleans and cooks and everything else!

Your partner is very lucky to have you. He does not have to hire a nanny to follow him around with the child during his internship.

My doctor's daughter is currently doing her internship and she has hired a nanny to follow her around with the baby.

wolfpawnat

clairefontaine wrote: »

Your partner is very lucky to have you. He does not have to hire a nanny to follow him around with the child during his internship.

My doctor's daughter is currently doing her internship and she has hired a nanny to follow her around with the baby.

He will not see the kids for more than a fleeting hour over 7 weeks after xmas, so I will be effectively a single mom as his hours will be insane. He will in college or in bed. I have no one else I can depend on. When my son is in school, I still have a baby, a house to keep clean and food stocked and studying myself. There are no breaks. I finished study at 12:30 last night as it was the only time to fit it in, then up at 7 this morning. Thankfully my daughter is a good sleeper. I was studying while pumping last night to save time.

clairefontaine

wolfpawnat wrote: »

He will not see the kids for more than a fleeting hour over 7 weeks after xmas, so I will be effectively a single mom as his hours will be insane. He will in college or in bed. I have no one else I can depend on. When my son is in school, I still have a baby, a house to keep clean and food stocked and studying myself. There are no breaks. I finished study at 12:30 last night as it was the only time to fit it in, then up at 7 this morning. Thankfully my daughter is a good sleeper. I was studying while pumping last night to save time.

Ah yes, but why don't you get a job? You know... a real one...

wolfpawnat

clairefontaine wrote: »

Ah yes, but why don't you get a job? You know... a real one...

Because I love the dossers life of scratching my arse on the couch while my kids run wild

clairefontaine

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Because I love the dossers life of scratching my arse on the couch while my kids run wild

Obviously. You're on facebook all day right? While your filthy kids run amock and terrorize the neighbors.

Ugh get over yourself!

Femme_Fatale

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Because I love the dossers life of scratching my arse on the couch while my kids run wild

:rolleyes:

Pub all day children's allowance day I suppose?

wolfpawnat

clairefontaine wrote: »

Obviously. You're on facebook all day right? While your filthy kids run amock and terrorize the neighbors.

Ugh get over yourself!

Oh yeah, sure the 4 month old is hanging around at street corners making a hoo-oor of herself.

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Pub all day children's allowance day I suppose?

Kids left in the carpark eating crisps and a coke, no one looking after them!

Femme_Fatale

I see too he's gonna be a doctor - well paid job. You can "retire" when he's working - it's all sewn up... :rolleyes:

Henry9

Ah yes, I see we're using the same old straw manning as always.
I despair at some people's inability to read what is written, rather than jumping up and down because they feel they are being undermined or invalidated or whatever.

It's too much effort to multi quote, so I'll copy and paste some edited highlights.

Ah I see - their reasoning is "Full-time job = 24 hours a day and no free time/holidays" which is of course the case with all full-time jobs outside the home.
No, that's not the reasoning, and no amount straw manning makes it so.

And of course it gets "pretty cushy" once the child starts secondary school - teen years are a breeze.
Irrelevant, since every parent has to deal with them, even those that work for a living.

Actually, being a parent involves more hours than any job outside the home.
Yes, that goes for working fathers and mothers to.

While they are in school, from 9-3, Monday to Friday, bar school holidays, summer time, illnesses, etc, you are free to go to work.
Let's see, 52 weeks - 8 for summer holidays, be generous and double that for all holidays.
36 weeks by 5 days leaves 180 days of 9-3 available.
Half the year of 9-3.
Is is possible for someone to work those hours? Hardly so incredible is it?

that's plenty of time to cover homework, laundry extra curriculars, quallity time, cooking, cleaning, errands, bath time, bill paying, sorting out emotional or relational challenges with your children, and of course personal headspace.
Don't working parents have to do those things too? Is bath time between 9 and 3?

