To NOT feel guilty that my kids are in childcare?

[Kanfuzed123]

Inspired by the childcare eating a £45k salary and the anti nursery sentiment from a few posters on there as being inferior for a child.

anyone else not feel in the slightest guilty that there kids are in nursery and have been post maternity leave?

yeah when they cried at drop off was rough and I called into the check out they were but that soon settled. They do lovely events for the parents and upload lots of amazing activities they do, they’ve made fantastic friends.

I could’ve reduced my hours but I didn’t, we could’ve maybe managed on one salary (glad we didn’t when rates shot up) but I went back FT when dc 1 was 15 months (used annual leave for part time before then) and dc2 was 13 months.

anyone else just not feel guilty? I like the lifestyle we can get when we’re working, especially since the 15 funded hrs and now 30, it’s so affordable. (Eldest is in school and youngest now has the 30 hrs) bill is less than £400 a month inc club etc. I like having something else to focus on too.

im not alone or am I?

Job fields are all different. I couldn't have take 10 years out, but others could.

However, 10 years out of a career has huge implications for overall earnings and pension contributions. Financial stability is such an important attribute.

And if you're lucky enough to afford it, some of the things this money can buy will have big benefits to DC. Uni paid for, masters degrees, deposits on flats, I could go on.

There's a really good illustration of one of my points - that it's very possible to do without two full-time salaries while children are babies and toddlers if you ignore capitalism <shorthand> - on MN right now .

It's the 'how much do you have done' thread where people discuss the various hair and beauty services that they have done monthly, yearly etc.

BEFORE YOU RESPOND telling me I'm blaming women - it's pure chance that this is a beauty thread. It could just as easily have been 'how often you buy anything for or pay anyone to do anything house-related'. if we were on a men's forum there could be exactly the same thread about stereotypically male interests: bikes, gym, whatever.

The amounts being spent are huge. Obviously some people spend a lot more than others, and may have huge incomes to match. But it seems to me fairly obvious that across the board, what many working people now consider to be standard outgoings would have only been available to the rich thirty years ago. Capitalism, through its many megaphones, has convinced us that they are - ... not necessities, exactly, but what constitutes 'a good life'.

If you reduce things to the bone for 4 years - which if you think about it is a pretty small sacrifice when set beside your children's emotional development and future psychological health - it would be possible for many of us to do some version of part-time. Again, before having a go about me woman-shaming, I've said in previous posts that I strongly believe that both parents should share both the care and any career sacrifice that comes with that and it's not my fault if your own partner is a selfish misogynist arse who wouldn't see it like that.

@thestudio - so you also believe people should only have one child? Interesting.

and no - I don’t agree with anything you’ve said so far and still don’t. I don’t think children are better off at home, I don’t believe parents should work part time or not at all, I don’t believe anyone should aim for a bare minimum life, and I don't think children are damaged being cared for collectively.

I think you are wrong in every way ‘but’ am also sure you should be allowed to do as you wish with your life. I’m glad you are enjoying it and I’m sure your children are just as happy as mine are. I’m very glad we both live in a place with so many options.

Three certainties in life:

death
taxes
maniacs on MN insinuating that nursery is child abuse

That's exactly how I grew up, except bare bones so my mum could be a SAHM.

It was miserable and not something I'd want to emulate for my own children.

A good life to me does mean more than the basics and I don't think there's anything wrong with that, especially if you are prepared to work for it. It's about the DC too because our two full time wages means we can afford a house in a good area with good schools which doesn't come cheap, it means they can have their pick of hobbies, it means we can have quality time away together on holidays and most of all, it means growing up with financial security and saving for their futures.

Of course you shouldn't feel guilty. I'm the complete opposite to you and was at home with mine the whole time and I wouldn't have changed it for the world. But it wouldn't be right for you and that's fine

@PurpleThistle7
No - I'm thinking that lots of people will have another toddler by the time the first is four.

I think you are deluding yourself I'm afraid - the idea that industrial childcare staffed by underpaid, under-educated staff with a high churn rate is anything approaching "being raised collectively" is a fantasy you're choosing to believe.

@SouthLondonMum22 Money being tight is not ideal

But you are describing your experience of it as an older child, which is completely different.

Babies and toddlers don't give a monkeys about extra curriculars or savings. You might, because they are part of a lifestyle that you believe you deserve - but that's a different matter and it would be better to admit that.

We're talking about four or five critical years. It's nothing really.

I think we can agree that we will never agree. I think it's a shame for you that you live in such judgement of other people but I can't help you. I promise you do not have to worry about my children, or my friends children, or my kids friends.

