Should SAHP be paid for their role by the goverment?

[Cocoflower]

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?

Just keep saying I am making value judgement, lynehamrose. Repeating it more and more won't make it any more true that I am making one.

What value judgement do you see me as making? What "side" am I on, in your view?

go on be as hug a tree all you want,people can be fluffy,and recognise and empathise.just so long as no payment

or set up the
Payment Initiation Sahm homemakers support group

If only inadequate parenting = removal of child. Sadly it often doesnt and I have seen it in my line of work frequently.

nothing to do with status
sahp a lifestyle choice that shouldn't attract a wage.
as it isnt working,and is financially untenable

What is your criteria for inadequate parenting?

Working9 - it is NOT about what one person does in 2 hours compared to what another does all day though is it ?

Look - to explain simply.

Ms A goes out to work from 9 to 5 several days a week. During the week, her child gets positive interaction with her, with dad, with childminder and other children. There are also parts of the day when interaction is less - maybe watching tv etc.

Ms B doesn't work and doesn't use a childminder. During the week her child has interactions with mum, dad and various visitors etc . Plus the 'downtime' with tv etc

All the relationships and interactions each child has help shape them. Relationships are complex and varied. Oh and of course there Are the same number of hours in the week for each child.

Now- the hours spent with mum and child under the same roof = different

Quality of experience may be exactly equal.it is not that mrs A is Able to magically conjure up more hours or turn two hours into four.

Same as social services. They cant take all the children out as there isnt anywhere to place them. I work with social workers every day and there just isnt the places to put them. Im talking herion addicted parents, alcoholic parents, emotional abuse etc

I see- things that arent subjective (ie giving your kids fruit shoot!) but neglectful and harmful

Your judgement, working9, is in suggesting that a working parent shouldn't try to pretend they are doing in 2 hours what another parent may do in 6. No one is pretending. A working parent organises the care and activities their child is undertaking during the time they are not physically there, they monitor it, and help shape the childs experience through the type of care they select, and maintain parental responsibility throughout. So you aren't comparing 2 hours with 6. You are comparing 6 hours of DIFFERENT experiences - which may be of absolutely equal worth

Now you are saying what I was saying all along.

Which is different to saying that a WOHP does is "the same" in their time with their child as what a SAHP does all day.

I'm not quite sure where you see the difference between what you have written and what I have said.

My point is that both are valid paths but that the SAHP stuff is often villified - hugging trees, feeding ducks, wiping snot yada yada.

As I have said repeatedly I see it as being about women's status, not child outcomes. Women sometimes desperately want to be with their kids and feel shame and that they have to apologise for wanting this. The low social vs financial status of this choice is a problem for many. This is why there is discussion of pay as pay is seen as a means to increasing the status of being a mother or SAHP.

That's all.

Yes thats why I would never engage in debates on MN aout fruit shoots, sausage rolls, dummies etc because I think the parents who do argue these things are lucky enough not to have seen the situations lots of children in this country are unfortunately living in every day. I have seen too much of it and the effects on the children, not always the parents fault they are just stuck in a cycle of knowing no different.

They get paid a 'wage' as such in the form of benefits but it is meant to help the child, although this doesnt always happen unfortunately. Its not meant to be a wage for parents who can support themselves, or for fulfillment or status.

Great post working

I agree ilovedora

I cross posted with you there, but that isn't what I remember the point being earlier. I remember people saying that they doubted that SAHPs interacted as much with their children all day as they did in the evening and specifically a post that said that they spent every waking non-working moment interacting with their child and that few SAHPs could say the same. Perhaps you didn't say this but it was said and that is what I took issue with.

In terms of influence, I am thinking directly of face to face contact or nearby physical presence. As a working parent and someone working in child development, of course I have particular biases about what constitutes "influence" in the context of a discussion like this one, but they are knowledge vs value biases. To me, "influence" is about what a child sees and participates in during the day: the language they hear, the sensory and behavioural experiences that shape their response to their immediate environment. I have worked observing and assessing in nurseries as part of my role in the past and I don't really see that parents have very direct influence in terms of shaping that through nursery/childminder choice alone. As I have said, again and again, I fully appreciate that this experience can be a very valuable one for kids but some (not all!) parents can feel the loss of being a child's primary point of contact more keenly.

Not sure what it is that you see as a value judgement there.

