Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Domestic zombies, motherhood penalty & childcare

210 replies

JessSi · 05/11/2022 11:23

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?

OP posts:
JesusMaryAndJosephAndTheWeeDon · 07/11/2022 15:02

I think one massive benefit would be changing shared parental leave so that there is some leave that has to be taken by Dad or is lost.

I would say six months for each parent and a further six months that can be divided between the parents as they wish. Father's leave must be taken after Mum returns to work.

This gives fathers an incentive to support mothers back to work.

I would also offer free nursery places from a younger age. It is daft that they currently don't kick in until age three meaning that families have to meet the full cost for the first two years if Mum returns to work meaning many women can't afford to return.

I would suggest each child gets a set number of hours every year from their first birthday.

Swissnotswiss · 07/11/2022 14:59

ArabellaScott · 07/11/2022 14:41

But you think it's okay for tax payers to pay for childcare between maternity leave and school start?

Plenty of countries already have systems where nursery places are (wholly or in part) state funded. I would suggest that this is mostly done because it makes economic sense, not just for altruistic reasons. 😊My children all went to state nurseries in Italy and it cost me a fraction of what a private nursery would have cost. I don't mind paying for that out of my taxes.

ArabellaScott · 07/11/2022 14:41

But you think it's okay for tax payers to pay for childcare between maternity leave and school start?

Dragonskin · 07/11/2022 14:39

ArabellaScott · 07/11/2022 14:32

I don't see why tax payers should pick up the burden of people choosing to stay at home with their kids

Are you happy for tax payers to cover the care of the elderly?

Yes, in the same way I am happy for tax payers to pick up maternity services and childrens education. I just don't see staying at home for a number of years as a necessity

Dragonskin · 07/11/2022 14:35

Distantview · 07/11/2022 14:07

Wouldn't a better model for early childhood care be for both parents to be able to take more time for their children and both parents to remain part of the workforce? This would certainly remove the motherhood penalty - not only by halving the impact on an individual worker, but by normalising it and - crucially - making it affect men as well as women.

This. And for employers to make it possible for father's to step up to the plate.

The UK has had some form of extended leave for fathers for years, and in all that time (I work in HR) I have known 2 men who have taken it.

A number more have said they have wanted to take it but their partner has not wanted to give up part of their maternity leave to facilitate it

ArabellaScott · 07/11/2022 14:32

I don't see why tax payers should pick up the burden of people choosing to stay at home with their kids

Are you happy for tax payers to cover the care of the elderly?

Dragonskin · 07/11/2022 14:30

Taxes are used to pay for health, social security, education, defence, transport etc. The reason that these things are invested in collectively is, I guess, because they are beneficial to us all. We could not expect doctors, nurses, people at the dwp, teachers, soliders, bus drivers etc to work for free. But when it comes to care work it's entirely normative that women will do this work selflessly to their own detriment, unpaid (worth noting that the person who directly benefits economically - in the short and long term - it is the women's partner/the child's other legal parent) and without even a whiff of shame, no-one bats an eye. Blows my mind. Surely, there's a moral case for arguing that as a society we should should be compensating/paying/or something, women for all of the unpaid care work that they are doing?

Sorry but I disagree, I don't see why tax payers should pick up the burden of people choosing to stay at home with their kids. For me the argument here is with the other parent

BernardBlacksMolluscs · 07/11/2022 14:26

yes

if a mother dies in childbirth, the father doesn't just get to go back to work after his 2 weeks paternity leave

the reason men can generally do this is the mother is at home, caring for the baby

therefore this is relevant to both mothers and fathers

strawberrygingham · 07/11/2022 14:20

Dogtooth · 06/11/2022 16:17

As long as this is a conversation between mothers, nothing will change.

Destigmatising part time work and men taking more responsibility for domestic life would level the playing field. To do that, we'd need a society that doesn't elevate earning money above all else.

I completely agree with this.

I find it really frustrating when I see campaigns (including from Mumsnet) for more flexible working / affordable childcare etc to help “working mums”.

I know it is well-meant but it reinforces the view that childcare is purely a women’s issue.

I’m not saying I believe that care should be shared equally from birth as the default, before anyone jumps on me. I know that some women want to stay at home with their children and I respect that.

But I find it really unhelpful when the assumption is that men can just carry on as normal after becoming fathers and all the changes have to be made by women / for women.

YetAnotherSpartacus · 07/11/2022 14:14

And if not, what should be done about it?

Don’t make it just about women for a start. It’s about men (fathers) too.

