to be saddened by a three week old baby in full time childcare?

[lilystyles]

At a local toddler group last week there was a childminder who I'm friendly with, she had with her a new child, a baby of 3 weeks who's mother had gone back to work full-time in teh pub she and her husband own. I am not judging this woman, it's her choice but I couldn't help but feel sad at the situation.

cheers, funny isn't it how easy it is to read something the wrong way when we lack the cues and clues that the spoken word offers...but then again I'm not English so I make more mistakes than I'd like.

haha im not english either

'Or were they brought up to be happy little housewives living off male earnings?'

But there is joint dependency as the male is relying on the partner for childcare enabling him to work...

oh dear, I have put my foot snuggly in my mouth, I meant to say english is not my first language - and clearly not yours either.

haha i speak and think scottish

Unfortunatley this isn't that uncommon where I live. There are no legal entitlements to Maternity leave or pay here so if you want to keep your job you go back to work when your employer says so or start job hunting.

There is also no right to request flexible working by Law. I know of people who had to return to work at 6 weeks. The state is currently considering Statutory Maternity Leave but hasn't got round to it yet.

Where is this medieval backwater I live?
75 miles south of Weymouth
If you don't believe me take a look at these.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/guernsey/8631512.stm
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/guernsey/8662171.stm

indeed,self-employed or poor mat provision will affect choices

Why is it unfortunate if a lack of maternity provision means women end up earning mroe and not woring part or flexi time or not at all. It's a wonderful gift to women in a sense and ensure they maintain equal relationships and home, help forge their careers and when their husband says you earn a pittance, stay at home they find it easier to be avoid being forced to be housewives because they need the money or simply for pllitical reasons because it's better for women our daughters adn our families if we work full time.

Sorry Xenia it's only better for women, our daughters and our families if that full time work pays a decent wage, in family friendly conditions....you always spout this, and it is fine from where you are standing, but you are not indicative of the average woman. Anyway the Center for Policy Studies thinks we should all stop this nonsense of paying child minders and working for the child care and let men do the jobs.....

Xenia, some of us LOVE being housewives!

"there is joint dependency as the male is relying on the partner for childcare"

This might be true, but let's not pretend that the implications of this setup benefits the woman. It doesn't. Labour specialisation in the traditional family setup ONLY benefits the man if we discount emotional reward (which is important, of course - but it doesn't get the empty nester woman a job or pay her national insurance contributions, or guarantee her income if her husband is injured, dies or divorces her). That situation benefits the couple in the short term, damages the woman in the long term when we're talking about financial stability, independance - and it's easier to find a new job (for the man) when he's been continually employed than it is for the woman to walk away from childcare.

Pretending the two have the same, EQUAL benefits isn't giving a realistic picture - that's why so many women, including my own (SAHM) mother, whose husband became so ill that my dad can't work now, could not survive - becuase the reality of job hunting after 25 years out the workforce IS too big of a barrier for most of these types of women to overcome.

I don't work in social science, but I did study it briefly at university - slightly connected to what I do - and I found the studies on labour specialisation within the family unit to be quite interesting :)

I don't think it is better to be dependant on two incomes though. If the man leaves you would be just as screwed as a stay home mum. It's only true financial independence if you can support yourself entirely which few people could do if they have taken on a mortgage on both wages. Many working mothers say they have to work to survive and are dependant on the mans wage aswell as their own. There is still dependency.

I don't think it is always a disadvantage to be a stay home mum either. I know several who used the time at home to improve their education or volunteer and get better jobs in the long term.

But not most. Housewife equals career suicide and no chance for most of earning anything much in future and probably even finding it hard to get minimum wage jobs in care homes and as class room assistants thus the dependence on the man is increased, awful horrible dynamic which most women avoid.

Also if you go back to work quickly you will never be the expert in the couple with the baby which is a great thing because you don't get saddled with always having to be the one going home if the children are ill as your career is as well paid or better than his and because he cannot claim incompetence and lounge around as he and you are as good at changing nappies from the start.

I will have much more in common with all mothers on here than people without children of course and like some women have very much enjoyed the 5 children over 26 years and particularly loved the closeness to babies and breastfeeding. You can all those things and more and earn enough to support your children on your own if you don't take maternity leave. it's a win win situation and much more restful plus better for the baby which knows its routines from day 1

Dual income in our case means as a household we have money to invest, increase our mortgage, put money aside for dcs' uni tuition fees, pension etc.

A lot of people work for that financial security and flexibility. It is not always the case for dual income families to depend on both salaries to make ends meet.

It build financial ballast into the household.

and it's important the woman's income isn't seen as peanuts, holiday etc momney but if couples can manage it that she earns 2 or even 10 times the man so we ensure women aren't just seen as adding tiny bits to family earnings and thus aren't that important and don't have economic power.

Better for baby to be in full time childcare?

It is if you are a cap mum!

Crap!

Why is everyone ignoring the fact that patriarchy-capitalism has been structured in such a way that makes it impossible for women to care for their babies themselves without being very vulnerable members of society.

Women's choices = vulnerability or inability to raise your childre yourself

Not much if a choice is it? For any of us.

The work/home divide is a very recent phenomenon, a product of the industrial revolution and excacerbated during the twentieth century.

Choosing between a career/financial stability and raising your children yourself is inhumane.

The capitalist structure of society must be addressed and changed.

YOu can't expect women to fit, like a square peg in a round hole, into a society that is inimical to what they do.

Yes, continue to bolster my argument that you can show by the way housewives write compared with working mothers illustrates the veracity of my points.

Babies need love and care. Most working mothers and fathers (babies are never a mother's responsibility only in non sexist households) ensure that care is good. Babies do betetr with happy parents and most mothers are happy in fulfilling careers with loving families too and the family then has more income to which has a huge impact on the outcome for the child.

"Why is everyone ignoring the fact that patriarchy-capitalism has been structured in such a way that makes it impossible for women to care for their babies themselves without being very vulnerable members of society."

"Choosing between a career/financial stability and raising your children yourself is inhumane."

Here here Sakura. You have put your finger on the critical issue for feminism.

Xenia, English is rapidly becoming my second language and Japanese my first. I reckon my Japanese is way ahead of yours, so I don't think you should criticize my language skills.
You are one of these people who, when you hear a foreigner talking slowly, you believe they think slowly. It doesn't cross your mind that while they might not speak English as well as you, they speak a whole other language that you don't

So what you must do is read/listen to what their point is, not search for grammatical mistakes

Xenia - please stop. Surely this is a wind-up? Every word you write is a kick in the teeth for those of us who do not work to get a break from our children, or to recuperate from the birth in the office, but who believe that they are successfully balancing the needs of their children with the requirements of their jobs.

Criticising the linguistic standards of other posters is really scraping the bottom of the barrel and cannot be intended for any other purpose than winding people up. It is also rubbish. The first line of your most recent post makes absolutely no grammatical sense. Sakura's post makes grammatical sense.

You are contributing nothing to any meaningful discussion because your comments are presented in such a way that all anyone will see is "I am better than you".

Xenia! How dare you criticise Sakura's linguistic skills when you have spent most of this thread too lazy to even punctuate your ill-thought out, illogical arguments!

In the telegraph today