Not logged inChampdogs Information Exchange
Forum Breeders Help Search Board Index Active Topics Login

Find your perfect puppy at Champdogs
The UK's leading pedigree dog breeder website for over 25 years

Topic Other Boards / Foo / A woman's duty to have children ? (locked)
1 2 Previous Next  
- By Carla Date 24.09.04 21:25 UTC
yet women now are forced to feel that they are somehow lesser beings if they stay at home

and likewise for those of us who have to work Daisy.
- By Lokis mum [gb] Date 24.09.04 22:22 UTC
This business of "its every woman's duty to have children for the state" comes up regularly on a cyclical basis - during WW2, women were working, operating cranes and machinery, driving buses, delivering mail, runnning the emergency services, and it was acknowledged that women were making almost a big an effort to te "home front" as were men who were in action in the war, in Europe, and the Far East.   Once the war was over, the male fighting force had to have jobs to come home to - and then, it was "discovered" by an expert by the name of Bowlby, that maternal deprivation caused untold distress and damage to young children- and so, naturally enough ;) , the nurseries that were so essential during the war were closed, and all "right thinking" sociologists enthused on women, home rearing, child rearing, etc etc etc.   This was the generation in which I grew up.

In the early '60's when I got married, I was an "oddity" because (a) I enjoyed working and (b) did not become pregnant within the first year of marriage - at this time, although the pill was available as a contraceptive, unless you were in "swinging London". no doctor would prescribe it to women who had not already had one child :eek: !   Eventually, after more than 4 years, we decided that the time was right for us to have children - and I must add, that during those 4 years, I went through the Spanish Inquisition everytime I appeared at any family "do" without a lump in front of me - "are you having tests yet?" - and these from women of the 1940s who were quite content to be childless for 4/5/6/years!

When eventually I produced No 1 Son, my neighbour produced her 1st sprog at the same time - and boy, oh boy - did we stir up some gossip the following summer when we BOTH went back to work - 2 weeks one, 2 weeks t'other - we used to hand babys over the fence& off we would go!!!   That lasted for about 6 months each and it made us both confident in the fact that we did still have brains, but at the same time, we were both capable of bringing up our sproglets.  In my case, Baby 2 & Baby 3 came along, and with them I was instrumental locally in building up Mother & Toddler & Playgroups- which left me with a great feeling of achievement.

The big hike in inflation, in the 1970s, made it more imperative that women had no choice in whether they went back to work or not - if we wanted to survive, it became necessary.  In fact, I was at Uni in the 70s doing a social work course (and on the pill) when we realised that Baby No 4 was on the way - he was born 2 das after I complete my dipoloma course - but two years later, when I was really confident thatwe had excellent childcare support arranged - OH working split shifts in Youth & Community work AND grandparents next door- our local County Council refused to employ me permanently professionally  for a position they were happy for me to undertake voluntarily - on the basis that "I had 4 children to look after"!!!!

Now, it is accepted that women will return to work after the birth of their children whethr or not there are good child care arrangements in place.    My DIL is lucky, in that her child-minder is someone that she grew up with, and who thoroughly enjoys babies and children, and considers childminding to be her profession.    I know of too many women in their 30s who have very little choice but to leave their children with people who are not going to stimulate these babies.    

Obviously, it is getting too expensive to run and supply good child-care provision - in other words, the government wants to weasel out of it - so, what's the betting another Bowlby report will be coming up??

Margot
- By Melodysk [gb] Date 25.09.04 05:53 UTC
I can see what you mean Chloe, as a person who has done BOTH ( I worked fulltime for 3 years when Conor was little) I know exactly what you mean.

