Page 19 | To think that what's best for the children gets left out of the free childcare conversation

SouthLondonMum22 · 15/03/2023 21:23

Sugargliderwombat · 15/03/2023 21:21

Op you are right- I hadn't thought of it like this. When I heard I thought "oh maybe I should go full time!" Then thought, oh no I don't need too, I'll live more frugally and spend the time with baby. I didnt consider that actually thousands of women will go back earlier than they need to now.

Maybe the ones who will go back will do it because they want too.

Gwenhwyfar · 15/03/2023 21:24

Botw1 · 15/03/2023 21:03

@Gwenhwyfar

No one said it was

Yes, OP did.

"I thought the reason it was 15 free hrs originally, and term time only (as is still the case) was because the original aim was to ensure children have access to early education?"

SouthLondonMum22 · 15/03/2023 21:25

Nowdontmakeamess · 15/03/2023 21:22

100% this. It’s all about money, not what’s best for the babies. So sad for them, but they’ll just grow up to be selfish adults who see no problem inflicting the same on their own children.

No-one is forced to have children, it should be a carefully thought out and planned decision. If you can’t afford to look after them, or don’t want to do it yourself, don’t have a baby!

Show quote history

Many, many men shouldn't become parents then.

Adrelaxzz · 15/03/2023 21:26

Well maybe they should.
I'm all for affordable childcare, and good career options for both parents but it's not always best for kids to be in childcare for hours everyday.
Ideally the option should be for both parents to be a) able to afford to work less and b) be socially normal for both parents to work less without it impeding career prospects so they can have more family time.
In reality housing costs & living costs are mental, wages are low, men rarely do there fair share and kids are in childcare more waking hours than they are at home.

NeshNamechanger · 15/03/2023 21:27

Blueisthecolour1 · 15/03/2023 20:34

I have strong and antiquated feelings on this matter so I anticipate a roasting but here goes; children under 3 may benefit from some short provision during the week in a social setting with others the same age but definitely not long days everyday, i.e 7.30am - 6pm. They need to be around mummy (yes, primarily mummy) who can give them the love & physical affection that no-one else can.

Nurseries are NOT a substitute for a loving parent (usually mum) - and work should absolutely take 2nd place with raising a child coming a firm first. Yes it disadvantages the person who stays with the little one (usually mum) but those early years won’t ever come back - you only borrow them for a short time & it’s nothing short of cruel to dump an under 3yr old in full time nursery for long days so that you selfishly get to put your career first. Unless you have literally no other choice. Like no other choice. None at all.

There it is, nature has designed mummies & babies to want/need to be together. What that means in a modern society where everything is supposed to revolve around equality is that the mum loses our career-wise, sometimes temporarily & sometimes long-term. But FFS that’s the sacrifice you have to be prepared and willing to take - some things are worth more than your career. School takes them off your hands soon enough anyway - I feel so so bad for little people who attend full-time long days at nursery settings - it’s not right. Not by them, anyway.

I also happen to believe (whilst I’m up here) that if you really want to develop your career after having kids you can, & you will find a way. It doesn’t screw you over that much & as long as you remain in part-time employment you’ll still have the necessary connections & opportunities to pick up where you left off.

I don't think WOHP see childcare provision as a substitute for them.
They are cared for, for a few hours per day.
Not life.
I personally think your view of child rearing is not really optimal.
It leaves women and children at risk of abuse, removes financial independence in the form of salary and pensions but also its preferable for both parents ( either sex) to be involved in child rearing.
Very few children do 7.30-6pm CC full time.
Most do a mixture of Mum, Dad, GP and 2/3 days in nursery.
Lovely for everyone.
You strike me as the sort of person who had zero choice so you don't want others to have choices either.

Parker231 · 15/03/2023 21:27

I went back to work full time when DT’s were six months old - normal maternity leave then. I wanted to return then as I was progressing a career which wouldn’t have happened with a break from the employment market.

we used a good quality nursery and were very happy with their care of DT’s.

G5000 · 15/03/2023 21:27

so that you selfishly get to put your career first

Yes, women clearly only work for selfish reasons, to buy themselves more handbags or something. The careers are in no way paying for what our children need. Or maybe we just have odd children, as mine do not want to live on fresh air and mother's love alone..

ort1gia · 15/03/2023 21:29

This whole "what about the men???" cry doesn't wash. Men are not women, They don't give birth. They don't bf. Ridiculous to pretend it's the same.

