I have 10 pounds. I want to go for a drink but at the same time I want to eat. What do I do ?.
Well, I eat. This may sound simplistic, even unrealistic in the modern world, however it is and will remain until the end of time, common sense. If a woman wants to have a career or feels to pay for her share of the household bills she has to go to work, that is her CHOICE. If she wants to be a mother then that is also her choice. To say I want everything and the State ( everybody else ) and her employer must help her is childish, selfish, and utterly unjustifiable. If staying at home to be a mother means having less possessions then I believe it is fair to say that the little treasures you gave birth to are worth a thousand new cars, holidays, shoes, and any other Jones keeping up junk. You have been given the choice not the whole bag of sweets.

J Nowland, Leeds, United Kingdom

There is the other side of the coin! Not every mother wants to work or use a Nursery.
My daughter had a baby after many years of trying when she was 36. She wanted to be a stay at home mother. If they had to tighten their belts, so be it.
There are 2 Primary Schools nearby. 1 is full of immigrant children. I believe that last term there were at least 10 different languages spoken there. The other is excellent. I told her to apply for a place PDQ. She took my granddaughter to be "interviewed". She was then informed that her daughter "had" to start in the Nursery at 3 years old for 2.5 hours a day to be sure of a place in the Reception Class at 4. Basically this was a good idea to get her used to being with other children. Now "has" to be in the Reception Class all day. If she didn't do this, there would be no place for her in the Infant School. My daughter resents the hours of time spent with her daughter being stolen from her, but feels she has no choice. What would you do?

Beryl, WINDSOR, England

Not only the children require full time parenthood but also the individual himself requires some rest at particular hours for example for his health and longevity it is important to take seista, early sleep and early rising.The more natural requirements are defied the more health problems are cropping in.

Shahin Saifullah Khan, Lahore, Pakistan

This genie won't go back into the bottle. The number of women in work has long been above the number where it is the norm for a young married couple to both be in work, meaning that they are almost always driven into relying on the woman's wage to part pay the mortgage. Once you've taken that on there's no going back to being a one income household after children arrive, even if you want to. The only way to break that cycle would be for many fewer women to work before they have children. Any volunteers for that? Thought not. I feel this is a problem of women's own making.

Redcliffe, London,

Similar horror stories are emerging about carers charged with looking after old folk. Both lines of work are dominated by women.
It is odd because women advertise empathy as being one of their strengths but it seems curiously lacking in both these female-dominated professions. (I have not got the space to go into the decline of primary school teaching and nursing).
Strange how women seem poor at the one skill they claim tobe better than men at - looking after others.

Barry Grant, Manchester, UK

I agree with this point very much.Nowadays some people such as managers and official,they always spend most of a day working and pay little attention to their families,which is so bad for their children's development, both physical and mental.Their wives sometimes complain about them,about the life.What's more,their health will be worse because of their hard-working.So, if you are a clever person,GO HOME!You'll have a very happy time there.

WangYong, NanJing, China

I stayed at home wiht my son till he went to school, after which I went back to work part time. My son has benefited immensley form my being around as he is a very confident, bright and a happy child. However, It has meant that my career has suffered and the balance of power in my marriage has shifted. We all have to evaluate what we can live with
( less of toys or more of mummy or vice versa) and what 's best for our family. There are no easy answers.

MS, London, UK

Many people say they 'have no choice' but to place their children in institutional care, due to the high cost of living. But in reality parents in a two income household do have a choice. Sure - to forgo one salary to bring up the children full time in their formative years, and sacrifice all the associated financial benefits, is a difficult choice, but it is a choice nonetheless. I admire those who make it, for the very reasons it is difficult: Full time parenthood has no value in today's society - it is not supported by the current tax system, personal status and sense of self worth is determined by economic productivity, and all gov't policy in this area centres around what can be done to help women outsource their childcare, rather than better enabling them to look after their own children, if that is what they wish. The choice would be easier if society's misplaced view of motherhood was corrected and the tax system was rebalanced so that one earner familes are not penalised

M Bienfait, St. Albans, UK

A growing number of organizations in the United States (which is suffering from many of the same problems) are implementing programs that allow employees to care for their babies in the workplace until about the time that the babies start to crawl. Within structured guidelines, these programs actually work incredibly well and the babies tend to be very content. Parents get to stay with their babies, morale goes up in companies as coworkers and managers get hugs and smiles from these happy babies, and overall employee retention goes way up (and businesses benefit in other ways as well). My Babies in the Workplace website [http://www.babiesatwork.org/] has extensive information on these programs and why they work so well.

