Are SAHMS discriminated against. Red magazine are doing an article about it.

[Darkesteyes]

Just seen this on twitter.

Are stay at home mums discriminated against? Are you one and unhappy with benefits, or feel judged? Tell us.
[email protected]

Scottishmummy to say that if you don't earn then you are not economically contributing is correct. To suggest that this is the only way you can contribute to society is at best naive. It does highlight the ignorance stay at home mothers have to occasionally put up with. Well done.

impty - can you list the non financial ways that people contribute to the economy.

FlowersBlown this is a great point. It would be nice if child care was seen as important work though, wouldn't it? Teachers have pressure on them to produce results, but the care aspect of bringing up children is also very important, and easily dismissed.

Oliver James is to child psychology what my 5 year old DD wielding a pair of scissors is to neurosurgery. I tend to adopt the following rule of thumb; believe the opposite of any contention adavanced by James and you'll be on the right track.

So, I help/ have helped in the community, reading at school, school trips, helped out at the local library, shopping for elderly neighbours, help for a neighbour who was ill. Looked after friends children when they are ill, given lifts for people. Tidied up local areas. Hospital visits.
So I sound a bit like a 'do gooder' but I promise I'm not! it's just that I can be available more often than those who work. I cannot remember how many times I've done things for friends because someone's stuck in traffic/ had to work late etc etc and can't pick up a child on time. It's fine I can do it, am happy to as I have the time to help out.
I am aware that many people work and help out in the community too.

Fasterstronger

SAHP listen to reading in schools and help out as unpaid help in schools/fundraising etc. They run toddler and other pre school groups often donating alot of hours to help others. They do volunteer work. They care for their own children aswell as often elderly parents/grandparents and nieces/nephews etc. They contribute as much as working parents and I beleive it is a mistake of this goverment to make all mothers work. It should be a choice.

As someone who would LOVE to do paid work now my cildren are in school but is unable to find work despite having a very good job for 12 years I would love to now where all these jobs are that "lazy" sahp should get.

very interested in the post above about SAHP who try to retun to work being discriminated against at interview.

Why can't women all bond together to help one another instead of attacking each other.

fasterstronger As a family we contribute a great deal to the economy financially. The imptyfamily pay in far, far more than we will ever take out! I also contribute to society in non financial ways. Earning money doesn't validate me as a person.

It is pretty clear from this thread that parents who both work think that they are doing the right thing. While parents who stay at home with their children think that they are doing the right thing. We can talk endlessly about the rights and wrongs of both of these choices, but it seems to me that it is probably a case of 'never the twain shall meet'. Clearly we will have to agree to differ.

anotheryearolder - sorry in our school all the unpaid classroom assistants are SAHP's and the same for the committee that ran our twinsgroup but I know there are working parents who also volunteer I was just answering the question about what contribution sahp do that is not financial.

I was in the public service which has expereinced huge cuts so despite getting interviews have not been successful. I have been told by frinds wo recruit that employers would prefere to employ people already in work as it shows you are employable so it seems very chicken and egg.
I am now doing a degree to retrain but it has been horrid and if I had my time again I am not sure I would have made the choices I did to be a SAHP as it is too difficult to get back into the workplace without accepting a huge paycut. I was very lucky I had the choice and it makes me cross that the goverment wants to take away a mothers choice to be at home.

Am I not contributing to the economy in that I support my husband, who is then able to concentrate on his career and generate lots of tax for the economy. Of course we could both work in lower paid, more family friendly careers but this would generate less tax than he currently pays at present and would actually cost the economy in terms of cb, ctc and child care vouchers.

Not directly generating income, doesn't mean we aren't indirectly generating it.

I can see different financial benefits that SAHMs and WOHMS get - help with childcare costs for WOHMs, and NI contributions paid for SAHMs, for example. I am not sufficiently financially astute to be able to work out which group gets more financial support - maybe others can work this out.

But, having been a stay at home mother for almost all of my children's lives, what I noticed was not the financial differences per se, but the respect or value that I felt they represented - and I definitely felt undervalued as a SAHM. I felt as if I was doing an important job, that was not being seen or recognised by society in general, because it didn't have a price-tag attached. Because I wasn't earning anything, I didn't feel that society thought I was worth anything - and so I thought that a payment of some sort to SAHMs would redress this - but I did know that this wasn't going to happen.

I also felt, when child benefit was taken away, that this took away the last financial contribution that I was making to our household, even though I knew that many other families needed it far more than we did, because dh earns a good wage. Sometimes I look at my particular circumstances, and wonder if the Government would like to take anything more away from my family. Dh has a marginal tax rate of 62%, we have lost all child benefit, our children are not entitled to any help beyond the bare minimum with university, and due to changes with pension schemes, dh will see none of the money he has paid into his scheme for the whole year.

