Working mothers

Vampire queen, you started this thread with the title Working mothers. That, to me, seems pretty slanted towards one sex.

I don't know any young couples who haven't taken into account childcare costs and so on. My own sons were each married seven years before having families. They don't expect anyone to give them anything, they make their own way in life. As it happens, one son's wife is the main breadwinner. He has deliberately stepped back in his own profession so she can develop her career.

I expect both my own daughters will continue to work if/when they have children. One is a high flyer in her work and the other is training as a doctor. What a waste of their skills for them to forgo their careers and what a financial waste to the country of training female doctors if they then leave the profession.

I really seem to have set the cat amongst the pigeons with this thread. I didn't intend to but it's amazing how some threads seem to hit home and get people talking.

I was just having a rant about people who have good incomes expecting the government/employers to subsidise and/or adapt to their wants and needs when one of them (usually but not necessarily the mother) could stay at home and look after the children.

If money suddenly became available I'd much rather it was spent on subsidising and supporting the mothers who have no choice (or fathers if that's the case).

This is a tricky one. I wanted to be with my children until they went to full time school and worked in the evenings and then did part time work so I could meet them from school. Although I was always late collecting them. When they were in their teens I went full time and ended up with a good well paid career. So you can do both. My children with children use nurseries and child minders. They don't want to be sahms.

I don't understand why when Mum's are left with children, the dads don't seem to think the children are their responsibility unless they choose to be!

There are some women (and men) who simply want it all. Not satisfied with one good job between them, 2 healthy happy children, a nice little holiday, car, a medium sized house. They want all of that on steroids. 2 new cars, a huge expensive house, exotic holidays etc. then they complain about childcare.

What has multiplied the cost of housing was the willingness of mortgage providers to supply a loan of more than could comfortably be repaid, based on the premise that the value of a house would continue to rise forever in the buoyant prevailing financial atmosphere, where massive debt was no longer a dirty word.

The laws of supply and demand meant that because the cost of a bigger and/or better home was available, people made higher bids than they might have done, so price houses DID in fact rise. Then when they dropped again, they were, not surprisingly, unwilling to sell at a loss, so they hung back if they could, and prices stayed high.

The rising population and the standstill in local authority building of houses to rent added to the pressure on the existing housing stock (both to buy and to rent)

Let's be honest most working mothers don't have that sort of job. They're the cleaners, shop workers, factory workers and clerical staff of this country. So we're being asked to fund the high flyers

Do you consider teachers and nurses, for example, to be 'high flyers' because I don't. Without these women returning to work I'm afraid our education system and NHS would certainly collapse.

And it is important that they return to work, not just to teach our grandchildren and keep the NHS running, but so that they can progress up their career ladder too and don't just end up as the workhorses of the systems.

apologies if these points have already been made

chesters413, it is not women going out to work that has multiplied the cost of housing. it is the low priority given by governments over decades to house building for ordinary people - whether for rent or purchase - making housing a scarce and expensive resource, especially in economically healthy areas where there is work to be had.

From the 60's onwards it has been recognised by housing professionals everywhere that we as a country need to build many thousands of new homes every year to keep up with demand. It has never been done to the level required.And things, as we all know, are getting worse.

(I recommend people look at Ken Loach's 'Cathy Come Home' on DVD, which shocked the nation in 1966 (those who did not see it at the time, anyway) Even then, it was widely recognised that we were way behind the rest of post war Europe in planning and delivering affordable places to live.

I can't help feeling that some people haven't really read my OP and follow up posts.

I acknowledged in my opening paragraph that some women have no choice. They have to work to pay the mortgage/put food on the table. I even said that this is what I had had to do.
I never said women shouldn't go out to work.
I never denigrated any job. I simply pointed out that a lot of working women have this type of employment.
I never said men should not take responsibility for childcare.

So for clarity here's an amalgamation of my OP and follow up posts.

If a couple want to have children and both remain in work then they should take into account childcare costs and not expect the government and employers to pay/adapt to take into account that they have children unless the child is ill when both parents have an equal responsibility and need the opportunity to take time off at short notice.

This does not refer to women who have no choice but to work. They're the ones who need extra support.

Daphnedill, the daycare centre i worked in had all those things too and a glowing OFSTED report which was a joke.Yes there maybe a quite area but do you really think a child can have space and peace to be still when there another 20+ 3 year olds in the same room ? if a 4 year old wants to sleep he cant be tucked up in a bed and allowed to sleep as that would take a member of staff to be with him and the ratios dont allow for that. It is so unfair to have a small child in daycare 12 hours a day.When i started work it was in a playgroup which turned into a full daycare setting, I left after 15 months.

I went back to work soon after a baby was born. I loved my job, and chose to work. I had a few months or weeks off each time, but luckily didn't have to work fulltime until they were all at school.
BUT - I found it very stressful, trying to balance home and work, especially coming home at 6pm to 4 noisy teenagers, all arguing. Also , arranging childcare during the long summer holidays, but I wouldn't have expected the govt. to pay for it.

Daphnebroon...

I simply cannot accept the denigration of working women as "cleaners, shop workers etc etc",

When did I denigrate anyone? I simply pointed out that a lot of the jobs women do don't have a glass ceiling to break through. They are low paid and undervalued.

My goodness, Marmark1, like you I'm sure this agreement is a first.

Oooh we agree again about agreeing

Foxyferret, the trouble with means testing of all kinds is that it always costs a fortune to administer - monies that might be better spent providing a better quality universal service.

