Seemingly trivial things that intrigue you

1…273274276278279…434

Comments

  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 20,033
    rick_chasey said:

    I have unproven theories as to why, but I often wonder why there has not been any discourse in the public about the impact of putting so many kids in basically full time care (ie. 8am to 6pm) from the age of 1 upwards.

    So many of my friends put their kid into nurseries for as long as they can as soon as they can.

    We all have different contexts and factors that go into making your decisions - I'm not judging - but we came to the conclusion we'd forgo the additional income to give ours the benefit of being brought up primarily by one of us.

    I'm of the view that that must have an impact on them, yet no-one seems to discuss it.


    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/oct/02/nurseries-childcare-pre-school-cortisol
    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Yeah that aligns with my view on why it's not discussed.
    _
  • veronese68
    veronese68 Posts: 27,770
    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:

    I have unproven theories as to why, but I often wonder why there has not been any discourse in the public about the impact of putting so many kids in basically full time care (ie. 8am to 6pm) from the age of 1 upwards.

    So many of my friends put their kid into nurseries for as long as they can as soon as they can.

    We all have different contexts and factors that go into making your decisions - I'm not judging - but we came to the conclusion we'd forgo the additional income to give ours the benefit of being brought up primarily by one of us.

    I'm of the view that that must have an impact on them, yet no-one seems to discuss it.

    I've made my view clear in the past. One parent should stay at home until all the children are in full time education. I'm an old duffer with out of date opinions though.
    We made the decision that the EPO would work part time and the kids would have a couple of days of child care, seemed to work well for us. Wife enjoyed the time with the kids more as a result. Going from being a professional whatever to full time parent can be difficult for some.
    Kinesis Pro6
    Marin Nail Trail
    Cotic Solaris
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 27,981
    Wasn't there a study that showed enrollment in preschool programs reduced offending behaviour?
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,357
    kingstongraham said:

    Wasn't there a study that showed enrollment in preschool programs reduced offending behaviour?

    I think there are studies to support any chosen position.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    It’s especially pertinent now as from a policy maker perspective there is a real need to address the labour shortage - some noises that they were going to send letters to stay at home mums to suggest they get a job…

    Not sure that plan took off
    _
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,766
    edited February 2023
    There is quite a range between 50 hours a week from 6 months and nothing until reception.
  • monkimark
    monkimark Posts: 1,912
    We did the same. If one of us (and realistically, it would have been my wife) had taken a complete career break for 6/7 years until both kids were in school then they wouldn't have been very employable when they tried to return. I see it happening now as some of the parents of my daughters classmates return to work.

    We were lucky, my wife was able to work part time freelance for a couple of years before returning to the office and now does a mix of the two. That isn't going to be an option for a lot of parents either financially or because of the nature of their work.

    I don't think it's something that's not discussed, I remember it being talked about quite a bit when we were at that stage - especially some older relatives who were very much of the opinions that women should stay home with the kids.
    it's also quite unhelpful to guilt people into feeling bad for going back to work when it may be a financial necessity.
    veronese68 said:

    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:

    I have unproven theories as to why, but I often wonder why there has not been any discourse in the public about the impact of putting so many kids in basically full time care (ie. 8am to 6pm) from the age of 1 upwards.

    So many of my friends put their kid into nurseries for as long as they can as soon as they can.

    We all have different contexts and factors that go into making your decisions - I'm not judging - but we came to the conclusion we'd forgo the additional income to give ours the benefit of being brought up primarily by one of us.

    I'm of the view that that must have an impact on them, yet no-one seems to discuss it.

    I've made my view clear in the past. One parent should stay at home until all the children are in full time education. I'm an old duffer with out of date opinions though.
    We made the decision that the EPO would work part time and the kids would have a couple of days of child care, seemed to work well for us. Wife enjoyed the time with the kids more as a result. Going from being a professional whatever to full time parent can be difficult for some.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,402
    Pretty sure there has been a lot of discussion about the subject over the years and, as RJS said, you can probably get studies to support whichever position you want on the subject. We were lucky in that we had grandparents who could provide care a few days a week and, with our first, my wife managed the nursery she attended in the early stages. It gave what we felt was a healthy balance between spending plenty of one-to-one time with family and socialising with other children. I appreciate this isn't possible for many though and the cost of nursery care these days makes the economics of both parents returning to full-time work less likely to balance favourably.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    monkimark said:

    We did the same. If one of us (and realistically, it would have been my wife) had taken a complete career break for 6/7 years until both kids were in school then they wouldn't have been very employable when they tried to return. I see it happening now as some of the parents of my daughters classmates return to work.

