To think that it's ok to want to bring up your children and to be a mother, just as it's ok to go out to work instead?(432 Posts)
MNHQ have commented on this thread.
I was brought up to 'have a career' and to think about work not babies. I admit I'd be bored doing nothing, and love the tutoring that I do - but I have no wish at ALL to be the main wage earner and leave the childcare to someone else. When my DS was born, it felt like I was complete. I'm happier, have more self esteem and confidence than I've ever had. I've met many other mums who feel similarly. Surely, our choice is just as valid as those who are WOHM? The point of feminism was that we should have that choice - whichever one we choose is our decision, surely?
I see what you are looking for but unless it's economically viable I don't see it happening. It is in the government's interest (and by government you can read country, us, our collective bank balance, to pay all our national bills/debts etc) to encourage more women to work outside the home as its boosts the economy (cf. womenomics) but other than being seen to help couples, there is no economic value (that I can think of) for the government to help SAHPs be SAHPs.
Exactly that, Bumble, as helping SAHPs to be SAHPs doesn't stop skilled workers dropping out of the workforce; quite the opposite.
'the problem you have is SAH is only 10% of women so you wont win in a democracy.'Where did you get that stat? is that of all women?
I read that of mothers with young children, roughly 1/3 stay at home, 1/3 work part time and 1/3 work full time. So 2/3 have a SAHP or p/t worker which could be anywhere from 1 hr a week to many hours.
It keeps coming back to the top of my "threads you're on" list PE! I must have the attantion span of a gnat
i cannot find the reference. but it was in the news a while back. but its not inconsistent with your figures (its not looking a SAH on young DC).
Retro, why would you want help with childcare costs when you don't need childcare? If you went out to work, you most also be able to claim for help with childcare - you have chosen not to work.
It would be like me moaning that I don't get Boots Advantage Card points because I choose to shop in Superdrug.
I think if you post strong opinions with passion people are going to direct questions at you and remember your posting history. Most of us don't feel that strongly and therefore you stand out. Most of us experience life as a SAHP or a working parent and therefore do not see things to be quite as black and white.
I think you may have a point about tax allowance.
As a poster above said this is more about the cost of childcare than having a pop at SAHP. I have benefitted from a very expensive state education, I was expensive to train as a teacher. If I had trained as a doctor I would be even more expensive to train, it seems daft to spend all that taxpayers money on training me and then have me out of the work place for decades to look after my children .
One person who earns 50K is on a very good wage, that is what I earn and I do see my wage as a very good wage? It is about double the average wage, the difference is that you are choosing to support your whole family on that wage. For many families being able to support their whole family on one wage is a luxury.
I agree that childcare should be available to help people train for the work place.
Late reply retro but you asked what i was on about. I'll summarise:
1. It is a bit rich to be complaining about other people being supported to make choices that don't put any money back in the pot, when you yourself were happy to trouser 5 figures in child benefit whilst doing just that. It is a pot kettle black situation.
2. You said everyone should get the same support from the state, be it a lot or a little. I think this is a bad idea, because there are people who need much more help than I do. I don't feel like I ought to get 60 quid a week child tax credits simply because some other people do, for the sake of equality. The country couldn't afford to pay us all at that level of child tax credits, but if the amount that some poorer people are getting was reduced in order to provide me with money I don't need, there would be children going cold and hungry. As a supporter of universal child benefit, I don't even mind people with 3 getting more than I do for 1. Even though, applying your theory, why should you pre CB means testing have been entitled to more than me just because you have more kids? All families should get the same regardless of need! (but not free school meals for key stage 1, though).
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.