What the Inland Revenue needs to do is to assume all those with dependent children are in receipt of every child benefit available.

Wealthy households would then be taxed automatically on these,probably on a higher tax band. The benefits would be counted as part of their income, and the money clawed back and returned to the state coffers.

Suedomin...what's sexist about this?

If a woman wants to have a career and children then I'm afraid the couple has to take childcare costs into account when making their decision. What's to stop the father reducing/giving up work to bring up the children? If they both want a career then I'm afraid they'll just have to pay for childcare.

That says quite clearly that the father could give up his job and take care of the children

Goodness me, there are some judgmental postings here. Can't be 'bothered with their own children'? 'Chaotic households'?

I was mostly (but not entirely) a SAHM to our four children and I loved it but I recognise that times have changed and women have different requirements today. Any SAHM where my sons & dils live would have a pretty lonely time because there are few other parents around in the daytime and they'd be hard-pushed to find company.

My youngest grandchild will go to school when he is four years and two weeks old. Had my dil given up her satisfying work, what's she to do when he goes to school? Her company can hardly keep her position open for four years and even if they did, everyone else would have moved on and her career likely compromised forever. What a waste that would be!

As for nursery, I recently spent quite a bit of time at my GS's nursery and if, when I get old, I am in a care home even half as good, I'll be a happy bunny! As well as the indoor facilities, he has access to four playgrounds with equipment, a maze garden, a music garden, a sand garden, an allotment, two donkeys, four goats, numerous rabbits, guinea pigs and chickens, meals provided by a qualified chef and absolutely delightful staff, who really know the children well. What parent could possibly provide all that? He has a much richer social and learning environment than any of my children had and he's none the worse for it.

Lilyflower has summed up the problem when she writes: "It is now virtually impossible for a man on a normal salary to afford a house for his family on one income alone. Women have little choice but to work"
Absolutely true. By allowing themselves to be almost er ... blackmailed into working rather than be stay-at-home mothers society has allowed profiteers to double and treble the cost of housing. The choice has been torn from wives as mothers. Adult children cannot afford to buy their first home. My heart goes out to my GGCn. Having said that my own wife of 56 years standing has always HAD to work to make ends meet. And yes, as an old-fashioned hunter gatherer I do feel that I have let her and my children down. Our first house cost £3.400 and today it is on the market for £750,000 if only we hadn't moved all those years ago it would be small and perfect for us today.

As a lot of benefits are means tested these days, how about means testing for child care? Anyone earning silly money could not claim, then we would avoid the daft situation of people earning high salaries but still receiving child benefit. I wait to be shot down.

vampirequeen good to bring this subject up and I agree with Lillie that most women are not in low paid jobs but have degrees. I think the childcare question is pertinent to men and women - its no longer just a woman's responsibility. A parent's and woman's working life is likely to be 47 years years long - that's too long in any case for anyone to 'take off' to have children. (Retirement age at 68, starting work at 21 after uni)

And who is in a perfect situation? A friend of mine, married, works and she also is carer to her teenage son. When I first married, I thought I would be able to stay at home but my then DH proved to be hopeless poor thing with money and there was no choice for me to go out to work full time as a civil servant.

So I say its everyone's responsibility to fund decent childcare and is the responsibility of both parents too. But I also think you can't tell what your situation will be before you choose to have children, added to that housing costs being so big a part of peoples budgets, everyone needs to work most of the time until retirement or sickness puts paid to it.

What Lillyflower said - and with whatever help grandparents can reasonably give (emphasis on reasonably!) whether in time or money or both. There is an extended family dimension here. It seems to me that each generation is becoming more dependant, at least at some stage in their lives, on more and more help from the generation before or after.

What VQ is ignoring is that today, most mortgage companies REQUIRE two incomes for a mortgage on a family size home or flat. Not only to meet the income test, but in case one loses their job. Or if one is self-employed, then it's not even negotiable unless you own a long-established business. My DS only has had his company for 7 years and that's not enough for them to get a mortgage without DIL's income as well from a big employer she has been with for 5 years. And that brought them in just under the wire.

Lifetime careers with guaranteed incomes and pension for a husband (or the working wife) is a fairy tale now. Very few companies want you to stay 'for ever'. They rather you move on so they can hire new recruits for less.

This is the reality of 21st century and beyond I'm afraid.

I cannot agree that the children of parents who both work necessarily live in a "chaotic" household.

Who on this thread has suggested in any way that they could not be bothered with their own kids??

i read call your replys with great interest,the hardest job is staying at home,running a house and cooking proper meals,being aware of what your spending,sometimes spending time instead of money on things that you can do yourself,saying that children now suffer from stress there is no wonder,because many are surrounded by nothing else,all caused by a chaotic household.

Just out of curiosity you understand. I wonder if those of you who couldn't be bothered with your own kids,ever look after grandchildren,if you have them.Just asking mind,

I could never have imagined having to depend on a man for my housekeeping and pocket money

Surely this is the way traditional families worked, the woman gave birth and looked after the house and men went out to work and fed and clothed the family.
When I had my children the only childcare was way too expensive and I hardly knew anyone that worked.

Childcare here is excellent and government funded from the start. Many women go out to work but if like DD and SIL they decide Maman/Papa will stay at home they can register as housewife/husband and the working parent gets very good tax relief.
The tax relief equates to the wage from a 16 hour a week job in the stay at home parents previous employment.