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

[Ilikepinacoladass]

I'm all for parents being able to get back to work if they want to, woman's career's not being put on hold, the economy doing well etc..

But I find it quite worrying that what's best for the children seems to not be mentioned at all in the reporting around the govt introducing more and more free childcare hours, or considered in the policy making to begin with..?

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? So they are not turning up at school aged 5 having had no preschool etc as their parents couldn't afford it?

Not to enable parents to get back to work as soon as possible leaving their children in childcare?

@PurpleWisteria1

You know nursery isn't boarding school right?

But then neither parent is at home with the baby. Which is what I find difficult to understand. I know it’s an unpopular opinion but it’s mine and I’m entitled to it

If the child is 3 months old and away every day all week then there is not much difference IMO

I had a SAHM growing up. I wish she wasn’t there 24/7. We all have different experiences.

I have no desire to be with my son 24/7. I don’t think that’s more beneficial for him at all.

@PurpleWisteria1

Except its not.

And not all working parents use nurseries Mon to Fri 8 to 6 365 from 3 months

Even if they do its unlikely to affect the bond of a loving parent

Shhh.

My baby isn’t tucked up fast asleep in his cot right now after he magically appeared there without me looking after him, he’s still in prison!

This has unsurprisingly descended into yet another tedious SAHM v WOHM thread. What’s crept into these threads more and more since I first joined MN around 13 years ago, is the repeated riposte bringing up “but the father isn’t staying at home so why should I?” or “why should I feel guilty when the father doesn’t?” or “have you asked your husband if he’d stay at home??”. It’s so irrelevant and immature, I instantly discount anything those posters have to say. It’s like teenagers squabbling over doing the dishes: why should I do it? Why can’t he?? Urgh, makes a mockery of the whole issue, and devalues entirely an important debate.

It just shows how incredibly sexist our society still is and that we unfortunately have a long way to go.

Me too. 😂

@Partyandbullshit

Research shows affordable child care helps to reduce the gender pay gap

So what men are doing is absolutely relevant

And most of the time people only bring up why men aren't judged in response to sexist judgment of working mums

Interesting you've no criticism for that though.

If you feel the debate is being devalued do enlighten us on what you think is being missed

I agree with you, OP, because this is all about growing the economy - not what's good for families and young children. It's probably true that older toddlers and pre-schoolers benefit from nursery education (which, incidentally, is not the same as "childcare") but is it really better for a 9 month old baby to be in full-time childcare? More generally, why are we hellbent on increasing GDP measured only in narrow economic terms - especially when the planet cannot support endless economic growth? GDP should include measures of wellbeing and recognise the value of SAHMs as well as working ones.

I know that women are adversely affected by high childcare costs, but I am not sure that this is the answer.

Incidentally, I wonder how many of the Cabinet send their babies and children out to childcare all week? I suspect many of them are able to have them with Nanny at home ...

@PurpleWisteria1 your opinion about thinking mums should be at home is exactly that: your opinion. It doesn't mean it's the 'right thing' or the 'best thing' and it certainly doesn't mean that other mums who don't raise their children exactly as you do are any less good as mums. Neither does it mean their children won't grow up as happy, and with such a good bond as yours.

It's fine to have an opinion on something. It's your insistence that you know best which is tedious.

If you need the money the choice is between work and benefits, and if you can afford it, you can choose whether to work or not. The cost of childcare means that some people can't choose to work, so they are stuck on benefits, and remain dependent on the state, or they can manage on their partner's salary, but are paying no tax/NI and are losing out on career progression and pension payments. Subsidising childcare to make the choice to work more attainable seems to me sensible, as it feeds into the economy and gives people better life chances. Paying people to stay at home does neither.

Who are you suggesting should pay for people to stay at home? Working parents? Older people who spent years paying for childcare for their own children? Child free people who are already subsidising other people's kids? Those who are childless but not by choice? People who would also like to choose to stay at home but don't earn enough to do so? Young people trying to pay off student loans and save for a deposit so they can start their own families?

No, it's not about making people free to choose whatever lifestyle they want. Some people might want to stay at home whether they are parents or not, just as some people might want to live in a castle, or sail a yacht, but we can only do what we can afford. Are you suggesting that the government should subsidise those choices too?

@Redbushteaforme

'know that women are adversely affected by high childcare costs, but I am not sure that this is the answer.'

