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]

its nice to see some new people add to debate that are sahm.

I must admit perfect arrangment for me and most other families i part time work one parent other fulltime/

The only men I know doing part time are underemployed and want fulltime.

The new childcare ruls discriminate against one part time parent either gender.

The new childcare rules initially for 5 and under so not exactly helpful to working parents.

The majority of partimers are women so yes these proposals are disciminatory predominatly towards working women who work part time and sahm/student parents.

we should all unite to fight this unequal legistalation.

maybe we should have [protested over child benefit but we were sold we all in it together.

The families with one sahm and most benefit from what i read accepted it as thourght we all this together only to then get this new childcare tax rebate.

its fundamentally wrong 2high earners get to keep child benefit
than 2working parents high earners can get childcare upto 300k.

The only people I think ladies at lunch are the very rich. and they getting 5%tax cut soon.

I like many others on mumsnet have made sacrafices to stay at home we not rich, we get by and go without lots of thiings higher earning working parents can afford.

so the language and implicatiion

that they say we no value, aspiration or work hard enough

Crashdoll, people on this thread who are Employers have already described how they think and behave when recruiting SAHP- the descriptions have certainly sounded prejudicial- making it discrimination.

I think a big problem with this debate is that arguments about the best form of childcare for young children (in home or out of home) obscure the fact that, in this day and age, there is no good reason for it to be done so overwhelmingly by women.

its fundamentally wrong 2high earners get to keep child benefit

SAHP still receive CB unless the WOH parent earns 60k.

than 2working parents high earners can get childcare upto 300k.

they don't 'get childcare'. they pay up to 120k pa in tax that funds the NHS, schools, everything we all use. they get 2k back from 120kpa.

I am laughing Kazoo - are you really saying that most families have an equal share in parenting including chores. How does that work when you are there 24 hours a day (including sleeping time!) and your partner isnt.

If I was a SAHM I would consider the house my responsibility.. I would clean, cook, keep the fridge full of food, ferry the children around, arrange playdates, mop up spills, take the dog for a walk etc.

I wouldnt expect my DH to come home at say 1900 and then start the ironing. I would want them to do something but the day to day stuff and childcare during he working week. Well - that's what I do.....

RainRain.

I think it was me how I interpreted your post tbh. Yes I agree, I think all women are discriminated irrespective of work commitments.

I also think that certain types of family/income are discriminated against too, which quite often means the woman bares the brunt.

Kazoo - I think you would be right to say more and more men are taking on a fairer share of caring duties in the home but I think we are still along way from it being an equal division in most families. Not sure at all that they are taking an equal share in the domestic paid roles of childcare and cleaning - and the only experience I have is of modern life,

Yes, I feel like SAHM are judged for not working 'hard enough' because we don't raise children and earn a 'real' wage at the same time. I don't think there is much respect for SAHM because of this which is really sad.

Yes - share the chores when both working but when you are at home already.....

FWIW - I think when both are working is still often comes down to the woman. I would love to share the chores 50%/50% but my DH earns far more than I do. Therefore from an economic point of view his meeting could be far more important than mine (but dont tell him that!) and takes precedent.

He takes his laptop/phone etc on abroad to do some work. Not ideal but the price he pays for the salary he commands. I cannnot see (tin hat at the ready) the SAHP needing to do that....

For example - we recently went on holiday on our own (dont ask me about the arrangements for doing this, far far too complex!). He took his laptop and phone to do some work. If I was a SAHM - why would I need to do this?

MaisieJoe I earn more than DH pro rata (I earn in 24 hours what he earns in 40). However I do not consider (am not allowed to) my work more important than his. We take strict turns with sick days (although one of us is usually home anyway). I wouldhate to tthink of his reaction if I took the attitude that my work was paramount.

Ok, if one of you had to lose your job or was considered for redudancy because of days spent tending a sick child or attending parents afternoons I would rather it be mine. Companies are not employing people to look after the families tbh. Not great news and not family friendly of course but one needs to be pragmatic.

Maternity leave used to be covered within my company by getting someone in to cover especially as the leave is 1 year potentially. Now the work is divided up amongst the ones that are left......