    We were lucky, my wife was able to work part time freelance for a couple of years before returning to the office and now does a mix of the two. That isn't going to be an option for a lot of parents either financially or because of the nature of their work.

    I don't think it's something that's not discussed, I remember it being talked about quite a bit when we were at that stage - especially some older relatives who were very much of the opinions that women should stay home with the kids.
    it's also quite unhelpful to guilt people into feeling bad for going back to work when it may be a financial necessity.

    veronese68 said:

    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:

    I have unproven theories as to why, but I often wonder why there has not been any discourse in the public about the impact of putting so many kids in basically full time care (ie. 8am to 6pm) from the age of 1 upwards.

    So many of my friends put their kid into nurseries for as long as they can as soon as they can.

    We all have different contexts and factors that go into making your decisions - I'm not judging - but we came to the conclusion we'd forgo the additional income to give ours the benefit of being brought up primarily by one of us.

    I'm of the view that that must have an impact on them, yet no-one seems to discuss it.

    I've made my view clear in the past. One parent should stay at home until all the children are in full time education. I'm an old duffer with out of date opinions though.
    We made the decision that the EPO would work part time and the kids would have a couple of days of child care, seemed to work well for us. Wife enjoyed the time with the kids more as a result. Going from being a professional whatever to full time parent can be difficult for some.
    Maybe it's just my group of friends, but it is absolutely taboo.

    My wife staying at home however, is very on-limits, but if you start to discuss it in the context of "we thought it was better for the child", it just gets shut down.
    _
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    edited February 2023
    TheBigBean said:

    There is quite a range between 50 hours a week from 6 months and nothing until reception.

    It's mainly the period under 3 years old. I think over 3, almost all the evidence seems to suggest that having children spend time with other children where grown ups are not dictating the events is good.

    (though even then, there is a lot of 8am to 6pm, which I would find a pretty long day as a grown up).
    _
  • monkimark
    monkimark Posts: 1,912
    I guess it's understandable that people might get a bit defensive if you are telling them that what they are doing is not best for their kid (or if that is their understnding of what you are saying). People are probably conflicted about the decision themselves
    I always took the view that it's none of my business how people choose to raise their kids (within limits obviously), I can see both sides of the argument but ultimately it comes down to individual preference and I suspect that all of the 'experts' are about as clueless as the rest of us as to the positive/negative effects.
    rick_chasey said:

    monkimark said:

    We did the same. If one of us (and realistically, it would have been my wife) had taken a complete career break for 6/7 years until both kids were in school then they wouldn't have been very employable when they tried to return. I see it happening now as some of the parents of my daughters classmates return to work.

    We were lucky, my wife was able to work part time freelance for a couple of years before returning to the office and now does a mix of the two. That isn't going to be an option for a lot of parents either financially or because of the nature of their work.

    I don't think it's something that's not discussed, I remember it being talked about quite a bit when we were at that stage - especially some older relatives who were very much of the opinions that women should stay home with the kids.
    it's also quite unhelpful to guilt people into feeling bad for going back to work when it may be a financial necessity.

    veronese68 said:

    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:

    I have unproven theories as to why, but I often wonder why there has not been any discourse in the public about the impact of putting so many kids in basically full time care (ie. 8am to 6pm) from the age of 1 upwards.

    So many of my friends put their kid into nurseries for as long as they can as soon as they can.

    We all have different contexts and factors that go into making your decisions - I'm not judging - but we came to the conclusion we'd forgo the additional income to give ours the benefit of being brought up primarily by one of us.

    I'm of the view that that must have an impact on them, yet no-one seems to discuss it.

