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]

Great post unlucky83.

I am a SAHM. I was made redundant from a very good 17 year career while pregnant, went back briefly after dd2, money ran out for project, then had DD2.

I worked in area where you must have up to date experience so to go back to work now, I'll have to go back at a lower level and once double childcare costs and commuting costs taken into account, I'll be working just to pay somebody else to look after my children. I did not have them to have somebody else raise them. I am the best person for this job right now.

So, I stay at home. We economise. We are in debt. We don't go out, all clothes are second-hand, I sell stuff on Ebay. It is a sacrifice, but we (more me in terms of my career) are prepared to make it for a few short years while the Dcs are young. I figure there will be time enough for work when they are both at school.

DP works vey very hard, evenings, weekends etc.

Everybody else I know has some kid of help in the form of family who take on some kind of childcare, otherwise, many more would not be able to afford being back at work, and in some cases, some are just back at work for their sanity. Their choice. (Some days I shout 'I've had enough, I'm going back to work'. .

There used to be opportunity to transfer tax allowances, this would help us.

I think looking after children has ben devalued too much. There seems to be the 'on benefits scroungers tag' or the 'yummy mummy who lunches tag'. No reflection of life as it really is.

If all the SAHPs went back to work...well there aren't enough jobs to go round are there?

One thing is that if a family do have (at any particular moment in time) a WOHDad and a SAHMum, it would be nice if they could both be appreciated in those roles and their choice (made in whatever circumstances) be respected.
If society showed more respect it might help the partners to respect each other more too ?

But I agree that applies generally as well. We could probably all do with more understanding and respect whatever choices we've taken and whatever paths we have followed.

Sorry, yes morethan of course i agree - it's purely that i am more familiar with my own experience of being a WOHM. My mum used to make your point and she stayed at home and raised three of us. Dad is a great cook and capable of housework (though has always needed a bit of nagging!) and changed all our nappies, got up during the night (though was rubbish if we were sick because it made him gag!) and generally did loads for us. That was quite rare back then. Mum is a very strong character and certainly told him when she thought he wasn't pulling his weight. As adults, nothing pains my dad more than thinking that his daughters are being taken advantage of by his respective sons-in-law....

I am a SAHM with 2 children aged 20 and 2 months. I have a PhD and know that my career will suffer by taking time out but feel that it's important to be at home for my children at this early age and am lucky that my husband earns enough that I can do this. I have nothing against people choosing to go to work rather than stay at home. It's a personal or financial choice for everyone and no one should have to justify the decisions they make. However, I have to do it on a weekly basis, mainly to other (working) mothers who don't understand why I want to take time out of work.

In addition, I feel that people I come across in every day life, (particularly professionals e.g. doctors, solicitors etc.) treat me like I have the intelligence of my child if I say I don't work. I never used correct people when they called me Mrs rather than Dr but now go out of my to way do this in a hope that they treat me like an adult.

On the financial side we have been hit by the CB changes as my husband earns just over 50K. I don't mind losing benefits if the changes are fair but I believe that the earnings of a couple should be taken into account rather than the current/proposed systems.

It doesn't help matters when Govt Ministers/Officials more or less say that SAHMs have no aspirations and they only help people who want to work hard and get on. Being a SAHM is the hardest job I've ever done!

Also I don't think we should be surprised if there's a bit of SAHM/WOHM debate (in a which is best kind of way, though I get as fed up with it as anyone else, and am always saying that most of us do both at different times, as well as different proportions of each with P/T work etc.) so, yes, it's best if we can all try to pull in the same direction and recognise the discrimination and disadvantage we all face as women, but we cannot completely stifle or end that debate. Women as a whole do better at seeing one another's POV and keeping the peace than men do - think of all the warfare in the world for example - despite the reputation men like to give us for being bitchy or whatever.

Iceberg - interesting post re:dads. All of your examples are men who are working hard and spending a huge amount of time away from their family - 'exhausted', in your words - "these fathers are exhausted, feel pressure and miss time with their children. But they don't complain."