Maybebabyno2 · 15/03/2023 21:29

Sugargliderwombat · 15/03/2023 21:21

Op you are right- I hadn't thought of it like this. When I heard I thought "oh maybe I should go full time!" Then thought, oh no I don't need too, I'll live more frugally and spend the time with baby. I didnt consider that actually thousands of women will go back earlier than they need to now.

Well if they don't want to and don't need to, they have to be spectacularly weak willed to feel forced to go back just because other parents who do need to have better options.

VivaVivaa · 15/03/2023 21:30

Nowdontmakeamess · 15/03/2023 21:22

100% this. It’s all about money, not what’s best for the babies. So sad for them, but they’ll just grow up to be selfish adults who see no problem inflicting the same on their own children.

No-one is forced to have children, it should be a carefully thought out and planned decision. If you can’t afford to look after them, or don’t want to do it yourself, don’t have a baby!

Show quote history

So women who are average earners, the nurses, the teachers, the paramedics, the carers, the bus drivers…they should never have the chance at children as they won’t earn enough in their fertile years to give up work? Effectively, children should be the privileged of the rich only?

early30smum · 15/03/2023 21:30

@NeshNamechanger not one person in my group of friends has any childcare from family. Nor do I. Also, in the nurseries I’ve worked in, loads of babies were in from 7.30-6.30/7 five days a week.

It’s a total game changer if you have family support.

Sierra26 · 15/03/2023 21:32

Thanks for sparking an interesting debate.

Both things can be true.

children may benefit in some ways from spending more time with parents

but spending time in childcare doesn’t harm them

the benefits of having a dual income household and working parents as role models will almost always outweigh any benefits a parent staying at home might have brought. At both a family and national/economic level. From personal experience my mum was a SAHM and I think I would have benefited MORE if she’d worked more - she doesn’t really have any hobbies, interests, special skills, opinions, and I find it difficult to relate to her now I’m in an advancing career myself. She doesn’t understand me or my lifestyle at all. Her thoughts still revolves around her mother role, even though I moved out 15 years ago. It’s quite upsetting and painful really as I love her very much, but she doesn’t inspire me. Thats a whole other topic for another day.

Before it became normal for families to have two working parents, the kids at home wouldn’t have spent much time with mums anyway. Housekeeping was much more manual/time consuming, and kids would have spent most of their time amusing themselves or with other kids.

And the funding needed to pay for this childcare is found through tax payments from those who work. So paying parents to stay at home/not work is not viable.

This is the real world and if we agreed that “anything that benefits children is benefitting the country long term” then the country would fall apart

you keep saying it should be about more than just survival. Assuming survival means meeting basic hygiene factors (hierarchy of needs), what would you say about the families who can’t meet these needs because one parent can’t afford to work any more, as they can’t meet childcare costs? This is about basic enablement in an environment which relies on dual salaries.

ort1gia · 15/03/2023 21:33

"Also, in the nurseries I’ve worked in, loads of babies were in from 7.30-6.30/7 five days a week."

Is that even legal?

Albiboba · 15/03/2023 21:33

ort1gia · 15/03/2023 21:29

This whole "what about the men???" cry doesn't wash. Men are not women, They don't give birth. They don't bf. Ridiculous to pretend it's the same.

What’s the relevance of this after maternity leave has ended?

Albiboba · 15/03/2023 21:34

ort1gia · 15/03/2023 21:33

"Also, in the nurseries I’ve worked in, loads of babies were in from 7.30-6.30/7 five days a week."

Is that even legal?

It seems highly unlikely. Not one nursery I viewed even opened before 8 or after 6.

And hardly in children in the nursery I use actually spend that long there.

SouthLondonMum22 · 15/03/2023 21:36

ort1gia · 15/03/2023 21:29

This whole "what about the men???" cry doesn't wash. Men are not women, They don't give birth. They don't bf. Ridiculous to pretend it's the same.

Not all women breastfeed.

Women do give birth, some do breastfeed. It doesn't mean they should have to give up their careers if they don't want to.

early30smum · 15/03/2023 21:37

@ort1gia yes it is legal. @Albiboba It is entirely true. I agree not many nurseries offer it.

