Modern grandparenting double standards

[TheCalmQuail]

I'll preface this with yes I know that my DC are my responsibility and I shouldn't expect childcare, but it would be nice if it felt like GPs actually wanted to spend time/get to know DC/help occasionally.

Its come up in a few conversations with other parents recently about how little time their DPs spend with their DC, especially in comparison to when they were younger and at their GPs daily. Myself included, I avoided nursery completely when my DM went back to work because free daily childcare from a relative, and some of my happiest regular memories are spending regular one on one time with my Nana.

I realise GPs are entitled to their own lives, but the lack of help does seem like double standards, when a large majority have seemingly had so much help themselves.

I love my DM dearly but I'm surprised at how little effort she puts in, she relocated to live down the road from us and I barely see her unless she needs me. It often feels like she's an extra toddler as I have to suggest stuff to tempt her to do anything together; I manage the logistics, drive her there etc. She will be there for emergency childcare requests when possible. But I'd love her to be a bit more proactive, if only just to give her and DC more time together, as they adore her. And on the flip side I regularly help her out with her home, tech issues, pet sitting, I've built her a website and saved her thousands on setting up her part time business. I also am always the one to invite her over for meals, it's never reciprocated. I'd love her to nip over and take DC to the park, or for a hot choc once in while, just because she wanted to see him

Similar for PIL, we make a +200 mile round trip every 6-8 weeks to see them. MIL will often very bluntly tell us how knackered we look, but they've not once offered to take DC for an hour or two whilst we're there, or suggested me and DH go for a coffee/have a bit of time as a couple. I don't think they've changed a single nappy in over 3 years. Yet they expect us to schlep a toddler across 4 counties on the regular out of obligation.

I absolutely know this is #notallgrandparents as my DB ILs also relocated nearer to him. They have their GC one day a week and regularly on weekends, they do the majority of school holiday childcare and are still often asking for extra sleepovers and time together with their DGC. Which is all a lot more than I'd ever expect.

I know this will be a marmite subject, but really AIBU? Surely the idea is to pass on the help and generosity you received, to help the next generation?

@anotherEmma we are early/mid 60s. I resent the comment about not having student debt. When DH and I were 18, only a tiny fraction of people (less than 5%) went to university. Now it's over 30%. How do you suggest it's paid for? I'd be happy if it reverted to 5-10% to be honest but not would close the doors for many.

Our DC are ten years younger than you and will benefit significantly from our money. I guess rather sooner than you will from your parents because we started later.

@Whoyoutakingto
thank you

@StrikeForever
I find it interesting that out of my whole post, which was mainly about my hurt feelings based on my own parents and was by no means making generalisations (in fact I actually said that generalisations are not helpful) you have chosen to interpret one comment - about some people being entitled (not all) - and attacked me for it. Frankly I think it says more about you than it does about me.

@RosesAndHellebores
Not sure why you "resent" me pointing out that people in your generation who went to university don't have the same student debt, it's a simple fact. It's not the fault of me or my generation that the government's policy changed and they wanted more people to attend university at their own expense. I was simply pointing out that my parents seem oblivious to their own privilege, either that or they take it for granted.
And I don't expect to benefit from their money. I would much prefer them to spend more time visiting me and my kids tbh An involved grandparent now would be worth so much more than an inheritance decades in the future.

Touched a nerve there did I @AnotherEmma

@AnotherEmma nobody forced people to go to university once student fees were introduced. Also, I'd be perfectly happy if university places for the cleverest 5% to 10% remained free. That would cover places on competitive courses at elite universities. I imagine that wouldn't be popular.

Also much vitriol is fired at us late boomers who are now becoming grandparents. We used some of our advantages to help our children, for example, paying their university fees so they do not have student debt. Would we have encouraged them to get degrees from Post 92's. Probably not.

No "vitriol" from me. I was certainly in the "elite" you mentioned; very high grades and got into a prestigious university, still had fees and a student loan - some help with my parents (which I was fortunate and grateful to get) but certainly not so much help that I didn't have to take out a loan. No regrets about going to uni. Just pointing out that financially things were certainly easier for my parents than they have been for me, that's all.

While there are plenty of exceptions, boomers are generally a very self-indulgent generation.

And what about the grandparents who are not " boomers" ?

I thought that was my mother's generation? I dont think I've fallen into that category

Wow! What a sweeping generalisation. Come on ‘show your work’! Where is the evidence for that. There isn’t any because it’s bollocks!

I resent the comment about not having student debt. When DH and I were 18, only a tiny fraction of people (less than 5%) went to university. Now it's over 30%. How do you suggest it's paid for? I'd be happy if it reverted to 5-10% to be honest but not would close the doors for many.

