Advanced search

Sexist article in Daily Telegraph, "women working full-time paying towards childcare"

(38 Posts)
nongenderbias9 Thu 03-Jan-13 23:08:15

Have you seen this? I don't know how they get away with it? They equate a woman going to work as balancing off the money she gets to pay for the children's childcare whilst she works. Does this article assume that their are no men left in the world, or perhaps that men don't work, or most likely that the money men earn doesn't go to support his family. I hate this crazy sexist nonsense that sees childcare as a womans job.

Hanikam Sat 05-Jan-13 10:24:29

Daily Telegraph? I'm sure they think all women are SAHMs. Must have been a shock to find out some of us work.

tribpot Sat 05-Jan-13 10:28:17

Ah but you see, Hanikam - we shouldn't because it costs us too much in childcare to do. Problem solved.

Bonsoir Sat 05-Jan-13 10:44:49

Don't be so aggressive! I did engage with your point - what do you want, applause?

AmandaPayne Sat 05-Jan-13 10:55:45

I'm not being aggressive. And you haven't. If you prefer not to, fine, but I was interested in the wider issues.

Bonsoir Sat 05-Jan-13 10:59:17

If you want people to talk to you, I suggest you learn to be a little more polite!

tribpot Sat 05-Jan-13 11:06:16

Bonsoir, you say the article shouldn't make us mad because it's simply stating an economic fact: if the family's costs exceed the family's income as a result of both partners working then the family does not make an immediate financial gain from having both partners working.

However, what is concerning many of us on this thread is not the realisation that 10+2-3 = 9 but that the article is written to imply that childcare costs are a women's issue (this is a common problem in the mainstream media), nor does it attempt to address the fact that 10+2-3 now may equal 10+10-0 in the future, whereas 10 + 0 now may only equal 10 + 0 in the future.

There are important shifts in mindset that are required to push change. One is that childcare is a woman's job, either to do or to fund.

AbigailAdams Sat 05-Jan-13 11:08:59

Amanda has been perfectly polite, Bonsoir. All she has asked (repeatedly and in a very controlled manner imo) is that you engage with her points. That is assertive, not aggressive. It is also sticking to the point of the OP and not derailing as you appear to be wanting to do.

Aggressive is just another word to shut women up. Especially as often (as employed here) it is incorrect.

Bonsoir Sat 05-Jan-13 12:21:27

<shrugs> I dunno, I worked out the management accounting and NPV issues years ago and it is beyond me to understand why others haven't.

AmandaPayne Sat 05-Jan-13 17:35:10

Tribpot - Yes, the underlying assumption that childcare is a woman's job to fund is so prevalent. I've picked people up on it. A woman who told me she loved her job recently said to me "Of course, it's not really worth it because I only take home £<small amount> each month after childcare, tax and my travel card." I said, "but you said you loved your job". She agreed, so I said, "Well, what is left from your other half's job if you take the childcare off his job?" She had never done the calculation because, even though she loved her job and she wanted to work, it had literally never occurred to her that the childcare came off her husband's salary, or should be shared.

The reason that is dangerous is that she had a running line of guilt that her children were in childcare for "only £x". It made her value her own working low. I bet not many men, whether they are second earners or not, sit around struggling with that type of angst. There is an underlying assumption that, if a man wants to work, he will. If a male second earner who wants to stay home then great, but rarely would he suffer any criticism if he chose not to.

I also think that these things should be done with more information. It so easy to do the simplistic calculation of salary X minus childcare Y =Z, and to think one shouldn't/doesn't have to work if Z is too low. But it is very hard to access any information on what the long term cost of not working is, in terms of ease of re-entry to your area, pension, earnings impact.

A slight side track, but I know a lot of women my mother's age who have grown up children and have spent a boring 20 years working in low paid work after their children left home. Or who haven't worked and have gone a little crazy - a friend's mother used to phone her every day when she started university because she was so bored and lonely. It is very hard to re-launch a successful, and more importantly interesting, career late in life after a long gap. That frustration can be a hidden cost which is also hard to factor in. Being a SAHM with children at home is a very different prospect to being a SAHM once they have left.

tribpot Sat 05-Jan-13 18:55:09

I went to look for a thread I remembered from last year where we talked about some of the factors involved in deciding to become a SAHP (or not).

ceeveebee Sat 05-Jan-13 19:04:14

Speaking as an accountant, it would be very foolish for any business to make a decision based on the short term. A net present value assessment taking into account future expected earnings would be used rather than just looking at the next two or three years. Businesses also generally seek to spread risk rather than rely on a sole source of income.

If families applied the same logic then many more women would continue to work in some capacity to protect their future career and pension provision and to mitigate the risk of relying on one income.

Greythorne Sat 05-Jan-13 20:01:02

There's a fascinating thread at the moment about whether young peopl should go to uni based on their having to pay fees....across the board people talk about considering the fees over a lifetime of higher earning, better prospects etc.

And yet for mums returning to work, there's an assumption that unless you are covering the childcare, travel, work clothing etc. then there's just no point. But lifetime earnings, promotion potential, pension, perks, paid holiday, private healthcare etc. etc. of course need to be factored in. Plus the fact that as time goes on, childcare costs rapidly decrease once school starts.

rainrainandmorerain Sun 06-Jan-13 02:17:15

there were umpteen radio phone ins etc off the back of this article - all making the same assumption, largely unchallenged, that childcare was the mother's problem, financially and practically.

Surely childcare - whether provided by a paid professional or done by the mother - is what allows working fathers to work?

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now