Bay 3 months chucked into FULL time nursery

lazer

Person_one wrote: »

You know, when people disagree with you, it doesn't have to mean you've 'hit a raw nerve', it usually just means they think you're wrong.

Thorsoak is spot on by the way, there was never any 'golden age' where every mum happily stayed at home baking with the children and every dad came home for tea on the table at 6pm. Not outside of American TV anyway.

When i was growing up in the early 80's and 90's almost all of my friends mums were sahm's, some worked from home or part time (Sewing from home, cleaning, caring and jobs that we would see as traditionally female jobs). Most had worked before having children and many returned to work as we children grew up (my mum went out to work again when I was 17).

TBH - I do see it a golden childhood - 2 months in the summer, running around visiting my cousins, extended impromtu holidays with them, days out, random visits etc, and I rememeber coming home from school to the smell of home cooked pancakes or soda bread. (Although it wasn't all the time).

I remember my mum being there tucking me in when I was sick, picking me up from school and various other things that she could only do as she was a SAHM.

However, this would not be the same today, as the majority of parents aren't stay at home - so the same freedon wouldn't exist, and the things to do would be more limited.

In saying that none of my friends (or very few of them anyway) had foreign holidays or any mod cons (Games consoles, designer trainers, their own bedroom etc - so it was a case of being a SAHM came with being a low income family)

This is the way i was brought up, and ideally the way I want my children to be brought up - but it is up to everyone to decide how to bring up their own family - there is generally no right or wrong

j.e.j.

FBaby wrote: »

If you re-read the first page, all that responded as to why they supported the decision of putting a baby in childcare mentioned doing so because of not being able to afford not to. Nothing about the right of women to go to work. However, you have post #5 and then #11 which were pointless but to insure they 'hit a nerve'.

post 5 seems ambiguous, post 11 was the OP simply re-iterating their point.

Person_one

lazer wrote: »

When i was growing up in the early 80's and 90's almost all of my friends mums were sahm's, some worked from home or part time (Sewing from home, cleaning, caring and jobs that we would see as traditionally female jobs). Most had worked before having children and many returned to work as we children grew up (my mum went out to work again when I was 17).

TBH - I do see it a golden childhood - 2 months in the summer, running around visiting my cousins, extended impromtu holidays with them, days out, random visits etc, and I rememeber coming home from school to the smell of home cooked pancakes or soda bread. (Although it wasn't all the time).

I remember my mum being there tucking me in when I was sick, picking me up from school and various other things that she could only do as she was a SAHM.

However, this would not be the same today, as the majority of parents aren't stay at home - so the same freedon wouldn't exist, and the things to do would be more limited.

In saying that none of my friends (or very few of them anyway) had foreign holidays or any mod cons (Games consoles, designer trainers, their own bedroom etc - so it was a case of being a SAHM came with being a low income family)

This is the way i was brought up, and ideally the way I want my children to be brought up - but it is up to everyone to decide how to bring up their own family - there is generally no right or wrong

You make your own choices based on what works for you and your family, there are no absolute right or wrongs here.

I was also brought up in the 80s/90s though and my mum worked part time at first and then full time as we were a bit older, so did some of my friends mums. Some stayed at home too, some have never worked and are still housewives long after the children have left.

I didn't say it never happened, I said there was no golden age when it was universal and standard for mums to stay at home, as some people seem to think there was. While your mum was tucking you in mine was doing a twilight shift in a factory, and my dad read to us before bed instead.

FBaby

post 5 is fantasy. Working parents don't 'dump' their kids any more than non-working parents. Post 11 is nonsense. Both bring nothing to the discussion.

thorsoak

You have also to look at the socio-economic climate when one compares child-rearing. During WWII, it was essential for women to be in the workforce, in order to release men for the military - so women drove trains and buses, operated cranes in the docks, built armaments, etc etc etc. In order that women could work, nurseries were attached to factories etc - and women who may not have been able to work in the 1930s because of the slump in the late 20s/30s found themselve in the job market.

Just as after the first world war when the armed forces were demobbed, the men wanted to reclaim their jobs and, some might say very coincidentally, a psychologist by the name of Bowlby published his new theories on attachment and maternal deprivation on childen - and of course the nurseries closed down and women were pushed back into the homes - some very reluctantly.

So more mothers were stay at home parents in the late 40s/50s because of socio-economics - and until the raising of feminism in the late 60s and equal opportunities in the 1970s that it has been accepted again that both parent should be able to work.

Person_one

thorsoak wrote: »

So more mothers were stay at home parents in the late 40s/50s because of socio-economics - and until the raising of feminism in the late 60s and equal opportunities in the 1970s that it has been accepted again that both parent should be able to work.

Working class and poorer mothers always worked, even in the fifties and sixties.

j.e.j.

My mum was working class. She didn't go out to work, and that was the 70s. Dad brought home enough money for her to stay home and manage the house while he went out to work.

pesky85

OP - firstly, nursery workers are only "strangers" until you get to know them. Funnily enough you get to know them quite quickly when you see them on a daily basis and they get to know your child very well. Secondly - I despise people that refer to daycare as "someone else bringing your child up". Nursery staff do not bring other parents' children up - parents do! As you worked full time and your wife didn't - would you say that you had no part in bringing them up?! No.

I went back to work full time when my eldest was 24 months and my youngest 6 months. I do apologise most sincerely for not claiming any benefits, for continuing to pay a significant amount of tax, and for selfishly wanting to keep my career alongside being a parent in order to provide bigger and better things for my family.

esmerelda98

pesky85 wrote: »

OP - firstly, nursery workers are only "strangers" until you get to know them. Funnily enough you get to know them quite quickly when you see them on a daily basis and they get to know your child very well. Secondly - I despise people that refer to daycare as "someone else bringing your child up". Nursery staff do not bring other parents' children up - parents do! As you worked full time and your wife didn't - would you say that you had no part in bringing them up?! No.

The main carer clearly has a greater role in the child's upbringing, usually a much greater role, and a much greater influence on the child's behaviour and character.

I went back to work full time when my eldest was 24 months and my youngest 6 months. I do apologise most sincerely for not claiming any benefits, for continuing to pay a significant amount of tax, and for selfishly wanting to keep my career alongside being a parent in order to provide bigger and better things for my family.

The most precious things cannot be bought, bigger doesn't always mean better and not going out to work full-time doesn't necessarily mean claiming benefits. There is part-time work, working flexibly from home, or simply managing on one income, in the case of two-parent family units. I hardly think you went back to work due to a desire to continue to pay 'a significant amount of tax', I rather think it was a desire for those 'bigger and better' THINGS.

Lagoon

esmerelda98 wrote: »

The most precious things cannot be bought, bigger doesn't always mean better and not going out to work full-time doesn't necessarily mean claiming benefits. There is part-time work, working flexibly from home, or simply managing on one income, in the case of two-parent family units. I hardly think you went back to work due to a desire to continue to pay 'a significant amount of tax', I rather think it was a desire for those 'bigger and better' THINGS.

What if you're not aiming for 'bigger and better' things, and just want the basics?

OH and I are planning to TTC, and waiting a maximum of two years in the hope that our financial situation will improve. We could only just manage now, on two salaries, and it would be a struggle. On one salary? Beyond impossible.

Why this idea that people that work whilst having children are putting material belongings ABOVE their children?