Teachers speaking out about parents' long working hours

[vestandknickers]

Here.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-27027677

Interesting. I think it is good that this is being raised as an issue.

I am not anti working parents at all, but surely a society that thinks it is ok for children to be at school from 8am to 6pm needs to look at itself.

Hopefully it is still a small minority of children who spend five days a week at school for these hours, but it is good that teachers are speaking out before it becomes seen as an acceptable norm.

Thurlow nobody has said that this is a Women's issue - it is a children's issue and a family issue and a finance issue. This thread is about children spending 8 hours a day in unsuitable childcare, not women.

Funded by the wealthy tax-avoiders, you know, the usual methods used by government to ensure fairness as they see it fitting in with their party's ideology. Our current government seems to favour an individualist approach to social security.

Except horse, implicit in all of this is it is the mothers responsibility to change things.

You can read that into it Grennie if you like but that's not what I imply.

No, it's not that simple. People can dress it up as talking about suitable childcare but really it is about a lot of people criticising parents who make the decision to both work full-time. This is about comments like the OP's that I do think parents who use wrap around childcare and who also have two cars, foreign holidays, a house full of gadgets, eat out regularly etc etc need to look at their priorities. That sort of message comes up time and time again on MN.

Thank you, Grennie. It's always implicit that the mum should stay at home or work p/t. It's repeated time and time again. Men just go back to work when the baby is 2-3w old and that's it, end of debate about what men do apart from complaints that they don't do enough housework.

I do think parents who use wrap around childcare and who also have two cars, foreign holidays, a house full of gadgets, eat out regularly etc etc need to look at their priorities.

Thurlow I stand by that statement and it is why I was pleased to see this debate raised in the media. For me, being a parent is about being there for my children. It is about proving a safe, loving home in which they have the time with me to talk, relax, feel loved, let their hair down and al the other things that we all do within our home but that we cannot do in a more formal setting. I genuinely believe that using childcare, however good, for so many hours a day is not doing the best for your children.

Children don't need gadgets, foreign holidays, designer clothes. They might like them, but they are not essential for raising happy children.

Parents don't need any of those things either. One of the biggest thing about becoming a parent is learning to put your child at the centre of your world and putting their needs first.

These are my views. I stand by them, but am happy to be challenged and it is only my opinion.

Grennie, precisely what Thurlow has said. Why is it the mother who has to be the one to be responsible for societies attitude to childcare?
It comes down to the employer.

We should take an example from France and their socially responsible attitude.

Both parents of children should be granted flexibility, working hours should be reduced.

The immense pressure of a free-market capitalist society does not work for the family.

See, as a parent one of the biggest things for me is also retaining my sense of who I am, and who I have been for the thirty three years before I had my first DC, and staying happy - which as much as my DD is the best thing that has happened to me, includes working. And it includes knowing that I am not counting every penny at the end of the week to see if we can afford to buy an ice cream on the way home from the park, not budgeting our meal plans so tightly because we have a tiny amount to feed ourselves on, all of which would happen if we went down to one salary.

Some people will call that selfish, others won't.

I certainly don't see general criticism (not just on this thread, but in life) aimed at my DP for wanting to continue working f/t in a very challenging, difficult and potentially dangerous job that has knock-on effects on our family life, a job he can very rarely leave when DD is ill. Not one person in RL or online has said, how could he possibly consider doing that job when he has a young child? But plenty of people, in RL and online, have made comments to me, the mum, about returning to a f/t desk job that I can, realistically, dump and run from when DD needs me.

Also who knows what your child's needs are to make them happy? Many kids in childcare adore their childcare. Mine worships her CM and has close friends there. Now, she would be upset if she didn't go back, she would miss the socialising and the being with her friends that I couldn't offer her by being at home. That's just my child, other children will be different, but who can happily say that mum being there all the time is exactly what every child needs?

I could rant much longer. But it comes down to what I have said time and time again on here. Why is wanting some financial security and to continue using the education you worked so hard for considered selfish?

the report says:

"The vast majority (94%) said the main reason for [families spending less time together] is parents working, while 92% blamed the use of technology."

With technology coming such a close second, it is a marvel that both the news article, and this thread, focus so much on working parents/mothers and ignore technology.

why are so many people on such a hair trigger to criticise working parents/mothers?

How is childcare down to the employer? The dc are not the employers children, its up to parents what they choose to do. When you have dc it is up to you to raise them and decide how you are going to do this, irrespective of what employers do.
We have become a society that depends on other people to bend or change to suit us, instead of us bending to suit business.

