Women have their little careers till they have babies. Then they do as little as possible, preferably not working at all after that

seeker you asserted parent is same as being paid childcare worker,I've disputed that
Because parent gives calpol doesnt make make one a paediatric nurse
I've made it clear that parent isn't same as paid employment

What a strange thing to say satsuki. Of course I would expect a childminder to care for my children, but I wouldn't expect that she would care for my children as much as she cares for her own.... It's a very strange expectation... As if we expect childminders/nursery workers to be overworked, underpaid, emotionally involved, and care for their looked-after children as much as if they were her own.

People will and should look after their own children for free. It is their choice to have children so why should society pay for parents to look after their own children, bearing in mind not every taxpayer chooses to or can have children.

It is only where people are looking after children other than their own which they would not ordinarily because (surprise) they are not their own that should be paid for it. It is then rightly called a job. For accepting payment for that job, it has to be done to objectively acceptable standards and to a time schedule that is not of their choosing. This job also does not get lighter as the children get progressively older because these children then get replaced with others that need that high level of care for which it continues to make economic sense to pay that childcarer.

I don't see much parallel between SAHM-ing and paid childcare workers.

search a bit on MN and you will see how many former childminders/nannies/nursery workers now choose not to leave their own children to outside care. it's almost like they think they make more of an effort when the child they care for is their own.... hmmm Isn't it odd that people take more of an interest in the outcomes of their own biological offspring.. even with out offsteds help?

And income generation is all, obviously. You can't be a role model unless you generate income. Well, you can in my world!

Because childcare jobs regulated,are income generating via tax,ni,external benefit to others
Parenting is the tasks,things we do for our kids,it's not a job,and its private act for that family.not income generating

"Watching your own kids isn't a job"

And bringing up children is rather more than "watching". Which is an extraordinarily dismissive and belittling way of describing it. I agree that child minders and nannies have conform to statutory guidelines- but I don't understand how "watching" kids while statutorily regulated is different from "watching kids" while not.

No.to be cm you need registered,1st aid,and home assessment.statutory,and routine
As parent statutory service only get involved were concern and neglect present.the assessment is a case by case basis.there is no sw manual for what constitutes adequate
Most parents will never be involved with sw.every cm will be regulated
That's huge difference

Scottish

I think ss would argue about the standards expected of parents. If you fail to provide childcare at the standards they dictate, your dc will be taken from you. Thats far greater regulation than ofsted. Besides, there are many parents capable and indeed who do work to to the standards expected from child care providers. I think most parents educate their dc from day one irrespective of whether they work or not. So to assume they would not continue to do this if unemployed is a bit silly as surely we all want the best for our dc.

Seeker,let's be clear childcare is highly regulated,subject to external scrutiny
Being a parent is unregulated,you don't work to agreed standards
The money is significant it is remuneration for job done. Watching your own kids isn't a job

"A childcare worker isn't comparable to mother. As worker is there as it's job, it's clear and acknowledged it's a job. Mum s parent,not job"

But the only difference is the payment.

whoops. Have done a years teaching, forgot. This was during 2008/9

Scottish

I'd probably be ok in a dead end not going anywhere job because I can make my cv look good (there again v. lucky with the business)
I don't for one minute think I'd get any further with an employer.
As even pre dc I was business owner, before that self employed. Last employer 1987 I think

Ok,so divide assets go self employed.that's unusual and not the norm
Its a v good position if you can sustain it
How do you think you'd fare going to an employer for a job?

Scottish

I would take my share out and continue with the same business, I suppose he would do likewise. There are certain things I could do and he couldn't or wouldn't want to and likewise.
Obviously it wouldn't be me/his business anymore. The older 2 dc would have to decide what to do with their share.

Hang on,talking the hypothetical if dh left you'd work in family business?
Is it your business?presumably if he left it'd be acrimonious how would you work in family business?

Ok, maybe my circumstances seem unusual but we are typical of many families in our position.

I am not sheltered by not working, moreover from having to work in the "Big Bad World" as was described above. My comments here were humour.

I could snap into work in the family business if I chose and I know this isn't the case for most people. However, the fact remains that I chose not to for several reasons. The most important one being I don't feel it necessary in order to have status and identity.

Seeker - I do also agree that it is not only SAHMs who undertake voluntary work etc. but it is overwelmingly women who undertake such work - whether they work in paid employment or not.

I also think you raise an interesting point and one that I mentioned in my post about replacement activity.

Novice although you can hardly remember your nanny - to me the people that looked after my children have been so key to my life. I have needed to trust someone with my child and could not have gone to work unless I was clear they were being treated well and learning.

Maybe it is all about the money. I think if childcare was really valued you would find a great deal of people could not work as easily:
i.e. banker and lawyer friends I know can easily afford childcare due to their wage differential between what they earn and what child care workers earn.

Unfortunately I think childcare is generally seen to be a low status activity - and it should not be.

Looking at comments from posters such as blueshoes again you have childcare or SAHM activity being viewed as low status.

Seeker,working in childcare is v regulated and like all jobs has JD of expectations,tasks
Tasks are stated and expected to be undertaken to certain prescribed standard to an externally agreed standard
Working in childcare is a job,in return for remuneration.I value childcare worker as I use ft childcare to return to work

A childcare worker isn't comparable to mother. As worker is there as it's job, it's clear and acknowledged it's a job. Mum s parent,not job

Lots of people work with children closely nursery staff, healthcare,nanny, cm. This is incomparable to what parents do with their own kids,as watching own kids isn't a job

Potato certainly going by mn and rl housewife is usually dependent upon waged partner.who earns wage,pays utilities,and food. The housewife doesn't work,unwaged

your described circumstances are unusual- You are as you say sheltered by not working. say you've not worked in years,home school so unavailable for work. But if had to work you'd snap straight back to it. And you're financially independent from Your dh? That is unusual

Could I repeat a point I made earlier? Not sure it it was missed or just so dull it was passed over, but I'll try again.

If a child is looked after by a female childminder or a nanny, does that woman provide a role model because they are being paid in a way that a SAHM apparently doesn't because she isn't? Or is childcare of any sort such a low status population that anyone who does it is not a suitable role model regardless of the circumstances?

Scottish

If we are speaking in sweeping generalisations, most women would not put themselves in this precarious position and would be in employment anyway if they needed to for financial security

Being able to return to employment after sustained period out work,and being financially independent is v rare
The reality for most housewifes is they are dependent upon dp,and tricky getting back to work
That's why housewife is precarious because it is dependent upon someone else

Novice

I too think you make an important point, in both your posts.
Obviously the most important thing is bills being paid and needs of the family being met.

I also agree it's important for a woman to have independance of family and to pursue interests or employment she chooses.
I really can't see why it has to be paid employment though if it isn't what you want and/or it isn't in the best interests of your family.

There are many sahms who have financial independence from their dh and contrary to some belief they don't have to shelter behind them in terms of money and are not relying on their dh to provide.
Heaven forbid if my dh left me tomorrow, I would be able to provide for my dc. I am a sahm not a numpty.

We all do the best for our family don't we. I can't see why it matters if you are in paid employment or not.

"I think there is a real danger of this issue being less about our children and more about ourselves and our own sense of identity in the eyes of society."

I think this is an important related point. I think it is alright for an issue to be about oneself, and one's identity in one's own eyes and in the eyes of society. These things are important. How one makes a place for oneself in society is important. The original point is that, unfortunately, there is an attitude that the way a woman will generally prefer to do that is by working until she gives birth, and then working as little as possible. And it is a somewhat justified attitude as well, as people have pointed out, and that grates.