Page 3 | Domestic zombies, motherhood penalty & childcare

JessSi · 2022-11-05T11:23:50+00:00

Hi. New to mumsnet & have been looking for a discussion on pre-school childcare provision – I'm starting this thread in S&G because frankly motherhood, triggers the full weight of sex-based oppression, so seems relevant. As most people know but in Holly Mead's words from The Times, this week: ^“The system is rigged against women, who are at a financial disadvantage from the moment they decide to have a family. While they are on maternity leave they typically receive no pension contributions from their employer. They are then likely to remain out of full-time work for three years, until some free childcare is available. Then they often take low-paid and part-time work to fit around family life. In many cases they will not earn enough to qualify for auto-enrolment, meaning the pension gender gap widens to a chasm.”^ To avoid motherhood penalty, the solution is often presented as providing women with the opportunity to outsource the care of their children from birth or shortly after enabling re-entry into the paid labour market as soon as possible. See PregnantthenScrewed’s recent protest about lack of affordable childcare. Although, in many developed countries, looks like women are sensibly taking an anti-natalist approach to motherhood given the economic detriment and vulnerability that it triggers. But irrationally many women (like me) still do choose to have children and apparently, of women who do have children in the UK, the majority, 8 out 10, (see Frank Young in The Times, 3/11/22) want to spend more time parenting their children, not less. They don’t want to outsource the care of their children, they want to do it themselves. Mostly likely because they believe this is in their children’s best interests? We are told that because of a lack of access to affordable childcare, women are concentrated in unpaid and low paid part-time work but perhaps both things are true, women do not have access to good quality affordable childcare and along with a genuine desire to ensure their children’s needs are properly met, women work unpaid or part-time and absorb a massive economic disadvantage, triggered by motherhood, that continues for the rest of our lives. This situation plays out at the sharp end for single parent women and women in economically abusive co-parenting relationships – whether married/cohabiting or separated. I don’t think this is ethical or fair. So. What’s the solution? I often lean in to a wage for housework position but this is problematic in lots of ways. What's the view of mumsnetter's on all this? And what's the solution?

Taswama · 15/11/2022 07:27

The surname parallel occurred to me too @Hardbackwriter .

Oh my name was so boring / difficult to spell.
He hasn't got any brothers (when his surname is Jones).

But I didn't want to derail the thread!

I suspect men are less likely to have part time approved and don't want to risk the long term consequences. (which women don't really have a choice about of course). Which is why there should laws enabling anyone to reduce to 4 days and making some of parental leave use it or lose it to increase uptake.

Hardbackwriter · 15/11/2022 07:20

Taswama · 14/11/2022 12:23

Yes, somehow the outcome is always the woman goes part time and the man stays full time.

ok not always, a friend had twins and both her and DH asked to reduce to 4 days. Hers was agreed, his refused.

Yes, it's like who takes whose names - there's always a good, logical reason why it 'just makes sense' to default to the man keeping his job/name. I think it's in Caroline Criado Perez's book that she cites a piece of research where they spoke to couples where one was a medical doctor and one was an academic. When the woman was the MD the couple would explain that it just made sense for her to be the one working flexibly because it was so much easier in her job than his. And when the woman was the academic the couple would explain that it just made sense for her to be the one working flexibly because it was so much easier in her job than his...

There is also a really widespread belief that it's harder for men to get applications to work part-time through, which I'm sure is true in some cases but is also a bit if a self-perpetuating thing - they don't apply because they 'know' they won't be allowed. When DH and I both went down to four days a week people were totally unsurprised for me but a lot were surprised that his work allowed it, even though there are quite a few women in his workplace who work part-time.

Original poster

JessSi · 14/11/2022 17:07

Schlaar · 13/11/2022 15:47

Where I live it costs £20k to put one child in full time nursery. Tax free childcare knocks off £2k, so I would need to earn £18k. Plus about £5k to cover transport, and maybe £2k to buy essentials like clothes and makeup and get my hair tidied up etc. Then I’d have to pay student loan payments. So to break even I’d need a pre-tax salary of approx £35k.

The median average salary in the UK is about £31k. And by definition 50% of people earn less than that! So you need to earn above average just to break even - which locks more than half of mothers out of the job market until their child is at least 3. And once you’re out it’s very hard to get back in.