Original poster

Ilikepinacoladass · 15/03/2023 21:37

Sierra26 · 15/03/2023 21:32

Thanks for sparking an interesting debate.

Both things can be true.

children may benefit in some ways from spending more time with parents

but spending time in childcare doesn’t harm them

the benefits of having a dual income household and working parents as role models will almost always outweigh any benefits a parent staying at home might have brought. At both a family and national/economic level. From personal experience my mum was a SAHM and I think I would have benefited MORE if she’d worked more - she doesn’t really have any hobbies, interests, special skills, opinions, and I find it difficult to relate to her now I’m in an advancing career myself. She doesn’t understand me or my lifestyle at all. Her thoughts still revolves around her mother role, even though I moved out 15 years ago. It’s quite upsetting and painful really as I love her very much, but she doesn’t inspire me. Thats a whole other topic for another day.

Before it became normal for families to have two working parents, the kids at home wouldn’t have spent much time with mums anyway. Housekeeping was much more manual/time consuming, and kids would have spent most of their time amusing themselves or with other kids.

And the funding needed to pay for this childcare is found through tax payments from those who work. So paying parents to stay at home/not work is not viable.

This is the real world and if we agreed that “anything that benefits children is benefitting the country long term” then the country would fall apart

you keep saying it should be about more than just survival. Assuming survival means meeting basic hygiene factors (hierarchy of needs), what would you say about the families who can’t meet these needs because one parent can’t afford to work any more, as they can’t meet childcare costs? This is about basic enablement in an environment which relies on dual salaries.

Targeted benefits, like UC? To ensure people aren't starving or homeless?

OP posts:

TheHateIsNotGood · 15/03/2023 21:38

I think the main thing left out is the parents - it's full-on working f/t with dc and hardly any room to manouevre - dc get sick, parents get sick, all providers can get sick or strike. And a host of other random difficulties too.

Year on year on year - even if no difficulties occur it's a relentless slog. Humans aren't machines but are again are being used as such. There's going to be a lot of knackered, burnt out humans in a few years.

However, rather than going further with a Marxist crititique, I do think things are now moving in the right direction; having had to overcome the setbacks since true female equality became obscured by the new media.

Original poster

Ilikepinacoladass · 15/03/2023 21:39

If it was all about giving parents 'choice', why not increase stat maternity pay / extend it, so they can either spend it on childcare if they want to go back to work, or stay at home with their children for a bit longer?

OP posts:

WishIwasElsa · 15/03/2023 21:40

Ilikepinacoladass · Today 16:02

Childcare settings from 2 or 3 yes, beneficial for the child (for short amounts of time)

Childcare settings from 9 months.. best for which children? The research I've seen seems to suggest that most would be better of with a parent below 2 or 3 years old.

I'm just asking that it's even part of the conversation.

Wow just wow this is just a dig at working mothers not everyone has a choice to stay at home.

Botw1 · 15/03/2023 21:41

I'm not sure how we've gone from the govt offering 30 hours term time to babies in nursery from birth 7 - 730 7 days a week with both parents working full time but more like 80 hours a week

SouthLondonMum22 · 15/03/2023 21:41

ort1gia · 15/03/2023 21:33

"Also, in the nurseries I’ve worked in, loads of babies were in from 7.30-6.30/7 five days a week."

Is that even legal?

No, nurseries just enjoy breaking the law and keeping babies in their prison.

Resister · 15/03/2023 21:43

Botw1 · 15/03/2023 15:54

What do you think is best for children if not financially stable parents?

Scandinavian countries all have heavily subsidised childcare from very young

They all seem OK.

The Scandinavian kids are not doing so well. Excessive childcare has led to a generation of disaffected young adults who are self orientated and disconnected from their families.

Sierra26 · 15/03/2023 21:43

Ilikepinacoladass · 15/03/2023 21:37

Targeted benefits, like UC? To ensure people aren't starving or homeless?

Show quote history

Yep so we agree it is about survival, which is what those benefits are designed to enable

Benefits which need to be funded in the first place

I agree it would be shit to have to go back to work if you don’t want to. But this policy will stop as many people having to choose between work or benefits