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]

Excellent post happynappies.
And no Janey, i won't be pasting, haven't got the hours you seem to have to debate this subject to the sky and back.
It's there already, anyway.

To clarify again: almost all people including those who may at some point become a SAHM, will need to work. Indeed many of the SAHM on here have been telling us about their career pre children. Hence my comment about it being a good idea to aim for interesting work.

Littlechickpea, many other posters have already answered your question far better than I ever could. This thread could do with a succinct edge.

I am loving the way as soon as we ask for actual evidence from the thread, people are either incredibly busy and can't possibly cut and paste. Or cannot possibly tell us answers without payment because their knowledge is so incredibly top secret and important

LOL!!

people have told you in great detail how and why they've been discriminated against and you've told them all that they're wrong!

I am interested in your opinion not others Stepaway.. Unless you want us to accept that your circumstances are identical to all the other posters which I am sure they arent. You want things to change then please tell us how they should change..

Great quality of debate stepaway!
Now remember - don't use LOL in job applications - it doesnt look professional .

I can tell you for free - if you are coming to an interview, how many children you have, all the reasons why you were not able to do volunteering, PTA type work will bore the socks of an interviewer and will make it worse and worse for SAHP's looking to come back into the workplace.

Someone earlier said how could I expect a SAMP with three under 5's to be able to afford time from them to retrain, volunteer etc. I dont. I expect people to decide what they can and cannot afford in terms of number of children but then not expect a potential employer to be concerned about the fact that DH only earns xx per year. Why is it an employers issue how many children you have and with whom......
Maisiejoe, I think you have misunderstood my point. I don't expect it to be an employers issue how many children an applicant has and with whom. I'm simply pointing out that you are judging an applicant who has taken a career break to be lazy, or in your words "disorganised" on the basis that they have not done any voluntary work while looking after their children. To do so without knowing their background is, IMO, discriminatory. You may be interviewing a hard working, highly skilled applicant, but you have put no value on their career break and have dismissed them simply as disorganised. Would you call a childminder, or nanny disorganised, or lazy, or valueless. They are doing the same job a SAHP does every day, but because they do not get paid for it, it's not a 'proper' job.
An employers concern should be whether the applicant has the skills to go forward in the job, and whether their past employment is relevant. They should not be judged because they took a break to take in an important, if not always relevant, role.

I am summarising - succinctly!- what I have already said about the recruitment process in my job. I read the cv and letter of application thoroughly matching necessary qualifications and skills to the job. If an applicant has had time out of work, I will look for evidence of how they have used that time while maintaining the necessary skills and perhaps acquiring new ones. I will short list the best applicants on the basis of their skills, experience, quality of application. At interview I ask the same questions of all candidates. I don't ask whether they are single, couples, parents or not. If during the process a candidate elaborates on any time out and shows evidence of how they have kept up their skills, then great. The applicants all undergo the same practical tasks. At the end of the process the best person for the post is selected- ie the person who has demonstrated that they will do the job best and fit well into the team.

Now, if anyone would like to explain what in earth is discriminatory about that I'd be interested to hear. If you want to tell me you're too busy of someone else has replied already then fine, I'll draw my own conclusions

Janey, I didn't say what you wrote on your last post at all. I'm not suggesting that, 'work isn't all it's cracked up to be' so don't bother. I'm drawing comparisons between the repititive nature of both, as Scottish was being typical in her responses - denegrating the role of SAHP, belittling the efforts of those who choose to be at home with their children full time. I was just pointing out that most people are not in high powered, decision making roles. There is no mystery to the world of work Maisie, so I rather resent being told how to go about it, especially by some random person on the Internet whose credentials I don't have a clue about.

Janey, you shouldn't feel sorry for DP, he's exactly where he wants to be and has the perks that go with that- having me as default babysitter so he can go on work 'socials' like tonight for instance- going to the dog races with work.

I have to say the jibes at SAHP appear perfectly acceptable by some that do paid work and yet criticism of WOHM choices would be completely unacceptable.

An employers concern should be whether the applicant has the skills to go forward in the job, and whether their past employment is relevant. They should not be judged because they took a break to take in an important, if not always relevant, role.

