Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Should SAHP be paid for their role by the goverment?

823 replies

Cocoflower · 08/06/2011 12:10

Should SAHP be paid for the role they do by the goverment? If not by the goverment then who?

According to which study you read SAHP work is valued at 30-70k a year. Infact you can now even get life insurance based on being a SAHM which demonstrates a worth surely?

Is it not time we started valuing and recognising one of the hardest jobs out there 24/7 hours of work and no holidays through offical payment as being regarded as a public worker? Is raising future generations and caring for human life worth any less than any other type of work?

Now people may argue; if you have kids you pay for them, why should the tax payer foot the bill?

However if both parents work then the tax payer is footing some of the bill through tax credits anyway to cover childcare. Why not pass this straight onto the parents?

Now, I know many people work for more than just money,and many would stay in employment anyway even if they could be paid to stay at home.

But there would be many people would choose to stay at home if they could afford it and feel valued by getting paid for this? Would this be good if means freeing up thousands of jobs for people who need the jobs in the state the country is in?

Would this system just encourage people to have children they dont really want? Or should we say unlikely as having children is such a big thing to take on and its likely you would get paid more in a job anyway?

OP posts:
tethersend · 09/06/2011 22:33

sm, no point telling me about current regulation, I'm well aware of it.

I am questioning your acceptance of it as a necessity for any kind of paid work.

Inadequate parenting = removal of children.

Receiving a wage does not have to change the status quo.

peppapighastakenovermylife · 09/06/2011 22:33

You could argue we are too some extent through health visitors, schools, social services etc.

Just if we paid them more then we would have to monitor them more.

lynehamrose · 09/06/2011 22:33

Speak for yourself - some of us don't get tax credits and cb is disappearing too!

peppapighastakenovermylife · 09/06/2011 22:34

Are too?

It's too late Grin

scottishmummy · 09/06/2011 22:35

but crux is sahp isnt a job.so no salary

tethersend · 09/06/2011 22:36

Um. That's the argument, isn't it?

You say it isn't, I say it is.

scottishmummy · 09/06/2011 22:37

oh come on look if your kids at school.youre not working
and judging by all the fannying about on mn,most mums dont work much either

lynehamrose · 09/06/2011 22:43

I Can just about get my head round the idea of some people thinking parents should be paid as a Mark of some 'value' of parenting. Its a crazy idea and would never happen but I can just about get my head round it. But the idea of paying a parent who doesn't work but not a parent who does- that's utterly weird!

working9while5 · 09/06/2011 22:47

"No, its not 'having it all' - its just doing things differently.
And tbh working9, it is your posts which seem closest to making some sort of value judgement. It feels a teensy bit close to suggesting that a parent who works is somehow not able to have equal influence over shaping their childs life than a non working one- which is clearly nonsense"

Why is it nonsense?

If you spend a few hours a week with your child vs the vast majority of your time with them, and they spend many many hours with other people, of course they are going to be heavily influenced by those other people! I am not saying they are going to end up as psychopaths as a result, I am saying that they are going to end up having had different experiences, and those experiences will be with people who may deal with things differently to people in their family and that will become part of who they are. Where's the value judgement in that? It seems pretty logical to me. Again, they are not suspended in a bubble while we are at work. They are growing and developing and if we're not there for some of it they take their cues from the people around them. They don't just ignore what they see in the baby room and then "switch on" because we are there. As I was at pains to lay out earlier, this doesn't mean that what they are experiencing has no value or that what they would get at home would be better, but there is that difference between it being something imparted by family or immediate community and something imparted by a paid worker following national guidelines and trends in "developing" a child. That difference is something we may feel more than they do.

People feel that's value laden because on some level we either feel or are led to believe we should feel really terribly awful if we miss anything or aren't all singing-all dancing hives of interactivity. In reality, as I said, kids are pretty resilient and over the years, parental influence wanes anyway and friends and family and community and culture take over.