    I've made my view clear in the past. One parent should stay at home until all the children are in full time education. I'm an old duffer with out of date opinions though.
    We made the decision that the EPO would work part time and the kids would have a couple of days of child care, seemed to work well for us. Wife enjoyed the time with the kids more as a result. Going from being a professional whatever to full time parent can be difficult for some.
    Maybe it's just my group of friends, but it is absolutely taboo.

    My wife staying at home however, is very on-limits, but if you start to discuss it in the context of "we thought it was better for the child", it just gets shut down.
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 52,201
    2 years maternity/paternity leave in Sweden. They realise the importance of those early years.
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • morstar
    morstar Posts: 6,190
    rick_chasey said:

    TheBigBean said:

    There is quite a range between 50 hours a week from 6 months and nothing until reception.

    It's mainly the period under 3 years old. I think over 3, almost all the evidence seems to suggest that having children spend time with other children where grown ups are not dictating the events is good.

    (though even then, there is a lot of 8am to 6pm, which I would find a pretty long day as a grown up).
    They tend to have nap time.

    I’m surprised you don’t!
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    monkimark said:



    rick_chasey said:

    monkimark said:

    We did the same. If one of us (and realistically, it would have been my wife) had taken a complete career break for 6/7 years until both kids were in school then they wouldn't have been very employable when they tried to return. I see it happening now as some of the parents of my daughters classmates return to work.

    We were lucky, my wife was able to work part time freelance for a couple of years before returning to the office and now does a mix of the two. That isn't going to be an option for a lot of parents either financially or because of the nature of their work.

    I don't think it's something that's not discussed, I remember it being talked about quite a bit when we were at that stage - especially some older relatives who were very much of the opinions that women should stay home with the kids.
    it's also quite unhelpful to guilt people into feeling bad for going back to work when it may be a financial necessity.

    veronese68 said:

    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:

    I have unproven theories as to why, but I often wonder why there has not been any discourse in the public about the impact of putting so many kids in basically full time care (ie. 8am to 6pm) from the age of 1 upwards.

    So many of my friends put their kid into nurseries for as long as they can as soon as they can.

    We all have different contexts and factors that go into making your decisions - I'm not judging - but we came to the conclusion we'd forgo the additional income to give ours the benefit of being brought up primarily by one of us.

    I'm of the view that that must have an impact on them, yet no-one seems to discuss it.

    I've made my view clear in the past. One parent should stay at home until all the children are in full time education. I'm an old duffer with out of date opinions though.
    We made the decision that the EPO would work part time and the kids would have a couple of days of child care, seemed to work well for us. Wife enjoyed the time with the kids more as a result. Going from being a professional whatever to full time parent can be difficult for some.
    Maybe it's just my group of friends, but it is absolutely taboo.

    My wife staying at home however, is very on-limits, but if you start to discuss it in the context of "we thought it was better for the child", it just gets shut down.
    I guess it's understandable that people might get a bit defensive if you are telling them that what they are doing is not best for their kid (or if that is their understnding of what you are saying). People are probably conflicted about the decision themselves
    I always took the view that it's none of my business how people choose to raise their kids (within limits obviously), I can see both sides of the argument but ultimately it comes down to individual preference and I suspect that all of the 'experts' are about as clueless as the rest of us as to the positive/negative effects.
    Sure, and, to be clear, as undiplomatic as I am here, I am not framing the context in terms of "we think you're doing it wrong" (though they are happy to frame my wife as being either workshy or holding feminism back, but anyway).

    And yes, I totally agree everyone has to make their own choices with their own inputs, so i'm not judging.

    It's more in the national discussion on childcare costs, returning to work etc, no-one ever discusses the impact on the kids.
    _
  • monkimark
    monkimark Posts: 1,912
    Probably because nobody knows the impact on the kids.

    I'm sure if you go below the line on any stories, you will find plenty of people who will state that the kids need a mother at home full time.
  • pangolin
    pangolin Posts: 6,632
    .
    rick_chasey said:

    monkimark said:

    We did the same. If one of us (and realistically, it would have been my wife) had taken a complete career break for 6/7 years until both kids were in school then they wouldn't have been very employable when they tried to return. I see it happening now as some of the parents of my daughters classmates return to work.

