Chloe

Didn't realise you were pregnant so congratulations.

I don't normally join in posts of a general nature but I am amazed at some of the thing I have read on here.

I live in the not so affluent North so for people in the South triple what I have to say!

I have four children.  20, 15, 14 and 14.  I was fortunate enough to be able to take a two year sabbatical from my job when the children were younger but had no choice but to go back to work as financially we couldn't sustain ANY lifestyle on one wage.

My 20 year old son couldn't afford to have a child now or at any time in the near future unless he has a partner in full time employment as he has ZERO chance of being able to buy a house on one wage.  Even with his few thousand piounds savings he could get amortgage for a maximum of £45k which would buy him a garden shed.  With a partner earning the same amount he could just about buy a poke hole in a crap area.

There are 500 people (see the front of the Sunderland Echo tonight for proof) after EVERY local authority house which are allocated on your ability to prove your excellent tenant status.  If you haven't had a house before you have no chance.

In ten years time are his chances of having a family and a wife to stay at home to look after his children going to have improved? No chance.  Are we therefore saying that my son, his peers, my other children and their peers and all future generations should not procreate because the national economy doesn't allow the 21st century family to fit the 'ideal' model?

EDIT:  Forgot to mention the bit about reliability at work - having the misfortune to have been in charge of 86 staff two years ago, it was evident that the full and part time working mothers were on the whole FAR better at time keeping and attendance than their younger single colleagues.  I sacked two of the staff for poor attendance and both were young single men who gladly let their non attendance put pressure on their work colleagues.  And I could write a book of excuses about why some of the single ones repeatedly failed to make it into work on a Friday or Monday!!  Don't get me wrong, working parents weren't issue free, but I found they valued their jobs so made the effort.

And don't get me started on the 'quality' of parenting.  Suffice to say that staying at home doesn't automatically qualify you for a nomination for parent of the year.

Eutopia would be a lovely place to live - or would it?

Over and out

Andrea (has now joined Chloe and others on the side of common sense)

Andi2020, surely you don't think someone of 20 who can't afford to buy a house or have kids is hard done by :)
Now house prices have risen so much youngsters have lost the ability to buy again but really I think the very idea that someone in their twenties should be able to buy a house is really a very modern idea stemming from the yuppy years of the eighties.  I hate to harp on about the "old days" :) but at that age I could not have contemplated buying a house.  Due to my husband having a perhaps better than average job we were able to buy our first house, a very primative cottage, in our mid twenties but we were thirty before we could afford a reasonable house that you might choose to stay in. 
I'm not sure why someone of twenty would want the responsibility of house of their own there are lots better things to spend on at that age :)

But in the 'old days' when I was starting out, Isabel, there were plenty of places to rent. Where are they now? Very few and far between - maybe a room in a shared house.

>maybe a room in a shared house

Thats exactly what I had when I first left home, and what great fun it was too :D

When you were first married? With children?

28 and it was a white wedding thank you very much............oh you mean after the wedding :D    No, no children, couldn't face the sacrificies :D

Lol! But that's the problem now - it's not easy for couples to find anywhere to rent. If they have a mortgage and want to have children before retirement age (and it's not easy then!), then in very many cases both incomes are needed to keep a roof over their heads.

It wasn't a lot easier renting in our day either before our cottage
(OK I admit it, we did live over the brush for a bit :)) we lived in a housing association flat for incoming workers in an area that needed to entice poeple in with such deals :) but it provided the easy rent we needed to save our first deposit, once you are on the ladder its just a few hard years then generally it gets a lot easier.  When you are young and in love :) I don't think grotty housing and hard times are quite as bad as your parents fear for you.

We were very lucky because of the area we moved to. Our salaries could have afforded us a lock-up garage in Sussex, where we moved from. In Warwickshire we could get a tiny rundown cottage. That was in the days when you could only borrow 2.5 times the main income and 1.5 times the second income. Prices have risen so much we wouldn't be able to afford that now.

But you were proactive and moved to where you could afford to buy.  I think people have to use the same initiative now.  I have a friend who cannot buy in Lancaster so he is buying a house in Barrow to let out, providing him with his first step in the ladder.  Some people down South are doing the same in France I believe although perhaps not with the same welcome :)

No, we moved where the job was. Being able to afford a house there was a bonus. There are thousands of empty houses where there are no jobs ... :(

Hi Isabel,

A bit off the original topic :-))) and I have a feeling I may not word this greatly as it would take ages :-)

The property ladder is not an easy place now and it will never been the same again as the 80s early 90s. Kids won't get on the ladder and work their way like most have been able to do because if your house goes up 10% the house that is 50K more has also went up 10%. The prices are so much greater now that repayments on your house of say 10% years doesn't and cannot build in the equity you need to make the next step. 