Why they hell not? How is that good for them? Don't you think their children would want to spend some more time with them? is that all a working dad is - an animated cheque book??

Your post is one of the best arguments I've seen on MN for flexible working and a less sexist/traditional approach to working v sahps.

I am not being funny here but as a full time working mum I don't see how this government is helping me at all. We have been hit by a loss of child benefit and now we are set to lose childcare vouchers as our children will be over 5. In the meantime childcare costs are rising hugely and so is travel (to and from work), only consolation from us is that we can work from home quite a lot so that helps us.

I fail to see how the government is helping me as a full time working parent, but if anyone can tell me how then it will cheer me up enormously....

potatoprints - I may not have understood your post, sorry, but if your question was that you can see how wohms might face discrimination but sahms don't (my point being that it is MOTHERS that face discrimination, full stop) -

It comes back to the idea that looking after babies/small children is not important or skilled work - that in many families, the mother's willingness to stop work and take on childcare is the very mechanism that allows men to carry on their careers. That the role they are in has a monetary equivalent - although I am not happy with the idea that the only way we can measure someone's value to society is by how much they earn.

Btw, well done Olgaga for linking to Fawcett society! they do excellent work on this subject.

Good too to be reminded about the depressing scenario of wohm earning money to pay other (less skilled? less educated) women to clean their homes and look after their children for them. Another instance where my response is WHERE ARE THE DADS.

On reading some of these posts the person that seems to get the raw deal is the parent who works extremely long hours so the other parent can be at home. I think rainrainandmorerain makes some very good points.

Yy olgaa mothers are discriminated against full stop. Time for us all to stop ths deviciveness and fight it.

I am a SAHP, but like most SAHPs this is partly because juggling the demands of my very full-on career with caring for my children is just not a viable option, financially or emotionally. I am not a benefit scrounger, neither am I a yummy mummy. None of the SAHPs I know are either, these are bullshit stereotypes that are used to divide women from other women who could help.

I understand that for others, going back to work is a better option for them, and I totally support that. But I don't think they've got it easy.

We are all working hard, we're all juggling, and most of us are just too tired / busy to do much about it but I think we should.

More1 income families are taxed more for the same amount joint income. 60k 1 income and above lose CB whilst those on 2 and above keep it. The higher tax band has come down again and those on 1 income only get 1 tax allowance so will pay more.Those on 2 lower will get 2 tax allowances increased and do not pay 40%.

Rain, I am all for equal divide. DH and I have to both work to get that equal divide. I condence my hours into four days, so work evenings at home, so I get an extra day with my DD. We have both capped our careers knowing there are two wages rather than the family being dependent on one.

We are both passing up travel, training, working late to get ahead etc, and consequently promotion. But we accept that.

We could not have an equal division if one of us was a sahp, and for our family feel it's more important that both parents have quality time for the children rather than just one.

Again im off the OPs point here.

The only way that society will value caring and domestic roles more is precisely when they aren't gender defined- ie when fathers take an equal share of parental leave, and are just as likely to apply for flexible working, or take on more moderately paid work rather than insisting on a jet setting job which requires a SAH wife to facilitate it.

Which is why I said upthread that policy which encourages more equally balanced parental and earning roles (as opposed to one high earner and one SAHP) is a positive force because in the long term it will help to redress the balance. I don't want my dd to feel obliged to work hard, go
to uni, enter a fulfilling career and then feel obliged to give it up for the sake of a high flying husband. Neither do I want my son to feel obliged to be that high flying husband. I aspire to them having fulfilling lives where they can have a good balance. Policies at the moment are moving towards that. Shared parental leave is an excellent move, and I really hope we see a lot of parents taking that on. It widens choices. Even if after the dad has taken his 6 months, mum decides she wants to give up work and stay at home, at the very least it will have given both a clear insight into what the roles entail- being at home, and being a WOHP. And tbh I think one upshot is almost bound to be that more couples will embrace more balanced roles. I can imagine that a lot of men, after 6 months at home with their child might very well realise they don't want to step back into long hours of work and perhaps travelling away. And equally, women who currently just stop working rather than take ML may realise that actually they quite enjoy being back at work.

