So, shamefully, I know exactly what a het-up woman called Carol Varley was getting at in the Spectator when she argued, vividly, "There is no such thing as a full-time mum."
Varley says the full-time mother is a recently constructed mythical figure. In the past the rich farmed out the job of child-rearing altogether, and the poor just fitted it in around their labouring.
In my parents' generation women who stayed at home could more accurately be called full-time housekeepers rather than mothers. Doing the cooking, washing and cleaning took up all their time; there was little or no "quality time" for the kids.
But those days are long gone. Mothers at home never had it so good. Housework is a once-over-lightly doddle now. Who irons their sheets? Or starches their husband's shirts?
Varley sneers: "Moments after the morning school drop-off, groups of women flutter to the nearest skinny latte. Local nail bars, hairdressers, swimming pools and gyms are profitably occupied by the mother-aged at hours that cannot possibly be lunch breaks from honest toil."
Varley says these women are not full-time mothers, let alone saints, but lazy mares. What her diatribe overlooks is that what is expected of today's middle-class SAHM (stay at home mother) doesn't involve putting washing through a wringer but is possibly just as onerous.
She is expected to be thin and groomed and glamorous. Her house must be more than clean; it needs to look like a glossy spread in a design magazine. And dinner is not rissoles any more , but some restaurant-quality creation.
And then there are the children themselves. Sheesh! Where to start there: the little darlings have to be academically achieving and accomplished and ferried around every afternoon to various improving activities.
And there seems to be a common temptation for women who have chosen to stay at home to prove themselves by "over-parenting". New research shows that some privileged children are struggling in later life because they have never been allowed to experience failure.
Jessica Lahey, a teacher writing about "Why parents need to let their children fail" in the Atlantic, says there is a whole new level of overprotectiveness with parents "raising their children in a state of helplessness and powerlessness". These full-time mums are doing too much.
Varley is smug about the fact that she always worked. But she is fortunate to be a writer, a handy job where you can find flexible options and work from home.
Many of the women she writes about are most likely to be offered all-or-nothing alternatives by potential employers. Toil in an office for long hours and barely see your children: take it or leave it.
I suspect if Varley went to talk to the women she disdains, rather than just gobbing at them from across the cafe, she might find that quite a few of them, despite not being high-powered executives nor scrubbing their floors, are doing all sorts of other productive glue-keeping-the-community-together type things, like looking after elderly parents or staffing PTA fundraisers.
And what's really wrong with being idle? I have only ever had one manicure in my life, I try never to be seen in public in lycra exercise gear and I'm a slattern when it comes to housework.
But never mind, I'm going to have lots of time to get my act together now the kids are back at school.
