Note: Please bear in mind that whilst this topic does canvass opinions, it is not a fight club. You may disagree with other posters but we do ask you please to stick to our Talk Guidelines and to be civil. We don't allow personal attacks or troll-hunting. Do please report any. Thanks, MNHQ.

To ask for one, simple, summary about all the angry SAHM threads.

(461 Posts)
catinboots Thu 21-Mar-13 22:26:49


I haven't read them all - but there seem to be lots of SAHMs on here today, moaning that they won't eat help with child are costs.


Have I missed some key piece of information? Have a got it wrong?

Surely the whole point of being a SAHP is so that you don't need childcare?..

My thoughts exactly.

WorraLiberty England Thu 21-Mar-13 22:30:10

Honestly, I wondered the same thing but it didn't take me more than about 15 mins to skim through and get a basic summary.

MissEleanorLavish Thu 21-Mar-13 22:30:37

Isn't the argument that the changes that have been brought in - cuts to CB, new childcare scheme etc, basically make the SAH parent's role invisible and seemingly valueless?

MissEleanorLavish Thu 21-Mar-13 22:31:28

The woman who had a go at Nick Clegg today said it better than me...

catinboots Thu 21-Mar-13 22:31:32

What's the summary then Worra? grin

Who's right and who's wrong?

wannabeEostregoddess Thu 21-Mar-13 22:33:41

I wondered this too.

Why do people care so much about others think? Why does it matter? Do whats best for your family and sod the rest.

Money isnt the only way to measure value.

ScottyDoc Thu 21-Mar-13 22:36:38

The fact is, David Cameron and all the other slimy Conservatives couldn't give too much of a shite about SAHMs or anyone that isn't out there actively contributing to the economy .

Fine for him and his Prada clad wife with their nannies and various staff, comfortable homes and no reason ever to have to rely on a food bank.

We will all have to get over it though.

WorraLiberty England Thu 21-Mar-13 22:39:31

Well there is no 'right and wrong'...just people arguing for and against grin

<< Unhelpful >>

But quite why SAHMs would need childcare is beyond fact it's a bit of an oxymoron.

And I say that as a SAHM

montmartre Thu 21-Mar-13 22:40:11

Society doesn't value carers- why else would carers be paid NMW?
It's 'women's work' therefore shouldn't be paid hmm

wannabeEostregoddess Thu 21-Mar-13 22:43:31

So now SAHMs want paid? Eh?

I dont particularly want to be, but when DP finds a job I will be a SAHM. I am applying for temp jobs atm because his earning potential is far bigger than mine. I would prefer to work but financially its not sensible.

I wont need childcare. If I work the govt will help with childcare. What is the issue?

Startail Thu 21-Mar-13 22:45:47

I'm cross not at any one particular government bright idea.

I'm just fucked off that nothing acknowledges that some of us choose to bring up our own DCs and that should be accepted as a valid choice.

All tax, benefit, child benefit and other things should have the option of being considered according to household income!

Yes, I'm lucky to be a SAHM, but sometimes I also feel very very under appreciated by society.

I didn't intend not to work, but DD1 came along before AI had a career established and DH landed a reasonably paid job. No near by grandparents, schools with no before and after school care, one CM in the village and an older DD who wanted to escape her peer group at 3.20 as they bullied her meant I never did find a job. Sometimes this depresses me, when the government take my CB, which is the only money in my name it makes me vey very very fucking angry

solveproblem Thu 21-Mar-13 22:51:28

SAHM's are very highly valued in society by most people I would say.

What I don't understand is why you would need the government to validate your lifestyle choice by helping you out financially?

You either choose to stay at home, in which case I would assume you can afford to have one person not working.

Or you're looking for work but can't find one, in which case you'll get jsa, housing benefit, tax credits etc.

WorraLiberty England Thu 21-Mar-13 22:54:00

Yes, I'm lucky to be a SAHM, but sometimes I also feel very very under appreciated by society

What appreciation does society owe you though?

I've been a SAHM for longer than I can remember and it's never once occurred to me to seek appreciation from anyone other than my DH confused

You have your kids, you make your choices.

Sometimes those choices can be difficult and sometimes there is no choice at all.

But wtf does it have to do with 'society'?

catinboots Thu 21-Mar-13 22:58:11

Well I appreciate you Worra. Have a sticker. It's a gold one. grin

Can I have one for being a WOHM please?

I am a SAHM and the only thing that ever made me cross was, if I had kept my job, gone on maternity leave, and gone back to work for the few months before I would have started my next mat leave (3 babies in 4 years) I would have got maternity pay and whatever else was going, but because I gave up work to be a SAHM I got fuck all. No SMP, no mat pay, nothing. It just irks me somehow sometimes. DH and I chose to "struggle" a bit financially, so that I could stay at home to look after the DCS, and we were quite happy to make the necessary adjustments to out lifestyle, and also pleased and grateful that we were able to do so - we were ok for money on his wage, and although not well off, could afford to provide the essentials and get by without us both having to work.
It is much more annoying to be referred to as "a problem" by that stupid woman MP and to be continually discounted as even a person by the previous Govt and the present one, as though I am somehow a burden, or not pulling my weight because I don't go to work to earn the money to pay it all to someone else to mind my children confused and that I can't transfer my personal tax allowance to DH (or even that he doesn't get a "married person" allowance as he would have years ago) - it just feels like a SAHP of either gender is the lowest of the low nowadays sad
I also don't get the "free child care" bit of a 3 yr old going to nursery. I never ever thought of it like that (although that may well be because I didn't need childcare) I thought of it as their first steps on the road to school, and learning how to act/react in a classroom/to teachers and the other children. I just never registered the difference not having to pay the extortionate costs for those few hours, and how much difference it made in people's family budgets.
It seems so bloody unfair that some couples who would love to have one of them stay at home just can't afford it if they want to keep the roof over their heads and food on the table, it must be heartbreaking sad and any Govt assuming that all parents want is to be able to leave the DCs and head out to work, is misguided and completely missing the point!

Oh I am so glad you started this thread. I kept wandering if I was supposed to be angry about something and was missing out. Now I see I'm not missing anything.

quesadilla Thu 21-Mar-13 23:02:51

Yeah I don't get it and I'm a working mum so maybe will get flamed: but it strikes me lots of people do things that are valued by society (teachers/scientists/charity workers) without their wotk having to be validated through the benefits or tax system. I think SAHMs deserve respect from society. But the whole point about childcare is its bloody expensive and if you are at home with your kids you don't need it. What more, exactly, do they want?

firesideskirt Thu 21-Mar-13 23:03:29

It's the way the message was conveyed by the government.

Not "this voucher scheme is intended to help parents who wish to return to work with the often prohibitive cost of childcare"

But "this government wants to help people who want to work hard and get on"

ie you lazy SAHMs drinking tea and sitting on your bums all day, why haven't you got a fancy career like Mrs G-Clegg or Mrs Cameron?

I don't need a medal btw. I'm cool.

montmartre Thu 21-Mar-13 23:09:44

Ooh hotcrossweasel... did you used to be a leetle beet foreign?

WorraLiberty England Thu 21-Mar-13 23:11:30

Hmm I'm not sure I can go around giving out stickers willy nilly OP grin

aldiwhore Thu 21-Mar-13 23:14:09

Perhaps household income benefits would solve the problem?

Been both a SAHP and a working parent, my value is the same. Our household income is pretty much the same, our expenditure has increased.

A household income tax break would be fairer... (or if the household income is low, a household tax credit).

Then it wouldn't be an issue who is working and who is staying at home.

If one person on an average wage could support the average household (after tax) with the basics of an average life, then people would have real choice surely? People could then choose for one adult to SAH (because for many it is actually incredibly important, there's nothing WRONG with believing that a child is better off with one parent pre school age, and nothing wrong with decent childcare either, but the UK is supposed to be free no?) , or both work for a bit more luxury. A single parent could afford to keep a roof over their heads without having to go cap in hand for benefits.

How would I pay for this? Probably cut the war budgets, seeing as I don't agree with most of the ones we're involved in anyway and feel they've done more harm than good and are at best a pointless waste of bloody good soldiers who deserve more respect than to be sent to a desert to shoot 'ragheads' (not my phrase) when actually the ONE sure way to make people hate you is to kill their families... excuse me. That should save a few BILLION for home.

landofsoapandglory Thu 21-Mar-13 23:17:29

I would have liked some sort of tax allowance, or tax code, that I could have transferred over to DH to give us a little bit extra when our DC were younger. We made massive sacrifices when our children were small for me to be a SAHM. We had no family nearby as back up childcare should we have needed it and we felt it was better that our DC were looked after by one of us.

There aren't enough jobs or childcare places for every woman to go back to work. SAHM's are undervalued. It would be nice, just for once, for a Governement, any Government to recognise the job that they do.

Are you referring to my lack of lederhosen?

montmartre Thu 21-Mar-13 23:21:41

Ah sorry, thought you were a different poster! (Fr name)

Nope. I've never been French grin a bit of a dragon wink usually, but never French.

I didn't realise sahm got any help with childcare. Saying that I know a couple who arnt working at the moment yet they get help with childcare.

I've been a sahm for the last 3 years, I don't care if I'm not valued by society, my family are happy that I'm now at home which is all that matters.

I think there are a lot of assumptions about staying at home being a choice.

No way could I command a salary to cover the childcare costs of 3 young children (2 at home, 1 with a disability). All the cuts just make us even more poor and we were struggling before.

ImagineJL Thu 21-Mar-13 23:31:32

Please Startail, stop using the phrase "choosing to bring up their own children" when referring to SAHMs.

Firstly it's not always a choice - some working mums have no option.

But mainly, just because someone uses paid childcare while they work, doesn't mean someone else is "bringing up" their child. My heart breaks on the 2 nights a week I can't put my own kids to bed because I'm working, and reading your smug phrase implying they're being brought up by their nanny is really upsetting me.

I'm their mum - a single mum too - and I am bringing them up, no one else, just me.

VestaCurry Thu 21-Mar-13 23:52:31

Sorry I haven't read the other threads, so forgive me if this was said elsewhere.

The government wants/needs as many people wohm to generate tax revenue. One of the main reasons is the population is ageing and living longer. To support that change as many people as possible of working age need to be generating income, preferably at the level where the exchequer gets money into it's coffers. This is one of the longer term reasons and doesn't touch the whole more current deficit issue, lack of growth in the economy etc and if the government wants everyone earning it needs to ensure there are jobs and........affordable child care available. As ever the whole thing is a bugger's muddle and successive governments tinker with these issues putting their own ideological spin on the tinkering.

Tbh I couldn't give a rat's area anymore whether the government appreciates the time I've been a sahm or am wohm.

VestaCurry Thu 21-Mar-13 23:53:34

That'll be a rats arse not area

lljkk Netherlands Fri 22-Mar-13 07:25:40

I think there perhaps ought to be scope for parents claiming JSA to have access to some help with childcare costs; probably opening a can of worms by suggesting that. But suppose someone is on fixed term contract and has a gap before they can get another job, it may be financially hard to retain a scarce nursery place during the gap and make it possible to take up the next job.

Otherwise I'm fully in the YANBU camp.

We've barely ever qualified for any of these childcare subsidies when I was working or since then looking for work, too (like now). So I am struggling with all the entitlement threads, from SAHPs or WOHPs.

Partridge Fri 22-Mar-13 07:55:16

Sorry if this has been said but I don't think sahms are moaning about the money issue but the pejorative tone that was used - "work hard and get on"...

As someone suffering a bit of a crisis of confidence and possibly lacking a bit of self worth (as the only affirmation I ever get is from my husband when he remembers) this was pretty nasty. To avoid the implication that I am lazy I volunteer in the evenings and take my toddler to help in the school library during the day - but I still often feel I have no status.

It would be lovely not to give a fuck what other people think as suggested up- thread - or just go and get a job if I'm unhappy - but just because I have chosen this lifestyle doesn't mean I am immune to what others think. And comments like that made by the pm make it worse.

I can relate to that Partridge.

I'm SAHM but job hunting at the moment. It's pretty competitive out there and a 4yr hole on my CV doesn't help...

ssd Fri 22-Mar-13 08:17:11

I dont think this gov has a clue

Budgiegirlbob Fri 22-Mar-13 09:56:14

I'm a SAHM with three kids, although I do run a very small business part time around my kids. I find the whole 'get on and work hard' attitude very patronising and condescending. Am I not working hard? I guess I'm a bit old fashioned, but I think it's important to be around as much as possible for my kids, but I'm made to feel by the government that I have no particular value to society.
I fully appreciate that for many, many families it is a necessity for both parents to work, just to feed, clothe and keep a roof over their children's heads, and for those people I think that help with childcare is essential.
But I think that the limit is set way too high so that it also is helping those who are choosing to work, rather than have to.
For instance, my neighbours and I are similar in that we are both a two parent, three children family, living in identical houses. I choose to be a stay at home mum with small parttime job,working dad, and both my neighbours work with their children going to childcare. Nothing wrong with that, that's each our own individual choice.
But here's my problem - my DH and I are on a joint salary if about £28000 before tax. We don't use any childcare. In order for me to be a SAHM we have made major sacrifices to our standard of living. We have two old bangers of cars. We go camping in the UK for our holidays. We don't go out all that often, we don't have any designer clothes, and we shop at Aldi.
My neighbours earn £250 000 before tax, and do use childcare. They drive two BMWs and have a sports car for weekends, they go on holiday to Barbados and skiing in the winter, they wear expensive clothes and shop at Waitrose, and all of that is fine with me, it's their lifestyle choice to work more and see their kids less.
But this government is telling me that they are worthy of an extra £3600 per year and I not. That they are working hard and I am not.
It's not hard to see why SAHP might just feel a little pissed off!

Pagwatch Fri 22-Mar-13 10:04:41

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

cazboldy Fri 22-Mar-13 10:13:35

Pag grin

The word thhat keeps being bandied about, and that we often disagree upon is choice.

Some people have no choice but to work

Some people have no choice but to sah

Some will be happy with that, some will be resentful..... and then when you feel you are being criticised for something you may have no control over, you (understandably) feel defensive.

There is no right way per se, like with many other things in life.... do what's right for you, and who cares what anyone else thinks.....

that sahm criticising working mothers, would probably like to have a job sometimes.... when the kids are getting on her nerves, and that wohm would probably like to be able to spend more time at home sometimes.....

at the end of the day, we are all just doing our best!

Dahlen Fri 22-Mar-13 10:16:31

Children are not a lifestyle choice in the same way as deciding to extend yourself to afford a bigger mortgage, choosing a holiday instead of a week in the UK, etc. Children are the way we perpetuate the species and we are biologically programmed to desire this. Being intelligent creatures we are able to apply thought to this and choose when and how many, but for most people, the urge to have at least one child is as much an instinct as eating. I think that's often forgotten by the "don't have children unless you can afford them" brigade.

Upwards of 80% of people in Western countries (higher elsewhere in the world) have children. It is a fundamental urge ensuring survival of the species.

So, given that we're all going to keep having children, and unless you subscribe to the idea that only the rich make good parents, we are going to have a situation where society has a lot of children who need looking after, and in many cases it is unaffordable for that to be done by a paid-for child-care professional.

We could say tough shit, let's not provide any help, but that would leave only the rich having children. hmm

We could make childcare more affordable. Good move. smile

We could recognise that since a child needs caring for perhaps one of its own parents could do it. shock Why on earth can't that be recognised as something that is helping society rather than just the family. A tax break or two for that really wouldn't be that much a hardship, surely.

BTW am a full-time working single mother who has always used professional childcare.

FasterStronger Fri 22-Mar-13 10:21:36

I thought SAHP had their NI paid for them? isn't that a benefit for SAHP?

SoupDreggon Fri 22-Mar-13 10:21:49

SAHM's are very highly valued in society by most people I would say.

Not on Mumsnet they aren't! There's always someone popping up to say we aren't setting a good role model for our daughters and are somehow responsible for the poor way women can be viewed in the workplace.

What I don't understand is why you would need the government to validate your lifestyle choice by helping you out financially?

This equally applies to the government helping with childcare costs for working parents.

It is a bit hmm that there have been cuts to CB and child tax credits and then a boost to childcare funding.

FreudiansSlipper Fri 22-Mar-13 10:21:50

Why does anyone need acknowledgement that you are a stay at home mum

I thought I was in a very lucky position to do that even though I had been made redundant and single (no benefits) but that allowed me to have the money to stay at home or I would have had to return to work to pay mortgage/bills

What else did I need a big shiny badge hmm

fedupofnamechanging Fri 22-Mar-13 10:23:35

I don't expect financial recognition for looking after my own dc. However, I would like recognition that my being at home enables my dh to do a job which generates a lot of tax for the bastard government. Without me being home, both of us would be in different jobs and paying less tax than he can pay on his own with the support of a sah spouse.

I would like to be able to transfer my tax allowance and I would like society to acknowledge that looking after children is important and valuable and I am not lazy/thick/boring because I have chosen to do this.

SolomanDaisy Fri 22-Mar-13 10:27:06

Basically the government has made the decision to use government revenue to subsidise the choices of families where both parents work, but not families where only one parent works. Thus endorsing one lifestyle choice and not the other. Families with one parent who stays at home could be subsidised through transferable tax allowances etc., it's not about childcare costs.

Frankly the amounts involved are so tiny that it's hardly worth worrying about. It's not like Britain has suddenly moved to a Swedish model of very cheap childcare and accompanying parental support policies.

FasterStronger Fri 22-Mar-13 10:27:52

karma - a lot of women on MN talk about how much tax their DH pays. but if you look at the numbers, 50k salary is only 2k more tax than two people earning 26k.

50k = 14k tax
26k = 6k tax

(I obviously don't know if you DH is paying much more than that, so am making the general case).

FasterStronger Fri 22-Mar-13 10:28:27

I thought SAHP had their NI paid for them? isn't that a benefit for SAHP?


ScottyDoc Fri 22-Mar-13 10:29:44

Well said karma believer

My dh works like a dog and pays a ton of tax. What doesn't help is opportunistic ugly individuals such as Katie Hopkins going on daytime tv and outwardly belittling stay at home mothers. People like that contribute to PND in my experience. To top it off the government are desperate to get every physically able person out working to get the economy back, regardless of people's personal rights and choices and at the expense of their kids.

blueberryupsidedown Fri 22-Mar-13 10:31:32

Also, you don't get the tax break if the lower earner earns less than £10,000, which is the case for many families where one of the parent works part time at minimum wage.

So in my mind, this is unfair: Why do families earning £300,000 a year (that's not £30,000, that's £300,000 A YEAR) need financial help with child care? Why, Why, Why????

There are many examples of families who will be worst off on the new system, I am one of them, we will be worst off. And our average joint income is £48,000, not £300,000!

I'm a childminder and three of the four families I work for would (if the new system would be implemented now) would be worst off. Mostly because the mum works part-time or is self employed. Needless to say, none of them make £300,000 a year....

FreudiansSlipper Fri 22-Mar-13 10:32:46

How is you dh paying more tax

Do you mean you receive less cb which I agree is ridiculous but pay more tax than if you were both working how

And your family value you society is hard on women whatever they do many women would love the opportunity to stay at home

fedupofnamechanging Fri 22-Mar-13 10:33:00

Faster, dh earns more than 50k, so is paying more tax. Back when I worked, I earned significantly less than 26K so it really is the case that on his own he pays more tax than if we both had lower paying jobs.

FrillyMilly Fri 22-Mar-13 10:37:33

Surely though those who feel forced out of the work place by childcare could use this scheme to get back to work? I'm a mum of 2 who are not yet in school and I work 4 days a week. I don't earn a huge amount, I'm not well off but we get by even with the childcare. I don't think of childcare as coming just from my wage though. It is paid equally by me and DH, DH also does the drop offs and I do the pick ups. Childcare is not just a woman's responsibility.

The woman who phoned the radio and confronted nick clegg gets no sympathy from me I'm afraid. Her husband brings home at least £3.5k a month given that she lost her child benefit, she had to leave her job as a barrister because she couldn't afford childcare yet she wants the state to somehow subsidise her? I'm sorry but there are people much more deserving of government help.

FreudiansSlipper Fri 22-Mar-13 10:38:24

You dh does not pay 40% tax of all his wage it is what he earns over 35k

less that 35k you pay 20%

LadybirdsEverywhere Fri 22-Mar-13 10:39:11

I think that the point is that the £1200 is a tax break, not that it is specifically for child care. This tax break is only available if both (or the lone) parents work. A SAHM would double her household income if she went back to work and the family would receive a tax break, but by staying at home to bring up her children and having one wage, the family does not receive the, now more necessary, tax break.

I think the issue is clouded somewhat when parents are high earners. . Imagine it the situation instead with two shop assistants; lower income families are forced to put their children in nursery to stay afloat.

