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 went back after my first was five months and was quite relieved to! I wasn’t in a high powered role or anything but was happy to talk about anything other than babies (no one else on the office had kids). But after my second I would have been paying to work. My DH was very high earner so I did give it up. Kept my kid going to daycare twice a week though and younger one went after a year. Kept me sane. But I also had my kids in my 40s so had been working for 20 years. I eventually started my own business with the knowledge I didn’t need to rely on the income to feed us.

yep my mum did this in the 80s! Then when we were older worked fulltime. We still didn’t have much money.

I don't think the OP is wishing for a world where it's not socially acceptable for both parents to work, but one where it's not economically necessary for both parents to work.

Obviously in an an ideal world it'd be brilliant if a family could have a decent standard of living on one average salary. This would then mean that where there were two salaries coming in the family would basically be able to afford to live in luxury.

It's obviously never going to be like that, but it'd be nice if it was 😆

I think being a SAHP should be valued by society and recognised and considered by divorce courts.
Unfortunately bringing up children isn't really valued by society and SAHP are criticised and no financial protection. Unless a SAHP has significant assets they are in a very vulnerable financial position if their relationship breaks down.
The financial vulnerability carries on way beyond the point early childhood years, gap in pension contributions , career stalled and so on.
Nb many poorer women did work when having small children years ago , but usually fitted around childcare - cleaning jobs in evening or school dinner ladies bit still weren't financially independent and often stayed in abusive relationships.
But I do agree that parents should have a real choice about whether or not to stay at home and look after young DC, it's a bit sad they so many very young children do such long days in childcare and parents just see them for a couple of hours Mon-Fri and at weekends, so basically they spend more time in childcare than with mum or dad.
But I don't know what the answer is, the cost of being a SAHP, was historically women's independence.

Women should be able to stay at home if they would like to without it harming their future pay prospects and careers. Woman should also be able to go out to work if that’s what they choose to do. Why do we have to be angry about one side of the argument or the other. I’m angry that both options are a bit shit and there isn’t an end in sight.

Also, I resent the pp that said that it’s ‘just staying home with the baby’. As a sahm (by choice - my career was shit and I am fortunate enough to be in a position to do so) I can honestly say this is some of the most relentless work I’ve ever done!

Well I think moving backwards is wrong

moving forwards where men and women can spend more time with their children - if both work 3 or 4 days then the toddler has lots of family and social time

requires people to spend less on housing though

and working class women almost always worked - 1950s perhaps not

I often wonder whether anyone ever considers the societal impact of no professional women in the workplace. Do you really want to return to the days when there were no female doctors, police officers, judges, politicians? Do you think that would lead to a better world for your children??

Sadly, some people think that would be an improvement because women are taking up spaces that would be better filled by cleverer, more capable men.

Totally agree. There are lots of women realising this after being heartbroken leaving their children at home. If you look at social media platforms alot of women are talking about this and trying to live on one wage by being frugal, smaller house, older car etc

Goady title alert

When mine were at primary in the 90s most mums were SAHM

What really bothers me is in the US where women have to go back to work after like 12 weeks. Your body often isn't even recovered by then, it's barbaric!

Personally I think we should get 18 months parental leave for each child - a year is soo young for nursery. My babies went at 1 and only started loving childcare and being excited to see their friends there etc by 18 months. Before then they didn't cry on drop off, but I could tell they preferred days at home

Who is supposed to finance that as a universal benefit?

I think given the situation with the birth rate, we need to be a bit more creative in incentivising people to have more kids.

And - assuming it’s a tax break, the other parent still needs to be working. Given on an average salary you only pay around £4k of tax - the absolute sum of a tax break for this purpose could never be that big anyway.

I’m not sure to what extent UC etc do this at present (if at all?)

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

This is a totally rose-tinted and naive view of the “olden days”.

In reality it was only ever middle class and wealthy women who could choose not to work and its only for a relatively short period of history. Working class women have had to work for most of history.

Oh and when a man’s wage supports the whole family the whole family is entirely dependent on one person for their income and therefore their wellbeing completely depends on his character.

So no thanks. I am a single mother anyway so that was never an option for me but even if I wasn’t I would have been happy to trade a couple of years of going to mother and baby groups for peace of mind, financial security and agency.

The government definitely. We have such a low birthrate and rising child mental health conditions, some of which I'm sure is due to too early childcare.

If it helps kids be happier/less mental health resources needed, it'll probably cost the taxpayer less overall

By "the government" you mean the taxpayer.

My DM went back to work in the 60s. So did MIL.

Why is it a man's job to work to fund the family?

Yeah cos the ‘olden’ days were great for women weren’t they? 🙄

Indeed and one could equally ask why is it the woman’s job to be the primary caregiver, especially when the child is out of the helpless infant stage.

My df earned a low working class wage as an A.O in the ministry, probably well under a quarter of what dh earns now.

My dm was a SAHM most of the time. My siblings, and I were all born in the 80s. We ate well, owned our own home, and had a car . We didn't go abroad or anything, or have designer clothes, and my parents were careful in the sense they did not have debt outside of the mortage. We got a big food shop every week. You could never do this today, the cost of living is MUCH higher imho; middle class for today's times absolutely.

I think it’s fine to wish that one wage was enough to support a family. It’s completely unreasonable to wish that a “man’s” wage was enough to do so.

I’ve raised this on previous threads and the answer is always that men and childless women should do these jobs 🤷🏼‍♀️

Really? That must have been very specific to your area. I was born 1990 and none of my friends or relatives of similar ages had SAHPs. My husband was born early eighties and his Mum was a SAHM and that was very unusual in his circle of friends too, but his Dad was a high earner and travelled a lot for work. When his Dad remarried in the 90s following his Mum’s death his stepmum always worked.