My view on it was houses were cheaper in relation to earnings and we have now seen the massive increase or catch up.. housing was very cheap in the 80s 90s.   Years and years ago people stuggled to afford most things, then the 80s and 90s saw housing cheaper or cheaper in relation to earnings, people that probably shouldn't have been able to buy substantial housing did and could.   I know I did it at a very young age.

My uncle once said to me when I was about 18 years old " buy the house you can barely afford" When I thought about the logic of it , to me it made entire sense so I did. 

I bought my first house in 1989 when I was 18 years old. £17K , I earned £12k at the time in a Ok supervisory job.  The house was worth 1.5 times my annual earning.    That job now probably is about £18- £20K but that same house is worth £100K that is 5-6 times the earnings.  That gap cannot ever be bridged now by saving harder and building equity. the sums cannot add up.

When I sold that house say for £40K  3 year later  I built/bought a house that cost  £80K ( Boy did I stuggle to own that house my parents had a fit :-))  it was out my league at the time but I knew after a couple years it would get easier.  Today that would be me moving from a £100K house to a £300K house at a young age.  I know because I live in the same area and own houses like my first house.  Today I would never be able to do that.

Not only has property more than doubled but the gap between the lower end of the market to the upper end of the market has risen.  People cannot make that gap now.

I am from a family of 4 kids.  My sister and brother are in a situation now where she cannot make the next jump to a large house although she could do with the space. they all make fairly ok salaries but even at that cannot make the jump. They bought a house like my first house But they both sat tight for 10 years while I bought and sold , built a couple of house etc . As I said earlier the gap between her house and mine then was 40K it is about £200K now.  I was one of the people rightly or wrongly bought a few properties to let out. Not because I was loaded but because I wasn't :-)  I thought about it and bought smartly buying cottages that could be extended or converted so that even if the market became level again I could add value to these houses. I set a level of £100K per house so if the rent wasn't paid I could make the payments, in the hope it would only ever be one house empty at a time. :-) for each house I had to scrape 15% deposit to use the buy to let scheme. so it was easy enought to take 60K out of my own house.  That is near impossible to do now starting out.. I didn't have it on a plate for sure and it was a lot of hard work but I know see some benefit to it and my daughter certainly will.

Now if I had been a stay at home mum I would not have been able to to that for my child ;-)) SO although I missed the odd Xmas party and I won't give her a house free she will get one at the price I paid for it in say 10 years time.  If she choices to be a at home mum that I will respect and Hopefully she will see her OLD mum did what she had to do to help her.

Anyway I do go off topic sometime ;-))

Economically youngsters are being adviced to buy a house between 2 or 3, a thing people wouldn't never have done before. 

Imagine the impact of families. I think this is where to middle class workers are going to find it the hardest, They want to work and not be on benefits etc but houses and cost are so great it makes it near impossible.  

BFN Pam

Have you seen the figures of under 30s just now in incapacity benefit ?? The government think that at least 80% of these are all able people.

When you think about it, though, the market has to allow first-time buyers in otherwise the whole thing collapses, (even with us oldies having the cash to buy more than one ;))  but your right some eras have been a lot easier than others.  I did not have it easy with my first house which was bought in 1983 near Aberdeen at the peak of the oil boom when we sold 2 years later it was for exactly the same price whilst the rest of the country had been rising steadily making our next purchase in England more difficult, fortunately my husband employers assisted financially with the move otherwise I doubt we would have managed starting again.

The government have put new guidelines in place with housebuilders, they must build certain amount of flats for purchase and rent , and part ownership houses.  We also have town houses going up everywhere even they are crazy money with no garden except space for a washine :-))

Aberdeen was a good example of a wealthy area that then struggled. It was a very expensive place to buy houses now it is quite reasonable in comparison to most places.  Some nice houses up there though.

St Albert street I believe was a lovely street. :-)

Aberdeen is a beautiful city and great fun too, well it was 20 years ago :), we actually lived 30 miles North near Peterhead, maybe not quite so attractive eh! I loved my time there though.

