Working mothers

We need people to have children wh will grow to work and pay taxes to pay for the aging population. So we need to support those currently doing that job. It always makes me laugh that they focus on pre-school child care. As if, once they're at school, parents' problems are over. Schools run only for fairly short hours a day. Then lots of holidays. Quite hard to find a job that fits in with that, that pays enough and is close enough to commute to,

Grannygrunt, if everyone who is a parent stops working, this country will be in deep trouble. Who will do all the work? Who will pay taxes? Who will pay their rent or mortgage and buy their food for them?

The role of SAHM is a relatively recent phenomenon. Prior to our parents/grandparents time most women worked. For some, it was work at home, such as weaving, stitching or laundry. Some worked in mills and down mines or in the fields or in service. Only wealthy women didn't work and they hired wet nurses/nannies and governesses for their children, they didn't raise them themselves.

My old dad used to have these outdated views. I cannot believe a woman has written this post, let alone a woman of today.

Glad you wrote that, SueDonim, because I was going to point out the same thing. The only one of any of my female ancestors I know didn't work after she married was my paternal grandmother. She 'married well' and didn't need to work. She had a full-time housekeeper, who apparently also did much of the nannying.

It just never occurred to me that I wouldn't have to work outside the home. It's probably just as well, because I hate housework with a passion.

It would probably be worse if people stopped having children. How would the country cope if the average age of its population was 85?

I agree with you, Shizam. My children's school had an after-school club, but finding somebody to look after them for an hour before school was a nightmare. I was a teacher, so at least my holidays were usually the same, but non-pupil days were also difficult.

If you read my post again you will see the word SOME * trisher. It does not say all, or even many.

I have been a working mother all of my life from being 18 year old. I understood the thread started by VQ was not referring to those mothers who, given a choice or a change in circumstances would probably prefer not to have to work. I thought the thread was aimed at those who want it all. Two high flying careers (heaven forbid either should lose out on a promotion) and everything that goes with it, in other words a lifestyle choice, expecting everyone else to subsidize their child care costs.

Happy to be corrected VQ if I have misunderstood.

Meant to add that no-one can tell me how expensive child care is. If it were not for me either my DS or DDiL would have to give up their job. Neither of which are very well paid and they certainly don't work as a lifestyle choice. When the children were small we took turns looking after them . They were in a private nursery for 2 or 3 days per week. Their school has no breakfast or after school clubs at all and holidays are a complete nightmare.

Imagine what it is like for non-teachers daphnedill someone who has 4 weeks holiday a year ?

Aruna51 I didn't denigrate domesticity, in fact I said there was nothing wrong with either scenario be it stay at home Mum or a career . Think there should be room for both if that is what the parents want.

Yes, I know, gillybob. I don't know how they manage. I used to have a house full of children during school holidays. Eeeek! I wanted a holiday from them.

It depends what these 'changes' are. Which parents will they end up supporting? I'm a bit out of the loop with my information about childcare support. I didn't receive any, apart from a few hours a week when my son was about four, but I don't think that was means-tested. I earned too much to receive tax credits for childcare and I know the threshold for support has been reduced by the current government. As far as I know, there isn't any support for two people with high-flying careers, although employers sometimes offer it to keep skilled people. Is this what's being suggested? They don't even receive Child Benefit if one person earns over £60,000.

It's tough daphnedill and I really feel for the children being passed from pillar to post every day. 6 weeks (or 7 as it was this year) is a lot of child minding to find. My son and DiL tend to take a week off each separately (which is a shame) and a week together which takes care of 3 weeks, I do at least 2 weeks and try to take the children away on a caravan holiday for at least one of them. The rest is shared between Dil's mum and nana.

Then of course you have half terms, Christmas, Easter, in service days ........

worn out thinking about it

What has struck me the most reading these posts is hardly anyone has mentioned what is best for the children. Surely children need someone who loves them unconditionally and has their best interests at heart. I really believe that no matter how good the nursery provision they will never replace the love of a parent.I also sincerely believe that the long hours spent in childcare is contributing to the rise in children having more mental health problems and Attachment disorder. Some children are spending up to 12 hours a day away from home. I'm afraid they are paying the price for our society not putting their needs first. I totally take onboard that people are finding life difficult financially and in many ways I blame the government. They denigrate people who choose to stay at home and bring up their own children because they want the tax receipts and then pretend to pay for 'free' childcare. Why not support people to stay at home for a while by giving tax relief?
I stayed at home for seven years and then taught part time until my youngest went to secondary school and even then it was tough juggling all the responsibilities. This didn't harm my career at all, I still went on to a successful career as a teacher and then a local authority advisor. Both of my children did exceptionally well at school and have grown up to become successful, generous and kind people. My DD had a very successful career in banking but is now a SAHM, much to my delight. She is totally fulfilled caring for her children, doing voluntary work and generally being a useful member of society. I know all of this might not sit well with people but I feel it needs saying, we are are storing up problems for the future by not supporting parents to spend more time with their children.

