To be WILD at the news at 10 wording 'mothers who chose not to work'

[NotanOtter]

who are hardest hit by benefit cut

How bloody condescending...

Nip round here any day and 'choose not to WORK' looking after my kids

Yes you should. Because you would have to pay someone else if you didn't do them yourself.

It's not people who mostly 'take responsibility for managing their own lives', though, is it? It's women for the most part who take responsibility for managing their families' lives. The reason this work is not recognised and not paid, this work that enables the mostly male breadwinners to arrive at work on time wearing the ironed shirts that are required, fed and comfortable and ready to perform whatever duties his paid work demands, and not bleary eyed and exhausted and in no shape to contribute at his job because of being up all night taking care of his own children or cooking his own meals and cleaning his own house and going out shopping for his next weeks' meals is that it is work that women do.

I don't class looking after my own child as a job, as I work 3 days a week and have 4 days off work with my DS, so I feel that in my 4 days when I am not at work I am not still working.... Yes I have to pay someone else to look after him in my absence, but that's because imo looking after other people's children is a job whereas looking after your own children is just life.

looking after child=being a parent.cant expect salary for looking after own dc.that's bonkers

the private and personal arrangements sahp make are not subject to the same demands any external salaried childcare would be

the individual parent is not subject to checks,training and verification that nursery nurse or cm would be

nursery nurse and cm have to meet externally set standards and policies

sahp dont.they parent without much scrutiny.an individual act that should not attract a salary.at all

i never really understand why the government offer tax credits and help with child care costs which surely cancels out the money generated by the parent going out to work in the first instance

well if that's your life Mathanxiety, I feel a bit sorry for you!

I am the breadwinner in ours as are a lot of women I know. In fact, I do think it seems to be a bit of a rising trend (women being breadwinners).

dh and I share responsibility for our family life - it's part of, well, being a family I would say.

Pay for SAHPs?:

I think we can take it as read that the government is very unlikely to start paying SAHP's a wage at a level that offers everyone the choice of doing it. It would mainly be a nice boost for those who could do it already (whether comfortably or juggling) but lots of families would just have to continue with two working parents

To increase the amount available, how about the student loan model; have a SAHP grant for when the children are under 5 but have to work and start paying it back from you or partners tax code once youngest child reaches 5.

Really though, shouldn't all SAHP's be back at work (and contributing to the social pot via tax) once all the chn are at school (excepting chn with disabilites etc). Yet I see lots of SAHMs' of older children every day at the school gate as I run past on the way to work. Hate to say it as some are lovely people but from what I overhear as I scoot past (admittedly turning green with envy!), they are normally planning tennis lessons, comparing tans and labradoodles and meeting up for coffee. Very different from harrassed mums of pre-schoolers and don't see why they need paying!

we both work ft.dp attends to his own laundry,ironong etc.1st in cooks.being male doesnt=helpless or needing a wee wummin running around after him

btw, I have absolutely no problem with people who choose not to work (different to people who can't because they have for e.g. caring responsibilities) as long as the nation isn't expected to subsidise that choice

Can I just clarify whether by "subsidising" that choice people do in fact mean any extra CTC received/tax revenue lost because a family has a lower income than would otherwise be the case? If that is what is meant, then exactly the same argument could be made about any working person who chooses not to be promoted up to their absolute highest earning potential.

no, I meant paying people to be a SAHP. I am quite happy that people are SAHP, but I wouldn't support them being paid, out of public funds, to do so (as was being suggested).

pay for sahp.dont be daft

Gaelicsheep, very good point.

Oh that's a relief math. Thought we'd have to launch a rescue attempt to drag you away from the kitchen :).

They are paid - by their husbands or if they don't have one by the state. I don't think anyone in the UK who is at home with children gets no payment for doing what the rest of us do for nothing. that's what we need to stamp out in a sense - incentivise them not ot live off male earnings and also ensure they are so uncomfortable on state benefits if they are single that they get back into the work force. We certainily don't want to be doling them out more money.

Most marriages in the UK have both parents working in some form or other and many women breadwinners _ at least 4 in 5 and both mucking in with chores. If your other maoe half doesn't then that's what you need to solve not ask tax payers like me to pay you for cleaning your own bathrooms when those of us who work full time, male and female, spend a huge amount of time doing a lot of those jobs anyway and don't expect pay for them.

If Cameron's change in CB from 2013 means housewives feel penalised I see that as a huge gain for women and we should be patting him on the back.

"If Cameron's change in CB from 2013 means housewives feel penalised I see that as a huge gain for women and we should be patting him on the back."

So, rather than respond to any comment directed to you that might just challenge your stated "objective truth", you'd prefer to make shock statements based on your own views.

Women hating other women and wishing to deny them their choices in life is sad. Stop packaging it as some sort of feminist position: it's misogynistic in the extreme.

You dare to condescend to women about "choosing" low paid work and "female" jobs (while giving no details about your own work, infinitely more valuable to society than any mere "female" job could be). You fail to engage on any serious level with the points of any posters whose views don't match your own. You use inflammatory, reductive language and references to "times gone by" to rehash tired, old arguments that are neither logical nor evidenced.

