Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

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

37 replies

nongenderbias9 · 03/01/2013 23:08

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.

OP posts:
KarlosKKrinkelbeim · 04/01/2013 18:09

buy a bigger house?

Bonsoir · 04/01/2013 16:10

Sometimes I add up the cost of replacing myself at home, just for the hell of it. I can do the adding, but what I cannot do is fit all the people in my home at the same time because I would need separate people to do all the jobs I do simultaneously...

missorinoco · 04/01/2013 16:05

I see where you are coming from, but I deduct childcare from my earnings when I consider how much we earn after childcare costs. I work part time, but if I hadn't wanted to drop my hours DH was happy to do so. In that event I would deduct the costs from his earnings.

I am aware though that I make these calculations on the basis that the childcare costs are not mine, they are both of ours. If DH assumed they were mine I would bluntly work out the total income and then deduct. (He only made the mistake of telling me he had helped with the housework once.)

It may be basic management accounting, and Bonsoir puts it far more elegantly than I do, but there is great potential for media spin on the "costs" of childcare.

Greythorne · 04/01/2013 16:03

Again, this debate would be better with a link!

KarlosKKrinkelbeim · 04/01/2013 15:59

At the risk of pointing out the bleeding obvious (and in teh absence of a link I cannot find the article), doesn't the sexism lie in the assumption that "second earner" is necessarily the female? This might be the case in many households but not in mine, nor in some others I know.

Trills · 04/01/2013 15:57

It is sexist to assume that it will be the woman who would stay at home.

But it is not unreasonable to balance the earnings of the lower earner against childcare costs.

Bonsoir · 04/01/2013 15:54

It shouldn't make you mad. It is basic management accounting.

If First Earner makes 100 and has a SAHP, when that SAHP decides to become Second Earner, the costs of replacing the SAHP at home must be deducted from the Second Earner's income in order to assess whether or not the Family will make a profit from having a Second Earner.

If Second Earner also earns 100, but the costs of childcare and tax (and possible other costs of working, such as commuting costs, clothing etc) are also 100...

FestiviaBlueberry · 04/01/2013 15:50

Of course men don't have childcare costs samandi.

What do you think women are for?

Tut.

Greythorne · 04/01/2013 15:41

Link?

samandi · 04/01/2013 15:33

Presumably men don't have childcare costs Hmm

qumquat · 04/01/2013 14:34

I saw this in the Indie as well, made me mad.

kim147 · 03/01/2013 23:09

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.