Sunday Times article about working women by India Knight.........

[ssd]

Did you read it and if you did what did you think?

FWIW I agree with her, will probably be stoned now.

And not once did India Knight mention fathers.

I agreed with a lot of what she wrote, but what's her solution? A world where only women take on the "sacrifices" of parenting? Where was her demand for fathers to do a bit of sacrificing?

Haven't read the whole thread, but the wraparound service is probably bad news for anyone who works in a school. Our local school operates a breakfast club, starting at 7.30 am. Who runs it? - classroom assistants, learning mentors, teachers, volunteers etc, who all come in at 7 am to set it up, clear it up and they do not get paid a penny.

Read it and yawned a few times

That in itself is a scandal Mercy. The idea that looking after children is so low down the list of priorities that we don't even have to pay for it even when it's not their parents doing it, is so awful. Why do these unpaid people do it? What on earth is in it for them?

Actually agree with what she says, having put DS and DD through private nursery and closing my ears to their screams and crying as I left them. . We took the decision that I would go on a career break and put DD into state nursery when she got to 3, instead of keeping her at this supposedly fab nursery. I worked in a call centre in the evenings instead - hated it, but definitely did the right thing.

Totally agree with earlier posts that childcare is a parental issue, and am fed up that mothers are always targeted - but suspect she'd be jumped on for 'assuming' that all families have 2 parents if she did.

Fairymum, I certainly don't agree that leaving a child in school or nursery for 10 hours a day five times a week is 'too much'. That's the reality for any family where the parent or parents work full-time. I don't see why WOHM parents should be expected to beat themselves up about working to the extent that 'we' all agree it is somehow wrong.

I put my dd in a kennel 5 days a week, almost 10 hours a day ... and I work part time. Someone better take me out and shoot me now.

But I gave up my career for a pt job, am home 2 hours before I pick dd up. This is so I can get all housework, shopping and admin out of the way before I pick dd up and give her the 100% attention she demands in the 3 hours before she goes to bed. Can I repeat - dd gets one-to-one attention from mummy for minimum 3 hours a day - and we co-sleep. I don't have to justify to IK that I feel fine about my arrangement - it keeps me sane and nursery has been the making of dd.

lovecloud - I agree with you, to me it is a no brainer that a preschool child shouldn't be in childcare for 10 hours per day 5 days per week (obviously extenuating circumstances like single parenting). Can't see any logical coherent argument to the contrary.

I also make a distinction between this (not okay)and part time childcare (okay).

Ermmm...sorry!

Why is there this attitude that childcare which is unacceptable for the children of two together parents, is acceptable for the children of lone parents? If it's bad for children who have two parents, why on earth should it be OK for those who have only one? Or has there been some research done, which shows that the children of lone parents do better at nursery, than those with two parents?

Not saying it is 'okay' as a childcare option for single parents - just that they might have 'no choice', whereas I tend to think that a dual parent household has more options.

I haven't read all this thread but IK's comment about dogs made me laugh. I have a childless friend who works FT. She likes the idea of nurseries so much that she puts her dog into Doggy Daycare so that he's not lonely or bored!

Bacause Aloha, it not being okay for lone parents to use nurseries might lead to Lone Parents On Benefits, and as Selfishmothers so enlightened us on the pregnant smoking thread, they are even more evil than Ten Hour Kennel Toddler Mothers!

It's years since I've read India Knight and it's good to know she hasn't changed. Last time I read an article by her she was waffling on about the joys of being girlie and farting around in high heeled fluffy pink stilletto mules. She's so like the rest of us, I don't think.