    We were lucky, my wife was able to work part time freelance for a couple of years before returning to the office and now does a mix of the two. That isn't going to be an option for a lot of parents either financially or because of the nature of their work.

    I don't think it's something that's not discussed, I remember it being talked about quite a bit when we were at that stage - especially some older relatives who were very much of the opinions that women should stay home with the kids.
    it's also quite unhelpful to guilt people into feeling bad for going back to work when it may be a financial necessity.

    veronese68 said:

    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:

    I have unproven theories as to why, but I often wonder why there has not been any discourse in the public about the impact of putting so many kids in basically full time care (ie. 8am to 6pm) from the age of 1 upwards.

    So many of my friends put their kid into nurseries for as long as they can as soon as they can.

    We all have different contexts and factors that go into making your decisions - I'm not judging - but we came to the conclusion we'd forgo the additional income to give ours the benefit of being brought up primarily by one of us.

    I'm of the view that that must have an impact on them, yet no-one seems to discuss it.

    I've made my view clear in the past. One parent should stay at home until all the children are in full time education. I'm an old duffer with out of date opinions though.
    We made the decision that the EPO would work part time and the kids would have a couple of days of child care, seemed to work well for us. Wife enjoyed the time with the kids more as a result. Going from being a professional whatever to full time parent can be difficult for some.
    Maybe it's just my group of friends, but it is absolutely taboo.

    My wife staying at home however, is very on-limits, but if you start to discuss it in the context of "we thought it was better for the child", it just gets shut down.
    Do you frame it as thinking it is better for your child specifically? I can see why suggesting you know what's best for all children in all families would get people's backs up.
    - Genesis Croix de Fer
    - Dolan Tuono
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    edited February 2023
    pangolin said:

    .

    rick_chasey said:

    monkimark said:

    We did the same. If one of us (and realistically, it would have been my wife) had taken a complete career break for 6/7 years until both kids were in school then they wouldn't have been very employable when they tried to return. I see it happening now as some of the parents of my daughters classmates return to work.

    We were lucky, my wife was able to work part time freelance for a couple of years before returning to the office and now does a mix of the two. That isn't going to be an option for a lot of parents either financially or because of the nature of their work.

    I don't think it's something that's not discussed, I remember it being talked about quite a bit when we were at that stage - especially some older relatives who were very much of the opinions that women should stay home with the kids.
    it's also quite unhelpful to guilt people into feeling bad for going back to work when it may be a financial necessity.

    veronese68 said:

    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:

    I have unproven theories as to why, but I often wonder why there has not been any discourse in the public about the impact of putting so many kids in basically full time care (ie. 8am to 6pm) from the age of 1 upwards.

    So many of my friends put their kid into nurseries for as long as they can as soon as they can.

    We all have different contexts and factors that go into making your decisions - I'm not judging - but we came to the conclusion we'd forgo the additional income to give ours the benefit of being brought up primarily by one of us.

    I'm of the view that that must have an impact on them, yet no-one seems to discuss it.

    I've made my view clear in the past. One parent should stay at home until all the children are in full time education. I'm an old duffer with out of date opinions though.
    We made the decision that the EPO would work part time and the kids would have a couple of days of child care, seemed to work well for us. Wife enjoyed the time with the kids more as a result. Going from being a professional whatever to full time parent can be difficult for some.
    Maybe it's just my group of friends, but it is absolutely taboo.

    My wife staying at home however, is very on-limits, but if you start to discuss it in the context of "we thought it was better for the child", it just gets shut down.
    Do you frame it as thinking it is better for your child specifically? I can see why suggesting you know what's best for all children in all families would get people's backs up.
    I'm not that much of a moron, especially not IRL.

    Having said that, plenty of parents are happy to wax lyrical about the advantages of nursery (as opposed to not being in nursery) but I just keep my mouth shut and tell myself they're just trying to convince themselves.
    _
  • pangolin
    pangolin Posts: 6,632
    rick_chasey said:

    pangolin said:

    .

    rick_chasey said:

    monkimark said:

    We did the same. If one of us (and realistically, it would have been my wife) had taken a complete career break for 6/7 years until both kids were in school then they wouldn't have been very employable when they tried to return. I see it happening now as some of the parents of my daughters classmates return to work.