My daughter was born 18 weeks ago, since she was born I was out of her company for 1 hour. I do EVERY feed, EVERY nappy, every last thing since the moment she was born. I know intern doctors suffer horrific hours, but they don't have that. I am not a martyr and I don't care, it is my role and I chose to have it, but it is a fulltime job. There is no holidays, no bank holidays. The days I am vomiting or have a migraine, my kids still need me to feed and care for them! It is the same for 99% of parents, to dismiss the role of a parent is rude and illinformed. I would love to see people work for a company for the conditions parents go through. My utmost respect to the hands on parent that works and then cleans and cooks and everything else!

Is this what we were talking about? Who was talking about looking after a baby?

Ah yes, but why don't you get a job? You know... a real one...

You must not have read what she wrote:

I have no one else I can depend on. When my son is in school, I still have a baby, a house to keep clean and food stocked and studying myself. There are no breaks.

So rather than twisting what has been said, how about dealing with the actual arguments?
Without all the eye rolling and goal post moving, no reason for internet to be exactly like the real world after all

wolfpawnat

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

I see too he's gonna be a doctor - well paid job. You can "retire" when he's working - it's all sewn up... :rolleyes:

A vet, so I am in for the "cushy life", minus the endless stream of animals in and out of the house needing 24 hour care, the constant stink of farm waste off his clothes and the fact to get a mortgage I will still have to manage to find some income, but you know, other than that we are good.

wolfpawnat

Henry9 wrote: »

While they are in school, from 9-3, Monday to Friday, bar school holidays, summer time, illnesses, etc, you are free to go to work.[/B]
Let's see, 52 weeks - 8 for summer holidays, be generous and double that for all holidays.
36 weeks by 5 days leaves 180 days of 9-3 available.
Half the year of 9-3.
Is is possible for someone to work those hours? Hardly so incredible is it?

in this working climate, it is near impossible to make requests for working hours, for every parent that can only work those particular hours, there is at least one childless person willing to work 8-10 a day.

Henry9 wrote: »

Is this what we were talking about? Who was talking about looking after a baby?

It is all about parenting. Mom's usually are the one at home for the crappy baby weeks of nappies, erratic sleep patterns and housework.

Henry9 wrote: »

So rather than twisting what has been said, how about dealing with the actual arguments?

The arguments are that stay at home parents seem to have plenty of free time, for most that is not true.

Femme_Fatale

Henry9 wrote: »

Ah I see - their reasoning is "Full-time job = 24 hours a day and no free time/holidays" which is of course the case with all full-time jobs outside the home.
No, that's not the reasoning, and no amount straw manning makes it so.

Actually no, it is. People who don't have kids and enjoy undermining parenthood (whether by a father or mother) on this thread are saying it's not full-time because it's not 24 hours per day.

And of course it gets "pretty cushy" once the child starts secondary school - teen years are a breeze.
Irrelevant, since every parent has to deal with them, even those that work for a living.

Somebody said it's pretty cushy once they start secondary school - the teenage years. They're having a laugh. Yes, obviously all parents have to deal with them - nobody disputed that. I'm not, as I said, claiming parenthood is the hardest/most important job there is, but I am challenging the posts trivialising the extent of the work that goes into it.

And obviously anyone will agree that the people who have it the toughest are people who are both parents and working - where was there any opposition to this?

When you go on about the pubs being full on children's allowance day (every pub ever? Wow!) and many women deliberately choosing to be bankrolled by a man (prove it) and others are saying full-time mums spend time on Facebook (oh the horror of it - taking a break! Shur workplaces don't have breaks!) expect to be taken to task on your obvious agenda. Otherwise don't post inflammatory stuff.

Silverbling

I think it is the most important job in the world, they are going to pay for nursing homes, with or without a bar, work hard enough to pay loads of taxes to correct the wrongs of our esteemed leadership.

On the motherly side, so far I have an amazing tennager/young adult and am loving his company as parent/friend until its the empty the dishwasher yell, my 8 year old daughter came from mars

And as for parenting being the hardest job in the world? hands up all of those who wanted to strangle, scream or run away but because we love them we did not, we just grit our teeth so hard that by teenage years we look like donkeys, with rubbish teeth but half decent kids

wolfpawnat

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

others are saying full-time mums spend time on Facebook (oh the horror of it - taking a break! Shur workplaces don't have breaks!) expect to be taken to task on your obvious agenda. Otherwise don't post inflammatory stuff.

