Woman's Hour and childcare expense

[wodalingpengwin]

A woman came on and stated that she was in paid employment despite earning nothing overall due to childcare costs because she loved her job. Cue typically depressing feedback comments from the public asking (always rhetorically, never actually bothered within listening to the answers) why she bothered to work for nothing or have children in the first place.

Is a man ever asked why he bothered having children in the first place if he and the mother of the children are both going to carry on working? Of course not.

Disclaimer: I was busy with tedious women's work and couldn't listen to the entire programme so maybe I missed some more positive contributions from the public, in which case please enlighten me and make me feel better.

It annoys me that, if both parents are working, the childcare costs are usually assumed to be linked to the mother's pay, often giving the appearance that the mother is allegedly "working for nothing".

No you didn't miss anything sadly (although I was also working so only half listening). There was a woman whose email they read out at the end of the programme about how she's spent the last 15 years being a mother to her children (ie not working) and, if a child's mother can't put them first, who will?

That really fucked me off.

urgh, well then I'm glad I missed it.

We had a similar conversation with an Interfering Old Aunt when my son was a baby. (Context: DH brings in 2/3 of the household income, I bring in 1/3 - this is until I finish my qualification, when I will become a beautiful butterfly! And out-earn DH by 2:1 within 2 years.)

Our childcare costs are nearly 1/3 of the household income. She said "Well then, aren't you basically working for nothing?" I said (and I'll admit, I'd planned this) "No, DH is basically working for half pay!" with a sweet smile, adding "It's his contribution, since he couldn't do the pregnancy, labour, or breastfeeding."
That shut her up.

I missed it but even though in short term the costs of child care may outweigh any financial benefit to the family a career gap of just a few years means a cut in salary, loosing out on promotions reduced pension contributions etc so there are long term advantages of remaining in employment.

Having said that I can't understand why parents have children and then handover a good proportion of child care to others, but it seems to me the answer is a more equal sharing of work and child care rather than one parent being the main breadwinner and the other being mainly responsible for child care. That means a shift in working practices, particularly for men. The advantages would be a more equal sharing of pay and child care when as often happens families separate.

It depends on the individual family circumstances. I know of women who work part time and their childcare costs are more expensive than their earnings but it isn't an issue because the childcare costs are a family expense and their husband earns enough to cover the cost.

When the salaries are only just covering the bills it becomes irrelevant whose salary the costs are deducted from. Dh's salary covered the mortgage, utility bills, food and petrol, there wasn't enough to cover childcare therefore it became my responsibility and yes I did use the term "not worth my while working" because that was an accurate reflection of our circumstances.

With hindsight it would have been sensible from the point of my career to continue working for nothing but then you have the issue of what to do when your child is unwell, neither of us was in the position to take unpaid leave and emergency nannies were out of our reach financially.

I am working again, for nothing (literally as I'm newly self-employed), will be using childcare soon and the expense will be my responsibility as again there is nothing left in dh's account once the usual bills are paid.

I think it depends what you want. My Dsis is a teacher and hasn't worked since her first was born 5 years ago - she plans to go back to work soon, but decided on taking 7 years off to have 3 children and enjoy their childhoods, knowing that she would get another job when she went back. She never planned to be a SAHM when her children were in school, but she knew she could put her career on 'hold' for a while and go back in, even if she never made it to Head teacher, it wasn't what she wants.

I am not in the kind of career that has a 'pause' button - I've been on a 7 year training treadmill that cannot be stopped while having DS, and I need to get to a certain place professionally before we can TTC again. I have worked for 10 years to get to this place, professionally, and if I stop now, I lose it all. That's not ideal, but there you go. When you add to that the fact that, because this country doesn't have an NHS, if I don't work then I don't have health insurance, and neither me nor DS can go to the doctor... well, that pretty much made up my mind for me. I went back to work. Sooner than I would have chosen (DS was 6 weeks old, I cried a lot) but in the long term, I always planned to work until I retired, and we can't afford for one parent to stay at home. It takes two incomes to keep our (tiny 2 bed) flat rented and heated, to run our (14 years old) car, and to buy our (cheap, mainly veg) food. Isn't that the way that most people's lives work out? You work so that you have money, not because you love leaving your children at daycare.

However, this "Having said that I can't understand why parents have children and then handover a good proportion of child care to others, " always makes me roll my eyes a bit.
If you send your child to school. you are 'handing over a good proportion of child care to others.' Most people who trot out the "why have kids if you're not going to take care of them?" motto are expecting to hand over a good portion of their child's lives at SOME point, but because it is socially acceptable to do that when the child is 4/5years old, no one in England thinks that is weird. Where I live, it is socially acceptable - and mainly necessary - to do that when the child is 3 months old. (no paid-for maternity leave) - and so no one thinks it is weird.
So much of our expectations about parenting and child care, so much of our "This is wrong! This is right!" is cultural/ geographic.

