Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Stop being grabby and entitled and using false arguments to try to turn your mother into your servants

803 replies

Youlittlenightmare · 15/04/2026 02:58

Posting in AIBU for traction, not because I think I'm wrong - I know I'm right in fact :) But this is where many of the grabby, problematic mumsnetters turn up to have a whinge and make false arguments. So this is for all of you.

And let’s be clear, if you're a grandmother who genuinely loves caring for your grandchildren, good for you. This thread is not for or about you. If your own mother happily provides childcare and truly enjoys it, lovely. This thread is not or or about you either.

This is about dismantling a stubborn and deeply illogical belief that if a grandmother declines the burden of childcare, she somehow forfeits the right to see her grandchildren.

No one is owed childcare from their mother. End.

It does not matter whether she had help when raising you, other people’s sacrifices are not items on a balance sheet for you to cash in later. Older women are not public utilities, nor are their remaining years a communal resource to be allocated by their adult children. They are human beings with dignity, autonomy, and the absolute right to say no for any reason whatsoever.

They have already done the work. They raised their children. Their duty is complete.

But what is especially irritating is how often two completely separate things are deliberately conflated with the dreary refrain of “Well then she can’t expect visits from the grandchildren.”

This is a logical failure.

Childcare is work. It is labour intensive, draining, time consuming, and often physically demanding.

A family visit is not work. Bringing your children to see their grandmother, spending time together, sharing conversation and affection, that is family life. It is a relationship, not a work shift.

To collapse those into the same category is a false equivalence.

If you dislike your mother so much that visiting her feels like a burden, like work, then of course you definitely do NOT want her to shoulder the burden of your job of parenting. That would be quite mad, imagine wanting your children under the care of a woman you would prefer never to spend time with.

If seeing her is a chore and you consider it a job then asking her to work for you (generally for free) is absurd.

If she wants to see you more often than you can manage that is QUITE another matter, just see her when you can, like normal people do.

But if you love your mother, you will want to see her because she is family, because you enjoy her company, because relationships exist for their own sake.

That bond is not, and should never be, contingent on whether she performs even more physical labour after decades of already doing exactly that.

These are the three coherent possibilities - you visit your mother with the children because you love her and enjoy being together. Otherwise known as normal family life.

The second possiblity is that you do not want a relationship with your mother, in which case you would neither visit nor expect free labour from her.

The third possiblitiy is that your mother freely chooses to provide childcare, which is her decision alone and not something anyone is entitled to demand nor contingent upon anything else.

What is not logically defensible is weaponising access to grandchildren as punishment because she refused unpaid work. That's coercion dressed up badly in sentiment.

It's not complicated - family connection and visits are a relationship. Childcare is labour. These two concepts are not interchangeable, and one should never be made conditional on the other or compared to the other.

And finally those of you who claim the relationship with her grandchildren will be stronger if an exhausted older women is forced to do your job of parenting - maybe. Maybe not. Nobody has the slightest idea of how kids will feel about their grandparents or parents as they grow up and a lot of grandmothers would gladly relinquish a "closer" relationship with their grandchildren if it meant they could put their exhausted feet up after a lifetime of labour, or go out when they want as they want doing what they want, without first running it past their dictator daughters.

So, all of you who keep trying to confuse what is actually a very simple concept with this nonsense - just stop now.

If you are demanding child care from your mother and trying to couch it in any way as anything she "should" do because "reasons", trying to conflate famly visit with her doing unpaid work that she did for decades already - you're an awful person, and are perpetuating the misogyny of treating women like commodities to be shared.

Stop throwing a tantrum, get on with parenting your own kids and visit your mother, or don't. For many of you, not visiting would be doing her a favour.

I am an older woman who is happy to agree to the intensive labour of free childcare a couple of times a week because I choose to. An older woman who would instantly tell you exactly where to go if you ever asserted your entitlement or attempted to tell me what I "should" do with my own precious, irreplaceable and limited time on this earth. An older woman who will decline childcare if I want to, when I want to and be treated respectfully regardless.

Signed - an older woman who is sick of your entitled bullshit. We see you.

Stop it.

OP posts:
Katypp · 18/04/2026 10:22

Smittenkitchen · 17/04/2026 12:49

Surely people are having kids considerably later, on average. So if they are trying to save to buy after having had kids it is because they haven't been able to get on the housing ladder before then.

