To feel sad some women are forced to go back to work

[JTT95]

I think it is messed up that these days a lot of women have to go back to work after maternity leave whether they like it or not. It seems like everyone is sending their babies to nursery at 1 or even earlier. I know that some women want to and are happy to go back but there are many women who are heartbroken to leave their babies so young. I wish it was like the olden days where a man’s wage was enough to suport the whole family.

Sorry, why the hell is that 'unfair'?

Having children is very expensive. If you choose to have them, then you have to pay for them. If both parents have to work, so be it. Reproducing doesn't give you special rights.

Absolutely. You should be even more serious about work, if anything. You’re not just supporting yourself any more. Children are expensive.

Dunno which olden days you're referring to @JTT95 but I'm 60 and my mum worked as well as dad.

When was this mythical time?

Why does it only apply to women?

There's a real sense of entitlement from some here.

I suspect in many cases these women simply don't want to work, and the 'heartbreak' over leaving the children is just an excuse.

How would you be unemployed if you have 3 children under 3? That's a full-time job.

My point was that we undervalue/do not value the work women do in the home rearing children and (I don't know if you have a DP, but bear with me) providing the infrastructure that keeps the workforce working. Child bearing, breastfeeding, child rearing, keeping a home running all contribute to the GDP but we don't count them - and it's a) about time we did and b) necessary (along with accommodating women's biology in the economic sphere so that training, qualifications etc can be fitted round childbearing when required) for the full equality of women.

I agree with you! Of course your DC are better off with your input and your socialising of them. Some people are pretty weird!
Glad you have your pensions sorted!

You have a very sad view of a partnership…. In a loving and supportive relationship, both parents make a decision that works for BOTH partners.
If one partner earns enough, then both of them can benefit from one of them staying at home and taking care of all the home and childcare jobs while the other focuses on their career

A person is only unemployed if they are actively looking for paid work.

Also agree that looking after 3 young children IS a hard job, it just happens not to be paid by an employer.

Indeed, it's a privilege we were lucky to have and we have thrown it away. The economy is for the people, not the other way round, and women doing the things they do (and have always done even when working at the mill and on the farm) contribute much to the economy and it is not acknowledged.
Not every woman who goes out to work has a fulfilling job - unless you think stacking shelves in a supermarke is fulfilling. But the world is organised around those women who have good, well-paid, fulfilling jobs, leaving everyone else to cope with running a home, looking after children and doing a full-time job with no help whatsoever - but an imperative to get themselves into the workforce and provide an income for people running private nurseries (that pay other women a low wage to look after our children). God forbid we should value bringing up children to be happy and well-adjusted citizens - there is no profit in that!

The same way I wouldn't be employed because I clean my own house or cook my own food?

I'm employed because I have a career, not because I have children.

Jesus fucking christ.

Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything. People are making decisions based on their circumstances and their needs.

My husband earns enough to support us but I actually like being my own person and having a purpose that extends beyond my own home. And I earn more than him.

You don't consider bringing up children and running a house work, then? Work is only paid work. And you have a career - most working women do not. Perhaps you do not realise the input women's unpaid work (not employment according to you) puts into the economy and keeps it running - it's a considerable chunk of the economy? You might like to read 'Invisible Women' by Caroline Creado Perez - it's enlightening.

Not to the extent of saying I'm employed to look after my own children, cook my own food and clean my own house, no.

I also still bring up my DC, I just work too.

True, apparently we have a big problem with falling birth rates in this country too and I think if more people could manage to stay at home with kids then more would have babies. Having children and then working full time just to hand them to over to someone else when young is not appealing to many. The childcare subsidies are so generous now (and the earning threshold is so low) that I think it wouldn’t actually cost more to support parents to look after their own kids. I don’t really understand why there is childcare funding from 9 months either instead of having the extra 3 months of Mat leave paid.

@SouthLondonMum22 You are employed by an employer who pays you a salary.
Those parents who are not in paid employment can still be working at home and they are not unemployed (as that definition implies that they are actively looking for paid work)!

Who cares if you’re ‘employed’ or not. What matters is what you’re contributing to your family or society.

The only person you should rely on is yourself. All women should have paid employment and a decent pension waiting for them.

If you are implying those people are lazy, they will soon be running back to work. Looking after small children full time (especially multiple) is not for the faint-hearted.

In the olden days people generally lived in smaller houses. Few households ran more than 1 car (if any), foreign holidays weren't the norm for most people. Houses full of gadgets weren't the norm either. Most kids weren't in a million clubs and going on expensive organised fun activities every week from what I remember.

People want the lifestyle and the same amount of leisure time previously afforded by compromise on all of those things I've listed.

You’re right. Maybe next time someone complains about having to go back to work I can share what compromises we made as a family to make this possible.

Who cares what other people would define themselves as?

If a SAHM wants to call herself employed, whatever floats her boat.

But if others wouldn't, who cares?

Really? I mean, I accept that things can have more than one cause, but aren’t some more significant causes likely to be a) a large increase in population and b) in the case of London and the south east, foreign investors buying up central London property?

@WickWood

Of course not everyone goes back to work because they love it, the point of the thread is that its unfair that some women are effectively forced to go back to work, even when they dont want to, because of money.

Why is it “unfair” for a woman to have to work and not a man? And why is this particular discomfort so severe that it requires a woman to stop work?

It is always difficult and upsetting when you first have to leave a small child with a childminder while you are going off to work, particularly if its a job you are not particularly enthusiastic about. It’s a wrench. I remember finding the first few weeks of taking my daughter to childcare painful. But it’s something you get past.

There are many parts of life which suck a bit but which you do because they bring an overall net benefit. Going to the dentist or going for a run on a cold morning are other is other examples. Few people love it in the immediate moment. Most accept that its for the greater good.

Why should there be this particular impetus for women to have to avoid this? Why are men expected to crack on and deal with it but a woman’s “heartbreak” is so significant it merits the man supporting her indefinitely? I totally understand that it sometimes makes sense for people to stop working but why the need for these hugely emotive phrases about something so normal?

Financial incentive should be avaliable for a parent to stay home alongside the 30 hours of nursery care.

True choice for women is about if they can either keep their career or decide to be a home maker.

They should pay each family of under 5's what they would give for 30 hours childcare and let the family decide how they want to spend it. Unfortunately choice isn't their goal, taxes are.

Because people’s opinions and feelings differ. For some it’s normal, for others it’s heartbreaking. It’s not that deep really.