Joyce:-) that was not the best example to give I don't think , I don't think it argued you point very well ;-))  ask they same kids, if they would rather been poor, if they were happy to miss the school trip to France, get to go to drama, music lessons etc ask If they were happy to go to their Nana's for a few hours :-))  I know what the answer would be from my daughter and most of her freinds !!!  My daughter has a relationship with my mother that is unbelieveably close.   I don't mean as mother and daughter but as a very close grandmother and granddaughter relationship.   My daughter is now 15 so is past the looking after stage to a degree but she always checks her grandparents are OK etc. I never had that relationship with my grandparents as we had the odd visit.

Values are taught by setting examples. Being at work doesn't mean you cannot teach family values. 

When "we" as a country analysis things of course we can't ask kids that age . We can however measure how they progress through school, how they succeed in life,  relationsip stability , how they interact with others and believe me as a working mum who had to ascertain for herself that it was better for me to work.  I made sure I did that research at the time.

One thing you do forget is (using me as an example)  I do have the facts and Findings and  I know how it worked for me because Joyce I have the proof in the pudding. :-) My 15 year old mature daughter tells me.  I know she is proud of her working mother.  I know by how a well adjusted young adult she is, she is never clingy and demaning of attention, I know by how well she is doing at school, she has lovely freinds,  She values money and knows you have to work for it.  I know nothing I could have changed in my parenting could have made her any better.  She is keen to get to Uni and has her plans for her future.    These are because of examples set by her working mother..

I have a relationship with my daughter that I could only have dreamed of with my mother. Who funnily enough didn' t work till I was about 11-12.

Oh BTW the government has just published recently school results for various social and culture groups unfortunately the poorer families didn't score too well.  I heard it on the radio so it would mean an internet search for some written results but you will just have to trust me :-))

Forgot to add that my father when he was a youngster qualified for a grant to go to some elite collegue in Glasgow due to his results at school, his parents only had to contribute a tiny amount to it but they couldn't afford it so he didn't get to go. You know to this day he has always been a little bitter about not getting to go. He did do well but said it was by the harder path..

I am going to bow out now as we have taken it to a working mothers thread and nobody is going to agree but it has been an interesting debate.. ;-)

I don't think that 'Wife Swap' is very representative of most households :D I would very much doubt that Mr/Mrs Average would CHOOSE to appear on that programme :D

Daisy

just what i was going to say daisy

I agree with your beliefs Joyce, but reality is different.  I am sure that there are more women who would like to stay at home but can't afford to, than are staying at work for their career prospects. I live in the 'affluent' south and I can assure you that apart from for a lucky few it is anything but affluent.  As someone who has had to live and bring up two children on one salary (mine - thanks to an elusive ex-husband and the incompetencies of the CSA), I can assure you it is a lot harder than just making some sacrifices.  Thanks largely, (in my opinion) to the eighties property boom which was fuelled by couples rushing to buy property so they could both claim interest relief, it has been virtually impossible to get on the housing ladder without two salaries.  I often think that it's the luxuries that are relatively cheap, it's the basics living costs that are expensive. 
Putting my other hat on though, as the owner of a small business, I have to say that more and more demands are being placed on employers, and whereas workloads and extra costs can be absorbed by large businesses, it is a real blow for many small businesses.
So I agree to certain aspects of all sides of the arguments - still that's nothing new, I've been playing the juggling game for longer than I care to remember now :D

The point of this thread was to discuss EXTRA maternity leave for working mums.

It has transgressed into an argument about opinions that all mothers should stay at home for the first few years of their childs life.

Isn't that what these extra rights are offering? More time at home?

But no, thats not enough. Now its a case of "if you can't afford to give up work you shouldn't have children".

Well, I'm sorry to disappoint you. But as a divorced mother of 2, with one one the way with my partner of 3 years, a paltry, pathetic monthly maintainence payment from my ex and no "rich parents" I intend to work as hard as possible to ensure my childrens futures. So they get to go to private school - instead of the local comp that is BOTTOM of the league tables with teenage pregnancy rates that worry me to death. To ensure their future is secure and they inherit a paid for house. To ensure that we don't end up as scroungers on the dole if I end up out of work and, if need be, to support my parents who are already supporting a 100 year old aunt who lives with them and a 90 year old grandad.

I pay for what I spend and what I produce and what I need - which is a damn sight more that a lot of the others in this country. And, incidentally, working the way i do means I can go part time after this baby is born, same as with the others, but I will be back full time by 2.

Lordy, just caught up with this one.

  I think in an ideal world (or even ye olde world) staying at home for the formative years would be wonderful (the prozac perscriptions would soar :D ), but in this day and age it's impossible for most.  I've always worked. When I was younger all my money went on me & my lifestyle. My income was alot less back then, my personal outgoings probably alot more. Having my daughter, becoming a family, meant alot of changes. Over the years the income has grown as have the houses, somehow having a child made me alot more financially stable,sensible,savvy. I always thought that financial security was something the working classes aimed for in old age, not something that should dictate reproduction.
  Maternity leave & benefits are a MUST in this day & age. I certainly don't begrudge anybody those entitlements. People claiming these rights have worked for them.

It's the people claiming sickness/invalidity benefits that you see going out to work the fiddle everyday that need to be clamped down on.  Certainly not Mothers who are raising their children to the best of their ability and paying taxes.

