Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

999 replies

Darkesteyes · 25/03/2013 16:58

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]

OP posts:
LittleChickpea · 28/03/2013 23:38

janey68 I am still waiting for an answer from any SAHP as to why they need help with child care costs....

ihategeorgeosborne · 28/03/2013 23:40

They DON'T need help with child care costs.

scottishmummy · 28/03/2013 23:41

George you reflected there have been rude,patrionising,condescending pov to housewives
And the usual why have em, rude,patrionising,condescending daycare quips to working mums too

Goldenbear · 28/03/2013 23:42

Littlechickpea, up thread you said you'd put in a claim for nieces and nephews, are you not a WOHM then?

LittleChickpea · 28/03/2013 23:42

Thank you..

Permanentlyexhausted · 28/03/2013 23:45

Because no WOHM ever would look after anyone else's children would they.

It's a great idea to claim though. How much would I get for looking after 24 kids once every week?

LittleChickpea · 28/03/2013 23:46

Goldenbear. I am sorry but following historic comments. I just can't take you seriously. Sorry.. But on this one occasion happy to answer, I was making a point.

Goldenbear · 28/03/2013 23:49

Scottish, always with these threads I notice you put your usual point across about housewives, precious moments, grocery bill. Some posters get offended and then respond to your comments with criticism of the path you chose. I've noticed these responses are ALWAYS after your hugely offensive remarks, feigned ignorance at how offensive they are- usual formula isn't it? We get it- you're incredibly superior to us drudge lovers.

Goldenbear · 29/03/2013 00:04

I'm not really sure why you can't take me seriously. I was taken very seriously in my role in Recruitment before ML. I know quite a bit about it so no need to inform me of the process. The fact Is I preferrred looking after my baby DS and subsequently DD. I didn't want to put him into childcare as I didn't feel it was good enough for him. My job was extremely interesting and working where I did came with a lot of kudos but it wasn't better than my 9 month DS.

Goldenbear · 29/03/2013 00:07

You haven't really answered, are you a WOHM?

janey68 · 29/03/2013 00:10

My job isn't better than my children. How weird to even think like that. My children come top, they're wonderful, but my job is pretty darn good too Smile

Goldenbear · 29/03/2013 00:19

I wasn't talking about your family decisions Janey, I was referring to my own circumstances at the time, which were work and never see him because of an hour and a half commute both ways or not return to that job and be with him full time. I could have looked for another job locally but we just wanted him to ourselves, no outsider taking part in that care.

janey68 · 29/03/2013 00:25

Yes, I was just struck by that odd turn of phrase about your job being good but not better than your child. Odd because I doubt anyone goes back to work because they think their job is 'better' than their child. Certainly not anyone I've ever come across anywhere, and I know loads of mums and dads

Goldenbear · 29/03/2013 00:31

Well I've heard on Mumsnet people say they value work as important as DC- cant relate to that at all and that is why we did everything in our powers to ensure our child had one parent at home ft.

janey68 · 29/03/2013 00:34

I can't relate to that either, but I'm sure the people who feel that are happy with their choices and know what's best for their own children so it really doesn't matter whether other people can relate to it or not. As long as the parents and children are happy and thriving then fine- horses for courses

Goldenbear · 29/03/2013 00:40

Yes as long as the children are happy then it is fine but personally I think they should be the priority not you or your job.

working9while5 · 29/03/2013 01:02

I can't believe the nonsense on this thread about childrearing not being an occupation. Come off it people, of course it's an occupation. People are occupied doing it, it is all about activities of daily living. There is a whole profession (occupational therapy) which is based on people's abilities to do functional activities which would include childrearing. Get off your high horses.

I can't stay at home with my kids (or more accurately, arrange so that dh and I could split staying at home with kids in such a way there was one full time wage coming into the home so that I could also contribute to the economy) but I would like to be able to provide care by a parent for my children full time. It seems nonsensical to me to suggest that there is no difference between care provided by a competent loving parent and that provided by some young girl who has an NVQ2 and has barely had her first legal drink in a bar. Transmission of values/culture/home language (if there is one) etc are all provided by a family in a way they can't be provided for by someone paid to do the job.

I also don't feel it is okay to work full time in a situation where, with no family back up, my children would be in childcare from 7.30 to 6 five days a week giving them only 7.5 hours with their parents during the week.

The polarisation of this debate always misses the point. Kids are actually pretty important to the future for all of us, and regardless of what research says about academic outcome blah blah blah (as I think this is a red herring really), it is not ideal for any family to hardly ever see their kids. Sorry scottish but that's just a fact. Many of us have little or no choice but downplaying the value of parental input or saying working class people always worked/upper class never saw their kids doesn't rectify what is a situation that a lot of people find difficult.

It really shouldn't be seen as some crazy thing that perhaps men and women could share the full time roles better so that children could have care provided by both. It would go a long way towards supporting women's place in society if raising kids wasn't seen as some sort of low level drudgery.

janey68 · 29/03/2013 01:13

I agree about the equality of Dads and mums but Im really tired of this assumption that paid childcare is some sort of inferior substitute for parenting. It isn't. It is something which many parents use because they feel it provides another experience, not a substitute.

I have never pretended that the cm and nursery my kids went to was a replacement for mum and dad. It shouldn't be necessary to point that out.

I also think we should all work on the assumption that we all love our children, invest a lot in them and consider all our choices carefully, from feeding, to sleeping, to childminder, nursery, school... If parents decide they don't like any of the childcare available and affordable to them, then that's fine. But that fact doesn't give you the knowledge to judge the childcare decisions of other families. I might not favour the nursery or Childminder my mate along the road uses but if she's happy and her children are happy then why should it matter to me?

morethanpotatoprints · 29/03/2013 01:25

janey.