At age 3 the 30 free hours kicks in and halves your childcare bill. Which is only useful if you only have one child - if you have a second child you’re still in the situation where the cost of childcare outweighs potential earnings. By the time both kids are at school you’ve been out of work for 6-7 years.

And bear in mind that the £35k earners are just barely breaking even. Not profiting. Not making their family better off. Just breaking even.

So you’ve been out of work for several years and then you have to find a job which allows enough flexibility to cover dropoffs and pickups and sick days. No wonder so many mums don’t/can’t work!

We need massively subsidised childcare so mums don’t end up missing years of work, and more flexible jobs which allow them to work around their commitments. We might as well ask for the moon on a stick.

That's such a clear summary. Thanks.

Honestly, if they way our societies normatively exploit, make invisible and penalise women for the unpaid care work that we are structurally coerced to do, is not sex-based oppression, I don't know what is.

OP posts:

Taswama · 14/11/2022 12:23

Yes, somehow the outcome is always the woman goes part time and the man stays full time.

ok not always, a friend had twins and both her and DH asked to reduce to 4 days. Hers was agreed, his refused.

JaninaDuszejko · 14/11/2022 11:28

I worked with a man whose wife earnt much more than him but she was the one that worked PT. When I asked him why he hadn't gone PT when they had DC he said his wife still earnt more than him working 3 days a week so it made sense for her to work PT. While they were undoubtedly minimising their earnings in the higher tax bracket I did think it was amusing because can you ever imagine a higher earning man choosing to go PT while his lower earning wife worked FT

MangyInseam · 14/11/2022 00:24

blueberrylace · 13/11/2022 21:22

Where are the dads in all of this? As a minimum, wouldn’t it be helpful if they could get flexible jobs too so the women aren’t the ones that always have to drop everything for school pick up/illness etc?

Show quote history

Some could, and do.

But it will never be the case that all jobs are flexible. Some people will be in less flexible positions.

And you will probably always have more women who are wanting the flexible positions compared to men unless you push them into positions where they can't do that.

blueberrylace · 13/11/2022 21:22

Schlaar · 13/11/2022 15:47

Where I live it costs £20k to put one child in full time nursery. Tax free childcare knocks off £2k, so I would need to earn £18k. Plus about £5k to cover transport, and maybe £2k to buy essentials like clothes and makeup and get my hair tidied up etc. Then I’d have to pay student loan payments. So to break even I’d need a pre-tax salary of approx £35k.

The median average salary in the UK is about £31k. And by definition 50% of people earn less than that! So you need to earn above average just to break even - which locks more than half of mothers out of the job market until their child is at least 3. And once you’re out it’s very hard to get back in.

At age 3 the 30 free hours kicks in and halves your childcare bill. Which is only useful if you only have one child - if you have a second child you’re still in the situation where the cost of childcare outweighs potential earnings. By the time both kids are at school you’ve been out of work for 6-7 years.

And bear in mind that the £35k earners are just barely breaking even. Not profiting. Not making their family better off. Just breaking even.

So you’ve been out of work for several years and then you have to find a job which allows enough flexibility to cover dropoffs and pickups and sick days. No wonder so many mums don’t/can’t work!

We need massively subsidised childcare so mums don’t end up missing years of work, and more flexible jobs which allow them to work around their commitments. We might as well ask for the moon on a stick.

Where are the dads in all of this? As a minimum, wouldn’t it be helpful if they could get flexible jobs too so the women aren’t the ones that always have to drop everything for school pick up/illness etc?

MangyInseam · 13/11/2022 20:40

As soon as you massively subsidize childcare you create a cascade which makes it very difficult for women not to work and put their kids in said childcare. They can no longer afford to make the choice not to work.

Schlaar · 13/11/2022 15:47

Where I live it costs £20k to put one child in full time nursery. Tax free childcare knocks off £2k, so I would need to earn £18k. Plus about £5k to cover transport, and maybe £2k to buy essentials like clothes and makeup and get my hair tidied up etc. Then I’d have to pay student loan payments. So to break even I’d need a pre-tax salary of approx £35k.

The median average salary in the UK is about £31k. And by definition 50% of people earn less than that! So you need to earn above average just to break even - which locks more than half of mothers out of the job market until their child is at least 3. And once you’re out it’s very hard to get back in.

