Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

All under threes should be cared for at home?

162 replies

mrsruffallo · 08/01/2008 11:10

Two varying opinions in a magazine I have read recently;
First by Oliver James
Right now, being a stay at home mum has a lower status than that of a streetsweeper. The current government has pursued policies that encourage more parents of young children to enter the workplace and put demands of their careers before the needs of the children...... There is little question that children under three should be cared for by one person who knows them well. Toddlers need to feel secure that their needs will be met, and that they will be loved later in life. In my view, what we need is a less consumerist society, where both parents do not feel compelled to work during these amazing years. That means rethinking both our workaholism and our materialism.

Second by Joanna Grigg
It would be foolish not to keep your foot in the door re your career: nearly half of all mums will end up as single parents .....part time workers camn be seen as ineffective...working mums feel alienated and undervalued...the bulk of research shows that nursery doesn't harm children, the real issue being that your child feels loved and you don't have to be a sahm for this.

OP posts:
mrsruffallo · 08/01/2008 23:35

Really tired, most sahm would have worked before they had children and will work once their children are at school, so I think unemployable is a silly thing to say.
Monkey trousres- you sound more irate then me, as if you were Mrs James on the verge of divorce...

OP posts:
Monkeytrousers · 08/01/2008 23:45

I am

Twinklemegan · 08/01/2008 23:47

Reallytired - I work too btw doing a similar type of job it seems... I like being independent too, but that's not to say I wouldn't appreciate a bit more financial help if it was on offer since DH can't do his old job now we have DS. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

mrsruffallo · 08/01/2008 23:47

I knew it!!! That commie b'stard, what did he do to you?

OP posts:
BurpyErnie · 09/01/2008 00:04

I want my OWN money but still want to look after my kids. Gone part time make no more money than on benifits but I made it myself. Career doesn't come into it I haven't the time to start one!

berolina · 09/01/2008 00:47

God threads like this make me really miserable. I wish people wouldn't use the phrase 'full-time parents' to mean SAHMs. I was a WOHM and I will be again (albeit PT, thank goodness) after my short year of mat leave, out of necessity, I was a fecking full-time parent, I tore myself in bloody two giving ds1 as much of me as humanly possible, bf him, doing stuff with him, envying dh who was SAHD (this due to our circumstances at the time). Perhaps I'm prickly, yes I am, I have a very thin skin on this subject. I'm still reeling, several months later, from a friend (actually a very dear one) telling me that WOHM 'aen't mothers'. Present-company-excepted,-some-of-my-best-friends-are-WOHM, of course.

We've started ds1 mornings at nursery at 2.8 an it's right for him now. OK, he is nearly 3. I feel confident enough in the security dh and I have already given him. But ds2 will possibly be going mornings when he's just 2 (and a couple of mornings to a CM at 1). (deending on whether we feel he will cope with nursery. If not, we'll stick with the CM). It is delightful to see how secure ds1 is - from having been ebf, having had one or the other of us at home, frm the way he is, or a combination of all - and I want that for ds2 too. I have an istinctive distrust of Oiver James. But this subject pushes all my Ishoooo buttons at once.

berolina · 09/01/2008 00:48

aren't mothers
(She really did say that, btw)

SSSandy2 · 09/01/2008 09:59

Well that was a really thoughtful charming thing for her to say. Strewth

Think you just have to make your decision about this and once you have decided/ embarked on a course, see how you and the dc are faring. If it's going ok or there is no other realistic option, you just have to steer clear of the whole debate and get on with making the most of whatever you have decided to do.

If I had been at home rather than an ex-pat, I am sure I would have been a WOHM. I had a "good" job here (although let's be honest, I hated it a lot of the time but it was well-paid, high status etc). I was set to go back when dd was 6 months but couldn't organise childcare so in the end, I stayed at home for the full 3 years Erziehungsurlaub and my job was kept open for me.

Much to my amazement (with some hiccups) I found I loved being at home with dd and I wouldn't have missed it for the world and decided not to go back to my job when the 3 years were up, although dd was at kindergarten so I could at least have worked part-time.

So I find it difficult to say what's right. Being a SAHM worked out well for dd and me and in retrospect I'm glad the nursery didn't work out. Longer term I'm not sure if I will regret having moved out of academia and the workforce generally. I hope not though!

policywonk · 09/01/2008 10:09

bero - fair point about full-time parenting, and at your friend.

I think this an emotional issue for all parents (maybe mothers more than dad as a rule?) so we probably all get a bit over-heated (except Quattro of course, who is the soul of rationality).

kerala · 09/01/2008 17:03

my first thought on skimming OP was why Jamie Oliver was interested in this thought he was a chef.

Its such a personal choice. Am loving being a SAHM but appreciate am lucky that I have the choice whether to work or not. And dd being tiny seems so fleeting I want to be around for that. Can go back to work when shes older - yes my career wont be as stellar as it could have been but I figure thats a price worth paying.

And am also a SAHM for selfish reasons as I really enjoy it.

Reallytired · 09/01/2008 22:09

"I want my OWN money but still want to look after my kids. Gone part time make no more money than on benifits but I made it myself. Career doesn't come into it I haven't the time to start one! "

Thats really sad, and I think is short sighted of the governant not to make part time workers significantly better off than those who don't work.

In the long term someone who has a part time job will have a reference from an employer. Even the most menial of part time jobs shows that you can turn up for work on time. It can be a stepping stone to better paid work.

For example I had a job doing part time exam invigulation, this led to a part time IT job and now I have a better IT support job. In someways my job is part time as I have 11 weeks holiday and only get paid 43 weeks a year. (I work 39 weeks a year) When my son is older I will transfer to the private sector and hopefully earn twice as much. I like getting home at 4.30pm and spending the holidays with my son.

Working part time is ideal for those with young children. Its a pity there isn't more done to encourage employers to hire part time workers. It could help the pension crisis as well as helping parents of young children. It is unreasonable to make people work full until 70, but some people might be able to work part time even if they are too old for full time work.

sprogger · 09/01/2008 22:28

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread