Childcare is bloody expensive!

thriftylass

happyandcontented wrote: »

It seems hard to imagine in this age of equality that longer days but fewer days/part time/job share is not an option for highly qualified staff.

Unfortunately that's the case in my job. Especially as there are already some part timers and they don't want more or can't employ more people to fill in the gaps. Ever met a postdoc in science that job shared, only came in three days. Most of them are in 7 days a week (luckily I don't have to do that). Not complaining either, we made our choices and that's fine.

svain

thriftylass wrote: »

There was a survey were they found that working mums spend more quality time with their kids. Stay at home mums were busy with the chores, shopping etc. (just mentioning one study not saying it's necessarily true for all. Again, I don't think the actual time matters but how it's spend. I see my kids for two hours in the morning, 4 hours at night and all weekend, we eat together apart form lunch, we read, play outside etc. In between the socialise with their friends in nursery, craft, learn songs, go out. How many stay at home mum's spend 8 hours crafting, singing and playing with their kids? I couldn't, I need adult interaction to stay sane. Sorry not everybody is a born supermum. For some a balance of time with/without their kids is needed.

Interesting statistic .... however another scourge (imo) of modern parenting is the constant need to micro-manage children's timetable with activities. Its a rod for parents own back. Children have always been capable of entertaining themselves if allowed .... and if allowed would give the parent opportunity of interacting with adults aswell

thriftylass

svain wrote: »

Interesting statistic .... however another scourge (imo) of modern parenting is the constant need to micro-manage children's timetable with activities. Its a rod for parents own back. Children have always been capable of entertaining themselves if allowed .... and if allowed would give the parent opportunity of interacting with adults aswell

Agree, sorry that sounded like I'm planning every minute of entertainment etc. Just meant I don't just park them in front of the telly (although they do watch occasionally) or get on with the chores and ignore them for the few hours I do see them.

svain

thriftylass wrote: »

Agree, sorry that sounded like I'm planning every minute of entertainment etc. Just meant I don't just park them in front of the telly (although they do watch occasionally) or get on with the chores and ignore them for the few hours I do see them.

I think people underestimate how beneficial it is for just having a parent around .... whether interacting one to one, or kids watching telly and mum/dad in next room catching up with friends over a coffee.

happyandcontented

thriftylass wrote: »

Unfortunately that's the case in my job. Especially as there are already some part timers and they don't want more or can't employ more people to fill in the gaps. Ever met a postdoc in science that job shared, only came in three days. Most of them are in 7 days a week (luckily I don't have to do that). Not complaining either, we made our choices and that's fine.

So there are part-time staff? My friend's daughter is a Doctor (not medical) working in science and she does 3 long days per week. Anyway, as I said, we all make choices, and they do exist almost everywhere if we want to find them. I think choice is fine, but it is denying we have the choice that can irritate others.

thriftylass

happyandcontented wrote: »

So there are part-time staff? My friend's daughter is a Doctor (not medical) working in science and she does 3 long days per week. Anyway, as I said, we all make choices, and they do exist almost everywhere if we want to find them. I think choice is fine, but it is denying we have the choice that can irritate others.

If I tried to fit my working hours into three days I wouldn't see them those three days at all, how is that better? I'm not denying many people have the choice but you also need to accept that some don't. Employers have to consider part time but don't have to grant it. My friend runs her own business so works even more than me, should she not have had kids. There are just too many variables, personalities, view etc on this topic.

Anyway, circles again and none of this is helping the OP.

ska_lover

thriftylass wrote: »

This is very judgemental and rude.

It has been discussed extensively here why some women, me included, want to work, need to work etc. Again? refer to my post 61 for instance. So any women with an education/further education shouldn't have kids in your opinion as she'll have to work full-time in order to not waste her education.

You seem to be responding to a completely different post, as your response is completely irrelevant to anything I said .. I never actually said the stuff in bold that you claim is my opinion


You don't ''have'' to work full time in order not to waste your education - - You are in complete control but seem to want to pretend you're not in order to evade responsibility for your own choices and justify why you have made them


Yes it may sound blunt but let's say things as they are and stop pretending that women are victims of circumstance it is not the 1800's

thriftylass

ska_lover wrote: »

You don't ''have'' to work full time in order not to waste your education - this is simply blinkered - You are in complete control but seem to want to pretend you're not in order to evade responsibility for your own choices and justify why material possessions mean more than bringing your kids up. Yes it may sound blunt but let's say things as they are

Bit contradictory to your previous posts where you acknowledged that full time working parents that pay other people to raise their children are skint.

I actually do enjoy working full time and have children. Thank you. I'm not actively looking for another option or choice.

Anyway, I'm out as we're totally high jacking this thread with our views on raising children rather than than offering solutions to the OP while accepting her choice to work.

Savvy_Sue

kelpie35 wrote: »

She does say that she would be happier working than caring for her children. I do wonder why she had them in the fist place.

Some of us don't realise until we've had them that we are not cut out for full-time stay at home motherhood. I was fortunate in being able to do a few hours each week, and only took a full-time job once they were all at junior school and their Dad was more around, but until I had them I had a completely unrealistic vision of myself as a mother.

Maybe it was me, maybe it was my eldest (who was not an easy child), but if I had not been able to get away from them from an early stage, I'm not sure we'd all have survived. Coffee mornings and toddler groups did not hit the spot, nor would shopping and pampering. It wasn't just time away from them I needed, it was time to be the old me, the one with half a brain, the one who knew how to do the job that needed to be done.

Some may feel I should not have had children, I should have known I'd never be able to live up to my expectations. Or that I should have stopped after No. 1 because I'd found life as a mother so difficult, and so far from my intentions and expectations. There were reasons not to do so, and the world now has three absolutely brilliant young men (allow me some maternal bias) contributing to society in very different ways.

ViolaLass

kelpie35 wrote: »

She does say that she would be happier working than caring for her children. I do wonder why she had them in the fist place.

Do you question men in the same way?