I agree. These things are never brought up when tossing out the free uni stuff. Very few people wanted to go to uni and getting in was competitive. Where I am, when I went to uni there were 18 uni’s in the country containing a total of 148,000 students so roughly 40,000 uni graduates per year. There are now 42 uni’s and around 640,000 students (that’s not including foreign students who pay full fees). While paying fee’s these are still government subsidised uni positions so those fee’s, while high, are a lot less than the fees foreign students pay. It was ‘doable’ for taxpayers to enable free uni back in my day, it’s not now unless taxpayers want to pay significantly more tax again.

Most people left school at 15yo and either got a trade or worked in a role that didn’t require a degree (most jobs). A very small number who were going to try and get into uni went on past 15yo. People who didn’t go to uni were not dumb, and were not seen as dumb, it was just there was zero point unless you wanted to do something where you needed that specific training such as medicine, engineering, law, pharmacy etc. People such as nurses and teachers didn’t go to uni, they went to vocation specific colleges and did most learning on the job (which I can tell you from my experience of working with them over the decades produced much better nurses off the bat, and when my kids went through school the older college trained teachers seemed ahead of the uni trained in all aspects). That’s where we need to get back to, none of this everyone needing to go to uni and then being crippled by fees. It would then also enable lower or no fees for those who truly need to go for specific professions.

When I was at secondary school in the eighties, the big push was to persuade pupils to stay at school until 16. Most still left at 16 years old, and many of my friends went into low paid factory or retail work. The government gave a small grant to low income families to cover travel to school and lunch to try and persuade these kids to stay on.
Most working class kids did not go to university.

Most working class kids did not go to university

What about middle class? When I went through, most middle class didn’t go to university either. Boys tended to go to government, admin and banking jobs where no degree was required. And girls tended to become secretaries, bank tellers etc. Yes, it was sexist, no, it wasn’t right, it was of the time though, and no I don’t think we should revert with this aspect. But I still believe most jobs these days don’t NEED uni degrees.

I don't think it's as simple as that. When I left school (end of the 1970s) we still had a large manufacturing sector in the UK and most employers there provided training as a matter of course, up to and including sending the most promising youngsters off to the local poly on day release to get an HND or degree. Banks supported ambitious youngsters through the banking exams and many other jobs in finance had similar arrangements. Training for most health care professions was done on the job in schools of nursing, physiotherapy etc attached to hospitals, with placements interspersed with block release to cover the necessary theory. You got a professional qualification but not a degree.

Nowadays a great many employers seem to expect their employees to arrive fully trained, which of course they will have done at their own expense. Apprenticeships are great where available, but there aren't enough of them.

Additionally, the world of work has changed. We need different skills now. We have an economy heavily dependent on service industries and very specialist manufacturing. In theory the high level skills of learning to work independently, critically appraise evidence, write reports and so on should all be there by the time a young person graduates, and wouldn't be in most school leavers.

For those who weren't academic at all there were lots of unskilled jobs or semi-skilled jobs that you could do with no qualifications at all. Plenty of people who were functionally illiterate and innumerate were still able to get jobs and earn enough to keep body and soul together. Those jobs are few and far between now.

The whole uni debate is an interesting thread tangent. I don't think anyone from mine or future generations is going to uni for the sheer love of it. No one would choose to start adult life in £30-£40k debt if they have a choice, but it often feels like they don't.

There are people who probably shouldn't have gone to university as it didn't suit them and made them miserable, but they didn't have the alternative of walking in to a job with prospects at 16. Times have changed

Read any job advert now and most entry level / decent wage jobs require a good degree AND experience. That simply wasn't the case for previous generations.

Entry level jobs today and entry level job opportunities from previous generations are not the same. It is harder. That is a fact.

@TheCalmQuail what has changed is that nowadays a 16 year old with five GCSEs, including English and Maths cannot construct a grammatically correct sentence or work out simple percentages as part of an in-try exercise. In 1978 they could.

How do I know that? Because my department deals with hundreds of applications from Post Grads applying fkr entry level jobs. Very few can do it after 4 or 5 years in HE.

It's scandalous that we now have so many young people acquiring thousands of pounds of debt and yet do not have the foundation skills school leavers had 45 years ago. Well qualified v well educated is not good enough.

Applicants from traditionally academic disciplines from RG universities seem fine. As do applicants from private schools.

Not what your thread was about but may illustrate why fewer grandparents are available and young parents today feel particularly pressured. They were sold a dream that hasn't materialised because there aren't enough top.dollar jobs for 30% plus of the population. On the whole those jobs still go to the top 5%.

Also to add to the uni debate, future generations are also now competing for work on a global scale. With that comes opportunity, but also the early realisation that it's unlikely that we will get to live and work where we grew up. And that breaks up family ties, but it's not necessarily by choice.

This is simply not true.

There are large numbers of jobs which don't require a degree and many of the companies who provided 18+ (the current effective school leaving age) entry to management training schemes still offer that route alongside degree entry.

None of the skilled trades require degrees and can provide lucrative careers. Ditto many areas of retail, hospitality, construction, IT, property management - even air traffic control offers a caree path up to the six figure salaries without a degree.

