Aibu to be amazed by this attitude to working mums?

[princessmum1]

Just so amazed by this.

Post on a local mums group I’m on about 30 hours funding etc. Normal question.

Someone comments ‘I personally don’t understand why parents don’t wait until their child is at school they’re missing out on so much! 😞 x’

Then goes on to say ‘That’s what benefits are for. I personally can’t wait to get back to work but spending quality time with my children is a lot more important to me x’

Ummm.

I would love to stay at home until my kids start school.

But I can’t. I need to earn money. To pay for things.

Stalked her on facebook. Has a nice 3 bedroom house, most likely housing association with rent paid by benefits. Am I being unreasonable to be slightly angry that I work extremely hard in a full time job, to pay my mortgage, pay £1000 a month childcare, have little money left at the end of the month and I only have a small two bedroom flat. (South east)

It almost makes me want to just quit. But I won’t. Because I think you have to work for things in life. And benefits are there for people having a hard time in unforeseen circumstances. NOT because you want to be at home with your children until they’re at school. I know technically speaking I’m doing very well to be a home owner where I live, single parent and still work.

Anyway...

I was fortunate that my dh is paid enough that we didn’t have to rely on benefits but I’d have claimed in a heartbeat if the alternative would have been putting my 12 month old in nursery

Benefits aren’t that simple. Ime you need to have no assets (apart from a house) before you can claim. I would not be eligible for benefits until I have spent all my rainy day savings, long term and short term.

So my choice is live off any savings until i qualify for benefits. Then live off benefits. With no cushion for things like broken washing machines, car insurance, no life insurance, no pension payments. Plus a 5 year career break - my earning potential would have plummeted, if I’d have got a job at all.

I went back to work when dc was 6m. If I could have “claimed benefits in a heartbeat” so I could stay at home, i would have. But it would have left me trapped long term, possibly forever, in a benefits cycle and I may never have been able to get back to work. Plus no pension or contributions if I couldn’t work.

So yeah. For most people benefits are not an option unless you have no alternative.

I'm on maternity leave and will be going back 3 days when DS is 1. I can't fucking wait. I'll have 2 in nursery and financially am hardly any better off in work but I really need to work. SAHM isn't for everyone and that's ok.

You can say it’s codswallop if you like but read the research. Children in quality 1-1 care before the age of 3 do better academically, have better social/emotional skills and speech and language than their peers.

She could have worded it better but I am very grateful for the moderate level tax credits available that have enabled me to be with mine until school. It's 6 years out of the 50 years plus I'll be paying income tax and if I didnt look after them I'd be claiming 30 hours so the taxpayer would be paying for my kids child care as I worked anyway. For the record I am in a mortgaged home, dh earns 20k. We just live like monks and are fortunate to live in a very cheap (but beautiful) part of the country.

So she gets judgey on Facebook about working mums and you get judgey on mumsnet about SAHMs.

I should think that's even Stevens then isn't it?

Unless anyone is at all interested in weather the fathers are working or SAHDs and judging them for it? of course fucking not

You can say it’s codswallop if you like but read the research. Children in quality 1-1 care before the age of 3 do better academically, have better social/emotional skills and speech and language than their peers

Link to this research?

I can’t imagine many children get “quality 1:1 care up until the age of 3”. Once a sibling turns up that would put paid to any 1:1.

Women who can sahm and space their children 3 yearly to give this marvellous 1:1 care are likely to be well off and educated. So of course their children will do better...

Again, if you post the links I’ll have a read and see if it’s been adjusted for things like parental education.

To be honest - I couldn’t care less about research about children staying at home do better.

My kids need a home. I can’t rely on this government to fund my family. I have to work otherwise they would simply be homeless.

@PorkFlute can you link to any of this research please?

I work with children who have SEN, social emotional needs and some language needs and can't say I've seen any correlation between children who have been at home or in 1:1 care and children who attended nursery

There is also some evidence that nursery ia beneficial to children so really there isn't a definitive answer

I am going back to work because I have to when my daughter is 1. I am hoping not to have to go back earlier but may have to if we have any unexpected payments to pay out. We won't be entitled to any benefits so it is not easy to do for everyone.

My kids need a home. I can’t rely on this government to fund my family. I have to work otherwise they would simply be homeless.

Yeah, well, at least you'd be doing lots of fingerpainting! Gutter sludge makes excellent potato prints! Where are your priorities? You terrible mother, you!

