Bay 3 months chucked into FULL time nursery

Carl31

pesky85 wrote: »

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.

As mentioned, my wife is at home most of the week, we don't claim benefits, we don't have sky TV or holidays either, well havent yet

Do your children want bigger 'things'? Or have you decided that's what you want, so that's what they want? In my experience of raising 4 children, biological and step, over the past 10 years is that the only thing that children really and truly crave is their parents attention, their parents time to play. There's even a viral internet meme about a boy buying his dads time that supports this

Lagoon

esmerelda98 wrote: »

One way or another, money/lifestyle/social status are usually at the root of the reasons why both parents go back to work full time soon after having a child. Even other reasons like stability and wanting to continue being in control, in a round-about way come down to money, and what it means to people to have money.

As regards your situation, if there are two of you, no large debts, no unaffordable mortgage, you realise the basics don't include things like smartphones, sky, fancy holidays, then you must both be on quite low salaries. Has either of you considered training/retraining in order to get a better salary. Shoe-horning a child into this set-up where you are apparently just coping doesn't sound pleasant for any one.

OH would love to retrain, but that costs money. Our salaries are apparently average for the area we live in, also. Still, I don't think it's all about money. Work can be a break from the kids, a chance to continue to nurture your own identity in an adult environment and a chance to raise your children to have witnessed a real work ethic.

Would I carry on working, if I didn't need to financially? Absolutely.

esmerelda98

pesky85 wrote: »

Of course I didn't go back to work just to pay taxes.....

By bigger and better THINGS as you put it, I did not mean material objects or holidays. I actually meant the chance to be debt free, and to invest in our first property so that one day the children would have some sort of inheritance and we could have a family home that we could call our own.

Is it a bad thing that I actually really enjoyed my job, too?!

As it turns out I am now a SAHM. But I can't stand people that judge working mothers, especially those that don't know the facts.

I think you are contradicting yourself. Property is a material object, and while owning property has its advantages, with many in this country it has assumed such a high importance that people saddle themselves themselves with mortgages they struggle to afford.

It could actually be argued that that is making a negative decision about a child's upbringing in order to one day give them part-ownership of a property. Probably at an age when they should really be capable of taking care of themselves.

IMO the best inheritance is a good education and good ideals, and both can be provided in the absence of bucketfuls of money. I don't know where this idea that children don't develop ambition, or a work ethic unless both parents are working outside the home comes from. It was my mother, who worked from home, who pushed us to achieve. My father was the practical example, but my mother undoubtedly was the one who stressed the importance of education, and yes, the benefits of a good education, including the financial benefits.

esmerelda98

lostinrates wrote: »

It's somewhat disheartening you cannot see people would work when money/ status are not the motivator.

What about the uber rich who have more money than they know what to do with yet work? What about those who work incognito andpro bono?

Fwiw, I mentioned in another context that my fil could have retired years ago, He is wealthy and of an age. But he loves his job, with a passion. If he were not getting paid he'd be doing exactly the same thing.

Few are so lucky, but it does show its possible.

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying I don't understand the many reasons people work. Well, I probably don't know all the reasons, but I understand the satisfaction of doing a job well and contributing to society, enjoying the challenges of work, physical, mental, emotional. And there are those who are trying to improve society, in a big way or a small way.

However, I still think that when you have this tiny little helpless child that you chose to bring into the world, when you had notice of its arrival, in many cases a lot of notice, you should be thinking about what is best for that child. That should be the starting point, not your ambitions. You decided that having this child was important to you, and yet you put him/her in full-time childcare from the earliest months of its life. This is where that concept of sacrifice I was talking about comes in. Is it that radical an idea that one parent should make a sacrifice of some sort so that they can bring up this child in those earliest months? I'm not talking about forever, or even medium-term. You wanted the child. They're here. Now it's weekend parenting? Because there'll not be much interaction with that baby in the evenings, they'll be sleeping.

balletshoes

esmerelda98 wrote: »

IMO the best inheritance is a good education and good ideals, and both can be provided in the absence of bucketfuls of money. I don't know where this idea that children don't develop ambition, or a work ethic unless both parents are working outside the home comes from. It was my mother, who worked from home, who pushed us to achieve. My father was the practical example, but
my mother undoubtedly was the one who stressed the importance of education, and yes, the benefits of a good education, including the financial benefits.

I'm the one who does that with my child - and I work.

I agree with others that your own examples from your own childhood will have a bearing on how you raise your own family. My parents both worked, and as children we did too, from the age of around 7 in some of our school holidays (I'm from an agricultural background). Before school age we had childminders while our parents worked - no nurseries then in our area.

I have a strong work ethic, whether that was doing my best at school, or getting a job when I left school and then progressing in the company. Thats what I know, I truly don't remember, as a child, feeling like I was missing out on quality family time with either of my parents, and I think that was mostly because most of the kids I knew also had working parents.

Thats what my daughter knew too before she started school, she was in nursery, with lots of friends who also had working parents. Since she started school, and due to lack of available childcare, I've worked school hours. Thats what works best for our family, but I consider myself lucky that I have an employer who allows that kind of work/life balance.

balletshoes

esmerelda98 wrote: »

You wanted the child. They're here. Now it's weekend parenting? Because there'll not be much interaction with that baby in the evenings, they'll be sleeping.

not with mine - her natural sleep pattern from when she was a tiny baby was from around 9pm or just before every evening .

Lagoon

esmerelda98 wrote: »

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying I don't understand the many reasons people work. Well, I probably don't know all the reasons, but I understand the satisfaction of doing a job well and contributing to society, enjoying the challenges of work, physical, mental, emotional. And there are those who are trying to improve society, in a big way or a small way.