Daisy, you need to realise that, quite often, women don't have a choice....and I for one have NO problem with that at all. The one benefit that working mums do have is a pay packet...and then a large proportion of that is taken up with paying for childcare

I feel lucky that we can (just about) manage to have me at home looking after the house and the family. Also, I couldn't actually earn enough money to pay for childcare as I have very few qualifications :)

*I* was talking about the Government making me feel inadequate, not other women!
- By Daisy [gb] Date 25.09.04 08:51 UTC
Mel - hopefully I have explained my position further up :) Sometimes mouth opens and what comes out isn't exactly what is meant :) I have no problem with people working part-time. Just the people who seem to put their high(ish) standard of living and self-fulfillment before the welfare of their children. It used to break my heart when some children had no-one to come to sports day/assembly/nativity play etc etc. I wonder if things will change when the next generation bring up their children.

Daisy
- By jackyjat [gb] Date 25.09.04 08:56 UTC
Lea I am a bit concerned about your use of the term "sen child".  Children are children and some have different needs than others, but I personally find that term offensive.  Can you imagine how a child who has special learning needs would feel if someone called them a "sen child"?  Not nice really, is it?

Can I just point out that if you are in receipt of child tax credit then the government will contribute to 70% of childcare costs with registered providers.  Much work has been done over the past few years to make access to acreddited providers easier.
- By arched [gb] Date 25.09.04 09:17 UTC
Something strange going on with Tax Credit apparently. Back in May, my friend received a lump sum of £5,000 into her bank account. She rang them to ask what it was for. They said she was entitled to it. Turned out that when she advised them of her change of employment (new job, slightly less hours) they changed her code to 'single mother' (which she isn't - hubby full time work, decent salary). Anyway, she was frightened to spend the money so tucked it away in an ISA. She rang again in July to find out more and was told that there were so many similar problems that they wouldn't be able to look at her case until September. She has now been told that they will not be taking the money back - to much hassle she thinks. How nice for her - money going towards a new car !. I wonder how many more people have struck gold like this.
Pity hubby and myself, and other people without children for whatever reason, are made to feel bad for not having them - and then have to sit by and watch this sort incompentence take place. I have no problem with families receiving child allowance/tax credit etc, but I know of far too many families that really don't need it. That's what makes me so cross. Surely there is a limit to the number of people who require child allowance ?. One of cousins admits that they don't need it (plenty of money already) and every month she, partner and two other couples pool the money and go out for a nice meal (childen go to grandparents !).
Why can't I have an allowance to go out with my friends ?!!.

Val
- By Melodysk [gb] Date 25.09.04 09:30 UTC
Working Tax Credit is a big con anyway ;) How many people realise that they take MORE than the amount you receive back from your partners wages?

We are far worse off now than we were :(
- By arched [gb] Date 25.09.04 09:36 UTC
What's the point then ?. Or is it to make people think that Messrs Blair & Brown are jolly decent chaps ?!!

Val
- By Melodysk [gb] Date 25.09.04 09:42 UTC
You got it in one Val :D
- By Lea Date 25.09.04 09:40 UTC
Val, tell her not to spend it. I am sure at some point they will ask for it back.
I was given a cheque for £500 as they had me down working for a different company(Too complicated to explain fully) and I had no money for months. This was last year. This year they are taking it off me as I have been paid 'twice'which I deffinatly hadnt!!!!!!!!!!! And I am still fighting them to get it back :(
But saying that, I am deffinatly better off working 3 days a week, than being on Income support. I am a single mum, pay £75 childcare per week.
Lea :)
- By arched [gb] Date 25.09.04 09:44 UTC
No, she can spend it - i've just found an interesting piece to read !
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3679276.stm