I know! You write for the Daily Mail, don't you???

Paying people to stay home...... Hmm

Let's just imagine in this hypothetical scenario that suddenly lots of parents decide to become SAHP . Where is the money going to be generated to pay them? Or does this strange idea rely on enough women still going out and earning, in order to pay tax to pay the people who don't want to? And of course, those working women would then return home and - oh surprise surprise - Look after their own children! Would they get paid from 6pm onwards? And days off of course?

Barking idea.

Of course looking after young kids entails work- feeding, dressing, playing etc- but parenting is NOT a job, it's a choice. And it's utterly ridiculous to suggest that everyone to 'choose' what job they do! Get real!

Why can't we talk about something sensible here, like appropriate on- and off-ramps for women and men who would like to take a small proportion of their adult lives and devote it to their young children?

No, let's talk about paying people to stay home.

Sorry, math, but that idea is so far removed from the current cultural definition of valuable work that it's clearly a non-runner. When there are full-time working women who can say, without irony, that child benefit should be removed as penalising "housewives" who just want to "bake cakes" and "wipe bottoms" and "iron shirts" while the intelligent women get on with the important work ( in non-female jobs), any arguments for a stipend for childcare in the home will fall on deaf ears indeed.

Presently, it's actually quite difficult for men to stay home if the family decide as a unit that their children would benefit from some additional time with a parent in their early years. Men are much less likely to be granted flexible working and even where they are in organisations with good policies in this regard, they can meet with a lot of cultural resistance. Friends of ours with jobs in the NHS chose to split work and childcare but the woman's childcare commitments were somehow understood while the man's "commitment to his job" was questioned at performance review. Her job was at a higher level and banding than hers, but his was still, somehow, seen as more important and requiring more "commitment" than hers. If a man stays home, there are few social supports in the community and men are still, in my experience, treated with suspicion and even contempt by other mothers who stay home.

I think these are issues worth discussing. However, this whole thread has degenerated into bashing hypothetical arguments about payment and recognition for work in the home that is unlikely to ever happen - and, of course, Xenia making wild and misogynistic assumptions about the low-bred, stupid women who think caring for children is important.

Just look at it from the simple economics.

The economic system relies on most of the adult population working in order to generate money through taxes for all the things that are provided from the public purse - education, health service, supporting people on benefits etc

Already there is a backlash against people who could work but are on benefits (disclaimer: not criticising anyone who can't work).

Can you imagine the chaos if it was suddenly decided that out of that same pot of money, we'd pay parents who want to stay home? Because you can bet your life that there'd suddenly be a population explosion - and it wouldn't just be among families who nurture their children, feed and clothe them adequately, read to them etc - it would be among feckless parents who would realise what a damn good thing they're on to - getting paid a wage to keep producing babies! Not even just benefits, but a respectable wage!!

And what about all the WOHM who currently provide invaluable roles as doctors, nurses, lawyers, teachers etc - what happens when they decide to stop working because actually there isn't quite the same incentive now that they'll be paid a wage anyway for ,erm, being a parent? After all, although being at home with young children does involve work - cooking, feeding, changing, playing - there are none of the pressures that go with actually having a job. No targets to meet, no performance management, no one to sack you if you don't get the kids up and dressed by 8 am. If I have an 'off day' at work, I'm still accountable, I'll get pulled up if I perform at a substandard level. When I was home on Maternity leave with my 3 pre-schoolers, if I had an off day, we'd snuggle on the sofa in pjs and I'd feed the kids a sandwich rather than cook. No one judged me for that - least of all my kids!

There is just no comparison between in paid employment and parenting - NOT because being a parent is easy (far from it at times!) but they are just not comparable things. People become parents because they want to. They have the number of children they choose. I adore being a parent, but its a labour of love - I wouldn't expect anyone else to pay me for what I would do anyway without a wage.

On a final note - I'd love to hear where this wage would come from anyway!!!

Working mothers care for their children too and fathers.

There were a lot of questions directed at me on the thread and I don't have time to read them all. If there is a specific one other than something person such as what I do, then I would try to answer it.

Every job should be a person's job with m en and women as likely to choose it rather than women choosing things which pay badly.

On off ramps - well in a free market they exst - you just take yourself of the rampt and if yo're pretty good at what you do people will fight to get you back. I was hired when I was 5 months pregnant with two children under 4 the last time I was taken on anywhere. Employers aren't necessarily against women with children. Get so good at what you do (and of course reliable in terms of turning up a work) that people are chasing you for business and employers fighting to hire you. That's one way traditionally in capitalist societies men and women have made things work.

It's fine to look at economics but it is not fine to make economic considerations override all other.

in depths of recession and swingeing cuts economic consideration is paramount.the need to manage public money sensibly.paying sahp is untenable and living in la-la land.

I'd rather parents were paid out of public money to bring up their children than public money was used to patch up the after-effects of inadequate parenting.

violethill - thanks for your recent post, that was what I ws trying to get at with my posts to mathanxiety.

Bonsoir - what makes you think that inadequate parenting will be eradictaed by this new wages for SAHPs scheme ?

eradicated