Mumsnet Talk

here

Part of the reason is the crippling cost of childcare and the fixation on parents (particularly mothers) being at home during the early years of a child's life.

If women can't afford to have a child then why do they still choose to have one?

Having children is a choice remember.

Join, you are totally missing the point.

Women can afford to have children. Just not cover the cost of childcare to be able to afford to work during their early years.

There was a newspaper article a week or 2 ago about an unemployed mother with 11 children who was racking in all sorts of benefits including child support. She had so much she was able to buy and keep a horse.

Don't you think this is taking the p*ss?

Is that you, GabbyLogon?!

It proves that things are still pretty stagnant when it comes to childcare. Plenty of women WANT to go back to work but earn so little that it seems stupid.

And join - articles like that do NOT represent a whole section of society. And yes, it is taking the piss.

join shouldn't your post say 'if a couple can't afford to have a child why do they still choose to have one'?

The cost of childcare should be weighed against both salaries but all too often it's only weighed against the woman's. Why is that? Because women are frequently the lower earners in the couple. Society still expects a woman to want to stay at home while the children are little whereas a man who wants to stay at home is seen as a bit odd. Childcare is still seen as the woman's problem with a lot of companies being happy to offer flexible working for mothers but not for fathers, which seems like it's woman friendly but it's placing more pressure on the women to be more responsible for the children than her partner.

Well that's some spectacular derailing.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2282142/Mother-11-having-400k-taxpayer-funded-house-built-bought-flying-lessons-partner-Christmas-gift.html

Here you go. Child benefit can't be that low if claimants can buy a horse and flying lessons.

Join this thread wasn't supposed to be about benefits was it? I'm sure it was about women being pushed out of jobs with power, or was I dreaming that?

"Childcare is still seen as the woman's problem with a lot of companies being happy to offer flexible working for mothers but not for fathers, which seems like it's woman friendly but it's placing more pressure on the women to be more responsible for the children than her partner."

This absolutely!

Heather Frost - from another angle?

Ignore the ignorant derailer

Back to the original point of the thread, it's sad to see were steadily slipping backwards instead of progressing in many ways

I sometimes wonder whether flexible working (which has become the norm in terms of the platter of HR benefits offered to professional women) has resulted in more women being sidelined that if there was not that option.

If it has the result of keeping women in work who would otherwise completely dropped out, it is good thing. But if it has the result of encouraging women to go pt who would otherwise have continued ft, then there's your answer. It also skews employers' attitudes towards women if so many of them request flexi working after children.

YOU GET £20 A WEEK!
Hardly rolling in it. That the equivalent to one weeks worth of nappies & wipes for me. If you're going to insult a large chunk of society it wouldn't hurt to do some research first...and maybe give up the Daily Mail for lent

P.S benefits are calculated to allow enough money to get by
not swan about. However that family managed it, most don't & it is not a glamorous alternative to being employed. So get off your high, poorly informed horse. Cheers

What schooldi said.

I find it very depressing both from reading these boards and from listening to friends in real life how few people think that the cost of childcare has anything to do with the man in the relationships salary, or how few think that a man's career should progress at anything other than full steam ahead during the early years of their children's lives.

I think it should be easier to step on and off career ladder.Sabbatical s etc so can pick up career etc at later stage.

The stereotype, which I see played out at my workplace (City firm), is:

- Men work harder once they have children, because children are a costly business.
- Women work less or flexibly and become rather less contactable once they have children.

It is hardly surprising the men get promoted ahead of and in larger numbers than women, even though women are equal to or outnumber men at the entry level. However, there are also prejudices and soft barriers that stand in women's way that make the bar higher for them anyway. I am not discounting that.

UK has one of the longest working hours in Europe. That makes UK more family unfriendly than other European countries. Another potential factor why women find it harder than their counterparts in Europe to get ahead at work, when you have all these men putting in the face time.

At my school there approx half of the female teachers with children have gone pt, there is one male teacher with children who is pt. He is thought of as a massive oddity, most other men don't even break stride when their partner has a baby. I am one of the ft female teachers with children and I am considered a bit of an oddity for not even requesting to go pt after ML. I don't even have huge plans for promotion but just love my job most of the time.

I do know a few couples where the woman is ft working and the man is a SAHD. It is seen as VERY unusual, whereas man working ft and woman SAHM is seen as the norm in the early years.

The cost of childcare really is horrendous. I have friends in North London who are looking at paying £90/day for care of a 6-month old baby from a childminder, which will pretty much wipe out the man's income (in their case, the woman is the higher earner). And that's for ONE child, born to well educated and successful parents. They are already talking about whether it's worth him working at all.

One the larger scale, the wage gap between men and women plus the costs of childcare means that that same discussion, only on more traditional gendered lines, is happening in households across the country.

I am not the slightest bit surprised that the government response was to propose worsening childcare quality. They knew that parents would hate the idea so much they could just shrug and say that "mothers" didn't take the proffered solution. Then they can get back to doing nothing.

The cost of child are is absurd.

I have three DC (including twins) so I literally cannot afford to work more than 20 hours a week. Women have it so much harder to make progress in their careers than men if couples choose to have babies.