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.

Why is it ‘unlikely’? It’s far less unlikely if a woman doesn’t step out of the workforce in the first place and become deskilled.

I love my work. It makes me feel important and valued. I have friends there and time to be “me”. I love my children too but they thrived at their nursery/school.
I don’t feel sad for women that have to go back to work. Earn money, lead by example and show your children a good work ethic and most of all, don’t reply on a man for survival

Because we live in a society where people who are not high earners can not afford to own/rent a house on one income.

Separately women should b able to have a choice on whether they work or not when they have a young child.

Why should only women have that choice?

But they do have a choice. Some women choose to go back to work full-time, others part-time, others not at all. Obviously financial constraints will come into play, but that's the same for everyone. Mothers of young children are not some special species.

Are you proposing that taxpayers subsidise women (but not men?) to sit at home and be economically unproductive for years on end?

@RowanRed90

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, genuinely not understanding

The point I'm making is that for a lot of women there is no choice: they have to work or their children either starve or rely on benefits. And the point about having no choice is that it is a really strong motivator.

Your perspective on this, calling working women "meniage wage slaves" seems to take as its starting point the idea that its non-essential or somehow "performative" for women to have a job.

If you are the sole breadwinner, having a job isn't a "girl boss" pose or a lifestyle choice or a luxury, it's pretty much life or death. And that tends to put a fire under your arse so it makes you work hard. Of course some women breadwinners still remain in fairly low-paid jobs and that's tough and challenging.

But your high-handed "bring back the 1950s" comment implies that all would be well if women just quietly went back to their lanes and accepted that they were just playing at having jobs when their real place is in the home.

Honestly as someone who raised their child single-handedly (out of necessity) I have had to claw my way up the corporate ladder, not for fun but because it puts food on the table and allows me a bit more financial freedom. I find it pretty offensive being told I have a "menial wage slave" job or the idea of people harking back to some Elysian past where I was able to spend most of my day cleaning my kitchen.

Of course not all working mothers have rewarding careers. But their careers (or jobs, if you prefer) are what stands between them and poverty for their children and allow them freedom and agency. At least let us have that dignity.

But had far fewer rights. We're talking about a world in which marital rape wasn't a crime, when women were routinely barred from the workplace or from any opportunity for promotion and advancement, when women could be refused mortgages, bank accounts and credit cards in their own name, where sexual harassment was less recognised or taken seriously. A time when women were economically disadvantaged, made dependent on men and suffered discrimination on the basis of their sex. Why would you want to bring that back?

Separately women should b able to have a choice on whether they work or not when they have a young child.

Do people have any idea how much this would cost in taxation?

It would be lovely if everyone who wanted to could take five years out of the workforce to raise their kids and then have a guaranteed job at the end of it. But the country is already close to bankruptcy with far too many people out of work/economically inactive.

Proposing something like this would be electoral suicide for any political party and if it were implemented it would trigger havoc in what's left of the financial markets of the sort which would make Liz Truss's tax-cutting debacle look like a blip. I guarantee you none (of any political stripe) will mandate this.

Not to mention the incentives - carefully spaced with good fertility, you could have 20-25 years out of work paid for by the taxpayer

Most families in the UK can not afford to live off one wage (man or woman’s) even at a most basic living, I’m saying that they should be able to. Not that it should be funded by anyone. A person shouldn’t have to live with a partner to be able to live independently .

I said women because that’s the basis of the OP and thats what I was responding to.
But yes women in terms of recovery from childbirth, maternal bond and breastfeeding. Either parent aside from that.

I'm explaining to a poster talking about their grandmother taking in ironing in the olden days while her kids played at her feet - which is a completely different thing.

95% of corporate jobs cannot be done WFH with young children in the same way. Yes, you can do them part time but you need some kind of childcare. Even if you are WFH you are probably staring at a screen, on zoom meetings etc. You usually have fixed times you have to be online and can't just bail to take care of a baby crying.

FYI I have a senior corporate job which is "more flexible than the juniors in the company" which in practice means I'm allowed to put a calendar block in from 5-7pm to do the nursery pickup and dinner, and if the baby is sick at nursery I can juggle my calendar a bit to avoid taking a sick day.

Which is great but it's not like because I'm so senior I can just avoid having childcare or that it's comparable to taking in ironing in terms of being able to be responsive immediately to my baby's needs, which is what I think mothers of young children really want.

Some women have freelance jobs which are more flexible and I think we should promote that more as a model.

I didn't mention wfh meaning I thought anyone can work at home while simultaneously doing childcare. It was that you mentioned a commute being part of a corporate career, and that's not always the case. Wfh can reduce the amount of childcare needed because of not needing to factor in travel time - but childcare is of course still required. I say that as someone who works from home most of the time!

And how do you propose they be able to?

We should live In a society where one wage should be able to afford a (basic) home, utilities, food, necessities. In order for that to happen things would have to cost less or wages would need to be higher. Currently two adults on minimum wage would struggle to afford a house.

Again, how do you propose we do that?

You have to completely restructure the way the economy works

which we need to do anyway as continual growth is a stupid concept

in the uk it’s house prices that are the problem and that’s a result of the lack of council housing , which takes the heat out of the private rental market and the private housing market. - because being able to get a secure tenancy for life in a well maintained house cheaply is a great alternative to owning and so owning is less desirable / necessary in that situation

but women have always had to work and it’s not right that women should be expected to stay at home and men go out to work. If everyone could work part time that would be much fairer all round - women shouldn’t just be the ones to benefit from improvements to work life balance

I love my work of raising my young children. It makes me feel important and valued way more than my 200k corporate job ever did. My kids also love being at home with a loving parent rather than in a group setting where they would be one of many.

Many children are cared for one on one by loving grandparents while their loving parents are at work.

DT’s nursery had a ratio for babies of 1:2 - the same they would have got at home .

My last post was in reply to the person who told me I should be at work, not an attack on other people’s childcare choices. I was giving an example of a benefit (of which there are many for us) of my children being at home.

I agree that our economy needs restructuring but it surprises me to find I think that we shouldn’t be encouraging/supporting one parent to stay at home and not work for years at a time. I think our goal should be restructuring the economy for everyone to be productive and contributing in some way to society economically or otherwise as far as they are able. It doesn’t have to be full time, and maybe could involve volunteering instead of paid employment. A more ideal economy would support a better balance of home/work life (4 day week!), more part time roles and affordable housing.

And obviously we should support those that are unable to work, e.g. due to illness or old age.

But I think not working at all for years when you’re capable of it isn’t ideal.

JFC. Who the fuck cares?

@recreatingthephoto does, she said everyone be should be in paid employment

You also care enough to post a reply.

For the love of God. You sound deranged, and thick as a brick. MOTHERS HAVE ALWAYS WORKED FOR MONEY. ALWAYS. ALWAYS. ALWAYS. ALWAYS. Only a tiny minority of very privileged women ever stayed home reliant entirely on a man's money. Educate yourself.

This whole thread is pointless burbling and self congratulatory dribble.

As a privileged woman who stayed home for 7 years with my children before re entering the workforce, let me assure you that you are as transparent as glass, you are very boring and nobody fucking cares. Even the women arguing with you don't really care, they just think you're an obnoxious twit and are slapping you down because of that.

Just get on with it and for God's sake shut up about it.