The implication at the end of Emma Brockes’s article is that if only we could work out some magical formula, we’d all be able to juggle work and children perfectly (Helen Skelton’s honesty about giving up work for her kids was radical, theguardian.com, 17 August). This is not the case.
It is impossible to do two full‑time jobs and do both perfectly. Her honesty wasn’t radical – the message firmly put out by media, education and the government is that you should not wish to be a stay-at-home parent.
We have lost sight of one of the original aims of the suffragettes – to have all the work traditionally done by women recognised as of equal value to the work done by men and as useful to the family and the economy, in an effort to be regarded as the same as men. Work traditionally done by women has become less and less highly regarded by society – not more.
Although my job was intellectually demanding, nothing prepared me for how challenging looking after young children can be. It is unlike any other job I have done. The difference is you can do it badly without losing your job.
We’ve moved from it being impossible to have a job if you have children, to the impossibility of not having a job when you have children, and this has been exacerbated by parents in the media and in parliament who have chosen to work and cannot understand why anyone would choose anything else.
The government has demanded that women with young children should work. How long will it be before we recognise the advantages of having young children looked after by a loving, dedicated adult, and how many fewer anxious and depressed teenagers and adults might we have as a result?
Fiona Berry
Market Rasen, Lincolnshire
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
