Are FF trying to get women back in the kitchen?

wolfpawnat

Before I go any further, I am both a woman and a parent.

I am getting the feeling in recent times that FF are hoping that mass emigration and getting one parent to stay at home with the family will sort the problems with employment. I know they haven't come right out and say it, but it is something I really feel is happening.

I was talking to a person within the FF party (only an office person, not a politician) recently about my financial dilemmas regarding college. The attitude I got back was "sure his father will have a good job, would you not consider perhaps concentrating more on your child" I was shocked, I just want to finish my degree and work!

I know there is a massive recession and that every family should have some income and perhaps it is something you could argue, but to not even think a person deserves a chance !?!

Am I the only person who feels this is the vibe they are pushing?

Son Of A Vidic

Pay no heed of Fianna Fail because like the green party, they will soon be irrelevant.

ShamoBuc

Who let them out in the first place?????

Berty

There would be more jobs straight away anyway. Back to the 80's we need to go.

Smoking in pubs.
Women having the dinner cooked.
KNOWING THEIR PLACE!!

Zebra3

Well it's where FF's female TDs are heading anyway. :pac:

wolfpawnat

medicman2009 wrote: »

Pay no heed of Fianna Fail because like the green party, they will soon be irrelevant.

Yes, and the lovely right wing FG will be ever so much more liberal:rolleyes:

4zn76tysfajdxp

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Before I go any further, I am both a woman and a parent.

Also known as a "mother."

angelfire9

I'm out of work at the moment and I have discovered that I am turning into my mother :eek:

I've started baking bread & cakes rather than buying them!

I realised yesterday I am turning into a 1970's stereotype
Barefoot & pregnant in the kitchen

(my ankles are swollen and the floor is cool hence the bare feet)

Ickle Magoo

I'm not sure how the personal views of a member of office staff equate to motivation of a political party?

There are horrendously old fashioned views in all walks of life; politics or political offices are no different. I would imagine that which gender is out working or managing to pay the mortgage/bills is the least of FF worries at the moment.

For the record, I'm the main earner in our house. :cool:

wolfpawnat

Jad Repulsive Menu wrote: »

Also known as a "mother."

You can be both, I am both my own person and my child's parent

wolfpawnat

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

For the record, I'm the main earner in our house. :cool:

Stop being smug!!!! :pac::cool:

Ickle Magoo

I wasn't being smug. My point was that entirely thanks to the current economic climate, rather than me staying at home as I was prior to the recession, I'm back at work and if anyone is going to give up work & be staying home and looking after the kids, it will be my husband.

Dotsie~tmp

FF ate my baby.

wolfpawnat

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I wasn't being smug. My point was that entirely thanks to the current economic climate, rather than me staying at home as I was prior to the recession, I'm back at work and if anyone is going to give up work & be staying home and looking after the kids, it will be my husband.

Your being smug!!!!!!:D (only messing btw)

wolfpawnat

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

FF ate my baby.

You might want to report them for that!:cool:

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

If the women in question are Mary Harney and Mary Coughlan, then yeah, sure - why not?

gonedrinking

OP it seems you added 2 plus 2 and got 1000. Ridicoulous suggestion to make based on that persons comments.

IMO though its not a bad idea for women to stay at home these days, maternity leave payments are killing business in this country at the minute. My company is really under strain at the minute due to the amount of women on maternity or going on maternity in the near future.

Liam Byrne

Am I asleep because I find myself agreeing in part with FF.

If you choose to have kids, then one parent - either parent - should stay at home and mind them, maybe working part-time if they can.

Some people wanted it all, though - the career AND the kids, and then used the double income (and the childrens' allowance) to pay for childcare and get a massive mortgage; now they need the money and can't reverse that.

It's not necessarily old-fashioned or sexist (despite some posters jumping to such conclusions); it's just common sense.

Zebra3

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

If the women in question are Mary Harney and Mary Coughlan, then yeah, sure - why not?

Harney wouldn't fit in one.

southsiderosie

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Am I asleep because I find myself agreeing in part with FF.

I think the earth just tilted off of its axis a little bit.

Dravokivich

Liam Byrne wrote: »

If you choose to have kids, then one parent - either parent - should stay at home and mind them, maybe working part-time if they can.