At age 3 the 30 free hours kicks in and halves your childcare bill. Which is only useful if you only have one child - if you have a second child you’re still in the situation where the cost of childcare outweighs potential earnings. By the time both kids are at school you’ve been out of work for 6-7 years.

And bear in mind that the £35k earners are just barely breaking even. Not profiting. Not making their family better off. Just breaking even.

So you’ve been out of work for several years and then you have to find a job which allows enough flexibility to cover dropoffs and pickups and sick days. No wonder so many mums don’t/can’t work!

We need massively subsidised childcare so mums don’t end up missing years of work, and more flexible jobs which allow them to work around their commitments. We might as well ask for the moon on a stick.

plusk · 13/11/2022 13:29

1 1 year paid maternity leave for working women-and paid 80-90-100%of earnings
2 access to affordable childcare -so that every woman has a choice -not like it is right now-child care costing me 1200£ a month which is half my salary

problem solved. Now lets talk how to make it real

MangyInseam · 13/11/2022 12:31

JessSi · 13/11/2022 10:40

That's a really good article. ^. Thanks.
Interesting to see situation from perspective of higher earners. £2500 a month for full-time fees for under-threes/ £30,000 a year is a lot of money but really for a 10 hour day, 5 days a week works out at £11 an hour. The couple probably pay their cleaner more.

As for your average lower income woman with a potential salary of less than £30k a year, outsourcing childcare is impossible. Not least of all because UC only pays 85% of childcare costs for one child up to around £645 a month! If she could find a nursery, p/t paid work is the only option for a woman in this situation - but given the way that UC treats income from paid work, financially she would be better off.

I agree. The argument for good quality affordable childcare is compelling. Probably particularly for those who are more ethically minded & not comfortable with an entire economy that is built on financially penalising women providing care unpaid. (Or all the other ways, as a consequence of economic vulnerability, that women are exploited). Although, that said, I would still say that many women would rather care for their children themselves in the early years (or combine childcare with paid work) rather than outsource f/t to a formal childcare setting. For that we would have to imagine and create a whole different way of being, one that really valued the care work, connectedness, attachment etc. Maybe as one poster said earlier, that is completely unimaginable.

And thanks@MamaSharkington. The podcast didn't disclose couples income etc. Although they only had one child. My sense was that what the woman was saying was that because she was only just breaking even working f/t, it wasn't worth it. ie. separating her child from her all week to be in f/t work. She wanted to work f/t but only if it was financially worth her time and it wasn't. This interpretation at least does give a nod to the fact that most parent/mothers would not choose to leave their very young children unless there was a significant financial incentive. But of course, the podcast was not clear on this point.

Thanks for all the posters. It's been a really interesting discussion. I was sorry to read the posts from the women with really disgusting exploitative partners but unfortunately to varying degrees this appears to be the norm, if it was not the entire economy would not have built in the exploitation of womens/mothers unpaid labour. Glad PregnantThenScrewed's campaign is gaining some visibility and really hope the campaign gains more momentum!!

Show quote history

Yeah, I think that raises a lot of questions around why the mum wanted to work f/t, was it really mainly the potential for money, but I think especially around the question of - if this would represent something that was a kind of sacrifice for the kids involved, how are we supposed to think about that?

More generally, I think it's worth remembering that as a generalization, jobs pay more depending on how difficult it is to get a person with those qualifications, and also how demanding the position is in terms of time, etc.

Original poster

JessSi · 13/11/2022 11:43

I wouldn't say that cleaning was non-essential. I have no expertise in taxation and cannot get into a discussion about it. Although suspect that increasing personal allowance if a woman/couple have childcare costs would only benefit higher earners.

OP posts:

Taswama · 13/11/2022 11:33

Childcare is essential to working and should be tax free as a minimum.
Cleaning isn’t.

Taswama · 13/11/2022 11:32

When I went back to work full time when DS2 was 3, we briefly had a cleaner and an after school nanny to do the school run and give the kids tea a couple of times a week (actually just an older woman who lived up the road). The cleaner was on more per hour than the nanny.
In fact both turned out to be useless and I ended up sacking both of them! DP went back to doing the cleaning, was persuaded to do the school run ONCE a week (Fridays, when he was generally wfh and there was no wraparound at school) and I agreed to drop a few hours a week with my then boss so I could do a second pick up,

Original poster

JessSi · 13/11/2022 10:40

Taswama · 13/11/2022 09:19

That FT podcast was really good but no comments were allowed. It obviously generated a lot of letters though as there's a follow up article here:

on.ft.com/3fVukwY

That's a really good article. ^. Thanks.
Interesting to see situation from perspective of higher earners. £2500 a month for full-time fees for under-threes/ £30,000 a year is a lot of money but really for a 10 hour day, 5 days a week works out at £11 an hour. The couple probably pay their cleaner more.