Original poster
JessSi · 07/11/2022 14:08

BernardBlacksMolluscs · 07/11/2022 13:28

and I'm not trying to be a smart arse here, but it's very easy to talk about women outsourcing childcare, when in fact it's both parents

Yes to some extend. But as you yourself say, for example:

"there are a limited number of people in the world with the right intelligence and aptitude to be doctors. Some of them (half? Maybe more?) will have the kind of body that means if they choose to reproduce they’re immediately in a medical situation where they’ll need 6 weeks off work to physically recover, plus they’ll probably want longer, particularly if you subscribe to the 4th trimester idea.

do we really want to swerve half of the people capable of being doctors because of the kind of bodies they have? That sounds like a disaster for society

so collective ‘we’ really do need to figure this out. It’s not going away"

Just to be upfront, I do subscribe to 4th trimester and attachment theory. That said, I would never suggest or argue that a woman should put her children before her career/financial independence. In fact, I think children benefit if their mother's are financially independent - in more ways than one.

But if we accept that women have particular kinds of reproductive bodies and because of this babies are dependant on their mother's in particular ways for survival and well-being - then after the period of maternity leave, yes, agreed unpaid childcare becomes an issue for both parents. But fact is, rather than outsourcing, women tend to do this work unpaid for a whole bunch of reasons, some mentioned above.

I guess, the question posed is - if women don't want/don't think its in their child's best interests to be in childcare for 40/50 hours a week, can't find good quality affordable childcare, can't afford for partner work p/t, give up paid work etc. Is it ethical that women bringing up the next generation absorb a huge economic penalty for bring up the next generation? And if not, what should be done about it?

OP posts:
Distantview · 07/11/2022 14:07

Wouldn't a better model for early childhood care be for both parents to be able to take more time for their children and both parents to remain part of the workforce? This would certainly remove the motherhood penalty - not only by halving the impact on an individual worker, but by normalising it and - crucially - making it affect men as well as women.

This. And for employers to make it possible for father's to step up to the plate.

ByTheGrace · 07/11/2022 14:05

JessSi · 07/11/2022 13:19

Glad you think so. It is very emotive. Women are made to carry a lot of shame around choices we don't have, choices that we have made etc - we are pitted against each other in pointless ways.

A higher earning woman who can afford good quality childcare is not making the decision to outsource childcare in the same context as a lower earning woman whose (possibly poor quality) childcare, costs as much, if not more than her salary. Obv in this situation, woman in lower socio-economic bracket cannot afford to outsource childcare. There is a class based element to this conversation too.

Show quote history

There is absolutely a class based element to this conversation. I mentioned earlier that my Mum worked for all of my childhood, but she had no choices, financially she couldn't stay home (and different times - ad hoc child care, latchkey kids). Whereas I had more choice, it has still impacted on me negatively, careerwise and financially, but I did have a choice.

And again yes, it is both parents outsourcing. But in reality it is often the mothers salary that is seen as sacrificial and swallowed up by childcare costs. Whereas if it was split between two wages...Although if all money comes from the same pot this just becomes circular argument.

VitaminX · 07/11/2022 14:01

Longer overall leaves for each baby with at least 40% or so (ideally 50%) being use-it-or-lose-it paternity leave (with completely single parents, i.e. the other parent is not in the child's life, allowed to take the whole lot so that those babies don't miss out). I think about 1.5 years would be about right, but perhaps a little longer or shorter.

Where I live both parents get 6 months of paid leave, paid by the state and not the employer. One parent may transfer up to 6 weeks of leave to the other parent, but no more than 6 weeks. So it's about 30% use-it-or-lose-it. I think it could do with being extended a little more so that the total length of leave is more than 12 months, up to the point at which they could make it 50/50 with no transfers. Of course with only 12 months the mother almost always takes more than the father, for biological reasons as much as anything, but as it gets longer complete equality is more workable, say 8 months + 8 months. There are lots of benefits to encouraging equality in parental leave. It's good for mothers, fathers and babies in my opinion - the whole family. Win-win-win.

Of course you also need government-subsidised childcare between the end of leave and the start of school. It is such an economic own goal for the UK to make it so that some people can't afford to work because the nursery fees eat practically their entire wage. This should not happen. Not everyone might want to work while their children are very young, but it should not be the case that someone can't afford to. Absurd.

The bottom line is that getting women more economically active will only work optimally if it goes hand in hand with getting men more domestically active.

Taswama · 07/11/2022 13:58

It isn't even always the lower earning partner that reduces their hours. Can't remember the source but I think the woman's salary has to exceed the man's by some margin before he is more likely to go part time or take some of the parental leave.

YetAnotherSpartacus · 07/11/2022 13:31

and I'm not trying to be a smart arse here, but it's very easy to talk about women outsourcing childcare, when in fact it's both parents

Exactly. And this is what gender criticality is all about.

