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?

Why is it a martyr? I chose to have children, no one forced me? Yes it was hard because I had unexpected twins but I’m no martyr? Just did the job the best I knew how to keep all the children safe and happy.

@Ppbbwwt

Sounds like you're just looking to be offended given that no one has said anything like that

In the context of true neglect.

Not nurseries

Threads like this one only strive to achieve one thing; make mothers who work full time feel guilty about their choice.

Every woman I know is struggling to make the right choice, and agonising over what they should decide for the well-being of their child.

I refuse to be made feel guilty because I work full-time, and think this policy is enabling more women to have a choice; the choice to go back to work if they want to.

Like the previous poster, I have a very happy child full-time at nursery since she's 12 months. We have a very strong bond, she loves playing with her friends all day, and I cut short my days of work whenever I can to pick her up early.

I refuse to buy into the idea that she would be somehow better with me all day. I genuinely believe she is thriving at nursery, and happy to spend the day there.

Isn't it what we all want at the end of the day? Make the best choice possible for our children to be happy, and for us to be happy!

More choice = more opportunity.

Women should be allies, not enemies and judging each other's choice.

This!

And that's the middle class version of this story, where having two working parents allows the family to enjoy a privileged lifestyle.

In the version of this story where proper subsidised childcare would allow a woman on low wages to go back to work and still have something left over at the end of the month, that's a family which can more easily afford a rent increase, or new clothes and shoes for their children when they grow out of their old ones, or to not have to choose between eating and heating. It also gives the mother more financial freedom to leave an abusive partner. Any amount of extra income buys the children more stability.

Great post.

So it’s not just “selfish mummy prioritising work”, they are prioritising their children’s future and prospects also.

Exactly. But according to this thread you would think we just go to work to get away from our DC and dump them to random day orphanages, while spending the money on handbags.

@Botw1

Try re-reading my original post.................I never said I was a full-time, SAHM did I. I worked part-time, gave the kids the rest of my time. I said I didn't agree with full-time childcare (long days.) It's not good for little ones below age 3. I also said SOME provision during the week wasn't a bad thing. A middle way is always best

@G5000

Please try an re-read my original post properly and not inject ludicrous hyperbole into your statements such as dump them to random day orphanages, while spending the money on handbags.

I was PART-TIME, I had no handbags and I gave my kids the rest of me, which they absolutely needed under the age of three. At 4, or just after, when they were ready for peer-interaction on a longer basis they went to nursery. What is it with people on this thread who can't read properly?

@Blueisthecolour1 where did I quote your post? I said 'according to this thread you would think'. What is it with people on this thread who can't read properly?

But the reason cortisol is in the breast milk will be due to mum feeling stressed.

Therefore if mum is chilled, no cortisol. Oh and we do naturally make it to help us wake up in the morning. Therefore aiding the baby to eventually develop a day/night sleeping pattern.

Breastfeeding is natural and designed by nature.

Your argument that "some stressed mums passing cortisol on" is ridiculous.

I earn well and can't afford it - two children at nursery is £2.6k for 4 days a week. Almost every single parent can't afford it unless you are rich.

You are in part right though, it's not just being able to work to pay bills. The reason I am even considering going into such debt is because it is early years education and I know it would give them the best start in life. This help is going to transform so many other parents lives.

@crossstitchingnana

Nope.

It is there even if the mum isn't stressed

It's almost like you don't understand the function of cortisol

Just to raise the stakes a little higher, let's see how this goes down:

I also think it's a load of cr*p when people say their careers are damaged by having kids. That specifically applies to women who have had no other choice than to be a SAHM for a period of say, 10 years or more. And, for these people, I truly do appreciate how hard that must be. BUT if you're able to work even a few hours a week you can keep your hand in the game, and form good relationships with Seniors etc - then you jump on opportunities to develop when you're ready. It's more about your willingness and your drive to succeed and I think a lot of people use it as an excuse to be part of the "Oh woe is me" equality wagon.

How do you like that?

@Blueisthecolour1

Good job long days in nursery isn't a prerequisite of work then eh

@Blueisthecolour1

Oh yeah. The stats definitely back up what you're saying

There's loads of men at the top of their careers who've just worked a few hours a week to keep their hand in.

Thats why so many men go part time and give up work all together

Except that doesn’t actually line up with the data on things like the gender pay gap so it depends on what exactly you mean when you say motherhood doesn’t damage careers.

At the beginning of their careers men and women are actually close to being equal in terms of per hour pay. However after they have children this gap grows massively. Some studied put it as high as mothers earning 72% of the hourly rate of fathers and mothers are significantly less likely to be in highly paid roles compared to fathers.

I'd absolutely love it if it were in any way true!

I'm disengaging from this.

I totally understand cortisol.

It's a hormone that helps us wake in the morning but l made in larger amounts when stressed.

It's in breast milk due to the above, and the fact that stuff passes through from mum (like antibodies) as well as hormones.

A stressed mum would produce more.

Breast feeding is still best for baby and this sounds like a desperate way to justify formula feeding (which is a choice).

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?

Precisely.

For me there would have to be much stronger evidence than there is (and the many people who were in childcare aged 1-3 who are now perfectly happy adults with great lives makes that even more questionable) that nursery is bad for young children, for it to be more important than the above. I want my daughters to have great lives. The small, and ultimately debatable amount that having a mum at home with them might benefit them before they start school, is not worth sacrificing that for.

Nobody is denying the reality of the gender pay gap or the potential issues of returning to work after a period of SAH. But acknowledging these issues should not mean evading the issue that babies are increasingly likely to be spending too long in childcare settings.

@crossstitchingnana

Nope.

Your choice of words about pumping babies full of cortisol just struck me as particularly ill informed.

No one has to justify any (non harmful) parenting choice

Surely making childcare more affordable means more women may be able work part time? This also benefits the child.

@ort1gia

Or ya know.

Their dads could watch them

Win win.

You are not going to win here. Many posters have convinced themselves that there is no ‘spending too long’ for babies in childcare settings. Morning noon and night. All fine.
Many posters have asked me specifics on how many hours do I think is acceptable for a break etc. maybe they should answer how many hours is too long in a childcare setting?