To do this would mean that the Government would accept that SAHPs children perform better than WOHM children. I haven't seen any figures but I would doubt tbhat is the case and that in fact the children of WOHP do better. Add to this that this idea would also be a major disincentive for employment and the dire fiscal position of the country makes this idea a complete no-goer as it would be very expensive and wouldn't deliver any benefit.

I very much doubt there is any solid evidence that the children of SAHPs or WOHPs do better. Too many variables.

There are enormous numbers of workless households already, why would the Government as a deliberate policy wish to encourage more.

Working9.

I said a page or so back that although the child may have different experiences during the day, it is nonsense to suggest that a working parent and a non working parent don't have equal influence over their childs life, and equal role in shaping them.

YOU said 'why is it nonsense?'!!!!

Which strongly suggests that you don't believe they Have equal influence or value.

You keep harping on about the number of 'contact' hours not being the key issue, but then jump on the number of hours/minutes thing as if its paramount! If you are a working parent , you CHOOSE the care your child receives. You make major decisions about your Childs experiences, just as later on you will choose their school etc. Whether working or non working you choose what they wear, what they eat, what books you give them, what friends you invite round for them to interact with. The experiences the child has may be different, but as you keep agreeing, no one can categorically state that they are 'better' or 'worse' if the mother is directly doing more of it face to face or not. To 'me, it seems a lot of your issue is about direct control, rather than the more complex issue of influence. Yes, a mum at home may have more direct control over each minute of the day- but that's different from influence. Dad, who is out at work, isn't having the minute by minute control- so would you say he has less value in shaping his Childs life? And the control issue can be a double edged sword. Many mums actually want that level of control to fulfil their OWN needs - not because it is necessarily producing better outcomes for the child. Which again- you agree with. We can't make a valid statement that children of WOHP or SAHP have better outcomes - there are too Many variables.

So as far as the issue of paying SAHP goes (I know you also keep saying you aren't talking about that - but its the thread title) WHAT EXACTLY would the govt be paying people for? Because the only logical conclusion is that it would be paying some parents to do what they would already choose to do anyway because they want to, without any regard to how well they do it. Oh and the few hundred thousand extra who might jump on the bandwagon if they find staying at home easier than combining work and parenting.

And as far as the self esteem issue goes, where is this proof that SAHM are 'made to feel' low status etc? The closest you got Was saying 'haven't you heard some people sneering that SAHM just wipe snot and change bums all day". And I countered that with 'well yes, a daft minority do, but equally a daft minority of people denigrate WOHM as 'dumping their children with strangers'. So why do only insults directed at SAHM result in low self esteem? Are WOHM somehow immune to insults?

I do think the issue of low self esteem among some SAHP is an issue, but I do not believe that is caused by external factors. I think such women perhaps need to work on separating out the issues, and acknowledging that EVERY scenario has upsides and downsides. If you give up a well paid and interesting career to be at home, Because you are following an instinctive desire to be the person directly controlling your Childs hours in the day, then perhaps you will sometimes feel undervalued or bored or a bit low. Particularly if you know that your choice wont necessarily result in better outcomes for the child, and will almost certainly result in some difficulty in getting back into work at the same level later, compared to women and men who have chosen to keep working.

The bit I don't get, still, is why 'society' or the 'govt' are somehow responsible for this. I don't know how old you are working9, but I am mid 30s with young children. My older colleagues practically die in disbelief at the deal that us women have these days: up to one year maternity leave. (3 months for many of them). Paternity leave (nil for their husbands). Working tax credits (nil). Free nursery hours for 3 yr olds (nil).
The govt has made it far more possible for women to work, or to stay at home (tax credits if partners income is low) than in previous times.
What the govt CANT do is legislate for making women feel better if they make a choice and have self esteem issues. Self esteem cannot be achieved through external govt control.

Phew! Long post! Really need to think about getting to work now!

Will read this thread later. In the meantime and in response to the OP, SAHPs stay at home to look after their children and their home. They do not work for the government, they did not have to have children, they did not have to give up work, they are not providing services to anyone but their immediate family. You are therefore BU. Anyway must dash, got to get ready for work and get the teenagers to school. In this house we work for a living and provide for our own although when they were small I was at home and it was a great privilege but I certainly didn't expect anything from the state to be there and we didn't get tax credits or any other benefits (except child) and were happy with it that way. We planned our lives to make sure we were able to provide and provide well. The sense of entitlement in your post is unbelievably overwhelming.