ScottyDoc Fri 22-Mar-13 10:40:20

Society are much kinder these days to women who work. If you don't you aren't given the same amount of respect that a barrister or teacher for example, would be given. With the amount of so called high quality childcare available, some have the attitude that there's no real need anymore to stay at home and look after your own kids. I know I've put up with this since having my own dcs and the sad thing is much of it has come from my own family.

FasterStronger Fri 22-Mar-13 10:41:26

ok the average person earns 26k and pays around 2k in NI every year.

a SAHP gets NI credits, which on average are worth 2k.

so that is a benefit for SAHP...... or am I wrong?

DolomitesDonkey Fri 22-Mar-13 10:43:03

In once sentence?

"Too much time on hands, seeking arguments for stimulation."

LinusVanPelt Fri 22-Mar-13 10:43:44

"Some of us choose to bring up our own children"... Yes, Startail , every one of us who hasn't placed our children in care or handed over custody has made that exact same choice.

It has fuck all to do with whether we work outside the home or not. What an ignorant thing to say.

GetOeuf Fri 22-Mar-13 10:44:37

I think the woman who had a go at Nick Clegg painted her argument very well.

One one hand the government is giving out allowances for those people who work (up to a very high salary earned) and yet are removing child benefit wholesale for households who earn a lot less. The one universal benefit which SAHMs have had (as well as WOHMs) has been taken away and another one introduced which can only be claimed by mothers who work.

I undertsand that argument and why is seems unfair and seems to support a belief that choosing to be a SAHM isn't seen as a valid choice. And I have never been a SAHM, or wanted to be.

GetOeuf Fri 22-Mar-13 10:45:23

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

jellybeans Fri 22-Mar-13 10:47:49

I think it is more the anti SAHP digs that the Gov give and the unfairness of the CB cuts.

coralanne Fri 22-Mar-13 10:48:14

My DD is a primary teacher but she has given up paid teaching to home school her DC.

Scotty she has only had admiration and total respect from everyone she knows.

purits Fri 22-Mar-13 10:49:48

The problem is the nation's change in mindset.
They used to be embarrassed to admit that they needed state handouts.
Now they seem to think that they are an entitlement.
How did that happen?

ByTheWay1 Fri 22-Mar-13 10:52:10

I'm a SAHM and a carer for my MIL (who nobody thinks is ill enough to require paid for care, or even for me to paid a carer's allowance, despite walking into the middle of the road randomly when out and about, or putting the tea towel on the gas burner etc..)

If I go out to work, my kids will need childcare outside school hours and my MIL will need someone to care for her or go into sheltered housing - this would cost more than any wage I could currently make, a tax break of 20% of childcare costs up to a max of £1200 for children under 5 (which I don't have) is SOOOOOOOOO not likely to make me want to do that.....

it is all smoke and mirrors designed to CUT the deficit and "increase growth" (minimum wage jobs cleaning toilets and wiping old folks bums do not increase growth!) - hence some people need to LOSE money, and pay more in taxes whilst not many will gain..... but if the government can get everyone arguing about the divisive SAHP/WOHP crap then who notices.....

FasterStronger Fri 22-Mar-13 10:53:41

one universal benefit which SAHMs have had

NOOOOOOOOOOO they get NI credits as well. WOHP don't get NI credits

but hey why let the facts get in the way of a whinge!

ScottyDoc Fri 22-Mar-13 10:54:19

I'm glad for your friend CoralAnne that's at least a positive story.

It's a shame though that so many like myself who choose to give up work and be SAHMs are seen as letting the side down almost.

Doraemon Fri 22-Mar-13 10:56:37

I am a childminder, currently on maternity leave. Under the new system, I suspect I would be financially better off sending my baby to another childcare provider while I look after someone else's child, and claim the tax break. It does annoy me that when caring for someone else's baby I am seen to be working, but caring for my own children as a sahm is seen as not working.

VinegarDrinker Fri 22-Mar-13 10:59:08

Why does anyone give a shiny shit whether other people approve of their particular work and childcare arrangements?!

We choose to both work PT, share childcare, and use paid childcare for 2 days a week. Woo fucking hoo. It happens to mean a significant hit in our income - so we don't holiday abroad, buy brand new clothes, own flashy gadgets etc, but we both think the non financial dividends for the whole family are well worth it. SAHMs do not have a monopoly on making financial sacrifices.

I really couldn't give a fig whether the govt, or anyone on MN, or indeed my RL friends and family "value" or "approve of" our choices. It makes my DH, me and my DS happy. End of story.

(Presumably the point being made about NI contributions for SAHPs is being conveniently ignored by some posters.)

Crinkle77 Fri 22-Mar-13 10:59:10

I think it had something to do with the wording about rewarding hard working parents. It implied that SAHM's were not hard working

mirry2 Fri 22-Mar-13 10:59:34

Dolomites - "Too much time on hands, seeking arguments for stimulation." grin you took the words out of my mouth

morethanpotatoprints Fri 22-Mar-13 11:00:16

I think the point that many of you are failing to see is that a temporary sahm needs some sort of childcare to be able to actively seek work. If some of you lost your jobs through redundancy you too would be classed as a sahp until you found work. Not everybody has extended family to provide childcare in these times.
How on earth can you job seek with one or more pre school dc trailing along. How will potential employers cope at interview? Will they be bound to provide a creche, because otherwise you are cutting off part of society from seeking work.

Startail Fri 22-Mar-13 11:01:31

I will use the phrase choose to bring up my own DCs if I like!

Because I have friends who definitely choose to work full time to fund expensive houses and private schools ensuring they never see their children.

I have friends who choose to live on amazingly tight budgets so they can HE.

And I have friends who choose to work, evenings and school hours to ensure they do see their DCs.

Most people have some choice.

Everyone has the choice not to have DCs and if they do have DCs to choose their partner wisely. (Death and ill health excepted)

VinegarDrinker Fri 22-Mar-13 11:02:36

The continued insistence on seeing childcare as a woman's job to organise/pay for - both on MN and the wider media may actually cause me to rupture an aneurysm.

You do not earn X "after childcare". Your family's income may be X after childcare but why the flying fuck is it only counted as coming out of one wage?!

VinegarDrinker Fri 22-Mar-13 11:03:11

(Obviously LPs do earn X "after childcare")

Startail Fri 22-Mar-13 11:05:09

Me I chose not to work for nothing and be there for my DDs, especially in the holidays.

Sometimes it feels like Hobson's choice because if I had school based child care and granny round the corner I'd have made a different choice.

But choose I did.

somewhereaclockisticking Fri 22-Mar-13 11:05:24

As a SAHM I just would like to be able to pass my tax allowance onto the husband - I paid my taxes and if I were to return to work we would have to find X amount to pay for the childcare - instead I am saving that amount by staying home and that rees up a job for someone else - it doesn't mean that we're rich though - just that even with government help on the salary I would be likely to earn we could never afford childcare for 3 kids anyway. I just don't like to be the invisible person. Once you have given up your job for whatever reason - you become invisible to society - we don't want to be paid but we do want to be recognised because we're still here - we still have a say -we still vote etc etc.....

VinegarDrinker Fri 22-Mar-13 11:05:50

Presumably your DP (and other FT working Dads) "chooses not to bring up his own children", by your logic Startail ? Or do men not count?

Emilythornesbff Fri 22-Mar-13 11:09:33

WHo is Katie Hopkins?

morethanpotatoprints Fri 22-Mar-13 11:09:38

When the people who can no longer afford to work become sahp's due to not affording childcare after the cuts, society will change. Because all these people will realise that they too are capable of being a sahp and raising their dc rather than somebody else providing childcare for them. The wind will change because they too will want a voice as a sahp rather than wohp.

Personally, as long as I am doing the best for my family I don't really give a stuff what others say or think.

Startail Fri 22-Mar-13 11:10:47

Vinigar I agree totally if I had had a career to return to then DH and I sharing child care for small DCs to be in credit once they started school would be, absolutely a shared family investment.

As it was it would have meant no financial gain and quite possibly having not split holidays so we never saw each other.

FrillyMilly Fri 22-Mar-13 11:11:17

My children are in childcare for 32 hours a week. The other 136 hours they are with me or DH. Are we not bringing them up? startail when your children go to school do you cease to bring them up?

lljkk Netherlands Fri 22-Mar-13 11:15:11

As a SAHM I just would like to be able to pass my tax allowance onto the husband

Couldn't agree more. Well-informed families do this, anyway, by making themselves jointly into a business/partnership even though only one partner is truly working. DH boss even advised us to do this years ago.

Didn't a load of BBC workers get knuckles wrapped for doing the same thing, too?

morethanpotatoprints Fri 22-Mar-13 11:17:10


I think the point was if they are in childcare, wraparound, holiday care etc. You are not raising your children during this time. They are obviously receiving childcare and not being raised during these times. providers are only given permission to care, when you raise your children you are totally responsible for all their needs.

VinegarDrinker Fri 22-Mar-13 11:18:45

Startail I've never sat down and worked out the exact numbers but in all likelihood we would be better off with one of us working FT (probably me) and one SAH. However, it has never even been considered as an option, before DS was even conceived it was agreed we would split things between us.

As for not seeing each other, yes that's a drawback especially with shift work and nights/evenings/weekend work. Holidays are a headache, too. But how many couples spend all evening in the same room but ignoring each other/watching TV/on 2 laptops? We just try to ensure the time we do have together is not wasted.

I still think your choice of terminology is unnecessary, inaccurate and offensive.

VinegarDrinker Fri 22-Mar-13 11:21:40

Noone has yet answered who is raising my DS and the other children of WOHPs?!
And also my question about FT working Dads not "raising their own children".

why why why am I engaging

stickingattwo Fri 22-Mar-13 11:24:16

I honestly don't get why SAHM's or Dads expect to be validated by "society" or appreciated by them. Surely the whole point is that you do what's best for your family and they are the on's who appreciate you. And no unfortunately someone who looks after their own children are not going to be respected in the same way as a nurse or Dr or teachers might be.

FrillyMilly Fri 22-Mar-13 11:25:05

I am raising my children though. When they are in childcare they are still being raised by me and my DH, they are being looked after by someone else. If your children are school age do you see the teacher as raising them? As someone else said do fathers not raise their children if they work? Attitudes like that are the reason SAHMs lose respect.

VinegarDrinker Fri 22-Mar-13 11:30:03

In fact I'd say choosing appropriate childcare is a big factor in "raising" children (not a term I like much tbh).

Our choice of nursery has played a huge part in DS's life. It is actually a parent run co-operative so not only do we as a group hire and fire all the staff, we choose trips out, suggest topics/curriculum areas, decide what the children eat, go in and volunteer regularly, choose what to spend the budget on etc etc. Just recently there was a vote on whether to buy an iPad for the nursery.

Obviously this isn't "raising" DS, though hmm

Dahlen Fri 22-Mar-13 11:30:14

The notion of children being brought up by parents is a relatively modern one.

In the pre-industrial world it was extended family and wider community that provided childcare so that the mother (a young, fit individual) could earn money while those less capable of commanding coin (e.g. the elderly or less able) could perform a useful function by caring for children in return for being provided for themselves.

Only since the industrial revolution and the change of the extended family/wider community to today's far more geographically fluid nuclear families has the idea of mothers providing long-term care for their own children become an expectation, and then only among the better off members of society. Ordinary women have always worked.

Childcare has never had a value attached to it. Because it has always been done by women, for free, it has been consistently devalued, despite the fact that if all women - whether mothers, CMs, nannies or nursery workers - stopped doing it and demanded that the workers benefitting from it cared for the children instead the country would slide to an economic standstill.

When you realise that someone has to care for children, it makes you realise how important childcare is to a post-industrial nation. Once you accept that, it leaves some uncomfortable questions as to what we do about it.

Startail Fri 22-Mar-13 11:35:33

I think standard school hours are a total red herring.

My DF who HE'd for primary is quite a character and no way on earth do I have her dedication.

Yes I do choose to delicate school to someone else. I just don't choose to delicate the bulk of after school or school holidays to a third party, other than DH and ballet etc. sometimes.

Personally I would hate sharing childcare over holidays and so would DH.
We were together 10 years before DD1 came along, we are best friends.
When he can escape work we like to do things together.

Startail Fri 22-Mar-13 11:36:10

Delegate stupid iphone

VinegarDrinker Fri 22-Mar-13 11:40:21

Believe me, even with the most antisocial shiftworking hours, if you value your partner you find time to spend with them. In or out of the house.

Why do you see school and nursery as so different? Why is one "OK" by you but one not? It is often the same hours involved.

HappyMummyOfOne Fri 22-Mar-13 11:44:54

I also dont get why SAHP's want to feel valused by the state or society. Its a lifestyle choice that affects only that family noody else (well unless other tax payers are paying for the luxury).

As for WOHP's children being raised by others, am still laughing. So all the SAHP never let their children go to school, on playdates, out with family etc. Somehow I dont think so.

Working and juggling children sets a great example to children. They grow up believing they can have the best of both worlds. I hate to think my son will be pressured to take a job he dislikes as his future wife may decide she doesnt fancy working and helping with living expenses. Teachers install in children that they can be anything they want and to aim high, surely we dont want girls believing that once they decide to become a parent that it means they can no longer work and are at the mercy of any adult to provide for their every need in life.

ItsallisnowaFeegle Fri 22-Mar-13 11:46:18

I'm currently on mat leave and will be returning to work in July.

DS is my second (and last) baby and if I could afford to, I'd be a SAHM until he turned 3, at least.

But I can't afford to SAH hmm and I resent people saying I will be dropping him at nursery for someone else to 'bring him up'.

I have to do what I have to do, to provide for my family. It's not what I'd choose to do, in an ideal world but that's life and it's tough shit.

ByTheWay1 Fri 22-Mar-13 11:47:21

Childcare does have a value attached to it inside families where there is a SAHM though....

my hubby values it immensely and tells me all the time... he would not be able to do the job he does without knowing home/kids/his mum/life in general is "sorted" by me being there. He goes away with work often, he has progressed to twice his expected salary, he has soared in his job knowing his home life is uncomplicated.... he appreciates it and makes sure I'm rewarded for it.

We are a family and do what's best for us - those where both parents work are doing what's best for them.... I do not look for anyone outside of my family to "value" me....

stickingattwo Fri 22-Mar-13 11:48:26

I think it's laughable that working parents are considered by some not to be raising their kids. My boss made an off the cuff remark about my poor kids never seeing me so I soon put him straight - 4 days that they aren't in childcare, 2 hours in the morning and 3 a night before bed plus all the hols...I am raising my children...

lljkk Netherlands Fri 22-Mar-13 11:56:25

And if that were true, than presumably only one parent is typically raising the child (the one who goes out to work obviously can't be involved, either hmm). Maybe nobody should allowed to go to work if they are a parent of an under 16. I'm sure that would be fine for the economy.

VinegarDrinker Fri 22-Mar-13 11:59:37

Don't be silly, only women count!

Because, well, otherwise the "raising your own children" argument just turns out to be BS....

pinkandred Fri 22-Mar-13 12:21:31

Happymumofone - I'm a SAHM and my DH has not been presurised into any job whilst I stay at home not earning. He is able to earn much more than me and we are lucky in that I dont need to work so rather than dropping the children off at a nursery for 8-10 hrs per day 5 days a week, we made the decision that I would give up work. When dh comes home he doesnt have to share the chores because they're already done, so our evenings and weekends are free to do as we please.

I'm happy, dh is happy and the dc are happy. I cant really see that we are not setting a good example to them just because I choose not to work. The way we work is a team, he goes out to work and I do all the chores. It may not be for everyone but it is for us and we are happy. Why should that set a bad example to my children.

As for having it all, well, I really dont think anyone can have it all, whatever your circumstances, something, somewhere always has to give, whether you admit it or not.

blueberryupsidedown Fri 22-Mar-13 12:33:06

What made my hair curl is the statement that now the state will 'reward hard working families'. They could have simply said that the new system will provide better financial support for families with both parents in employment. It's not rocket science really, I think the gov has a way to insult people with idiotic one liners. Reward hard working families... bollocks to that. Looking after children is hard work, not in the same way, but it still is. What a lovely statement from our wonderful government who values traditional families...

FasterStronger Fri 22-Mar-13 12:36:03

but SHAP are rewarded with NI credits which WOHP have to pay for.

anklebitersmum Fri 22-Mar-13 12:36:14

Bytheway1 We're all supposed to be defined by our wage packet. The fact that that doesn't suit everyone's way of life or their values is neither here nor there.

SofaKing Fri 22-Mar-13 13:29:53

Its accomplished its purpose though, we are arguing among ourselves when the one irrefutable fact is that this is wooden dollars. The welfare bill is being cut, so if you are in receipt of any benefit you will now be poorer, regardless of your family structure.

I'm a sahm but not running out to get a job yet as I'm sure these cuts aren't close To finished, and next time childcare subsidies could be the target.

FasterStronger Fri 22-Mar-13 14:00:41

We're all supposed to be defined by our wage packet

if you want to opt out of earning and paying tax, you also need to accept you are also opting out of the benefits of being a tax payer.

after all, if money is not important to you, you cannot be that bothered if you don't get given it.

fedupofnamechanging Fri 22-Mar-13 14:07:54

I'd settle for 'society' not making negative value judgements about me, based on what I have chosen to do wrt my own family. I am not lazy or giving my dc a bad example in life. In fact, I am setting them a good example because I am doing something which the majority doesn't consider to be important and I am doing it anyway because I think it's valuable. My dc will grow up to learn that following their own path, is important. Whatever that path may be.

As for NI credits - I view these as being paid for by my dh and they are only a benefit if there's a pension available for me to claim at some distant point in the future. As things stand, I may be dead before I'm eligible to receive it!

Dahlen Fri 22-Mar-13 14:10:34

While I accept the argument that everything has to be paid for, I think it very sad that people are defined in terms of earning capacity.

So much of what defines our greatest attributes as a species are valueless in terms of money or worth/paid very little - blitz spirit during the war, the many and vital volunteer roles undertaken by people throughout the country (many of whom are SAHMs), random acts of kindness, care work.

I would rather see an ethical form of capitalism, where it is recognised that some things of great value need to be paid for even though they do not generate their own income.

fedupofnamechanging Fri 22-Mar-13 14:12:08

Agree that this is about divide and rule. In removing a universal benefit, it makes the higher earners feel disenfranchised from valuing the idea of a welfare state, because they perceive they are paying lots and not getting much back. In turn, this makes it easier for the govt to then remove benefits from people who actually need them in order to survive, because they have already successfully pitted us against each other so there is no opposition from as a whole cohesive unit when the govt chip away at truly essential payments.

mam29 Fri 22-Mar-13 14:21:40

I find it so sad.

How the 2opposite camps are against each other,

I have been fulltime working mum putting eldest in nursery at 11months and sahm now to 3kids only 1 school age.
I also do volunteering work.

All each side wants is bit of fairness and for each side to try be objective and see the others point of veiw.

Although I miss work I can see benefits its had for my kids.

I dont asked to be paid.
thankfully keep child benefits just.
bit miffed about new childcare vouchers as feel its on fair on so many groups not just sahm.

a sahm still pays tax

vat when they purchase stuff
vat on bills
council tax
road tax.

I think what most sahm /dads mums want is not to be labelled as lazy and for people to apprceiate families are complex everyones different , not everyone has family to fall back on.

Threes normally a reason behind the choice to go back or stay at home,some people in each group dont have a choice as we ignoring

childcare most expensive in europe.

childcares patchy depending where you live

rising living costs/inflation.

we as uk pay high rates of tax

anklebitersmum Fri 22-Mar-13 14:46:26

Faster as a family we pay tax. We get nothing barr CB and as I've said before I don't want anything.

I just object to being snided at by overpaid supercillious numpties who have no idea about 'real' civvie life, never mind forces family life.

FasterStronger Fri 22-Mar-13 14:51:57

ankle forces family life

well you have won me there. I don't think forces families are treated well.

LinusVanPelt Fri 22-Mar-13 15:52:42

"You are not raising your children during this time. They are obviously receiving childcare and not being raised during these times. providers are only given permission to care, when you raise your children you are totally responsible for all their needs."

By your logic, morethanpotatoprints, we are only raising our children during the times when we are interacting in person with them, is that right?

So in the morning, in the evening, and on the weekends I am raising dd, but then during the hours when I'm in the office I'm not.

And if on a Saturday I pop out to the shop and leave her at home with her dad, I guess I'm not raising her anymore for that hour? But he is. I never realised there was so much at stake! Am i giving up my role in my child's life every time I lose the coin toss on who has to go for milk and bread?! shock

I suppose we both cease to raise her, effectively leaving her parentless, for a couple of hours on the odd occasion that we leave her with a sitter to go out for an anniversary meal or something...

Or is it only time spent working that counts against a parent when it comes to your assessment of whether she's "raising" her own child? Do you really think that "raising" a child means the same thing as "minding" one?

