Cost of living out of control

[Ev01]

Do you think more women return to work because they are forced to or because they choose to? From friends and women I speak to, I feel like the right to mother your own child is generally becoming something for the well off as the cost of living is now so high. My mum and my nan were full time mums and I assumed I would be, but I fell in love with a teacher whose wages only cover the mortgage, not the food and heating bills, so like others (most?) I had to return to work to cover the basics. Angry at the government for going on about getting mums for toddlers back to work or more nursery places, when it feels no one is fighting for the right to mother your own child by sorting the cost of living out. Does the government not think the role of a mother is important? Aren't we beginning to shove babies into institutions so mum's can help grow the economy by paying for ever increasing living costs? Would love a campaign to join as it feels so wrong putting a child under one into a nursery.

Yes, I believe women have both more right and shock horror! more responsibility towards the child because only women can conceive, carry, birth and lactate. Quite rightly women have reproductive rights, (no thanks to men)for this reason. If women are permitted to decide whether or not to have children we as a society could do more to respect her rights and to facilitate and respect the most socially important undertaking within society.

Instead we allow wages to decline and restrict choice, we undermine both mothering and parenting by extending and creating welfare needs such as nursery and tax credits to pay for it.

mini it does. But the point isn't that 'many women go to work because one wage is not sufficient:' I went back because I was a highly trained professional, thanks. The point is that society and the government doesn't recognise the fact that both parents should be given some opportunity to participate both in the workplace and in family life. But as you've pointed out, quite apart from this, the standard of living achievable on one salary has dropped considerably in our lifetimes.

I think some of the problem is that when you frame the argument that "women" need child care and subsidize childcare through welfare systems you make a distinction between women of different classes.

Surely a far better way of giving women choice can be met with just two very simple things, better wages and free childcare. Because childcare is for children, women don't need looking after! and a women's need, choice or ability to go to work shouldn't rest with either the husbands wage or with the state that makes a binary economic & class distinction between those who have choice and those that don't.

In other words i agree that in many cases both patents need to work; it's just that I think it's not a case of the woman needing to go out to work in addition to the husband; both have a right and responsibility to care for their children, I don't agree that women bear a greater responsibility at all. And here's news: you can lactate and - shock horror - work!

Precisely. But please don't see this as a women's issue. It's actually a family one because children have fathers too.

There is a school of thought that says that this is the result of the way the baby boomers have set society up (alongside high house prices, loss of child benefit lack of means testing of fuel allowance etc etc)

There is another school of thought that blames women's lib. Of course once one family has 2 salaries then we all need 2

I don't think a father should have less rights or less responsibility to a child. It should be equal. It should also be a viable choice if the father decides to reduce hours (or SAH) to look after the kids. But this is not true in today's culture. Most people see it as the women's job even if she actually earns more than her DH.

I also don't think we should provide free childcare. Who is going to pay for it? There is already a lack of fund in our public pot. It should go to people who needs it more. For example help for SN children, the elderly, the sick, etc.

I don't think the state considers children to be important thought does it?

This is a new realisation for me, first time I've said it and I agree with myself now it's out there!

I wouldn't be working at the moment if I didn't have to. I would be happily studying. Instead I am doing both

I don't know many families that can afford to have one parent not working at all.

yy to free childcare.

When some men hop off leaving us holding the baby we find that the state, an institution of the patriarchy will begrudgingly means test our income and decide if you are poor enough to receive help with childcare costs. Of course the costs are met, the benefit forthcoming, not because women should have the right to support her family and work but because it's seen as cheaper and better use of her labour, ie she shouldn't have the right extended to her that say a divorced middle class women should have. It would still be more egalitarian to provide childcare for children and better wages/conditions for women and men.

I think the principle that a woman should have more rights to a child just because you have a vagina is an incredibly dangerous one. One which if you extend the principle undermines the whole principle of sexual equality between men & women.

How can you seriously demand equality yet at the same time have additional rights based purely on the fact of your sex? Doesn't that completely undermine the very definition of the word?

