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?

Which point? What are you talking about?

Look elsewhere if you just want an argument. I am happy to write that you are 100% correct about everything you say and everyone else is 100% wrong.

Lets not kid ourselves here.

SAHM's are SAHM's because it's what they want.

Just as ''selfish'' as working mums.

@Partyandbullshit

Im.not sure why you're getting all defensive now?

You seemed pretty confident earlier that wms couldn't meet their babies needs?

All I'm asking is why you think that?

Seems a bit odd to write a 12 point mission statement then get annoyed when people disagree with it

I see it as a good thing.

100% this.

I would have far more respect for someone who said, "I don't want to work outside the home, I want to be with my children all day every day for the first three years, they're only small once and I don't want to miss any of it, and to me any financial sacrifices are worth it."

But implying that mothers who put their children in nursery and go out to work are selfish and putting what they want ahead of their children, whilst the SAHMs are the selfless ones who always put their children first is some next level bullshit.

You want to stay at home. That's OK. Own it.

But the only reason you are objecting to a policy which would make it viable for a million women to return to work if that is what they feel is best for them and their families is because you feel threatened by other people making different choices, or perhaps because you would rather that money was spent paying you to stay at home.

For what it's worth, I do think maternity and paternity leave in the first year of a child's life should be better funded. But after that first year, staying at home if affordable childcare is available is a lifestyle choice that you have made because it is what you want. Funding that lifestyle choice isn't a good use of taxpayers' money.

The issue I have with this policy is that it is not driven by concern for families at all - and definitely not children! There are labour shortages in this country - yes. This is a direct result of the disaster that was Brexit. But where are the labour shortages exactly? Low-paid work mainly. Including nursery teachers! The shortages are also in the public sector - ie, nurses, teachers and all the other groups currently striking.

So rather than take responsibility for the shitshow that is Brexit, they think, "yes let's get mums out of the house to do the low paid work." This is what hush are hoping will fill the gaps. And so they present this free child care as if it's bestowing some great gift for society.

Do you think for one second that Rishi Sunak or Jeremy Hunt would have had their children in day care? Or their wives doing any of the jobs that now need filling?

The whole policy will backfire anyway because British people simply won't do many of the jobs that are now experiencing shortages. This has already been proven. Free childcare don't make any difference. It's not as if mums are suddenly going to rush out and pick fruit, or work in factories, or take up zero hour contracts in the hospitality sector.

You can bet your boots that if there was a shortage of employment, there would miraculously be all sorts of govt campaigns about the benefits of children being with their mums etc etc etc and policies to encourage this.

Thete are no perfect solutions dnd everything is a trade off. But a society where most babies are in full time childcare is not one I would welcome and I hope we are not sleepwalking into this against all common sense.

Do you not just communicate with your DH?
That's what I did with mine, discussed the issue of childcare like adults.
Why do you keep saying it's a competition?
Tit for tat?
Wasn't your DH very supportive?

Sorry but this is irrelevant claptrap.

I don't really care why the Tories - or any other party - suddenly want to put more taxpayers' money into childcare. (But still not a huge amount compared to many other countries.)

There is no downside, as far as I can see, to making childcare more affordable for working families.

If you think there is a downside, please spell out what it is.

I'm not interested in some ill informed bollocks about children being scarred for life if their mother doesn't stay at home until they are at least three. That's not backed up by any credible evidence.

Worried about sleep waking into affordable childcare which will benefit lots of familie

But not worried about the current views of our sexist society that damage women and equality

Why are we even arguing over putting babies in full time Vs stay at home? 30 free hours will in effect only let women work about 18 hours per week. The 30 hours aren't being given 52 weeks per year. When the hours have been spread out over the year and time allowed between dropping the child off and getting to work, there is no way that it is giving anywhere near full time employment opportunities to the (usually) mother. That still gives a good stimulation/time at home balance to the child.

Not living in abject poverty is best for every child and this usually requires both parents to work nowadays.

@Botw1 I was prepared to have a reasonable conversation/discussion and apologise for not addressing the shit working parents get thrown at them too in my most recent post- although I have repeatedly said I don’t think working parents who use childcare are bad parents.

