Well, it seems I?m out of step with Mumsnet on this one.
Justine did make a few points that I agree with. But this article seems to be just another voice added to the many to get both parents out to work. Maybe I?ve misunderstood but that?s how it seemed to me.
Why did I find it unsettling and sad.
Because while there are people who need to work to survive, there are lots of people who work to maintain a lifestyle.
I have been in the situation where I was balancing a career, childcare, homelife. I didn?t like the effect it was having on our family. So, after discussions with dh, I gave up my career, we cut back on many things and lived off one income. It was quite a difficult adjustment. Obviously, it?s personal opinion and people make their own choices about the things that are important to them. We decided that it was more important for our family for the children to have a stable, settled home with less ?stuff? than the madness which was juggling everything.
Of course Justine recognises this type of situation to some extent here:
?Of course they wanted to, and recognised the importance of spending some time with their children and when the choice is either a 70-hour working week and a shedload of "bad mother"-related guilt, or being sidelined by their boss?
But then continues with
?, they chose to spend even more time with their children than they originally bargained for.?
As though spending more than an allotted amount of time with your children is something most people would like to avoid.
But this is my biggest bugbear
?and making childcare more affordable - tax deductible would be the obvious place to start.?.
More tax-payer funded non-parental childcare. Perhaps it would be better if all parents received childcare funding as part of the family allowance and then decided which childcare to spend it on.
I get so frustrated, sad and angry with the seeming constant push in this country for our children to be put into childcare at the earliest age possible and the seeming intent to divide families. But what irritates me even more is how people seem to have been conned into believing that this is the best way for families. How is it? More affordable childcare? Families should be supported so that they can care for their own children. We are going along with this idea that it?s okay to need two incomes just to live. The push for more childcare supports that. I don?t know how to reverse the tide but I do think that the way things are going is isolating many children from their families and can?t be good for society as a whole.
Our family made our choice for one parent to work caring for the children. We cut our cloth and lived accordingly. For families where both parents choose to work why should they have their childcare subsidised by gov?t? They make their choice and should get on with it the same as us. In those cases, either all childcare (parental or otherwise) should receive the subsidies or none.
The children being ?marshalled? doesn?t describe my children. For one, we don?t have the money to be taking part in classes here, there and everywhere. They do go out the front door and play with friends.
This part
?So where are we going wrong? I think the concerns of Mumsnetters are a clue. Dads have always been allowed to work long hours and nobody has worried much?
I just don?t understand the relevance of.
And Slightlymadspider,
?LOL at
My four-year-old recently said to me that if he were very rich he'd buy the whole family presents - ........ and I'd be presented with... wait for it... a new computer - because "that's all you do, Mum".?
I don?t find that funny at all, I think it?s sad. The fact you think it?s funny shows how little we actually listen to our children.
I haven?t put this very well, I know, but I think people will get the gist of what I mean. Maybe I?ve made some sweeping generalisations linked to my own personal situation but I think Justine did a similar thing with the article.