Are young mothers really better off than in the past ?

Newmom101 in the 60s and 70s there were not the social security benefits available for single mothers that there are now. So unless the young woman's family were prepared to help either financially or by looking after the baby while the mother worked putting the child up for adoption was the only answer. Not all adoptiobs were forced adoptions. Not every young mother wanted to keep her baby and felt adoption was the answer. Of the young women I knew who had babies while single only one kept her baby because her parents were prepared to help despite all the gossip going on at the time. It was a very different era compared to life now.

I totally agree with you Stella1949.

No doubt that modern day demands of parenting far exceed (at least in my humble opinion) how easy we had it in the good old days.

An illustrative comparison would be the 'stay at home' mom of the 'fifties' where most families enjoyed a more 'structured' home life and children were adept at being self sufficient. They could seek out their friends on their own and play outside until dusk. They walked themselves to school, the library, the playground and the store because our world was still safe enough and children could enjoy their freedom without fear of being abducted/murdered by a sexual predator. They could manage homework (or otherwise routine tasks) without tears or tantrums and with little or no parental intervention. You see, back in the old days, we may not have had dishwashers or fast food, but we had something far more precious....we had Time!

Fast forward to the present....Young mothers today, must subsidize all of the above (the play dates, the homework, the driving, the drama etc.) while competing with screen time for junior's attention, and holding down a full time job.

Today's mom must juggle late day business meetings, with Sissy's ballet class and Sonny's soccer practice while planning dinner and stopping at the food store on the way home! This is the new normal. I don't know how these brave young mothers manage day after day but I would propose a special award for "Exceptional Endurance in the face of Unscheduled Adversity"....

(OK.....just writing about all this has been exhausting!)

oldbatty you are so right. Consumerism has a lot to answer for. I suppose in a way we were lucky. If only people could learn to ignore the pressure and be content with less. .

Someone told my 85 year old ex MIL that young mums have it easy these days. I was so proud of her reaction, she can be quite critical of young people but furiously stuck up for young women and said in her day it was much easier because of the help and support of the local community. Couples stuck together, (not always a great idea but divorce was much less common) they could afford to buy a house, there wasn’t as much pressure to go back to work ASAP to help with housing costs or have possessions and things were made to last (her ancient washing machine being an example) Most importantly, she said families didn’t move around as much. Her mum lived around the corner. Neighbours were not so transient and everyone knew each other. She then told me how as kids they would always knock on the doors of new mums to see the baby and ask if they could take it out in the prom!

Pram!

I also think mums generally had far more family and community support years ago and all the mod cons and gadgets don't make up for that being lost to many families.I am unusual and lucky to live very close to my DD.Another lives in a different part of the country and it will be tougher for her returning to work.
Another big pressure families face is commuting to work on today's congested roads.Both my DD and her partner have almost an hours journey either end of the working day.
However DDs partner in particular has to have the latest gadgets and a top of the range car - which quietly drives us mad - because a big chunk of their earnings go on that.Madness but we criticise at our peril !

If they couldn't afford to buy a house it was much easier to get a place to rent and there wasnt such pressure to be a homeowner (Thatcher!) It wasnt so expensive and you could make it your home.

My husband promised I could be a SAHM, but six months later the money was all gone because of Ogre spending husband. I had to go back to work then. My heart still breaks when I remember my child's first word was bye-bye.

@ trisher said that all mothers get 6 months maternity pay. This is not correct and there may be a significant difference in pay, depending on the employer. For those working in the private sector, their entitlement is 39 weeks SMP (statutory maternity pay) which is 6 weeks at 90% of their pay then £145.18 SMP for the next 33 weeks.
However the poor nhs staff and possibly other public sector workers, who have been in the same employment for at least a year, get 8 weeks at full pay, then 18 wheeks at half pay plus SMP on top of that, before going down to basic SMP.
Dd2 is a nurse so having her 2 dc was financially much easier than dd1 (private sector), who is expecting her first child this month and is already planning to be back at work 3 months later, as she cannot afford to be off longer than that.
I myself was a nurse, prior to having a family, and had to give up work when dd was born, before returning to nursing 5 years later. I am not NHS bashing, just think that many people forget about some of the perks the public sector workers get (with our money paying for it) whilst others have to struggle much harder.

"some of the perks the public sector workers get (with our money paying for it) whilst others have to struggle much harder"

Here we go again, let's bash our nurses, police officers, teachers and so on, rather than encourage the private sector, where huge profits are often made, to provide better terms of employment.
When I was a public sector employee, I earned about half the amount of money that friends who did the same work but in the private sector, did. We had the same qualifications and work experience but I chose to remain in pubic service. It wasn't because I got perks at the expense of other people. It was because I don't believe that education, health, policing, criminal justice or social work (for example) are 'for profit' organisations.

My friend's daughter seems to be asked to pay for so much more at the kids schools and nursery than my daughter had to when gs was at that age.

Seems every other month she has to purchase something, Christmas cards the school had printed with the kids "artwork" on were the last example.

I know the schools need the extra finances but with many working parents having to rely on food banks these days I think this constant asking parents for money must be an additional stress they dont need

What a nasty post Chucky I agree with every word Iam posted and wonder why you’d like a world in which all mothers were reduced to the lowest common denominator?