That's all well and good and I do see the sense in it, but a single earner will find it really hard to be able to support a family.

MagicSean

Dravokivich wrote: »

That's all well and good and I do see the sense in it, but a single earner will find it really hard to be able to support a family.

A married couple wouldn't have that much trouble as they share tax allowances. Unmarried couples would be screwed.

panda100

gonedrinking wrote: »

OP it seems you added 2 plus 2 and got 1000. Ridicoulous suggestion to make based on that persons comments.

IMO though its not a bad idea for women to stay at home these days, maternity leave payments are killing business in this country at the minute. My company is really under strain at the minute due to the amount of women on maternity or going on maternity in the near future.

is this post serious? Maternity Leave caused the complete economic breakdown in this country?? If your company is under strain at the moment then perhaps it needs better management rather than blaming it on women who have every right to have children and remain in employment.

I would say that I am in complete disbelief that someone in this day and age can have such an attitude, but it still does remain in our constitution that womens places remains in the home :mad: With the ever increasing costs of childcare there no doubt will be women forced back into home. Its why you can see a resurgence of so many young Feminist groups in Ireland.

Liam Byrne

Dravokivich wrote: »

That's all well and good and I do see the sense in it, but a single earner will find it really hard to be able to support a family.

As I said, I'm not a completely right-wing nut :

1) I did say the 2nd partner could work part-time
2) The biggest problem in supporting a family these days is down to keeping a roof over their heads, and that cost is partly caused by higher mortgages which were down to combining the expected 2 incomes.

No dual-income mortgages = lower prices for homes = negate that factor completely.

As for being able to, then as I said, it's a choice. I'm not able to afford it and I wouldn't dream of choosing to bring a child into the world for that very reason.

People seem to put the "need" to have a child before anything else, when in fact they'd give more attention to the costs involved in having a pet - food, vet costs, time investment, etc.

P.S. There will always be accidents and surprises, and I'm not knocking anyone who does their level best in those scenarios - I know a few who are to be highly commended for getting that particular balancing act reasonably right (plus "there but for the grace of God" or whatever) but those who made choices re the above should have thought more carefully.

Dravokivich

Dravokivich wrote: »

That's all well and good and I do see the sense in it, but a single earner will find it really hard to be able to support a family.

As that single earner, you're dead right, just greatful I don't have large debts.

edit: if mortgages only factored one (main) income then houses would be priced such that many families could live on one income.

opinion guy

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Before I go any further, I am both a woman and a parent.

I am getting the feeling in recent times that FF are hoping that mass emigration and getting one parent to stay at home with the family will sort the problems with employment. I know they haven't come right out and say it, but it is something I really feel is happening.

I was talking to a person within the FF party (only an office person, not a politician) recently about my financial dilemmas regarding college. The attitude I got back was "sure his father will have a good job, would you not consider perhaps concentrating more on your child" I was shocked, I just want to finish my degree and work!

I know there is a massive recession and that every family should have some income and perhaps it is something you could argue, but to not even think a person deserves a chance !?!

Am I the only person who feels this is the vibe they are pushing?

Look Mary and Brian have large appetites. Now that they are going to have to make cuts int he large government catering department someone is going to have to cook for them!!!

The Waltzing Consumer

panda100 wrote: »

is this post serious? Maternity Leave caused the complete economic breakdown in this country?? If your company is under strain at the moment then perhaps it needs better management rather than blaming it on women who have every right to have children and remain in employment.

I would say that I am in complete disbelief that someone in this day and age can have such an attitude, but it still does remain in our constitution that womens places remains in the home :mad: With the ever increasing costs of childcare there no doubt will be women forced back into home. Its why you can see a resurgence of so many young Feminist groups in Ireland.

Panda, the poster did not say or imply that maternity leave caused the complete economic breakdown. Before you judge him or her, read his/her post.

"IMO though its not a bad idea for women to stay at home these days, maternity leave payments are killing business in this country at the minute"

is very different from what your reactionary post claims he/she said.

Liam Byrne

panda100 wrote: »

is this post serious? Maternity Leave caused the complete economic breakdown in this country?? If your company is under strain at the moment then perhaps it needs better management rather than blaming it on women who have every right to have children and remain in employment.

