leaving children for 6 months

Padstow

Welshwoofs wrote: »

What I'd find interesting is how many of those rubbishing her career choice actually have a career worth a damn themselves

From the replies Welshwoofs, it's obvious that some other posters here haven't the first idea of how lucrative hairdressing is.
It has the highest gross profit of any high street shop business, and managed correctly should provide 35% profit before tax. Three decent salons and you have 100k net.
The link provided below gives figures for beauty, but hairdressing has an even higher mark up, as a hairdresser, unlike a beautician, copes with more than one client at a time.

Something is wrong with this story I feel, as OP has made no mention of training, although she said it would be three months before taking up the position, the very same time as training would take. No company would let someone loose without it, and she'll be using products unknown to her. It just wouldn't happen.

If the OP is truly thinking of doing this, I wonder whether her husband would suffer more than her kids. When everything is going pear shaped at home, how would he feel imagining his wife was partying? It's very different to the absent partner working on an oil rig or being in the army!
She may also return to a change in the family dynamics. Dad having had the role of sole carer and disciplinarian, she may find the kids still go to him for whatever their needs.

I bet a dime to a dollar that OP won't go.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2005599/The-spa-rip--65-facial-using-5-product--40-tan-spray-costs-2--One-spa-owner-reveals-REAL-cost-beauty-treatments.html

onlyroz

Padstow wrote: »

From the replies Welshwoofs, it's obvious that some other posters here haven't the first idea of how lucrative hairdressing is.
It has the highest gross profit of any high street shop business, and managed correctly should provide 35% profit before tax.

It is certainly not a noddy career path. I know somebody who works for a high-street salon chain and he earns around £35k a year. I think if he went into management he would earn considerably more than this.

joandkaz1

For me its irrelevent what her job is or if her hubby can cope or not. I just cant fathom how a mum can even contemplate leaving her children for that length of time. I feel the same about dads too. As a mother I dont understand it.

coolcait

Seanymph wrote: »

I've already explained this once, but it was many pages ago.

My OH was left to raise his children - aged 6, 8 and 13 when their mother died aged 36.

But the impact of the death of a parent, is different to the impact of a parent being 'away' for a few months, but in regular contact with the children.

So, your husband's dealings with his children after the death of their mother have to be seen in that context - not simply in the context of the two of you (as individuals) having different skillsets.

And, as another poster has said to you, you can't extrapolate your/your husband's experiences onto others.

I'd also say that the use of the term 'skillsets' suggests something which has been developed and practised - not necessarily something innate and instinctive. In that sense you, as an individual, may well have practised certain child rearing skills more than your husband has, or your ex did.

That doesn't mean that all men are the same as them. Or that all women are the same as you.

Which brings me back to the view I expressed at the beginning - only the people who are involved in this situation, or similar situations, can decide whether or not it would work for them.

coolcait

Seanymph wrote: »

And we have a fella on here who is happily saying he's a great dad - but he's a great dad not a great mum....... they are two different things.

I'm sure that statement is meant to be loaded with all sorts of significance - backing up the views and attitudes you have clearly expressed throughout this thread.

However, what it boils down to is simply language, and the fact that the male parent is described as 'dad', 'father' etc. The female parent is described as 'mum', mother', etc.

Linguistically speaking, a man will be a (great) dad. A woman will be a (great) mum.

They will both be (great) parents.

Their individual parenting skillsets will be based on who they are as individuals, their personalities, their upbringing, and many other things. It won't simply be down to whether or not they have a 'y' chromosome.

Seanymph

Perhaps I don't explain myself using the right words for you - selecting parts of posts also doesn't give the entire picture.

Of course losing a partner to death is different, but I addressed that in a different part of the same post.

And I think mothers and fathers offer different things to children. I called them mothers and fathers because it made the point I was trying to express.

It is my opinion that the OP, as a mother, and as the primary carer up until a couple of months ago offers something different within the family to her husband.

I think that children benefit from the contribution made by both parents seperately.

I also think, as I've said several times, that in her current career opportunities are there for advancement that don't involve leaving your children for six months - it's just my opinion.

It is not a unique viewpoint, and especially not during this discussion, to think that children benefit from having their mother there - I would not choose to leave my children for six months and without considerably better reason I don't see why the OP would if it was only her career as motivation.

Marisco

Maybe if they have been having problems (I don't now, as I haven't seen past posts) then this could be a "trial separation", to see how things go. It could be they don't want anyone, or the kids, to know that they are trying to sort things out. So instead of just splitting, they have come up with this, as a way of doing things.

So long as it works for them, that is the main thing, we are all different, and as many have said it won't work for everyone, but if the op and husband/partner thinks it will work for them, then go for it!

Seanymph

I think you are probably right Marisco.

pinkclouds

My tuppence worth is that, if this is genuinely a desirable thing to do (and a few posters have indicated it would bring real career benefits) and husband and kids are comfortable with the notion, then the best solution is to send the kids to boarding school for a year.

Dad isn't mom, no matter how good a dad he may be. Unless you have a large, emotionally close family in the immediate vicinity - I'm thinking aunties, cousins, etc - then it would be better for the kids to board and see dad at exeats and half-terms, etc. They'll have the usual peer-group friends plus a mix of... housemaster and wife team for pastoral care, matrons to monitor them, "buddy system" care from selected older kids, stability and routine, very full/busy/active days so there is less likelihood of brooding about mom being away, etc.

It is very tough doing the "single parent thing" as some of my friends call it. I know people whose husbands are away for very lengthy periods of time. However, in every case, it's the dads who are away. If the mom is going to be away, then I think there needs to be additional support in place. Nature may be sexist but so is nurture.

Btw, someone mentioned cell/mobile phones at boarding school. The school my daughter goes to takes boarders from 8 years old, although she is a younger day pupil. Mobile phones are only permitted for overseas pupils and have to be handed in to the office and only allowed to be used with special permission. They can use the computers daily though, so I'd imagine most contact is via email. I can understand the logic. It's miles better than waiting for a phone call that might be missed or forgotten. While you are away, emails or letters or recordings would probably be better than phone calls unless you are certain both sides can rigidly adhere to a preset time - if you miss making a call for a good reason, then you'll miss it for a bad reason too.

Finally, whatever you decide, good luck! It seems you could do with some...

Person_one

Marisco wrote: »

Maybe if they have been having problems (I don't now, as I haven't seen past posts) then this could be a "trial separation", to see how things go. It could be they don't want anyone, or the kids, to know that they are trying to sort things out. So instead of just splitting, they have come up with this, as a way of doing things.

I hope not, sounds like an insane plan to me. Triple trauma of mum and dad splitting, mum b*ggeing off for 6 months and both of them lying through their teeth about the situation!

I don't think this is a nefarious plan, I think its the opposite.