@Usernobody

I totally agree with this. I am tired of being criticised for going back to work when my daughter is one (by various family members). I have explained that we need to pay the mortgage, pay bills and buy food but apparently this is not good enough reason to work,

I've never criticised a SAHM as it really doesn't bother me what others do and everyone's circumstances are different but I have definitely had a few very negative comments about going back to work

There is also some evidence that nursery ia beneficial to children so really there isn't a definitive answer

Not sure about any written evidence but I know my dd2 absolutely flowered with nursery

@PorkFlute I have worked as an early years advisor/ researcher for government so have done meta reviews of the international research over the last 15 years. What you are claiming is simply not true. There are studies on both sides, with modest effects for age 2 and 3 for the benefits/ negative impacts of 1-1 care versus childcare. The evidence base is actually inconclusive and no policy maker/ academic will say one is better than the other because the evidence is simply not strong enough. The evidence shows what matters most is quality childcare (either 1-1 or group) and a loving, caring family/parent who talks with their children (ie quality time). But I do think it is more unlikely for children to gets the benefits of regular socialisation with peers if receiving 1-1 care.

tess I hear you! Going back to work is hard! My house is a shit hole, I don’t see my kids all day, I’m shattered BUT I know I’m paying into their future AND hopefully showing them that you really do need to work. I really don’t want them to live on the base line if they or I can help it

@PurpleFlowersInMyHair your job sounds amazing! Sorry I know this isn't the point of the thread at all, just sounds fab- we have to look at a lot of research and evidence as part of my work and meta reviews are so useful to me!!

Not so long ago, society used to sit in judgement of mothers who went out to work, now society sits in judgement of mothers who choose to stay at home and raise their children. Funny old world isn't it?

I strongly believe it is the responsibility of the parents to provide for their children (providing they are physically able) and am quite disgusted by the attitude that the taxpayer should pay instead.

Your children will not have high cognitive functioning because you spent most of their early years with them- in fact chances are they will be disadvantaged if they are not attending quality childcare. There are so many advantages to group childcare.

This, Purpleflowers is bollocks on every conceivable count. Though that doesn't mean the Other Mum mentioned by the OP is right in that particular case.

Dancing Perfectly consistent:
" a woman's place is in the wrong"

I was a single parent from birth to fourteen l. I had the firsttwocyears at home, on benefits in a counc house. I have paid loads of tax subsequently, and paid in fat more than I ever took out.

Take the long view work hard, see child rearing as work, and accept people's choices. It tends to come out in the wash

This is why it's best to never share your business on social media or with anyone (I learnt the hard way)

People are horrible and so judgemental. There is no right or wrong answer.

Work and be a mum. Your life. Your choices

So two hours later, the OP hasn't bothered returning to her thread and as usual a bun fight has started regarding SAHM/WOHM.

How unusual

quite disgusted by the attitude that the taxpayer should pay instead

Okey dokey. I assume you're medically trained and have never made use of any part of our health system other than private healthcare?

And you homeschool your children?

And never use public transport or drive on our roads?

Or use any other of our society's infrastructure?

Because that's what taxes are for: to enable our extremely large community to live together in a functioning society where everybody is supported and everybody has access to the resources they need to live well.

There are too many of us now, distributed too widely, for "the village" to informally pitch in to help raise a child. Therefore we have more formal systems.

You just make yourself sound foolish when you witter on about this poor "taxpayer" picking up the tab, like that's not the entire point of the system.

I have been both a SAHM and a WOHM. I’ve been slated for both, sometimes by the same people.

Make the best decision you can for your family. Don’t worry about anyone else.

You've been very judgemental yourself, OP. Swings and roundabouts.

@tesstica2 yes it is great being a researcher and influencing policy - but it also makes you realise that the kids of parents who care about this stuff, will be fine whatever you do because you’ll usually be acting in their best interests. It’s the kids whose parents couldn’t give a stuff, who don’t talk with their kids (probably because their parents didn’t either), feed their child sweets for breakfast on the walk to school etc who suffer poor outcomes. Lots of these kids will spend their early years at home, but it won’t help them.

I’ve seen classes of 4/5 year olds who can’t speak basic sentences, can’t count etc, because they have been disadvantaged by their backgrounds. In some very deprived parts of the U.K. / ROI I’ve been in nursery classes ( free for parents) where a number of 4 year olds have black rotten teeth or removed teeth which is pretty heartbreaking. These kids will often have complex home lives (substance abuse etc). It really puts everything into perspective and so despite my knowledge of early years education, I’m probably one of the least demanding parents at nursery (in a very middle class area with very vocal parents!) because I know it doesn’t matter if things are not perfect. It’s a great nursery overall, it’s safe, ofsted is decent, my child doesn’t have additional needs to address, and the staff care. So the small stuff is really not worth sweating over. It really won’t make that much of a difference if your kid is being taught phonics or encouraged to write as this age- it should just be child led and focus on getting basic skills through play. All the other stuff will come for most children in time.