leaving children for 6 months

aliasojo

Person_one wrote: »

Do you have to do every single thing you ever want to do in order to be your own person?

This version of 'be your own person' sounds more like 'do exactly what you feel like doing regardless of other people or your responsibilities.'

In my opinion, you are being too simplistic.

No-one is suggesting a person should be able to do every single thing they want. It's silly to have even used that as a basis for your reply.

Person_one

aliasojo wrote: »

In my opinion, you are being too simplistic.

No-one is suggesting a person should be able to do every single thing they want. It's silly to have even used that as a basis for your reply.

So why does not going on this cruise mean she won't be her own person, she'll still be a hairdresser I presume?

People are framing it like the only options are either pregnant and barefoot with babies hanging from each nipple or leaving her family for 6 solid months with no visits in order to 'be her own person' and not be a slave to motherhood!

I'm pretty sure most parents manage to 'be their own person' without having to disappear for 6 months.

Gorgeous_But_Grumpy

NO JOB would be worth leaving my children for 6 months for. NO JOB!

aliasojo

Person_one wrote: »

People are framing it like the only options are either pregnant and barefoot with babies hanging from each nipple or leaving her family for 6 solid months with no visits in order to 'be her own person' and not be a slave to motherhood!

No. That is simply your interpretation.

I'm not 'arguing' with you. You seem quite forceful today in your replies and I don't particularly feel the need to justify my opinions to you, (especially since my offered opinion attempted to be balanced and didn't actually advocate staying or going).

Seanymph

My step children were 6, 8 and 11 when their mother died.

I can't help but look at this and feel terribly emotional because now they are young adults I know what they would give for six more months with their mother.

I can only imagine what she would have given for six more months with them.

Their father became their primary carer, and he's good, and he tried his best - but his skillset is different to that of a woman, his nurturing skills are different, and his tolerance for being alone and constricted by the demands and routines of young children is different.

They didn't cope so well without her.

I value every day with my children, and my step children, because it can be lost so easily.

Consequently I find it very hard that anyone would want to work away in a situation where other choices are available.

I don't see the comparison with soldiers at all - their job entails being away, they can't do their job and choose not to go. The OP can.

She can do her job, have a career, seek another career if necessary - and all without losing a year with her children.

I may be old fashioned or pathetically un-feminist, but I value the time put into raising children by parents and think many people undervalue it.

For my part I dont' leave mine for longer than a week when I go on holiday - longer if they go away (mine visit their father abroad). But for work? No I wouldn't.

Rob someone or other has a great quote in his book the sixty minute father - 'no man on his deathbed ever said 'I wish I spent more time at the office'.'.

It will be six months you will never get back for your family.

FatVonD

crusty_toenail wrote: »

As a mother of young children of similar ages I agree that it would be most unhealthy.

Sadly the family unit is breaking down around us because of crazy feminists who lied to us women telling us we could have it all - but the work/home balance (esp with young children) is a nightmare.

My female friends, now in their thirties with young children would love to be stay at home mums.

I'm sorry girls but we were sold a lie, and now the family unit has broken down and we have a massive problem!

I can't thank this post enough, and I WAS one of those crazy feminists!

Tish_P

I wouldn't, personally, and I wouldn't be the partner left behind either. Single parents have a hard time of it, even if their kids turn out great.

But then I haven't even got any kids, so I think you should ignore hypothetical answers especially those involving hypothetical kids, step away from the computer and talk this over VERY carefully with your husband, kids, wider family, career mentors etc. rather than some strangers on the internet.

-with best wishes from a crazy feminist

Welshwoofs

Person_one wrote: »

People are framing it like the only options are either pregnant and barefoot with babies hanging from each nipple or leaving her family for 6 solid months with no visits in order to 'be her own person' and not be a slave to motherhood!

I don't think the above is true at all. There have been a lot of comments which have essentially called into question how good a Mother the op is for wanting to do these 6 months away, a lot of comments completely dismissing the job itself and a number of comments from people who say their children are distraught with short periods of time away visiting other relatives (which, imo, really isn't healthy!).

The fact is that it's not an all or nothing proposition on the table. She's not talking about taking up overseas working forever more, she's talking about a one-off short-term contract and one that she feels will do more to further her career than the path she's currently taking. Only she knows how it will impact on her family and if she feels that husband and kids can cope then I honestly don't see why she should stay at home on the basis that other Mothers think that what she's contemplating is selfish and damaging.

As you pointed out, we have very different views on this point and I come from a background where children were raised to be extremely independent because they didn't have parents around to turn to for everything. During the time I was at boarding school I shared a dorm with a girl whose parents had a farm in Kenya but she'd been schooled in the UK and Switzerland. She loved her parents to death and them her. They were very close and spoke on the phone every evening (these were the days before mobile phones and Internet), but she actually saw them every few months. What she always said was that the times they were all together were very special and treasured.

I guess what I'm saying is that you don't always need close physical proximity to give love and support and for children to know they're loved. If the op feels this opportunity will benefit her and her family in the long-run and that her husband/children can cope in the short-term then I don't think she should be held back on the basis that the current popular view is that you should be around them every minute that you physically can be.

Pthree

Welshwoofs wrote: »

You happily proclaim that everyone who goes to work on a cruise ends up in a relationship with someone else on board

Not all, but most, I worked on cruise ships in my early twenties and the whole atmosphere was almost instestious, everyone seemed to have slept with everyone at some stage or another regardless of thier home situation. What happens at sea stays at sea and all that....

Saying that, I do know a few people who weren't like that and are still very happily married.

I think it comes down to the strength of the OP's relationship now.

Personally, I wouldn't have thought managing a salon on a cruise ship would be that much of a bonus to the CV, it never helped me in my line of work, as a lot potential employers seems to think I'd done it for an easy ride (ha!) I changed careers in the end.

P3

Spendless

aliasojo wrote: »

What a difficult situation.

If you'd asked me this 10 years ago, my answer would definitely have been 'don't go', stay with the kids. However I'm not so sure it's as clear cut as that now.

Being a parent is important. But so is being a person in your own right.

Reagardless of the job, or anyone else's views, all you should consider is how the people involved would feel. Then consider how you would feel if you did not take this opportunity.

Consider also what would happen if your husband started off positively but the reality meant he got fed up of a cold bed and only having kids to share the house with.

I don't envy your dilemma.

I agree it's not clear cut. Would I do it. 99% No. I am the parent at home for 1-3 nights every week due to DH's job. I know how hard it is to be juggling all the school/home-life alone whilst the other parent gets to concentrate 100% on their own personal needs and career. I know how much resentment may (and for me in the past has) build. I know how tough it is, to be unable to do stuff for yourself cos the other parenting pair of hands is missing. Things like being unable to work certain shifts or take certain jobs due to work-hours. As well as anything social you might like to do for yourself. Hell, i've even been cross that I've spent my meal time supervising my 2 bickering whilst he gets to sit and eat his meal in a restaurant in peace! He of course doesn't see it that way. He sees that he sits lonely ordering from a menu he's bored of, whilst I get to eat what I want in the comfort of my own home. And this is for a few nights a week maximum! I really do not envy people doing it alone for longer.

Do I think Kimberley shouldn't do it- I think that depends on many things inc the dynamics of the family, the goals it is aiming for and the support system in place. I def think she needs to consider any points raised.