Carla Moquin, Framingham, USA / Massachusetts

At the risk of sounding like my grandma, you never get those years back again. Now we are living into our 70s, 80s and beyond and now we are expected to work into our mid and late 60s and beyond - is it really too much to ask that we dedicate a very few of those years to raising secure, well-adjusted, non-consumer goods obsessed children?
Two full-time working parents has a seriously negative impact on the amount of time available - for self, for each other, for the children. Something tends to give - and if it's not one of those three things in entirety, it is the quality of one or all of them.
Flexible solutions are required here - to suit each family's different make-up and needs. The drive to get mothers back to work while the child(ren) is/are so heavily dependent on quality one-to-one care is, in my view, seriously undermining the values of our society - by devaluing caring, responsibility and self-sacrifice. Unfashionable values yes- but necessary for greater good.

Cathy, Preston,

I'm so sick of working mothers taking a beating in the press, and to condemn the chilcare industry based on one rogue childminder is ridiculous. Both my sons have had the benefit of caring, imaginative and dedicated nursery care. They are clever, affectionate and well balanced boys, and I have a career I enjoy. Sometimes I may buy cakes for the school fete instead of home baking them - so who really cares? It would be nice if we were just left to make the choices we feel are right for our own family's work/life/childcare balance, instead of being condemned for working, or made to feel lazy for staying at home with our children.

Ms N Holden, Redhill, Surrey

It's amazing really. We've gone from not being allowed to work even if we want to, to having to work even if we don't want to in what, less than 100 years?

Trish, Wolverhampton,

We really have got ourselves into a mess in this area.
Somehow it has to be understood by all that they should only take on family responsibility when they are ready for it. In the present situation people act incontinently, marry, or have a 'relationship' of some kind produce offspring and look to others - through the benefit system - to take on the financial burden; this just fuels the problem

Dr J Findlater, Carnforth,

I work with children, and I am afraid that the truth of the matter is that when mothers stay at home to look after the children, the outcome for the children is usually better.

charles, London,

I live on a council estate. I worked full time when my daughter was a baby as I am not a 'welfare queen'. I chose the best nursery I could find and ended up in massive debt, even with working tax credit support. I work part-time now and occasionally look back and think if I hadn't worked at all I would be in a financially better position. My daughter is polite, in top reading and numeracy classes at school and my son is happy when he goes to nursery but I watch his reaction to staff carefully. There are teenage mothers who live near me who have never worked, have been handed a new house, a huge maternity grant for each child, plus tax credits - they think that I am a mug to work for nothing & you can't fault their logic, plus there's the system - no baby no house! I agree mothers shouldn't be forced to work but I don't think it relates to gun/street violence. Drugs, alcohol, idle hands, and lack of effective punishment are to blame and soon gambling will be out of control too.

Mrs L Phillips, Nottingham, UK

One does not have to be a right wing bigot to want families to be able to provide loving care for their children- but I'm afraid the right wing bigot's answer to these problems here is to fall to criticising mothers for their paid work, ignore all but financial the responsibility of fathers, and absolve governments and businesses in their role in making sure family life is compatible with modern life.

Financial support for good childcare is not pressganging- that professional childcare is valued and accepted in a range of countries speaks to its potential to be a supportive and beneficial part of family life.

And now, I'm just confused about whether this writer is arguing that she is a right-wing bigot, or not?

Paula, Melbourne,

Enormous progress has already been made, but I hope the title of your thought-provoking paper will soon be: Pushing fathers back into work is wrong.