Why does accepting that, actually, there is a difference between a parent being there 24-7 and a child spending time both with their parents and in a nursery imply judgement? Again, I am a working parent, just as much as you are. I just don't see the need to pretend that there is no difference between me spending one hour with my child in the evening and a whole day. I don't for a second believe women/men/others should give up work and live on the breadline and forgo their own careers and intellectual lives because of that difference. Or that we should feel guilt because we are not there 100%. You can admit that others influence your child while they are at nursery without that equating to you being a crap parent. But to say that being there all day is the same as being there for an hour just makes a mockery of human relationships.

lynehamrose · 09/06/2011 22:51

So if all you can establish is that it's different why are you trying to put a value judgement on it?

jugglingwiththreeshoes · 09/06/2011 22:52

Wow, a lot of water under the bridge this afternoon and evening on this thread !
But just wanted to say thanks to Aliceliddell, way up thread now, for picking up on my experiences this week (lost my job as a TA on Monday) - Your thoughts were much appreciated Smile
In fact this thread has given me a lot to think about in general, very interesting in places.

lynehamrose · 09/06/2011 22:53

And you ARE placing a value judgement by suggesting that the experiences aren't equal.

working9while5 · 09/06/2011 22:54

I'm not.

I am making the point that by saying you can do everything another person can do in just one or two hours a day you are devaluing what they do by making it like a commodity, reducing humanity to a product.

But hey, I've said all of that before and in quite a bit of detail so you could just re-read what I've written instead of asking me to say it again.

Perhaps you would like to explain in a bit more detail why what you do in one hour on top of working all day equates exactly to what another person has done all day?

working9while5 · 09/06/2011 22:55

It's maths, lynehamrose, not values.

Maths.

All day with a child is longer than one or two hours. It just is.

K999 · 09/06/2011 22:56

Surely it's the quality of time that counts more?

scottishmummy · 09/06/2011 22:57

apply the maths to untenable to pay sahp
esp if kids at school so nowt child related going on,when kid in school

working9while5 · 09/06/2011 22:58

But there is an implication that WOHPs provide more quality in one to two hours than a SAHP does all day.

That's a pretty damning indictment of what SAHPs do, isn't it?

lynehamrose · 09/06/2011 22:59

Er... So now you're reducing it to maths. Quantifying the hours spent under the same roof as the child. Which is what you said parenting ISNT about...

Original poster
Cocoflower · 09/06/2011 23:00

Poor working9while5

Maybe just use the copy and paste function Wink

OP posts:
lynehamrose · 09/06/2011 23:01

No one has said WOHP provide MORE quality. Just that there is no evidence that they provide less. You seem determined to make a value judgement working9!

tethersend · 09/06/2011 23:01

working9while5 is making a pretty clear point.

She's not saying that more hours spent with child = better parent.

She's just saying that it's more hours.

working9while5 · 09/06/2011 23:05

Yes, miss the point entirely but focus on the specifics. This whole point came from asking you to justify your mathematical logic that what you do in one to two hours a day equates exactly to what another person does all day. I wanted you to explain how that assertion isn't a value judgement on how a SAHP spends their time.

Explain to me your notion of "equality" in these situations.

Explain to me why it is a value judgement to say that a child will be influenced by the people they spend time with? How is it anything other than fact?

jugglingwiththreeshoes · 09/06/2011 23:05

Surely it can be a different but broadly equal experience for the child ( of SAHM and WOHM + Nursery/ Childminder )
Let's not forget that many children have good relationships and experiences in a variety of settings outside the home which can contribute positively to their learning and development.
I think all Mums need to recognise how much others can add to their child's experience, and do their best to facilitate such experiences and relationships.
You don't have to give your child everything they need all on your own -
A bit of delegation never did any harm Wink

lynehamrose · 09/06/2011 23:08

Yes, I understand the maths. 2 hours spent with child = 2 hours 4 hours = 4 hours etc

I understand that a child's life will be shaped primarily by the parents and to a lesser extent everyone else they come into contact with.
What I do not get is working9 's value judgement about this. The various influences may be of equal value to the influence of a parent who is around non stop

working9while5 · 09/06/2011 23:08

Which is really what I was saying jugglingwiththreeshoes. Different.

The value that needs to be addressed is the status/guilt equation ascribed to those choices e.g. the Supermom meme vs the "Precious Moments mama".

Women lose out most by this status war. The kids, to some extent, are almost irrelevant.

That is why we are discussing pay. It's about the status of women's choices, not about outcomes for kids.