Many of the "degree" jobs also offer degree apprenticeships if people are willing to work their way to a degree. Not an option which existed for the current late boomers/early X'ers. If you were not in the five percent of overwhelmingly advantaged pupils then the only way to get a degree was at your own expense via the OU or similar whilst still working a full time job.

Absolutely, which is why I expect both of our children to be abroad within two to five years. Also precisely why we insisted they learn an MFL and did Latin O'Level to GCSE. Both are fluent in French and dd has rudimentary Arabic having studied it for three years. It's about far more than a degree nowadays.

My maternal GPs had DB and I before and after school, did all school runs, school plays, sports days, sick days etc. My parents complained about them the whole time, were furious when GPs went away even for a few days. When GPs got older they offered no care or support at all. They haven't properly met my children and don't want to, I wouldn't want them to either to be fair.

Paternal GPs offered lots of financial support to my parents, they got some care when they got older but only because they were paid very well to visit.

At the end of the day, some people are selfish. I know that I won't be caring for my parents when they need it.

How is this poster entitled? She expects nothing from her selfish parents. She doesn't expect help with childcare or even for them to have a relationship with their grandchildren. She judges them for it as they are objectively shit grandparents.

Going to try and untangle this a bit.
Firstly, there are helpful GPs and less helpful ones. My mum was ok, ExDPs was brilliant. Just the people they were. Tbf my mum was further away too.
I'm in my 60s, slightly later boomer. Growing up, many families shared houses with the GPs. Granny 1 lived with us, this was usual amongst friends and neighbours so there were other adults around at home.
Many women had part time jobs or were housewives back in the day so were around, or could be, to help. ExDP went to his DG pre and post school when his mum went back to work out of necessity.
Somehow, people were older/poorer then. No GP I knew in the 60s/70s went on cruises or many holidays or holidays at all. They went and stayed occasionally with relatives for a few days.
Currently every single GP I know and I know many through the U3A helps with DGC. After school, overnights, weekends. One DG of my acquaintance more or less moved in 150 miles away to be with DD's family of young DGC when DD needed months in hospital. A friend in his 80s had his adult DGS to stay for months when there were family problems.
My friend's adult children can be incredibly pernickety about all sorts of things. I'm not saying that GP shouldn't comply with wishes. I am saying the odd mistimed ice cream for the DGC isn't a major crime.
Perhaps us boomers have a little more money and better health so we do more. We volunteer, we work, we travel. we have independent lives.
I mostly find with these posters that it's the posters DPs that are the problem in that they don't offer to help rather than it being a demographic trend.

This has come out a bit tersely, didn't mean it to. I was incredibly grateful for the help I got with DD who is now 30 but mostly I sorted it with help from friends and paid babysitters. Good luck, OP. It's not easy.

Ok totally different topic now, but interesting none the less. No one is disagreeing that the UK education system is massively flawed, but the majority do not have the luxury of private.

I also don't think anyone in 1978 was going through the rigorous application processes that most of these jobs and schemes have: CV, video submission, psychometric testing, group assessment centres and THEN multiple in person interviews often with presentations. So, maybe in 1978 they also weren't scrutinised so much and people were taken at face value, given the ability to prove themselves on the job.

100% this. I'm an older millennial and I know lots of women having babies now or having only just had them in the last couple of years, but absolutely zero who are already grandparents. I've literally never come across a grandparent in their 40s, whereas where I work there are 11 women on mat leave in their very late 30s or very early 40s.

Worst generalisation ever.

@TheCalmQuail I also don't think anyone in 1978 was going through the rigorous application processes that most of these jobs and schemes have: CV, video submission, psychometric testing, group assessment centres and THEN multiple in person interviews often with presentations. So, maybe in 1978 they also weren't scrutinised so much and people were taken at face value, given the ability to prove themselves on the job.

You're right. I left school before 1978, and I remember applying for jobs by writing a letter in answer to an advert in the local paper jobs page. Then followed one interview. I often think the whole dragged out application process now is designed by HR or whoever, to keep themselves in a job. It's ridiculous.

Apples and pears, though. Very few 16yos back in 1978 left school with five good O levels including English and Maths. Lots had left school before it was time to take O levels or CSEs. Many took CSEs in a range of subjects, but were not considered academic enough to do O levels. The 16yos who had good O levels and could pass your tests back in 1978 would have been good enough to go on and do A levels and, if they wanted to, to proceed to teacher training or other professional training, or to go polytechnic, art college or university to do a degree or HND. Only a minority did because it wasn't essential. You could easily get a job and start earning, and if you were good you could progress a long way with just a few O levels. Also there was a lot of pressure from parents and peers to get out into the real world and start earning.

It's totally different now when most kids are crammed and spoonfed through at least a handful of GCSEs, not least because the school is judged on those results.