Grennie this isn't a thread about Mothers, it is a thread about families. Generally as mothers we have stronger feelings about staying at home/not staying at home than men might have, but this 'assumption' that it should be women staying at home is not actually there at all. It's very easy to make that assumption but people on this thread aren't being that simplistic.

I admire your honesty that you prefer a certain lifestyle and identity for yourself and want to retain that as a priority and you know your own family best so you know what the compromises are. For many families that is the best way.

This thread however, is about where people prefer gadgets and lifestyle over the well-being of their children.

Sorry that was for Thurlow not Grennie

The gadgets/lifestyle vs wellbeing of children thing is a false dichot

False dichotomy. It's complete nonsense.

This thread is about the article in the OP. It's not a false dichotomy, this is not a simplistic argument.

God I can't stand it when people try and reduce a thread to some random half-baked conclusion they have come to! So arrogant and patronising.

Horse: I think word factory has already managed to summarise your position very well.

It is a false dichotomy because it's been said several times that this is apparently about those dreadful parents who choose gadgets and lifestyle over their children's wellbeing, which is frankly bollocks and completely ignores the complexity of decision making in families.

To me, it really isn't as simple as saying "we're talking about gadgets, we're talking about families - so we're not talking about mothers."

The two come hand in hand. I've hardly ever seen an argument where it is separated.

Thurlow then it's about time we started to discuss these things WITHOUT making it about mothers, we need the debate to focus on parent and family choice.

Calamitous - False dichotomy + Franky bollocks = simplistic argument.

...parent and family choice and of course childrens choice. The wishes of children are very rarely involved in these discussions. Thankfully a handful of teachers are showing concern about these childrens welfare.

Horse: This thread however, is about where people prefer gadgets and lifestyle over the well-being of their children

You've already grossly simplified any argument yourself, by setting up a false dichotomy between people who value gadgets and lifestyle and those who care about their children's wellbeing. I don't understand how you can fail to see that this is utter bollocks.

What is "lifestyle" anyway? Who gets to decide what counts as choosing a "lifestyle" over the well-being of your DC? What counts as that sort of income?

Is it deciding that you want an income comfortable enough to not have to budget for your food shop?

Is it deciding that you'd like to be able to afford to pay for a hobby or a sports class your child is interested in?

Is it prefering to be able to afford one holiday a year, or to run a car, or to buy new high street clothes, or occasionally pay for a babysitter and go out to dinner?

On one of our incomes we can technically afford to pay the bills and eat. We'd lose the car and have very little spare cash for clothes or emergencies, but we'd not lose the house at least.

On two incomes we can afford the above, though we certainly aren't rich, and we certainly don't have a "lifestyle".

To quote calamity, bandying around the phrase "lifestyle" is utter bollocks. Who on earth decrees that? Is anything that isn't scraping by on the breadline of one salary when there is the potential for two incomes a "lifestyle"?

I can't see how it is a mothers issue. There seem to be plenty of men now who share childcare and working arrangements with their partner.
The report is talking about both parents working, not the mother.
I think it is a cop out to assume it relates to mothers and is another way of skirting the issue, rather than looking at the facts.
I happen to agree with the OP, oh and we are only now after 22 years finally catching up with the latest technology, have never owned a new car, and recently only started to have foreign holidays. Apart from the usual dd for utilities and mortgage have never had credit, if we can't afford it we do without and save up if its that important.
Everybody is different though, you do what works for your family.
Some people have to work for the necessities, some choose to work for the luxuries. Personally, I would feel bad on my children if both me and their dad had worked just for the sake of having a career and luxuries. Because that to me is not putting your children first, but that's just my opinion.

The logical conclusion of the 'lifestyle' argument is that anyone not living off grid a la 1970s Good Life is basically greedy.

Luckily most people have no desire to live like that, which means we have hospitals, schools, clinics, libraries, shops and so on, largely staffed by, you guessed it, women. 150 years ago these were the exception rather than the rule. Think on that before you judge.

If women stopped at home, you could watch all the facilities you take for granted collapse like dominoes, so be very careful what you wish for, Horse. Do you really want to be living in a hovel and boiling up herbs if you get ill? In a country which nationally had a rapidly declining standard of living? Because that's where your argument leads. Even the Amish rely on other people's wives going out to work in order to prop up their so-called lifestyle. (aka Way of Life).