Parents who don't know what children are for

[emkana]

\link{http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-2168664,00.html\I must say I agree with her}

'Super' Mine might give it a miss in favour of a home life

Ok, so in the land where I live which is called South East England, how the fuck are we to survive if both of us don't work.

If we asked the council for a house they would laugh us outta the room.

We are older, 37 & 50, but if we were youngsters having our first baby, the answer would be the same.

Years ago, all couples got a place from the council to start off with. Some bought em, some didn't, but everyone was given a place. Now, you have to be part of a different group to get one, you might be a single mom, a lesbian, from another country, an asylum seeker, homosexual/drug dealer/on the sick. You will get one if you push.

Unfortunately that doesn't leave alot for the rest of humanity, so they have to work and work and save up for a ridiculous deposit on a home. Well how the hell are these people going to be able to afford childcare. I am paying 500.00 pounds per month, which to me is a second mortgage, but I cannot consider having another child as I don't think it would be fair to move to a rubbish area, and let our first child suffer. I do not live in a posh area. It's half decent. Thats it. I cannot afford to have another child and care for it accordingly...... it's a very sad indictment that I have to say this.

Sorry, but my post was about the lack of people having children in this country.

It's not compulsory - so kids can go home as usual & arrive at school at the usual start time. If parents work though they can have the option of kids arriving from 7.30 & leaving anytime from schoolend to 6pm. Plus parents who don't work can use the childcare if they need to on a one off basis.

It's popular for the homework facility - as for one hour the older ones do their homework - all checked that is completed plus any probs with work the supervisor will help.

It does work really well - & the kids that stay everyday do actually enjoy being in the school. It will give parents more choice. I'm a sahm but have friends that work & it helps them so much to use childcare at school.

I agree with alot of the article, the thought of children doing a ten and a half hour day at school is lets face it many adults don't spend that amount of time in the work place (and yes I know some do)

ucm - where I am across the channel - childcare at school before & after costs generally 1 euro per hour for a max of 5 euro per day. It starts from age 2.5yrs. The childminders, regulated by the locality, cost 25 euro if no money off can be given this is from 16 weeks of age until 2.5yrs.

I don't know how people an afford childcare in the uk - it's so expensive. Not saying that childminders should have small salaries though - just that something needs to be done to help parents who work & also to ensure proper pay for childcarers iyswim.

10 hours a day at 2.5 years? I find that a very daunting idea, personally.

I know my rant didn't fit in with this, but another thing, if a child is being bullied at school, then prolonging their agony is surely not right.

When pray tell will parents and children actually have a relationship amongst all this school childcare? It's a good for cheap childcare but is it really good for families???

My DS only goes to childcare from 8 - 4, it's long enough but I work nights so that he doesn't have to go any longer. The thought of him being at my CMs for a whole day 7-7 is disgusting. I have turned down a promotion in order to stay on nights, much to the laughter of my fellow (all men) colleagues. Whats the point of earning more money if you can't see your (in my case one) child.

The whole thing stinks to me.

Greensleeves - I've not done this but other parents do. The staff who look after the kids are lovely so this helps. They have a room for a sleep after lunch time with their own bed that they keep with their own covers & cuddly toy. SAves them going from one person to the next - although childminders do a great job - just that this is another option.
ucm - a good question - would need to be addressed.

what really pisses me off, I am not doing it to live like a king. We can't afford holidays, I shop in charity shops. I also go to the supermarkets that sell the cheapest stuff. I have a waitrose near me, but travel to Asda as I can't afford Waitrose.

So why are myself & my DH working, Gawd knows??? Someone please tell me where I am going wrong!!!!

what really pisses me off, I am not doing it to live like a king. We can't afford holidays, I shop in charity shops. I also go to the supermarkets that sell the cheapest stuff. I have a waitrose near me, but travel to Asda as I can't afford Waitrose.

So why are myself & my DH working, Gawd knows??? Someone please tell me where I am going wrong!!!!

