Bay 3 months chucked into FULL time nursery

Bangton

j.e.j you astound me! You can't be female surely...a woman doesn't have a right to a career?! A right to be self sufficient in her own right if she so chooses?

Babies aren't babies forever...they do go to school eventually..full time. What does mum do then? With a huge gap on her CV.. does she have a right to a career at that point or should she spend her days cleaning, washing and running to meet her child at the school gates?

What about her right to a pension? What if god forbid something happened to her partner? They were ill, died, made redundant?

It's so incredibly sexist to say a woman doesn't have a right to a career.

j.e.j.

Bangton wrote: »

j.e.j you astound me! You can't be female surely...a woman doesn't have a right to a career?! A right to be self sufficient in her own right if she so chooses?

Babies aren't babies forever...they do go to school eventually..full time. What does mum do then? With a huge gap on her CV.. does she have a right to a career at that point or should she spend her days cleaning, washing and running to meet her child at the school gates?

What about her right to a pension? What if god forbid something happened to her partner? They were ill, died, made redundant?

It's so incredibly sexist to say a woman doesn't have a right to a career.

It would be if I had said that but I haven't! All I have said is that the child should come first until it's old enough to look after itself. Is that so unreasonable? I could equally argue that it's sexist to denigrate the vital work done by parents and home-makers. They are the foundation of society, not the scourge!

It would of course be different if our culture was different. For example I spent some time living in the former East Germany, after the Wall came down. There, of course, it used to be communist and children and babies were looked after in state funded childcare and it was taken for granted that women and men both went out to work. Which was fine.. (well, except the state went bankrupt and collapsed, but that's a whole nother issue). East German women got a bit of a culture shock when the Wall came down and they were faced with 'our' attitudes towards working women.

But 'our' society is all we have. There is no utopian place where everyone is absolutely equal. Some will always be more equal than others

kerri_dfw

I half agree with the OP and I half don't. If you're in a high powered career, for example you're a contractor on £650/day (highly plausible in some lines of work) then in order to ensure your career/mortgage/debts/etc are maintained you may very well need to put your child into full-time daycare to carry on the lifestyle you're living. You may also need to for other reasons as well, don't get me wrong.

However, I'm not sure personally I would put my child into full-time daycare at 3 months old. I am considering putting them into some form of childcare at that age due to wanting them to engage with other children (we're moving to a new area where I know noone so it might be the only chance they get at social interactions with children). However, it'll be for a few days a week not the entire week. However, if my job didn't allow me to work from home (which it does). Then I would be forced to use childcare facilities whilst I went out to customers from 8am - 9pm and whilst my partner worked. We don't own a house so are saving for a mortgage so the impact upon our lives, and consequently that of our child through loss of earnings of being a SAHP would be significant.

Either way, each to their own. At the end of the day we all fail as parents but we do what we believe is best for our children. At the end of the day as long as they grow to be happy, well rounded individuals then that's all the matters.

FBaby

j.e.j. wrote: »

Yes, they're different, though some dogs do howl and bark when they're left alone! Your pet pooch is not quite as helpless as a young baby in a nursery. At least the dog can bite if it gets threatened or hurt! Until the child can speak, you'll have no idea what happens to it during the day if you're not there.

Women are delaying motherhood until their 40s because of social pressures. They 'have' to have a career these days. Well, being a mum isn't what you go to university for, is it? Being a mum isn't going to pay off your student loan. I do think in a lot of ways our norms and values are absurd.

Yep, and those wonderful SAHM are the ones who are left totally hepless when their wonderful husbands decide that they get bored with their wives who only live for their children and decide to go and look somewhere. How many stories do we read here about them not knowing how they will cope because they have never worked in their lives and always relied on their husband. Funny the kids don't tend to rally to support their mum during these times, ungrateful kids they are!!!

I am so glad I prioritised my career before having kids so that when things went wrong with their dad (who had accumulated debts after debts behind my back), I was able to stand on my two feet and provide a decent, non benefit dependent lifestyle to my children (because I support them on my own, their dad not contributing a penny towards them).

It's easy to see it from when the kids are babies, foccussing on what they might be missing then, forgetting the impact of having a single mother who will most likely never be able to get a job above minimum wage, who will always struggle and never be able to afford the things the kids would love.

Bangton

j.e.j. wrote: »

I was only going by your link.

It's not the case that mothers who look after their children "don't work" btw. I am not a parent, but I know women who've got children do indeed work and they don't get to clock off at home-time, either.

I am not criticizing individuals for their choices they make. It's up to them. As someone wrote on here a few weeks ago, I am responsible for what I write, not for what other people read..;)

But on this thread there's been a lot of pressure to just go along with the majority and say it's the woman's right to have a career and that the OP is being sexist. I'm not going to say that, because I don't think it's true.

Is the part in bold not you saying women have no right to careers?

Similarly you can argue that parents and homemakers are not a scourge on society but frankly some of them are.

j.e.j.

FBaby wrote: »

Yep, and those wonderful SAHM are the ones who are left totally hepless when their wonderful husbands decide that they get bored with their wives who only live for their children and decide to go and look somewhere. How many stories do we read here about them not knowing how they will cope because they have never worked in their lives and always relied on their husband.

Not very many. In fact I can't recall one. The vast majority of partner break-ups on here seem to be from both partners working, both partners stressed, neither having the time nor the space to enjoy life or each others company any more.

That and one partner or the other can't keep their pants up.

FBaby

Then you are clearly being selective in your reading.

j.e.j.

Bangton wrote: »

[/B]
Is the part in bold not you saying women have no right to careers?

Not at all! Women can and do have careers.

Similarly you can argue that parents and homemakers are not a scourge on society but frankly some of them are.

There are some trouble-makers. But that's nothing to do with the fact that they're home-makers.

People see the £-signs, but forget that having one partner at home actually saves a lot of money AND it provides a good home environment. Raising the next generation to be decent people IS making a good and valid contribution to society.

j.e.j.

FBaby wrote: »

Then you are clearly being selective in your reading.

I don't think so. Find me some where a woman is in strife due to "not knowing how they will cope because they have never worked in their lives and always relied on their husband".

I could probably find you plenty to back up my statement, that:
The vast majority of partner break-ups on here seem to be from both partners working, both partners stressed, neither having the time nor the space to enjoy life or each others company any more.

That and one partner or the other can't keep their pants up.
:rotfl:

alwaysskint96

This is all really recent anyway the idea of being off work for a year after baby is born- Im sure within the past 5 years maybe. Even when my daughters were born in the 90s maternity leave was much shorter, i seem to remember my eldest being around 13 weeks when i returned to work as mat leave had run out.

And i wasnt the only one in that situation but i certainly dont remember the big shock horror fuss at 3 month old babies being in nursery then

And I dont see millions of the 17plus age group being so disadvantaged by the shorter maternity leave of the time