What about men's "rights" ? Why did you only mention maternity leave, and not paternity leave ?

If someone makes a choice that affects their work availability, of course there should be room for discussion and an outcome that suits both parties, but the above - partly due to it's phrasing rather than its general concept - smacks of sexism.

"Women" don't have "every right to have children", let alone combine that with automatic rights re employment.

The old-fashioned way of it being an automatic reason to leave was wrong (and is gladly consigned to history) but saying that it's an automatic right to stay, etc, is also wrong.

If it can be discussed / negotiated to reach a workable conclusion for both parties (or rather, all 3 or 4 parties considering there's a child and a partner involved too), then it's win-win.

But it's not "automatic", and shouldn't be.

If I "choose" to lie in until 11am every day, then that's my choice. If my employer can offer flexi-time, there's no issue.

But if my employment requires a 9am start every day, something's gotta give; and since it's my "choice", then I can see what's most likely to have to give.

P.S. The counterpoint to the above also exists, BTW.....where many employers wrongly only considered people for promotion if they worked late/additional hours for nothing - that despicable approach would add credence to the above argument because of adverse effects on family life, but would - again - apply to both partners / parents.

Leopardi

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Am I asleep because I find myself agreeing in part with FF.

If you choose to have kids, then one parent - either parent - should stay at home and mind them, maybe working part-time if they can.

Some people wanted it all, though - the career AND the kids, and then used the double income (and the childrens' allowance) to pay for childcare and get a massive mortgage; now they need the money and can't reverse that.

It's not necessarily old-fashioned or sexist (despite some posters jumping to such conclusions); it's just common sense.

I disagree with the general statement that one parent "should" stay at home, but it is nice to see someone not specifying which parent that should be. The implication of statements such as "a woman's place is in the home" usually is "a man's place is out of it." Whether the media creates, reflects or reinforces stereotypes, the general consensus on adverts from television, radio, magazines and newspapers, is that it should be women who assume all domestic roles and childcare responsibilities. As for men, they should supposedly be happy with being little more than a sperm-donor and breadwinner. Some men might be happy with such roles, others might slavishly submit to the popular assumptions which underlie them, but some men would like to be actively involved in their children's lives.

I am not opposed to individual couples making decisions which lead to one parent staying at home, but I loathe the stereotypical assumption that it is the woman who should do so.

Dravokivich

k_mac wrote: »

A married couple wouldn't have that much trouble as they share tax allowances. Unmarried couples would be screwed.

Those credits do help, but when yer on 20K - 26K they don't really make that much of a difference.

panda100 wrote: »

is this post serious? Maternity Leave caused the complete economic breakdown in this country?? If your company is under strain at the moment then perhaps it needs better management rather than blaming it on women who have every right to have children and remain in employment.

I would say that I am in complete disbelief that someone in this day and age can have such an attitude, but it still does remain in our constitution that womens places remains in the home :mad: With the ever increasing costs of childcare there no doubt will be women forced back into home. Its why you can see a resurgence of so many young Feminist groups in Ireland.

Panda100, he was not saying women getting pregnant and claming maternity leave are the cause of the econimic downfall. We all know it isn't.

He was explaining his company are having dificulites because there are currently several women off on maternity Leave and a few more due it soon. This means his company are currently paying for the employee off on leave and for a temp to cover the work load.

There was nothing more implied in it.

Cheap Thrills!

Let's get real. One parent being able to stay at home these days is the stuff of fantasy!!

I know plenty of people that would love to stay at home but have no choice.

Being a stay at home parent is a luxury most can not afford.

Dravokivich

Cheap Thrills! wrote: »

Let's get real. One parent being able to stay at home these days is the stuff of fantasy!!

I know plenty of people that would love to stay at home but have no choice.

Being a stay at home parent is a luxury most can not afford.

That's the thing... It shouldn't be a luxury. Pre Celtic tiger my family was capable of going on with my mother just working herself and my dad staying home himself.

This was early mid 80's and through out the 90's.

This country was meant to be poor then, yet single earning families could survive fine. My dad started 10 years ago, for luxuries. But even then, that was only when I was old enough, so I'd be at home when my siblings where finished school.