However, I still think that when you have this tiny little helpless child that you chose to bring into the world, when you had notice of its arrival, in many cases a lot of notice. You decided that having this child was important to you, and yet you put him/her in full-time childcare from the earliest months of its life. This is where that concept of sacrifice I was talking about comes in. Is it that radical an idea that one parent should make a sacrifice of some sort so that they can bring up this child in those earliest months. I'm not talking about forever. You wanted the child. They're here. Now it's weekend parenting? Because there'll not be much interaction with that baby in the evenings, they'll be sleeping.

I'm sure ALL parents make sacrifices of 'some sort', but why is childcare seen as such a negative thing? They get a consistent routine, time with others their age, education from an experienced provider, a chance to socialise in a group and an earlier sense of independence that won't make them panic when they're abandoned at the school gates.

The benefits of childcare can happen from a very young age. So can the benefits of being raised entirely by your parents. They're both valid options.

Person_one

esmerelda98 wrote: »

However, I still think that when you have this tiny little helpless child that you chose to bring into the world, when you had notice of its arrival, in many cases a lot of notice, you should be thinking about what is best for that child. That should be the starting point, not your ambitions. You decided that having this child was important to you, and yet you put him/her in full-time childcare from the earliest months of its life. This is where that concept of sacrifice I was talking about comes in. Is it that radical an idea that one parent should make a sacrifice of some sort so that they can bring up this child in those earliest months?

See, you say one parent, but really you mean the mother. All this pressure, all this criticism, all this interference falls on the female parent and hardly ever the male.

Is it any wonder fewer of us are choosing to go down this road at all? Its a complete minefield, whatever you do somebody will call you selfish for it.

lostinrates

esmerelda98 wrote: »

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying I don't understand the many reasons people work. Well, I probably don't know all the reasons, but I understand the satisfaction of doing a job well and contributing to society, enjoying the challenges of work, physical, mental, emotional. And there are those who are trying to improve society, in a big way or a small way.

However, I still think that when you have this tiny little helpless child that you chose to bring into the world, when you had notice of its arrival, in many cases a lot of notice, you should be thinking about what is best for that child. That should be the starting point, not your ambitions. You decided that having this child was important to you, and yet you put him/her in full-time childcare from the earliest months of its life. This is where that concept of sacrifice I was talking about comes in. Is it that radical an idea that one parent should make a sacrifice of some sort so that they can bring up this child in those earliest months? I'm not talking about forever, or even medium-term. You wanted the child. They're here. Now it's weekend parenting? Because there'll not be much interaction with that baby in the evenings, they'll be sleeping.

Ok, that's clearer. But you talk about sacrifice for a baby. What about the sacrifice of one for many.

An extreme example here, but there are people who capture huge swathes of a generation. Nilsson Mandela, sung san suu kyi, people like that. If so done with such motivation behind them were to stay home with a baby when they could potentially make great changes for the many I would say the sacrifice was small, all including their child would benefit.

So, considering that's a fairly remote chance for most of us, where can the line be drawn? I think that in small ways being fulfilled makes the place better. I had a sort of mini revelation watching my hair dresser last week with another customer.. He's not saving people's lives or winning wars, but his customers are devoted to him and were glowing under his atrention and he was obviously feeling rewarded and boosted by the impact he was having on them. what he does is really important TO HIM and to hIS CUSTOmERS. som of his 'ladies' he might be the only person whop touches them. others he might be the only one who tuches them for non medical reasons. I'm never going to argue the vital importance of a hairdresser to anything, but in that moment I saw that his role is more than cutting hair or blowing dry and styling once a week. There must be many jobs like that, normal jobs where some undivided attention and kindness with someone ordinary but good at what they do and interested can bring a lot of joy into someone's life. I'm not sure I think its not valid for someone to want to do that even if I also think child rearing is also pretty unbeatably special.


of course if a mother is genuinely feeling being at home is a sacrifice and that her career is 'sacrificed' ( as opposed to balanced/juggled/reevaluated whatever). then I think the balance might not be right for that family...including the child.

FBaby

However, I still think that when you have this tiny little helpless child that you chose to bring into the world, when you had notice of its arrival, in many cases a lot of notice, you should be thinking about what is best for that child. That should be the starting point, not your ambitions. You decided that having this child was important to you, and yet you put him/her in full-time childcare from the earliest months of its life.

And here it goes again, this assumption that was is best for a baby is forcibly to be spending every moment with their mother. It is ok not to do so with dad, but with mum is inevitably best. This is a one sided-opinion, not a fact. Some mother are wonderful, others are just not so perfect, and most are just good, as are those hard working nursery staff. You just have to read all the threads here from mums towards the end of summer holidays, who are fed up and can't wait for school to start again. It doesn't make them bad mothers to think this way, nor does it hurt the children that they are clearly fed-up with entertaining them 24/7.

In my experience of raising 4 children, biological and step, over the past 10 years is that the only thing that children really and truly crave is their parents attention, their parents time to play.

Well my experience is that kids went a lot more than that. They want to do the activities they friends are doing, they want to go on the school trips their friends are going on, they want to go to their friends' parties, they want to go to farms, parks, fairs, the cinema, football games.... All those things cost money and those kids who miss out on everything are often the ones who feel left out. How many adults wished their parents could afford more? Children are naive and understandably want it all. Their mum and dad at home to spend every minute with them, and enough money to have their own bedroom in a nice house, toys, activities and fun days out. It is usually a balance of these that they appreciate the most.

My kids absolutely love travelling abroad. We regularly talk about previous trips and their memory of things they did when they were little amazes me. They always talk about these memories with clearly much happiness and excitement. That's them, because it is who they are, or because it is the life they've been given? Who knows, but I do know that they don't have regrets that they had a bit less of my time to be able to appreciate these experiences.