It could mean that. But why is the question.
What have they been doing to stop them saving for a deposit when they have relatively few outgoings?
As I have already said, all of my friends prioritised saving for a house pretty much as soon as they started work, often living with parents to do so if possible.
That's why we could afford a small house earlier, which meant by the time we needed a bigger house, we were on the property ladder.
Housing WAS proportinately cheaper then, i would never deny that. But my parents bought one of those shameful semis mentioned upthread on just my dad's salary in 1970, so we were worse off than my parents.
However, I do think the societal and lifestyle expectations play a big part in the problems today.

BlackRowan · 18/04/2026 11:34

ThatFairy · 17/04/2026 21:30

That's crazy ! No I didn't know it was this bad. But I see this a lot people struggling to pay extortionate nursery fees and I do think is the mother really much better off working ?

Well unfortunately if a mother stops working even just for these few years it’s very difficult to get back into the workforce and progress later on, increasing mother’s earnings later in life. This can be something that has a knock on effect on her earnings for the rest of her life. So then a mother is earning much less than a father forever which creates dependency which is not always good, if you know what I mean.

BlackRowan · 18/04/2026 11:36

TheyGrewUp · 17/04/2026 10:42

In 1995 nursery cost me £1200 pcm. So, yes, I think people of my age do understand. Also there were no childcare vouchers available back then. That price btw was for a baby from 4 months to 16 months because mat leave was six months back then and ot was usual to stop working at about 34/5 weeks pg.

Sorry I don’t believe you that it was a standard nursery that cost you £1200 pcm back in 1995. That’s a boarding school cost, so it must have been one special nursery

Vivi0 · 18/04/2026 11:51

BlackRowan · 18/04/2026 11:36

Sorry I don’t believe you that it was a standard nursery that cost you £1200 pcm back in 1995. That’s a boarding school cost, so it must have been one special nursery

I had to Google this.

Fees were between £50-£90 per week, back in 1995.

Just shows that you’ve really got to take what people say on here with a pinch of salt.

Thechaseison71 · 18/04/2026 11:54

Vivi0 · 18/04/2026 11:51

I had to Google this.

Fees were between £50-£90 per week, back in 1995.

Just shows that you’ve really got to take what people say on here with a pinch of salt.

Mine was 125 a week in 91/92. That was full time In baby room in London rhough

Katypp · 18/04/2026 12:56

Vivi0 · 18/04/2026 11:51

I had to Google this.

Fees were between £50-£90 per week, back in 1995.

Just shows that you’ve really got to take what people say on here with a pinch of salt.

I got £70-£180 a week in 1994 when i googled. Sounds more realistic - I know at the time i paid more than private school would have cost.
There wasn't much choice here, so fees were high.

TheyGrewUp · 18/04/2026 13:55

I am sorry people don't believe what we paid in 1995. The figure is entirely true. I'd name the nursery but far too outing. It was in SW London.

Katypp · 18/04/2026 15:39

TheyGrewUp · 18/04/2026 13:55

I am sorry people don't believe what we paid in 1995. The figure is entirely true. I'd name the nursery but far too outing. It was in SW London.

I can believe that in London @TheyGrewUp.
What people are not getting is that there were far fewer nurseries then so less competition over fees.
Apparently £180 in 1994 ie about £450 now, so about the same as today's parents are paying.
But as i have already said, they won't want to know. Any hardship faced by today's young parents is much, much worse than any have ever faced before.
I've even seen a few references recently to families being taxed more than ever, when the complete opposite is true!

Thechaseison71 · 18/04/2026 15:43

TheyGrewUp · 18/04/2026 13:55

I am sorry people don't believe what we paid in 1995. The figure is entirely true. I'd name the nursery but far too outing. It was in SW London.

Why on earth would t be outingt from 31 years ago lol

Focacciaisyum · 18/04/2026 19:55

Thechaseison71 · 18/04/2026 15:43

Why on earth would t be outingt from 31 years ago lol

Edited

Because its not true? I dont believe any nurseries were that much in thise days. And if they ever then they m
must have been user fancy top.notch ones

echt · 18/04/2026 23:46

Vivi0 · 18/04/2026 11:51

I had to Google this.

Fees were between £50-£90 per week, back in 1995.

Just shows that you’ve really got to take what people say on here with a pinch of salt.

That's about right in my experience. £60 pw for childminder. Can't remember the nursery fees exactly but maybe £80 max. Definitely affordable, no sense of being stretched. This was a very good nursery in Dulwich.

I never heard anyone in my circle of acquaintance complaining about fees. None rich that I knew of, though no-one on a low income, either.

I can understand why @TheyGrewUp is concerned about naming their nursery being outing. It depends on how long they've posted under their present username.

TheyGrewUp · 19/04/2026 00:28

I think what people may be forgetting in their disbelief is that the baby was 4 months, as was usual in those days. There was a ratio of 3 babies to one member of staff in the baby room with additional help available at busy times to maintain ratios.

