Policy for womens rights to career/work has reduced families choices...

[Howmanyflags]

Gov policy and society has responded to the push for equality/women’s rights over the past 40 yrs by policies that facilitate women to work more hours (such as 30hrs free childcare etc), and one of the consequences has been that dual income families are the norm rather than the exception. The housing market is driven by supply and demand but most critically by affordability. People tend to push to the top of their budget to get the best house they can, so the growth in dual income families correlates with, and has driven the growth in house prices.

Combine that with the cost of living increases, that now means that most families can only afford to survive if both parents are working full time. As retirement age increases and the average age of parents increases, family support is less available- many grandparents are still working, or too old to give the same support commitments in the past. So long childcare hours has become a necessity, not a choice for most, along with the pressure and stress that trying to keep all the plates spinning of full time work, family and a house to run entail.

How many times do we hear how families are struggling- financially and practically- exhausted trying to juggle running a family with 2 full time jobs. In my experience far more than the people grateful that they can chose to both work full time.

What if the money chucked at the poorly implemented 30 hrs of childcare (which means childcare settings run at a loss or have to top up income in other ways), was given to families to have the choice of how best to support their family. It might well be by using it for childcare to enable both parents to progress careers they want to continue/progress, but it would also give people the choice to invest their time and energy in giving their children for a lower stress home, with parents who are able to be more present.

Alongside this there is the exponential rise of children struggling at school, (which will have a big knock on effect on the workforce in the future.) Children need a stable, loving and un-stressed environment to thrive and develop. Has no one wondered whether there is link between the rise of the stress/pressure of 2 full time working parents, the increase in stress at home and kids struggling.

Yes there would be a cost (reduced income tax from parents) by giving families a choice whether they use support for childcare, or to enable them to care for their children, but my bet is it would be small in comparison to the corresponding huge saving in other areas, a marked increase in quality of life and reduction in the crisis in children.

Of course there are other factors- the impact of tech etc, but it seems that policies driven by individual/small group gain, are in fact having a societal detriment in the long term…

The OP has made a very good point.

We (I amongst them) fought for women to have CHOICE,
the choice of having a career, being equal in the workplace, having financial independence, having children or not, staying home with children during their childhood or not, getting married or not plus many other things.
Unfortunately we’ve gone too far the other way - there is no choice anymore.
The state will look after, educate and indoctrinate your child from months old, through schooling and on past university.
Any choice you thought you had of how you raise your children is not in your hands.
It is shocking the number of parents (male and female) who apologise that they stay home and look after their family as if their contribution to raising the next generation is of no consequence.

I am a woman, have 4 kids and have always worked full time, with maternity leaves. I'm glad that option existed for me as i was very acdemic, enjoyed university etc and I wouldn't have been happy staying at home and never having a career ( now i'd be fine with it 🙂). I think choice and flexibility is the key, there's clearly no one size fits all. I do not want to see women being forced back into the home though.

I definitely don’t agree with that - the funding is to provide childcare for early years to support children and enable parents to work. It’s not an additional payment for families. What else do you think the funding should be for?

There has always been a choice and continues to be one today.

@Parker231 - I'm not sure I'd agree that there always is choice. There are plenty of women who actually don't have a choice. I just fundamentally disagree that the 30 hours funding/government policies have made it worse. The group who don't have a choice are those who can't afford to work and therefore have to stay home (and accept the long term vulnerability that offers whether as a single parent or reliance on a sole breadwinner (still usually the man)), not those who would prefer not to work but choose to work because they've set up their lifestyle around having two parents working.

The two income households who theoretically can't afford to scale back are those where they've taken financial decisions based on being one household. They're where both parents are earning decent amounts which means that it doesn't make sense financially to sacrifice one. Being able to afford for both parents to keep working is actually having a choice.

We could just give every family money and let them choose how to spend it but (1) that doesn't allow the government to incentivize work, which is important both for the economy and for individuals long term, (2) complete free reign means that some families will choose to spend it in ways that overall society doesn't think is a good idea (however you measure that) , (3) complete free reign means that some children will definitely suffer because their parents will not put their interests first, (4) why should families (up to what age of child) get money to choose what they do with to be able to live their lives in the way they think best but not childless couples, single people, etc, and (5) there isn't an unlimited money pot and the vast majority of people in the UK are already net recipients of public funds - this would mean even more money being paid out. [Editing to say this para wasn't in response to you Parker!]

I am very glad to be living at a time where I can be equal to my husband and would not support the state supporting SAHPs

Women being able to work and support themselves and their children protects them from abuse. For generations women have suffered silently because they had no option but to put up with bad marriages. They and their children suffered.

Work means power. Work means equality. A household payment from the government is never going to give a woman the same level of autonomy as a paycheck. Women need the power to walk out the door.

yes, we are seeing economic consequences in society to changes in earning patterns. I don’t care. With time, markets will stabilize. Women’s independence is more important.