I have been that parent. I have been told my child was traumatised from going to nursery at a young age. (Not this current baby obviously). But then for you to say you don’t care about calling sahms economically inactive or whatever… I don’t understand. I don’t know how many times I can make it clear. I am for CHOICE and I don’t think working parents or stay at home parents deserve any of the rubbish that comes their way for their own CHOICES on how to parent their children.

I have done it both ways, and this time round I’m choosing not to send my baby to nursery. That’s the right CHOICE for us this time.

I am not claiming that this policy will not benefit many people. Of course it will! I'm simply pointing out that there are no ideal solutions here and that the policy is certainly not driven by concern for mothers or children.

It's like in the post war period when they needed jobs for men returning from war - there was the whole cultural narrative spun about the perfect housewife and look what new-fangled household gadgets you can have and aren't you women lucky!

Now women are expected to be delighted about being separated from their babies at 9 months so they can go out and do some shit, low paid job.

The wider narrative does need to change and we need to look at the impact on babies - and women.

We know now about the developmental impact of 'boarding school syndrome' where previously we did not. Full time childcare for babies in day centres is still a relatively new phenomenon. In the future, will we be looking back and wondering "How on earth did people think that was ok? " Maybe, maybe not, but it's a question definitely worth asking.

@early30smum

No one has criticised your choice? I don't think anyway, but admit I could have missed it.

Im aware that you think both choices are valid.

That has nothing to do with the point I was making which is that you called out what you saw as not nice things about SAHMs but didn't acknowledge why they had been said.

They weren't said at random or for no reason.

They were said in defense of working being a valid choice

It wasn't meant as a personal slight against you

It just happens all the time. Big meany wm having a go at the poor defenseless sahm.

When in fact neither are defenseless and it's usually the sahm getting the digs in first.

The wider impact of encouraging women to think they're being selfish, awful women if they're OK with working is obvious

@Botw1 fair enough. Neither are defenceless but neither should have to be defending their decision. It’s all round just not much fun. I doubt by husband has ever had to deal with this rubbish or defend why he’s at work at not at home. Which, as I’ve also said, is part of the problem. Ugh.

@early30smum

Guvej that he wants a sahp but isn't prepared to do it himself, I doubt it!

One of the bizarre things about this huge gulf that the WOHP/SAHP Issue seems to create, is that for many of us, we could quite happily have done either option. I'm sure I would have enjoyed being a SAHM, I mean I always found my dc to be fascinating little people particularly when they reached the talking stage. I'm also quite comfortable with my own company and never found days at home boring. However I chose to continue working for all sorts of reasons... I'm as well qualified and as good at my job as my dh is. I'd trained to get to where I was and wanted to continue after becoming a parent. No

No one ever questions the dads about this!

@freyamay74

Free pass for the men

And while I freely admit I had no intention of ever being a sahm, I don't think those who do are making the wrong choice for their children.

Its not better or worse just different.

If mums or dads or a combo of both are needing to use full-time childcare - who will actually be foing that childcare? Yes - a woman in 99% of cases. Perhaps your mother or MIL who has already had her own family and now responsible for grandchildren because families need two incomes. Or a woman with an NVQ on MW. How many men are working in day nurseries for MW? How many grandfathers looking after grandchildren? Not a lot. So even where more mums are working, it's reinforcing other women in low pay. Or older people doing it for free!

Anyway, where I live in Lindon loads of nursery staff were from the EU and have either gone back after Brexit, or got jobs as cleaners because the pay is better and they don't have to spend half their time doing constant 'logging' and admin when they are supposed to be interacting with children.

@ort1gia

Yes.

Because we continually tell people that childcare is women's work

What do you expect?

And we don't want strange men looking after our children because they're all paedos or something.

Its partly that Botw1, but it's more complex. There is little to be gained in pretending men and women are the same in every way. They are not. If men wanted to work in nurseries - well, they would. And I bet it would suddenly become a much more respected and highly paid profession.

As it is, people in modern society have been hoodwinked into believing that institutional childcare is inevitable / anyone can do it as it's low status / nothing special or unique about mums and they are not allowed to think there is / children don't remember it anyway etc etc etc.

Men do work in nurseries.

There are men in lots of caring roles.

I don't think any of your last paragraph is true or what anyone has been saying