When the children went to toddler nursery, at about 2.5 to 4 for 4 to 5 mornings, I am pretty sure it was more than £1000 a term, so about £100pw for 4/5 three hour sessions.

Under no circs.would a full time place for a 4 month old baby have been £80pw, 8am to 6pm in an SW London and neither would a childminder have been £60pw for a four month old baby.

BlackRowan · 19/04/2026 10:43

TheyGrewUp · 18/04/2026 13:55

I am sorry people don't believe what we paid in 1995. The figure is entirely true. I'd name the nursery but far too outing. It was in SW London.

Some Chelsea nursery with Norland nannies maybe 😂
I am talking about standard nurseries which now cost 2K a month

BlackRowan · 19/04/2026 10:51

Katypp · 18/04/2026 15:39

I can believe that in London @TheyGrewUp.
What people are not getting is that there were far fewer nurseries then so less competition over fees.
Apparently £180 in 1994 ie about £450 now, so about the same as today's parents are paying.
But as i have already said, they won't want to know. Any hardship faced by today's young parents is much, much worse than any have ever faced before.
I've even seen a few references recently to families being taxed more than ever, when the complete opposite is true!

You know why there were far fewer nurseries? Because a lot of women could afford not to work because one income per family was sufficient. Right now this is impossible for most. ESPECIALLY for SW London.

also the OP didn’t say it was £180 back then so equivalent to £460 now.

she said it was £1200 pcm BACK THEN. So £300 pcm BACK THEN. Almost double of you £180

lets also not forget the house prices in SW London in 1995 and now 🙄

BlackRowan · 19/04/2026 10:55

TheyGrewUp · 19/04/2026 00:28

I think what people may be forgetting in their disbelief is that the baby was 4 months, as was usual in those days. There was a ratio of 3 babies to one member of staff in the baby room with additional help available at busy times to maintain ratios.

When the children went to toddler nursery, at about 2.5 to 4 for 4 to 5 mornings, I am pretty sure it was more than £1000 a term, so about £100pw for 4/5 three hour sessions.

Under no circs.would a full time place for a 4 month old baby have been £80pw, 8am to 6pm in an SW London and neither would a childminder have been £60pw for a four month old baby.

1000 a term now, is it 😂😂🤦‍♀️ so not over a 1000 pcm 😂

TheyGrewUp · 19/04/2026 11:02

You clearly have trouble reading. When it was 1200pcm, the baby was 4 months and it was 8-6.

When it was 1000 a term the DC were older than 2.5 and it was for 4 or 5 three hour sessions from 9 to 12.

If you wish to be so dismissive, it's a pity your comprehension skills are so poor.

BlackRowan · 20/04/2026 09:42

TheyGrewUp · 19/04/2026 11:02

You clearly have trouble reading. When it was 1200pcm, the baby was 4 months and it was 8-6.

When it was 1000 a term the DC were older than 2.5 and it was for 4 or 5 three hour sessions from 9 to 12.

If you wish to be so dismissive, it's a pity your comprehension skills are so poor.

Multiple people told you this is not average cost for London back then.
ratios for under 12m and under 2 now are the same btw, nothing unusual about your ratios.
and there are certainly nurseries in London which cost 3-4K a month too, but they are not average standard nurseries. Just like yours wasn’t. Don’t bring some posh nurseries into comparison here.

rainingsnoring · 20/04/2026 12:42

BlackRowan · 19/04/2026 10:51

You know why there were far fewer nurseries? Because a lot of women could afford not to work because one income per family was sufficient. Right now this is impossible for most. ESPECIALLY for SW London.

also the OP didn’t say it was £180 back then so equivalent to £460 now.

she said it was £1200 pcm BACK THEN. So £300 pcm BACK THEN. Almost double of you £180

lets also not forget the house prices in SW London in 1995 and now 🙄

Edited

That's right. House prices in 1995 vs 2025 are never mentioned
The baby room in the most elite nursery in the capital city is used as a false comparison to the average nursery now.
Someone even seems to be trying to pretend the families were taxed more in 1995 compared to 2025! Families had a great time with tax credits in the 1990s. Not many people paid higher band tax then. The percentage is far higher now.

All of these statements are total nonsense.

Everanewbie · 20/04/2026 13:10

TheyGrewUp · 19/04/2026 11:02

You clearly have trouble reading. When it was 1200pcm, the baby was 4 months and it was 8-6.

When it was 1000 a term the DC were older than 2.5 and it was for 4 or 5 three hour sessions from 9 to 12.