    We were lucky, my wife was able to work part time freelance for a couple of years before returning to the office and now does a mix of the two. That isn't going to be an option for a lot of parents either financially or because of the nature of their work.

    I don't think it's something that's not discussed, I remember it being talked about quite a bit when we were at that stage - especially some older relatives who were very much of the opinions that women should stay home with the kids.
    it's also quite unhelpful to guilt people into feeling bad for going back to work when it may be a financial necessity.

    veronese68 said:

    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:

    I have unproven theories as to why, but I often wonder why there has not been any discourse in the public about the impact of putting so many kids in basically full time care (ie. 8am to 6pm) from the age of 1 upwards.

    So many of my friends put their kid into nurseries for as long as they can as soon as they can.

    We all have different contexts and factors that go into making your decisions - I'm not judging - but we came to the conclusion we'd forgo the additional income to give ours the benefit of being brought up primarily by one of us.

    I'm of the view that that must have an impact on them, yet no-one seems to discuss it.

    I've made my view clear in the past. One parent should stay at home until all the children are in full time education. I'm an old duffer with out of date opinions though.
    We made the decision that the EPO would work part time and the kids would have a couple of days of child care, seemed to work well for us. Wife enjoyed the time with the kids more as a result. Going from being a professional whatever to full time parent can be difficult for some.
    Maybe it's just my group of friends, but it is absolutely taboo.

    My wife staying at home however, is very on-limits, but if you start to discuss it in the context of "we thought it was better for the child", it just gets shut down.
    Do you frame it as thinking it is better for your child specifically? I can see why suggesting you know what's best for all children in all families would get people's backs up.
    I'm not that much of a moron, especially not IRL.

    Having said that, plenty of parents are happy to wax lyrical about the advantages of nursery, but I just keep my mouth shut and tell myself they're just trying to convince themselves.
    But that does seem to be your opinion.
    - Genesis Croix de Fer
    - Dolan Tuono
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    edited February 2023
    pangolin said:

    rick_chasey said:

    pangolin said:

    .

    rick_chasey said:

    monkimark said:

    We did the same. If one of us (and realistically, it would have been my wife) had taken a complete career break for 6/7 years until both kids were in school then they wouldn't have been very employable when they tried to return. I see it happening now as some of the parents of my daughters classmates return to work.

    We were lucky, my wife was able to work part time freelance for a couple of years before returning to the office and now does a mix of the two. That isn't going to be an option for a lot of parents either financially or because of the nature of their work.

    I don't think it's something that's not discussed, I remember it being talked about quite a bit when we were at that stage - especially some older relatives who were very much of the opinions that women should stay home with the kids.
    it's also quite unhelpful to guilt people into feeling bad for going back to work when it may be a financial necessity.

    veronese68 said:

    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:

    I have unproven theories as to why, but I often wonder why there has not been any discourse in the public about the impact of putting so many kids in basically full time care (ie. 8am to 6pm) from the age of 1 upwards.

    So many of my friends put their kid into nurseries for as long as they can as soon as they can.

    We all have different contexts and factors that go into making your decisions - I'm not judging - but we came to the conclusion we'd forgo the additional income to give ours the benefit of being brought up primarily by one of us.

    I'm of the view that that must have an impact on them, yet no-one seems to discuss it.

    I've made my view clear in the past. One parent should stay at home until all the children are in full time education. I'm an old duffer with out of date opinions though.
    We made the decision that the EPO would work part time and the kids would have a couple of days of child care, seemed to work well for us. Wife enjoyed the time with the kids more as a result. Going from being a professional whatever to full time parent can be difficult for some.
    Maybe it's just my group of friends, but it is absolutely taboo.

    My wife staying at home however, is very on-limits, but if you start to discuss it in the context of "we thought it was better for the child", it just gets shut down.
    Do you frame it as thinking it is better for your child specifically? I can see why suggesting you know what's best for all children in all families would get people's backs up.
    I'm not that much of a moron, especially not IRL.