Carla, La Rochelle, France

Gerard Mckay asks if it would be fair to expect the male to stay at home and do all the jobs. As a male who did that, I would say absolutely yes! Look at it from the right perspective, and you see what a bonus it is to be able to organise your day as you wish - you are the manager of your own department, with nobody standing over you and bossing you about. Look at it more closely, from the perspective of pre-school education, and you see the academic scale and responsibility of the job you have taken on: child development, child psychology etc. are all specialisms in the field of education, and you could write a Ph.D on any one of them.

And as for staying at home, Helen Stornoway has got her economic facts in the wrong sequence: it is the more recent practice of both couples going out to work which has driven up the price of houses, not vice-versa. Why? Basic rule of Economics! If there's a limited supply of anything, it goes to the highest bidder, in this case two-income families.

Edmund Burke, Kingston upon Thames, England

Having children involves sacrifice. Love is spelt T.I.M.E. If you leave your job someone else will fill it, however no one else can be a mother/parent for your children. What children need is PRESENCE rather than presents.

This arguement is not about women's rights, it is about love. If we love our children we want to provide the best care for them. I believe that means not just meeting physical needs (ie a child minder or nursery) but caring for the child's emotional needs - this is best done by the childs family.

Nicki Howell, Staines,

Well said. A young child does not care if it has to share a bedroom (indeed, it helps sibling bonding to do so), wear charity shop clothes, play with charity shop toys and holiday 50 miles from home instead of going abroad. It does care a great deal, if it spends 50 weeks of the year frightened, lonely and stressed in poor childcare. When will parents realise that 5 years is a very short time to be financially pressed and/or a bit bored compared with the advantages a child gets from security and love? In fact it's an investment for everyone's future, because the teen years are so much easier with a child who knows they are loved and cared for. I know. My children are now 21, 19 and 16 and I have never regretted for one nanosecond staying at home with them when they were small, despite the fact that our house is not the sort that appears in the Times magazine and I do not spend £800 on a dress as advised in Times2 every week.

Jenny Jonas, Glasgow,

Trouble is, this government is wholly reliant on dual income household Britain for sufficient tax revenue. This is why they have done little to deal with spiralling house prices, because this is one of the greatest difficulties for young families, where women returning to work weeks after giving birth (or their partners if they are the main carer) is necessity to pay the mortgage rather than a career choice. I stayed at home with 3 little children for 10 years. We went without but it was worth it - both for our enjoyment of our children whilst they were young (we blinked and now they have all left home) and for their benefit. As a result, they have so many additional life skills that some of their friends dont have. They can cook and they enjoy all that goes with food as a family - the preparation, sitting down eating and sharing life, the washing up etc. They can do their own laundry and ironing, manage their money etc. I earn plenty now but not enough to ever buy those years back.

Annie, Worcester, England

This isn't about the role of the sexes - it is about the common sense upbringing of children... Men/women who will one day run the country and at this rate they'll have no idea 'caring' for others/family members, because they won't have had a role model! Values are passed down through the generations - what message do we give our children when as a society both parents are forced to put paid work first and spend no time with them? It's ridiculous that mortgages are based on 2 full incomes - this has made the price of family housing escalate out of control. When you have kids you lose a large chunk of your income and that's a fact. Of course it can be mum OR dad who raises the children - this is rather obvious and it's a decision couples must make themselves. But the fact is that mothers mostly want to do it - at least in the early pre-school years. We need flexible working legislation until kids are 16 - not 6 as at present. And better family taxation too. timeforparenting.org

Marilyn, Salisbury, Wiltshire

Some interesting points, although I take issue with your suggestion that home-making, neighbourliness, elder care, charity work and community work are functions of stay-at-home mothers. My experience of stay-at-home mothers is that they do none of these things except the first. Sadly, as you acknowledge in your final paragraph, too many stay-at-home mothers simply don't want to work. They won't do anything unless it is of direct benefit to themselves & their children. They are supremely selfish. They think that motherhood makes them better than everyone else & demand a luxury lifestyle without having to work for it. They expect to have babies without any drop in living standards whatsoever. It would be interesting to see what would happen if we took away all the cash & other benefits currently enjoyed by stay-at-home mothers, thus making them pay for the upbringing of their children themselves. They might then be more appreciative of what taxpayers currently do for them.