Personally I think SouthWest's last paragraph are probably nearer the truth. Once a critical mass of families have 2 incomes then the law of supply & demand kicks in and prices go up. Same thing happened when tax credits came in. More people with more money chasing the same goods/services means that prices inevitably go up.

cog I can only speak for myself and my family of course, but I know dh would like to be around more and therefore parent as he would wish to, not the way he has to due to time constraints. He tries his best but he leaves the house before 7am and gets back anytime between 5-6pm. He also has to travel more than he used to. He does lots with them (takes them biking, gardening, building in the back garden etc) but I know he would love to go to more school plays/events/assemblies...he gets to parents evenings and tries to get to sports day but its difficult and actually I do feel guilty at times that I get to see the plays, go to the assemblies, the church services etc and he doesnt.

He does miss out in that respect, but then of course, by the same token I miss out on adult company, having a lunch hour and being able to go to the loo when I need to!

One thing he is glad to have not done is the whole settling into pre school horror...he has seen the state I get in and is (secretly) glad that I have do it.

As I said upthread, parenting is about sacrifice IMO and in a good/healthy relationship both mothers and fathers should make sacrifices and - honestly - I think most do.

I was wondering in the future when we all have to work till we are 70, who is going to watch the kids then, many younger grandparents currently provide free childcare that source of childcare is going to dry up?

Its a grim thought isnt it?

But we won't be all working till 70 despite what the state says. Who's going to employ the majority of the elderly? There are only so many B&Q can employ. It is very grim as far as I can see.

My mum who was in her 70s when my DDs were born used to say I hate going shopping an seeing old people using a buggy instead of a zimmer!

OneLittleBabyTerror you have a point, right who is joining my design group for the multifunction zimmer,buggy,comode so that all the old yins can be gainfully employed until they drop dead

OP I don't understand how a teacher's wage only covers the mortgage?! Your mortgage is too big, quite frankly, if that is the case.

I do think, if people think it's hard juggling childcare and work, now, a lot of women are going to find it worse in the future for the very reason that an awful lot of women are relying on nearby parents to help make it possible for them to go back to work and not spend their entire earnings on childcare, and with retirement ages creeping up (at a particularly rapid pace for women) there will be fewer available grandparents to help out. I know quite a few women who are only happy with their current arrangements because they feel safe and secure trusting their children to their own parents, but far more stressed by the thought of childminders, nurseries or nannies. I also agree that the current status quo has favoured women pursuing high powered and/or interesting careers who might well now have a choice whether or not to continue working, but not women in less well paid work or less interesting work who don't necessarily have any incentive whatsoever to go back to work after childbirth except for economic necessity (and given that there are now so many households bringing in two incomes, it almost certainly is viewed as an economic necessity for more women than it used to be).

I do also think that there is a lot more pressure now on women to go back to paid work whether they want to or have to or not, as there is less respect for the idea that a woman should actually want to stay at home to care for the house, garden, pets, domestic finances, day-to-day living arrangements and administration, be available to volunteer help in the local community in a big time-commitment sort of way and/or care for her children full time. You have to be quite thick skinned and confident in your choices generally to be able to ignore other peoples' judgments and to be very lucky to have the choices. And you do need to be aware that you are in a more vulnerable position if anything goes wrong with the main wage earner's career, or the relationship breaks up - but to argue that this means you are a fool to take the risk is as silly as saying you should never take risks in business. Life is all about weighing up risk and making decisions that you think are for the best and worth taking at the time, based on your own risk assessment. On that basis, I would say there is a huge lack of respect for women that can and do make the choice to "stay at home" and carve out a fulfilling role for themselves in that way.

Many times I see a thread on mumsnet on SHAM, it said they look after the domestics finances. I'm curious actually how many hours do you do this? I have all my bills on direct debit, so I reckon it's less than an hour a month. Do you all still write cheques?

I don't do the finances,onelittlebaby.

I am far too busy swanning about, doing lunch and spending my DH's hard earned

Oh, and I'm sure you writing SHAM was in error? After all, people perfectly happy and secure with their own choices are seldom so fucking rude about other people's, no?

A little bit of condescension, why? does that prove that women who choose to stay at home are less respected, esp by working mothers.

Maybe, OneLittleBabyTerror, you have enough money just to shove everything onto direct debit and not look for the best deal or save up for anything, or worry about how you will cover all your costs in a particular month, particularly if your partner's income is not a fixed amount each month, or look at the price of food before you decide what to buy, but not everyone has a life like that. Some people actually have to keep all their receipts and those of their partner and go through their finances carefully.