Putting my head about the parapet

Children go to school at 5. They're not in costly 'daycare' for very long. All sorts of arrangements are possible so they don't automatically cost a fortune. As we all know, grandparents are often happy to help. If mums want to work as opposed to having to work then why not? Not every family wants expensive foreign holidays and extra cars. For some mums their mental health is at risk if staying at home.

It is mainly to the cost of housing. A person would have to be on an extremely high salary to be able to manage a mortgage, or to pay the level of rent that is now normal. No matter what expectations anyone has, the level of income needed just to house a family is too high. It is all very well us oldies congratulating ourselves on how well we managed our money, our rents or mortgages were nowhere near today's prices.
But another consideration is that if a man has been the sole earner and he then decides to leave his family, the mother has to start from scratch in the world of paid employment, spousal maintenance does not really happen any more.

Yes Vampire my determined to bring up her own children DD feels undervalued sometimes. But I don't undervalue her!

I agree with M0nica and Elegran the cost of housing is prohibitive.
We bought a house back in the day when they cost under £5000. Imagine that. We could have bought a croft in the Scottish Highlands for a few £100 and I know people who did..
My DC have hefty mortgages or can't afford a house at all.
My DS has had to keep a job even when hating it.

But I hope there is and will be more flexible working hours. When I worked outside the home I remember the stress when the teachers went on strike and my female, childless boss had no sympathy whatsoever for my concern about where the DC would go!
The safety net of a basic income sounds like a good idea but it wouldn't help our families whose monthly bills are very high.

I'm not saying that men shouldn't stay at home if that's how the couple want to work it. I just wonder when/why being a parent at home became so undervalued. I have two DDs. I works full time whilst bringing up 3 children with the help of her (self employed husband) and her sister. She is deemed to be successful. The other is a 'stay at home mother'. She helps her working sister by doing the school pick up/drop offs etc when necessary. Both have very happy, well adjusted children but the stay at home daughter isn't deemed as successful as her sister because she is 'only' a mother.

Thousands of men, too.

We need a radically new approach to work/life balance. So many jobs these days are there just so that company shareholders can increase their profits, they don’t have any actual benefit to the country or humanity in general.

I bet there are thousands of women whose preferences would be to stay at home and look after the children !

I do think housing costs are at the core, and part of that was more women coming into work and earning enough to make a significant contribution to family incomes.

Pressure was brought on building societies to take a second income into account when granting mortgages. If lots more people can borrow more then it puts pressure on the housing market and that drives prices up, so gradually a second income becomes essential if you want to be able to buy a house, which in turn means women have to stay in work when they would rather not.

shelflife Parents choice , they decide what is right for their family. Staying at home with children is a personal choice. This is a lovely idea but unfortunately untrue. Most women have to go back to work because they are earning half the family income and without it, they will not be able to afford the rent or mortgage payment. They then have all the problems of child care.

It is always the problem, as we seek a juster and fairer society women threw off their chains and took their place in society as equals, with all the freedom to get education, better paid work and lifetime careers. We didn't really think about the downside. Or rather we could not foresee the downsides, because we could only predicate them on the basis of our existing experience.

One of those downsides is that women with children have to work because their income is essential to keeping a roof over the family and bread on their plates.

The vast majority of mothers now have to put their children in day care in order to earn a living. The exact reverse of the days when women had to stay at home to look after children. At the end of the day it is the women (and children) that are the losers.

Aveline

Some women themselves these days want to do more with their lives. They've worked hard to get to where they are in their jobs. They've studied hard and gained different perspectives on life. For some, and I emphasise some, childcare is boring. (I can hear screaming from some of you!)
Life has changed. Its now normal for mothers not to stay at home with their children. Once they go to school there's not nearly enough to fill the day. (Is that more screaming?)

Not from me it isn’t . That’s why I know it’s not about money in all cases at all but about personal satisfaction and fulfilment as well. Although I know not everyone is in that situation.

Our daughter returned to work full time when our GD was 9 months old.
The nursery fees were just under 15 K a year with an extra sun cream application charge from March until September.
There were heavy fines if you were late to collect and 8.15 was the drop off.
She lived in Brighton at the time and the parking in town would have cost an arm and a leg so my daughter had to rely on the bus, despite outrageous parking charges the council didn’t subsidise the bus service so that was an extra £6 a day.
The stress was unbelievable.
She didn’t receive any family allowance as they were over the threshold.
When she got home at 5.45 with only a few minutes before baby bath and bedtime she was just feeling miserable.

She is now a stay at home Mum with 2 children, they have moved to Cheshire as the commute from Crewe to London is as easy as from Brighton, my daughter has ditched any ideas of working for somebody else, she has realised that with a partner who works very long hours and can rarely help and no family nearby it is just not worth the stress.

But the whole conversation has been about stay at home mums and all examples given have been women who gave up their career. The focus is always on women in these discussions.

Galaxy

But why would you campaign for that just for women. Young women tend to be out performing men in university and in early stages of career, why would you not campaign for the lower earner to stay at home which in lots of cases would be men. I changed from management to part time work when my children were young, I dont think you can underestimate the impact on the person who takes that 'hit'.