You can certainly worry about the children being raised in households with inadequate love, attention, food or heat but otherwise it's entirely true that how families work best is variable and any number of options might be a perfect choice for them.

(Still super confused as to how 4 years out of work would help anything though - that maths doesn't work out. If I was off work for 4 years I'd go back when my son was being born so I would absolutely be looking at 9 years off if I was meant to wait for my youngest to be in school before re-entering the workforce. Way longer for people with more children.)

Like another poster, I also grew up in a household with one working parent and a lot of sacrifice. I hated it and swore I wouldn't repeat that in my own family. People either model their parents or do the opposite so don't be surprised if your own children are career oriented!

It would only be 4-5 years if you only had one child, it could also mean money being tight anyway if we are actually talking about double that for at least 2 children because you probably aren't going to immediately waltz back into what you were earning before.

Of course babies and toddlers don't care about all that stuff but they will eventually and it's about the long term future, not just the short term.

yes a post to uplift is clearly strange.

ive seen plenty of anti childcare sentiment and a lot of cries about how bad it is for children which serves NO purpose aside from the research proving it to be bad not being particularly compelling there is no credible alternative.

like it or not there are real cost implications when someone stops working, not just in the short term but getting back to work, the opportunity cost, cv gaps, prejudice but also missed pension contributions and then being solely reliant on one income for a time period that leaves the person who is not working (often women due to the fact women get paid less on average than men) open to financial abuse

Then there’s also the fact that children from more affluent backgrounds (typically where both parents work) do better in life, achieve more etc

Then there’s also the fact that children from more affluent backgrounds (typically where both parents work) do better in life, achieve more etc

'typically' is doing a lot of heavy lifting there @Kanfuzed123 . The research was done well before it was the norm for two parents to work more or less full time - and in any case, it very much depends what your vision of 'doing better' involves. Possibly if it is being able to afford two holidays a year, etc, you're right. Other measures - mental health ones for example - are also available.

Exactly.

Money provides options and opportunities and this is beneficial for children who eventually get older, go to school and absolutely want more than just the bare bones. This is easier to provide without taking a massive hit career wise for several years.

I’ll top you op. Im a sahm and my toddler started at age 2. She goes in 5 days a week for half a day. I don’t feel an ounce of guilt and love my time that I get. She does things that I can’t do at home and learns SO much. She even has play dates with kids who she knows not randoms from playgroups who she sees once or twice a week. And she loves the social aspect.

i can never understand those who keeps their kids home till age 3. Doing what exactly and how do you keep them busy??!

Gee, if you have to ask this then maybe you shouldn’t be a SAHM. Don’t your kids have toys to play with? Can’t you take them outside? It’s not that hard. Also kids shouldn’t be „entertained” at all times, it’s good for them to have some unstructured time and even to get bored.

NOT AT ALL

My kids loved nursery and now love school and I love not being “mummy!” for part of my life again. Everybody is happy

I am very envious. 😂 Is your child three now?

@ConnieSlow I also agree. I think it very harsh on a three year old to be taken to preschool with no experience of nursery before that.

It would only be 4-5 years if you only had one child - many/most people have overlapping children though?

@HJA87mayne your kids could play independently but mine just wanted me to do every single thing with them. They had an entire playroom of toys and garden but wanted every second of me. They both went early on to school and absolutely thrived. And they were learning at the same time. I’m not a teacher, have no desire to be and preferred to leave that to actual teachers. And I loved my time. Still don’t feel guilty.

@IVFmumoftwo I’ve got a shocker for you, in many countries kids don’t start school until they’re 7 and in many cases they are at home with a parent until then (or start nursery around age 4). They cope very well and in fact research shows that later start at formal
education results in better outcomes for children.

https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/discussion/school-starting-age-the-evidence

Delaying formal education may lead to better academic and developmental outcomes for some children, particularly in areas like social-emotional learning and reading skills. Studies have shown that children who enter school at six or seven may achieve better educational results and higher levels of well-being compared to those who start earlier. A later start can also reduce inattention and hyperactivity, and improve self-regulation, according to the University of Cambridge research.

Let me guess. You will homeschool so they don't leave you for even longer? I just feel sorry for three year old who have no experience of childcare and then start preschool. I wasn't talking about school anyway. Preschool isn't really school anyway?

Nursery workers are definitely not teachers. It’s a minimum wage, low skill job. Not that babies and toddlers need education so I’m not sure why you think SAHMs need to have teaching skills.

Countries with a higher school starting age all tend to still have some type of childcare options. Especially as in some of those countries, parental leave is generous for both parents and childcare is generously subsidised.

Of course, they also pay the incredibly high taxes that people would likely balk at here. It's just a completely different society with much more equality between parents.