Isabel

My example gave current circumstances and I was trying to illustrate that his situation is unlikely to change sufficiently enough to compensate for the current and future housing situation even by the time he is 30.

When I bought my first property 20 years ago the average salary to small house value ratio was about x3-4.  Using a comparable social situation in todays housing market this ratio is now x 7-8.

My son is an intelligent, hard working person and has aspirations to lead an independent life before he is in his 50's, however, the good old days are gone and he is never going to be able to afford even a 'modest cottage'.

I don't want to be rude but the 'good old days' have SO gone and todays reality is very much removed.

And to lean further support to those women who have to or who CHOOSE to work, I know of three couples where the wife stayed at home to bring the children up and was totally reliant on the husband financially.  Kids go through college and the couple are left alone - happy?  No, husband bug***s off with someone from work because they have more about them than the wife who has wrapped herself in the kids.  How do kids feel?  Wretched because the 'perfect' life that was 'created' for them turns out to be a sham.

I'm not anti 2.4 children and stay at home mums, I'm PRO choice.  Are any of us so perfect that we have the right to crticise the lifestyles of others? 

Our household income is sufficient and I am happy that the tax I do pay will be going some way to making the lives of families who have less choices than I have better than they have been in the past (mind I object to a lot of other things my tax is used for!).

Whether mums work or not shouldn't be an issue to anyone other than their own family unit.

Andrea

Your son is only 20, house prices tend to move in cycles I think there is a very good chance he may be able own a home by the time he is thirty :) especially if he is willing to start humbly, modest would be a very grand title to our first cottage :)

>Whether mums work or not shouldn't be an issue to anyone other than their own family unit.

Thats more or less exactly my first sentence on my first post on this thread :)

>EDIT:  Forgot to mention the bit about reliability at work - having the misfortune to have been in charge of 86 staff two years ago, it was evident that the full and part time working mothers were on the whole FAR better at time keeping and attendance than their younger single colleagues.  I sacked two of the staff for poor attendance and both were young single men who gladly let their non attendance put pressure on their work colleagues.  And I could write a book of excuses about why some of the single ones repeatedly failed to make it into work on a Friday or Monday!!  Don't get me wrong, working parents weren't issue free, but I found they valued their jobs so made the effort.

And don't get me started on the 'quality' of parenting.  Suffice to say that staying at home doesn't automatically qualify you for a nomination for parent of the year.

Eutopia would be a lovely place to live - or would it? <

Couldn't have said it better.  

I don't know stats, but I bet a bigger percentage standing at the school gates are ones receiving benefits.  The percentage of people at the gates because their partner can afford for the wife not to work I would imagine being very low. Just my opinion though.

well i have never received any benefits and have simply gone without luxuries so i can always stand at my childs school gate

Well, good for you Katyb - but please don't think that all the mums who aren't standing at the school gates beside you are all working for luxuries!

Margot

I am not meaning you Katyb :-) honestly but you are probably in the minority now sadly . You may be one of the lucky ones because some who both work still can't have luxuries either and they work..

Very good point Chloe

When I split with my husband I left with the kids, their beds and furniture and my beloved dog. I wasn't allowed to take anything else. I was very lucky to have my Dad in the background as he stumped up enough money to buy second-hand furniture, carpets and other basics. I am now with someone else and to be perfectly honest with you if he left I'd cope admirably on my own. My ex had a very well paid job and I wasn't allowed to work.  I was given 'pocket money' every week. So when I left it was a right kick up the a** to be living on income support which was less than my so called 'pocket money'. The whole time I was on benefits I scrimped and saved so as not to get into debt and I am really feeling the benefits now I'm working as I can save for holidays and all the wee extras in life (says she who is very proud to have bought a brand new dishwasher all on my own last week)  :D I really feel that if women want to have kids and work well good for them, long gone are the days of women being chained to the kitchen sink barefoot and pregnant.

