any housewives out there?

happyandcontented

FBaby wrote: »

But who say that 24h hour bonding and nurturing is what is forcibly best? Is a toddler better with a mum who find it such a chore to raise her kids she thinks she should be paid for it rather than being at an excellent nursery with a key worker who chose the job because she loves kids?

My DS had a key worker who only looked after him and two other kids but only there PT so almost always only looking after two kids which is no different to many mums. She adored my DS and showed him a lot of care. He was a poor sleeper so she rocked him for his nap for months.

Do you think you could pick a classroom of 30 14yo and tell with certainty those who were at home with their mum until starting school compared to those who went to childcare from the age of one? I very much doubt it.

No, of course not. That wasn't what I said.

I was speaking about a personal decision based on my circumstances/expertise and inside knowledge of the calibre of some childcare employees.

Re choosing the job because you 'love kids'...that is a very idealistic way of looking at why many choose a childcare course at college. The reality of the situation is that quite low academic levels are required to achieve a place on such a course and it is often the only option open. Few employees are Norland or Princess Christian standard!

Many others do a great job but, for me, it still does not equate to being at home with a parent who is invested in that child as no other person can be. How could it really?

Re your last point, no, possibly not, but equally, it is not all about what you can see on the outside. Figures for referrals to mental health services from Primary aged children and up have rocketed in the last ten years. There is no doubt that societal changes have contributed to this, so I think what you can see with a cursory glance is not that important when compared to how a child feels/exhibits.

maman

I've not posted on this thread for a while as I'm convinced that the OP was just a WUM. However, many posters are putting valid arguments which although I disagree with many are genuinely held. Yours included happy and contented.

happyandcontented wrote: »

No, of course not. That wasn't what I said.

I was speaking about a personal decision based on my circumstances/expertise and inside knowledge of the calibre of some childcare employees.

Re choosing the job because you 'love kids'...that is a very idealistic way of looking at why many choose a childcare course at college. The reality of the situation is that quite low academic levels are required to achieve a place on such a course and it is often the only option open. Few employees are Norland or Princess Christian standard!

Many others do a great job but, for me, it still does not equate to being at home with a parent who is invested in that child as no other person can be. How could it really?

I would agree with you that the qualifications in Health and Social care at many colleges is definitely of a low academic standard. That's not a criticism of the colleges but the government policy in this area. It's sadly based on 'pay peanuts get monkeys'. Care of the elderly and vulnerable falls into the same category. So the recipient pays through the nose but the workers in caring professions are very poorly paid.


That being said, if you extrapolate your argument, it could be said that parents with low academic standards of achievement aren't the best people to be looking after their own children! Although it's rapidly disappearing due to government cuts, the purpose of SureStart was to get hold of small children young and give them and their parents what they wouldn't get at home in terms of learning.

happyandcontented wrote: »

Re your last point, no, possibly not, but equally, it is not all about what you can see on the outside. Figures for referrals to mental health services from Primary aged children and up have rocketed in the last ten years. There is no doubt that societal changes have contributed to this, so I think what you can see with a cursory glance is not that important when compared to how a child feels/exhibits.

Again, I believe these rocketing figures are largely down to government policy. Schools are put under pressure from Ofsted to perform well in league tables so, in turn, children are put under pressure to perform.


Unfortunately I don't think the answer is to keep children at home either at preschool or Home Schooling. We need to give our children values and skills to deal with the world and keeping them away from it isn't going to help them in the long term.

fibonarchie

maman wrote: »

I've not posted on this thread for a while as I'm convinced that the OP was just a WUM.

Charming!

Not sure that WUMs spend their time listening to radio 4 programmes and putting the subject up for interesting discussion on a message board, but hey ho, if you say so. I stopped posting on here because someone was (and maybe still is) systematically reporting my posts, despite them not breaking forum rules.


Anyway, moving on.. the responses are quite telling in and of themselves. You can easily recognise those who've put their kids into childcare while they went out to do a paid job and those who've looked after the children themselves, by the defensive posting style of the former, but everyone's entitled to their opinions and points of view.

happyandcontented

I agree with all you have said.

Caring overall is poorly paid and in the main requires few or no qualifications. My point wasn't so much about the educational standards of the carers per se ( certainly not enough that it could be extrapolated to mean that parents who are low achievers shouldn't look after their own children) more that for many who enter this field it is not an 'active choice' as they have few other options.

I also agree with your point re over testing, it is appalling. However, children coming into Reception from Nursery do so now with a 'grade' a level from which the schools have to show 'added value'. This means that those who do not attend nursery are a tad inconvenient for schools as they have to do this testing themselves....so it is a circular argument.

I am not an advocate of homeschooling for the reasons you outline, but for the same reasons, I am an advocate of gentle preschool play/activity/nurturing rather than the OFSTED hoops those in nurseries have to jump through, this, along with the unconditional love and care a parent can give makes for a good foundation before they go out into the wide world of school at rising 5!

ska_lover

These threads always go the same

onlyroz

fibonarchie wrote: »

They employ a cleaner, stick the child/ren into childcare and generally hire people to do the jobs that would have been done by the housewife.

Or they just don't bother doing much housework or cooking and leave the kids to their own devices Something has to give.

Hmmm no. We both work full time. We do use childcare but have also asked for flexible hours to minimise the amount needed (at the moment my daughter goes to the after school club 3 days a week and I pick her up at 6pm. My son is now a teenager so can look after himself). Housework and laundry gets done a bit at a time (e.g. wipe down the kitchen after cooking, wipe down the sink after washing, run the hoover round a few times a week, give the bathroom a deeper clean maybe once a month, do a laundry load when the basket gets full). Cooking is shared between us. Gardening is a pleasant summer activity that we all enjoy. The only jobs I "hire out" would be household repairs or improvements that I doubt a traditional housewife would tackle anyway.

kimplus8

how the fudge can anyone suggest this.
I have been raising my children single handedly for sometime now and Its ridiculous to believe that I should be paid for it like a job.
They are my kids, its my house and its my responsibility for that.
do I expect to be paid like a job, no way.
this is the worst idea I've ever heard, who exactly would pay the wages for these 'working' mothers.
As a single parent that now works, would I be paid for both my actual job and running the home as I do both, on my own? why should working mother end up being paid less or on par with women that choose to stay at home?

fred246

I think it's suggesting that the first £48k of a husband's salary is for the wife to spend on whatever she wants. Whatever is left pays the bills and then dad and the children can share a few pennies.

happyandcontented

fred246 wrote: »

I think it's suggesting that the first £48k of a husband's salary is for the wife to spend on whatever she wants. Whatever is left pays the bills and then dad and the children can share a few pennies.

I just think it is illustrating the point that there is quantifiable value in having someone at home doing chores that would otherwise have to be done after working full time, that there is an intrinsic value in having labour divided into working in the home and working outside of the home.

I also detect a note of sarcasm/chauvinism in your post, which echoes a previous one! Very few 'housewives/wives/mothers/women' would behave, or expect to behave, in that manner.

FBaby

Of course there is a value in doing chores during the day then after a long day but there is also a benefit of having additional money. Ideally some get both for many it's a matter of choice and balance.

My children have had access to opportunities because I could afford them and these have been invaluable for their future. No one can look ahead and make the best decision retrospectively so you have to pick one do your best to balance what you're not offering and accept the decision you've made.