I really believe this is the only way we'll move on from these polarised constructs. Its very sad that so many SAHM feel undervalued but it's equally sad that there are probably many dads out there who would love to be valued as a parent too, rather than just a provider.

YYY to icebergs point.
Let's try looking at this from the childrens perspective. Having one parent home 24/7 isnt necessarily great if the price of that is that the other parent is working all hours, travelling away and permanently knackered.

I have read the majority of this thread and I feel some people are misusing the word discrimination. I do see parents (mainly mothers) as often disadvantaged in the work place but not discriminated against.

Sorry Janey I think children should aspire to be what they want.

Many jobs are demanding but certainly not "high flying",all men aren't doing high flying jobs and plenty of women are.

Boys hold aspire to be whatever they want,ditto girls.

The fact is many women want to be at home with their dc as they actually kind of like being with them,feel it is best and don't want a family life with full on stress.Some men do too.

Families should be helped to facilitate whichever parent wants to stay at home.

My sister is the main bread winner in her house but doesn't want to be but as her job pays more she has no choice.

I am joining the debate after 314 messages, I have read most of the posts, and I still don't know if I understand the question... Are SAHMs discriminated against? I think yes, but I also think that most mothers are discriminated against in the workplace and that most employers have a lot of work to do with regards to work life balance or whatever you want to call it. (I can think of 3 job interviews when I was asked if I had children, and one who said to me I hope you are not planning to have children in the next couple of years because it is not compatible with this job).

I feel that I was occasionally looked down at as a sahm, now it's even worst as a registered childminder! You should hear some of the comments I get (mostly from women) when I say that I am a childminder....

In terms of taxes and pension etc, yes, I do feel that sahm are worst off. I did have that discussion with DH recently, my pension is not nearly as good as his, but I have invested in other bits and pieces so I wont be too bad. But most SAHM sacrifice their pension, and that's a real worry.

Another thing that worries me is the fact that many mothers work part time and don't get the same level of benefits as full time employees do, and less job security.

But for us, DH is now a primary school teacher (he retrained when I was pregnant with DS2) and I am a childminder so we spend a lot of time with our children, but we don't have a very high standard of living, few holidays, one old battered car, and my dishwasher had been broken for four months and we can't afford a new one........ Anyway, we do make sacrifices, and I know many dads who have changed careers or have taken part time jobs too, so it's not only one way.

rainrain - agree with all your comments.

Just thinking about some of the Greer comments. I don't necessarily think it's an 'unfeminist' choice to employ another women to care for your children or clean your home but it is important that you provide good pay and conditions. What we should be aiming for is fathers taking on more of the caring responsibilities in the home to ease the load on WOHM and SAHMs and at the same time encouraging more men to take up paid caring and cleaning roles so this sphere is not dominated by women. Unfortunately it's a bit chicken and egg as raising the status and pay of caring and childcare would entice more men but while it remains female dominated it's seen as 'women's work' and thus low status and unappealing to them.

Kazoo- I think you're agreeing with me actually ( though I'm sure you won't want to!!) - I completely agree that children should aspire to be what they want, which is why I don't want my dd and ds to feel pressurised by societal constructs which pigeonhole females into 'low monetary value caring ' and males into 'high flier' roles. Equality is about broadening choices precisely because the pressure of traditional expectation is removed. If my dd wants to stay at home and has a partner happy to carry the financial side then fine- but I was rather she was coming at it from a position of true choice rather than societys expectations

This will also come as a shock to you but WOHP really like spending time with their children too. Well, I do and my dh does. I can only assume a SAHM who is surprised by that fact must be partnered to a bloke who can't bear to spend any time with his children, it's such a weird thing to even think otherwise

Emph I don't think your experience is that of modern life,most families I know have an equal share.