I personally find it fascinating the amount of 9-6 Monday to Friday working people who post on here at times that frankly, I would find baffling if they are their lunch breaks getting their backs up about the stay at home parents on here.

clairefontaine

wolfpawnat wrote: »

A vet, so I am in for the "cushy life", minus the endless stream of animals in and out of the house needing 24 hour care, the constant stink of farm waste off his clothes and the fact to get a mortgage I will still have to manage to find some income, but you know, other than that we are good.

Don't worry. You'll get him in the divorce.

wolfpawnat

clairefontaine wrote: »

Don't worry. You'll get him in the divorce.

I always think of this

www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXKB77cLGqI

Playboy

I think the issue has become somewhat confused in this thread. Being a parent is an important role, it's not a job. Some parents decide to sacrifice (some happily) a career in order to perform the role of a parent and homemaker full time.

Is being a parent to multiple young children and taking care of a home difficult? I think that depends on how you define difficult. It can be demanding and can require certain skills such as organisational skills and a high level of emotional intelligence.

Is it intellectually challenging? No. Is it comparable to hard labour? No. Does it require you to be on your feet for 12 hours a day? No. What it does require (especially when the children are very young) is a 24 hour commitment. You don’t have a social life or much sleep until the kid is at least 6 months old and even then it’s difficult to find time for a couple of years. This is compounded if you decide to have more children as you may have multiple young children to care for at one time.

At the end of the day it is a choice to be a parent and parents who are afforded the opportunity to bring up their children themselves because the other parent goes out to work is a very lucky person. You get to create an amazing bond with a child(ren), shape their development, watch them grow and participate in a very fulfilling relationship. The role of a full time parent is one of the most fulfilling a person can have imo and people who do it fulltime are privileged. Parents (mostly moms) who paint themselves as sacrificial lambs at the altar of the greater good of society are delusional and need to be called out on it. Most people in careers are not on facebook or forums seeking affirmation for their jobs or careers. I have yet to see someone trivialise the role of being a fulltime parent or homemaker so I'm not sure why a certain section of mothers feel the need to try and elevate the value of the role beyond others by referring to it as the most important/difficult job in the world.

The Corinthian

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Ah I see - their reasoning is "Full-time job = 24 hours a day and no free time/holidays" which is of course the case with all full-time jobs outside the home.

As Henry pointed out, "Full-time job = 24 hours a day and no free time/holidays" is a ridiculous strawman - no one other than you has claimed that, or even that there's no work or that it can never be a full-time role, under extreme circumstances or when the child is very young.

So please stop with the strawmen or actually quote where anyone has suggested a full-time job should be 24-hours a day, because at this stage I'm calling people out on telling porkie pies.

And of course it gets "pretty cushy" once the child starts secondary school - teen years are a breeze.

Again, no one has said they're a breeze, only that they're not a full time job - and by full time one means a consistent 40-hours per week. At that stage, entering secondary, a child is largely independent. Are you still dressing them at that age? Tying their shoelaces? Catering to their every whim?

Indeed, think about it; a full-time parent caring for a, say, 14-year old? Either there's something wrong with that 14-year old or that parent, would be what comes to mind.

Realistically, by the time your average child is in secondary school you're not going to convince anyone that you're running after it 40-hours per week, every week, unless there's something very, very wrong in the relationship between mother and child.

Actually, being a parent involves more hours than any job outside the home.

So you say, yet whenever anyone has tried to justify this claim here, they've come up short. Increasingly lot's of mutual backslapping taking place here though.

pwurple

The Corinthian wrote: »

All I've done is say that the effort decreases over time, and by the time the (youngest) child is in their teens, it's realistically no longer full-time.