    Having said that, plenty of parents are happy to wax lyrical about the advantages of nursery, but I just keep my mouth shut and tell myself they're just trying to convince themselves.
    But that does seem to be your opinion.
    Well, yeah, my wife staying at home is a costlier option than sending the little one to nursery and my wife working. We think that's the best for the little one.

    So we are putting a premium on her bringing up our child.

    I think there is also benefit for my wife, though I definitely think that's a personal thing. She finds it very fulfilling. I would certainly not, and so I sympathise with other parents who wouldn't.

    Now they're 3/4 we're sending them to nursery for two mornings a week and that will go up to a full day and half a day later in the year. Plus they do lots of other social things the rest of the week with other kids. That's more for them though.
    _
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    pangolin said:

    rick_chasey said:

    pangolin said:

    .

    rick_chasey said:

    monkimark said:

    We did the same. If one of us (and realistically, it would have been my wife) had taken a complete career break for 6/7 years until both kids were in school then they wouldn't have been very employable when they tried to return. I see it happening now as some of the parents of my daughters classmates return to work.

    We were lucky, my wife was able to work part time freelance for a couple of years before returning to the office and now does a mix of the two. That isn't going to be an option for a lot of parents either financially or because of the nature of their work.

    I don't think it's something that's not discussed, I remember it being talked about quite a bit when we were at that stage - especially some older relatives who were very much of the opinions that women should stay home with the kids.
    it's also quite unhelpful to guilt people into feeling bad for going back to work when it may be a financial necessity.

    veronese68 said:

    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:

    I have unproven theories as to why, but I often wonder why there has not been any discourse in the public about the impact of putting so many kids in basically full time care (ie. 8am to 6pm) from the age of 1 upwards.

    So many of my friends put their kid into nurseries for as long as they can as soon as they can.

    We all have different contexts and factors that go into making your decisions - I'm not judging - but we came to the conclusion we'd forgo the additional income to give ours the benefit of being brought up primarily by one of us.

    I'm of the view that that must have an impact on them, yet no-one seems to discuss it.

    I've made my view clear in the past. One parent should stay at home until all the children are in full time education. I'm an old duffer with out of date opinions though.
    We made the decision that the EPO would work part time and the kids would have a couple of days of child care, seemed to work well for us. Wife enjoyed the time with the kids more as a result. Going from being a professional whatever to full time parent can be difficult for some.
    Maybe it's just my group of friends, but it is absolutely taboo.

    My wife staying at home however, is very on-limits, but if you start to discuss it in the context of "we thought it was better for the child", it just gets shut down.
    Do you frame it as thinking it is better for your child specifically? I can see why suggesting you know what's best for all children in all families would get people's backs up.
    I'm not that much of a moron, especially not IRL.

    Having said that, plenty of parents are happy to wax lyrical about the advantages of nursery, but I just keep my mouth shut and tell myself they're just trying to convince themselves.
    But that does seem to be your opinion.
    By definition his choice is his opinion, other parents will see his choice as a criticism of their choice.

    Of course they probably hate him for being a Boomer and being able to afford that choice
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,402
    rick_chasey said:

    monkimark said:

    We did the same. If one of us (and realistically, it would have been my wife) had taken a complete career break for 6/7 years until both kids were in school then they wouldn't have been very employable when they tried to return. I see it happening now as some of the parents of my daughters classmates return to work.

    We were lucky, my wife was able to work part time freelance for a couple of years before returning to the office and now does a mix of the two. That isn't going to be an option for a lot of parents either financially or because of the nature of their work.

    I don't think it's something that's not discussed, I remember it being talked about quite a bit when we were at that stage - especially some older relatives who were very much of the opinions that women should stay home with the kids.
    it's also quite unhelpful to guilt people into feeling bad for going back to work when it may be a financial necessity.

    veronese68 said:

    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:

    I have unproven theories as to why, but I often wonder why there has not been any discourse in the public about the impact of putting so many kids in basically full time care (ie. 8am to 6pm) from the age of 1 upwards.

    So many of my friends put their kid into nurseries for as long as they can as soon as they can.

    We all have different contexts and factors that go into making your decisions - I'm not judging - but we came to the conclusion we'd forgo the additional income to give ours the benefit of being brought up primarily by one of us.