Surely there is a balance here? If private sector companies gave all the 'perks' the public sector get then everything would be a lot more expensive. Would shareholder (yes, that is all of us if we have any kind of bank account, insurance etc) tolerate companies who gave their employees a lot more than what was required by law? I'm not 'public sector bashing' just being realistic. I don't resent anyone who has more than I do but I have seen on GN assumptions that what the public sector got/get is the norm and in some way the private sector is expected to do the same.

Not every country in the EU has as good maternity benefits as we do.

@ maryeliza54 please tell me how this is nasty???
Plus @ Iam64 I am not NHS bashing. I work for the NHS. It’s a true reflection on maternity benefits. It’s not just the nurses, doctors etc. in the NHS, Admin staff get the same benefits and are much better paid (and often less overworked) than many of those in the private sector! Is that fair? I am a nurse and think that wages are pretty good. I am often overworked and struggle when in charge of my community hospital to ensure patien’s needs are met, but I have never complained about my wage (band 5), despite having to take charge over a weekend when newly qualified and probably earning about the same as the nursing assistants who don’t have my responsibility. I have 2 daughters and see the differences between the maternity allowances they get. Dd2 had her wage equalised over 12 months when she had dgs2. Dd1 works just as hard, but maternity allowances are considerably worse, as many employers in the private sector pay only what they have to. I suppose that you think it’s great that my dd1 literally has to pay more money (tax etc.) to support her much more well off ds?

@ Nonnie I think you can see what I am getting at. Immediately anyone says they work for the NHS they are automatically underpaid and overworked. Yes you can be overworked and stressed, but many factory workers are overworked, stressed and on a much lower salary. Their employers have to compete for work and as Nonnie said if their prices are too high the public won’t buy their goods and they will go out of business I worked in the Private sector prior to being a mature student and completing my Bsc in Adult Nursing. I am considerably better off now and have far more perks. Many people have no idea how many restaurants, shops etc. give NHS employees discounts (even cheaper holidays)!

Not every country in the EU has as good maternity benefits as we do
Lets go for the lowest common denominator shall we? Of course they don't. Many of them are much less affluent than we are.
One of the reasons NHS staff have the benefits they do is because they have a union who negotiated terms and many of the discounts available are linked to that. What I don't understand is how you a say a job is just as stresssful but think its OK for staff to get less support. And all this guff about it not being possible without severely affecting the economy is just that. The same lame excuses were made when maternity pay was first introduced, but guess what? Nothing happened!

What is nasty about Chucky’s post ??

It's nasty because it refers to things like the maternity pay NHS staff get as "perks" rather than as statuatory rights. It's subtle but it's a way of making out they are not entitled to them.

I think the public vs private sector argument is pointless as it depends on the profession.

For instance in the case of me and my friend it is the opposite of Chuckys post. I work in the public sector and get the bare minimum, she's in the private and gets 6 months full pay! Totally varies by profession, not private or public sector.

trisher I disagree with much of what you say. The EU country I am talking about is not one of the less affluent ones. I should know, my DiL has two children!

Not everyone has the opportunity of joining a union, I never did. Some of the unions must be too small to negotiate the discounts etc.

Why does it have to be a competition? Why are some public sector employees to defensive? Lots of jobs are stressful and it is very naive for anyone who hasn't worked in a particular job to think they know how stressful that job is. I'm not competing but some people thought I had a simple 9-5 job because I worked in an office. That was not so and I worked much longer hours for no extra pay and no time off in lieu. That is not a complaint, it is an explanation.

@ trisher a perk is defined as something special or extra someone is given because of their job (Cambridge Dictionary). So NHS maternity pay is a perk because it is above the statutory level of maternity pay laid out by the government which is paid to many in the private sector.
As Nonnie says not everyone has the opportunity to join a union as there are still a considerable number of places where this would be very difficult.
I did not intend my original post to make this an nhs bashing thread (I WORK FOR THE NHS) but to purely point out the differences and clarify that @ trisher’s statement that everyone is entitled to 6 months maternity pay is factually incorrect (government legislation is 6 weeks at 90% pay and 33 weeks at £145.18]. As a teacher she may only be aware of the “perks” the private sector get.

Sorry obviously should be public sector get.

I had my first child in the mid 80s and second two years later. I was not working for almost 5 years, then had to go back as the mortgage rate had increased so much we needed 2 wages. I had no family help, so went through a series of child minders, my youngest was quite unhappy at times, it was hard.

We lived very frugally, one car DH needed. I went everywhere either walking, pushing pram, or by bus. One in the buggy one in a sling, quite a handful. I started a baby sitting circle as I was lonely, so we had some nice coffee mornings together. I hardly ever went out socialising with friends apart from that. Most of our furniture was second hand, as was much baby clothes/equipment.

I compare this to a couple in our family (both with well paid jobs)with a new baby. She will be returning to work soon for 4 days, 3 days Mums will be minding baby free, one paid at nursery. The girl has such a lovely social life, having nails done, gym, spa trips, lunch dates, lots of husband and family support. It seems to me a much better life than I had, but she is sad to leave the baby for 4 days.

Generally people expect more from life now and are not often prepared to have second hand anything. They take the children on lots of expensive outings. The children might be just as happy being home with Mum/friends, and having a less frenetic childhood.

Maternity leave, sick pay, holiday entitlement, pension - anything above the statutory minimum is a contractual right and not a perk - a perk imo is something like the company paying for a Christmas lunch or a day out - not in the contract and not something that would be something you would take into account when deciding whether or not to take a job. Everyone can join a union btw - the problem is whether it is recognised by the employer - and fot that , thank the bloody Tories