When I got married, it was a long, long time ago (42 years, to be exact :ee: ).   We were a bit before our time, because we bought our house immediately - with a mortgage, of course, and I continued working for 4 years, before No 1 S was born.   The following summer, my next door neighbour and I absolutely scandalised the neighbourhood, by looking after each other's babies whilst the other worked - 2 weeks about for the summer, each filling in on our "old" jobs.   The following summer, we did the same - this time working for 1 month each.   Our babies were fine - just popping in next door.   That "extra" cash bought us each a holiday, as I recall.   Inflation was pretty low at that time, and both OHs salaries had risen to the extent that we could AFFORD to stay at home AND pay the mortgage.   Later on, I had no choice but to return to permanent full time work, with 4 young children and a disabled husband.   I had to manage parent days, hospital appointments (for OH and children) etc by taking annual leave (which totalled about 15 days then) - so no holidays for Margot.

Now, my children have children of their own.   Living in the SE, where a 2 bedroomed victorian terrace house costs £150000 just outside the M25 corridor, and a 3 bedroomed terraced 30s house costs over £200,000 just inside the M25 corridor, both sets of parents have to work, in order to pay the mortgage.  They all have responsible, relatively well-paid jobs.  There is no "social housing" in these areas, unless you are on benefits.   Both sets of parents are in their 30s - not "living it up" - just living.    Sadly, life has changed - not necessarily for the better, but I am glad, for my young people, and others like them, that at least employers recognise that unless they are going to lose valuable members of their workforce, that maternity and paternity leave is available - and that they can still have holidays with their children.   And no, they're not off to Florida/Disney etc 2 or 3 times a year - nor do they have Sky TV, etc etc - as they have noted ruefully (a) they wouldn't have time to watch it and (b) its usually those on benefits that do !

Both DILs have careers, and would have loved to have taken a break whilst the children are small - but didn't want to leave it too long before having children - as DIL 1 said "the longer I leave it, the higher up the ladder I go, and would be losing more".  

Its good that women can still keep their careers - too many of us had to drop down the ladder (or off it completely) - and who can tell when they would need to become the breadwinner - as I had to?

Margot

Right here I go with my views ;)

Why is this arguement a woman thing in a lot of cases ?

It takes two to make a baby and so it is a JOINT responsibility :)

As for the reliabilty of a working mothers being questionable :rolleyes: Why are men not in this as well ? Maybe perhaps a lot of men don't take joint responsibilty and put the onus on the mother if the child is sick :(

I have a very good snap shot of a really broad base of 20 + staff and all the working mothers I have are amongst the most hard working and loyal staff I have. On the other side I have young single people who really take the P*ss a lot of the time and are so much more high maintenance to manage :) If a employee is not in work because of childcare commitments then it isn't alway upto employees with out children to pick up the pieces is it or I am missing something :)

If I am ever off because of childcare commitments then I will work from home. I am lucky as I can and have a very good boss :) We need more of them as at the end of the day Employers have got to start to take being a good employer far more seriously to both the staff with children and staff who haven't.

As for working a BIG majority of working mothers have to work because of the the current day situation with mounting debt.

I work because I want to and get extreme self satisfaction which as a result makes me a happy bunney which results in a happy family. If I was at home I would have been commited by now :)

Lucy
xx

I work 20+hrs a week and OH works full time our neighbour doesnt work her OH works and gets cash in hand and they both claim all benifits going he doesnt declare his earnings between them they were earning more than both myself and Colin put together not fair, anyway they never did anything with their kids he spends all their money down the pub and in the bookies their kids dress in rags and they are forever coming round to borrow milk, bread etc then you have us less money but kids always have enough food in their bellys, clothes on their backs I can afford after school activities, I am here to do homework and everything else with my kids I go to all school plays, parents evenings etc we are lucky that our work allows us not to have child minders.
I have no problems with people being on benifits for the right reasons but I dont see why we have to pay as much tax as we do to support people who cant be bothered to get off their backsides and get a job to support themselves we have so many mums at our school that say why should we have to work when the government will pay for everything.
Rant over
Mary

in defense of my post maybe i am old fashioned then but i am glad as i shared all my kids special moments and as i said in my post i feel soory for the women who have no choice but to work if their husbands cant support them but what i dont understand is the women who would rather work than stay at home with their baby. if you would rather work full time if you dont really need to then why have a baby. so many people have a baby just because they have the nice house and the nice car and the nice wedding album so surely now they need a baby and then they dump it in childcare full time till its 16. my husband did work 3 jobs for a short time but mainly because i unexpectedly had twins. we needed a lot of new stuff and my husband was doing an apprenticeship to train for a job that now makes him enough money for us to live comfortably. babies need mums more than dads i dont care what anybody says and my husband shares my views on this and was therefore more than happy to work his 3 jobs, he was always there to see them at dinner time and often helped bathe them and they are all very close to their dad. when my children were at home we didnt holiday abroad we only had one old car and we shopped on a very strict budget, we are now able to live more comfortably and its nice but i wouldnt swop a flash car or a holiday for my memories i have of my childrens pre school years

I agree completely, Katy :) I have no problem with mothers working once the children are at school - I have worked part-time since my youngest was in kindergarten at 3 1/2.