BernardBlacksMolluscs · 07/11/2022 13:28

and I'm not trying to be a smart arse here, but it's very easy to talk about women outsourcing childcare, when in fact it's both parents

Original poster
JessSi · 07/11/2022 13:19

ByTheGrace · 07/11/2022 09:08

Lovely thread BTW. So often this discussion descends into a bunfight on MN.
To just be discussing that's it's fine for women to want to stay with their babies and also fine for women to want to work and how can we facilitate both those needs fairly. It feels like a step forwards in itself.

Glad you think so. It is very emotive. Women are made to carry a lot of shame around choices we don't have, choices that we have made etc - we are pitted against each other in pointless ways.

A higher earning woman who can afford good quality childcare is not making the decision to outsource childcare in the same context as a lower earning woman whose (possibly poor quality) childcare, costs as much, if not more than her salary. Obv in this situation, woman in lower socio-economic bracket cannot afford to outsource childcare. There is a class based element to this conversation too.

OP posts:
YetAnotherSpartacus · 07/11/2022 13:04

I didn't want to be paid for the care work I did for over 20 years, to be honest. I wanted better accommodations at work and fewer career penalties.

YetAnotherSpartacus · 07/11/2022 13:02

(worth noting that the person who directly benefits economically - in the short and long term - it is the women's partner/the child's other legal parent) and without even a whiff of shame, no-one bats an eye.

I misread this bit then.

Original poster
JessSi · 07/11/2022 12:59

YetAnotherSpartacus · 07/11/2022 12:11

Blows my mind. Surely, there's a moral case for arguing that as a society we should should be compensating/paying/or something, women for all of the unpaid care work that they are doing?

But why not pay everyone for the care work they do? Why just women? And where do you draw the line? I don't see why a man should have a paid woman to cook and clean for him when many individuals work, cook and clean for themselves.

ummmm. I was thinking the care work women do unpaid for people who are too unwell or young to look after themselves. Not other unreciprocated domestic servitude.

OP posts:
YetAnotherSpartacus · 07/11/2022 12:59

Many families (in my experience), given the pay gap, navigate this situation so that one partner (usually higher earner) will work f/t while the lower earning partner (usually a woman) will return to paid work p/t and combine this unpaid domestic labour.

There are so many other issues here including narrowing the gender gap in waged labour so that it isn't overwhelmingly always the woman who is paid less. This will help women more generally too.

Original poster
JessSi · 07/11/2022 12:55

drwitch · 07/11/2022 08:06

I think the only answer in some kind of compulsion/monitoring/subsidy to part time work. (and in tightening up constructive dismissal laws so that women coming back from maternity don't suddenly find their job gone or changed)

I think you are on to something. And @Dogtooth says,"Destigmatising part time work and men taking more responsibility for domestic life would level the playing field."

Seems to me from reading this thread that after period of maternity leave, many women, (& dad's too probably) would not want to leave a very young child in childcare for 40/50+ hours a week. Several women seem to be arguing for increase in flexible working or situation where both parents are able to work part-time. Which seems sensible and humane to me but the reality is that part-time workers are paid less than full time workers and are often overlooked for promotion etc. Many families (in my experience), given the pay gap, navigate this situation so that one partner (usually higher earner) will work f/t while the lower earning partner (usually a woman) will return to paid work p/t and combine this unpaid domestic labour. Obv while this will get some women back into some paid work, it certainly does nothing to mitigate motherhood penalty.

OP posts:
Original poster
JessSi · 07/11/2022 12:21

Ameadowwalk · 06/11/2022 15:01

Precisely this. Reproductive labour is not separate from the economy, the economy requires reproductive labour and care to function. Without reproduction and childcare, there are no future workers and there are no consumers. And yet, reproductive labour is seen as separate and something done for love and often selflessness. There is no solution until reproductive labour and (child)care are valued as much as other forms or work, not just seen as something for women to manage somehow along with everything else.

Show quote history

Yeah. This is where I am coming from on this issue too.

I don't know if you have heard of Marilyn Waring. Feminist economist. Wrote a book in the 80's called, Counting for Nothing about how entire global economy rests on women's unpaid work. A film was made outlining her argument - Who's Counting? Marilyn Waring on Sex, Lies and Global Economics. Worth watching.

https://www.nfb.ca/film/whos_counting/

OP posts:
YetAnotherSpartacus · 07/11/2022 12:11

Blows my mind. Surely, there's a moral case for arguing that as a society we should should be compensating/paying/or something, women for all of the unpaid care work that they are doing?

But why not pay everyone for the care work they do? Why just women? And where do you draw the line? I don't see why a man should have a paid woman to cook and clean for him when many individuals work, cook and clean for themselves.

Swipe left for the next trending thread