As for your average lower income woman with a potential salary of less than £30k a year, outsourcing childcare is impossible. Not least of all because UC only pays 85% of childcare costs for one child up to around £645 a month! If she could find a nursery, p/t paid work is the only option for a woman in this situation - but given the way that UC treats income from paid work, financially she would be better off.

I agree. The argument for good quality affordable childcare is compelling. Probably particularly for those who are more ethically minded & not comfortable with an entire economy that is built on financially penalising women providing care unpaid. (Or all the other ways, as a consequence of economic vulnerability, that women are exploited). Although, that said, I would still say that many women would rather care for their children themselves in the early years (or combine childcare with paid work) rather than outsource f/t to a formal childcare setting. For that we would have to imagine and create a whole different way of being, one that really valued the care work, connectedness, attachment etc. Maybe as one poster said earlier, that is completely unimaginable.

And thanks@MamaSharkington. The podcast didn't disclose couples income etc. Although they only had one child. My sense was that what the woman was saying was that because she was only just breaking even working f/t, it wasn't worth it. ie. separating her child from her all week to be in f/t work. She wanted to work f/t but only if it was financially worth her time and it wasn't. This interpretation at least does give a nod to the fact that most parent/mothers would not choose to leave their very young children unless there was a significant financial incentive. But of course, the podcast was not clear on this point.

Thanks for all the posters. It's been a really interesting discussion. I was sorry to read the posts from the women with really disgusting exploitative partners but unfortunately to varying degrees this appears to be the norm, if it was not the entire economy would not have built in the exploitation of womens/mothers unpaid labour. Glad PregnantThenScrewed's campaign is gaining some visibility and really hope the campaign gains more momentum!!

OP posts:

Taswama · 13/11/2022 09:19

That FT podcast was really good but no comments were allowed. It obviously generated a lot of letters though as there's a follow up article here:

on.ft.com/3fVukwY

MamaSharkington · 13/11/2022 07:16

JessSi · 10/11/2022 12:53

Listened to this podcast yesterday on childcare etc in ft.

Woman interviewed working 30 hours a week says she wants to work f/t but says it’s not financially viable - I wasn’t sure why that was. Do the economics of childcare change depending on whether you are f/t or p/t. I thought the decision to work p/t was usually child welfare related.

Hope that link below works. Let me know what you think. 🧐 🙂

Money Clinic Podcast: Childcare in crisis
https://on.ft.com/3hqHtOP

There might be a few reasons. Firstly, progressive taxation may mean she gets less for that fifth day in her pocket. This may mean it effectively costs her to work that final day because the cost of childcare may exceed her net income for that day, such that she is effectively paying to work. This might especially be true during the first 3 years where childcare costs are highest but also your earnings are potentially lower than later in your career. It is also a bigger issue if you have multiple children.

If it would take you over the 50k threshold where you both get an income tax increase plus you lose child benefit (so your marginal rate can be high, depending on number of children could be up to about 70%), this is even more significant.

If a very high earner, it could take you over thresholds were government support for childcare reduces. Between 100k and 125k is another significant area.

I don't know about the interaction with benefits but can well imagine the cost of childcare combining with cost of childcare leading to other cliff edges. I think 16hours is a significant threshold. Probably not her concern in your example, as saying 30h or above.

AnApparitionQuipped · 12/11/2022 10:15

YetAnotherSpartacus · 12/11/2022 10:12

But while couples go on saying 'the highest earner must keep their job' nothing will ever change. If women are choosing to enjoy the lifestyle afforded by a high-earning partner in preference to furthering their own career, they are perpetuating this situation and I have little sympathy for them.

There are deeper issues here about men's work, women's work and entrenched sexism in organisations that see women's promotion opportunities stifled and men's encouraged as well.

Yes, I agree; but women choosing to be SAHMs are making it easy for companies to go on doing this, because they're taking themselves out of the equation altogether, not challenging it in any way.