Carol, Derby,

And who would need to pick up the bill for all those tax incentives? Why anyone under 30. And who pays the most, net of receipts, in taxes? the under 30s. And which group is finding it impossible to buy a house? the under 30s. And which group provides the dynamism that keeps the economy going? the under 30s.

You're going to have to do better than that and the obvious answer is, if you want to have a child, you're going to need to accept a decrease in your standard of living. It's called making a sacrifice. If you aren't prepared to make that sacrifice, don't expect other people to make it for you.

Will, London,

Ms. Marrin is absolutely right. This mass child neglect is having a disastrous effect on society as well as on the individual children themselves. It is not impossible to comibine a woman's desire to have a career with bringing up a family. Women should be able to take several years out of work to do the most important job in the world - rearing their children. At the same time, opportunities to take training/educational courses to keep their expertise up to date should be widely available, along with part-time work as the children get older.

Ella, Oakham, UK

I could not agre more with "those incentives should be offered in the opposite direction — to mothers (or fathers) who stay at home to bring up children and who take on community work and charity work. "

I have elected to stay at home to raise my daughter (and her future siblings) at not inconsiderable financial cost. I am delighted to do this, it is rewarding, interesting and a huge challenge after 12 years in the workplace. But I do wish my choice could be validated by tax breaks and not undermined.

I don't consider myself to be right wing, but my experience of raising a child leads me to believe what many people consider to be right wing propganda - babies need their parents.

Louise, Paris,

I cannot agree more with Marrin. I've put my career as a academic on hold so that I can raise our five small children because I know that it is best for them to be raised by their mother, not some ultimately dis-interested third party. I can't bear all the ranting and raving we hear these days about 'affordable child care', for beneath it is this smug assumption that it's completely possible to work full time and have successful, well-balanced, emotionally stable, happy children. It's all a lie. Creating successful relationships with your children takes time; but working outside the home takes time; therefore, at some point, the two will be incompatible.

I grew up in the 70's and 80's, and absorbed the feminist view that women could 'have it all'. What a shock I had when our first child arrived. I felt totally betrayed by feminism. It's based on a false set of principles which elevates money, independence and power above relationships and interdependence.

H Hamilton-Bleakley, Brampton,

The mother is the nurturer and should be respected as such.
That is not the case in society as the elite want more tax from people and that includes mothers.
The role of mother is a total 24/7 one, but it is not valued as such. If it was then mothers would be paid enough for the role of looking after children just as foster carers are- crazy the way that one works. When children are of school age- then mothers could take up part time jobs.
Society has forgotten that the first 4 yrs mould a child and the nurturing from mother is vital and irreplaceable.
Notice the vast number of troubled children- die to inner feelings of abandonment and lack of love because mum is too busy and too tired after a full days work.
It is too much to ask of a woman anyway.
Patriarchal system has controlled women and children up till now. Now it is time for feminine consciousness to show how it is all done to perfection with love and respect and get rid of money factor in everything.

Catherine mills, London, UK

Why not just put all the current benefits and tax credit systems in the bin? Many families could survive on one income without these handouts if only they didn't have to pay so much tax.... to pay for the welfare behemoth.

andrew, London , UK

I went to work and the goverment paid for my childs nursery place - they paid more for the nursery place than I actually earned working outside the home. Why couldn't the goverment have paid me to take care of my own child, did they think I was incapable of looking after my own child? No they wanted to make sure there unemployment figures were looking good - it had nothing at all to do with the well being of my child.

J, Leamington,

Mothers´"longing for work" is a dubious proposition. Feminists pointed out that paid work was the road to freedom and a degree if independence from male control, which is of course absolutely true. I agree with Minette Marrin that two parents working is often incompatible with a decent upbringing of the child.

The answer is to find ways of changing social values. Motherhood is despised in our career and money oriented society. Therefore mothers should be paid to look after their children, equivalent to the average national salary, plus of course the existing social security benefits for children.

In return, they will have to answer for their state employment as mothers to meet job criteria and social workers will be their managers. This may sound intrusive but I can´t see a way out of that. Parents bringing up their children must be properly accountable for the results - and today they are not. If they fail, they lose their pay.

cerronevado, Malaga, Spain

My wife and I both worked part time during our childrens infancy and primary school age so either one of us was always on hand plus I had the pleasure of helping raise both my daughter and son. Neither of our careers were put on hold and any cut inour income was more than worth it. More parents should adopt this approach.