This is what raising our child means to me and dh: providing her with security and making a home for her, providing opportunities for activities, travel, and education, setting an example for her, planning for her future, making the decisions on everything from food, activities, clothing, entertainment, bedtime, which childcare to use, which school to attend, yes or no to this or that sleepover, making sure she gets to the doctor when she needs to, advocating for her always, making sure she brushes her teeth, eats her veggies, gets some exercise, learns to tie her shoelaces, sitting up with her all night when she's sick, teaching her new skills, fretting and worrying about her constantly, keeping an eye on areas where she needs support, and providing that when we're with her and making damn sure the childminder (or, in a year or so, the teacher) is providing it when we're not, being the disciplinarian even when we don't want to be, because it will help her learn how to get along in the world, planning her birthday parties and ways to make the holidays special, teaching her our values, passing on family traditions and beliefs, making sure she knows that she is the most important thing in our world and always will be, and that EVERY decision we make has at its heart our best judgment of what's in her best interest now, and far into her future.

And a million other things that I do without thinking about it because I am her mother. Even when the childminder is giving dd lunch, fingerpainting with her, or bandaging her scraped knee, she is well aware that she isn't "raising" dd (which is why she runs everything past us, dd's parents). We are the ones who decide what dd is going to eat, we're the ones she proudly hands her fingerpaint creations to so that they can be hung on the fridge, and we're the ones with the magic kisses to make her scrape feel all better.

Do you really think that working mothers don't do those things? Or are you just going out of your way to be insulting?

janey68 Fri 22-Mar-13 15:55:41

Linusvanpelt- absolutely 100% agree

Fwiw I think anyone ignorant enough to post that WOHP arent raising their children must have their own issues, it's such a ridiculous non argument.

FasterStronger Fri 22-Mar-13 16:39:25

morethan when you raise your children you are totally responsible for all their needs.

you rely on benefits paid for by others, so you are not totally responsible for your DCs, so taxpayers are raising your children....

oh the irony grin grin grin

HappyMummyOfOne Fri 22-Mar-13 16:40:57

Linusvanpelt, well said but you missed the fact that apparently you only need to do housework and your husband can only work if you sty home hmm

Everyone with a child is a parent, nobody should be validated or appreciated because they chose to have a child. Their choice, their responsibility.

The tax thing about SAHM's paying tax is technically wrong though, if you have no income you dont pay tax. Any tax added via VAT etc is either paid for by the state or another adults wages unless you are living off savings actually earned previously.

x2boys Fri 22-Mar-13 16:41:19

I,M a working mum [full time would love to go part time but i,m the main earner so just cant afford it]. I resent the fact people see me as not raising my own kids fwiw my dh and i work opposite shifts i,m a nurse he works in a warehouse my children hasve never been in childcare in their lives. [although of course people who need to use childcare are also raising their own kids my sister for one]its not geat working opposite shifts but you do what you have to do we deceided to have children its our responsibility to provide for them ?

HappyMummyOfOne Fri 22-Mar-13 16:44:22

"morethan when you raise your children you are totally responsible for all their needs.

you rely on benefits paid for by others, so you are not totally responsible for your DCs, so taxpayers are raising your children....

oh the irony"

Not to mention her DH is not happy his taxes go towards other peoples childcare but yet is happy to let other people pay their CB, WTC and CTC! Given WTC is capped on very low salaries is safe to assume that the income tax paid is less than the benefits each month.

morethanpotatoprints Fri 22-Mar-13 17:42:27

How do I rely on benefits. I only get cb like many others. My dh has the tax credits because he is entitled to them. I am a sahm and apparently not entitled to anything grin

In answer to the question about raising children, I do think that childcare is a different role to a parent who is raising their children.
I also hear parents talking about childcare that they provide themselves. It may be semantics to some but I prefer to raise my dc and not provide childcare myself, nor pay for others to provide it. We all do things differentely, can't see how that is insulting anyone.

Morebiscuitsplease Fri 22-Mar-13 17:50:50

But childcare is available, nursery grant kicks in at 3 years, that is something.

FasterStronger Fri 22-Mar-13 17:52:01

more than - its just semantics - you say 'entitled to tax credits' I say 'rely on benefits' (i.e. other people working)

allnewtaketwo Fri 22-Mar-13 17:53:02

No morethan, your household receives tax credits, which are benefits

wrongsideoftheroad Fri 22-Mar-13 17:55:40


anotheryearolder Fri 22-Mar-13 18:10:57

Thats a great post Linus

I have not used any form of childcare myself as DH and I shared care and WOH 50/50 - shifts enabled us to do this.

Parents/ parental figure are/is always the main influence in a childs life - not always in a positive way sadly.
Its insulting to infer that because someone is a teacher,shop assistant,chef,nurse,doctor,engineer or any other job you can think of they are bad parents and I agree with whoever up thread said that those who think this have a few issues of their own.
Its interesting that the "Not raising their own" is never applied to men just women.
If you want to SAH or WOH go for it - have the confidence to do it with out needing to make ridiculous remarks about other parents to boost your own ego.

FutTheShuckUp Fri 22-Mar-13 18:14:19

jumps up and down I work full time and have kids- can I have a medal for just being so fucking awesome? I may not raise my kids but I do contribute financially to enable smuggy mcsmuggersons to do so!

janey68 Fri 22-Mar-13 18:25:10

If its just semantics morethan, then let's just say we all raise our children, but within the parameters of that, our children all have caring and nurturing relationships outside the immediate family too. There- that should cover all bases- WOHP and SAHP are incorporated in that statement smile

fedupofnamechanging Fri 22-Mar-13 18:34:26

Just to add that as a sham I do pay tax. I choose to buy shit loads of things that dh would never choose to buy, and am therefore contributing to the tax coffers wink

fedupofnamechanging Fri 22-Mar-13 18:35:35

ha ha sham is probably about right on some people's estimations. Should have said sahm

Dozer Fri 22-Mar-13 18:36:47

The "hard working families" rhetoric must be deliberate - seeking to make people think that those who are poor and /or not working and paying tax are lazy.

The rhetoric about - and policy on - people on benefits is worse. They are, for example, telling many seriously ill and disabled people who are unfit to work that they must work or do "work-related activity" and cutting benefits.

Read some interesting stuff recently about how average wages have been getting lower and will continue to do so in relative terms, there are lots of low-paid jobs, a few very highly paid jobs, with not much in between, so more people are less well off. Think the economists call it "hollowing out" of the labour market. And there are huge problems looming with paying ever-growing costs for the elderly with fewer taxpayers.

Politicians also use the line that "they (teachers, nurses, whoever they want to do down) earn more than the average wage" (as if that meant being rich). And use a low average wage as a benchmark for policy.

making out that all we have to do is be "hard-working" and content with being "average" (low paid), and dividing people distracts people from scrutinising?

morethanpotatoprints Fri 22-Mar-13 18:37:31

Karma me too grin

Mine also knows not to ask how much all dds activities/ lessons come to coz he knows he wouldn't want them to stop. smile

maisiejoe123 Fri 22-Mar-13 18:49:05

Working parents - ignore the smug SAHP's who are saying you arent raising your own children. Its nonsense to say that... Honestly I have heard it all now - get childcare costs paid when I dont need any childcare - they would just like some dosh in my hands to feel 'validated' ie. paid by others for their choices.

And all this talk about transferring tax allowances. Sorry but if you are not working you effectively have nothing tax wise to transfer and it would be a nightmare to regulate, with boyfriends, partners, husbands, gay relationships etc etc.

I saw on another thread that SAHP's are complaining that day is taken up with school runs (home by 0900 I guess!), cooking and housework, followed by shopping and of course a trip to the gym! Well we all do those tasks (apart from the gym!) I think the SAHM's need to get a grip, unless you have a personal assitant, cleaner and supermarket shopper parents who work also need to do these tasks!

Can someone correct me, do SAHP's get NI credits (which are the same thing as paying NI without the cost)?

fedupofnamechanging Fri 22-Mar-13 18:58:11

I believe Sahp gets NI credits towards pension, but it is not the same as what you contribute when working because it doesn't give you the same entitlement to say contributions based benefits if you suddenly decided to return to work but couldn't find a job and wanted to claim jsa.

maisiejoe123 Fri 22-Mar-13 19:06:53

The issue here it seems is that people want to make a choice - stay at home. But still want the benefits working parents have. It just wont happen and if everyone thought this way the country would be bankrupt.

Some are claiming 'they have paid their taxes'. Well tax doesnt work like that, if it did can I opt out of the NHS and state education because I dont use it.

I know we are all living longer and there is a group of growing people who have never worked and never intend to for whatever reason, be that feckless, lazy or dare I say it SAHP's. They are increasing becoming 'entitled' to what others have, dont pay NI (because you arent working) but still have the same benefits pension wise.

Well, someone is paying for that sense of entitlement.

Its rubbish that a SAPM feels they need to be paid for their choices. If you choose to have 3-4 children of course your choice but unless you are a higher earner you are unlikely to afford childcare. There is a booming market for childcare which keeps people in child care jobs. A SAMP would undertake this role therefore saying that they are contributing to the economy doesnt make sense.

morethanpotatoprints Fri 22-Mar-13 19:16:30


There is also the argument that it is a choice for 2 parents to work, many don't even work out of necessity and under these circumstances their choice to fund a particular lifestyle shouldn't be subsidised, especially if a sahp choice of lifestyle isn't subsidised.

fedupofnamechanging Fri 22-Mar-13 19:17:45

I don't expect to be paid for looking after my own dc. However I do not want to be portrayed as a lazy sponger!I support my dh who would be unable to do what he does if I wasn't doing what I do and he pays shit loads of tax (enough to cover my ni contributions, which are the only 'benefits' I receive). That benefit doesn't actually entitle me to much.

I would just like what I do to not be viewed as a waste of time. It's not so much about wanting validation from others, but more about not wanting to he actively looked down on or discriminated against for the choices dh and I made to enable our family to function in the best way for us.

FWIW, in real life I don't know anyone who would say to a wohp that they are not raising their own kids.

Well said Karma

impecuniousmarmoset Fri 22-Mar-13 19:24:55

I said this on the other thread, but for the record.

Disabled children
Elderly parents needing care
Looking for a job
Setting up a business

As responses I had 'but those last four aren't SAHPs'. Well, as far as this government is concerned they are. They aren't working more than 16 hours a week or paying tax. And neither will they be able to either, since they won't be able to afford the childcare!

Molehillmountain Fri 22-Mar-13 19:25:31

Maisie joe 123 do you seriously think that if you can afford private education you should be receiving help with childcare costs? Just in the same way that if we can afford for me to be a sahm (which would cost roughly the same as the school fees for our children, btw) we shouldn't receive government tax breaks either. I am not, nor have I ever suggested I should have free childcare. Ironically, we are paying for rather expensive childcare. I am not always good value. But there you go. Luckily the government has seen sense and made sure that we will no longer get child benefit. Shame it hasn't also worked out that there are plenty of people who genuinely won't need the assistance with childcare either.

Creameggkr Fri 22-Mar-13 19:25:49

I work because if not we would literally not be able to pay our mortgage.
We have never had any childcare help because although we would be entitled to it have to share childcare due to shift work and our dd had special feeding and medicine requirements for her first year.
We won't benefit at all from new payments as she's two already but I'm not bothered at all, you know why?
Because they are my children and I chose to have them.
It is up to me and dh to take care if them and pay for anything they may need including childcare.
Now there's a revelation!!

janey68 Fri 22-Mar-13 19:30:32

I don't think anyone has said you are a waste of time karma. And
I think its absolutely up to individual families to decide
Whether they want a parent to stay at home. Its not about looking down on anyone. But at the end of the day, someone who isn't working shouldn't expect public funds to pay them for their choice. And the fact that someone's partner is paying shed loads of tax
Isn't relevant. Where do you draw the line: 'my father paid lots
Of tax, therefore I'm owed something in return?'
I know couples who both have high flying careers, so it is possible to manage it, usually by employing a nanny, outsourcing
Other jobs like cleaning, and working damn hard. It's
Not a life style that suits all, which is why some couples prefer to have one parent at home to make life smoother for the jet setting partner. That's a choice. They can't then expect to have all the subsidies which are available to couples in other situations.

OneLieIn Fri 22-Mar-13 19:30:36

Oh god. Here we go again.

Pay your taxes or expect no pension. Seems simple to me.

morethanpotatoprints Fri 22-Mar-13 19:36:09


Wow, I think you have just proved there is an exception to the rule. I think the majority of 2 parent working families receive some sort of childcare subsidy.

I also felt like this when our first was born, but was determined to be a sahm, because it was right for us and it was what i believed in. We didn't have any help when our older 2 were little. Then tax credits came in and we have a small amount in top ups. Its nowhere near a wage though, and shouldn't be imo.

morethanpotatoprints Fri 22-Mar-13 19:41:52


That's a bit general isn't it. I have been a sahm for 20+ years and have an excellent pension. In fact i may decide to retire soon, live off my pension, having not worked for 20+ years.
Why do so mnay people think that everybody can be fit into a little box, categorised by the choices they make in life. You must be like x because you wohm or x because you are a sahm. it's ridiculous.

janey68 Fri 22-Mar-13 19:48:27

Blimey morethan- you seem to be intent on making this all about you. Just because you might retire soon and live off your fabulous pension doesn't mean that applies to everyone else. Read the stats. A frighteningly large proportion of women DON'T have even adequate pension provision , let alone enough for a pleasurable retirement . And as tens of thousands have been knocked off many private pensions value in recent years, the situation is bad for many people who have paid into a pension sensibly. I'd love to know who your amazing pension is with , which seems to have gone against market trends (dont worry- you don't need to divulge grin )
But seriously, this isnt about putting anyone in a box. It's about acknowledging the fundamental principle that people who aren't working cannot seriously expect to have access to everything that working people do.

fedupofnamechanging Fri 22-Mar-13 19:58:54

I don't get why dual income families who are earning high salaries are more entitled to state money than single income families. They are not working for the good of the nation, but because it suits them. I think it would be fairer to cap child care payments from the state at the same level at which child benefit ceases to be paid.

allnewtaketwo Fri 22-Mar-13 20:01:45

What state money do high earning families get? Other than child benefit if both on just under 50k? The only thing I'm aware of (but don't receive) is childcare vouchers which reduce tax bill

janey68 Fri 22-Mar-13 20:02:19

A SAHP does not need childcare, commuting
Costs, they often dont need to run a second car- all massive expenses. Our childcare was our biggest bill for years- outweighed the mortgage easily. I can see exactly why many dual income families need support.

maisiejoe123 Fri 22-Mar-13 20:04:03

More than - can I ask, how can you have an excellent pension having not worked for 20 plus years..... I will have an excellent pension but will have worked for 40 yrs to afford and I am a higher rate tax payer on a final salary pension

I would love to shop in Chanel and buy all their skincare (need the really serious stuff!) but I cant afford it. Its how it is.

And yes, we have opted out of the state system for education but still pay taxes to support it. Its just the way it is. Maybe I should be claiming my money back for not using it. Its what some SAHM parents seem to want... Use my DH's contributions and then I can claim from that, what about your next door neighbour or your parents. Tax doesnt work like that.

nancerama Fri 22-Mar-13 20:05:40

It's the contradictory messages put out by the government that I feel are really irritating people.

Child benefit removed from families when one partner earns more than £60k because those families are too wealthy to need help.

Help with childcare is being put in place because without it parents who want to work aren't able to, but made available to families bringing in up to £300k. It should be in place to help those who actually need it.

There are plenty of parents who stay home to take care of their children, but do freelance work in the evenings to bring in extra cash. These mums (and dads) might not need childcare, but could certainly do with a break.

maisiejoe123 Fri 22-Mar-13 20:06:55

Karma the reason why dual income parents are getting this tax break is that they are contributing more tax wise. There are some posts about £300k dual income families. I really dont know anyone who is in this situation so its a bit of a red herring.

Choose to stay at home and have lots of children but dont expect the tax payers to fund this CHOICE....

janey68 Fri 22-Mar-13 20:09:25

Good god, a family where both parents earn £149k are no doubt working their arses off, creating employment through having a nanny, cleaner etc
And will be paying far more in tax than they'll ever re- coup through any benefits. And tbh I bet there are very few families like this throughout the UK. Hats off to them. I wouldn't want that pressure. Why is there so much resentment towards them?

OloeufiaMumsnet (MNHQ) Fri 22-Mar-13 20:10:24

Peace and love.

maisiejoe123 Fri 22-Mar-13 20:11:00

With regard to private education. We both work precisely to afford this option. Why do people think that if you can afford private ed you can afford everything and have money to burn.

Who are you to judge this. What about people who have two cars, who choose to smoke, where will it stop? What about the people who choose to have 3 plus children will little ability to afford and support them. What about the feckless who live off benefits from a young age. If all the private ed pupils went back into the state system it will collapse...

wordfactory Fri 22-Mar-13 20:11:36

Women have been demanding, nay begging for subsidised child care for years. All the evidence shows that it is the single biggest factor in discouraging women from returning the workplace post DC.

And now we get it....

FrillyMilly Fri 22-Mar-13 20:12:27

Given that the average wage is £26500 how many couples in the uk earn £149k each? I can't see any point in getting hung up on that.

Shagmundfreud Fri 22-Mar-13 20:12:36

If one parent works f/t and the other doesn't work enough hours to pay tax, would they be entitled to help with the hours of child care they may need to work part time?

wordfactory Fri 22-Mar-13 20:14:46

Well it's agood day for the patriarchy, no?

Wome finally get somehting they've been demanding for years and who is up in arms...a group of women...

maisiejoe123 Fri 22-Mar-13 20:23:29

Its come too late for us. We meet all the conditions but dont need childcare formally anymore.

Its good news but some will always moan it doesnt suit their personal circumstances.

wordfactory Fri 22-Mar-13 20:26:32

Too late for me too...

But my goodness I'm glad to see that we're moving a little way towards getting what women have been asking for.

ByTheWay1 Fri 22-Mar-13 20:28:45

Oh I just read some more - whoever was asking about SAHM and NI credits -

it is ANYBODY who :
has rights to receive child benefit for children under the age of 12 and earns less than is needed for NI to be paid that gets the credit - not just SAHM...

TiredFeet Fri 22-Mar-13 20:29:25

YANBU. I think it is wonderful when women (are able to) choose to stay at home and 'bring up their children themselves' (to paraphrase countless posters on mumsnet)

however, if you choose to 'bring up your children yourself' it is beyond unreasonable to expect the government to still subsidise childcare for you (and remember, you already get 15 free hours a week from age 2 /3 ). It actually will make that twinge of guilt a lot smaller when in future I read those type of comments from posters, as clearly lots of them would like to /do stay at home but put the children in childcare anyway.

I would love to have the choice but it isn't possible, even with two of us working (me workingpart time compressed hours that mean I work again most evenings when DS is in bed, and DH working one day at the weekend so he can do childcare one of the days I'm at work) it is a real stretch for us at the minute

OhMyNoReally Fri 22-Mar-13 20:30:09

One more point that may not have been considered, in Scotland nursery places are not exactly free. You get 12 hours of allocated funding but some nurseries also need payment on top of that. So in our nursery they take children 3 until 5 a non funded place is £18.50 and a funded place is £8.00 a session, so although I get 12 hours of funded childcare if I want to prepare my child for the school environment and help him get to know some peers to put my child in 3 afternoon sessions a week is still costing money.

My dh works, we can afford preschool without funding but it feels unfair when the voucher scheme worked well for our family. It would feel less unfair if preschool was fully funded. Or if there was consideration for families with a single earner.

Sahp don't necessarily want full childcare costs but with the voucher scheme you could take as little as £30 a month and we didn't have to worry about it coming from our family budget directly. The money for nursery was already set aside and it gave my ds so much more than I could give him. Those 3 afternoons were helping him so much as he was with trained staff who enriched his learning far more than I could as a mum and the new government scheme just feels to be creating a greater divide between has and has not.

We struggle to get by but manage and the vouchers were just helpful, like I've said earlier some parents want to work but can't due to many factors. The new scheme just seem ill considered.

lljkk Netherlands Fri 22-Mar-13 20:33:10


First principles, when should childcare be subsidised? Just because parents need it (personal circumstances) or in the specific & narrow case of making work pay?

Why should a parent get the subsidy for costs WHEN a non-parent wouldn't get a subsidy for their costs to do the same things? Are parents really that special a group to get a subsidy for those reasons? Or What if the SAHP is using a relative to provide free childcare to do those things, should the SAHP get the equivalent childcare costs paid as a benefit?

And if not, why not?

The thing is, if you think SAHPs deserve those subsidies, then why under the old system were they only available to about 10% of the workforce/450,000 families? (Answer: Because only a few employers gave those subsidies out.)

We never had an employer who offered vouchers. So should I moan now about how unfair that was? Aside from the 15 hrs/week for over 3s, we last got help with childcare costs in 2004. I'm not moaning, but should I?

I've bought a car so that I can stop being a SAHP and get back to work. Should the govt subsidise my car purchase, why not?

maisiejoe123 Fri 22-Mar-13 20:33:48

Oh great Bytheway. All the tax payers are now giving credit to people that havent contributed at all..... When will this stop. Its not ecomonically viable that less and less people are paying for more and more. Oh sorry - you are counting others as having contributed to your share.....