On the question of WOHMs vs SAHMS, it has always been my belief that people do what they believe to be best for their family, and you cannot judge their choices because you don't know their circumstances. Being a SAHM was the best choice for me and my family, but in no way does this mean that it would be the best choice for every family - far from it - and I respect all parents for taking the right decisions for themselves and their families. Being a SAHM is not an easy choice, and neither is being a WOHM - the difficulties are different, but still there, and both roles deserve equal respect, imo.

er, i didn't think media requests could go here, let alone be dod?

Have managed to read to the end. I think mothers in general are discriminated against in the work place. There is an assumption that they will be taking time off and generally not giving 100% in the way a man or a childless women would.

As rain so eloquently says the problem lies with the distribution of labour within the partnership. DH and I try for an even split, but it sometimes does feel like society conspires against this and we have both been guilty of yielding to societal pressures on this from time to time.

I have been tempted to take less challenging roles so that I could be "on-call" for childcare. DH is more prone to agreeing to things without considering who will do the pickup. However I think equality is worth striving for and accepting that children and childcare are women's problem undermines this.

Incidentally both dcs when asked like having both mummy and daddy involved in the day to day minutiae of their lives. Both Mummy and Daddy like to go to work and have some time with the dcs.

I feel affinity based on pov shared,common values and morals.it's not a gender construct
Why should some stick together on gender,have affinity because women.how absurd
There is no reason I should concur with someone because we both female

Agree with rainrainandmorerain.

Women as parents (and potential parents) are discriminated against, not SAHM's.

It is assumed that women, whether working or non-working will take on the lion's share of responsibility for childcare, whereas I don't think employers think twice about whether their male employees have children.

IME, most women will take a substantial career break when they have children (a year is a substantial career break) and have periods of working part-time, and in all likelihood take the 'mummy track' when making career decisions. This is where the inequality lies. The world of work, childcare and school is still structured around the idea that to be a high flyer you need to have a wife.

Model in suit holding baby vs. model in apron making cup cakes may make a nice photo, but it doesn't have much to do with real life for most people.

So, also agree with Wishihabdabs.

They are discriminated against as much as women who both work and have DCs and neither is right because it is down to personal preference and/ or circumstances.

I have had to endure similar comments to the one early on in this thread "why have DC if you're going to let someone else raise them.... " etc. When in fact being a FTWM is every bit as exhausting (mentally and physically) as being a SAHM. When DS was born i took 10 months off and enjoyed every minute. I returned to flexible working, ensuring i worked from home twice a week even if on full time hours, left early some days, worked late others, my DH took care of DS Monday afternoons. I spent as much time as i physically could with my DS and can count on one hand the amount of times he has been looked after by people other than us and his CM. I have taken days off work when he's been sick, even though to do so has put me under a lot of pressure professionally. I cook him home cooked meals. I pack home cooked food for his lunches and/ or dinners at his CM the night before. I come home in the evenings and neither DH nor i sat down until 8pm to eat our own dinner. We have bathed, played with, educted, read to, tucked into bed, tickled, laughed with, enjoyed our DS every day if his 2.5yo life. I have always put him 100% first. I have also dealt with my boss's expectations of me and a visit to occupational health due to issues over work/ life balance and feeling a failure for not, apparently, being a 'proper' mum because i dare to work as well. It has been a massive balancing act and at times i have felt split in two.

I don't say this to illustrate that i am unhappy - i am genuinely not and now think i do an amazing job and am a good role model to my DS. But coping with the prejudices of others, and my expectations of myself, has definitely at times pushed me to my limits. Being a working mum is every bit as hard as being a SAHM and made all the harder by similar prejudices.

Whiteandyellowiris - the OP is not the journalist - she's a mumsnetter who has seen the request on twitter, and the story, and has started a thread on the subject here.

oh, ok then

Matana - I think you do an amazing job too - as do all the other WOHMs. And I also think that we SAHMs do an amazing job too - and the thing that unites us (or should) is the fact that we all love our children and put their needs first, even though that means radically different decisions for different families.

I think as has been already said, that women/mothers in general are discriminated against.

I just wonder when it's going to stop.
Then you see shit like this www.thescoopng.com/photo-of-the-day-when-is-rape-okay/ (it's a research questionnaire from 2003) and realise that it's still going just as strong.

While women still get at, undermine and judge other women, discrimination against women will continue. Because if we can't stop it ourselves, the men sure as hell aren't going to.