If you read through the post you would see this is what we have been saying... However it's a competitive job market and SAHP or anyone that took a career break is up against candidates that have continuous employment. It's the candidates responsibility to convince the employer that they are the best person for the position. I don't care whether they were a SAHP or they are coming straight from another position. I want the strongest candidate and it's not the CV that does it. It's their performance at an interview..

What a lame discussion style you name check pov you no likey as if that's adequate?
Yes I am asserting watching your own kids,to own standards is not comparable to employment
Jobs set external standards,have core tasks to be done in certain time,and are appraised to external standard
Being a housewife is essentially watching your own dc,to own standard and externally unaccountable

Goldenbear I think that you are taking offence where none is meant. You don't want to work outside the home and don't think most jobs are anything special anyway.They may be not but there's still a huge amount of competition for them and employers will choose people based on how well their skills match the job, based on an already decided criteria. These days most employers look for evidence of recent paid work experience, whether it's for a cleaner or an accountant.

I think scottishmummy has hit the nail on the head, the issue with SAH skills is that they are not assessable and really if you are pretty poor at say time management skills then you don't get anyone complaining, etc...

I have also done lots of interviews and have been for a lot of interviews myself (internal and external) and would steer clear like the plague using "at home" skills as examples - whether you think it is right or wrong it just isn't what employers expect to hear.

I would go one more step and say that best not to mention children at all, I have learned the hard way. I had a guy in an internal interview say "oh my wife chooses to stay at home with our children, we think that's the right thing to do", whilst another one asked me if I didn't miss my children? So I steer well clear now and if they do ask me straight I always reply with a vague answer or a joke.

Also whilst in the job I never say things like "I am off early to take x to the doctor/to see a school play etc", if I need the time off I will either take it as leave or say something else like I have a private appointment - nobody tends to question it further. You just end up giving out a "Mumsy" impression otherwise and people think you are not reliable. Unfortunately, whether you think this is right or wrong, it is the reality of work these days.

Scottish, sorry but your first paragraph what the fuck are you on about?

I think scottishmummy is saying its a poor posting style to simply refer vaguely to 'other posters' when asked to provide evidence of an accusation, or when asked your point of view (pov)

She writes in scots dialect and is great fun (even if you don't always agree with her!!)

Mirry, yes, yes I think you're right, no offensive remarks on here about SAH WORK??

Well, it seems that many on here seem to think that us stay at home mothers have nothing significant to offer to the work place. Well, you know what, that suits me fine. I'm happy staying at home, bringing up my children myself. Before I became a parent, I had a very demanding job, travelling all over the country for weeks on end. I didn't go home from Monday to Friday. I wasn't that keen on it then to be honest, and really have no desire to go back to it now with three young children. I will repeat, I don't want child care from the government. I just want my husband to pay the same amount of tax as two people earning the same salary. After all, we are a family unit. He works hard, stays away from home and often does very long hours. He couldn't possibly do this with out help at home from his wife. I am happy to oblige, as we are a partnership. We don't want any extra help from the government. We just don't want to be financially penalised for doing so. Oh, and before any one says we are not, we clearly are. We lose child benefit and pay more tax. I'm sure someone will say that families with two incomes may lose child benefit. However, the difference is that they are now being offered a tax incentive for going to work.

If you read through the post you would see this is what we have been saying... However it's a competitive job market and SAHP or anyone that took a career break is up against candidates that have continuous employment. It's the candidates responsibility to convince the employer that they are the best person for the position. I don't care whether they were a SAHP or they are coming straight from another position. I want the strongest candidate and it's not the CV that does it. It's their performance at an interview..

But Maisiejoe has stated that she would consider a SAHP who has done nothing but look after their children to be disorganised, without any knowledge of their circumstances. It sounds to me that she has made a discriminatory decision about SAHPs. How could a candidate prove otherwise when they can't even get an interview based on this kind of discrimination?

I know what she writes in, I have had the displeasure to read the posts for years. Even taking that quirkiness into account I couldn't decipher it.

Well, it seems that many on here seem to think that us stay at home mothers have nothing significant to offer to the work place.

I have seen a post saying this. Where has this come from?

Well that's good that you're happy with your choice. And you're not being discriminated against because your dh is being taxed on the same basis as every other individual. If you both worked, you would each be taxed on the same basis as every couple where both work.

What you're saying is you don't agree with or like the current taxation system but that doesn't make it discriminatory

Bud have you read the posts leading to that or are you commenting based on one comment with no background?