MmeThenardier Fri 22-Mar-13 20:45:50

Heres my summary:

All the low - average earners continue to struggle to make ends meet in the face of expensive childcare and decreasing benefits, not to mention the high costs of housing and ever increasing cost of living.

They argue and bitch amongst themselves about who is the most hard done by and who should have stayed at home or gone to work, who is working hard, who is getting on.

In the meantime we overlook the fact that families with a joint income of £300k still get this benefit.

While the family with one parent at home and one parent on £60k gets neither the childcare vouchers or Child benefit.

The family with one parent on minimum wage and the other working part time and juggling children but earning less than £10k don't qualify for childcare vouchers.

On what planet does the family with an income of £300k need childcare vouchers?

Cameron, Osbourne et al look after themselves as ever.

OneLieIn Fri 22-Mar-13 20:49:20

I genuinely believe that what you put in should somehow be related to what you get out of the system.

OneLieIn Fri 22-Mar-13 20:50:23

What benefits do parents earning 300k get? They don't!

nancerama Fri 22-Mar-13 20:51:12

Thanks Mme. That's exactly what I was trying and failing to say.

lljkk Netherlands Fri 22-Mar-13 20:51:20

My guess is that if you jointly earn over £150k you really won't be arsed to fill in the paperwork for a measley £1200/yr. Bet the accountant charges more than that to fill in the paperwork for you, too.

maisiejoe123 Fri 22-Mar-13 20:53:13

Who knows anyone who has a dual income of £300k? I dont and we use a snazzy well known private boarding school for DS's. There will of course be a few but literally a few...

My sister chooses to work in a job which is paid less than half of what I am paid. She constantly says she wouldnt do a role like mine with the hours involved. She gets to work at 0900 and leaves at 1700 with no issues to take home. Its her choice but what she hasnt realised is that they wouldnt take someone like her to do the minimum. We make our choices. What cannot happen is that people who arent contributing at all still expect to get something out of it.

The £300k couple will be paying tons of tax btw....

nancerama Fri 22-Mar-13 20:54:08

But it's being billed as something to help get more mothers into work, yet those already struggling aren't being helped by this scheme.

There's only a limited amount of money on the pot, so why can't it be spent on those who need it most?

OneLieIn Fri 22-Mar-13 20:56:31

You both have to earn less than 150k

maisiejoe123 Fri 22-Mar-13 20:57:29

Actually at the boarding school my sons go to most mothers dont work. Lots of investment bankers with the mothers doing all of the childcare, driving around etc. It allows the men (and it is normally men!) to concentrate on their careers. With divorce rates so high I have to say somewhat foolish.

maisiejoe123 Fri 22-Mar-13 20:59:51

One of the Mum's at school had her DH leave her for someone else and she was 50. She asked me what she could do. She had never worked. I am at a loss to know what to say to her.

Working gives you some independence and ability to make your own decisions. Just ask Xenia who is often around.

MmeThenardier Fri 22-Mar-13 21:02:16

Well I think benefits should be based on need oneliein so we differ there.

maisie I don't presume to know what the other parents in the school playground earn. How would I know? Although I'd guess that 2 full time GP's could clear this amount (or close to) quite easily.

OneLieIn Fri 22-Mar-13 21:05:09

Well we differ there. I don't believe SAHM's "need" childcare

OneLieIn Fri 22-Mar-13 21:06:21

And I really struggle with the concept of being a SAHM when the dc is at school

fedupofnamechanging Fri 22-Mar-13 21:17:15

Even when dc start school, they still benefit from having a sahp. The school day really isn't that long and when the dc come home they still need my time and attention. School age dc have different needs than smaller children, but those needs are no less time consuming.

I find that the school hours are sometimes busy, sometimes nice and relaxing, depending on what I have planned. The hours after my dc come home are very busy and full on.

allnewtaketwo Fri 22-Mar-13 21:20:03

DH and I both work full time and 1 of us always picks DS up from school. No need for either of us to be a SAHP at all

janey68 Fri 22-Mar-13 21:20:16

That's fine karma if you want to be a SAHP when your children are at school. No one is arguing with that if its what suits you. This argument is about economics. You can't expect public funds to subsidise your choice

MmeThenardier Fri 22-Mar-13 21:27:47

I'm not going to argue with that oneliein.

But I will maintain that families that earn £300k between them shouldn't be eligible for childcare vouchers. This is my biggest criticism of this scheme.

How does this help parents get back to work?

bumperella Fri 22-Mar-13 21:32:12

Taxpayers' should not have to support people who choose not to work.
I am a SAHP, my choice, very fortunate to have been able to save hard before having DD, fortunate to ahve inexpensive tastes, fortunate that DH has a stable career, fortunate that I can do odds and sods of work on a consultancy basis which pays into a pension and for holidays but not much else.

Totally disagree that the personal tax-free allowance should be claimable by/transferable to your spouse; it's a personal allowance, not a married couple allowance.

Don't see why others' should financially support my decision not to have a better-paid job. But don't see why choosing not to be a 40% tax payer makes me a Bad Person who is unwilling to Work Hard and Get On either.

maisiejoe123 Fri 22-Mar-13 22:53:29

Bumperella, Yes - I agree it is a personal allowance. Can you imagine nowadays if a government said they would allow a married couple allowance and that's the problem. What is a partner these days someone you live with for 6 months, 2 years. 2 weeks? Its all unmanageable...

jellybeans Fri 22-Mar-13 23:26:54

Totally agree karmabeliever. When my youngest starts school I have no plans to go back to paid work for now. Before I had him I was a SAHM to school age for a while and was so busy still.. School soon figure out which parents can help in school and I was helping out a fair bit as well as studying, seeing elderly grandparents are other things. I was never bored ever! Plus my DH has his days off in the week so we have 'weekend' stuff to do on those days. I am hoping to do extra voluntary work though (not in school this time) and finish the last year of my degree though so probably won't have much time overall.

jellybeans Fri 22-Mar-13 23:29:16

For people that say why should taxpayers support your choices, I have heard people say that about paying for childcare of those who make the'lifestyle choice' to have DCs.. If you know in advance how much childcare is then is there an argument that you chose to have your child so you should pay?

cloudy99 Sat 23-Mar-13 00:49:13

Ok so I am effectively a sahm. Part time self employed. Dh is a hrt payer. We receive no child benefit. So bar ni credits please tell me how taxpayers are supporting me and my choice to stay home?
The only taxpayer supporting me is dh.
By the same logic it could also be argued that as a unit we are supporting lower income families who have their income topped up with tax credits and chb.

gaelicsheep Sat 23-Mar-13 01:07:01

I've only got halfway through the thread so apologies if the point has been made. This " reward" of NI credits, as I understand it, merely prevents a SAHP from suffering a reduced pension by.filling in the missing years. It used to be called Home Responsibilities Protection. I don't believe it brings any other contribution based entitlement. Hardly a reward, more a basic human right.

gaelicsheep Sat 23-Mar-13 01:18:27

Great posts by MmeThenardier.

An interesting contrast in language I have noticed a few times on this thread:

Family with a SAHP where earning partner gets a small amount of tax credit thereby reducing their tax bill :tax credit = a benefit

Family where parents earn nearly £300k between them and claiming childcare subsidy: childcare subsidy = tax reduction

These are two sides of the same coin. Talk about double standards people!

fedupofnamechanging Sat 23-Mar-13 07:47:06

I never expected to be financially rewarded for staying home with my own dc. However I did view CB as a tax reduction for dh paid in recognition of the fact that children are both expensive and of benefit to society. The fact that everyone got it meant that both rich and poor were invested in the idea of a welfare state, because everyone was getting a little something back. In making it conditional, it pits people against each other. Meanwhile the Tories continue to cut everyone's income and essential benefits. But there's no one left to object because we're too busy bickering amongst ourselves to tackle the real source of our problems - the corrupt banking and political systems we have.

edwardsmum11 Sat 23-Mar-13 07:58:19

Tbh I'm a sahm and don't understand the upset. Think the free place at 3 will be useful to his social development though.

WileyRoadRunner Sat 23-Mar-13 08:06:55

None of it really matters.

If the Tories are re-elected they will scrap any childcare help for WOHP's too.

They will state that we should all be responsible for our own children.

Then the SAHM/ WOHM discussion will be irrelevant.

fedupofnamechanging Sat 23-Mar-13 08:13:55

As for the transferable tax allowance, if dh's wage was split equally between the two of us, we would pay less tax on that and therefore have s higher income than we do with dh earning that same wage all by himself because of paying the higher tax rate. This is effectively penalizing me for being a sahp.

janey68 Sat 23-Mar-13 08:14:27

The principle karma states is correct. Everyone needs to be invested
in the concept of the welfare state (even though obviously the main beneficiaries are the needy). The welfare state relies on people doing those high pressure, tough jobs as HR tax payers. It's so easy to knock families who have both parents on good incomes- even though those people are generating employment through childcare and paying loads into the pot.

The welfare state is a constant balancing act: talking care of the needy while simultaneously incentivising people to try to be independent of it. Govts have got this badly wrong in the past- many people trying to be independent have found that they are no better off (or only marginally better off) than if they stay at home, or work greatly reduced hours. What the economy needs right now is to encourage adults to work, and anything which supports families doing that is a good thing. God knows, there are enough 'barriers' which potentially act as a disincentive (the huge cost of childcare being one, transport another) that incentives are needed. At the end of the day, a family with a SAHP don't have these day to day expenses. Childcare is not a necessity: it is when you work.
And please don't anyone try to make out this is anti SAHM- each to their own, I have no problem with a parent staying home if they want, I just think they shouldn't begrudge families where both parents work.

Cabrinha Sat 23-Mar-13 08:15:05

Startail - "some of us choose to bring up our own DCs".

You know that parents who choose (or have no choice) work + child care are still bringing their own children up, right?

My 4yo spends 4 long days a week at nursery where 5 highly qualified, committed and frankly lovely women help me to bring her up. But I'm still her primary carer, you know? I'm still bringing up my own child.

janey68 Sat 23-Mar-13 08:21:00

Karma- cross posts there with your last post. The whole point is that if you and your dh were both working and between you earning what he currently brings in as sole earner, you would be talking about a totally different scenario. The man hours worked would be double- the two of you working, not one. You would have to pay for childcare which you currently don't. You would have increased transport costs, as you'd maybe have to run a second car or pay two season tickets. Believe me, If you were both working to bring in the same as your dh does now, I think you'd very quickly change your tune and realise why the govt is supporting families where both parents work

catinboots Sat 23-Mar-13 08:22:45

OP here

Oh blimmin heck I really didn't want to start a bin fight.

From my in depth skim and scan read of the thread, it seems it's not about the money? It's about the societal recognition and general respect from the Tory party?

I think that's the bit that has shocked me so much... I though we all just muddled along doing what we need/have/want/choose to do.

Fucking arf that people feel they need approval from a load of politicians. Really? You're going to sleep sounder tonight because George Osborne is ok with the way you've chosen to lead your life?

I couldn't give a hoot if him or any of the other clowns had anything to say about me and my family choices. Yes, I'm pissed at anything the govt does that affects me - but really? Will I lose sleep of their or society's 'valuation' of me and my role???


And I say that as a FT WOHP. Previously being a FT benefit claiming SAHP and pretty much covered all of the bases in between....

Yama Netherlands Sat 23-Mar-13 08:32:09

I see the old 'divide and conquer' Tory strategy is working.

fedupofnamechanging Sat 23-Mar-13 08:36:14

janey, I don't in truth have an issue with financing childcare for working parents. I do feel it is unnecessary to do so for very high earning parents though, just as I feel it is unfair that 2 people earning 49k each get to keep cb, but a single earner getting 60k loses theirs. It's about double standards and fairness.

How many hours of work a couple would need to do, in order to generate the same salary dh currently earns isn't relevant because the end result is still the same. Also high paying jobs tend to involve very long hours/lots of time away from home. In truth I think dh is probably working my 'share' already.

It's also impossible to generalise about expenses generated by jobs. A lot of people find it very expensive on terms of travel costs etc, but others get company financed cars or work from home or have lots of support.

janey68 Sat 23-Mar-13 08:36:18

I agree, the 'recognition ' and 'value' issue puzzles me too. If you want to stay at home, do it Because you want to. Don't look to anyone outside your family (especially politicians!) to validate your choice. It ain't gonna happen and neither should you need it!

fedupofnamechanging Sat 23-Mar-13 08:38:33

Again, it's more about not being negatively judged and financially penalised, rather than being positively valued by politicians!

Partridge Sat 23-Mar-13 08:39:41

All the not giving shiny shits/flying figs/rats arses is really cool and all - but I happen to sometimes feel a bit vulnerable and would like to feel valued. Sorry if that makes me really pathetic, like.

Partridge Sat 23-Mar-13 08:44:08

I'm not expecting statements from the government about value but equally not demoralising and patronising rhetoric that validates those who think all sahp are lazy good fer nothings.

janey68 Sat 23-Mar-13 08:50:52

I really think 99% of this 'SAHP are lazy good for nothings ' is in people's imagination. Where, for example, have you seen that on this thread?
The reality is that the vast majority of people believe its fine to stay at home if it suits you and your partner and it's affordable. All they take issue with is that SAHP should expect the exact same financial 'advantages' as WOHP. And to me, the huge irony is that WOHP have far more expense than SAHP (unless of course they use relatives as child minders and don't pay them anything- but frankly we can't legislate for individual family scenarios. I would feel terrible earning a wage and expecting someone to care for my precious children for nothing- but that's what some families do and that's their business)

catinboots Sat 23-Mar-13 08:54:42

Partridge - how in what way would you like to be valued though? Not being funny, honestly asking.

Would you like to be valued with a statement of appreciation from the politicians? A monetary reward? How?

catinboots Sat 23-Mar-13 08:57:49

Sorry Partridge

Just read your 2nd post

Molehillmountain Sat 23-Mar-13 09:17:24

I just don't think either side is going to get the other. Just to restate my view. I am a sahm as part of a family decision about how to manage our time and money. I don't feel the need to outline how hard it is because I enjoy it and have chosen it. We will soon have absolutely no government assistance. Quite right. We earn enough through the career luck and work put in to fund ourselves. Anyone who doesn't really ought to get government help. Hence the idea that tax relief on childcare for those who need two salaries to pay even basic living costs is a step in the right direction. But why should anyone who is financially able to cover childcare costs and is living well, either now or for future financial advantage, get government assistance? I do think that in amongst the people who are working because they absolutely need to, there are others who are confusing needs with preference and choices. And there I draw the line at the government giving tax breaks. It's like giving a medal to those who have two wohp which in my book is actually saying that two wohp is better than one. And the frustrating thing is that this government can make this statement at no cost because the plan isn't going to be enacted for two years. Thank you very much.

nancerama Sat 23-Mar-13 09:22:42

Wasn't the Big Society all about everyone contributing to society?

Most SAHP I know go into schools to help with reading, sit on parents committees at Surestarts and playgroups, do breast feeding peer support and man enquiries lines for charities. They don't expect payment, but it's a kick in the teeth to be branded as lazy.

catinboots Sat 23-Mar-13 09:23:23

Maybe I should start a new thread because its a different question I'm adding now...

But SAHPs. If you want valuation/recognition but not financially - what exactly is it that you want ????

catinboots Sat 23-Mar-13 09:26:01

Who's branded SAHPs as lazy?

'Work hard and get on' - surely if you're a SAHP with a partner that can support you and your DCs - you are 'working hard and getting on' anyway

How are you being branded lazy?

janey68 Sat 23-Mar-13 09:30:01

Molehillmountain- I sort of half agree and half not! I think we do 'get' eachothers viewpoints- it's just that people genuinely disagree over this issue. I take your point that there are some families where mum and dad both work and can afford all the childcare and commuting costs easily. BUT first, I reckon such families are very few and far between. Families with two really high earners are rare- and as has been stated they must work their backsides off juggling everything and frankly pay in far more than the small amount they 'get back' in tax breaks. The vast majority of dual earning families aren't like that. They might be nurses, teachers, retail managers... Decent money but by no means rolling in it. These families are hit hard by nursery fees and commuting, and I think it's absolutely right that there is some financial recognition of the fact that both parents are economically active, even though the huge costs of working could act as a disincentive.
And these fictional families where mum and dad each earn £149000 ... Well frankly, we're all benefiting from the tax they pay and the employment they generate. It's easy to snipe about them- but it would actually be worse for the economy if one of them decided to jack it in and sit at home!

morethanpotatoprints Sat 23-Mar-13 09:38:06


I totally agree with your last post. I objected either this post or last to somebody who was saying that working was gaining no money when childcare was paid, but expected subsidising so the family could move to a better catchment area for dc schools.
Fair enough subsidise childcare for those who need to put bread and butter on the table, not those choosing to work to pay for privilage and luxuries.
I mean that for all people/ benefits.
There are people living below the breadline who are receiving cuts, and others wanting a luxury lifestyle subsidised.

katecreate Sat 23-Mar-13 09:45:05

I think the Tories are tying themselves in knots. They've done so much to devalue people who don't work in paid roles that they've forgotten it clashes with their want to 'conserve' the 'traditional' familial set up of the mother staying at home.

Partridge Sat 23-Mar-13 09:59:49

The context of working hard and getting on in this instance was about people going out to work. The rhetoric used has a subtext - politicians aren't naive enough to miss this. The subtext is that if you aren't working hard and getting on you are not as valuable as those who do.

It is disingenuous to pretend that both sides of the woh and sah debate aren't highly emotive. They are stereotyped negatively both ways - I happen to be a sahm so this is my experience and all I can legislate for.

catinboots Sat 23-Mar-13 10:00:23

Someone PLEASE answer me

If you don't work, but are supported by yourself or a partner; what exactly is this 'value' that you want from the government?

In what form do you want this 'value'??

anotheryearolder Sat 23-Mar-13 10:01:02

Butmorethan I think you are concentrating only on what people get from working and forgetting that they are giving to society in the form of services they provide.
They dont rock up at work ,sit there and then go home- they are benefitting ALL of us in providing education,care,services we all rely on.

Cat I agree-the question of stating SAHM are lazy keeps coming up - Where has anyone actually said this ??

anotheryearolder Sat 23-Mar-13 10:04:30

I thought the "work hard and get on " was in reference to the anomally that many people were better off staying on benefits than actually working.
People who wanted to work but due the childcare costs couldnt.
Where did this refer to SAHP ??

fedupofnamechanging Sat 23-Mar-13 10:15:12

The idea that sahp = lazy is in the subtext. It's in the idea that high earners are entitled to financial top ups, even though they don't need them, because what they do is valuable, but sahp don't because what they do isn't. I think that non sahp perhaps don't notice the subtext because it isn't aimed at them. Sahp are maybe more sensitive to the implied criticism.

I'd like 'value' from the govt in the form of a transferable tax allowance. What I do enables my dh to generate lots of tax, but now he is above the 40% tax threshold, the additional 10k earned by my dh is worth less than 10k earned by someone below the 40% threshold. So if he earned 10k less and I earned that 10K instead, it would be worth more to us in real terms. I think this is unfair and a negative judgement on the value of a sahp.

Partridge Sat 23-Mar-13 10:29:01

From the telegraph:

Asked whether the Prime Minister was “concerned” that the vouchers scheme was penalising stay-at-home mothers, his official spokesman simply said the measures were “very important as part of supporting those who want to work hard and to get on”. When asked if Mr Cameron believed that stay-at-home parents were less in need of state help than working parents, the spokesman would only say that the Prime Minister wanted to support “aspiration”.

I don't want financial value - I would like to be seen as a valuable and contributing member of society. I do work hard and get on. I look after 3 kids - the youngest 2 are not at school. I am vice-chair of the PTA, volunteer in the school library 2 days a week and take reading groups (bringing the youngest 2 with me as i have no childcare) and volunteer on a parenting helpline one night a week.

I would like to think that this adds value to Cameron's Big Society. I do not do it entirely altruistically - I am adding skills to my cv and gaining confidence for an attempt to return to work when the kids need me less and we don't have to pay for child care (which we can't afford).

Molehillmountain Sat 23-Mar-13 10:30:49

Janey68-I think half agree is where I'm at really! It's all very complicated really but if I look around my group of friends I see some who'd get help with childcare where I think it's eminently fair and others not. Even if I were working I'd feel it unfair that we got help. That's why, and I was working when it came out, I felt the child benefit being means tested was actually fair. Ouch - but when I looked at where we'd be without it it left us with plenty that others still couldn't afford, it seemed fair ish. And we are in a position where we bought our first house when things were rising but not ridiculous. We could so easily be struggling to pay a bigfer mortgage for less house and needing two salaries to pay for it. It's those families I feel are trapped at the moment. To get a reasonable, slightly above bread on the table, roof over head lifestyle that people could afford at their salary level Pre housing boom/credit crunch, they are only just breaking even on two salaries. The government ought to help. It's a clear unfairness and disincentive to get on. But others in our circle are just unable to see things as choices. Both of them have to work. I'd much rather they rolled on the floor laughing at us for our financial folly than were blind to choice. Our dearest friends have an income three times ours (bit of a fairly well informed guess) and are able to recognise this as a pleasant by product of choosing to work. I recognise having no salary now and reduced pension later as the costs of our family deviding that i wouldnt. It works. I respect it. They laughed at the idea of childcare help with their nanny. Of course they'll take it. We took child benefit and maternity pay. My dad draws a state pension. You'd be some kind of fool not to take money that's offered. It doesn't make it right.

janey68 Sat 23-Mar-13 10:36:40

Karma- I think this is something people fully 'get' but just don't agree on.
To many people, the principle of taxing people as individuals is highly important on many levels.