Arnold Ward, Weybridge, Surrey, UK

Your article is very interesting but as today's needs are such that women have to go to work to help the family's finances, even if she doesn't want, it is difficult to decide what is right. When our first daughter was borne my husband didn't want me to go to work. After our flat was flooded and we had to move again, I told him that we had to buy our own home and once we found a place he suddenly realised that we couldn't afford to pay the mortgage unless I went to work, so it became OK for me to work. That is no solution either. So some way has to be found to enable women to go to work if they want to. I am glad that nowadays women have the right to choose and are not looked down upon if they leave their children, but agree that somehow things have to change in the educational system.

Renate Baramy, Ramat Hasahron, Israel

So we're back to that old saw that women who work are responsible for the destruction of society - doesn't the Times have any original ideas in its arsenal that it can publicise for debate?
Why is this article focused on women only and the supposed clash between their need to work and need to raise a family? Why is it assumed that childcare is the problem rather than the way we structure working life? In countries like Sweden, childcare for the under-5s is considered entirely normal and is state-subsidised, yet they don't have a surfeit of feral, gun-slinging teens. Admit it: the real problem in the UK is poverty and income disparity and an absence of state-run and regulated childcare. Some parents are able to afford high-quality childcare and nannies while the poorest subsist on single-mother benefits or make do with cheap, unregulated care.
The answer isn't to go back to 1955 (feminism happened for a good reason): the answer is to create a fairer society for all.

MB, Edinburgh,

Wow,someone actually advocating that children be raised by their parents.What a novel approach.But telling Mommy she should stay home and raise her children is not politically correct these days and even suggesting that Daddy stay home while Mommy works is probably grounds for an earthquqke.All children should have a parent present while they are growing up.It's a basic right that covers a basic need.It's just that simple.

ron, toronto,

'If one cannot afford to bring up children, don't have them.'
There wouldn't be anyone left in the UK pretty soon then.

I'd just like to know why this seems to be exclusively the mother's problem? Why no talk about men staying home to look after the kids? Why no talk about men and women both working part time so that childcare could be limited to say one day a week? There is a distinct lack of imagination in today's childcare debate.

Beth, Wallsend, UK

A woman has stated that a woman's real job is to bring up her own children, and no one has responded, amazing! But Gordon wants more tax and NI and more VAT from the rubbish they buy. He wants everyone spending to boost the economy - he doesn't care what they buy, buy more booze and why not gamble as well. The hypocritical PM despite his Presbyterian religious views does not care about the consequences which are plain to see if you look into the drugs, drinking, gambling morass of the USA. £10billion already spent on gambling but this Labour party want more. £10billion spent on drink but they want more. You have to have a job to do these things which means women work when they should be bringing up their children to be better citizens. Things will get worse until people start to be proper parents to their children and provide a better role model and spend time with their kids, monitor TV and computer time, and help with their education, don't just spend to help Gordon!

DCoates, Brighton, Sussex UK

I am reluctantly sympathetic with the Minette's view - as a working mother of three young children. But she misses the reason why so many parenting couples both work - to pay the appallingly high cost of housing. Kids in childcare is the unappealing byproduct of a need to keep a roof over the family's head.

Helen, Stornoway, Scotland

Excuse me for objecting. But unless mistaken, women have argued for the right to work for the last 30 years. So, who are you to preach that they are wrong? Why should women be expected to play the stay at home mother; let their hard earned education degrees count for nothing; become reliant on a remote bread-winner; tolerate abuse precisely because they are dependent on said remote-bread-winner; or forgoe equality? Would it be fair to expect the male to stay at home, make the tea, clean the house, wash the clothes, vacuum, and have the dinner ready for the other-half's return from work?

Gerard Mckay, Kassel, germany

The stability and care of a stay at home mother or father is the most important factor in a child's life.
Dropping them at a good, or bad childcare facility every morning I consider child abuse.

If one cannot afford to bring up children, don't have them.

robert, abbotsford,