Working mothers

It was just a report on the BBC morning news the other day but I haven't seen or heard it since. Must have been one of those slot in reports they do until something else crops up.

Yes, quite, Daphnedill & Iam64. We should be supporting the next generation of parents to raise their children - they're the ones who'll be looking after us in our old age!

well said that daphnedill. You are so right about misogynists not all being male - just look at the women who supported Trump for example.
There is something particularly unpleasant about the way in which some women patronise, criticise and judge other women with such ease.

I also think some of the posts directed at working mothers have been downright offensive. I don't feel guilty about returning to work and putting my children into a nursery, because I have absolutely nothing to feel guilty about. Anti-abortionists use the same tactics. My children were happy children and have turned into happy, confident, well-balanced young adults.

I respect people's right to stay at home with young children if they want and it's financially viable, but I do object when those same people tell others how virtuous they were and then lecture others with different priorities. I've never been an extremist feminist, but I think I might be heading in that direction . It's not only men who can be misogynists.

I'd like to know who they are too, because I haven't been able to find any link to the OP.

It depends what you mean by 'affording' to stay at home. Parents/families above quite a low threshold don't get any support to go to work. For many, the short-term financial benefits of going to work are marginal because of high childcare costs.

In any case, there's more than being able to afford to stay at home. It's about women having equal opportunities, rights and responsibilities and being in a position to support themselves and their children. Nobody would even query whether men should work continuously.

Who are these mothers, Vampirequeen? Are they a pressure group? I haven't seen anything about them in the news so can you tell me their name?

Oddly when I started this thread it was to complain that those who could afford to be stay at home mothers were asking for financial and employer support.

It amazes me how threads sometimes take on a life of their own.

Wonderful post aruna , A little glimpse of how it is for children of working mothers so eloquently put .

Really, why are people being so judgmental about the reasons why women work? If a woman wants to work and have a family, why shouldn't she? Maybe once she has a child she finds childcare isn't the rosy landscape she was led to believe and finds it boring and a drudge (personally, I enjoyed it but not everyone is the same as me).

Isn't it better that a child has a happy working mother than a resentful, bored SAHM?

This thread reminds me of the deserving and the undeserving poor of Victorian times.

VQ

Little Pubert, bless him.

I hope that someday you'll know the indescribable joy of having children and of paying someone else to raise them.
Gomez Addams (Addams Family Values)

Daphnedill, if you read my post you will see that I did say that I had no problem with the parents swapping roles and that fathers who abandon their children should be made to pay for their upkeep. I just find it difficult to understand why a woman would go through nine months of pregnancy to then hand her child over to someone else to bring up for her other than the father. But as I also said, that is MY belief and if others think differently then I have to accept it, the same way I would expect folk to respect my beliefs.

The OP writer (me) got slammed by some for talking about working mothers but whether we believe it to be right or not society in general looks upon the mother as the primary carer.

The OP talked about women who don't need to work but choose to do so asking for government and employer support towards the costs of childcare and the difficulties of juggling children and work. If any subsidies or help were to become available it should be targeted at those who have no choice but to work.

What gives people the right to make such sweeping judgements about others? Some comments here are beyond cold, critical, judgemental and offensive.
it's the same old nonsense, " the Man's job to provide for the family, children of working mothers (and it's always the mothers who are blamed) are 'farmed out to whoever begrudgingly looks after them "

My children are still close to their child minder, despite it being almost 20 years since they no longer spent after school and holidays with her. My grandchildren go to excellent nurseries a couple of days a week and spend one day with each set of grandparents. They are meeting all their developmental milestones early, have strong and healthy attachments with both parents. I must say, I'm relieved I don't live in a family with grandparents who have such judgemental views on younger families.

Firstly f77ms what do you consider a huge mortgage? My sons wage alone would not even support a £75,000 mortgage for an ex-council house!

Secondly I take great offense at your statement it seems to be the children who miss out the most, being farmed out to whoever begrudgingly looks after them I look after my DGC very regularly and never once have I done so "begrudgingly" or I would not do it! Yes it can be difficult at times, especially with DDiL working shifts . It is very difficult during the long school holidays when the children can get passed around a bit (I do work too) but begrudge doing it? No way. I consider spending time with my fantastic GC a pleasure and some of the happiest times of my life. I feel that when they are with me they are having a different experience than they might have elsewhere. I live right across the road to a fantastic beach and we spend so much time there in all weathers. We cook together, we do art and craft, we read, do gardening, watch films, and go on several outings, not to mention caravanning holidays when we can.

magic I agree with you in part . Having children is a choice and generally means a bit of sacrifice , in my opinion people are not willing to give anything up and still want the lifestyle which they had pre children . Hence the " I have no choice but to work" card which many of them play because they have huge mortgages etc.
Whether we like it or not childcare falls mainly to the Mother , the Mans job is to support the family . It may be viewed by some as an old fashioned idea but it is entirely practical as yet men cannot have babies . It seems to be the children who miss out the most , being farmed out to whoever begrudgingly looks after them , you only have to look at a lot of the posts on GN to know the level of childcare some are being expected to do .

MagicWriter, Would you use the same argument for men? Have you ever asked them why they want children if they don't want to play a pivotal role in their upbringing?

It's joy for you to watch the milestones. I don't suppose the children care less who watches them achieve those milestones.

Magicwriter, the UK government will be paying out a quarter of a million pounds to train my daughter as a doctor, none of which will be repaid because we live in Scotland where university is free.

Do you think it's a good use of that money for my daughter, should she have children, to stay at home for five years and then work only part time for another seven years? Time in which her male/childless colleagues will be gaining experience and the world of medicine moving rapidly forward. How will she then restart her career, nearing her 40's with time against her and her peers far ahead in terms of career promotion?