YetAnotherSpartacus · 12/11/2022 10:12

But while couples go on saying 'the highest earner must keep their job' nothing will ever change. If women are choosing to enjoy the lifestyle afforded by a high-earning partner in preference to furthering their own career, they are perpetuating this situation and I have little sympathy for them.

There are deeper issues here about men's work, women's work and entrenched sexism in organisations that see women's promotion opportunities stifled and men's encouraged as well.

AnApparitionQuipped · 12/11/2022 09:56

Raddix · 07/11/2022 20:14

Why should the mum pick up the slack? Why can’t mums stay in high level jobs and dads pick up the slack?
That would work too! But what happens is that couples go “the highest earner needs to keep their job” and because of the gender pay gap that’s usually the man. And Mum is already out of work and being sidelined because of maternity leave (possibly multiple maternity leaves), and maybe she has physical injuries and emotional damage or post natal depression, and maybe she’s breastfeeding, so of course it’s obvious that she should be the one to give her job up.

The odds are stacked. If someone has to give their job up it’s going to be the Mum. So things need to be changed so that nobody has to give their job up and two parents can juggle kids between them. But that would require employers to accept that employees work less than full-time hours and need to always leave at their finishing time because they have kids to pick up. Which they won’t. I 100% believe that the employers are to blame here.

But while couples go on saying 'the highest earner must keep their job' nothing will ever change. If women are choosing to enjoy the lifestyle afforded by a high-earning partner in preference to furthering their own career, they are perpetuating this situation and I have little sympathy for them.

MichaelAndEagle · 12/11/2022 09:45

JessSi · 10/11/2022 12:53

Listened to this podcast yesterday on childcare etc in ft.

Woman interviewed working 30 hours a week says she wants to work f/t but says it’s not financially viable - I wasn’t sure why that was. Do the economics of childcare change depending on whether you are f/t or p/t. I thought the decision to work p/t was usually child welfare related.

Hope that link below works. Let me know what you think. 🧐 🙂

Money Clinic Podcast: Childcare in crisis
https://on.ft.com/3hqHtOP

Maybe they could get family to help for the part time hours but not full time?

ghostofadog · 12/11/2022 08:56

I work in local government and my employer is excellent - flexible part time hours, home working, and I have kept my professional job and been promoted during the time when I've had two kids. There are a high proportion of female employees and lots of part time workers so it's a culture where it's normal to understand that people have lives outside work. Unfortunately many employers are not like this. I do wonder how quickly it would suddenly be sorted out if all the women just became unavailable for a while and men were left trying to cope.

EternalStench · 10/11/2022 14:59

Such an interesting discussion.
I feel there needs to be a shift in how our society views the family. When I was working and my dc were young, I had to act like my family didn't exist. If the dcs were sick, I pretended to be sick so I could take care of them. There was no way I could have asked for a day off (even out of my own leave) to look after a sick child.
It was so looked down on.
I agree with what a pp said about a shift towards marriage (or a change in law) so men are committed emotionally and financially, before children come along.

ArabellaScott · 10/11/2022 13:09

Asparagoose · 08/11/2022 17:54

One of the biggest advantages I have had of recent years wasn’t change from feminism, it was from the pandemic. Suddenly, as a SAHM to a child of disabilities, I could rejoin conferences online, join specialist scientific groups online, sit in an online room full of other professionals and I found that I still retained so much experience and knowledge. It has been fantastic.
I have found the same. I was able to become a parish councillor because they were meeting online (and had to resign when they went back to face to face meetings). I have been able to attend conferences and talks online. I have done a few short courses held over Zoom which have been fantastic for upskilling. This was only possible because the pandemic encouraged remote meetings. Now I’m being excluded again because stuff is going back offline.

Yes, I've had exactly the same experience.

I'm pushing for hybrid events where possible. Both live and online have their good points.

Original poster

JessSi · 10/11/2022 12:53

Listened to this podcast yesterday on childcare etc in ft.

Woman interviewed working 30 hours a week says she wants to work f/t but says it’s not financially viable - I wasn’t sure why that was. Do the economics of childcare change depending on whether you are f/t or p/t. I thought the decision to work p/t was usually child welfare related.

Hope that link below works. Let me know what you think. 🧐 🙂

Money Clinic Podcast: Childcare in crisis
https://on.ft.com/3hqHtOP

OP posts: