SAHPs do not contribute positively to society(51 Posts)
Apparently. This is according to Ian Duncan-Smith writing in the Guardian. He's announced extra money to help parents pay for childcare, because this will mean that 'more parents can work part-time, or full-time, and their children will grow up in a family where their parents are positively contributing to society and growth in the economy'. I wish the Tories would make up their minds whether women should stay in the home (because children of working mothers grow up to be feral beasts) or should go out to work (because otherwise they are appalling role models who contribute nothing to the world), so that I can at least be clear about exactly why I hate them so much.
You're a woman. They're Tories. Nothing you do will be good enough because you are not good enough, due to your gender.
But doesnt Cameron want all these sahp to volunteer to run libraries and such like as part of the big society? How is that not contributing?
Er maybe different members of the Tory party just have different views? They're not all robots spoting the party line.
Just a thought.
even if parents do work part time this government has managed to cut most of the older children's subsidised childcare anyway so he should check that's in place still before suggesting such ridiculous proposals.
this government lives in another planet it really does.
Of course they want sahp to work as that parent will be paying tax on their income as will nanny/childminder - just call me cynical. I do contribute to society by being in dcs school 4 times a week helping out! Otherwise they would have to pay someone else to do what I do for free!
According to the government, parents must:
- bring their children up to the highest standards
- cook nutritious meals from scratch every day
- work FT outside the home
- volunteer in the community
- live within their means
- provide a culturally enriching life for their children
- read to their children, hear their children reading and follow their school work
<gives up from exhaustion before even beginning>
OTheHuge - was that at me? I am aware they can have different views, but I thought the parties had to have a joint goal, for example the big society thing, so despite slight;y different views I thought they would be working toward the same general goal. Where as this is completely opposite, hence my confusion. I am not too good on politics, but willing to learn, hence my post. No need to be sarky/mean about it.
belgo - no, but Sam Cam must be among the top 100 female tax payers in the country...
Quite simply there are many ways of being value to society without earning money.
I would argue that there are many people in paid employment who do very little for society at all.
I am willing to bet those weren't IDS's actual words. The Guardian loves to twist things, however slightly, to make the coalition look as bad as possible. IDS and Frank Field (Labour) are trying to tackle the very serious problems of long-term unemployment by aiming to make the benefit system a way to help people back into work rather than a trap that forces people to remain out of work. Neither of them are anti-SAHPs.
belgo - I agree entirely that there are many ways of contributing to society that do not involve working and paying taxes; but the government has to deal with a massive deficit and would like as many adults as possible to contribute to paying it off!
at Bonsoir's list of what parents should be doing!
Also I thought the Tories were against subsidising childcare.
But where are all these jobs parents should do at least P/T?
Not sure about the UK, but there is not much in sight here (Italy)
There were 2 million extra jobs created prior to the crash in 2008. Most of them were not taken up by local unemployed people for various reasons, some of them to do with the way the benefit system is structured. When this recession comes to an end and new jobs start to be created, if the same system is in place, we will get the same outcome.
The financial cost of employing someone part time in Belgium makes it not worth it for many employers, it's full time or nothing for many people.
Many working parents cannot afford paid child care so they rely on people who are not working to care for their children.
"There were 2 million extra jobs created prior to the crash in 2008. snip When this recession comes to an end and new jobs start to be created"
Most of the jobs that were created between 1996 and 2008 were in the public sector. Given how that the current Government is shrinking the size of the public sector the situation in the run up to the crash is unlikely to be repeated, so what level of job creation there will be is a very good question.
This will hit women quite hard, apparently about 90% of the new public sector positions were taken up by women. That explains why women are being disproportionately affected by the job losses in the public sector, they make up most of the workers and will therefore make up most of the job losses, even more so if a "last in first out" policy is applied and 90% of the "last in" are female.
So a very good question is why was there such a massive uptake of work in the public sector by women and what can be done to help make the private sector equally appealing/possible? Was it childcare benefits or working conditions that made the public sector so appealing?
Well it's the tories innit.
Families should be headed by a male with at least a 6 figure salary. His wife should be at home looking after the children, and this does not drain anything due to his big salary. When the children start school she should commence her voluntary, charity, church and other good works. She may at this point start doing a few hours paid work for "pin money" if she so desires. A small cupcake business is acceptable. Or maybe flower arranging.
Anyone who lives in any other way whatsoever is doing it wrong and must be punished.
"Well it's the tories innit."
And that's nonsense, innit...
The Tories seem to be aiming to get more women working, even the OP has taken this up as being an attack on stay at home parents. And that's exactly the opposite of what you claim that they're trying to do.
I would like to point out that this shouldn't be taken as a statement of Tory support, but let's attack them for what they are doing rather than what we mistakenly claim they're up to.
I think it's a good idea, to help with childcare costs for those who can't work more than 16 hours a week although seems to me that it's the working tax credits re incarnated.
I find it so sad.
Many mums want to stay at home with their young dc.Many young dc just want their mummy/daddy.
Surely if some mums want to do this they should be helped to do it as kids in childcare who don't want to be there with mums who don't want them there isn't good for any involved.I know soooo many mums that feel like this.
Not all kids are indentical. A working mum and childcare doesn't suit all and we should be allowed to make that choice according to our needs,that of our family and the individual children involved.
They do absolutely nothing to help mums who want to stay at home.Unless your dp is on a fat cat salary most of us don't have a hope in hell of enjoying those early years whilst we have them. You're made to feel like crap if you do it and nobody cares two hoots about the needs or wants of the actual children involved.
In an ideal
tory world, everyone would be married, daddy would go to work and mummy would stay at home to raise the children and bake cakes... but this is not an ideal tory world
Must point out I only ever worked part time while kids were small, so took them to school and was there to pick them up
The goverment are talking nonsense as usual stay at home parents have made a choice to stay at home and look after their kids, so their children do not become latch key kids, or feral kids.
I had a very good job but once I had my first child working full-time didn't work as my child was the first one in the nursery and the last one out from 8am-6pm at eight months old which is too long for any child.
I gave up work as my child was more important than the salary and i stand by my choice and we all contribute to society. When the children are older yes i will look at going back then but until then i am happy to be at home and proud of it.
Let the poliictians mouth off i am sure their wives with small children don't work and if they do they have nannies to look after the kids.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now »
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.