How will the NHS cope, given that more than half of today's medics are female? As a society, we need women to work, to share their skills and talent. If you read my earlier post, you will see that women staying at home is a 20th century phenomenon and that the norm prior to that was for women to work.

All of my grandchildren have working parents and none of them seem any the worse for it, they're just regular normal, happy children who are deeply loved by their parents.

MagicWriter2016 its different times,people dont want to sacrifice or do without and many young people I know wouldn't thank you for second hand things...Thats not THEIR fault,its the generation who brought them up ....US .They dont all have designer clothes and holidays abroad ,some work long hours and some are on zero hours contracts and have no idea what hours they'll work or when.The working poor are probably not new ,just better publicised .It doesn't mean they aren't worth some help

Children can still attend nursery if their mums stay at home, it just would not be all day every day. When my children were small we regularly went to mother &a baby/toddler groups, then as they got older they would go to a playschool without me for a couple of hours twice a week, then their are the picnics at the park with other mums and children. Being a stay at home mum doesn't mean you keep yourself and your children locked away from society.

I am now going to come across as something from the dark old ages but it is my belief and if others don't agree that's fine.
Why have children if you don't want to play a pivotal role in their early years? I personally would ban all mothers of under 5's from working at all and then only part time work until they attend high school. If women are widowed when their children are under these ages, the government should pay a big enough pension to be able to live comfortably at home looking after their children during those formative years. If women are left as single mothers because of divorce they should get X amount from the government and then the hubby should get X amount decucted at source from their wages. The same would apply if a guy does a runner after he has discovered he is going to be a father. This may help make men take responsibility for their children or for taking adequate protection to prevent them becoming a father.
This would also help the younger generation get a foothold in the world of work.
I have had many a younger workmate tell me they HAVE to work yet if they did without the branded clothes, holidays abroad, weekends away on hen do's they could manage quite well for those few years.
I would rather have the joy of watching my child meet all their milestones, get the cuddles and be their when they were feeling poorly than have all the material things that seem to be 'can't live without' items. And no, my hubby wasn't in a great paying job and there has been many a time we had to sell something ( a piece of furniture ) to pay a bill and our kids Xmas & birthday presents were sometimes good quality second hand goods, but they never felt hard done by and knew their parents put them before material goods.
I know I will have offended a lot of people, but we are all entitled to our own beliefs. Oh, and I have no problem with parents changing/sharing parental duties. I did work occasionally, but it was after hubby came home from work. We would literally pass children over on the doorstep when he was coming in and I was going out. But children grow up so quickly, a few years of 'doing without' and making a few sacrifices must be worth more than only seeing your child for an hour in the morning and another hour or two at night surely? And we did not have such generous child benefits, housing benefits, tax credits and all the other things lower paid workers can get today.

I agree. I don't even know how the government is encouraging women in couples financially to stay in work.

I think there are two issues here. Firstly, it's about supporting low paid families with children. Secondly, it's about supporting women to stay in work/go back to work.

Girls outperform boys in schools; there are more female undergraduates than males; women and men in their twenties have approximately equal incomes. It's not until women start having children that inequality kicks in.

Once women take a career break, they become de-skilled and find it difficult to get back into a job at the same seniority and at the same pay.

There are, of course, women who deliberately choose jobs which fit around childcare, but there's a problem if they find themselves separated or bereaved.

The biggest group of people living in poverty are single parents, mainly in their thirties or forties and mainly women. Research has shown that men generally recover from separation/divorce financially more easily than women, probably because they usually don't have to work around childcare, but also because they have worked continuously.

The above has implications for the tax credits paid to single parents and also for the pensions they are able to build up. Therefore, saving money by not supporting women to remain in work could have a financial price further down the line.

However, it's not just about the money. I believe that women should have the same opportunities as men. I also believe they have the same responsibilities, which means ensuring that they are capable of supporting themselves and their children on their own, should the need arise.

I can't see why there is a conflict. There is nothing to prevent SAHMs taking advantage of any support for nursery education and sending their child to nursery part time if they wish. Presumably they are allowed some time away from their children. This setting working mums against stay at homes isn't necessary.

@chattykathy

So why were those days so happy if it wasn't self-gratification? Excuse me if I think you're contradicting yourself.

Contrary to those who see SAHMs as being denigrated, I see the other side of the coin. I do not believe that bringing up children is the best job in the world, but it seems people like me are to be criticised for being so selfish. Why is this criticism always addressed at women? What about the men who love their children, but aren't criticised for going to work every day?

I've only just seen this thread. I'm hopeless at links but I've just read an article in today's Daily Mail on line that concludes children where both parents work, so the children spend time in nursery and/or with grandparents are developmentally more advances than the children of what the paper refers to as SAHMs. The research is from an English university and is consistent with every piece of research on this subject I've read about in the past 30 plus years.

Some of the comments, including those in the OP are judgemental and criticise any woman who chooses to have a career as well as children. My grandchildren have a couple of days in nursery and a couple with grandparents. The angry comment earlier on this thread, suggesting that those of us who "couldn't be bothered" with our own children (i.e. we went to work) will take the same approach to our grandchildren couldn't be further from the mark. My family and friends include numerous retired GP's, nurses, teachers (lots of public servants) as well as an equal number of folks who ran their own businesses etc. We're all now involved in child care for grandchildren on a regular basis.

In the 70's I hoped this country would follow the excellent example set in so many other norther european countries, where excellent child care is provided at minimal cost for all parents. It's better for children and better for families. When I was a social worker, we were able to provide nursery places for depressed SAHM's - large numbers of them.