There has never been any conclusive evidence about what's best for the child. You believe that being with parents is best. I don't.

I think this is more to do with the parents' values and what makes the parents feel good about themselves than what's good for the child.

I would have been a terrible stay at home parent. My children were both in full-time nursery care from the age of six months to five. They have both turned out to be well-rounded, intelligent adults, so what does that prove? Maybe that children are more resilient than we give them credit for? They aren't paying any price. They both did exceptionally well at school, too - and they're kind and generous.

I don't think people should be paid to stay at home unless there is true equality and just as many men choose to stay. Just because I'm female doesn't mean I love being a housewife and looking after children.

I'm not denigrating anybody. I can understand some people want to be a domestic goddess. Maybe they would do me the courtesy of understanding that I have never wanted to be one. Caring for my children could never have fulfilled me.

By the way, I spent a year working with teenagers with mental health problems (not learning disabilities). This is only anecdotal, I know, but a common factor with nearly all the children was that they had SAHM protective parents.

@gillybob

And what happens when there are no grandparents around? Neither my own mother or my MIL did anything to help out.

DD My own Mother was still working when I had my babies and stay at home MIL only visited if DH went to fetch her - her excuse? reason? was that she would need to take 2 buses!!

Mine had a better reason. They lived 200 miles away. I'm not blaming them - just saying that many people can't rely on family help for all sorts of reasons.

I have five children and worked part time as a GP. I worked about 27 hours a week. We had no family support. We had a fantastic nanny who came in the days I worked. She stayed with us for 13 years. We only ever had one childcare arrangement. My husband's job could be flexible when we needed it to be. I don't think our kids missed out. If anything DH and I missed out on relaxation time but that was our choice and we are making up for it now we are retired! I think I was a better mum when I was with the kids because I worked and also a better GP for having had the rich(and sometimes difficult/ challenging !) experience of motherhood. If I did it all again I would do the same!

And thousands (tens of thousands?) of patients are grateful you did too, mumofmadboys!
I look back at the struggle it was trying to juggle job, children, poorly husband, life (?) and sometimes wonder if the children suffered, but DD1 who is now a Secondary Maths teacher with 3children, 6 and under, told me she was proud of me being a teacher when she was a child.
You just have to do your best don't you?

The government say we don't have enough money to help families where both parents have to work so I can't see any justification in helping those who have one parent who doesn't have to work but chooses to. I have nothing against them choosing to work but they have to take into account the extra costs.

Most children are raised by mothers. If you think I'm sexist and outdated then so be it.

The news report was on the BBC breakfast programme. Hmmmm can we trust the BBC to report accurately.....that's another thread

Chattykathy,well said,and you are right,although you will never convince the few.to do that is maybe to admit they may have got things wrong,and they will never do that.[and I'm not pointing at anyone] I don't need to do that.People,especially young people,in therapy has increased tenfold,got to be a reason for it.

So,what's wrong with being a mum a wife a mother a female.I have been one for 67 years,I'm relatively happy with few hang ups.Up the female,Mum rules.Im female and I'm happy I love men too,viva la difference.

I don't actually know what help parents get from the government but I am pretty sure that high earning women will pay plenty of tax to offset any costs to public funds.

Mine neither daphnedill and boy could I have used the help. As a young (18 year old) single parent with a baby in a flat. I worked full time and dragged my son out of bed at stupid o'clock took him by bus to nursery where he stayed all day until I finished work . My mum Didn't even offer to babysit so I could have a night out ! The alternative would have been living on benefits . Because of this I vowed to help out with my own grandchildren as much as I possibly can .

John Bowlby has an awful lot to answer to. He argued that children need a mother, as in female. The government picked up on this as it suited their agenda at that time. The war was over and men were coming back needing jobs. It was ideal to say that a woman's place was in the home caring for the family.

Of course we know better know, don't we?