Relatively speaking... I'm probably earning more now, then what my mother was 25 years ago. I'm not able to afford a mortgage. And even then the mortgage aside, I'd find it hard to afford clothes for kids.

And as Liam mentioned, other factors as healthcare... paying for their education...

If there was to be a single earner who can afford to support a family, they'd need to be pulling in quite a wage packet.

Monty Burnz

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Yes, and the lovely right wing FG will be ever so much more liberal:rolleyes:

That would be the FG who introduced divorce to this country, despite fierce opposition from Fianna Failure? That would be the FG who liberalised contraception in this country, despite opposition from Fianna Failure?

Fine Gael and Labour have been socially progressive parties at least since the 80s. I think somebody is trying the old 'tar them all with the one brush' tactic again. You'd swear FG were the the Nazi party or something. In any other country, they'd be recognised a solidly centre-right, socially progressive party. And people try to paint Labour as the new communist party, when they are just centre-left.

Don't listen to the lies of the Fianna Failures, do your own research.

kylith

Cheap Thrills! wrote: »

Let's get real. One parent being able to stay at home these days is the stuff of fantasy!!

I know plenty of people that would love to stay at home but have no choice.

Being a stay at home parent is a luxury most can not afford.

A quick google shows that childcare costs in Dublin are about €1000 per month, so if I had a kid and continued working I would be handing over 98% of my pay packet to a creche, and that's if I only had one child. Having a stay-at-home parent, whether mum or dad, can actually save families money.

kylith

kylith wrote: »

A quick google shows that childcare costs in Dublin are about €1000 per month, so if I had a kid and continued working I would be handing over 98% of my pay packet to a creche, and that's if I only had one child. Having a stay-at-home parent, whether mum or dad, can actually save families money.

When I was growing up in the 60s & 70s in England, there was a situation for many families where once the kids were over nine the mother went back to work.
The "latch key kids" would leave the house in the mornings after the parants had already left, pulling the door shut behind then - hence the name.

They would come home from school and would have to hang around the local park, streets, garden shed or where ever they could until the parants came home.

This was before after school clubs etc

The Waltzing Consumer

Deleted User wrote: »

When I was growing up in the 60s & 70s in England, there was a situation for many families where once the kids were over nine the mother went back to work.
The "latch key kids" would leave the house in the mornings after the parants had already left, pulling the door shut behind then - hence the name.

They would come home from school and would have to hang around the local park, streets, garden shed or where ever they could until the parants came home.

This was before after school clubs etc

Like the time I caught the ferry to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for m'shoe. So I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt. Which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. Gimme five bees for a quarter, you'd say. Now where was I... oh yeah. The important thing was that I had an onion tied to my belt, which was the style at the time. You couldn't get white onions, because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones...

PeterIanStaker

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

FF ate my baby.

Hyperbole, but not that far off the mark. They have ruined the lives of future generations already.

The Waltzing Consumer

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Like the time I caught the ferry to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for m'shoe. So I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt. Which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. Gimme five bees for a quarter, you'd say. Now where was I... oh yeah. The important thing was that I had an onion tied to my belt, which was the style at the time. You couldn't get white onions, because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo

wolfpawnat

gonedrinking wrote: »

IMO though its not a bad idea for women to stay at home these days, maternity leave payments are killing business in this country at the minute. My company is really under strain at the minute due to the amount of women on maternity or going on maternity in the near future.

Mat leave is not the destruction of these companies. Bad management is. I know it makes it more difficult, but mat leave is paid via the SW and the boss signs off on it, to the best of my knowledge.

But you have brought something back to my memory. Europe is increasing mat leave and pay. FF want the businesses to pick up the difference, meaning that all child bearing aged women will be black listed because that would affect them greatly!

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Am I asleep because I find myself agreeing in part with FF.

If you choose to have kids, then one parent - either parent - should stay at home and mind them, maybe working part-time if they can.

Some people wanted it all, though - the career AND the kids, and then used the double income (and the childrens' allowance) to pay for childcare and get a massive mortgage; now they need the money and can't reverse that.

It's not necessarily old-fashioned or sexist (despite some posters jumping to such conclusions); it's just common sense.