If you wish to be so dismissive, it's a pity your comprehension skills are so poor.

You tell this poster that they are being dismissive, but I don't get the impression that you very are open to challenging your own understanding and preconceptions of the economic climate parents and young people are trying to navigate.

Your anecdotes just don't disprove that in 2026 parents face rents/house prices that mean 2 incomes are usually essential, and that childcare for 1 child alone costs the same as a full time entry level job pays, and this was not the case in the 60s, 70s, 80s and even 90s.

Both parents are exhausted and torn with conflicting demands and pressures. Modern private sector jobs will have your on a PIP in a heartbeat as soon as you have an off week, we still want to be great parents and not do screentime, not eat turkey twizzlers and not be judged as rubbish parents. Women that have a night out are spoken of as if they are abandoning their kids, dads that have a game of golf are told they're selfish. No one gets much of a break or chance to scratch their arse.

And therefore help is welcome. If you, or other posters don't want to help, that is your absolute right. But spare the lectures and "back in my day" stuff as back in your day, economic data tells us that at population level you could buy a house and raise a family on a single blue collar wage, and still expect a prosperous retirement from around the age of 60. That is out of reach for all but the very highest earners these days.

TheyGrewUp · 20/04/2026 13:34

@Everanewbie all I am saying is that things weren't as easy in the 80s and 90s as your generation seems ro think they were:

6 months mat leave: 6 weeks at 90%, 12 at SMP, no right to request flexible working, etc. No help with nursery fees and tax rates at 60% for high earners. No working tax credits, no universal credit and the wait fkr a telephone to be installed was 12 weeks.

1981 had the highest level of graduate employment on record and there were barely any graduates. NQT teachers couldn't get jobs. About 7% went into HE.

There was rife sexism, racism and homophobia.

Private rental properties were very very hard to find and a bedsit had an iron bed frame and a primus stove.

My DC, born mid/late 90s were loved and wanted, had efficient disposable nappies, differwentiated between boys and girls.

Those same poor children had the best education money could provide and went to good uni's. One has a PhD but for work in field has had to leave the UK with his wife. The other is a teacher and is earning a lot more on top from tutoring and writng schemes of work for academies. We paid their student loans and they are doing well, in part due to the help and privilege they have had thus far. That help will not extend to providing childcare made impractical by 5500 miles for the one who is overseas. Happily they don't expect childcare. In two/three decades they will benefit from a large inheritance and meanwhile their father and I will implement deeds of variation when our very elderly mothers die, diverting that inheritance directly to the children. The same grandmothers their father and I presently care for and in my case I have taken partial retirement to do so. Our mothers similarly were caring for their parents when our children were born and had their hands full. We were also 100s of miles away because we had had to find work in London.

So yes, you go ahead and accuse me, and my generation, of lack of understanding and selfishness but I know that I have given 110%+ to bolster the futures of my children because I have their best interests at heart. Oh, and yes, my grandchildren's school fees will be fully funded but their unpaid carer I will not be.

Finally, in London, in the 90s, full time quality childcare did cost as much, if not more than an entry level job. It's just that those of us who wanted the best for our children waited until our mid 30s when we had something behind us.

BlackRowan · 20/04/2026 14:07

TheyGrewUp · 20/04/2026 13:34

@Everanewbie all I am saying is that things weren't as easy in the 80s and 90s as your generation seems ro think they were:

6 months mat leave: 6 weeks at 90%, 12 at SMP, no right to request flexible working, etc. No help with nursery fees and tax rates at 60% for high earners. No working tax credits, no universal credit and the wait fkr a telephone to be installed was 12 weeks.

1981 had the highest level of graduate employment on record and there were barely any graduates. NQT teachers couldn't get jobs. About 7% went into HE.

There was rife sexism, racism and homophobia.

Private rental properties were very very hard to find and a bedsit had an iron bed frame and a primus stove.

My DC, born mid/late 90s were loved and wanted, had efficient disposable nappies, differwentiated between boys and girls.

Those same poor children had the best education money could provide and went to good uni's. One has a PhD but for work in field has had to leave the UK with his wife. The other is a teacher and is earning a lot more on top from tutoring and writng schemes of work for academies. We paid their student loans and they are doing well, in part due to the help and privilege they have had thus far. That help will not extend to providing childcare made impractical by 5500 miles for the one who is overseas. Happily they don't expect childcare. In two/three decades they will benefit from a large inheritance and meanwhile their father and I will implement deeds of variation when our very elderly mothers die, diverting that inheritance directly to the children. The same grandmothers their father and I presently care for and in my case I have taken partial retirement to do so. Our mothers similarly were caring for their parents when our children were born and had their hands full. We were also 100s of miles away because we had had to find work in London.