Val
- By Lea Date 25.09.04 09:48 UTC
Val,
£85 of that was for me this year and about £150 last year!!!!!!!!!
Of the £150 was £120 of bank charges incurred due to them cocking up!!!!!!!
Its good we get compensation when the majorly cockup, unfortunatly it is not coming out of the wages of the people that make the cockups. Oh sorry, it cant as the things that make the cockups is the computer.
Did you know it is the computer that reads the forms you fill in. NOT a real person. The computer puts everything onto the system, NOT a person!!!!!! No wonder there is so many mistakes!!!!!!
Lea :)
- By Staffie lover [gb] Date 25.09.04 09:43 UTC
i think the child allowance should be tiered, the ppl with a good job/2 parents working still get it but less, the ppl on lower income jobs get a more, ppl on income suport/single parents get what there having (cos i think they get more then ppl that work?).
so the ppl that don't NEED it only get a little to go out with like Val's friends and ppl that need it put it to good use.
- By Lea Date 25.09.04 09:33 UTC
Jackyjat, I donnot go around calling children SEN children in every day life. It was said in a way to prortray what I meant without having to bore everyone with 200 words when 1 would do. I am not that callous that I go to my mates and say oh hows your sen child today, nor do I talk about them in that way. I say Luke, Charlie etc etc.
Lea
- By Lea Date 25.09.04 09:02 UTC
Oh Daisy thats one thing I DO make sure of, I go toi every play, sports day etc I can. I get a few funny looks as walk in with my work clothes on and go straight back to work!!!!!
I equally see that some of the children that dont have mothers there, thier mothers are housewifes.And just cant be bothered.What excuse do you think they give their children :( (BTW I mean the ones that do it time and time again, not just occasionally)
My son badly broke his arm at the begining of the summer holidays, and I have taken the day off for every appointment. Even tho my mum would take him if I ask.
(alothough. I will also add, I work for my dad and in the same town as where my children go to school. So am in a good position to be able to be a mother as well as work, even in work time!!!!!!!!)
Lea :)
- By Daisy [gb] Date 25.09.04 09:13 UTC
You are fortunate, Lea - working for your father :) When my youngest went to kindergarten at nearly 4, I returned to work, but only because I worked for a friend who was happy for me only to work school hours and school terms and let me have any time off that I needed if the children were sick etc. Once they could be left in holidays, then I could take other work, but I have never worked full-time as I believe that they needed me to be around some of the time even when they were teenagers. Unlike lots of people, I have never had the help of family members. My in-laws had the children for two weekends in 20 years and that was it - they were too far away to help with babysitting or if I was ill :( (Hubby never helped much as he was a workaholic and was abroad every week somewhere).

Daisy
- By Lea Date 25.09.04 09:34 UTC
Sorry Daisy, I came across as a bit condecending. I really must reread my posts before I send them.
Lea :) (Grovelling)
- By Daisy [gb] Date 25.09.04 09:39 UTC
I didn't see it as that :)

Many full-time working mothers have to save their holidays for child sickness and holidays, so can't take odd days off to attend school things :( I quite agree that there are full-time mums that don't do the job as well as they could :(

Daisy
- By Melodysk [gb] Date 25.09.04 09:31 UTC
Yes Daisy, read your post after I had posted mine :)
- By Daisy [gb] Date 25.09.04 09:40 UTC
Re-reading my post, I meant my big mouth not yours, by the way :D :D

Daisy
- By Melodysk [gb] Date 25.09.04 09:41 UTC
I guessed :p :p :p

(and hoped :D )
- By jackyjat [gb] Date 25.09.04 09:48 UTC
I am so glad to hear that Lea, perhaps you could adjust your written phrasiology too, thereby avoiding offence and making it slightly more politically correct and a little less offensive.  I am sorry that you have chosen to even write in this way even if you do not put this type of wording into practice.
- By Lea Date 25.09.04 09:51 UTC
Actually Jackyjat, SEN is politically correct!!!!!!
SENCO is a Special Educational Needs co-ordinator at schools. Every school has one.
Or would you rather every one go back to calling them half wits, spastics etc?????? No, well neither would I, and Neither do I have time to write 200 words that can be summoned up in one word.
I am sorry that you found my post offensive. As I find quite a few of yours but just think, oh maybe thats her way, or oh shes had a bad day, I donnot question it.
Lea
- By jackyjat [gb] Date 25.09.04 09:54 UTC
I totally agree that SEN is the acronym for Special Educational Needs.  I completely understand about the role of a SENCO in each school.