The answer is for more men to do more childcare

For us to stop viewing childcare as the woman's job.

Children have 2 parents. Both perfectly capable of looking after them. (if not why the fuck are you having a kid with them?)

So stop allowing men to make childcare women's job.

@Ilikepinacoladass if there were clear, conclusive evidence that having a SAHP was 'better' for children then you know what, I reckon the govt would actually chase women back into being at home. If it were clear that children of WOHP were more likely to achieve less well educationally, be unemployed, commit crime, have mental health problems etc, the govt might actually consider paying mums not to work! Because it's absolutely not in the govt's interest to have a generation of messed up deviants who aren't productive members of society. It's a lot more costly to society to try to solve those sorts of problems.

But the fact is, that's not the case. There is no evidence that poor educational outcomes, or criminal behaviour etc are linked to having working parents.

At the end of the day, this is about widening choice for those who want it. If you still want to be a SAHP then fine, do it. Enabling others to work more easily by reducing horrendous childcare costs isn't going to affect you; you can carry on SAH. It's really disingenuous to try to claim there's evidence that being a SAHP is better because there really isn't.

Actually any parent on benefits will be told it will be compulsory to use this free childcare, and get more hours/back into work or else face sanctions, these will have no choice

@Ilikepinacoladass Do you really think it makes no difference for a child to be in full time nursery from age 6 weeks (or let's say just an early age, as 6 weeks is extreme), compared with being with a consistent care giver? No difference at all

Yes, that’s what I believe based on dealings with a large range of young adults both personal and professional circles. I genuinely couldn’t tell you which were in which group as children as there appears to be zero difference among them in this respect. Same as graduates entering the workforce, I couldn’t tell you who was in childcare from early age, later age or not at all as it appears to have made zero difference. There is not a sub-group that is dysfunctional in any manner that relates to this.

I think you’re probably right. The people who bang on about choice usually forget that it is a luxury many don’t have.

Botw1
Yes I did. Not sure of the point you were trying to make??

I shall just repost this again... I'm not holding out for an answer though.

*PurpleWisteria1 I returned to work when my dd was 3 months old. She's now a fabulous woman, happy, has a lovely partner and a great job.

In what way has she 'suffered'?*

Because there isn't one. Many of us on here are parents fully fledged adults. Our kids are grown up, perhaps married, with children of their own, they've been through university and are established in their careers ... and we're the ones who returned to work often a lot earlier than 9 months! And what's on Mumsnet is a just a microcosm ... there are tens of thousands of parents like us. Don't you think someone would have noticed by now if there was this big divide between adults whose mums had worked and those who hadn't? There just isn't. People like @PurpleWisteria1 might want to believe that the kids of WOHM have all grown into feckless, unemployed adults with poor mental health - but it simply ain't true!

Exactly

I think parents should have a choice. Currently that is lacking.
I was a SAHP and loved it. My kids are adults now and say they appreciate that I was always there after school & in the holidays. We didn't have a lot of money but we got by.

Interesting that this is aimed only at women.
" Won't you think of the children"

Men-aaah that doesn't apply to you, off you go.
Let's talk about poor male role models, shall we?
Anyone?
Tumbleweed

Quite. So many of us working mums who used nursery now have kids at university who are doing well and who are incredibly close to their parents. My bond with my older kids is so very strong. But I also have a great career.

I have good friends who are sahms who struggled a lot when their last child left home and they had no career or structure. I wonder if some of the nursery critics are jealous of working mums and scared for their own future?

And I don’t believe all this faux concern for kids at nursery. Bet most of these sahms don’t do a thing for genuinely vulnerable, struggling kids in other spheres of life. Yet when it comes to nurseries they suddenly are oh so distressed for these poor babies. Disingenuous crap.

There is nothing in the world that could make me feel bad about nursery now. My kids are just fabulous, we are incredibly close and I have a great career. And I am surrounded by friends in the same position. The anecdata is strong on this.

And I will say that the kids of my sahm friends are doing well too. They are friends with my kids and you can’t tell the difference between all these loved and happy young adults. They have all done just fine regardless of the childcare in the early years.

The critics need their views to be ‘correct’ as I am guessing maybe they are worried about their life choices and lack of financial independence? It kills them that kids of working mums do well too?!

Why is it immature to expect both parents to care for children they have brought into the world?
Mine did arrange his working hours so that he could do equal CC.
How immature of him!