Advanced search

Telegraph reinforcing expectation only mums must stay at home again

(15 Posts)
kim147 Wed 09-Jan-13 07:24:23

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Wed 09-Jan-13 07:58:26

Yeah, and their fricking front page headline on Monday about the proposed voucher/credit replacement scheme was 'blah blah blah change affects working mothers' when 'parents' has exactly the same number of letters as 'mothers' and would have fitted in the space just fine, you fuckwits. I actually read the whole article to check that it wasn't a change only for mothers (eg pregnancy/BF related in some way).

Grr. Argh.

Xenia Wed 09-Jan-13 08:34:24

Very sexist paper.

Fathers fine and manage child care in 2013. They did it 30 years ago too - we interviewed nannies together in 1984. It was never just my issue. We both needed childcare. It is a parent issue not a mother issue.

meditrina Wed 09-Jan-13 08:45:11

It's chicken and egg though. It's reporting the effect on mothers because that's the societal group most affected. And it's not just this paper that's doing it: here's a Guardian commentary reporting a mother's views, and the Guardian again reporting the Labour party statement on how women are disproportionately losing out.

LRDtheFeministDragon Wed 09-Jan-13 14:10:58

Child benefit was originally paid to the mother, not the father, I believe?

I agree it's poor.

I think there is a difficulty here, in that cuts do disproportionately affect women, and to some extent that is because women are more likely to be SAHMs or carers - or simply to have accepted that they can only afford to work if their job alone is higher than the cost of childcare. What's the answer? Because as someone who's trying to work out how to plan around this stuff, I don't know - and I feel that ignoring the fact women are disproportionately affected would also be bad.

I know you're not suggesting that, but I think it must be hard to write articles without appearing to come down on one side or the other.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Wed 09-Jan-13 16:49:36

LRD, see your point but I take the opposite view.

The facts are that a policy change or whatever is a policy change towards working parents. If you want to add as part of the article "this change is expected to affect mothers/people in Cornwall/people called Kate in particular", fine. But putting it right at the top as if it is, of itself, a fact, fucks me right off as it acts to reinforce traditional divides. I'd say the first guardian article has framed it better.

LRDtheFeministDragon Wed 09-Jan-13 16:53:22

I take your point completely, doctrine. I do agree.

I did think it was wrong - it's just what is worrying me is that nasty strand of faux-leftwing thinking where people say, 'oh, but so what it affects more women? That's not something we should discuss, being all PC and all'. I think there's always an audience who will twist things, like that.

samandi Thu 10-Jan-13 12:38:41

I'm still getting my head round "£134 a month ... the savings accounts I set up for my two children".


But yes, all this kind of language does reinforce the idea that it should be women with the responsibility for child care etc.

Bossybritches22 Thu 10-Jan-13 12:47:52

If you can earn £50k you can survive without child benefit, the reasons for it's original conception are now outdated and unapplicable in many cases, so time to review it .

There are many of us who would LOVE to "struggle" on half that annual income. Without benefits.

I'd rather see savings made here than in other areas of benefits

The Telegraph article though is rather patronising in this say & age where SAH dads are becoming more common , would not have taken much to change it frm Mum to Parent.

Xenia Thu 10-Jan-13 16:35:20

Isnt'the piont that the full time working mother paying £14k tax/NI, £14k nursery bill for one child never mind more and £14k mortgage does not have loads and loads of money that a household with one earner in and a non worker with no childcare to pay and is in a similar net income bracket as a benefits claimant single mother? That is what lower earners do not seem to understand. They think £50k isd £50k in your hand. In fact after housing (no housing benefit) and tax of £14k and your full time nursery place or places you have the same income as someone on benefits very often at least when your children are at school.

ethelb Thu 10-Jan-13 16:39:03

@xenia the lack of realisation of how much tax higher earners pay was highlighted in that poor on £250k thread. A lot of people admitted they hadn't realised how much tax that means you have to cough up.

qumquat Thu 10-Jan-13 18:54:27

But someone earning £50k still has significantly more money than someone earning £25k (uk average) so I'm not sure what your point is.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Thu 10-Jan-13 20:54:10

Xenia's point is that a single mother on £50k paying a full time childcare bill might well have less disposable income than a couple with one income of £25k and one SAHP,especially with variable living costs across the country.

ethelb Fri 11-Jan-13 09:29:09

@qumquat but they won't have significantly more than a couple where one partner is on £25K and one is a SAHP.

Xenia Fri 11-Jan-13 10:13:32

Yes, that is the point. If you have all your rent paid on housing benefit and yhou don't pay for child care and you pay no tax then on my example you are saving £14k, £14k and £14k = £42,000. So the single mother who doesn't work gets her benefits on top of her rent paid. The working single mother on £50k has £8000 after her tax, nursery plaec and mortgage is paid. So disposable income is £153 a week buti f she needs babysitting when she works late and also she has to pay fares to work which can be £10 a day say £2600 a year for example as she cannot afford to lvie in Central London so has a long commute from her flat in Watford say... she may well have less money than the benefits claimant.

Whereas Mrs Life of leisure whose husband is a senior teacher on £50k is not paying the £14k on childcare so she is better off.

By the way anyone doubting my figures just has to type taxcalculator into google and then you just key in the gross income and you get the net. The poor shiould look at that as they think people on £50k are hugely well off but they forget £50k is not what yo haev to spend. you don't have all that rent paid by housnig benefit. You pay masses of childcare - we paid £30k a year, never mind £14k as had 3 then 5 children and worked full time, you have expensive travel costs. So don't think the £50k people are living in gold houses sitting around counting £50k of bank notes. Instead day after day they are keeping those less fortunate by handing £14k back to the state so it can ensure the less well off are paid up to the new benefit cap of £500 a week.

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: