Can you be a feminist housewife?

sahm is set of tasks not paid work
cm.nanny,nursery is paid childcare

LeninGrad - IMO the only fair way to split costs is to try to capture the whole contribution of each partner to the household and to try to account for both financial and in-kind contribution.

Ie if one partner does nothing round the house, and the other does everything, why shouldn't the nothing partner pay 100% for the nanny, for example?

scottishmummy is talking about "paid" work, which is something that someone else pays you for and whose standards and requirements you have to meet in order to get paid.

nanny and cm, dont look after their own children for payment. who would they charge?certainly not clients
they are regulated
inspected by ofsted
and have certain demands and expectations put upon them

those of you demanding payment would you comply with regulation and inspection of your home and abilities?extenal governmental regulation such as coshh, observation of home

would you pay all mums?
would i submit an hourly timesheet for time undertaken
is it means tested or universal

weeding

"work" is absolutely not something that is confined to an institutional context. You are blinded by bureaucracy, scottishmummy.

'Work is work.'

But not all work is paid. Wedding your garden is work, but the state won't pay you for it.

There is going to be a massive cutback in state funding. All of the political parties are in agreement on that, whatever they say to the public. There will be a much greater emphasis on self-reliance rather than reliance on the state.

The definition of work is not being inspected to someone else's standards, nor is it being paid.

scottishmummy, if some government official came along and wanted to vet and check and make sure i met basic standards adhered to by ofsted in return for paying me what an ofsted registered childcare provider earns a) i would pass with flying colours b) i would demand pay which reflects my superior level of qualification to most providers, very few of whom are educated to an upper second at degree level, and the advanced level of education i am therefore able to pass on to children in my care.

if the nanny works then the mother doing the exact same thing is working. See your point about external monitoring of standards though.

nanny and sahm not comparable
nanny works and is expected to maintain external standards and be qualified
the other is at home watching own kids no expectation of standards

There are problems with this whichever way you look at it aren't there? You see I QUITE likw sunshine and books' idea, but then I come up against the problem that I would not have benefitted as a single mother whose partner died. I also think that as a single parent who worked outside the home I would have perhaps reassessed whether I wanted to work when I could have received a wage to stay at home. It seems that it's not really all SAHP who would benefit from this, but those with an involved other parent, and is this just? Those who are single parents through death, having ex-partners abroad, or just disinterested wouldn't see any difference (given that the CSA seem unable to collect a lot of basic maintenance payments would they do any better at tax breaks?),
I do also have sympathy with Scottishmummy's point of view. Really SAHP is a lifestyle choice for the couple involved. Perhaps the way to assist is to legislate that a percentage of the working parent's income should be paid directly to the SAHP?

really is that it?no specifics just a pie in sky
and heartfelt pay the housewifes?

yes, of course! i am.

feminism is about being able to do what you chose to do and wanting society to recognise 'women's work' as of equal value to paid employment.

I can never ever get my head round the idea that somethnig is work if you pay a nanny or housekeeper or cleaner to do it, but not work if you don't pay someone to do it.

Work is work.

Just because you didn't value it when you did it yourself SM, no need to pretend that it's not valuable when other women do it.

It is a job. It enables the other partner in the relationship, to go and earn money. If women don't bring up their children, then men would have to do it and they would change the economic system so that childcare and domestic work is recognised as work, whoever does it.

so youre chewin fat about coulda,woulda,shoulda.not well thought out at all

ok,in that case id like clinique day every Friday at work,this may come as a suprise to you but
i dont care how it works
dont know how to finance it
I'm not that interested in how it works now
and will be campaigning that it's all right and proper, I'm interested in how it could and should be...

really?

you have no notion of how to implement it or persuade an electorate

a global redistribution of taxes to paediatric clinics,nhs,schools already happens.all salaried people pay via tax and ni

payment specifically to housewifes doesnt happen,and nor should it.as is not a job and not necessary to pay

skrumle,read the thread and pay attention.this isnt benefit bashing.if you want that go elsewhere

sahm is a personal choice the state doesnt need to pay anyone for it.
and as i have asked -would all mums get paid?

sahp is bloody demanding but not the same as paid employment,and as such cannot demand a wage

no regulatory body,
no minimums standards of behaviour/quality
no sanctions if rubbish,
no pre-requisite training or qualifications
no checks and balances on quality

unlike regulated childcare which has to demonstrate
? childcare provider compelled to adhere to regulatory standards,
? prepare for inspections and audit
? pay ni, wages and staff training,
? maintain building, pay utilities,
? buy equipment,coshh training,
? medication management, symptom management, first aid, Cpr

parents provide informal,non regulatory care.they dont adhere to any specific guidelines or competencies.at least in nursery staff are ofsted rated and competencies noted.in relatives care this would be absent.no national standard or monitoring.no quality control whatsoever