Thats the difference though some sahps do not want their dc to have this other experience and do see it as inferior to being there themselves. Its just different views, that's all. I am agreeing with you, bloody hell.

Anyway off to bed now, bet this fred is finished by tomorrow.

happynappies · 29/03/2013 02:55

When I said earlier the figures don't stack up, I meant specific examples have been given of when two people earning and paying less in tax than one higher earner. I know the economy is important, but I honestly think it is a red herring in this debate. People don't go out to work 'for the economy', they work either to primarily raise money for their family, or for fulfilment or a mixture of both. sahp are making a conscious decision to earn less and as a family spend less (I.e buy less goods) so they are not going to be popular with the government. My dh drives a clapped out old car, for example, other dhs from homes where both parents work more conventionally, might drive an Audi (for example). Just one example of how we would rather spend less to be able to spend more time with the children.

I never sahp should be paid to do so. I explained that the discrimination sahp experience can be financial (unfairly shouldering higher proportion of cuts in benefits etc) and otherwise e.g people think you are lazy, not contributing etc.

We do, as explained, share childcare between us, so am not strictly a sahp, but I am we'll aware of the discrimination sahps experience. It is truly horrible that the contribution of raising children is not valued. People value going out to work and paying for daycare. The research about daycare states that in terms of attachment, the preferred model for under 3s is care provided by a parent, or perhaps a relative if a parent is not available. The outcomes for people who use childcare for under 3s are perfectly ok in most cases (although if children use daycare for extremely long hours or start v young there are possible negatives) but some parents make an active decision to do what is preferred particularly when the children are young. If you want to read such research genuinely (as I did when researching who should look after my own dc) try googling Jay Belsky as a starting point.

I strongly believe if flexible working initiatives were adopting particularly by larger companies (understand small businesses might not be able to) there would be less discrimination as sahp could organise to work around school pick ups, school holidays etc etc. I speak from experience as dh and I do this. I am endlessly amazed by people who think it is somehow 'not contributing' to take this approach.

Perhaps one day dh and I will look back and wish I had earned more during the children's early years but I don't think so. I am not 'demonising' paid childcare - I can well understand the financial pressures to work and see my friends carefully choosing and paying for the best childcare they can afford. Their dcs are perfectly fine, I understand this. We'd rather exist on half the amount of money, drive an old car, wear second hand clothes, not go out, not eat out, not go on holiday etc, so that we can provide our own childcare. Its not because we can 'afford it', it is a choice we make on how to spend our income, for this brief time in the children's lives. I do not mean to belittle other people's choices, I can see that we are all trying to do the best for our families. Just different views on how to do it.

HoleyGhost · 29/03/2013 06:18

It seems nonsensical to me to suggest that there is no difference between care provided by a competent loving parent and that provided by some young girl who has an NVQ2 and has barely had her first legal drink in a bar. Transmission of values/culture/home language (if there is one) etc are all provided by a family in a way they can't be provided for by someone paid to do the job. I also don't feel it is okay to work full time in a situation where, with no family back up, my children would be in childcare from 7.30 to 6 five days a week giving them only 7.5 hours with their parents during the week.

You chose to set your life up so you have a commute. I chose to work in a central location, nursery is around the corner. We made sacrifices - size of home etc - so we don't have to commute.

We also chose childcare providers that we can trust to provide excellent care.

HoleyGhost · 29/03/2013 06:21

Im really tired of this assumption that paid childcare is some sort of inferior substitute for parenting. It isn't. It is something which many parents use because they feel it provides another experience, not a substitute. I have never pretended that the cm and nursery my kids went to was a replacement for mum and dad. It shouldn't be necessary to point that out.

This. Childcare is not parenting.

LittleChickpea · 29/03/2013 06:38

I can't believe the nonsense on this thread about childrearing not being an occupation. Come off it people, of course it's an occupation. People are occupied doing it, it is all about activities of daily living. There is a whole profession (occupational therapy) which is based on people's abilities to do functional activities which would include childrearing. Get off your high horses

It's a simple fact. It's not an occupation. An occupational therapist is paid by an employer and contributes to the economy financially. SAHP choose to stop working (leave their occupation) so they cn raise their children. Thats their choice. But bringing up your own child is parental responsibility and will never be seen as an occupation because its not. It's as clear as day. I haven't seen anyone on their high horse but I have seen a few martyrs.

I understand this thread isn't about the economy but I am staggered by the ignorance (wilful or not) and/or naivety about the situation. I am also shocked to read how some can't see how DC will suffer if it's not sorted. Everyone is big looking after DC in the early years but what about making sure their have a secure future. Does anyone care about that?

LittleChickpea · 29/03/2013 06:53

sahp are making a conscious decision to earn less and as a family spend less (I.e buy less goods)

So it is a conscious decision not to work and contribute to the economy. So you do choose to stop working. Would you want tax payers to top up the income you choose to give up? No one minds doing this for low income families btw that can't find employment. I also don't mind extra child care benefits going to working parents (where both are employed) to support with child care costs.

merrymouse · 29/03/2013 06:55

The childcare debate has been had over and over again.

The strange thing is that I have never, ever met a man who decided to go part time/give up his job because he was worried about the effect of full time childcare on his child's well being.

Clearly people have different views on bringing up children. However given that maternity leave lasts for a year, continued breast feeding after this point is very low, and 50% of parents are not female why aren't more men taking the career hit?