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.

I wish it was like the olden days where a man’s wage was enough to suport the whole family

I see this all the time on MN and I think it's a massively naive and simplistic point of view. For one thing, poor women have always worked outside the home. My Grandmother is 90 and she worked in a shop on Saturdays and cleaned offices at night once the kids were in bed. My Grandad worked full time but his wage wasn't enough to support them all. They struggled and although their kids didn't starve they certainly had no savings or money to spare for luxuries, and neither did any of their neighbours or friends. This idea that in the 'good old days' every family had a SAHM and were financially comfortable on one wage is nostalgia for something that didn't exist for many, many people.

That was my case, I think , I would've love waving my frills in London, with a takeaway cappuccino in hand, lunch in Hyde park and never ending culture events in the evening. But I became a mum.

I'm still wildly happy when going to Chelsea to visit an old flat we have in trust which I'm renting. But I visit every few years because my tenants are ok

Why is that ridiculous? If you choose to have a career break to raise a family and you’re able to afford it then feel confident in your decision. Don’t worry what others might or might say/judge.

And speaking of deathbed regrets, wishing one hadn’t worked so hard and spent more time with their families is a big one, for men and women!

Obviously she didn’t mean that anyone was literally suggesting we bring in a law banning mothers from looking after their children, but you knew that.

She presumably meant that mothers who don’t choose to immediately go back to work full-time after minimal
maternity leave are looked down on by certain posters on this thread as stupid, lazy and ignorant (even if they don’t use those words, the implication is as clear as day)… inferring that it’s the duty of every woman to focus on money and independence, and to suppress any maternal instincts which the “evil patriarchy” has manipulated them to feel.

Yes, for every person who wished they spent more time at work (if there are really any at all), 1,000 people will have wished they spent more time with their children and family!

Well, your Grandmother was at home for most of her children’s day…. It’s a far cry from dropping your toddler off a a childminders at 6:30am and returning at 7pm just in time to tuck them into bed.

and it's very similar for some posters on this thread the other way around too. Especially the implication that you don't even raise your child if you work.

What a ridiculous exaggeration.

That's always the case on threads like this.

If a child is in nursery, they are there all day, every day and then are thrown straight into bed without a care in the world of course because working mothers aren't maternal and only care about money.

My cousin's children had breakfast, lunch and tea at nursery, five days a week, so it does happen. Both he and his wife both admitted they could have reduced their hours, but 'enjoyed their holidays' too much. A miserable existence for the kids, and I don't doubt they will regret it later in life.

I do actually know 2 people close to me whose babies are dropped off around 7:30 and picked up at 6. One of them even had an offer from a grandparent to pick the baby earlier on a couple of days but the parents say they want them there for dinner to “get their money’s worth”😬 and despite flexibility and a lot of people WFH, the majority of people work the standard 9-5 so with the added travel time, a lot of babies will be there 8-6. I know that when mine was in nursery, she was always the first one to be picked up at 4.

The vast majority of mothers work part time so even if they work 9-5, most babies aren't going to be in childcare 5 days a week from 7-6.

In my profession, it is very difficult to get anything less than full time (big reason why I left altogether) so maybe that’s why the women I know, work full time. Also in the example I gave above, the child’s mum barely works 2 days (she does the bare minimum 16 hours to qualify for 30 funded hours) yet still keep her child there all day. On that point, I think it actually ridiculous that people only have to work 16 hours to get 30 funded.

What do you mean? All day on just two days doesnt seem all that bad, depending on the age of the baby.

She works 2 days but the child is there all day on 4 days. 30 hours of that is funded.

Add in an hours commute each way and you get pretty close to that!

In mine, until you get to a certain level, part time is fine but after that, it has to be full time but in many ways full time is more flexible as you can WTF, flex your hours and have more control over your diary the higher your level is.

So mine technically go to nursery FT but because I WFH 99% of the time and both me and DH flex our hours, it is incredibly rare that it is 7-6 and it is never 5 full days a week.

Of course it happens, I'm not denying that but on threads like this, it is often thrown around like it's the norm when it simply isn't true. Usually by those who don't even have any personal experience with having a baby in nursery.

Not if you WFH or your commute is far less than an hour or you work part time or flex around the child's other parent.

The majority of mothers who do work, don't even work 5 full days anyway.

How old is the child? I sort of get it, amazing to have two days to yourself! Depends how happy the child is I guess.

Your children won’t remember or care that you were at home

The child is 2 now but has been going 2 days since she turned 9 months. As soon as the 30 hours kicked in they upped it to 4 days. The mum says she cries at drop off sometimes but that’s all I know about her experience there. I think until the child is closer to 3, you won’t really know fully how happy they are due to language limitations. Anyway, the mum says she finds her hard work so wants her in there as much as possible.

I don’t understand the logic of the taxpayer paying for 30 hours where the parent only works 16.

Her mum may find her hard work. Some people do find their children hard work.

There are benefits outside of this for children attending nursery too.

It was introduced to allow parents to work more, to help with child care affordability, and also for child development.

Pretty patronising of the government to imply nursery can do a better job developing a baby than a parent (especially as early as 9 months old). Saying that, I can see how a disinterested parent who finds their child hard work is probably no more optimal for the child’s development than a nursery. I don’t understand however why should that be at a tax payer’s expense while the parents sits at home having two days to themselves.

Are you children never hard work? I don’t believe you.

I can see the value in parents having a break, and in parents being able to work 30hrs without breaking the bank for childcare.

The fact is, most parents aren’t early years educators. Admittedly at 9 months that’s less important, but children who access childcare also access opportunities for learning that in lots of cases they wouldn’t get at home. They also learn vital skills from spending time with their peers.