    I'm of the view that that must have an impact on them, yet no-one seems to discuss it.

    I've made my view clear in the past. One parent should stay at home until all the children are in full time education. I'm an old duffer with out of date opinions though.
    We made the decision that the EPO would work part time and the kids would have a couple of days of child care, seemed to work well for us. Wife enjoyed the time with the kids more as a result. Going from being a professional whatever to full time parent can be difficult for some.
    Maybe it's just my group of friends, but it is absolutely taboo.

    My wife staying at home however, is very on-limits, but if you start to discuss it in the context of "we thought it was better for the child", it just gets shut down.
    Maybe you need different friends.
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 16,980
    Pross said:

    rick_chasey said:

    monkimark said:

    We did the same. If one of us (and realistically, it would have been my wife) had taken a complete career break for 6/7 years until both kids were in school then they wouldn't have been very employable when they tried to return. I see it happening now as some of the parents of my daughters classmates return to work.

    We were lucky, my wife was able to work part time freelance for a couple of years before returning to the office and now does a mix of the two. That isn't going to be an option for a lot of parents either financially or because of the nature of their work.

    I don't think it's something that's not discussed, I remember it being talked about quite a bit when we were at that stage - especially some older relatives who were very much of the opinions that women should stay home with the kids.
    it's also quite unhelpful to guilt people into feeling bad for going back to work when it may be a financial necessity.

    veronese68 said:

    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:

    I have unproven theories as to why, but I often wonder why there has not been any discourse in the public about the impact of putting so many kids in basically full time care (ie. 8am to 6pm) from the age of 1 upwards.

    So many of my friends put their kid into nurseries for as long as they can as soon as they can.

    We all have different contexts and factors that go into making your decisions - I'm not judging - but we came to the conclusion we'd forgo the additional income to give ours the benefit of being brought up primarily by one of us.

    I'm of the view that that must have an impact on them, yet no-one seems to discuss it.

    I've made my view clear in the past. One parent should stay at home until all the children are in full time education. I'm an old duffer with out of date opinions though.
    We made the decision that the EPO would work part time and the kids would have a couple of days of child care, seemed to work well for us. Wife enjoyed the time with the kids more as a result. Going from being a professional whatever to full time parent can be difficult for some.
    Maybe it's just my group of friends, but it is absolutely taboo.

    My wife staying at home however, is very on-limits, but if you start to discuss it in the context of "we thought it was better for the child", it just gets shut down.
    Maybe you need different friends.
    If you want taboo, try raising the notion that you need to figure out if you can financially afford to have more children before having more children.

    It is perfectly fine to have more children and then complain about the financial burden though. That's totally okay.
  • Jezyboy
    Jezyboy Posts: 3,565
    Taboo? It's a regular, often a little hateful, right wing trope.
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 16,980
    Jezyboy said:

    Taboo? It's a regular, often a little hateful, right wing trope.

    Why is it hateful? Or right wing, specifically?

    Not saying I agree necessarily, but I do hear stories from SW circles that give some credence to the concept. Pretty difficult to find a hateful right wing social worker, in my experience.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    First.Aspect said:

    Pross said:

    rick_chasey said:

    monkimark said:

    We did the same. If one of us (and realistically, it would have been my wife) had taken a complete career break for 6/7 years until both kids were in school then they wouldn't have been very employable when they tried to return. I see it happening now as some of the parents of my daughters classmates return to work.

    We were lucky, my wife was able to work part time freelance for a couple of years before returning to the office and now does a mix of the two. That isn't going to be an option for a lot of parents either financially or because of the nature of their work.

    I don't think it's something that's not discussed, I remember it being talked about quite a bit when we were at that stage - especially some older relatives who were very much of the opinions that women should stay home with the kids.
    it's also quite unhelpful to guilt people into feeling bad for going back to work when it may be a financial necessity.

    veronese68 said:

    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:

    I have unproven theories as to why, but I often wonder why there has not been any discourse in the public about the impact of putting so many kids in basically full time care (ie. 8am to 6pm) from the age of 1 upwards.

    So many of my friends put their kid into nurseries for as long as they can as soon as they can.