The fact is, some of us have the opportunity and desire to be SAHMs. Some of us are lucky enough to be able to work part time without it destroying our careers. And some of us have to, or want to, work full time and maintain our standard of living and sanity. Whichever choice (ha!) we make, we get precious little support from "society" or "the Government", and yet all of the blame. We may just as well accept we can't win and carry on providing happy, loving homes for our children - and ignore ignorant, out-of-touch harpies like India Knight.

handlemecarefully, a dual parent household with more options can still come to the conclusion that fulltime nursery is a better childcare option than others. Because it depends on the child and other family circumstances. No one chooses one form of childcare whether nursery, childminder or nanny and then that is the end of it. If it does not work, then most parents would change it if they had a choice. If fulltime nursery works, then why not? I would also invite you to go to a properly run nursery and decide for yourself how unhappy the children are. I am also sorry to say that there are no "no brainers" in childcare choice.

Surely if you work full time and your child is in nursery full time you can't have much of a connection with your child? I can imagine if I was in this position when it came to the weekend I'd think christ how do I fill the day with them?
It's the equivelant of working in an office (or wherever) for an hour in the mornings and an hour at night for 5 days a week, then thinking you know the job well.Then trying to pack 5 days worth of work and time into the weekend.
we're living on well below average wages so I can be at home and it can be boring and monotonous but to anyone who is working to fund a lifestyle they think they need, remember it's only for your childs first 5 years, once they are at school they become so independant and mature so quickly, the 5 years being skint and losing a bit of a step on the career ladder is so worth it.

ssd - you just try getting back on that career ladder after 5 years off it.

SSD - while I agree that some mothers (and I assume we're only talking about the mothers) do work to fund a 'lifestyle' as you put it, I think it's grossly unfair to make such a sweeping statement. I have a wonderfully contented happy, inquisitive, loving little boy, with whom both DH and I have a wonderful connection. Yes, I work full time, but this is in order to be able to provide DS and his future sibling with the education and comforts which I would like them to grow up with. The only person who suffers in our current situation is me, who is juggling, like so many others, being a perfect mother, wife, homemaker, professional etc, and I am happy to bear the burden of this, and that is MY choice, but comments like yours certainly don't help.

Some of the posts on this thread belong in the dark ages. And it astonishes me to think this is the same forum which recently debated are you a feminist?

Are we holding ourselves back?

Furthermore, my almost 3 year old is most certainly very happy spending the day with her nanny. If I was to give up or even reduce my work, it would be fulfill a need of MINE not HERS.

Message withdrawn

ssd, my dd goes to fulltime nursery and I can hand on heart say I know my child the best - better than any nursery carer who spends 10 hours with her a day. Why? Because I clear the decks to spend 3 hours with her before bedtime of solid one-to-one attention - not because I feel guilty, but because those are her needs when she is at home with me. Because I am her mother and I find her the most interesting person in the world. And yes, at weekends, I sometimes do wonder what to do with her (who doesn't??) but hey, we chill, watch skaters, go to the park, go to cafes. I can put up with her moods and tantrums because I have taken care of myself and my needs - this is so that I meet her needs when I am with her.

At nursery, it is not about one-to-one attention. Dd does not demand the same attention from carers because she is happily playing with her friends. That is what nursery is for. When she comes home, she becomes my baby.

I have taken the route of I'mafairy's choice. We are putting aside for dd's education and future. Of course, I am not saying it is for everyone. But it works for my family. And wordsmith, I agree with you about career breaks.

SSD, I think a lot of SAHMS feel they have to have something to show for staying at home. Afterall, it must be hard to look at other mothers who manage to work fulltime, earn good money, have a pension, use their education and fulfill they worklife ambitions AND bring up just as happy confident healthy children as yourself. The happy healthy children you only thought you could have if you gave up work.
The truth is that there are happy and unhappy children and parents on both sides of the fence and what is important is that people have a real choice.

But we can't have it all. Somethings got to give and it's either time with your child when they are young or time at your career. You can't pick up after 5 year career break easily nor can you ever get the time back with a young child.

SSD, that's rubbish. You obviously don't have experience of working full-time with a child, so how would you know what connection full-time workers have? Your post is extremely rude. Shame on you for assuming you have the right to condemn parents for something you obviously know nothing about.

SSD, you are talking about your own need. Not necessarily what is best for your child.