But Galaxy The OP is aware of the men who could stay at home (and do) She says "Of course I am aware that some men would like to stay at home and their wives/partners would like to work. That is their choice too but the same applies. "

I intended to go back to my work after my maternity leave thirty four years ago. I decided I wasn’t prepared to work full time to pay a nursery. It was difficult financially because my then husband wasn’t on great pay. But we managed ok until the interest rate shot up so I had to get a part time job. I was thrifty in the house had no holidays and didn’t expect new this or that etc.
My family made their own decisions when they started having children. Both my DIL and DD had very good jobs and chose to be stay at home mums. My DS and my SIL worried initially about the responsibility of the finances but they are both professional and are on good salaries. If their incomes were not so good my DIL and DD wouldn’t have the choice to stay at home.
Income does play a big part in decisions being made by most people. There are of course people on extremely low pay who rely on family credit etc to top up wages. It shouldn’t be necessary but it’s another reason people have to consider making lifestyle choices.
Attitudes also influence decisions people make as expectations seem to be higher. Consumerism encouraged by credit cards and loans so easily available unlike years ago. It’s for holidays cars etc things they couldn’t usually afford its living on the never never.
It’s a good question you ask I think it’s because it’s not encouraged these days no matter what party presides in government. There is no consideration for the family as a unit it is now all about the individual in this materialist world we live in. It’s all interpretation isn’t it how we see things based on our own experience.

Some women themselves these days want to do more with their lives. They've worked hard to get to where they are in their jobs. They've studied hard and gained different perspectives on life. For some, and I emphasise some, childcare is boring. (I can hear screaming from some of you!)
Life has changed. Its now normal for mothers not to stay at home with their children. Once they go to school there's not nearly enough to fill the day. (Is that more screaming?)

It is a spiral. Maternity leave used to be patchy and short, and your job wasn't kept for you to return to.. Then mortgage firms started lending on two salaries instead of just one - that was at the same time as the pill became the most dependable choice for contraception, and the lenders did it because they were not so likely to have women defaulting on payment because they had become pregnant and left their jobs. Maternity leave was better organised, and women could go back to the job that was helping pay the mortgage. Because more couples could afford them, house prices rose to meet the affordable limit, so more women went back to work after their babies were born so as to keep up. On the spiral, house prices continued to rise as double incomes made it possible to buy a better house. And so on.

The ones left behind were the low earners who couldn't have got a mortgage in the first place, but still had a family to raise! They are the ones who have no choice.

Shelflife

Parents choice , they decide what is right for their family. Staying at home with children is a personal choice. Lots to weigh up - nursery fees in particular!!!!?

No it really is not that simple.The point is not everyone has a meaningful choice.

Parents choice , they decide what is right for their family. Staying at home with children is a personal choice. Lots to weigh up - nursery fees in particular!!!!?

A fantastic case for Universal Basic Income it seems to me ?‍♀️ No brainer.

Sign if the times ! I like many others stayed at home with my children, then worked part time when they were in school. It is a difficult question because all parents have the right to work if they need / choose to do so. However my daughter and her husband work the child are happy but have such busy days ! Breakfast club before school , and after school care makes for a very long day for children. Pre Covid the youngest had a full day with me and the rest of the week in nursery. My daughter often looks very tired , she has a very responsible job which she loves. However I sometimes wish she had a more relaxed life with her children. I loved being at home with my children, playgroup one morning a week , visits to friends who had children, no anxiety if children woke with tummy ache , sickness because I knew I could be at home and sort it out. Having said that , I am a great believer in gender equality . Am also aware that many parents prefer to be in work than be stay at home mums or dads , and of course for them that is the best option.

I agree op. I think it's very sad that mothers who would love to stay at home with their children for a few years can no longer afford to do so because of crazy house prices that depend on 2 salaries for a mortgage.

It's also bad for communities to have no one around during the day because everyone is at work, school or in the creche.

I also agree that priorities have changed a lot, and some people aren't prepared to sacrifice anything in order to have a better quality family and community life. The shock horror from some people last summer when they were asked not to go on foreign holidays was depressing to witness. When you think what people just a couple of generations ago were asked to sacrifice in the common good.....

But I think modern day house prices and rents have done huge damage to families and communities.

All mothers are full-time mothers, whether they work or not.

The issue is that the cost of living is rising and wages are stagnant and not in line with inflation. It’s difficult for even two working parents financially, let alone one. Free childcare would make a huge difference in women being able to get back to work if they want to, but we also need to ensure that flexible and remote working become more the norm.

I think a Universal Basic Income is key here, so everyone is supported regardless of whether or not they’re in work, enabling them to actually make their choices rather than the economy making it for them. We’d see much happier families and individuals then.

Oh and nobody wants to shoot you vampire , it's a really interesting discussion.

And for many women you become trapped not just in terms of career bit in terms of marriage and for some that can be a really dangerous place to be.

Amongst my dd’s friends ( late 30s/ 40) the issue for them is the availability of part time / flexible working. They want to work because it’s part of who they are - it’s not just about the money. They’ve worked hard for degrees/ professional qualifications etc. The logistics can be difficult but they all work part time atm and have employers with family friendly policies ( which apply to both male and female employees). She and her friends work in a variety of settings - private sector, public sector and not for profit.
I agree that the real issue is not which choice you make but whether you have a meaningful choice. And many don’t

Galaxy

But why would you campaign for that just for women. Young women tend to be out performing men in university and in early stages of career, why would you not campaign for the lower earner to stay at home which in lots of cases would be men. I changed from management to part time work when my children were young, I dont think you can underestimate the impact on the person who takes that 'hit'.

And that hit becomes an even bigger one if the couple separate. Women have much poorer pension provision because of the p.t. Work or not moving into management posts. I moved out of management at the point I was being encouraged to go for the next level.
My mum was the oldest of four. Both her parents started the 6am shift at the mill. She was responsible for getting all four of them off to school. She was determined we wouldn’t have that, so stayed home. I wonder how many of us born in the 40’s and 50’s had parents who aspired, like the middle classes,to have mums who ‘didn’t need to work’