Vent - My Mother (and her generation?)

Andypandyboy

Person_one wrote: »

Was it ever you? Was it mostly their mother?

This is a massively gendered issue, its very easy for men to pontificate about the importance of staying at home when they are very unlikely to be the one expected to actually do it!

I would expect both parents to agree, or that would be a gender issue, one of control.

Certainly there was never any disagreement in our household. We both did it, as required. This was because we shared the opinion that between us we wanted to be the ones doing the childcare pre school age and after school.

NewShadow

FBaby wrote: »

Oh dear....googled and below is the first one that came up! It does state that working under 30 hours was best (indeed, wouldn't argue that) but that working full-time had a neutral effect, not negative.

Any chance of a link to the actual study? Newspapers have a horrible habit of 'misinterpreting' findings - I'd actually be genuinely interested.

I believe our opinions are more likely based on our own experience.

I have no doubt.

Mine is my parents, my partner's parents, my friends, all working mums, part-time and full-time, who have all raised very happy children and balanced adults, that's more valuable than any research I read.

Which is perfectly normal and understandable - but using opinions to write government policy tends to lead to selection bias and can hinder actual social improvement.

What's the economic benefit? In my experience, SAHM don't start going to work when their kids start nursery, they just get more time for themselves, so not sure where the economic benefit lies.

Sorry - we might be talking at cross purposes - the government does everything it can to incentivise parents to return to work. That's the economic benefit over the (arguable) social benefit of being a SAHP

But they do already, of course only up to the time they actually cared for their children, not for becoming a housewife once they've turned adults.

And this whole discussion started because someone (sorry, forget who) suggested (paraphrasing) unemployed people (which either included or implied SAHPs) shouldn't get benefits.

Slightly confused as to what you think we're disagreeing about?

NewShadow

FBaby wrote: »

ummmm.....

Given it presents a lot of the raw data (allowing you to draw your own conclusions), and given it looks across a wide range of cultural norms, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it as outdated...

FBaby

Any chance of a link to the actual study? Newspapers have a horrible habit of 'misinterpreting' findings - I'd actually be genuinely interested.

No sorry, I just googled! It says it was published in 'the Society for Research in Child Development'.

Sorry - we might be talking at cross purposes - the government does everything it can to incentivise parents to return to work. That's the economic benefit over the (arguable) social benefit of being a SAHP

But is there evidence that the free 20 hours (or whatever it was) incentivised women to return to work? All I hear about is how it isn't enough hours to make it worthwhile. Otherwise, why provide only a 3 yo? I thought the incentive behind the initiative was that it was recognised that children who didn't have access to some level of social and educational interaction just before starting school didn't adjust as well, but maybe I'm wrong.

Slightly confused as to what you think we're disagreeing about?

I don't think we are! However, I thought the whole thread was mainly about pensions and someone said that they thought SAHM should be entitled to it on the account that they raised their children when I think you and I agree that it is right that they should be entitled to NI during these years, but shouldn't be an open door to a pension later in life?

mumps

FBaby wrote: »

This is horrible My DS started nursery at 6 months old (no such thing as being able to be off for a year back then!) and would only fall asleep when rocked in his pushchair. I tried to get him used to a cot bed before going back to work without success so was quite anxious how he could cope at nursery, but when I explained, I was totally reassured that they would continue to rock him in his pushchair for as long as he needed. Indeed, I checked on him a few times during the day in the first week and witnessed his careworker doing so a few times. I can't imagine a nursery letting a baby cry itself too sleep. Surely that is against their policy?

I don't know about their policy just what daughter witnessed, they also left her, a 15 year old on work experience, to bake cakes with a group of 3 year olds. I can't remember how many but it was more than 2. She was left alone in the kitchen with them, she was worried as she knew I wouldn't have left her in charge of her nephews to do cooking, I would at least be in the room.

I was horrified as she had no CRB check and should not have been left alone with the children, obviously I know my daughter and know she is not going to do anything to deliberately harm a child but they certainly didn't.

The ofsted rating on this nursery was outstanding :cool:

elona

My four daughters now grown up have all said at different times how much it meant for me to be at home and making a fuss of them when they got back from school atlhough at the time they asked me when I had retired

They have since realised I was as bright as DH and did research for him and admin while being a mother and wife.

I do not regret being at home as some of my DDs needed extra help and support.

I could either work and pursue a career path or devote myself to my family so that is what I did.

Andypandyboy

FBaby wrote: »

No sorry, I just googled! It says it was published in 'the Society for Research in Child Development'.

But is there evidence that the free 20 hours (or whatever it was) incentivised women to return to work? All I hear about is how it isn't enough hours to make it worthwhile. Otherwise, why provide only a 3 yo? I thought the incentive behind the initiative was that it was recognised that children who didn't have access to some level of social and educational interaction just before starting school didn't adjust as well, but maybe I'm wrong.

I don't think we are! However, I thought the whole thread was mainly about pensions and someone said that they thought SAHM should be entitled to it on the account that they raised their children when I think you and I agree that it is right that they should be entitled to NI during these years, but shouldn't be an open door to a pension later in life?

So what use would NI credits be if they didn't lead to benefit entitlement? That is the point of them.

FBaby

Andypandyboy wrote: »

So what use would NI credits be if they didn't lead to benefit entitlement? That is the point of them.

The point is that there are a contribution towards it ie. You worked and contributed before and after having kids, you're entitled to the pension. You had kids straight after school and then decided to be a house wife after you raided your kids you're not.

missbiggles1

FBaby wrote: »

The point is that there are a contribution towards it ie. You worked and contributed before and after having kids, you're entitled to the pension. You had kids straight after school and then decided to be a house wife after you raided your kids you're not.

Actually, if you had a very spread out family you could receive a full pension based wholly on NI credits from claiming CB, without a day's employment in your life. (A minority scenario but possible.)

It works the same for somebody claiming some kind of unemployment benefit most of their working life - if you have enough 35 years' NI credits you could get a full pension regardless of whether you'd ever been employed or not..

mumps

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Actually, if you had a very spread out family you could receive a full pension based wholly on NI credits from claiming CB, without a day's employment in your life. (A minority scenario but possible.)

It works the same for somebody claiming some kind of unemployment benefit most of their working life - if you have enough 35 years' NI credits you could get a full pension regardless of whether you'd ever been employed or not..

I could have done that easily, four children with 20 years between first and last so I could have covered 38 years of contributions. I did work so not the case for me.

Thinking about it I am getting credits now as a carer and have over 2 years to go to SP age so I would have gone over 40 years without paying a penny.