Feel so much guilt about wrap around

I couldn't do this and went job share with school hours. It's hard financially but we cut our cloth. Children are the number one priority.

You’ve called women ‘stupid’ when they work to pay for childcare.

You’ve belittled women’s careers as less than men’s careers, by denoting men as ‘providers’.

You’ve implied that motherhood is pointless to women who choose to work alongside.

You’ve attempted to pigeonhole women into a role defined by their biology.

So yes, your views are archaic and insulting.

Your pregnancy losses are completely irrelevant to your sweeping judgement of women ‘serving’ their ‘male bosses’ as opposed to their husbands. Nor is it in anyway related to my female boss working alongside rearing two children.

She has two kids, oh goody. I'm 26 weeks along with my first and I'm terrified I'm going to lose him. I've had several losses, hence I'm so scared. It was clearly so easy for her and meant to be, wasn't it? She's clearly so much better than I can ever be.

I've been disagreed with, but entirely reasonable throughout. The problem now is that I'm quickly getting worn down, especially calling me archaic and offensive just for having opinions you don't like.

I like having this discourse with people, but I've totally lost patience with you.

Have a nice evening.

Everyone's circumstances and choices are different. For me and several of my friends, wrap around care whether school clubs or childminder was necessary, no other choice.
For those who are able to drop off or collect, great.

It really child dependent and how luch they like wraparound. Mine used to go 3 days a week and were fine with that. Never moaned, always enjoyed afterschool care.

Mine weren't mad keen on wraparound, but they did like the lifestyle it afforded them.
I did feel guilty when I'd spend more time with other people's kids than my own though; feels a bit like they had to share me with hundreds of other kids (and occasionally mad bosses and mad government ministers).
However, it meant that they loved starting high school, as they got to go home 'early' and chill.

Is it possible for you / partner to both reduce your work to make it more equitable ? As more marriages than ever end in divorce , a woman is significantly impacting her ability to leave an unhappy relationship if she has reduced her earning potential , and we see on these boards countless instances where women are unable to buy / obtain a mortgage on a low salary due to prioritising the children in the early years whilst the man with the 'big salary' gets to keep the family house ... and suddenly wants 50/50 on childcare to wriggle out of paying and maintenance

Ah yes, the eternal struggle: husband vs. boss, as if women are mystical cargo ships carrying loyalty to whichever man flashes a paycheck. Bold theory.

Depending on an employer for money is not the same as depending on a spouse unless you think marriage vows include quarterly performance reviews and the risk of being ‘let go’ during restructuring.

Also, calling a husband a ‘provider’ while calling women ‘partners’ you can walk away from is an interesting way of saying, ‘I haven’t fully thought this through but I’m committed to the bit.’

If your fear is that women find purpose in work, I have bad news: many people do. The goal isn’t to help the boss retire early
– it’s to have autonomy, options, and, wild concept, an adult identity.

I will continue to say ‘partner’ wherever I please, and won’t have my language dictated by someone as archaic and offensive as you.

But sure, tell me more about how society is collapsing because women get paychecks and not just permission slips.

Having a boss means I can retire sooner. And by boss is a woman, FYI - who, shock, horror has two children too.

Someone's been watching too much (girlboss) Erika Kirk!

I don’t know which way the voting works so haven’t voted, but if your and your dp are able to adjust your hours at work to minimise the need for wrap around care, I would definitely be doing that.

The old adage is true - they grow up very quickly and before you know it wrap around care is no longer needed.

Sometimes they can be, yes. The corporate world is increasingly female-led these days.

Surely no one wishes they had worked more over spending with their children

I don’t think it’s as cut and dried as this at all. And I am someone who only works two days a week and while I plan to increase it when the children are both at school (currently have a reception age child and a two year old) I will still do three days spread over four so I can pick them up and drop them off.

But studies unanimously show that what is damaging for a child is poverty. It’s the cause of every ill in society: poor physical and mental health; addiction, domestic abuse, crime, poor educational outcomes.

Obviously, that won’t apply to everyone living in poverty and you can experience those things without living in poverty, but there is a link and it’s more than a tenuous one.

When someone posts on here about struggling with a baby or toddler and is isolated, lonely, overwhelmed and low, work is always pushed - it’s rarely encouraged for them to spend more time with the baby. But then threads like this come up, comments of the sort above happen.

I don’t always like spending time with my children. I love them dearly; I am proud of them and I dedicate time and energy to their development, but it can be a slog and I frequently want time for things for me as well. I love them more than my books, my interests, my friends, my box sets (!) my quiet time and my career. But - I loved these other things too and to miss them and to want to connect with them sometimes instead of spending time with my children is not wrong.

I believe that sometimes, and I may have to check this unbelievable fact, a boss is a woman.

"Depending on a partner for money is nothing like depending on an employer for money"

It is. There are often two men in a woman's life; her husband and her boss. Who is she loyal to the most? Her boss, because that's where her bread is buttered. Her husband is just 'the other one' who she happens to sleep in the same bed with. Or they're both passing ships in the night, especially if they each work shifts and unsociable hours. And it's not 'partner', it's 'husband'. A partner suggests you can walk away from them and the children at any time.

I don't want to live in a society that makes women believe their purpose comes from helping her boss retire sooner. I acknowledge and accept that I do through gritted teeth.

OP what is your work? Any chance you and your OH can do flexible working requests?

We use wrap around in the afternoons 3 days a week, other 2 days we take it in turn to do collection with starting early so finish early. But both DH and I employers are very flexible (we can start work at 10 if we want as long as hours are done!)

Other options would be part time but you can do 9-3 day 5 times a week if wanting to avoid it completely and your work isn't too much of a commute or your hybrid based.

We seem to have stumbled upon some cult sermon here.

We do similar and it's great, for everyone. If you can afford to do it, and feel that your child and family as a while would benefit, why would you not?

Surely no one wishes they had worked more over spending with their children?

That’s nasty and spiteful and I’m calling it as such.

Have you cracked time travel and you've managed to time warp from the 1950s into 2025?!

if possible you and your dh could look at flexing your hours so you both do say two pick ups /drop off each?

Could you look for a childminder who does your school ? At least it’s a home and more relaxed.

or one of you could go part time and do some of the pick ups

Does your dh feel guilty?

And of course it is always the woman’s fault, I see.

Yawn.

Men are the providers. That's their purpose in life; to provide, to protect.

Any other line of thought is in the direction of replacing the provider with the government.

Having twins has its perks, as they will always be doing the same!

Your logic doesn’t work either. Depending on a partner for money is nothing like depending on an employer for money – the most obvious reason being that they pay your NI contributions and your pension. It’s a professional relation from which you financially benefit for the long term. Financial reliance on a partner has negative implications for a relationship dynamic, especially when either partner doesn’t want that dynamic.

Being replaceable also does not eradicate the meaning and identity one finds in work. And it’s rather naive to suggest it does. You work, you receive your salary and the feeling of satisfaction – that’s how it works. You can only be replaced forward, not backwards.

How presumptuous to think you can tell anyone where they personally find meaning and self-definition.