I would love to be a stay-at-home mum until he starts school then sort myself out. But there is no way to afford that these days either!

Unless you are on a good salary, I cannot see why, if you have two/three younger children why both parents would be working and putting them in a creché, but people are crippled under debts these days!

But to assume I should just stay at home and not continue trying to get a career is unintelligent. I mean if I got my degree and never worked it is one thing, but to say don't even bother.

The reason I brought FF into this is, his exact words were, "We, in the party, believe that we should spread the work to as many families as possible, sure it was a life saver in the 80's"

wolfpawnat

Monty Burnz wrote: »

That would be the FG who introduced divorce to this country, despite fierce opposition from Fianna Failure? That would be the FG who liberalised contraception in this country, despite opposition from Fianna Failure?

Fine Gael and Labour have been socially progressive parties at least since the 80s. I think somebody is trying the old 'tar them all with the one brush' tactic again. You'd swear FG were the the Nazi party or something. In any other country, they'd be recognised a solidly centre-right, socially progressive party. And people try to paint Labour as the new communist party, when they are just centre-left.

Don't listen to the lies of the Fianna Failures, do your own research.

In all fairness though, people are divorcing these days over the smallest of things. I think the country is just gone mad, especially regards divorce settlements! I mean a man who works hard and puts the roof over the family and when she is caught screwing a friend, he is forced to give her the home to raise the children in (know of this particular situation). Wasn't really too well thought out either!

Monty Burnz

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

Hyperbole, but not that far off the mark. They have ruined the lives of future generations already.

And sadly, people will die because of what they have done. Less money for hospitals, less money for screening and checking for illness, less money for mental health, less money for suicide prevention.

On top of that, there's going to be a need for much more of the above due to the stress, misery and depression that will be suffered by those without jobs and those struggling to keep the roof over their heads.

Ironically in the light of your comment, it would have been a lot better for everyone if the corrupt gombeens had just eaten a single baby.

Cheers Fianna Fail.

Monty Burnz

wolfpawnat wrote: »

In all fairness though, people are divorcing these days over the smallest of things. I think the country is just gone mad, especially regards divorce settlements! I mean a man who works hard and puts the roof over the family and when she is caught screwing a friend, he is forced to give her the home to raise the children in (know of this particular situation). Wasn't really too well thought out either!

Hang on a second - first you make out that Fine Gael are some sort of backwards social conservatives like Fianna Failure, and when I point out that they are actually the more liberal party, you complain about liberal policies?

Are you sure what side of the debate you are on?

Joey the lips

No as a home carer i can assure you that fianna failure are not trying to get women back in the kitchen. In fact they are setting us up for the destruction of the family...

Enjoy your kids...Because when they come of age they will emergrate.

Monty Burnz

Joey the lips wrote: »

No as a home carer i can assure you that fianna failure are not trying to get women back in the kitchen. In fact they are setting us up for the destruction of the family...

Enjoy your kids...Because when they come of age they will emergrate.

Good point.

astra2000

wolfpawnat wrote: »

The reason I brought FF into this is, his exact words were, "We, in the party, believe that we should spread the work to as many families as possible, sure it was a life saver in the 80's"

Do you not agree that it would be fairer for now anyway for each house hold to have one person working than some home to have double incomes while others are reliant on the state? Now obviously there is no way of implementing it, so unless FF revert to the way the tax credits used to be in th 90s where a working spouse can claim the tax credits of a non working spouse there is no added bonus to one spouse remaining at home. Intrestingly enough the reason that FF changed the way the tax credits for married couples worked was to encourage (force) more women back to work. So it seems stay at home moms are viewed as a commodity by the FF government that can be used or shelved when ever times require!
Wolfpawnet your situation is different as you are seeking to finish your further education and it is astonishing that a representitive of our government should suggest you sideline your education to suit the economy.:eek:

K-9

astra2000 wrote: »

Now obviously there is no way of implementing it, so unless FF revert to the way the tax credits used to be in th 90s where a working spouse can claim the tax credits of a non working spouse there is no added bonus to one spouse remaining at home. Intrestingly enough the reason that FF changed the way the tax credits for married couples worked was to encourage (force) more women back to work. So it seems stay at home moms are viewed as a commodity by the FF government that can be used or shelved when ever times require!
:eek:

Tax credits still work the same way as allowances did in the 90's, still transferable, the difference is the amounts that a 2 income family can earn at 20%. The State basically taxes the 2 income family less.