As unpalatable as it is many families would rather have a parent at home with the dc than dc in childcare.There is no help to do this for either parent.

A father would get the same support(ie zilch) to facilitate it.

It's not unpalatable at all- you seem desperate to put words into my mouth. It's not something that every family wants.

I enjoy my children's company immensely, and FWIW I could quite contentedly have been a SAHM (which I know isn't true for all women, as some find it quite isolating). It's just that on balance I preferred working part time when they were little. To me, being at home was great, having the balance of work was the icing on the cake. It's really not the case that there's this huge gulf and you're either a die hard SAHM or a diehard WOHM.

I also think, from reading this thread and others that if most families you know have equal shares of things then that's the exception not the rule. Many women have commented that their husband works long hours/ is away a lot/ cannot do a lot re: home and children and that he couldn't do his job without a SAH wife.

kazoo - As unpalatable as it is many families would rather have a parent at home with the dc than dc in childcare. There is no help to do this for either parent.

low income families do get their income topped up - so there is help for single earner families - just not those on relatively high incomes.

I think the difficulty with this debate always is that it is always framed as a "lifestyle" choice. However, it's more complex that.

I want a career. I also believe that my children really would be better off in the care of a parent for as much time in the week as possible, regardless of what "research" says. I am not so much interested in academic outcome, but I feel that early childhood is a time for quiet, meandering, non-focused days with little enforcement of an adult agenda outside of what is obviously useful e.g. cleaning/personal hygiene/eating food/sleeping. I find the "learning goals" of early childcare settings difficult, because I don't think early childhood was meant for formal learning. As these are my personal beliefs about rearing MY children, I feel I would be the best person to be with my children during these very brief formative years.

I'm also very aware that the working world ACTS as though there is a second parent at home. Most workplaces are highly intolerant of disruptions such as snow days, illness and all the myriad of activities that a child wants a parent to attend (nativity etc). The world of work ACTS as though there is always back up. We live very far from family and we have no back up. In practical terms, this makes working out of the home for both dh and I quite challenging and it adds a lot of stress to our day. Our children are in childcare from 7.30 to 6pm on the days they are there. I hate this. I think it is far too long for young children to be in formal daycare. I particularly hate that it costs as much as it does (though I don't begrudge those caring for my children their meagre wages).

If I had free choice, I would stay at home until my children were in school or split this equally with dh and then have the same split across the week or for at least half the week so that my children could be picked up, say, three days a week from school. Financially, though we have professional jobs and live in a 2-bed ex-council semi with a jaded old Ford estate and very few luxuries, we still actually need that second income. Not for the day to day stuff, but to enable us to travel to meet family in particular (all across the sea) and to allow for us to work towards moving to a larger house in a few years time.

I just don't see how it's feasible for me/dh to stay at home because I KNOW it would mitigate against either of us getting a job ever again in our chosen field. This would leave us financially vulnerable.

I also find it quite tough how it feels even on maternity leave that you have dropped off the face of the world that anyone seems to give a crap about. I have a lovely time here at home with my two boys but it can be weeks between encounters with other adults, even though I have made a number of good friends. I'm just over the local groups and find them very unsatisfying. It would be worse for dh. Mum and toddler groups seem very much "women's spaces" with lots of talk about birth stories and the like. There is little space for men and in my experience they are not often made to feel welcome at groups they do attend.

As someone upthread said, the irony is that we are in a situation where there is not enough work to go around, where with a bit of flexibility children could be cared for by their family members AND those family members could work and contribute to wider society financially if house prices weren't so stupidly high.

Do I think SAHM are discriminated against? No, but I think there is absolutely NO value put on rearing children as though they weren't the future and how they are treated now may make a difference to how the world develops. It is so difficult to find a balance. Something always gives.