Put this into the wider historical context.

One thing that's cropped up on this thread is people thinking the govt are undermining the traditional family set up: dad earning, mum staying home. I think what the govt IS unashamedly doing is recognising that this is the 21st century and women are just as capable of having the same earnng power as men. (and equally men are just as capable of nurturing)
Yes, they are 'rewarding' (for want of a better word) Family A: two parents who both earn decent, similar incomes, more than Family B: where father earns the equivalent of Family A and mother earns nothing. It's not that we don't understand that- it's that many of us don't have a problem with it. First, because Family A are generating work because they'll be using a nursery or child minder, and also have all the costs which go along with that, whereas Family B dont need to pay for childcare. But another, broader reason is that this reflects societal changes about family set ups, and equality between the sexes.

Those of you who, like me, have a daughter and a son. Hand on heart, do you honestly look at your dd and assume that she won't be capable of earning as much as man? Do you assume her role in life will be to support a mans career? And do you look at your son and assume that he will have to have a high flying career to support a wife at home? Because I don't. I think the expectation that women can earn equally to men is great. Who honestly wants to hark back to the days when it was just assumed that women wouldn't have such opportunities

As I keep saying, this is by no means anti SAHM because if you want to be at home and your partner is happy to support you then that's up to you. But it doesn't mean that you cease to be an individual for the purposes of tax allowances. You are a separate person from your partner.

allnewtaketwo Sat 23-Mar-13 10:38:34

No gaelic, tax credits are a benefit because they beat no relation to the tax actually paid. So many cases where the tax credits actually exceed the amount of tax paid by the household. Therefore the name "tax credit" is a misnomer. Childcare vouchers, on the other hand, are a direct offset in the tax payment calculation itself.

fedupofnamechanging Sat 23-Mar-13 10:43:16

If I'm a separate person to my dh for tax purposes, then why am I losing child benefit (that's claimed in my name), on the basis of his income?

I have sons and a daughter. I do assume that she will be capable of earning as much as her brothers, but in wanting a level playing field in an 'ability to earn' sense, that also translates to her not being discriminated against or viewed as 'less' if she chooses to sah with her kids.

anotheryearolder Sat 23-Mar-13 10:47:10

I really dont understand how anyone can think not getting something you dont need is penalising them.confused

OK so Im being penalised as well then !
I dont need childcare because my Dc are too old and at the time DH and I worked flexibly but how dare they give something I dont need to someone else [ hmm]
Except I dont need childcare...

On the question of volunteering - lots of WOHP do it too. I did help with swimming and reading at school and I help an elderly neighbour .
The value is there ,in the actual act of helping others .

anotheryearolder Sat 23-Mar-13 10:49:20

Sorry - this was replying to Karma

janey68 Sat 23-Mar-13 10:55:47

Well if you want an honest answer karma, I don't believe child benefit should ever have been 'attached' to the mother and not the father...yet again it's part of that historical discrimination which assumed that mothers didn't earn and fathers were the 'inferior' parent

In an ideal world, it would be great if child benefit could continue to be a universal benefit, but the country is in economic crisis and tough decisions have to be made. If you are at home, with a husband earning over the threshold for CB, then yes, you'll feel a bit pissed off that you're losing it. . If you're a mum and dad both working and each earning just under the threshold and therefore keeping CB, you'll be looking at it from the perspective of paying shed loads of childcare and other work costs.
So I can see why people are going to feel disgruntled due to their own personal perspective. But given that cuts need to be made, many other people will feel its right to support working parents

nancerama Sat 23-Mar-13 11:03:26

I m not upset about not getting something I don't need, I'm upset that there are plenty who feel because they pay taxes they are entitled to something back, whilst those who are genuinely in need of a little extra help simply don't get it.

Molehillmountain Sat 23-Mar-13 11:07:42

I wish the government supported aspirational families, of whatever shape or size. And as for not seeing why families are penalised by not getting something they don't need-that applies equally to families receiving tax breaks on childcare when they are also able to afford an above basic (plus a bit) lifestyle.
Why do social trends always operate on a pendulum style basis? Thirty or so years ago, wohp (unfortunately usually the mother) were not seen as the best option. Rightly, the pendulum swung. I think it's kind of in the middle now, or getting there, but the government's vague (but pointed) notion of tax incentives for aspiration is pushing it the other way. So off we go on another swing until families who choose to have one at home are off norm and criticised. Great. Hope my daughters are strong minded individuals able to make their own minds up.

amidaiwish Sat 23-Mar-13 11:14:30

Janey68, I agreed with everything you said apart from "partner supports you". What a 1950s attitude.
Money earned by dh (I am SAHM ATM) is paid into our bank account
He doesn't "support" me. What does that mean?
I think he would say I support him and the kids rather than the other way round. With dh's hours, work pressure and travel it would be a nightmare for him and the kids if I was WOHM.

amidaiwish Sat 23-Mar-13 11:18:00

Oh and I don't care about the childcare tax subsidy, infact I agree with it. At one time We were paying £2k a month for nursery for 2 DCs. Crippling cost. It should all be tax deductible.
I do care however that my tax allowance isn't transferrable. And yet my CB has gone because dh is over the threshold. You either tax and calculate benefits as a household OR as individuals, not the mismatch they have at the moment where one income households pay disproportionately more tax. How can anyone see that as fair?

janey68 Sat 23-Mar-13 11:19:32

Yes, social trends do operate on a pendulum basis (as do economic trends) and many of us agree that's not the best way for it to function.

I still think this issue of 'valuing' a SAHP is bugging some people more than it should. It should be an individual decision for families, and there shouldn't be a need or an expectation that the govt 'rewards it' . The only validation needed is that of your own family

I take it you only have daughters then molehill? Because those of us with daughter AND sons would say the same thing about both of them. I hope my son feels strong minded enough to not feel he has to earn a lot more than his future wife, and that she'll have first 'dibs' on staying at home

janey68 Sat 23-Mar-13 11:22:12

Amid- by support I meant 'financial support'. Of course the money can be paid into a joint Account, but it's a simple fact (not a value judgement) that it's the working partner who has earned it

Partridge Sat 23-Mar-13 11:29:28

But who says that the "only validation you need is from your own family..." You cannot legislate for how everyone feels.

ByTheWay1 Sat 23-Mar-13 11:29:41

but janey68 often the working partner cannot "earn it" without the non-financial support at home - so "earn" becomes less of a single-person defined thing. my hubby earns a heck of a lot more money since I gave up work and take care of the stuff that prevented him doing so before (his mum needs care...etc)

janey68 Sat 23-Mar-13 11:37:27

Bytheway- This has been covered (although it may be on another similar thread.... There are so many of them right now!)
The thing is, there is so much variation in what families feel they can cope with, and what they want for their family life.
For every family where the wife says she can't work because her husband works such long hours, has a lot of stress, she needs to do all the household stuff etc, you'll find another family where the husband works long hours and the wife works too... They employ a nanny, cleaner, and work things out somehow.
I'm honestly not making a value judgement here... My point is entirely that what suits one family doesn't suit another. If you feel that your family operates best having one partner working long hours in a high paid but high paid job and having the other at home then that's fine, but you cannot pretend that youre in the same position as a family with two working parents. That's a simple fact.

catinboots Sat 23-Mar-13 11:41:46

Sorry Partridge to be obtuse - but who the rubbery fuck do you wnt validation from, apart from your family then?

David Cameron?



weewifey40 Sat 23-Mar-13 11:47:56

Yes and that's exactly why I wouldn't want to work at this moment in time. Why would I want to pay for cleaners, nannies etc when I'd prefer to do it myself? Since Tony Blair started bribing both parents out to work, the message has been explicit, not even subtle: outsource your children. It's better than staying at home with them. Hell, that's one of the reasons I went back to work. Everyone else was. It became the new normal. I pretended I was alright with it for a while, got made redundant, became a sahm for a while, then carried on.
I do thinks its a shifting social trend though. You only have to look at the massively praised childcare model in Sweden where 80% of parents are back at work, cheap cheap daycare, night nurseries fgs, so if you work night shifts your baby can sleep there, I shit you not... a backlash has starts though. Parents miss their kids and would prefer to do it themselves. The crazy thing the government consistently overlooks when they're bribing people back to work is that children, especially the under 3's, are far far better off with a sahp than nursery. Unless they're being abused at home obviously.

weewifey40 Sat 23-Mar-13 11:49:50

and I do get fucked off when the government and the media and some mumsnetters want to pretend that 40 hours a week in nursery is just as good a place to be as home with mum or dad.

flatmum Sat 23-Mar-13 11:52:57

i tell you what i think is really bad - where the man is high earning self employed but they use the SAHMs tax allowance to pay less tax by paying her a salary to do naff all. Some of these people even claim familly tax credits! you cant have your cake and eat it.

i have nothing against staying at home with the children. i think it is somewhat inevitable if a professional man marries a woman who was in a relatively low earning job - her salary would be the same as the cost of childcare. But i am glad they are recognising the rise in famillies like mine where both work and earn a reasonable salary as, as others have said, this reflects the fact that more women of our generation went to university and have careers. And I can only see this trend continuing as gender pay and equality continues to even up in this country.

As others have said, would anyone really want their daughters who are in school now to not get good gcses, not go onto university or do an apprenticeship, or to get good qualifications but then do nothing with them?

janey68 Sat 23-Mar-13 11:56:26

Oh yawn wee wifey- don't try to turn this into a WOHM bashing thread. People have been discussing the economic issues intelligently without making value judgements about whether people choose to stay home or work

You prefer not to work- great, lovely for you, enjoy it without feeling the need to denigrate parents who do things differently. And there is no reputable evidence to suggest childcare is good or bad for children, so don't start that nonsense- you're in danger of looking like the type of person who can only enjoy having given up work if you can convince yourself that the children of working parents won't turn out as well as your kids . That says more about you than anyone else.
Let's not allow someone to derail the thread by just trying to slag off WOHP

Partridge Sat 23-Mar-13 12:00:43

Um, yes actually. It might be nice if the government said that sahp make a contribution to society actually. Because they do. His comments on budget day were inflammatory and did the opposite.

weewifey40 Sat 23-Mar-13 12:03:38

I am 'doing something' with my GCSE's, A levels and degree.
Education is about far more than exchanging skills in exchange for cash!
I want my daughters to get an education because it broadens your mind, not so they can earn a 6 figure salary and see their kids for an hour or two a day. And I'd hope that they have the choice to be a sahm if that's what they want. Because, with a few rare exceptions, it's women who want to be sahm's in the early years. Pregnancy, maternity leave and breastfeeding probably play biggest part in this, rather than some patriarchal coverup to control and oppress women. Believe it or not, some women are sahm's through choice, not by accident.

allnewtaketwo Sat 23-Mar-13 12:04:13

I'm baffled how a SAHP makes any more of a contribution to society than anyone else. Yes of course if you use your free time to help out in the community or whatever. But staying at home does not in itself benefit anyone in society other than yourself and your family.

fedupofnamechanging Sat 23-Mar-13 12:05:52

I am doing things with my qualifications though. Education is never wasted, whether you use it to generate money or not.

I am currently helping my ds through his GCSEs, something I would struggle with if I didn't have any qualifications.

weewifey40 Sat 23-Mar-13 12:07:22

Oh Janey, there's plenty of well researched, subjective, highly regarded research about children in daycare vs children at home, and you know it!
If anyone suggests that kids are just as happy and well cared for by a nursery key worker responsible for several other kids, than having the undivided attention of a parent at home, well then you would be wrong.

catinboots Sat 23-Mar-13 12:08:09

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Partridge Sat 23-Mar-13 12:08:32

Who said they make more of a contribution? confused

janey68 Sat 23-Mar-13 12:08:51

Partridge- there is a difference between economic contribution and all the other kinds of contribution.
Millions of people contribute through raising well adjusted citizens, volunteering within their local community etc etc... Often these things are quite diffiicult to quantify. But these things aren't exclusive to SAHP - many people do them, whether they are working or not.
It's a bit like me saying that as a WOHM I feel aggrieved that David Cameron isn't congratulating me on bringing up two lovely children, being a govenor at the local school and generally being an all round 'good egg!'

jellybeans Sat 23-Mar-13 12:09:20

Good points weewifey I think there is a backlash here and in Sweden. Because Sweden is not really a move forward if there is little choice. Why go from the 1950s where mothers had little choices but to stay home to a state where mothers have little choice but to work?

Wouldn't real progress be working less? Such as if both parents wanted to work, both doing 20 hours each and sharing childcare? Because a society based on two 40 hour incomes will always be unfair on lone parents for a start... If we base everything on dual income prices simply rise accordingly like they did with mortgages. Eventually we are no better off. If families could manage on 40 hours then they could choose who worked those hours between themselves. Those who see equality as simply both earning money can do so.

Society that devalues unpaid workers and the unemployed soon devalues those born with disabilities and the elderly and of course children (poorer ratios etc).

'Fair enough subsidise childcare for those who need to put bread and butter on the table, not those choosing to work to pay for privilage and luxuries.'

Also agree with the above (sorry not sure who the poster was).

SoulTrain Sat 23-Mar-13 12:10:33

Is weewifey still banging out the same old tune from two days ago?

You're beyond ridiculous woman.

catinboots Sat 23-Mar-13 12:10:33

Sorry - that wasn't helpful towards the debate. Which has been mostly intelligent and interesting so far.

<red mist>

<who moved my Valium?>

janey68 Sat 23-Mar-13 12:11:37

Well you spoke the truth there wee wifey- there's plenty of SUBjective stuff out there!
Anyway, my children thrived in nursery, sorry to disappoint you!

weewifey40 Sat 23-Mar-13 12:12:53

My opinion is perfectly valid and plenty of others feel exactly the same way. If it makes you so mad, I would wonder why.

weewifey40 Sat 23-Mar-13 12:14:17

you lose the argument when you call someone a 'ridiculous woman' because they don't agree with you!

HappyMummyOfOne Sat 23-Mar-13 12:16:18

Why would the government say SAHMs make a contribution to society? They are not paying anything into the pot yet taking out in the form of education, healthcare, benefits for many. If you are implying that its only SAHMs who volunteer, bar one retired grandparent all of our school volunteers, pta and governors work.

"Fair enough subsidise childcare for those who need to put bread and butter on the table, not those choosing to work to pay for privilage and luxuries."

Double standards at play again, so its ok to expect those tax payers to pay your tax credits that allow you the luxury of choosing not to work but heaven forbid they get a tax break for contributing to the pot. We need tax payers far more and less taking from the pot so helping workers is the way to go.

fedupofnamechanging Sat 23-Mar-13 12:17:12

I don't think that sahp contribute more than wohp. But we do contribute, if only in that we enable our partners to work and contribute financially to the tax pot. Not all jobs lend themselves to the use of paid childcare. Even with two people working, there often isn't enough money to pay for childcare when it is needed. Not everyone's homes/circumstances are suitable for hiring a nanny.

There are lots of people who don't directly generate money who contribute to society by doing all the caring and volunteer roles that would otherwise cost society money, if they suddenly had to pay people to do these things. I exclude myself from that, because I am a self confessed lazy cow (although I do help out at dd's school), but the women around me do quite a lot in the community to keep things ticking along.

catinboots Sat 23-Mar-13 12:17:17

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

janey68 Sat 23-Mar-13 12:17:40

You're not interested in debate weewifey- you just want to bang on about mummy at home being best. Fine to do that if it's what makes YOU happy, not fine to try to use it as a stick to beat WOHM with.

SoulTrain Sat 23-Mar-13 12:18:38

"Lose the argument"? Grow up.

Have you actually linked any of the evidence yet?

SolomanDaisy Sat 23-Mar-13 12:18:39

You appear to have confused 'making a contribution to society' with 'currently paying income tax', HappyMummy.

weewifey40 Sat 23-Mar-13 12:19:27

I've just spotted the post calling me a 'silly cunt'. A cunt! Because I was doing what? Arguing the case for sahm's? Arguing that children might just possibly prefer a sahm to a nursery key worker? If saying that makes me a cunt, then great. Call me a cunt. Wohm's peddle the opposite argument ad Infinitum on here. I'm redressing the balance.

Molehillmountain Sat 23-Mar-13 12:20:23

Janey- I've got two daughters and a son and I agree with you. I guess I was relating this to how I feel about things as a woman now and how things might be in the future. I hope all three of them will be lucky enough to form strong relationships unless they genuinely don't want to and to have mature discussions about how to support themselves and any children they might have. I would wish for them what I have.
On a separate note, can I distance myself from the value judgements that are creeping in from either side about whether both wohp or one sahp is better, please? It's just not how I operate and find it all very uncomfortable. This is a discussion about financial matters once that decision, temporary or otherwise has been made.

weewifey40 Sat 23-Mar-13 12:20:51

so much hypocrisy and double standards here. Why am I completely unsurprised?

SoulTrain Sat 23-Mar-13 12:21:02

Totally agree with cat and Janey.

fedupofnamechanging Sat 23-Mar-13 12:24:31

There are lots of dual income families taking more out of the pot than they are putting in, in terms of education, healthcare, benefits, because wages in this country are far too low and cost of living is far too high. Otoh, there are plenty of single earners paying more than their particular family takes out. It's just the way it goes. We accept that there are things we pay for which we might never use and that other people may subsidise things which we do end up using.

We all take some things and give back others - few people do absolutely nothing, ever to contribute. It's dangerous to go down the route of saying that only wage earners have any value to society and anyone else is valueless, which is where this govt seems to be going.

janey68 Sat 23-Mar-13 12:24:40

Wee wifey- you are clearly here to just stir up trouble. You talk as if you're in the playground, and it's difficult to have any kind of dialogue with someone who doesnt know the difference between subjective and objective- leave the debate to the grown ups please.

SoulTrain Sat 23-Mar-13 12:27:49

No one is arguing the case AGAINST SAHM are they? You've just decided to support your own choices by attacking others who aren't doing the same as you, how is that right?

As for my son preferring nursery workers - I'm sure he does on some occasions. I however, am delighted by that, he's happy without me when I can't be either him, what more could I as for? I don't feel so insecure as his Mother to disregard the thought that he could enjoy other people in his life without still loving or wanting me. Your post reads as if you couldn't say the same weewifey.

weewifey40 Sat 23-Mar-13 12:35:08

No need to be so condescending.
I didn't do anything wrong. I talked about the value of sahm's at a time when society seems to think we're 'a problem'
And yes, I do think my children are happier with a sahp, otherwise why would I be one??!
I was called a cunt twice on this thread.
And you tell me I'm acting as though I'm in a playground?

Partridge Sat 23-Mar-13 12:37:45

Oh come on. Obviously I have more time to volunteer than a wohp - 2 whole days a week in fact (and 2 3 hour evening shifts too) and I am saving the school from employing another learning assistant (and yes, I do have a pgce) - thus alleviating the burden on the council financially. So yes I am contributing. I wouldn't expect a wohp to show the same level of commitment to volunteering - where would the work life balance be then?

This is not a competition. I feel marginalised on many levels for my choice (yes i acknowledge a bit of a chip/lack of self worth) and you seem determined to put the boot in by implying that the work some sahp do in society is not a valuable contribution. Yes, in the main it is not financial - but it can be. I am not denigrating wohp in the same way and it seems that some particular posters either have a massive chip on their shoulder, see being a sahp as derisory or are just being particularly ungenerous.

Does it really hurt that much to acknowledge that we sahp may have some societal value - it won't take anything away from your choices (which I respect - I have also been a wohp between my first 2 kids), honest.

weewifey40 Sat 23-Mar-13 12:37:53

I've worked and used nurseries, a childminder and holiday clubs, so have been the wohm for several years. Clearly the anonymity of the interweb means that I can't expect to be treated in a civil manner. If you met me in a cafe and had this conversation, would you call me a cunt?

anotheryearolder Sat 23-Mar-13 12:39:19

You only get to decide whats right for your own DC -Sorry but you have no right to tell other people what is right for theirDC .
I have not used childcare in any form but I completely support the rights of Mothers AND Fathers to choose what they think is best for their family.

janey68 Sat 23-Mar-13 12:40:31

Wee wifey- you just don't get it, do you?
Yes, you are happier being at home. No one is attacking you for your choice. But you're not content with that are you? You are only happy if you're attacking all the parents - sorry, MUMS, who do things differently to you. You posted to tell WOHM how bad nurseries are for OUR children. I'm not telling you what's best for your children so dont try
To tell us what's right for ours. It just makes you come across as somehow strangely wanting the children of WOHM to be less successful and happy than your kids. If that's the case, you stand to be disappointed!