IT1 - Tax Credits, Reliefs and Rates for the Tax Years 2009 and 2010

astra2000

K-9 wrote: »

Tax credits still work the same way as allowances did in the 90's, still transferable, the difference is the amounts that a 2 income family can earn at 20%. The State basically taxes the 2 income family less.

IT1 - Tax Credits, Reliefs and Rates for the Tax Years 2009 and 2010

Yep eg if you had a one income family earning fifty five thousand euro pa they would be in the high tax bracket on a portion of that earnings, a dual income couple would remain on the low tax. It used not to be that way, a working spouse could claim their non workins spouses tax credits And double the bracket at which they entered the higher tax.
I suppose the only way to beat the system would be for a married couple to both work part time or better still job share!

K-9

astra2000 wrote: »

Yep eg if you had a one income family earning fifty five thousand euro pa they would be in the high tax bracket on a portion of that earnings, a dual income couple would remain on the low tax. It used not to be that way, a working spouse could claim their non workins spouses tax credits And double the bracket at which they entered the higher tax.
I suppose the only way to beat the system would be for a married couple to both work part time or better still job share!

Mothers working part time was a big part of job growth in the 00's.

Something like 50% of the workforce didn't pay Income Tax. Jobs at or near the minimum wage were about 10% of the workforce so I'd say 1 income families and part time working parents made up a big part of the 50% figure.

Wolfe Tone

Personally I think it is about what is best for the child. What it better, having a parent at home looking after it of having the child stuck in childcare?

When I have kids hopefully I will be in a position where I will be earning enough money in order for my partner to be able to work less hours, or not at all. Or maybe we could both work less hours so one of us will always be around. That may not be practical though.
My mother became a housewife when I was around 6. I thought it was great tbh, much better than being shoved in some creche.

wolfpawnat

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Hang on a second - first you make out that Fine Gael are some sort of backwards social conservatives like Fianna Failure, and when I point out that they are actually the more liberal party, you complain about liberal policies?

Are you sure what side of the debate you are on?

Do I think Divorce should be allowed yes, do I think that the laws with regards to divorce are too biased towards the woman, yes! And to clear it up, I hate both parties!

astra2000 wrote: »

Do you not agree that it would be fairer for now anyway for each house hold to have one person working than some home to have double incomes while others are reliant on the state? Now obviously there is no way of implementing it, so unless FF revert to the way the tax credits used to be in th 90s where a working spouse can claim the tax credits of a non working spouse there is no added bonus to one spouse remaining at home. Intrestingly enough the reason that FF changed the way the tax credits for married couples worked was to encourage (force) more women back to work. So it seems stay at home moms are viewed as a commodity by the FF government that can be used or shelved when ever times require!
Wolfpawnet your situation is different as you are seeking to finish your further education and it is astonishing that a representitive of our government should suggest you sideline your education to suit the economy.:eek:

I am unmarried. I have no one I can depend on for my child. His father will have money when he is qualified, but until then we have nothing and since I am not married, I cannot guarantee what the future holds for my son and myself. Will I end up a single mum? If so, all I will be qualified for is the OPFP. Which is unproductive:(

I would love to stay at home and raise him myself, but I don't know if it is viable. Thankfully, I have no mortgage, car, loans or anything other than the usual household bills, so no I do not have to work to repay large sums of money. but still.

I will that my chosen career is midwifery, so not too many men in that (not being sexist) if I had to choose which would needed it more in 4 years time, myself or an unemployed family who have loans to pay and 4 children, yes I would say she deserves it more. But still, staying at home should be an option and not forced upon you.

wolfpawnat

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I thought it was great tbh, much better than being shoved in some creche.

My son's father and one of his friends said that to me. That when they finished school, mum collected them have a snack ready for them and did their homework with them. I would love to do that. But even now when I am doing that (well not school yet, but staying at home) I am bring called a dosser, a scummy mummy and a SW drain. There is no winning.