So yes, you go ahead and accuse me, and my generation, of lack of understanding and selfishness but I know that I have given 110%+ to bolster the futures of my children because I have their best interests at heart. Oh, and yes, my grandchildren's school fees will be fully funded but their unpaid carer I will not be.

Finally, in London, in the 90s, full time quality childcare did cost as much, if not more than an entry level job. It's just that those of us who wanted the best for our children waited until our mid 30s when we had something behind us.

Just so you know giving MONEY is not the same as spending time with your grandchildren. You sound like a typical posh grandma droning on about inheritance and private school fees being paid. Good for you and your family. But the true closeness with young children and teenagers is built in everyday moments of interaction outside a formal visit- some of which you clearly consider beneath you as an “unpaid carer”.

also even if economic climate was so so hard you somehow managed to pay multiple private school fees, uni fees, save for large inheritance and for grandchildren private school fees too, just so you know even for people earning over 100K each and living in London it’s now impossible . Even if they are in their 30ies.
it is now a realm of someone making 400-500k as household income

so please spare as this “it was so hard back then”

Everanewbie · 20/04/2026 14:15

I don't accuse your generation, I am taking on some of your generation, a group which you seem to be a part of. You say you chose to wait until your mid thirties; economic reality demands that later generations do this.

It is great that you've covered school fees, and I do actually agree with your stance about regular long term care being expected. But I disagree with your belligerence and minimisation of the current realities. We all have our preconceived ideas coming to a discussion like this based on our own experiences, and I sincerely hope that you are not too put upon with entitlement and this has not damaged relationships. I have a brother and sister in law who have pressured both sides into having 'a day' per week, and I don't like it.

My argument here is not that you must, or even should provide a replacement for paid childcare, or even a regular saturday night. But what I do argue for is an appreciation for how things are now, and gently suggest that some kindness and the odd night, or emergency back up, or just something would be a great help as part of being a caring parent or grandparent, of either sex. Don't attempt to twist my words on this, anything that would be of help to alleviate the time and financial pressure is such a god send. On a macro level (no more personal anecdotes, please!) it is just not the same these days as you had it.

But in terms of tax. I will outline the HRT threshold and how that relates to average earnings.

1985 average salary £8,283. HRT at c. £16,200 - c. double ave wage

1995 average salary £13,000. HRT at c. £24,000 - not far off double ave wage

2025 average salary £39,000. HRT at c. £50,000 - someone on 1.2% of average wage is a HRT payer! 18.1% of UK rax payers pay HRT. I bet that wasn't the case in 1985. So yes, never before in modern times has the working person paid so much tax.

TheyGrewUp · 20/04/2026 14:17

And there you are, presupposing that my children didn't and don't have functional relationships with their grandparents. As I expect to have with my grandchildren.

DD and BF live in London. BF isn't on £100k yet. DH and and I work in London and aren't completely clueless. Many of the children's friends are working SMART, condensing five days into four and having only to pay for three days of childcare. That was not an option thirty years ago.

We may be wealthy now; we weren't when we arrived. Neither did we have anything like the leg up our children have had.

I'm on annual leave today, I see you aren't working either.

BlackRowan · 20/04/2026 14:53

TheyGrewUp · 20/04/2026 14:17

And there you are, presupposing that my children didn't and don't have functional relationships with their grandparents. As I expect to have with my grandchildren.

DD and BF live in London. BF isn't on £100k yet. DH and and I work in London and aren't completely clueless. Many of the children's friends are working SMART, condensing five days into four and having only to pay for three days of childcare. That was not an option thirty years ago.

We may be wealthy now; we weren't when we arrived. Neither did we have anything like the leg up our children have had.

I'm on annual leave today, I see you aren't working either.

That’s the point, back then you could accumulate all this without leg up and help. Right now people who are very very high earners won’t be able to accumulate the same - even if they work hard and earn much more than you in relative terms., unless they have similar leg up and / or were financially able to buy their family homes 20 years ago.

btw not all jobs and careers allow part time or condensing your hours even now, especially highly paid ones

TheyGrewUp · 20/04/2026 15:13

But the point you are missing is that the leg up was available to far fewer people because far fewer parents and grandparents owned their own homes and there was less wealth to trickle down. It's swings and roundabouts. Property prices are likely to significantly correct in the next decade too.

And yes, I am aware that some jobs still cannot be worked flexibly, but many more can nowadays. Much of the NHS problem, particularly at GP level, arises from part-time working.