Alot of colleagues male and female take maternity/paternity leave at my company. It really doesn't affect my worklife. There are always whip rounds for new babies, and I've never heard anyone mutter objections.  People who cover maternity leave know exactly what they're taking on.

ChloeH....if you want extra maternity leave, I'm right there behind you waving a banner! :)

ChloeH I agree wholeheartedly sp? with your last post.  At the end of the day we dont live in an ideal world.  I am sure many mothers would rather not go to work and some of them may well want to go to work for adult company or beacuase they have a job they love.  I work in a maternity hospital so as you can imagine i see mums from all walks of life, some imo not fit to be a mother but at the end of the day how other people choose to run their affairs is up to them.  As for extending maternity leave I for one am in favour of this and I too think that fathers should have the choice to have alot more time off with their children.

Michelle

Thanks :) And thanks to everyone who supports maternity leave :) Much appreciated :) :)

No need to appologise Joyce :), I have found it a really interesting topic, even the offshoots ;) it has certainly shown a real snapshot into the way woman feel about work, motherhood and even the property market!

I didn't reply to this post earlier as I didn't quite know how to word things so as not to upset any side in the discussion.

I can see both sides of this, from personal experiences.

I work part-time, as a Playgroup Manager, have two children of my own, have not worked full time since having them.  My partner has a managerial position and as such has (on paper) a very good salary. I've never claimed benefits (except family credit when it was available as a top up to my wages when my partner was briefly redundant).
I have had two jobs most of the time, so in theory worked full-time, however, one was the playgroup so my children came with me.  However, i did another afternoon job, which meant my mum looked after them for an hour until OH came home.  I gave up when my second one was 6 months old as I did miss out on some things with my oldest and i didn't want to with him.

Right, that's my personal information, now for the reasons I agree with both sides -

I agree with longer maternity leave - as it would have alleviated some of my stress in my second pregnancy.  I bleed when pregnant and was told to take things easy, I asked for one of my duties to by covered by other staff - they took a poll when i wasn't there and said they did not want to cover me just cos i was pregnant even if it meant i lost the baby.  So i went sick every couple of weeks, they had to cover me then, what else could I do. ( Ok i was lucky that time but having just lost a baby 6 weeks ago through this bleeding I now feel even more justified in taking as much sick leave as i could)

I don't agree that you should not have children if you can't afford them - couldn't afford either of mine really, but we struggled through and scrimped and saved so i didn't have to work full time or have benefits. Like i said before OH is on a good salary (now) but that's only on paper - we are worse off then when he wasn't the manager, as he now has a company car, which we get taxed heavily on, and ok we don't pay for fuel, insurance etc but even taking that into account we have lost over £300 per month.  if you really can't afford to be at home then work and good luck to you.

However, I can see the argument here, and do agree somewhat with Joyce.  Why you may ask - well, as a playgroup manager, it upsets me that half of my children at the playschool, are never bought by parents, we neither get to see most of them or even speak to them.  None of them are there for any special occasions we may have, which is extremely distressing for the children.  You may think it doesn't bother them, but when other parents are there, it does a great deal.  These children are only 3, you cannot reason with them as to why you are not there.  Yes, when they are older they may appreciate the benefits, but at 3 they don't understand.

I can also see why people then pick on full time working mums when they have sky, cars, hols etc - yes they are all luxuries, and if you can afford them then fine.  I have friends that annoy me so much over this - the parents both work full time, have 2 cars etc etc, hols, sky the lot they then moan so much about how much child care costs them, they moan about how little they see of the children, they moan that I seem to have so much time on my hands (i don't really - my job now is almost full time with the paperwork i have to do, but i only work 3 hours a day outside of my home).  They moan so much, well give up work then, let go of the luxuries and spend the time with the children if that's how you feel.  Don't take it out on other people, don't begrudge the money you spend on keeping your children safe.  So I can see how Joyce has come to her conclusions if this has been her experience.

So like i said - i agree with both sides - it just depends on your own experiences as to how your judgement is coloured.  I've seen and been on the the receiving end of both, so i agree with both sides.  Both arguments have their good and bad points, and both sides are equally valid in their own ways.

Hope i've made myself clear - seems a very long rambling post, but i felt I needed to cover everything to validate both arguments lol.

Nikki xx

I think your feedback is very valuable.

I have always been to all school and nursery events - infact, I am having the day off at the end of March to go on a school trip with my daughter :D :D and last week I was in school sat on teeny chairs having a lesson with my son and queuing up fro assembly LOL. I always feel terrible for the children who's parents don't go and those very young children that are so tired at nursery that by the time I picked my kids up at 5 that they are screaming for their mums.

Its a case of compromise. If you can afford to give up work and you want to you should be supported. If you can't, then you should be given as much opportunity and support as possible. I don't believe anyone should leave a young child at nursery 5 days a week for the sake of luxuries - but thats my opinion.

If both parents 'have' to work then they shouldn't have children.  A baby and young child needs at least one of it's parents at home.  IMO it is very wrong to have children and shove them in nursery or child care from 6 months of age - what is the point of having them??  If you can't afford to have a child then don't have one!  Parents who both work are very very selfish.

thanx Chloe, we'd love some parents like you within our playgroup.

yes it is about compromise, and again its the same old reason that people aren't flexible in their views - there are bad parents out there, on both sides of this particular coin, and if you've experienced only them, then you are going to be judgmental.

Just want to say again - although I wouldn't work full-time and put my children into child care I would never say other people shouldn't do it.  Its' all about personal choice, and getting your priorities right. 

Nikki xx