A school friend of mine worked full-time with a 'high-powered' job. Her children went to child-minders and nurseries. Now one is at uni and the other is a teenager, she has become a child-minder and is loving every minute of it - she is making up for the lost years with her own children :)

Daisy

How times have changed, when I had my 1st child I had to give up work, there was no such thing as maternity leave. Thankfully I married a 'good earner'.  There was no child benefit for the 1st child, I recieved £1.50 per week when my second child was born.  I did not go back out to work until my youngest daughter was 6, although I did not have to work financially, I am glad I did, my husband died a year later.  I was able to support myself and my two daughters very well, We had 2 holidays a year and upgraded homes 3 times. Ok I made a lot of money on the sales of my houses, pure luck in the housing market at the time. When my children left to go to Uni, etc, I went round the world and visited 10 countries in 12 months, I had been a single parent for 10 years when I did this.  My daughter on the other hand, has just married last August, she and her husband have a £100,000.00 mortgage and she is now 4months pregnant. She has to keep working and hand her child over to a nanny or Au-pair.  It may sound grand, but all things are relative.  What I cant understand is why people say they are better off as a single parent on benefits. I certainly would never have been able to manage it.

Agree Brainless.

Where I Work just now is very flexible. I am able to work partly from home and partly from my office. ( wished I could have years ago)

The attendance in my office is almost perfect.  People make their time up , if they are late they come in late rather than then phone in sick etc etc.. I have worked in both types of companies and know which worked well. Nobody ever takes advantage of others.

Was wondering if no-one was going to notice that changed working practices are beneficial, and that is what we should be striving for to enable family life and independance with work, so often it is either or.  As for having it all family and carreer, isn't that what men have always had???  I am sure many men would welcome a more shared workload.

Freinds of mien who lived from hadn to mouth and lived in a bedsit with theri first child (she was already 34 wehn she was pregnant so couldn't afford to wait), in order to make ends meet one worked days the other evenings, and they had about half hour overlap to sort things out about the baby.  Good for the child but a strain on their relationship.  This continued until he went to school.

As things improved they bougth a small house, but due to taking out a second mortgage to finance a business which was eaten up in the last recession they ahd to give up their house (Social would only pay interest on the first mortgage) and they became homeless.  they now live in a small council flat, he has disability benefit as he has fused vertebra and a crumbling spinal condition, and she works as a cleaner, so they get by.  She is close to 60, no Private Pension, and the child is now at Uni.

These folk are the salt of the earth, but neither ever had high paying employment.

I would just like to apologise to everyone for starting this thread.  My intention was to stimulate an interesting debate not to be antagonistic (as suggested by jeangenie).
Sorry all.

Joyce I don`t think you were being antagonistic at all & you have no need to apologise. Think those who know your style on here would also know you are`nt that way inclined :)
Have only managed to read part of the thread but what I have is interesting tho & goes to show how differently we all think & view things :)

Christine, Spain.

Hi Joyce - whilst I may not agree with your point of view - it's been a really interesting thread - thanks for bringing it up!

After all, we do still live in a democracy (don't we :D ? ) and we are all entitled to our own point of view - and this shouldn't be a place where I'M RIGHT - YOU'RE WRONG is practised!   It would be very boring if we all thought (and did) the same thing!

Margot

Joyce, I don't think you need to apologise either, this is an open forum, and everyone is entitled to their own views.  I think those who have posted have very strong views, and it is an emotive subject.  My own feeling is that I can agree in part to both sides of the arguement.

dont apologise joyce as others have said we are all grown ups and we are all entitled to our own opinions and a healthy debate never did anyone any harm. it would be boring if we all agreed on everything

Joyce you opened up a good topic, we all may not see eye to eye on it but hey that is life. Debates are good for people. :-))

Thanks for your support guys :). I will admit to being a black and white thinker on certain issues but I do try hard not to intentionally cause offence.

