Govt stealth policy to eradicate SAH parenting

[JRHartley72]

The Guardian is reporting this morning that buried deep in Jeremy Hunt's budget last week is a new policy which will force parents on UC to return to work when their children turn three. As charities and campaigners say, it's like they just don't want us to raise our own children any more!

www.theguardian.com/society/2023/mar/22/jeremy-hunt-universal-credit-benefits-mothers-30-hour-weeks

It is not a right wing policy. It is much more left to provide free childcare and encourage women to work and be more equal. If implemented properly, it helps equality in the long run and gives women more power and security. Soviet Russia was full of free childcare including holiday camps and women working full time.

However, the law also needs to change regarding payments by fathers. If you father a child, you need to pay up until 18. U.K. is massively lagging in this regard which is terrible for women.

Botw1

Spending time with our youngest children, and being present when we are. Burnt out and stressed parents may find it hard to do that.

I am not saying working per se is bad, just it's important to be there. Really there.

Raising humans is the most important job in the world. We must value it.

Good, nothing wrong with that

@crossstitchingnana

You appear to be suggesting that working parents aren't there for their children? Or that they don't value raising their children?

Why would you think that?

What a load of tosh, going out to work doesn’t mean you’re not there for your children nor does it mean you’re ‘burnt out’.

I absolutely agree that it's important to be fully "present" with your children as much as possible. I doubt that any of us really achieve this in every single interaction, but most of us probably manage it most of the time.

And yes, it's true that some WOHPs are so stressed and burnt out that they find it difficult to be fully "there" for their children.

It is also true that some SAHPs are so bored, unfulfilled and fed up of the relentlessness of the SAHP lifestyle that they too find it difficult to be fully "there" for their children.

Neither "group" are better parents.

Oh, and absolutely, raising children is important and we must value it, but we are all raising our children, whether we WOH, SAH or some combination thereof.

the perfect scenario probably lies somewhere in the middle.

Woah what a thread. There is a lot of change that employers would need to make especially ones like the NHS where you are expected to start at 7am and finish at 8pm.

CMS should be automatically be deducted from NRP earnings. For fathers who don't want contact fine they should pay more money and have to contribute to school uniform each year.

Schools NEED to provide sufficient after school clubs if they want parents to 30+ hours! My DS school doesn't even have am after school club.

Some children attend school at 4. Personally the way the economy is going 15 hours isn't enough. I think if you have a school age child you need to work slightly more than 15 hours. I would say 20-25 hours is more reasonable.

This thread shows how much people have been brainwashed. Sahms benefit society , children do better with a parent at home.
Decent men would not have an issue with their taxes supporting single mothers and their children.
Now only the children of the rich will benefit from having a parent at home the rest will be in childcare for the majority of their waking hours aside from school holidays.

For context I am neither a single parent or a UC claimant.

Decent men would not have an issue with their taxes supporting single mothers and their children.

What have ‘men’ got to do with it? Nobody I know wants to work more so that other unrelated people can stay home with their kids (past the age of 3!)

Children are the responsibility of their parents, no-one else

By the time your child is three it should be more financially beneficial for you to go to work than stay at home. You can still stay at home if you want, but funding your lifestyle choice should not be the responsibility of the taxpayer.

Honestly, the high cost of childcare has long been cited on here as the reason why women can't go back to work. And I get it. If the cost of childcare is more than you would be earning, you'd be paying to go to work, which is not something most people want or can afford to do. But then you get stuck in a trap of long term unemployment and suddenly your kids are older and you've got a huge gap on your CV and fuck all in your pension and you're dependent on a man and then your relationship breaks down and oh hey guess what, you never got married either because you couldn't afford a big party and/or its just a piece of paper, and you are hugely vulnerable. Making it more viable for the mothers of young children to get back into work helps to guard against that situation, which we see so often on here.

But the government announces plans to make childcare cheaper and more accessible for working families and women on Mumsnet are...complaining? Astonishing.

It males you look like lazy scroungers who want to get paid by the taxpayer to stay at home and are outraged that this money is going to help people who aren't lazy to get back into work instead.

Please link to some peer reviewed research showing that children do better at home with a SAHP.

In France they believe the opposite.

Is it only men who pay taxes? Are ‘decent’ women who are working their backsides off also supposed to be happy to fund a SAH lifestyle for people whose kids are at school?

I think this thread has gone off topic. The issue is those would like to st

No @Cieloazzurro us 'decent women' are not to worry our heads about things like work, we've to stay at home with the children, doing motherly, fluffy things... of course!

The GOV can't afford people to be SAHM though. Times have changed. If there's NOT enough money in the pot people DO need to go to work.

I’d rather the NHS worked better, schools performed better, than keep mothers at home whilst their kids are at school anyway. The reaction to this proposal is utter madness. The levels of entitlement make me quite angry. (Working mum of 1 year old and 4 year old doing 30 hours a week).

if you think your kids benefit from you sitting at home whilst they’re in school, or could be in subsidised childcare, fine pay for it yourself. But don’t expect the likes of me to do exactly that so you don’t have to!

Most of the parents receiving UC to stay home with kids are single parents.
There will be very few SAHMs with working partners claiming full UC because your partner's income reduces your entitlement.
It's harder for single parents to find work for a pre school child if they don't have a reasonable paid career to return to.
My work/childcare balance is only possible because there's 2 of us working flexibly so we can keep costs down AND the school has an affordable flexibile after school club.

The people who are really 'robbing taxpayers to fund their lifestyle ' are men abandoning their families and not paying maintenance. They cost us all thousands in additional benefits. But we're not going to do anything about that, are we.

If there was real, credible evidence that children do better with a parent at home, then I would be the first to argue that the state should do more to encourage this. However, the evidence does not support it.

And again, if there was real, credible evidence that there was a net benefit to society from having more SAHMs, then I would be in favour of policies that enabled women to make the choice to SAH. However, there is no real evidence of any net benefit to society.

SAH is a lifestyle choice that primarily benefits the SAHP (if that's what they want to do) and their partner (if they want that division of labour). It is an entirely valid choice to make if the family can afford it, and there may well be benefits for that particular family - eg less stress for both parents etc. However, this is a choice that needs to be funded by the individual family and not by the state.

What the evidence does show is the importance of under 2s in particular being able to form secure attachments with a small number of consistent caregivers. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that we need more SAHPs. It might mean that we need better funding for maternity leave, now flexible working arrangements so that parents can share care between them, and more investment in high quality childcare etc.

@NewNovember

You're advocating a society where women have less equality and choice than they do now.

No female doctors, lawyers, teachers or nurses. No female MPs or any women in positions of power.

Just men paying tax and making all the decisions

Because of some mistaken notion that being a sahm has better outcomes for society?

What a load of rubbish

@ingenvillvetavardukoptdintroja

Of course we should be addressing why men think it's acceptable to do that.

Taking a look at this thread might give you your first clue.

Decent men? What about working mothers who are also contributers?