Molehillmountain Sat 23-Mar-13 12:40:40

Wee wifey, please don't assume that the sahm on this thread are incapable of debating sahp v wohm. I find it rather patronising that, fairly late into the debate, you have taken it upon yourself to do this. I am capable of joining in the debate without your "help". You don't speak for me, I don't agree with you and you are being treated aggressively because you've massively missed the point and put people's backs up. Ill advised as I think you would be to do this, please start a new thread if you want to rehash a very worn debate. I won't be joining you.

ILovePonyo Sat 23-Mar-13 12:40:56

Catinboots has summed you up pretty well actually weewifey hmm

Well done for being such a wonderful parent.

My daughter goes to nursery full time as myself and my partner work, I'm happy with my decision and I know she Is happy there all week, probably more than she would be at home with me all week because she gets to do messy painting, cooking etc that honestly, I know I wouldn't do with her everyday.

But you go ahead and feel sorry for her anyway hmm

Molehillmountain Sat 23-Mar-13 12:42:47

Pants- got het up there. I guess I am incapable of debating it actually-what debate is to be had when it's a family by family decision. Pointless.

morethanpotatoprints Sat 23-Mar-13 12:45:40


I have told you numerous times that I don't receive any benefits other than cb and everybody used to get this, so hardly something that others don't get.
My dh has tax credits, but gives them to me along with his wages for me to manage for for household.
The tax credit amounts to very little, not really a wage. What is strange though how many parents are capable of managing on one minimum wage, plus very small top up, paying a mortgage, household bills, activities for their dc, a family holiday, family car, pension investment. What must others be spending the extra salary on? You even get to pay mortgage off by 40 if you are very careful, oh and not materialistic. grin

weewifey40 Sat 23-Mar-13 12:46:33

I didn't attack anyone. There are innumerable comments in this thread from wohm's, comments such as 'setting daughters a good example' and that's deemed ok. Apparently it's not ok to suggest that kids are better off being looked after by their parents, unless the parents are being abusive in some way. Why, because this contradicts your world view? And why, if this isn't ok, is it alright for wohm's to repeatedly offer the contradictory viewpoint? Can't you see the hypocrisy?

janey68 Sat 23-Mar-13 12:48:07

Partridge- you say it's not a competition, but then go on to measure all your contributions and claim its more than a WOHP! Don't you see the irony?
I think it's ridiculous to make sweeping generalisations. Clearly you are a conscientious person who does a lot. But don't kid yourself that all SAHP are pillars of the community and volunteering left right and centre.
Just as an anecdote, (and yes I know an anecdote does not equal evidence) but my SIL is a teacher and has commented that in her school, most of the PTA, volunteers etc are working parents, whereas there's a culture of it being quite hard to rally a lot of the SAHM.
I still think there is a body of people on here who want SAHP to be given a recognition over and above everyone else, which is odd. If we're going to value people for volunteering , being community minded etc then fine, but that's got nothing to do with being a SAHP per se. You get people who don't work and Contribute nothing to their community, and busy people who work AND do masses of stuff aside from it too

anotheryearolder Sat 23-Mar-13 12:48:53

So weewifey you have used childcare - are you struggling with that decision/angry because you didnt have a choice?
Well a lot of parents sometimes feel like that but reconcile it with doing the best they can with the resources/situation they find themselves in.

Where the bloody hell did this pressure to be so perfect as a parent come from and more importantly do men feel the same pressure ??

catinboots Sat 23-Mar-13 12:52:05

If I wasn't so tired and full of cold I'd spend more time writing a detailed reply.

But weewifey, as I andante others said up thread; great for you that you stay at home. Great for you that you believe that's the best thing for your kids.

However, me and many others don't stay at home and don't necessarily believe it is the ultimate perfect option for our DCs.

But many of us, both SAHPs and WOHPs understand that life is very different for different people. Not everybody has the same beliefs/values/opinions/choices/options

All I hope is that my DCs don't grow up with the narrow sentiment that you appear to live your life by - "hey I've made my life choices and its the best thing for me so every other fucker that does something different must be in the wrong"

Good grief I'd feel I'd failed as a parent if that's how my boys turn out to think.

janey68 Sat 23-Mar-13 12:52:50

Oh weewifey- give over. WOHM are not saying they are doing something 'better'. I don't think my children will turn out 'better' because I work. Neither do I think they will turn out 'worse'. My decision to work is because I enjoy my career, it adds another dimension to my life and I enjoy the salary and pension too (now I'm no longer spending all my income on nursery!)
You don't want to work- fine. It doesn't make your children any better than mine. Not does it make mine any better than yours. Now-why not take the advice above and find another thread to gripe on.

nancerama Sat 23-Mar-13 12:53:19

I truly believe that the majority of us make an equal contribution whether we go out to work or stay at home. Society needs there to be those who contribute by paying taxes and those who contribute in other ways by volunteering their time.

Of course there are those who don't contribute in either fashion - some choose to sit at home doing little, often benefitting neither the community or their own families. There are those who work very hard and manage to avoid or evade contributing through 'careful' accounting.

However, we should all have a choice about how we contribute. However, most don't have the luxury of making a choice and this policy does little to help. It doesn't provide nearly enough help to those who want to work but find that work doesn't pay and contradicts the government's own rhetoric.

Partridge Sat 23-Mar-13 12:55:05

Did you miss the bit where I said it would be ridiculous for a wohp to do the same? Obviously they don't have time. I also said that what I do is not altruistic but designed to make me more marketable when seeking a job. So not ironic actually.

Of course it's a generalisation - such is the nature of debate. I equally knew loads of lazy twats who browsed the Internet all day when I worked in fundraising for national charities.

weewifey40 Sat 23-Mar-13 12:56:22

Nope. I had no problem with my choice to use childcare. My dc's hated holiday clubs and I told them that they had to get on with it because I had to work, and it was only 20 hours a week. It was easier to leave them with a childminder when they were younger. As they got older, they wanted to be at home during holidays not with a cm or in a holiday club. Pesky preteens and their opinions! Having worked and used daycare and been a sahm, how on earth is it wrong for me to state that I believe most kids are happier at home with their own parents? This is what I believe, just as many wohm's believe that working is better all round for them and theirs.
Has it honestly become a deeply controversial opinion to believe that most children are better off with a sahp if one is available, wants to do it and can afford it?

ILovePonyo Sat 23-Mar-13 12:57:47

I'm annoyed I got wound up enough to post that last post, I think weewifey is being deliberately antagonistic and narrow minded tbh.

I never hear all this wohm vs sahm in real life though confused

catinboots Sat 23-Mar-13 12:59:07

Always makes me fucking ARF when you get the competitive-busy SAHMs vs WOHMs having a heated debated on here, on a Wednesday afternoon about how neither of them has got time to brush their hair.



Turn off the t'internet grin

janey68 Sat 23-Mar-13 13:00:08

Partridge- I think 'having the time' is a very subjective concept. I know a few WOHP who do masses as well as hold down a job: volunteering , siting on committees, school governance..
I am totally with you that these contributions should be valued by society (though frankly a well done from David Cameron wouldn't mean much to me). I just dont agree that SAHP should be singled out for some special congratulations as if they have a monopoly on all these things.
And surely, one of the biggest contributions is raising well adjusted children and we do that whether we work or not.

weewifey40 Sat 23-Mar-13 13:03:29

lol@ someone being narrow minded because they have an alternative view of the world.
Viva la difference!
At least I didn't stoop to name calling, unlike several other posters.
Same old Mumsnet.

anotheryearolder Sat 23-Mar-13 13:03:53

If you are over 40 and had your children young morethan the chances are that like me you probably had a small mortgage to start with.
Good for you (and me) but lets not kid ourselves that the situation is the same now or its our clever budgeting that has allowed us to pay off our mortgages early. The economic situation is very different ( yep I do remember high interest rates)and I have no doubt that if I was having DC now I would be in a very different financial situation to the one I fortunately find myself in. I would be struggling to even get on the housing ladder let alone have paid off the mortgage on this house.

Wannabestepfordwife Sat 23-Mar-13 13:05:06

I'm a sahm and I think it's a good scheme in principal personally don't think that people earning £150,000 need help with child care.

I chose to be a sahm but if I wanted to go back to my job child care costs would have meant I was working for nothing so it would be a great help.

My dp and dd value me so George Osborne'sdosser opinion doesn't mean shit to me. It does sort of bother me that because I'm mid twenties but look younger people pressume I'm on benefits we qualify for cb (don't think I'm entitled to anything apart from nhs and other universally available services) I left a management job to be a sahm and will work when dd starts school.

As for the sahm vs wohm debate we are doing the best we can for our children so what does it matter what the other does.

morethanpotatoprints Sat 23-Mar-13 13:05:51


Can't argue with the last comment. In fairness though I do hear alot of wohms stating that sahm's aren't contributing to society. Now I can see how this would piss somebody off, tbh. Sahp's contribute to society the same as wohp's they just don't work and pay income tax, but that's not the be all and end all. You are not saintly and better than everyone else because you work.

that's general not specific

janey68 Sat 23-Mar-13 13:06:05

Weewify - I have worked full time, part time and not at all when on maternity leave. But i don't claim to know whats best for other peoples children. You do. That's the controversial issue. Not whether women work or not. That's the crucial point you're missing.
You've explained that you carried on working even when your childcare arrangements didnt suit your children- which perhaps explains your anger and bitterness and your desire to denigrate other parents
But please dont assume we have all made the Same mistakes you did. That's all.

ILovePonyo Sat 23-Mar-13 13:06:38

Yes you are clearly the bigger person for not calling a cunt a cunt weewifey hmm

MaBumble Sat 23-Mar-13 13:07:11

I was a stay at home for several years, loved being with my kids, who are (lovely) grown men. Did NOT love being financially dependant on my EX. CB was my only money too, and was spent on essentials while his was mostly spent on beer. I could not work due to child care costs.

The gov want us in work at the moment, so we pay tax. Just like after the war they removed state child care so we couldn't work.

And it wouldn't matter which party was in power.
It's a deliberate economic policy

Wannabestepfordwife Sat 23-Mar-13 13:08:01

I' meant George Osborne but it seemed to merge with tosser

Partridge Sat 23-Mar-13 13:09:03

But his comment was not aimed at wohp. A wohp contribution can be constantly evaluated via salary, appraisals or a kind word from the boss.

I certainly didn't have the same insecurities when I worked. Now my bosses are my kids - so shoot me if I don't like the implication that I am not working hard and getting on from the gov.

Partridge Sat 23-Mar-13 13:10:55

And Janey there is nothing subjective about the fact that if I worked full time I would not have time to do two whole days volunteering.

morethanpotatoprints Sat 23-Mar-13 13:12:22


My point exactly, yes house prices are more now, but paying 15.5% interest on mortgage on a min wage before tax credits was no easy thing. We managed though because it was important to us. I can't understand why people need 2 incomes for the bare necessities. It must fund luxuries, second car, bigger houses, expensive area for better catchment for schools etc. This is fair enough but then people tell you they need to work, when clearly not all of them do.
I think society in general has lost the ability to distinguish between need and want.

MaBumble Sat 23-Mar-13 13:13:32

Posted too soon. My point being (as a mum who has stayed at home and worked) that this is being set up to manipulate and devide women. We're all mums, whatever choices we make should be valued and supported by society. Not make one group the goody and one the baddy!

MaBumble Sat 23-Mar-13 13:14:40

And Osbourne is a tosser.

janey68 Sat 23-Mar-13 13:15:09

Cuts both ways though partridge.... Your children still love you when you look a mess, the house is a tip and you roll up late for playgroup. Your boss on the other hand, won't love you unless you deliver!

Seriously though- I think being a parent is bloody hard work, I'm not denying it. But I am still confused by this 'recognition' that some SAHP seem to want specifically for being a SAHP. There are so many valuable contributions which so many of us make. I don't get what it is that SAHP want- other than the validation they will feel for doing what they feel is right for their own family

anotheryearolder Sat 23-Mar-13 13:30:25

Oh dear you dont seem to understand that the vast majority of people with young children are working just to pay the bills,mortgage and provide food.
Barely scraping by. Because house prices are higher,because petrol and utility bills have rocketed,becuase food prices are almost twice what they were 5 years ago.
Redundancy,houses repossessed...

TiredFeet Sat 23-Mar-13 13:59:26

I actually don't think this is (or should be) a SAHM vs WOHM debate. I think most MOHM would be happy to see measures that made it easier for parents to make the choice to have one parent stay at home. I know I would like to feel there was support that gave people that choice as I do think childcare should be valued.

what I object to is SAHM's being upset because they don't getmore financial support with out of the home childcare. ffs the whole point is you have decided to stay at home and therefore you don't need childcare.

TiredFeet Sat 23-Mar-13 14:02:01

(and those saying they need it for job hunting - I had to hunt for a job whilst on maternity leave, as my old one wasn't going to be compatible with part time working. this meant I spent all my evenings / nap times busy on my CV / application forms, and DH made sure he was available to cover interviews. it was tiring and took a lot of committment, but I know you don't need to put your child in nursery just to job hunt.)

FrillyMilly Sat 23-Mar-13 14:07:36

Not everyone owns a house though. Rents are extortionate in most places unless you are in social housing. If I didn't work we would just about break even so yes I work for 'luxury', the luxury of one day owning our own home instead of the uncertainty of renting.

I pick my daughter up every day from school but she still asks me can she go to after school club. I went to a Childminder as a child and have some wonderful happy memories, I at no point ever loved my Childminder more than my mum or felt abandoned.

Those of you who are SAHPs who say you enable your husband to work, I really can't understand that. Are you saying if you went to work your husband would give up work?

catinboots Sat 23-Mar-13 14:18:18

LOLZ @ weewifey.

At what point did I call someone narrow minded for having a different view of the world / point of view?

I called you narrow minded for your unshakeable belief that your life choices are the right ones and the only way people should go about their business'.

anklebitersmum Sat 23-Mar-13 14:20:59

Tired almost none of the SAHP are saying they want the money..they're saying that condescension would be an improvement on the Govt. current attitude towards a good percentage of their voters.

from the Telegraph

Asked whether the Prime Minister was “concerned” that the vouchers scheme was penalising stay-at-home mothers, his official spokesman simply said the measures were “very important as part of supporting those who want to work hard and to get on”. When asked if Mr Cameron believed that stay-at-home parents were less in need of state help than working parents, the spokesman would only say that the Prime Minister wanted to support “aspiration”.

Obviously we are all supposed to aspire to make nasty handbags that no-one would market if it weren't for the name of the husband of who's making them. But then maybe that wouldn't be a 'waste' of my universty education that I'm (to quote someone earlier) "doing nothing with" hmm

anklebitersmum Sat 23-Mar-13 14:24:26

As I said earlier Frillymilly some families have their own specific set of circumstances that dictate SAHM is not just a preference it's a practicality.

HappyMummyOfOne Sat 23-Mar-13 14:24:40


I have told you numerous times that I don't receive any benefits other than cb and everybody used to get this, so hardly something that others don't get.
My dh has tax credits, but gives them to me along with his wages for me to manage for for household.
The tax credit amounts to very little, not really a wage. What is strange though how many parents are capable of managing on one minimum wage, plus very small top up, paying a mortgage, household bills, activities for their dc, a family holiday, family car, pension investment. What must others be spending the extra salary on? You even get to pay mortgage off by 40 if you are very careful, oh and not materialistic. "

A quick google shows that a couple can easily get £5k in WTC alone, the WTC may be paid to the earner but CTC are seperate and paid to the person who claims the child benefit. Regardless of who "claims" then you do claim benefits to make up for the fact the you dont have an income and your household earnings are not enough. It doesnt matter if the are not the level of a wage as you put it, although given you have more than one child and an income low enough to qualify for WTC then i suspect its at least the equivalent of a part time wage.

You are not managing on one wage unless you claim tax credits only to donate them to charity so its a little rich to suggest others could live easily on one wage. Perhaps they believe they should support themselves rather than rely others.

FrillyMilly, I dont understand why husbands need a wife home to enable them to work and it cant be the case as thousands of couples both work. Nobody surely is that dependant upon another adult to go out to the workplace.

morethanpotatoprints Sat 23-Mar-13 14:31:47


How do you know that somebody else without a dp/dh able to be there for them to seek work doesn't need childcare then?
You are very lucky you didn't have to take your child to an interview, because you had no childcare.
perhaps sahp's who want to work should lobby that they are being discriminated against. I think there's a clear case. Wohp has childcare and job, sahp doesn't have job and can't get one due to lack of childcare.

janey68 Sat 23-Mar-13 14:32:38

Weewifeys last post does go some way to explaining (though not excusing ) her views. She says she used nurseries for her children when they were small, and now feels she shouldn't have. She sent them when older to an after school club which they hated, but she continued because she felt 'pressurised by society' to do so.
The controversial issue is that Now that she's not working she wants to evangelise to the rest of us that we're all getting it wrong, our children are unhappy, blah blah blah.

It's very sad that she didnt feel able to evaluate for herself what was best for her children. I suspect the feeling that she got it wrong is why she's angry and bitter. Her mistake is her assumption that we're all the same as her. My children were very happy and settled at nursery, likewise at holiday club, though we feel the eldest has outgrown it now so this summer we are employing a student in an 'au pair' type role. Raising children is a constant process of evaluating their well being, and that applies to all aspects, not just childcare.

FasterStronger Sat 23-Mar-13 14:38:49

We aren't going to go back to more sahp because of increasing global competition.

wages are likely to remain static or fall for a long time. If I were a sahp, I would think can we manage on this income in x years time when prices of everything has increased significantly. Unless the answer wwas easily, I would be looking at increasing household income asap.

As pressure on household income increases, the public at large will be less sympathetic to non workers.

anklebitersmum Sat 23-Mar-13 14:39:00

Clearly you haven't experienced forces family life Frillymilly and Happymummy

Try maintaining a job (never mind having a career) when hubby can be gone for weeks and months literally at the drop of a hat, not to mention that there's no 'normal' knocking off time. The likelihood is that your friends hubbies will also be gone so they can't help out and baby-sit for the potentially random hours of a 24/7 workplace now-a-days. Now add into the mix that your extended family are the other end of the country, you move every 18 months and that employers are known for their love of training transient staff-however well qualified.

Crawling Sat 23-Mar-13 14:40:35

Im a SAHM I personally think its another hit at single parents.

FasterStronger Sat 23-Mar-13 14:43:16

Forces families should be entitled to more financial help than Joe public. Similarly i think its wrong that injured servicemen have to apply for dla when they have life long damage.

We could easy have different systems for forces families.

morethanpotatoprints Sat 23-Mar-13 14:44:03


I was merely conveying that there is a difference between working to survive and what you need as opposed to working to pay for luxuries and wants.
I don't believe the latter should get any form of tax break, subsidy or benefit.
Also, neither dh nor I receive 5k a year in tax credits. We do have more than one child but the other 2 are supporting themselves in full time work now.

fedupofnamechanging Sat 23-Mar-13 14:48:35

I know that my husband couldn't do the particular job he does, if it wasn't for me being at home. His job involves overnight stays and being abroad regularly, but not on the same days each week, which makes it hard to organise child care.

Can just imagine how it would go down at work if I said to him that he had to be home by 5 to pick up dd from a cm!

anklebitersmum Sat 23-Mar-13 14:48:43

Faster If only. What with frozen wages for the past 3 years, redundancy looming for many and pensions being stolen out from under I was a bit thredders with the current Government before they started implying that my staying at home and providing stability was a sign that hubby & I don't want to 'get on' and don't aspire.

anklebitersmum Sat 23-Mar-13 14:49:53

grin Karma

thebody Sat 23-Mar-13 14:50:21

I have worked full time for last 5 years after being a sahm for years.

I dream about being one again.. It's wonderful. Working is very overrated.

FrillyMilly Sat 23-Mar-13 14:58:17

Karma that does not make sense. He could still do his job if you worked but you would not be able to work the same hours as him. Plenty of single parents work and are responsible for all the drops offs and pick ups.

janey68 Sat 23-Mar-13 15:06:18

It's not impossible karma, I know families where both parents work and one is frequently away. It's usually means one working regular hours so doing all nursery drops and pick ups. Or a nanny or au pair arrangement. No one is saying its easy- just that it's possible. You chose to partner someone who works like that and presumably you're happy with the deal that you stay at home. It's horses for courses isn't it. No one is judging you for it. It's just a different situation to having two working parents who then have all the issues of childcare and other expenses alongside

morethanpotatoprints Sat 23-Mar-13 15:07:35


I know where you are coming from, as my dh is the same. Working irregular hours is not possible if you both work.
I am sahm irrespective of this though, but have realised over the years how impossible it would be.
There are many that can't see this though, I don't really know why. Maybe its because it doesn't fit in with their perceived idea of how people live. Could you imagine conversation with your boss. "sorry can't come in this week dh just got a dep for a weeks tour in Japan". How the hell could you book childcare? I guess you would have to have it for any possible hours you would be needed whether you worked those hours or not.

