according to this journalist married mums should be encouraged to stay at home with baby whereas single mums should be made to go to work!

[toptramp]

In the Sunday times main newspaper. We should ALL get less help with childcare costs because a woman's place is in the home but as single mums are not proper women but welfare queens (as the article implies) they should be made to go to work.

AIBU to think this is a load of bollocks? I am a single mum and I work because i love my job and being a sahm would drive me mental plus of course I need the cash. However, childcare costs are expensive. AIBU that a woman should be encouraged to CHOOSE if she works or not until the child goes to school?

I do think if a women wants to stay at home with baby that is great too and should be valued as an honourable occupation but if a married women wants to go back to work after securing a long fought-for career, that should be encouraged too.

Ok we do live in difficult times but taking women out of the workforce because they can't afford the childcare is NOT going to help the economy or encourage growth.

Just like to point out that if you spend money in the UK then you are paying into the tax system and you are enabling goods and services to employ people.

Actually putting all of your money into property and then scrimping and saving doesn't do those around you much use. Whereas those in council houses who spend their money on 'crap' are probably circulating more cash around the economy. We need people to spend money and use goods and services, it's how our society works.

however, I think a lot of the 'luck' is to do with schooling, connections, background - it is a world away from one or two parent families on minimum wage who do 'graft' hard, who make a difference to other peoples lives by working in teaching, childcare, hospitals etc. I don't like the idea that people who have to work at these socially appreciated but shittily waged jobs are not breaking their 'balls' or because they don't earn in the higher tax bracket are somehow less worthy of our appreciation.

Totally agree.

I consider myself massively advantaged - we weren't rich and working/lower middle class, no-one in the family had gone to university before me but because I was born intelligent, able bodied, healthy, in the UK and to two loving parents, and dare I say, in the 1970s instead of the 1990s, I had/have a deck of trump cards to play with.

Gah, this thread has got it all hasn't it? WOHM v SAHM v tax payer v benefits "scum". We need to drag FF v BF into this so I can shout house.

Well you obviously cannot breastfeed if you go straight back to work , mind you your not putting anything back into the economy if you breastfeed (barring buying breast pads)

You've got to the love the ladies who think they are superior for defending percieved attacks on single mothers by sneering at and lashing out at SAHM.

Leeches, freeloaders, don't work etc etc?

Long live the sisterhood hey

Or the men who decided long ago, at the turn of the 19th Centry, to cut women out of the workforce (factories act) and initial benefit system.

It does seem to imply that looking after a home and child can be farmed out and you should get paid employment, but looking after a child, home and HUSBAND takes so much time and is such an important job that you should not be in paid employment.

Thus there are underlying assumptions:
1)that if there is a man in the house it is the woman's job to look after him full time
2)that the father of children who does not live with the mother, will not contribute to the financial welfare of his child and thus the woman must seek paid employment to fill this gap

Interesting.

What benefits do the children of married parents get from having a SAHM, that the children of the single parent don't?

Not quite Miggsie.

1. Who says her job is to look after him rather than the children? No-one I know subscribes to thos theory, though I'm sure some do.
2. If the father of the child is contributing to the child, that still means the mother has to keep herself, ie house feed and clothe herself, and thats why she needs paid employment.

Single parents who want to SAH are almost always referred to as leeches or benefit scroungers. I suppose that's OK though.

That was the point I was making rather than attacking SAHM's. I used to SAH myself actually so Whatevs.

Who said thats ok? The point is why would you defend an attack by attacking someone else? Which was what you are Gloria were doing, whether you think its funny or not.

I've been both. I don't think having a go at either is productive, amusing, or fair.

Whatevs though.

I think SAHM/D whether living on benefits or from a partner's earnings should be able to stay at home when their children are under 5. And I think the current benefit system and emphasis on getting lone parents back to work does not support this. Of course parents can work if they want, but I think the choice to stay at home is also an important one.

I can see it would be important to have some opportunities for training or very part time work so that the stay at home parent had a chance of getting a job when their children go to school. But I think skewing the benefit system by providing access to childcare benefits, but not help to stay at home parent, effectively makes it more financially viable for many parents to go back to work.

i wasn't having a go nor was I perceiving an attack.

I was responding to Jilly's quote, 'Do what the hell you want, but please don't expect other taxpayers to pay for your choices through free childcare or benefits.'

Then she said I was talking bullshit so I had to clarify that I was making a point about people who don't work but are supported by someone who earns highly being 'lucky' in comparison to someone who doesn't work and relies on the state instead.

Purely on the burden of guilt really...though I'd feel guilty in both situations.
I'd just be attacked less for the former

You made a point of saying that a high earning man might have worked hard but his leeching wife was just lucky and certainly hadn't.
I'd class that as having a go, I think most people would.

*and before you ask, its not personal, my partner is far from a high earner and I'm a student (the only thing more reviled than sahm or wohm).

Erm, I didn't use that sort of language at all. I said that someone living on the wages of a high earner was lucky.

She said I was talking bullshit and a high earner has worked their balls off or something to be in that position.

I simply clarified that indeed they might have done, but the person they were supporting hadn't. Of course the supported party may well have worked their balls off anyway, in a different context but to be in the position of being supported by someone who earns a lot does not necessitate this.

I maintain I wasn't having a go.

I don't know why people insist on making childcare a "womens" issue - it's not, it's a parents' issue. And it would be entirely solved if we just gave everyone free childcare from birth to 16 and didn't give out any other benefits and you could then choose whether you wanted to work.

I was.

Don't say spiteful shite and then not expect to be treated in the same way.

Yes I thought Shirley was entitled to be funny

Jilly's tone was very condescending from the off

it it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck......

I think I just got called a duck.

I've been called worse!

By 'eck, there's an awful lot of the green eye on this thread.

JFTR Gloria, I was a high earner for years. I outearned DH at one point, then we had kids so I SAH because, erm, I wanted to.

Having the choice to go to work or SAH is a bit of a luxury in the current climate so I struggle to see why anyone who needs to be supported entirely by other people's taxes should be able to make that choice.
I couldn't give a monkey's chuff if you work , SAH, don't work, lark about work whatever. Providing you do it on your own dollar and not the taxpayer's.
As for leeching, well, I ain't gonna dignify that bile. except to say that I hope the person who said that isn;t leeching any benefits whatsoever from anyone else.

northern - I have talked on all my posts about parents. Of course its not a womens issue.

Free childcare from birth to 16 and no other benefits! I hope youre joking. This would push people into employment when their children were tiny babies, even though it might be better for the baby and parent to stay at home.

But Jilly - One of the points the columunist makes is that it is more expensive for the government to subsidise childcare for those with under 5's, who are only earning the minimum wage. So the article was really about, is this a good use of taxpayers money, or should we accept the cheaper option of parents of under 5's looking after their own children - where they will only earn minimum wage.

And it is more expensive to subsidise childcare. The Government does this not only through childcare credits/benefits to individuals, but also through grants to nurseries and support to childminders.

As it happens, I think the system is pretty fair as it stands but I would like to see more support for people on low wages who want to work but can't because the cost of childcare is prohibitive.

BTW, my DH was dragged brought up in proper horrible 1970's poverty by a single mother. Hardly privaleged.