The more wrap around care that is provided by schools the more pressure parents will be put under by employers to work longer hours, a downward spiral IMO. There are so many social problems already in britain today, I feel this further fragmentation and breakdown in family life will cause the social problems to esculate further.

My children get up at 7.30 and are asleep in bed again at 7pm. If they were in "wraparound care" they might as well be in a children's home. Albeit a very nice and well-run children's home. I find it very worrying indeed. Not least because I hadn't seen myself being a SAHM for the rest of my life and it's starting to dawn on me that I might not have much choice, because I'm not happy to have my children brought up entirely by paid carers.

ucm - I'm a sahm but here lots of parents have to both work. A friend of mine is at a supermarket and she start just before school starts so uses the childcare. If the care wasn't available she wouldn't have her job. Others start at 9.00 or after midday but finish at 4.30 or 5 - in this system their kids stay in one place after school. I've not heard any parent complain about the after school care.

Reading what you write is it that you want parents to stay at home & not work or to work to fit in with school hours? Here many parents who work are greatly helped by the homework that is finished by 5pm - means when they pick their kids up they are free as a family to enjoy the evening. The little ones have a good nap after lunch as well.

I think this article as well as the survey which came out this week is crap. If you read Minette's columns on a weekly basis, you'll soon find that however you live your life is wrong and you are contributing to society's social breakdown. Best ignored.

I want parents to have the choice. And not be berated for the choices they make.

Whilst I see that schools becoming more central in the community is a good thing, I just don't see that this government will achieve the extended schools 'model' that they are hoping for. The funding isn't enough and headteachers in general don't want to have to manage it.

Wouldn't a 35 hour working week for the adults be more sensible and work out cheaper overall that keeping children in school for 50 hours a week?

I am surprised the Sunday Times would print such utter crap. I can write that too - just cut-and-paste daily mail and other horror stories of parenting, extend that stereotype to ALL parents, expound on the evils of childcare and warp around care - viola. Ready-made article designed to make grumpy old men (and judgmental women) very happy. Waste of time.

I am fairly new to mn but have to say I agree with UCM. I am 27 and my Dh and I have a 2 year old son. We both work, not through choice but through neccesity. Leaving my gorgeous son in childcare was the single hardest thing I have ever had to do, and these 'oh so helpful' articles that keep springing up criticizing everything we do only adds to this incrediby difficult situation. I try my best to be a good mum to my son, I feed him healthy meals (home cooked, Macdonalds is a rare treat) he has the well advocated bath story bed routine, we spend our evenings and weekends reading books, feeing the ducks, going to the park, swimming, painting etc, and the result is a lovely boy who couldn't be more loved and 2 parents who, whilst they don't begrudge a second of the time they spend with him are pretty much shattered most of the time. There is no incentive for the traditional family unit anymore, I love my dh dearly but sometimes I feel envious of my single mum friends (and before anyone starts getting defensive this is not a dig at single mums - I can't imagine how hard it is) who have the option to stay at home. i am not saying they have loads of money or anything but then neither do we, but what they do have is the choice to stay at home with their babies. We tried for a council house and was actually told by staff that if I was on my own 'they may be able to do something for me'. I am just a married mum, trying to do my best by the family I adore.

I have resisted opening this thread - or reading the article, and now having nothing at all to say excvept what an utterly stupid article.

There isn't even any suggetsion in anything she quotes to suggest that ANYBODY who has children finds them a nuisance a or a staus symbol!

Most of these derided older mothers (it is ME this article talks of) have been keen, possibly desparate, for years to have children, but right partner, especially now that men have a much greater say in whether children will be born or not, is a huge factor. To be then told that they 'don't know what to do with them' and they are somehow uniquily guilty of things that an entire generation does to a greater extent then the last, is smug and mysoginistic to a degree that makes me feel quite murderous.

Agree wholeheartedly Blu

As soon as I saw it was Minette Marrin I just closed the link again. She is just out to provoke and make other women feel wretched about their circumstances, regardless of their having chosen them. As UCM says, what are ordinary workers (not overpaid Times journalists) living in SE England supposed to DO about surviving on one income...especially if they both work in the HE sector?