FrillyMilly Sat 23-Mar-13 15:13:03

Most nurseries open 7.30am - 6pm. If you had a job that fit within these hours, as many do, then it wouldn't matter where your DH was or what hours he was working.

morethanpotatoprints Sat 23-Mar-13 15:13:56


If the posts on here are anything to go by, 2 parents working will be a thing of the past. Have you read how many people are saying they will lose their job because they can't afford childcare. Have you spoken to parents at the school gate, in the street, supermarket. They are seriously worried and getting ready to become sahp's.

FrillyMilly Sat 23-Mar-13 15:17:13

Also assuming your children where older there are breakfast clubs, after school clubs and child minders. Of course it is your choice to stay at home rather than use these but it's not impossible to work if your DH works unsociable hours and your husband would not have to give up his job. As I said earlier I went to a Childminder as a child. My mum worked in the day and my dad worked shifts and nights (later my mum was on her own). I don't ever remember my dad taking us or picking us up but it didn't stop my mum from being able to work.

Obviously a forces family is different.

janey68 Sat 23-Mar-13 15:17:17

Morethan- a lot of childcare has to be paid for whether it's used or not. My kids nursery charged for 51 weeks of the year regardless of whether you used it. Nannies and au pairs offer more flexibility as stated above. Or one parent can compromise and work more regular hours. Or compromise and stay at home as others have chosen.
No one is saying its easy. Just that people don't suddenly find themselves out of the blue with a couple of kids and a partner working overseas.. We all make choices along the way (along with the unexpected things thrown into the mix)

FasterStronger Sat 23-Mar-13 15:19:55

Morethan employment is increasing. You would do well to read a qulity newspaper.

morethanpotatoprints Sat 23-Mar-13 15:22:57


But for some people it isn't possible to afford an au pair or nanny without leaving them out of profit. I'm sorry but if you do this and you have dc then you have a screw lose imo.
Nurseries charging for 51 weeks is fine if you are going to get anywhere near that. I was talking about somebody paying for childcare who would only need it very occasionally, and never know when this was going to be from one week to the next. You would be paying for a service you didn't really need. It wouldn't be workable.

HappyMummyOfOne Sat 23-Mar-13 15:23:53

Now FrillyMilly, thats just common sense but am sure there will be a reason why they cant work within those hours. Not to mention its then unlikely that the household would get WTC.

Morethan, none of my working friends at school or work are worried about losing their jobs or getting ready to become SAHMs due to childcare. Why would they? Threat of redundancy is what most people fear, childcare will alwys be available just as it always has been.

Many people dont need it as they swap with friends, work around partners, school hours etc. People can be very resourceful when they are putting a roof over their chidrens heads as they dont have the sense of entitlement that others have nowadays. This thread shows that perfectly, people wanting childcare benefits yet not working, people claiming top ups yet perfectly capable of working or those that cant work as its too much for both adults to do so hmm

morethanpotatoprints Sat 23-Mar-13 15:30:17


I read quality newspapers, but am also blessed with enough intelligence to take their content with a pinch of salt grin

morethanpotatoprints Sat 23-Mar-13 15:32:23


A good range of choices there, you should be pleased we have them.

fedupofnamechanging Sat 23-Mar-13 15:34:53

I don't want to work full time and do everything else too. The solution to that is for dh to have a lower paid, less intense job and for me to have the same, so we could split everything equally. Don't fancy our chances of both finding those jobs and that would still involve using childcare, which neither of us wanted to do. Our only way to avoid childcare was for dh to work as he does and for me to take care of the dc.

Other people have different priorities and I appreciate that they work hard to make it all run smoothly. But for me, I dont want a nanny or nursery. I am not making value judgements about other people's choices and I just want to not feel negatively judged and financially held back (as a family unit) because of mine.

fedupofnamechanging Sat 23-Mar-13 15:41:53

Actually, thinking about this I have come to the conclusion that no one should pay 40% tax. Then it wouldn't matter who was earning what within a family unit because the tax threshold wouldn't be discriminatory towards sahp.

I also think cb should be based on household income rather than being based on a single earner.

I wouldn't have any issue with subsidising child care for whoever needed it.

morethanpotatoprints Sat 23-Mar-13 15:50:11


I believe you and I think similarly smile. I never wanted to work and we both don't like childcare neither, for us.
There is no way I would make my dd go to school now, she's having too much fun at home. Wraparound care just wouldn't be acceptable for her neither as she wouldn't get to her lessons and activities.
I am really glad we live as we do and am not really bothered how gov or anybody else finds our arrangement.
All that matters is that you make the right choices for your family and are happy in life. Sod what anybody else thinks. grin
Governments come and go, but families are constant, well in my view anyway.

FasterStronger Sat 23-Mar-13 16:45:59

Morethan that is a surprise. might I suggest you take a little more notice of them, then you might improve your understanding of economics before you comment endlessly on it.

janey68 Sat 23-Mar-13 16:58:30

Morethan and karma- sounds like you're happy with your choices and
Don't want to work anyway, so I don't see the problem. I do find it a little wearing though, that it seems to be impossible for some posters to state their own preference without denigrating someone else's. I refer
To the comment that people must have a 'screw loose' to work when all their income goes on childcare. I did that for a couple of years and I know many others who did the same... It's not a decision I regret for a moment. I wouldnt say someone has a 'screw loose' for not working, so it would be nice to be afforded the same respect in return, but hey ho....

janey68 Sat 23-Mar-13 17:02:06

And morethan, I have to concur with the comment about your grasp of economics. You seem to have a very odd perception of what's happening in the job market at the moment. Werent you the person who told us a few pages back that you have a gold plated pension even though you haven't worked for over 20 years... Interesting that your pension has managed to buck the economic trends, but .. There you go..

allnewtaketwo Sat 23-Mar-13 17:31:14

I don't see how anyone who sent their children to an after school club they hated feels they can advise others on what's best for children hmm. And as for doing so because they felt pressurised by society confused. What parent in their right mind acts against their instincts due to what they think society dictates. Mind boggling. Can't take anyone's views seriously when they've thought this way.

gaelicsheep Sat 23-Mar-13 17:36:48

OMG I cannot even be bothered to waste my time reading this. Honestly people get a grip! As I said earlier, a tax reduction is a tax reduction, not a benefit. Whether it is claimed by rich two earner families to tip the nanny or by a normal earner family out of tax paid by the main earner. Just because a family is not rich does not make this magically a "benefit" nor does it makes the person in receipt of the money a lazy scrounger.

As for childcare costs, those who need help - for whatever reason, be it illness, retraining, or having to have two earners to keep a roof over their heads - should get it. Those who do not need help - ie those for whom the second income funds a massive house, multiple holidays and fancy hairdos - should not get it.

End of argument as far as I'm concerned.

janey68 Sat 23-Mar-13 17:40:35

Allnew- I agree, I was pretty shocked by that admission, although it does at least explain to an extent why morethanpotatoprints is so angry with herself and everyone else.

janey68 Sat 23-Mar-13 17:41:35

Oops- beg pardon it was weewifey- apologies to more thanpotatoprints

allnewtaketwo Sat 23-Mar-13 17:43:35

A tax credit is NOT a tax reduction. It bears no relation to tax paid, and in many cases exceeds tax paid. It is a benefit paid by the state (as opposed to offset against tax) to top up low salaries

maisiejoe123 Sat 23-Mar-13 18:15:39

Hello! The thread has moved on hasnt it and what on earth is weewifey talking about!

All this spouting about how the majority of children are better off with one parent at home... Fine - but are you sure you want to be reliant on one person to support your choice to stay at home. Divorce rates have never been higher and common law relationships with children fare even worse in terms of splits.

By all means weewifey - go back to the 1950's where you keep the home spick and span but watch out - life sometimes has a knack of throwing us curve balls....

maisiejoe123 Sat 23-Mar-13 18:20:24

And I would love to know how someone who hasnt worked for 20 odd years gets a gold plated pension... Funny - they made this statement with no evidence of how it has been achieved.

Be warned I know a lot about pensions so any nonsense will be spotted....

janey68 Sat 23-Mar-13 18:23:42

It's not just the fact that divorce might happen- its the fact that there is absolutely no conclusive evidence either way- that childcare is negative or positive. And hardly surprising really. There are so many variables that it would be pretty impossible to carry out Meaningful and useful research.
That's why posts like weewifeys are just ridiculous. It's as absurd as if I were to say 'me going out to work is better for my children, therefore you should all do it'.
I have never claimed that me going out to work will make my child better in any way. Neither do I think it is negative. The only claims I make for my work are the ones which are irrefutable: ie it adds another dimension to my life outside home and hobbies, it's fulfilling, it provides opportunities which I wouldn't get outside it, oh and the money and security of a pension are nice too. End of. I wouldn't dream of being so offensive as to tell other mums they ought to do what I do.

maisiejoe123 Sat 23-Mar-13 18:40:58

Janey - I agree! Having a close relative who is a SAHM - well she spends the whole time fussing and worrying about all sorts of nonsense. She is married to someone wealthy and doesnt need to do ANYTHING round the house, its all taken care of.

Yet, she still complains, her child is a spolit princess who she hovers over from morning to night and who rules the house!

It takes all sorts, just because for you wifey it works doesnt mean it is right for everyone.

morethanpotatoprints Sat 23-Mar-13 18:43:31

I find it hilarious that whenever anybody says something that some others don't agree with they are told they don't know about economics.
I don't have a pension and so do I know enough about pensions to have become involved in a pension plan. I have seen many a person lose their pension when companies went bust. As I haven't worked for an employer also I have none from that area neither. You don't have to have a pension plan to have made provision for retirement and be able to fund a living.
As for my grasp of the job market, I have read posts on here of people stating they will have to leave their job due to not affording childcare. I also have friends who have expressed concerns and can't find a way round the situation. Maybe it won't be too many people but be assured people will leave work if they can't afford childcare and have no extended family to provide childcare.

janey68 Sat 23-Mar-13 18:48:29

Ah right, you don't have a pension after all. But you're one of those SAHM who hasn't worked for decades but has absolute watertight provision for the rest of your life...

<nods knowingly>

mam29 Sat 23-Mar-13 18:50:25

are their not pensions you can pay privatly like life insurance without needing to be in work?

maisiejoe123 Sat 23-Mar-13 18:51:17

I agree to a certain extent around provision for retirement but some people on this thread on totally reliant on their OH supporting their choices and that I think is dangerous... Its funny how a working father who loves his wife not to work as it gives him time to totally concentrate on his career suddenly states that it is not so acceptable when he moves onto to someone else.

Of course I wouldnt wish that on anyone but I have had breakups - who hasnt.

And of course some women have NO provision at all for retirement.

mam29 Sat 23-Mar-13 18:52:59

or could be refering to savings stocks, bonds or property most peoples pensions.

maisiejoe123 Sat 23-Mar-13 18:54:27

Could be inherited money perhaps Janey.... But to get a gold plated pension you need to put the years in. You cannot not work for 20 yrs and still get that pension provision. Who is paying for it? Certainly not you

And be careful about money that you 'assume' will come to you. Sometimes it doesnt, wills are read that reveal surprises, relationships break down, shares lose their value despite being a 'sure thing'

janey68 Sat 23-Mar-13 18:54:49

Have you looked at what's happened to people's savings recently?

mam29 Sat 23-Mar-13 19:00:03

God this threads doom and gloom

whats point earning extra paying more tax and saving.?If its so bad,

reckon retirement age be 70by time im old.

I must worry about hubby running off and having an affair and leaving me with nothing.

My mum did fincaially very well fro her divorce.

most people get married have kids and hope for the best.

we all make specific choices that suit our families.

morethanpotatoprints Sat 23-Mar-13 19:00:54


I know, as a none tax payer they were growing quite nicely but when the base rate and interest fell I invested in other areas.

maisiejoe123 Sat 23-Mar-13 19:05:00

Your Mum probably did well because your father was a high earner. My DM didnt and she worked. We didnt have a great deal of money. Why would we - they were seperate parents trying to run two households.

What I am saying is that we dont want to go back to the 1950's where literally women waited for their DH to come home having not forgotten to tie a ribbon in her hair and not bothering him about her issues that day!

There is a brilliant article somewhere about how mothers in the 50's and 60's need to prepare themselves for the return of the DH's!!

janey68 Sat 23-Mar-13 19:05:29

Your mum must have been the exception then- most women end up worse off.
I entirely agree though that life should be about positivity and hope
Thats why many of us are a little bemused by the whole premise of the threads that are abounding at the moment. There seem to be a lot of SAHM who tell us they love being home, they dont want to work, but they are moaning that they want some recognition (though when pushed they can't specify what!) and they also seem to want free childcare (even though they keep telling us how awful nurseries are!)
It's most bizarre!

morethanpotatoprints Sat 23-Mar-13 19:08:45


grin I can assure you we agree on the point that this is not the way forward for anybody, and can assure you I have never behaved like the 50's/ 60's housewife, even in my worst nightmare smile

fedupofnamechanging Sat 23-Mar-13 19:22:41

I'll admit to having a periodic wobble about having all my eggs in one basket. However, life can turn to shit no matter what you do. Having a career is no guarantee that you will always he financially safe. I'm not sure people can make life choices based on worry about the worst possible scenarios.

And I have stated, when asked, what I would like to have happen as 'recognition'.

mam29 Sat 23-Mar-13 19:50:16

I personally think whats happending in uk is barmy and hope I dont come accross bit daily mailish here.

we live a a civilised country and have a decent welfare state if you compare it to usa .

The welfare state was meant to be a safety next not a lifetimes income.

Most people seem to agree that 2low paid parents working should get some help with childcare.

But the new 1200 provision wont help them all as theirs 10k a year min.

when i left uni in southwales there was quite a few fulltime jobs in retail under 10 supervisors ect.

so the 2low paid parents pay very little tax or none at at all.

But they cant survive on that income as not enough for cost living so we pay them benefits tax credits to boost their income and pay large chunk of their rent.

what is their true contribution?

why is no 1 saying to them well thats all very well but its your life your kids go get a 2nd job?

im not going to count rising personal allowance as thats perk for all on first 10k.

Or child benefit as up to now that was universil.

its fair to concede people make a choice based on numbers, practicalities and support they have in life.

I know lots of sahm and working aparents whos grandparents have their kids an awful lot.

I think whats irked most sahm mums

is anomoly over child benefit which most people admit its stupid.
work hard and get on-whos that a dig at?
the new voucher system at 10k means mum whos works prat time less than 10hours but has middle income parter is deemed worthless, not working hard or getting on? getting onto what?
The new voucher system theshold is stupidly high if 60k deemed to high for child benefit why hell should it not be same for childcare?sahm mums and made them feel bit undervalued.

Then they come on mumsnet and loads working mums diss their choices and tell them to get a job they not contributing they worthless.

all thse things combined have irked

sahm dont want payment.
Thye dont want free childcare.
but the vouchers on 1parent working who pays a lot of tax not even that much money were a token I guess.

if higher rate tax threshold is 35 this year reducing to 32 k,

what is 35k minus tax and ni?

my guess is net its around 26k the amount they capping benefits.

benefits are not taxed so by time add up all the benefits of the low paid or the umemployed then they same or in some cases better off than sahm mum with husband who earns 35.

middle income mums are bit stuck they either

find job over 10k-unlikly to be part time at that rate.
go back fulltime but again would have to be decent if more than 1 child as even with the 1200 on my old 20k salary i be 1600 worse off.
or sahm get no subsidies and live off one income with rising rents, food bills, energy .

Wossname Sat 23-Mar-13 21:21:38

Well, having read the whole thing, this thread has been an eye-opener for me; such unaware privilege!

morethanpotatoprints Sat 23-Mar-13 21:45:52

Mam you are right.

Most sahm's I know, aren't stinking rich, living in luxury. Yes this type obviously exist and are probably found more in affluent areas, but I wouldn't say they were the norm.
If you are a low income family as we are, and receiving tax credits, some wohm's do try and be superior and say they are paying for us to sah. Like we lobbied for tax credits. However, these are the same people who didn't turn down their cb if they didn't need it.
I am quite thick skinned and don't normally give a damn what people think, but can see why some sahm's are really upset by some of the things leveled at them. I don't care who thinks sahp's don't contribute to society, because I know I do. I can see why some people are offended by this.
Looking after children, bringing them up, giving them good values and belief system, nurturing, supporting, educating. The list is endless. If this isn't seen as a value to society then society is an ass. I know that wohp's do this as well but surely they don't think that the time they spend doing the above is of no value and only their paid work outside the home is of any value to society. Otherwise, without this value on raising children we might as well let them become feral, if nothing else is of value.

morethanpotatoprints Sat 23-Mar-13 21:55:57


I think there are many types of sahm, and obviously the ones wanting childcare are not the same people who are saying childcare is bad. I don't think I have seen anyone asking for recognition but apologies if I have missed this. Its quite simple really, tell somebody they are worthless, scrounging off others, whilst living in luxury, not contributing to society and I think they'll get the hump. Not so bizarre

janey68 Sat 23-Mar-13 22:03:39

Yes, quite a few people on here have said they want recognition specifically for being a SAHP.
I don't recall anyone on here saying SAHP are rubbish or worthless. Quite the opposite. Great if you want to be one. No problem .

morethanpotatoprints Sat 23-Mar-13 22:14:01


I think it is a general consensus from some people that a sahp is worthless. Not saying all wohms are saying this. The recognition thing I can only imagine is what I pointed out above that raising children is of use to society, whether you are sahp or wohp. Sometimes it seems like people are suggesting you are only worth anything if you pay tax. I must admit I have heard 2 people say this on threads such as these, more than once. As
I said though, it doesn't bother me, but I can sympathise with those that it does.

gaelicsheep Sat 23-Mar-13 22:18:48

<yawns loudly and resolves to stop wasting her time on this bloody website>

janey68 Sat 23-Mar-13 22:18:51

Maybe it's a minority opinion but it's not a general consensus.
Likewise a minority of people think WOHM are the work of the devil - see weewifeys posts upthread. What you need to do is recognise that these individuals are the ones with issues..
If you're content with your choices what's the problem ?

Brandnewbrighttomorrow Sat 23-Mar-13 22:26:37

Maybe all the sahp's should register as childminders and bill their other halves for childcare provided. Then they could claim the benefit as both of them would be working grin

It's the assumption that sahp's are 'not working' that I find offensive. It's bloody hard work looking after kids especially if you got a bit carried away and had lots like me No one would think a full time employed housekeeper and nanny had an easy job, but the government's assumption that a sahp is "not working hard and getting on" is patronising and offensive. The same goes for anyone who is a carer IMO - no recognition and limited or no support.

janey68 Sat 23-Mar-13 22:32:21

Absolutely- but it's damn hard work combining parenting with a paid job too. If you're saying it's parenting which is undervalued, which seems to be what you're saying, then surely that applies across the board?
I mean, I'm a WOHM, so yes, I get recognition for that in the form of a salary. But no one comes and congratulates me for also being a parent and running a home. It doesn't particularly bother me, but let's at least be logical about it. Well done to ALL parents smile

BecauseYourWorthIt Sun 24-Mar-13 07:28:36

As a working parent who needs to work to pay for mortgage and bills etc i am personally very happy that the government are helping those parents stay in a job by helping with childcare costs. Fed up of us workers being the only ones who dont get anything from the government when we are the only ones that contribute to the "pot". I am glad they have recognised this smile

lljkk Netherlands Sun 24-Mar-13 08:18:41

Most the SAHMs I know are SAHMs precisely because they have low earnings potential, tend to be with similar-skilled partners, so work doesn't pay.

DH & have professional backgrounds & work still didn't pay for me (that and I'm not super mum, I couldn't juggle it all).

but I still think the present voucher system is poor, not targeted enough and too narrowly available. Given the govt. deficit problems, I think the proposed changes are reasonable.

HappyMummyOfOne Sun 24-Mar-13 09:45:19

It can be hard work with children but that applies whether you work or not.

The same goes for houseeeping, single adults still have to clean and do house admin likewise working parents do. They have to fit around their working hours too rather than having the luxury of the whole day every day to fit it in.

Unreasonable to suggest anyone should get recognition for housework and having children is a choice. People dont really have children for recognition do they?

Partridge Sun 24-Mar-13 10:40:48

Think about the implication people. You can use all the clever wording you like and try to tie yourself in knots to avoid being offensive but the past post just proves my point.

It implies that wohm do all that sahm do and manage to work as well. So by implication they are much more valuable and dynamic than sahp.