    We all have different contexts and factors that go into making your decisions - I'm not judging - but we came to the conclusion we'd forgo the additional income to give ours the benefit of being brought up primarily by one of us.

    I'm of the view that that must have an impact on them, yet no-one seems to discuss it.

    I've made my view clear in the past. One parent should stay at home until all the children are in full time education. I'm an old duffer with out of date opinions though.
    We made the decision that the EPO would work part time and the kids would have a couple of days of child care, seemed to work well for us. Wife enjoyed the time with the kids more as a result. Going from being a professional whatever to full time parent can be difficult for some.
    Maybe it's just my group of friends, but it is absolutely taboo.

    My wife staying at home however, is very on-limits, but if you start to discuss it in the context of "we thought it was better for the child", it just gets shut down.
    Maybe you need different friends.
    If you want taboo, try raising the notion that you need to figure out if you can financially afford to have more children before having more children.

    It is perfectly fine to have more children and then complain about the financial burden though. That's totally okay.
    become a strong advocate for bottle feeding

    This could backfire as you would be putting yourself in the frame for nightime feeds
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,357
    First.Aspect said:

    Jezyboy said:

    Taboo? It's a regular, often a little hateful, right wing trope.

    Why is it hateful? Or right wing, specifically?

    Not saying I agree necessarily, but I do hear stories from SW circles that give some credence to the concept. Pretty difficult to find a hateful right wing social worker, in my experience.
    Thin end of the wedge to campaigning to sterilise the undeserving poor. It can FRO as an idea.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 16,980
    edited February 2023
    rjsterry said:

    First.Aspect said:

    Jezyboy said:

    Taboo? It's a regular, often a little hateful, right wing trope.

    Why is it hateful? Or right wing, specifically?

    Not saying I agree necessarily, but I do hear stories from SW circles that give some credence to the concept. Pretty difficult to find a hateful right wing social worker, in my experience.
    Thin end of the wedge to campaigning to sterilise the undeserving poor. It can FRO as an idea.
    Blimey. Long wedge, if that's the other end. At least you didn't mention eugenics.

    I was thinking more if its fair to kids 1 to n to have had kids n+1 to n+m, when the number of rooms in your house is 《m. But I suppose procreation is probably a basic human right.

    I think it's not completely unreasonable to shrug when people say how hard it is money wise after having kids. They aren't bogof are they.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    First.Aspect said:

    rjsterry said:

    First.Aspect said:

    Jezyboy said:

    Taboo? It's a regular, often a little hateful, right wing trope.

    Why is it hateful? Or right wing, specifically?

    Not saying I agree necessarily, but I do hear stories from SW circles that give some credence to the concept. Pretty difficult to find a hateful right wing social worker, in my experience.
    Thin end of the wedge to campaigning to sterilise the undeserving poor. It can FRO as an idea.
    Blimey. Long wedge, if that's the other end. At least you didn't mention eugenics.

    I was thinking more if its fair to kids 1 to n to have had kids n+1 to n+m, when the number of rooms in your house is 《m. But I suppose procreation is probably a basic human right.

    I think it's not completely unreasonable to shrug when people say how hard it is money wise after having kids. They aren't bogof are they.
    I’m pretty conservative with my own finances and I was quite shocked by **how** expensive things like childcare are.

    _
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 16,980
    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rjsterry said:

    First.Aspect said:

    Jezyboy said:

    Taboo? It's a regular, often a little hateful, right wing trope.

    Why is it hateful? Or right wing, specifically?

    Not saying I agree necessarily, but I do hear stories from SW circles that give some credence to the concept. Pretty difficult to find a hateful right wing social worker, in my experience.
    Thin end of the wedge to campaigning to sterilise the undeserving poor. It can FRO as an idea.
    Blimey. Long wedge, if that's the other end. At least you didn't mention eugenics.

    I was thinking more if its fair to kids 1 to n to have had kids n+1 to n+m, when the number of rooms in your house is 《m. But I suppose procreation is probably a basic human right.

    I think it's not completely unreasonable to shrug when people say how hard it is money wise after having kids. They aren't bogof are they.
    I’m pretty conservative with my own finances and I was quite shocked by **how** expensive things like childcare are.
    But worth it?

Categories