Can someone please explain to me free childcare?

Well, for one thing, I think a lot of people don't have the option of 'only' breaking even.

I also think it shouldn't be childbearing women who have to choose whether to go for short-term 'pain' or long term loss of career - why should all the burden be on the woman? I know that in practical terms lots of women do have those choices to make and do consider it worthwhile. But I don't really think it's fair to say childbearing women have the choice between two dud options, just because they had children. Basically it comes down to whether or not you believe women who have children are doing so as a 'lifestyle choice', or whether you think parents need to have children or no-one will be around to look after the whole of society as its members age.

I was really talking about a big absence (can you have a big absence?!), not just a few mates who've recently become SAHMs.

In my area, there are very few women at the top level, and the career as a whole is a pyramid shape for women - masses of women start out; very few get to the top. So I've no idea what motivated all of them to get out, but I have a fair sense of some of the general pressures. The reason I commented about men who're not always as well qualified is that when you compare what men at the higher levels have achieved, you can see that some of them were in the second or third 'rank' of the career back when they were starting out, but have made it through. Of course, maybe that would have happened even if their competition hadn't dropped out, but I suspect not.

I don't personally think being a SAHM 'isn't cool' and I'm sure anyone I knew personally would know that, so it's unlikely they'd make anything up.

LRDthe FemDragon, were they pushed, or did they jump ? And if they did jump would they tell you, or make some excuse as being a stay at home mother isn't cool when you have all that career ahead of you ?

I think childcare free at the point of access (good point about the NHS, that comparison works IMO) would be great. We do all lose out, as a society, when women get taken out of paid employment because they can't afford not to stay home. And it is disproportionately women who stay home and who're expected to stay home, so it must be a feminist issue. I have no children and I very much notice (and miss) the women further up in my career choice, who've been pushed out because they had children and the system is not geared up for them. It is damaging that they've been replaced (effectively) by men who are not always as well qualified really.

Having children as such does not really damage women's careers. Staying home with them for years and years because childcare is not affordable does and so-called free childcare would certaionly help here.

For single parents if the childcare wasn't free then it wouldn't be worth many parents (mainly mothers as those are most likely to STAH and have residence) to go to work. Many parents who work for minimum wage and perhaps have travel costs etc wouldn't actually be making any money to take home. However the amount the government pay for this chaildcare is actually more then that parent would get if they stayed at home on benefits anyway so doesn't work out well for the government. However, I suppose it empowers the new worker and gives them a sense of contributing to both society and their family.

Yes, that would be my understanding as well. We regard services of the NHS free, but that is only because these are free at the point of delivery, regardless of ability to pay. The costs are met through taxation so that the benefits of the service can be enjoyed by all. Not 100% sure, but I would think this would be the same line of thinking for "free" childcare.

This might be coming, in part, from what could be seen as the expectation in society that it is a woman's responsibility to pay for childcare if she is in work - rather than recognising that costs for childcare should be borne by both parents either equally or proportionately depending on their resources.

The step further would be a "socialised childcare" like the NHS, where not just mothers, but all tax paying people contribute to funds that support the care of children - recognising that the care of children should be a responsibility of society as a whole.

I guess it means socialised childcare rather than free - ie all taxpayers would contribute so the cost would be shared across society just as healthcare and education is now.

Because once upon a time children were viewed as a social good for the whole of society rather than a lifestyle choice for the people that have them.