Staying at home all day with kids can be mindless, soul destroying, knackering and destroy your self-esteem. It can be hugely challenging and rewarding as well. It is not the same as working but it can be equally difficult. The challenges are different but it can be equally challenging. Keeping your head above water and avoiding depression and lack of self worth can be hard work. Motivating yourself and entertaining and enriching your children can be a monumental struggle.

I say this as someone who has done both. Please stop making dismissive statements about sahm and implying that wohm do everything that sahm do and more. These are the statements that make me wrestle with my choice. Sometimes I feel very stifled - I am educated and witty - I miss office banter and I miss feeling like part of something larger than my domestic life. Yes it is a choice, and sometimes I love it. I feel privileged that I have the choice. But it can also be very very hard.

In the interests of feminism lets have some solidarity and sisterhood and stop making barbed dismissive remarks loaded with implication about other people's choices. And that cuts both ways.

janey68 Sun 24-Mar-13 10:53:13

Like I said on a similar thread, parenting is hard work, if you do it well. Any fool can give birth or father kids, but actually parenting them and guiding them to become well adjusted individuals is tough, and that applies to ALL parents who do it to the best of their ability, working or not.
I'm sorry if you feel that a lot of what you do goes unrecognised partridge, but I don't think it's helpful to imagine slights that arent there. No one has used 'clever language' to try to denigrate SAHM.

I think I said earlier on this thread too (though I'm losing track as there are so many similar threads !) that as a WOHM I gain recognition for the working aspect through professional respect and my salary. Tbh I have never thought much about who I should gain recognition from as a parent (apart from my dh. Kids rarely thank you for parenting!!) But if there is a feeling generally that parenting is an undervalued skill, then let's value it for ALL parents who do it well. It just seems utterly divisive to try to make out its something which only applies to SAHP, and that it you combine parenting and running a home with paid work, you shouldn't get recognised for it.

allnewtaketwo Sun 24-Mar-13 10:56:50

"It implies that wohm do all that sahm do and manage to work as well"

For children of school age though this is surely the case? Certainly is in my case. Literally, I have to do everything a sahp does in between working and sleeping. I certainly don't expect any validation or recognitionn for it though confused. So why would I (or anyone) expect validation or recognition just by dropping the working element of that equation

Partridge Sun 24-Mar-13 11:06:34

Ok Janey, but being a sahm mother (to pre-school kids) is a different type of parenting for all the reasons I have outlined below.

impecuniousmarmoset Sun 24-Mar-13 11:09:14

Because a full-time working parent presumably uses after-school club and possibly breakfast club too. Most sahp have preschool children though in any case, and they do do more than wohp when it comes to childcare. Isn't that axiomatic? I woh because its a lot easier to go to work than look after a preschooler, and I find it saves my sanity. While I don't look after him, though, I don't delude myself - it means someone else has that hard work to do instead!

Partridge Sun 24-Mar-13 11:09:56

If you want me to elucidate further - when ds1 was in nursery I didn't have to think about ways to exhaustively change his routine, stimulate him differently, ensure he was learning social skills. I went to work with an expectation that my dh would share all the chores when I got home. Often I was exhausted - but I had much more patience with him and could throw myself into parenting him feeling stimulated, valued and refreshed.

It is totally different on all levels now that I am a sahm.

Partridge Sun 24-Mar-13 11:13:31

And this assumption that just because I am a sahp I don't need to feel valued is absurd. You cannot possibly imagine how it feels if you are a wohp (and maternity leave doesn't count).

It is the human condition to want appreciation and yes that does go beyond the immediate family.

janey68 Sun 24-Mar-13 11:14:02

I disagree that it's a different type of parenting. I think there is (generalising I know ) good parenting and poor parenting, and they have nothing to do with whether you work or not.
If you are a SAHP then obviously your day to day routine is different but thats not the same as parenting.
And actually, there are so many variable that it becomes a bit pointless to make a black and white distinction- I mean, my routine on work days as a mum to pre-schoolers was drop off at nursery at 7.45, but for a shift worker, it might be spending half the day at home with kids and then going off to work. There are many different routines for both WOHP and SAHP
The key thing that comes out of this though is that parenting is hard, or rather good parenting is hard, and this shouldn't be a WOHM/SAHM divide, but a recognition that all mums and dads who do their best at parenting are valuable

allnewtaketwo Sun 24-Mar-13 11:14:40

I would say most wohm have got a good grasp of what it's like being with a small child all day as opposed to in the office. I used to work part time so I have direct experience of what a day with small child was like v the office. Of course it's different. In my own experience, the day was equally tiring but much less hectic. No less busy of course, but I had direct control over the run of my own day. And much more down time. Much much easier in the evenings because I had the odd 5 mins or so during the day to put the washing machine on, dishwasher etc etc etc. So I ended up doing no housework virtually in the evenings at all. As a wohm I run around like a crazy thing doing these tasks in the time after my child goes to bed, before I can even think about doing anything else.

Just my own experience.

bumblingbovine Sun 24-Mar-13 11:16:06

<<And I really struggle with the concept of being a SAHM when the dc is at school>>

Good grief, that is probably the only time I would want to be a SAHP by choice! smile

janey68 Sun 24-Mar-13 11:17:50

Yes, I worked 3 days a week when my children were pre schoolers so I know exactly what days with young children are like too.
Also, most women seem to take a year off on ML now (i took much less with mine) so its fair to say they have a clear idea of what it's like being home with children

Partridge Sun 24-Mar-13 11:36:08

It is not the same working part time. For all the reasons of drudgery, self esteem and relentlessness that I have outlined below. But you are clearly not interested in empathy so I give up.

Partridge Sun 24-Mar-13 11:38:52

Although thanks for at least trying to empathise with the less tangible things than "time to put on the dishwasher" that I am trying to explain impecunious

allnewtaketwo Sun 24-Mar-13 11:47:11

No-one said it's the same as working part time, I said most wohp do indeed know what it's like to be with a small child as opposed to the office.

If you find it such drudgery, damaging to your self esteem and relentness then perhaps you should be looking to change it rather than look for validation from others. I find the work/home spinning plates role relentless do, but I'm really not going to be looking to other people for empathy or validation for it. I'm actually mnetting now in between working this morning and this afternoon because I had to leave the office in the middle of something to pick my child up from school on Friday. When he gets home in an hour with his dad I will stop working and spend the afternoon with him. Then I'll put him to bed and start working again. In between laundry, making up beds etc etc. So you may say I'm "not interested in empathy", but in reality I'm just another busy mother (but one who's not looking for validation from society/other busy mothers for my choices in life)

mam29 Sun 24-Mar-13 11:47:29

Feel like we making progress and reaching some concensus here

Partridge a lot of what you said resonated with me its isolating being at home.

When I compare eldest when I worked.

yes it was hard juggling shifts.
we did split the housework both ways.
was mostly me who got up in the night or picked up from nursery when sick.

I wasent upset about her being in nursery she loves it they did so much to occupy here. End of each term would get parents evenings, observations and other stuff so could see as precious first born developementally she was on track.

Now being at home with younger 2 3.5 and &nearly 2 im always trying to occupy their time.

Today a sunday but hubbys working and youngest has spent nearly 2hours crying.

The older 2girls arguing.

Worried as little boys not speaking and girls were by now.

worry not middle childs missed school year she be bored as lots of her freinds start school in sepeptember.

This easter have to do extra with eldest as shes little bit behind ended up having to move her primary before christmas.

I find being a sahm more stressful than work on a good day.

in work you constantly appraised with reveiws.
you can go loo by yourself
have a lunch break.

I do wonder if maybe I was better parent when I worked as the break made me feel refreshed and appreciated the time with eldest and possibly had more patiance.

I dont feel any less or more busy.

As everyone points out the same things still need to be done.

but when i worked was equal share.

I know working mums who have cleaner and send ironing out I dont blame them.

Im not the worlds best housewife.

its demoralising to clean only for the kids to then trash it.
if they at nursery then they come home have snack, bath and bed.
when they in bed I run round like mad person trying to get downstairs least tidy and tea on table for when husband gets home.

He does expect me being at home

to ensure we have food.
do some cleaning
and some childcare.

As we have limited income we dont far or on too many expensive trips like the zoo which is extortionate.
A lot of where we go is weather dependent and its rained a lot.

I cant remember last time when to hairdressers.
its seldom I go coffee shop.

I think its more the if only 1parent pays tax then we scroungers despite not getting any other benefit other than child benefit.

Or the if you dont work and pay tax then you not contributing-sweeping statement when many I know do volunteer work.

This disciminates against low paid part time mums too.

found this in guardian

Im all for working parents getting some help but target it fairer.
if 60k too much for child benefit then surly its too much for childcare subsidy.

But at same time the very low paid we paying more in childcare for their kids than tax they contributing seems bit mad too.

janey68 Sun 24-Mar-13 11:47:37

Partridge- I'm afraid it is you who is coming across as intent on driving a wedge between WOHM and SAHM.

If I were to post saying SAHM don't have a clue about the workplace, I expect I would (rightly) be shouted down by lots of them, telling me I was being insulting and that theyve had good careers, or still do freelance work at weekends etc. Yet you seem to feel its acceptable to tell millions of working mums and dads that they don't know what the pressures of bringing up children and running a home is like!

I have had two periods of maternity leave, I've worked part time and ive worked full time. I know perfectly well what days at home with pre schoolers (specially when it's pissing down!) are like. Equally I know what the 7.45 am nursery run (specially when it's pissing down!) followed by a day at work are like.

I'm sorry you feel unappreciated for what you do, but ultimately it's your choice to be a SAHP (you mentioned it was a choice). I think you should feel valued as a loving and caring parent (as should all of us) and not seek approbation by trying to tell working parents that we don't know how hard you have it. ITS NOT A COMPETITION. smile

specialknickers Sun 24-Mar-13 11:54:11

My problem is this: I have worked hard and paid my taxes for nearly 20 years. I have since taken time out to look after my kids and no, I don't need validation for that. I know people think I'm a SAHM saddo but I don't give a fuck. I had a brilliant career and loved every minute of it and I make no apologies for deciding I wanted to do something else. I don't expect any one else to support me and they don't.

You, as a WOH parent, have decided for whatever reason, that you would prefer to put your kids into childcare and go back to paid work. Good for you. But why should I and my family pay for that choice? You don't subsidise our lifestyle. Why must I subsidise yours?

Partridge Sun 24-Mar-13 11:58:56

You are the one making it a competition and perpetuating the idea that sahp don't deserve to be appreciated. And sorry - but spending 5 years as a sahp is different to mat leav and p/t work.

Being a sahp is the right choice for my family for many reasons. I'd love it a whole lot more if people like you didn't patronise sahp quite so much. The whole tone of your posting is pretty condescending. You have been at home with pre-schoolers and thus must have lived exactly my experience - but you also wohm so feel entitled to judge on that front as well. I have never felt particularly passionate about this before but something in your tone, Janey, is superior.

All I have ever asked for is some understanding and kindness. A recognition that it can be tough to shelve your career and lose your status in the wider world. The fact that you find this so very hard to acknowledge says more about you than me I think.

janey68 Sun 24-Mar-13 11:59:56

You don't subsidise mine Special grin
We've always paid for childcare out of our faxed earnings

I think though, you're talking about a much wider argument. Why should childless people pay for schools? Why should someone who has never been in hospital all their life and has a cheap home birth pay for hospital care for others?
The welfare system doesn't operate by only paying for exactly what you as an individual make use of

Partridge Sun 24-Mar-13 12:00:27

Your attitude is a microcosm of the wider world. Sahp are patronised. I guess I have to just suck it up judging by your posts.

allnewtaketwo Sun 24-Mar-13 12:06:34

Partridge - why is your need so high for janey to acknowledge what you have given up and that you work hard? These are your choices, why do you need janey to acknowledge them? Or need me to empathise with you? In asking for these things, your're inherently assuming that you "deserve" something from us. Well you don't, any more than we "deserve" anything from you confused

janey68 Sun 24-Mar-13 12:07:18

Oh partridge you're being ridiculous now. I guess resorting to someones 'tone' is a cheap shot when you can't find any evidence of anything remotely patronising in what they say

I repeat (again!) you should feel valued for the choices youve made. And if you feel that's patronising then sorry, but it's pretty difficult to please someone who asks to be valued and then moans when someone acknowledges that

You are absolutely determined to feel hard done by as SAHP which I think is a shame, as it's something you've chosen. If it wasn't through choice but financial necessity I would understand it a little more, but you seem to grind on about how isolating and relentless your days are. Clearly you feel it's the better option at the moment than working, so why not concentrate on the positives?

I have never said its a competition -quite the opposite. And yeap, I do know what being at home with pre schoolers is like- I did it for 5 years when I worked part time. And no, working part time is not EXACTLY the same as not working at all, but frankly, even if I'd been a SAHM full time, my experience wouldn't be EXACTLY the same as yours or indeed anyone else's, because guess what, our children are all individuals and they all come with their own unique ups and downs.

janey68 Sun 24-Mar-13 12:12:56

Allnew- exactly! I suggested we ALL have a medal for doing our best at this tough parenting lark, but apparently that wasn't good enough grin

Partridge Sun 24-Mar-13 12:16:27

Because calling me ridiculous isn't at all patronising. I love your moral superiority.

Partridge Sun 24-Mar-13 12:18:19

By working part time you are getting a salary and being evaluated by a boss. Which was my original point. Ad I don't work because it is not financially viable. But yes I did choose to have 3 kids so I suppose it is my choice in a way.

FrillyMilly Sun 24-Mar-13 12:21:14

Where does this attitude of paying for people's lifestyle come from? I've never told a SAHM that I'm paying for her pension whilst also paying towards my own, I've never told a person claiming housing benefit that I'm paying for her house, I've never told someone on job seekers allowance that I'm paying for them to job seek. We all pay in and we all get from it in some way or another. This child care 'benefit' is a tax break. There are many of them and some apply to you and some don't, but if you aren't paying tax then none apply.

allnewtaketwo Sun 24-Mar-13 12:25:32

"By working part time you are getting a salary and being evaluated by a boss"

So the "salary" coming from an unrelated 3rd party (employer) as opposed to the shared salary from your life partner, makes it feel like more of a validation. Really? hmm. You feel like being given a year end appraisal by a boss (who you may or may not feel is nice, or a complete arse without a clue) is more validating than acknowledgment and value by your chosen life partner. Really? hmm

janey68 Sun 24-Mar-13 12:26:31

Partridge that chip on your shoulder must be weighty

Look- if I agree with you and say 'yeap SAHM have the hardest job in the world. None of us can possibly know what it's like (even though we've all had babies and many of us worked part time when the kids were small) and frankly being a WOHM is a breeze because the fairies get the kids up and off to nursery and do the housework, and well, being at work is a right doddle, employers are queuing up to dole out wages for doing sod- all these days.... I mean, it's not actually going to make you feel any better is it? You'll just accuse me of being patronising

You are the one who feels undervalued and isolated. It doesn't matter how many people tell you quite truthfully that they don't look down on SAHM. It doesnt matter how many times we say its not a competition. You are determined to tell us that you know what we think better than we
I (genuinely and non patronisingly) feel sorry that you don't feel valued in your chosen role. But attacking the rest of us really won't help you feel better.

janey68 Sun 24-Mar-13 12:29:05

And as that post which crossed with mine partridge- yes, by working a WOHP gets a salary and recognition from their boss for the WORKING ASPECT of their life. Their boss doesn't give them a pat on the back for everything they do as a parent and for the housework!

Partridge Sun 24-Mar-13 12:31:46

When I worked hard I got appraised fairly by that boss and was rewarded for my skills. My husband loves me and is appreciative but he is not evaluating my skills beyond parenting and housekeeping.

But frankly this is now coming down to semantics. Janey you are patronising - not least - ho ho - talking about the weighty chip on my shoulder.

Women get vilified for whatever choices they make - this is well documented. I am not saying being a wohp is easier than being a sahm. I think it must be very tough. I wouldn't want to do it. But your patronising tone and utter refusal to empathise with me is frankly quite weird. Goodbye.

janey68 Sun 24-Mar-13 12:37:06

Nope, not being patronising and frankly quite a few of us have shown empathy but it hasn't been welcome!

anotheryearolder Sun 24-Mar-13 12:40:48

Partridge if you feel undervalued then whatever anyone else says will not
change anything - its how YOU feel about the role that matters.

So what would you like us to do? - if we say yes its tough then we are undermining the SAHP role .If we say its marvellous we are not appreciating how tough role the SAHP is confused
I have btw done both SAHP and WOHP roles - both have their good/bad points but I didnt feel I had to make others responsible for my feelings.

specialknickers Sun 24-Mar-13 12:41:28

frilly as you yourself said, this new tax break is not a benefit. It's a tax break... Less tax for those schools and hopitals and for housing benefit or those that need it.

I repeat, why should my family (very well off on a combined income of around £100k - I am self employed and do have my own small income and pay my own NI contributions), pay for a tax break for a family earning £300k? That makes no sense. If our child benefit is withdrawn on household income, tax credits should be too.

allnewtaketwo Sun 24-Mar-13 13:20:45

"When I worked hard I got appraised fairly by that boss and was rewarded for my skills"

For every working person who says this, there will be many more who say that they don't get appraised or rewarded fairly by their boss. Particularly in the case of a working parent, I would say that rather than feeling valued and fairly rewarded by a boss, it's more likely that the following will arise:
- feeling others look down on you for coming in late after school drop-off, or leaving early to do school pick-up
- others chastising you for having an unpaid "day off" if you work part time
- being treated unfairly as a part time worker
- being given a full time job on part time hours
- being overlooked for reward/promotion because you have children
etc etc etc etc.

To be honest, in this economic climate, the biggest "reward" you get is not being next in line for the cull to save costs.

So that "reward" you assume you'd get as a wohm is often no reward at all other than purely financial. Don't feel that you'd somehow be more valued for having a paid job. It's more likely you'd feel you don't do anything particularly well because you're so stretched as a working parent.

Partridge, having read your many posts, I think a key aspect of your discontent relates to the lack of acknowledgement that you have skills you don't use (i.e. work related ones that you don't need to use as a sahm). Sorry, but no-one is going to recognise you for this. Any more than anyone will recognise me for skills I don't use, whether at home or in my job. If you want recognition for skills you have, then use them. That doesn't have to be via paid employment. Be creative. Your mention of drudgery and self esteem makes me think your lifestyle is having an impact on your mental health. You need to do something about this - but that something should not include expecting other busy parents to validate your choices in life

FrillyMilly Sun 24-Mar-13 13:27:59

Surely though if the government can encourage more people to stay in or enter the workplace after having children the tax the receive will more than outweigh the cost of the tax break. Personally I think childcare shod be state run and not for profit.

janey68 Sun 24-Mar-13 13:47:52

I think you make a lot of valid points allnew.
It's easy to think the grass is greener. When you're not working, you focus on the paypacket, and lovely appraisals from the boss, but of course the reality is that some people work for bosses who aren't always fair or reasonable. And even in the best workplaces, no one pays you a wage for sitting at your desk doing bugger all- particularly in this economic climate. I do a lot of interesting things in my job, but it would be daft to pretend its all easy. Meetings can be tough and sometimes confrontational, managing a team and keeping them all motivated and happy isnt always easy, and when I do presentations- well, they don't just write themselves. And doing all this and then coming home to the dinner, the laundry and sometimes fractious children isn't a picnic either.
Basically the fact is, life isn't easy! And once you have children thrown into the mix the whole extra role of parenting is added in.

specialknickers Sun 24-Mar-13 14:17:18

frilly I totally agree with you. What I object to really is not supporting working parents, it's using taxpayer's money to prop up creaking capitalist corporations. This government seems intent on using our money to bail out failing banks (bad enough) but also siphoning off tax revenues to private childcare, and to support employers who are just not paying their employees a living wage.

State run nurseries for all would be a really good way of starting to address this.

janey68 Sun 24-Mar-13 14:21:55

YY totally agree about state run nursery provision

specialknickers Sun 24-Mar-13 14:23:38

Works in France. Why not here?

FrillyMilly Sun 24-Mar-13 17:05:31

Instead of turning on each other we should be making a stand and saying this is not good enough. Childcare does not cease at 5 so they need to be clear on when it will roll out for older children. They also need to look at why being a childcare provider is a minimum wage job and many have such a high turnover. Private nursery are run for profit. With a non profit nursery they can nurture and invest in their staff. Until we can all see that looking after children as a career is important there will never be any respect for SAHMs. I can't help but think this new policy is a way of sidelining us from the awful plans to raise ratios.

maisiejoe123 Sun 24-Mar-13 17:24:34

What on earth is Partridge whining about!

We all have different experiences, some have children close in age together, some work part time, some work full time, some have rich partners, some dont but the childcare is too expensive for them to go to back to work...

To indicate that no one apart from Partridge knows what it is like as a SAHM is plain daft. Maybe she isnt strict enough with her children, mayber her partner isnt helping enough.

I work to pay the school fees, no everyone's choice but MINE and it suits us. I wouldnt dream of dictating to anyone how many c