Gawd this threads addictive!

The issue about some womens need to control the detail is key, I think.

To just give a quick example- I have a mate who wont go back to work, even though her kids are both at school, because she refuses to use the after school club or a cm. She will only consider a job if it enables her to be at the school gate every afternoon. Now what interests 'me about this, is its entirely about the mums desire to do that. For all she knows her children might be just as happy, or even more happy going to after school activities several times a week. Or perhaps her husband would like to rearrange his hours and pick up sometimes. Or perhaps, on balance, for that particular family, mum not working genuinely is the best decision for the whole family at this point in time. But the point is that she hasn't even considered any other option, or consulted her Children- she has made a unilateral decision and just repeats 'i don't want to work Because I want to be at the school gate every day'. Key word being 'I'.

lynehamrose if all members of your friend's family are happy with the current arrangement and it's no detriment to the family and your friend is happier at the school gate than not, there's no problem surely.

Lynehamrose, it's actually quite weird how spectacularly you are misconstruing my point.

I have said time and time again it is about what mothers want, not outcomes for kids. This is the point you are missing in all of this. You cast it as controlling and selfish to want to be around your kids in the above post. My point is that so what if your mate does it because she feels it is the right thing to do for her kids and for her? Why is that any more selfish or controlling than carefully choosing your childcare and monitoring it etc so you can go back to work?

The point here is that there is a strong cultural ideal that whatever a woman does is only good if it involves self-sacrifice, be that career or her desire to be wirth her kids and that self-sacrifice must be defended by doing down the choice of others. We are simply not allowed say I think it would be great to be with my kids all week being the major influence in their day to day experiences like most mother mammals with their young but do you know what, even though sometimes I really long for it and am wistful it's not me there to be the one talking to and playing with my child in my way, what I want as a woman is to be fully involved in work so I am making a decision that is based on my wants and needs that I also believe will allow my children to flourish. Or: I think it would be great to have the intellectual and social stimulation of work and be paid and I long for it sometimes and am wistful that.I have given up all that but ultimately it's not me, I am better in this role than at work and I am making a decision based on my wants and needs that I also believe will allow my children to flourish.

Why are women's needs, whether for career or to care for their children, so shameful that we have to view the other choice as wrong? Selfish, controlling?

I just want to reiterate here that I work, just as you do. So what you think I am saying about sahms is not what I am saying: I said it's nonsense to equate the type of influence that a WOHP has with that of a SAHP and to deny qualitative difference. I think we need to own our choices and opportunity costs: we don't have to say that we do x or y or z solely for our kids or just because we were financially forced to either go to work or stay home. We should be able to say we chose our path because it is what we want and desire and we believe our kids will be fine, without having to say they will only be fine because we work superhard at interacting or because we have worked hard at taking them to every twobit playgroup and gym class. It is not a commodity to be traded. Men don't feel this need to justify their self-driven choices but they are only judged if they stay home, I guess.

We need to stop judging or proving that there is no difference in childhood experience based on our decisions. There is but THAT'S OK.

I don't think parents are always the biggest influence with others less so and we differ on that. I think everything and everyone in the environment shapes a child and that's okay. But I am wistful as kids are kids for such a short time and I am missing some of it and will never get it back. But I want and choose to work as a priority too and hope that's the best thing for my family and I.

Read my post juule. I am not disagreeing with your point. My point is that it isn't necessarily best for the family, because she hasn't consulted them! Her agenda is about her needs only. Which goes back to the point working 9 made about some womens instinctive needs and wants. An instinct is simply that- an instinct. It is neither good or bad per se. For example, my primal motherly instinct wants 'me to stop my ds walking a hundred metres along our pretty safe street to the shop. My primal instinct imagines out of control cars, dangerous people lurking, and makes 'me want to walk next to him. Following That instinct isn't necessarily the best thing for my ds's healthy emotional development. Thats all I'm saying. Not prescribing what any individual ought to do in any specific circumstance

Sigh- working 9 - try reading what I write. Not what you want to think I'm writing.

Ah right working 9, having read your last post its finally clear.

You DON'T equate the influence a WOHP has with that of a SAHP. It is not that you Simply agree that the experiences are different, which is what you claimed earlier. You DO attach a value judgement, which is that they cannot be equal, simply on the grounds of working....