Employers dont want to hear about your family issues and how you need to do a school run every day. And I joke not - I had a member of my team refuse to attend a customer site because he had numerous school runs during the day and his wife didnt drive! We do have some home working where I work and he had hidden it previously from his last team.

As a sahm though I expect my dh to take a significant share of domestic chores and I expect a 50/50 share in raising the dc. Although I admit that he isn't always at home, he has always had the same input as me when it comes to making decisions on how we raise our dc. I don't think I have ever felt that he wasn't pulling his weight or that I had the brunt of the domestic chores.
I think its down to communication and how you both chose to manage the home.
Our dc have been brought up on the principle "just because mum's at home, doesn't mean you don't do your share". Now the older 2 are 21 and 18 and both working. They iron clothes, cook meals, clean the loo, vacuum, laundry. Whatever needs doing when they are here. It works both ways as if they need a favour, they know they can ask as they don't take the piss.

We are taking a economic decision. If I lost my job or was chosen for redudancy it wouldnt be great, however if DH lost his we would be in deep deep trouble...

I know in my dh's industry that once you reach a certain level you either both work and pay for full time childcare (live in nannies) or there is a partner at home. It's been known for people to get passed up for promotion because they need to have time to spend with their children. Men and women. There's a glass ceiling there for both genders if the priority is childcare over and above career.
So childcare is a massive issue in our society. It shapes the decisions families take. Employers are not very sympathetic or helpful in this and that affects the sahp too.

A very wise female manager of mine many years ago said childcare should be sorted well in advance and Plan B's and Plan C's in place.

However in the event of a disaster - if you need to leave an overrunning meeting, warn in advance that you need to leave by say 1700. Dont explain why, you just need to move the meeting on and if it started at 1500 - well you should have plenty of time to get through the agenda. At 1700 just have your stuff packed up and go.

After all if a man announced he needed to go at 1700 to watch a Chelsea V Everton match in London well he would be cheered!

We have always made sure we could survive on either of our full-time salaries. We have limited our fixed expenses with that in mind.

But why should it always be the woman who has to leave at 1700 ? That is just not fair. Also if it is always the female partner because she earns less, than that is a pretty good way of ensuring she always will

For us it would mean giving up our dreams of educating the children privately (please dont start on me if you dont believe in PE!) and after a while you do want to take a 'risk' whether that be a bigger house, holiday home, more expensive car etc. I would hate to be one of those people with stacks of savings on the off chance that I lost my job. Of course we have savings but not huge amounts. What we do have is a lot of equity in the house. For me that is enough and my Plan B. We could easily downsize and move to a smaller house. The only reason this house is as expensive as it is the location which suits us having to commute into London.

I have worked for over 30 years and think that is enough time to put our dreams into reality

Btw the discrepancies in our earning potential are partly due to DH staying at home for 18m in the last 3 years. I consider this to exemplify why I should do my best to support him now

Fastermany families with a sahp pay more in tax than many getting CB and help with childcare if we're going down that route.

We're supposed to be paying off debt.

Obviously there are some that are being made to pay more and some who aren't eg millionaires,wealthy families on joint income of up to 300k and wealthy pensioners.

It isn't fair and is letting many families/children down.

Wish, because if it was the man in a high paying role the company would get tired of it. Why are they interested in you having to leave to attend a parents evening. I just dont say....

Companies now want huge amounts of committments from their employees. I have worked for the same company for over 20 yrs. I have seen huge changes in what they are looking for.

Maisie that is rubbish and certainly doesn't happen in my Dp's line of work,quite the reverse.

Nice to see money that could pay off debt and has been taken off sahp is going towards private education.

FWIW - I dont necessarily agree with this but why would a company be interested in how a family wants to support each other internally. They are just not bothered!

What are you talking about Kazoo.. What money.... Are you suggesting to tell me what to do with my salary??

Kazoo - many families with a sahp pay more in tax than many getting CB and help with childcare

yes because they have a higher earner and higher earners pay more tax and they don't need help with child care as they have a SAHP

but they do get pension credits.