The third line of your post is absolutely horrific and I certainly won't comment about that but do you think that you using the description of a SEN child is any better?

I think you summed up quite a bit in your post Lea.
- By Lea Date 25.09.04 10:00 UTC
So what should have I of put in your OPINION Jackyjat?????
I was not summing up a specific child, I was summing up a child that has anything from slight learning difficulties right thru to a child that has serious learning difficulties.
Now this has gone away from the orignal thread so I think it should end now.
(an apologise to anyone else that took offence to my use of SEN)
Lea :)
- By Alexanders [gb] Date 25.09.04 13:31 UTC
I have to say Lea, I don't see how you could have said it any better really? - maybe ' a child with SEN'??  I really think that it is this 'political correctness' that causes so much trouble.

With regard to mothers who work and those who don't - My mother always worked, I have only ever worked part-time since having my children - varying hours, but I am mainly at home for the children as I WANT to be.  I do have VERY strong views on this, but won't go in to them, but I also feel that my role is undervalued by a lot of people - not just the Government (who I actually think has done quite a lot for stay at home mums and mums who want to work).  While I realise (like my mother) some people have no choice but to work, there are others who say they have no choice, but then have fantastic, expensive holidays, sometimes twice a year, extensions on their home (one of my neighbours), and others who really find it too much like hard work to be home with their children, but can't admit it.  Likewise, there are mothers who stay at home simply because they don't want to work - they don't bother with school plays, etc either.  Whatever the situation, it is the fact people cannot be HONEST about their reasons that annoys me. 

I had a friend who had a very good, well paid job.  Having a baby for her was just a 'fashion' trend for her I feel.  She put the baby in full -time nursery from 3 months (before that she had left her with other people so she could go out for days/evenings, etc).  The child was in daycare from about 8am (or even earlier) until 6, sometimes later in the evening.  The little girl was (and I hate to say it) a horrible child - always pinching and hurting my son and I think this was due to her mothers attitude towards her - she even put her in daycare when she had days off.  I think as long as the children and their needs come FIRST, then whether working or not you are doing your best.

Fiona
- By briony [gb] Date 25.09.04 14:05 UTC
Hi,

I have a child with special needs and I have to admit I was not offended by Leas post :-) but then I knew what she meant :-).
Just to clarify special needs -  also covers very bright or gifted children as well and also children who one or two years behind right through to children with mental and or physical disabilities.Also a child whose parents maybe going through divorce, berevement,or extreme hardship can also be identified as having special needs eveen if its only very short term but is affecting how that particular child performs at school.

I have also paid out of our own pockets for tutors for other children to boost them in certain subjects in the past.

You might find no they dont want £5,000 back  working family tax, what they do is take some of the money back by reducing the amount of future payments until the £5,000 is recovered starting from next year when they look at your case again so be careful and bare this in mind when budgeting. :-)

Briony
- By Melodysk [gb] Date 25.09.04 15:32 UTC
Government (who I actually think has done quite a lot for stay at home mums and mums who want to work). 

Like what exactly?

Examples please :)
- By Carla Date 25.09.04 16:16 UTC
They take money off your OH in taxes so that you don't go out and spend it of course...they are helping you not get a spending habit Mel :D
- By Melodysk [gb] Date 25.09.04 16:23 UTC
:D Put that wooden spoon away dear :p :p
- By briony [gb] Date 25.09.04 17:56 UTC
Lol @ Mel and Chloe

Briony :-D
- By Admin (Administrator) Date 26.09.04 13:15 UTC
continued HERE
Topic Other Boards / Foo / A woman's duty to have children ? (locked)
1 2 Previous Next  

Powered by mwForum 2.29.6 © 1999-2015 Markus Wichitill

About Us - Terms and Conditions - Privacy Policy