So was your view that only people who can afford not to work should have children genuine, or only said to wind up 'poor people'? Not that it matters, but doesn't that limit the gene pool rather?

And if saying this: Those who say they cannot afford to give up full time work should refrain from having babies imo. to me right after I just said I going on maternity leave in June and can't afford to give up work totally isn't antagonistic I don't know what is.

Chloe & J/G, Joyce has apologised to those who thought her post antagonistic, you could be gracious enough to accept it.

Christine, Spain.

Had Joyce not singled out JG on her post "as suggested by Jeangenie" I would be inclined to agree with you.

<< but doesn't that limit the gene pool rather >> LOL Jeangenie :D :D :D

<<So was your view that only people who can afford not to work should have children genuine>>  now there's a frightening thought - only the wealthy and those on benefit can have children :o

>only the wealthy and those on benefit can have children

A truly terrifying thought - the gene that carries the willingness to work hard might be bred out.

Some wealthy people are wealthy BECAUSE they have worked hard ;) (and I am NOT saying that poor people don't work hard, before someone jumps down my throat).

There is also a big difference to people on a low income not being able to give up work because they really can't afford to, and people who have very large mortgages (and large houses) who also say that they can't afford to give up - they do have a choice

Daisy

I genuinely believe that children deserve to be looked after at home by one of their parents for at least the first few years of life.  As has already been pointed out what is the point of having babies if you then pay someone else to look after them ?  If this is classed as being antagonistic then so be it.
Managing on less money for a few years may be difficult and may mean that sacrifices have to be made but I'm sure the benefits for both parent and child would more than compensate.

Actually Joyce if both parents take parental leave, one at a time, they can manage to have one parent at home for most of the first year.  As you say, what is the point of having babies if you then pay someone else to look after them - but what is the point of one parent staying home if by staying home, that home is lost!    Council tax in the borough where No 1 son lives is £120 per month, mortgage is over £600 per month - water/drainage another £50 (and that's on a meter) salary around £23,000 pa, fares £1860 pa, pension contributions (compulsory) 6% of salary - it doesn't take much adding up to realise that the "affluent SE" isn't that way for everyone!

Margot-

i live in the south east and we manged on just my husband working, i have never claimed benefits and have only received child benfit which everyone gets. my husband worked the 3 jobs so we could stay afloat and so i could raise our children. i only object to the people who could manage on one wage but choose to have children and work because they feel staying at home is a waste of time. i have no problem with the people who really have no choice i just feel sorry for them. if my husband had been unable to get other jobs or had been taken ill or left me or whatever i would have had no choice but to work but thankfully i got to share my childrens precious one off pre school years

Since i do not have children as yet, but plan to start a family in the near future (trying), some people may not feel i have the right to comment. But lol....

I, personally, would prefer to be the person seeing my childrens first steps, hearing their first words, teaching them manners, how to behave in public, taking them for days out, teaching them to swim etc etc.
Why go to all of the trouble of bringing a child into the world to leave them with someone else?
I dare say i will be working again before i manage to get pragnant, will work untill i can take my maternity leave, my partner will take his entitlement of paternity leave and spend some quality time with his newborn son or daughter. We will not be in a position where i can stay at home, and so i will have to return to work.
I intend to breast feed, so will have my baby feeding from a bottle for bed time feeds and i intend to work evenings in order to fit my work around my partners.
Dad will do tea time, bath time and bed time, mum will do getting up, washed, dressed, playing, going to the park etc etc.
That system i feel will work for us. evening work is easily come by if not that well paid. If i only earn £500 a month it will help with savings accounts, holidays, days out, nights out and clothes. Allowing us to keep some of the lifestyle we had before children.

It can be done.
However, if people choose not to work and do claim benefits for one reason or another, thats up to them.

Joyce,

There is hundreds of evidence to prove that making a good parent isn't being at home and that working mums families are as well adjusted if not more at times than those not working. Making a good parent is just that being a good parent.

Have you seen any of the wife swap episodes, not that I am a big watcher of it but my OH half thinks it is funny and constantly shouts me through to watch bits of it.  Half the none working mothers on there dont even get out their bed even to see the kids to school.
:-))

Yes, Blue, there could well be 'hundreds of evidence' but how many under 4s were asked for their opinions ? If they could articulate their views do you think they would say ooh yes I'd much rather mummy was in work than looking after me all day ? :)