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?

I don’t think OP is. I think the point OP is making is that it doesn’t seem to be linked with ‘and this extra childcare will ensure children have a better start’

It also depends on quality of the childcare. Some children who have been with a childminder or nursery since 1 aren’t anywhere like where they should be but parents have just assumed their child is fine as childcare is dealing with it!

That's what I thought, but then I wondered if @PurpleWisteria1 had another, less entitled plan for funding 12 + years of staying at home.

@ort1gia

What does any of that have to do with being cut out to be a sahm?

Wm love their children and are attuned to them.

Theyre still mothers, are they not?

So yeah. When you say it's a good job a mum isn't cut out to be a sahm it absolutely is about you judging them as lesser than sahm

So just own it.

Fair enough and I respect your opinion. But my opinion is that looking after your young baby during the working week is far way and beyond more important than seeing mum go to work -for the baby. As I have said multiple times, lots of women arnt given a choice. I’m not talking about older school age kids- I mean young babies.

@crossstitchingnana

I didn't say they were stressed

I said they had higher levels of cortisol.

Which they do

Regardless of mothers stress levels

This is an excellent point.

What is the point of women sacrificing their careers, their earning potential and their financial independence to be at home for their small daughters all day every day, only to teach those daughters that a woman's place is at home, and launch them as young adults into a world where they expect to only work for a few years, be financially dependent on a man, and devote themselves to looking after first their own children and then no doubt their elderly mothers who are impoverished in their old age because they couldn't save for retirement?

I think men should be able to get a year on statutory paternity pay so they can pick up when the mother finishes her mat leave. (in the case of single parents they could potentially apply to extend their own leave if so they wish, to make things fair, though other childcare should still be an option for them as their career will be stalling the longer they are out of the work force - thereby negatively affecting babies in the long term).

Let's encourage everyone who has children to do their share. I'm always appalled to see women on here happy to do 90% of everything on top of FT work. (well, maybe not happy but willing to do it anyway).

‘Leaving a crying baby reaching for its mother may well have an effect. Who are you to say it definitely won’t?‘

Do you think mummies should have one child only? Because if you have more than one child, or god forbid twins, the crying baby will have to wait some time for mummy to come running back. Maybe everyone should just stick to the one, so no baby has to wait, ever? You can see how ridiculous your logic is here?!

I bet a baby with several young siblings has to wait just as long to get comforted as a baby at a nursery or childminder. But that’s ok?

Why am I entitled? I’ve worked and paid taxes all my adult life until I had children in my 30’s. I then worked part time inbetween child 1 and 2 as I have mentioned. I then worked when the youngest was at school.
Never claimed any benefits so haven’t taken out of the system that way in order to stay at home.
Given my children a solid secure start with every care and attention personally given by myself to their formative years age 0-4. I have no regrets. The years are so short and before you know it they are teens.

@PurpleWisteria1 As I have said multiple times, lots of women arnt given a choice.

You have said it multiple times but you haven’t once given a reason to explain this point of view.
Given that you think babies don’t need any stuff, and seemingly can live on a mother’s love alone, and the fact that mothers are often the ones receiving child benefit plus the higher UC payment if you have children and your working partner is low income … what exactly is stopping a woman who wants to stay home from staying home if she places enough value on it?

I had twins. I also had a two year old whilst having the twins. So I know full well the difference.
Yes there was often a child crying but it’s totally and utterly different to leaving my 13 month old screaming and reaching out for me whilst I left the house and shut the door repeatedly.
Not even remotely the same.

What do you want, a medal?

All this means is that you've paid 4-5 years less tax than women who don't stay at home until their kid is 3.

Imagine advising your daughter to go to school and work hard, but saying to her, when you have babies, you will need to give up work for ten years or so to look after them. It’s really depressing. And damn sexist. Some dreadful attitudes from women on here: stifling their daughters’ career dreams. Because that’s what they are doing, whether they have the intelligence to see it or not.

PurpleWisteria1 · Today 11:18
Why am I entitled? I’ve worked and paid taxes all my adult life until I had children in my 30’s. I then worked part time inbetween child 1 and 2 as I have mentioned. I then worked when the youngest was at school.
Never claimed any benefits so haven’t taken out of the system that way in order to stay at home.
Given my children a solid secure start with every care and attention personally given by myself to their formative years age 0-4. I have no regrets. The years are so short and before you know it they are teens.

That's great for you. I hope you recognise how incredibly privileged you were to be able to afford it.

Nah. The untended twin will have screamed and reached. But lived to tell the tale somehow!

I understand what you mean OP. Would be better if working conditions improve so that both parents can work flexibly around family life and spend more time with their children rather than kids going to nursery form 7am-6pm (which is the reality for many who work) .

Why should a womans career dream be smashed if they take 1-2 years to look after their baby?
Thats the real sexist part.

@G5000

but our choices have consequences and babies grow up.

Exactly. So it's far better to give them the nurture they need in the little years whilst the opportunity is there. This thread is full of people coming at it from the wrong angle - it's all "I, me, what I want/I'm not doing that if my partner didn't/couldn't/wouldn't etc etc."

Unfortunately, what's best for baby/toddler is often not what's best for mum - not in a sense of modern-equality. It's a hard pill to swallow. I get that. But that's the truth. The OP's question is specifically about what's best for the child, and my answer still is the same: to have SOME provision during the week - maybe two or three mornings per week but majority of time is with mum (or dad if that works.) But as i've previously pointed out, I feel babies want mum more than dad. Again, a hard pill to swallow for some. But there it is.

And of course for parents who absolutely have no choice but to work full time then they now have the option to put them into full-time childcare. Which is fine by them because they have no choice. But it's STILL NOT THE BEST OPTION FOR THE CHILD unless it can be avoided or diluted a bit.

Who paid for you to sit at home doing nothing for those years?

🤣 no, they really didn’t. Why? Because I was there i the room near them and not leaving.
But yeah, keep telling yourself that.

I really hope you don’t have any impressionable girls looking to you for advice. What a shame that women still spout sexist nonsense.

This as well. It shouldn't be looked down upon when people take a few years off due to childcare and parents should be able to go back to the workforce without any problem!

Doing nothing? Charming.

Really? You can't see the link between them? You implied that it doesn't take many skills to be a sahm. So it follows that you don't think it takes many skills to work in a nursery / as a childminder / nanny. I get the impression you think that any type of 'caring' role is beneath you. I don't know what you do for a living, but you obviously think whatever it is is much more important than caring for children.
I actually agree with some of your points on this thread. But it annoys me when people don't see nurturing roles as in any way important or of value.

I don’t need to tell myself anything. Just that your argument that babies need mums glued to them 24/7 falls apart for those mummies who have lots of babies.