Thing is children spend a significant proportion of their life in pre school and school and if they are in child care there is little time left for quality parenting during the week. Since the early eighties the numbers of children and adolescents with mental health problems in the UK has almost doubled. Although that might be in part due to better reporting and identification of problems or family breakdown is evidence that insecure attachments with main carers, particularly with very young children is also a factor.

Absolutely blackcurrants. And no one ever says that about men do they? (the 'why bother having children' comment). It's just a societal norm that men have children and work.

Sorry that should be there is evidence....

STIDW - are you really saying that children who are in childcare from a young age are likely to suffer from attachment disorder?

Actually if you read my post what I was suggesting is there should be equal sharing of work and child care.

PattiMayor wrote;

STIDW - are you really saying that children who are in childcare from a young age are likely to suffer from attachment disorder? shock

It depends on the type of child care and whether it is attachment based or not.

What is 'attachment based' childcare?

I am always infuriated with the position that childcare is the responsibility of the mother. I earn nearly 3 x my DH's salary and we have two small children, so if either of us were to give up work, it would make sense if it was him.

However its never "working fathers" who are viewed negatively and there isn't any pressure on fathers - social or otherwise - to give up work to care for children, even when there is no financial advantage to them working after the cost of child care has been taken into account.

Society is more willing to understand the value of work over and above financial gain when it comes to men than it does for women, even though the reasons are the same.

This really ticks me off. Always on this issue the focus is on parenting and parental action in the first five years of life. God willing I will be parenting for the rest of my life and by working and ensuring my career keeps moving I am damn sure that my capacity as a parent for the rest of my life has been enhanced. My pension is better, my mental health is better, my finances and my capacity to support my growing children in their aspirations are better because I've worked. Yes I've paid a lot in childcare - that's what it costs. Even if on paper it looks like I was working to break even I will be much better off long term.
STIDW - that's bollocks actually isn't it. Yes if you leave your child with a sociopath they may turn out odd but not if left in a good quality childcare setting.

Patti, attachment based child care is outlined here;

www.psychologytoday.com/blog/child-myths/200912/group-care-infants-and-toddlers-attachment-issues

Sorry here

www.psychologytoday.com/blog/child-myths/200912/group-care-infants-and-toddlers-attachment-issues

Just read the beginning of that article, it's nothing new. So children get on better when they can form a bond with the person looking after them and teh person expresses affection etc. Well DURR!

So all this actually means is that childcare should be high quality.

Oh right, you mean decent childcare, as opposed to a Romanian orphanage.

Up until last year our nursery used to put the children in boxes and taunt them. I was OK with that TBH as I am a mother and therefore extremely selfish. They are moving away from that now - maybe to do with these groundbreaking studies. I'm not arsed either way as long as I an dump them somewhere. I think my approach is quite typical of mothers these days.

As I am a working mother and therefore coldly selfish during the day, it's my DH who has to take on the main burden of being coldly selfish during the few moments that we actually have DS in the house and awake; because I am too busy reading "101 ways to neglect your child" and eating babies bonbons.

Seriously, though: I have to work, because things cost money. I also have to work because I want to be able to see a doctor, take my son to a doctor, and, y'know, one day be able to send him to university. Also I want to do selfish things like eat and live in a house in my old age, therefore my pension matters. I am actually quite 'attachment' (on the scale of GFord to outright hippy) and can tick all the co-sleeping, babywearing, breastfeeding, baby-led-weaning boxes you can shove at me. While working full time.

We do think young children need to be securely attached to their carers, who are securely attached to them. We also think that doesn't have to be the person from whose vagina they emerged by any law, mantra or dictat. That's why we researched good care options, and why we're so happy with what we use. DS is presently moving from one room to another in his nursery (my big boy!) and they have been 'introducing' him to the carers in the next room over a period of six weeks, so that he is comfortable with the move when it happens next week. Funnily enough, it turns out that childcare professionals are really quite good at it.

Northernlurker wrote;

STIDW - that's bollocks actually isn't it. Yes if you leave your child with a sociopath they may turn out odd but not if left in a good quality childcare setting.

Obviously I don't think it's b*llocks. It's all relative. About 30-40% of toddlers are estimated to have insecure attachments and the prevalence for sociopathy or antisocial personality disorder is 3% for males and 1% for females amongst the general population. In any case nearly all those with severe antisocial personality disorders don't have the opportunity to care for children because they are locked up.

There isn't enough child care that provides continuity of personalised care throughout the pre-school years, in order to develop and sustain a long term secondary attachment bond to an individual carer.

"About 30-40% of toddlers are estimated to have insecure attachments"

Evidence please