to feel put out that the 2011 census doesn't seem to recognise the value of a parent staying at home to bring up children?

[Minicooper]

Just filled in my form and got to the part where it asks about employment. No, I did not have a paid job last week, no, I was not actively looking for paid work during the last 4 weeks, no, if a job had been available last week, I could not have started it within 2 weeks, no I was not waiting for a job already obtained. AIBU to feel that the assumption was that if I'm not being paid, then I'm sitting around, watching daytime TV and sponging off the state (neither of which is true ) I finally got to tick that last week I was looking after home or family, but only after having to fill in the rest. Another example of how being a SAHP goes against the grain these days.

I'm sorry, I think YABU. It is there as an option, does it matter what the order is? I think it's a bit of a jump to say that means the role is not valued.

agree fully with what you're saying, DP is a SAHD.

I filled in our form last night and felt they may as well have written

Do you work
Yes
No - if no go to question2

Are you looking for work
Yes
No - if no go to question 3

So you're a scrounger...

Ah, but that's not my full time job, BMF

Thank you, Newbee mummy, not just me then!

I agree the questions are leading in places and nonsensical in others ( how well does my 7 month old speak English?). I love the census as a family history addict but I am struggling to see the value of the questions on .poking for work?. Surely are you in paid employment- Yes or no would have done?

OMG poking for work- whyyyy iPad???

IKWYM, Fernie3, was sooo disappointed that dd2 has just turned one, so couldn't give a sarcastic answer to what her normal address was a year ago!

poking for work is a helluva career, fernie

Fernie how else can they record the number of people seeking work but who can't find it? That's a interesting statistic of historical value, isn't it?

Bet poking for work pays better than being a SAHM too

BluddyMoFo They didnt even have a box for 'gossiping on a forum'...you can imagine how put out I feel!

Are you looking for work
Yes
No - if no go to question 3

To me that suggests that if you're not looking for work then you're either retired, too unwell, a FT student who is being supported financially (by their parents maybe), a SAHP or a lottery winner. It doesn't suggest "scrounger" at all.

I agree, tougholdbird, but as a SAHM for 2 preschoolers, I feel to be in a different place to the long term unemployed - be it by choice or not.

How can you fill in those bits yet though? Presume that 'last week' means the week before 27th March. Anything could happen in the next 2 weeks

I got confused because it said tick if you have worked in the last week at a family business etc, so i ticked it because last week i helped out. Then it said go to Q13 and it wanted me to fill out my main job details. I am a sahm though who helps out when needed at the family business - but the business is not my main job, being a sahm is. Was confused.

agree mini but there is a box for you to record tha you are in a different place, you are looking after home or family, therefore not seeking/poking for work/unemployed. If anything, the existence of that box suggests to me the state recognises the role and values it?

Don't have a go, hocus, its the first time I've ever finished my homework in advance!

Icing - you're not concentrating either! They don't give a stuff about what you did last week, they want to know what you did (do) the week prior to 27th March.

YABU. It's not there to make a value judgement - just to measure information. SAHM's are just one group of many who would answer "No" to all those questions - including "scroungers" .

But what if i do a day at the family business the week leading up to the 27th of march but the rest of the week i am a sahm?

YABU It's a questionnaire, it can't recognise the value of anything.

You're guessing how you're answers could be interpreted but they're looking at your involvement in the workforce from an economic point of view.

The why isn't important. It's just facts.

Yabu. You lot are Reading stuff into it that isn't actually there. Chill!!!!

The cencus does not recognise value it provides statistics

That's my point, hairylights - in previous times it was the norm to be a housewife/ mother. I just think its a sign of the times that its not a recognised vocation on the census.

Sorry but my post actually contradicts your original post.

It does not recognise the value of whether you work, sah, don't work, have visitors etc etc but it asks whether or not you do.

It isn't about making a value statement, it is just asking a series of questions.

You are making the value statement, and assuming there is no value attached to your 'vocation' (actually it's just a choice, have children or don't have children, I fail to see why anyone should, or would, 'value' or 'devalue' that).