But how do you even gauge that it's full time job for an infant by your previous comments? In my experience, an infant sleeps for the vast majority of their 24 hour day. 12-14 hours in naps and other sleeping. They need feeding and cleaning very frequently, but once you get the hang of it, that doesn't take too long per iteration. If you just added up the minutes, excluding the time the baby sleeps, I doubt it comes to anywhere near a full time job either. But somehow, it's still very hard to get any other work done during that time. You've already dismissed all the other things that are indirectly part of children's lives... the support tasks like arranging vaccines, cooking, laundry, sickness, getting provisions, any admin tasks or travel time... so do you include those in an infant-care workload, but not older children for some reason?


All that happens, is the feeding and cleaning role changes over time to a new set of tasks revolving around their education as they age. [And the indirect tasks increase as they physically get bigger. Eat more, need more clothes]. Teaching them cleanliness and avoiding danger when they are young, progresses over time to various other skillsets, until you are eventually teaching them ethical and moral values, how to be critical thinkers and valuable members of society, How to budget, the value of money, the value of their own privacy, how to use technology, how to avoid being taken advantage of. I could go on and on... but basically... whatever skills you feel are important. It can take up as little or as much time as parents feel appropriate.

And just as you can outsource the time in the younger days with childcare if you choose, you can also outsource some of the tasks for older children, sending them to camps or classes if you can afford it, or you feel they can do the teaching better.

And this is why it CAN easily remain the same workload from infanthood to adulthood. It's whatever the parent chooses to do. You can let them learn themselves, you can involve yourself, you can outsource it. But it does not automatically reduce in time or effort, unless you change the type of parent you are as you go along... from hands-on, to less involved.



I tell you what though, seeing as neither of us actually currently HAVE any children in their teens... I'll get back to you in a couple of decades, and we'll see where we are then.

The Corinthian

pwurple wrote: »

But how do you even gauge that it's full time job for an infant by your previous comments? In my experience, an infant sleeps for the vast majority of their 24 hour day.

Because even if they are sleeping the vast majority of their 24 hour day, it's not like you can go off for, say, six hours and be confident that they won't need you (or that if they do, they can't phone you up about it). However, you're right in that I can't be certain, but when very young, I do think there is enough evidence to show that there is likely a lot more effort involved that could well require a full-time role. There's simply not when a child is older.

You've already dismissed all the other things that are indirectly part of children's lives... the support tasks like arranging vaccines, cooking, laundry, sickness, getting provisions, any admin tasks or travel time... so do you include those in an infant-care workload, but not older children for some reason?

I've not dismissed them, I've simply pointed out that they don't add up to a full-time role. Infants literally need everything done for them, but as children they grow older, the list of things that a parent needs to do for them shrinks and by the time they're in their teens, it should only be marginally longer than an adult.

This leaves one with a list of jobs that may be double that of just cohabitation with another adult, but that doesn't mean that they're working 40-hours per week, every week.

All that happens, is the feeding and cleaning role changes over time to a new set of tasks revolving around their education as they age.

Yet does this require a consistent 40-hours per week is the point? How much more time does cooking fish fingers take than preparing a bottle of formula? And do you need to spend dedicated hours, every day or week, to teach them how to avoid danger or wash?

I understand what you're saying, but seriously; think about it? Is it a full time job at that stage? At six or seven it decreases, maybe not enough that you're able to go and do anything else with the extra time, but it does decrease. By 14, how many hours are you really spending on a daily basis?

It can take up as little or as much time as parents feel appropriate.

Unless they're home-schooling the child (which is another can of worms), they're still realistically not going to be clocking up 40-hours per week though. That's ultimately what it comes down to.

Of course, if if they can afford this choice - either personally, or they have a partner who supports it fully - then it's their business. But don't tell me it's still a full time job once the child grows older.

And that's where the problem arises; when this myth that it is consistently a 40-hours per week job is used to justify what is effectively a lifestyle choice and others have to pay for it - there are literally husbands out there who have to hold down 80-hour a week jobs or take on second jobs because their wife refuses to take on even a part time job on this basis.

I tell you what though, seeing as neither of us actually currently HAVE any children in their teens... I'll get back to you in a couple of decades, and we'll see where we are then.

Bit presumptuous; who says I don't, or for that matter have an adult child?