Quote :
Parents, not grandparents, are supposed to be raising their own kids; and if this means the mother has to stay home to do that, so be it. Working mothers have wrecked families, and the results are plain to see.

Yes.

This nanny state has tasked itself with the responsibility of looking after all disadvantaged and we are taxed most heavily for the states' largess. If the mother cannot care for their children then let the state look after them do not appeal for even more cash from the state.

Sorry I have being away for a while over to see our friends and other peoples we all know.

About the grandparents looking after all the kids sometimes is OK I think. Not for reasons Foxy says to keep her young, but to teach and guide the kids, also with help of the parents, with the extra knowlege the Grandparents have because of their longer lifes.

Good parents plus good grandparents, makes a good example and mixture for the kids to follow and learn from I think. Thank you.

G'day there TTBN...

I've got to agree with HASBEEN on this one I'm afraid. I do understand what it is you're saying, ideally it would be good for mother to remain home and tend to the children, rather than seeking a career of her own.

Unfortunately, current fiscal events don't always permit the ideal family structure of the fifties, sixties and seventies to remain static, with Dad at work and Mum at home tending to the kids. I do believe there's a clear delineation between a 'working mother' as opposed to a mother with a well structured career? Dad's a decent sort of 'wood butcher' while Mum's a junior partner in a small suburban solicitor's practice. Dad has his job, Mum a career.

An ideal situation for the Grandparents to offer meaningful assistance as required where mum 'has' to work out of a true financial exigency. However where Mum has a career, perhaps it's Dad that needs to stop work and care full time for their kids? Rather than calling upon the good will of the poor Grandparents, to look after their grandchildren, despite their protestations to the contrary.

I have said this before but it is worth repeating.
In the case of where both parents are working, the problem is a Labour
government decision back in the 1960s or 1970s.
The government decreed that all lending for housing must consider the
income of both the husband and wife.
This enabled them to borrow more money.

What happens when you put twice as much money into any market ?
Surprise, surprise, the price of the product, including houses, rises
to match the available money !
If you borrow on two incomes, you need two incomes to pay the mortgage !
So why is everybody surprised ?

That of course makes it impossible in the case of failed marriages.

As an aside, a question was asked, why do people live so long after
their fertile years have ended ?
The answer was that grandparents are needed to support their own
childrens' families. It is a survival technique.

I could see this happening back in the 70's, when women started going back into the workforce in droves and the fight was on for daycare centres.

I myself never liked the idea of handing one of my own over to strangers to care for.
Although I understand that a lot of people without family backup and failed marriages have little choice. I am also not disparaging child care workers, as they do a good job
in a job that isn't easy or well paid.

I cared for the kids 3 or 4 days a week, when they were small, and still do the school run
now that they are all at school. In other cultures, it is probably common place for the Aunties and grandmothers to all care for the children.

Motherhood is a lifetime job. Fatherhood is too, but not quite as intensive. Unless the father has the mother role.

I always say, you hand your car over to a stranger to mind, but never your kids. But that's just me. I understand the practicalities of other people's predicaments.

That should be "I cared for the grandchildren" above.

I fixed it,, but then the drafted thing posted before I was ready.