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]

Are you a WOHM then Lessmiss

Are you a WOHM Littlechickpea, do you have a nanny?

When I was young (pre dc), I always moved where the jobs were. I relocated as a raw graduate from the South West to the South East. I lived in lodgings. I knew no one, but I knew that's what I had to do. Dh and I have always moved where the work is and I have always tried hard to prove myself to an employer before 'asking for favours'. This is one of the reasons I stay at home with the dc while they are so young, as I know that they would have to come first in an emergency. One of the reasons I stopped working was when dc1 at 18 months got chicken pox. The nursery wouldn't take her because her spots hadn't healed over and dh was away in London. This obviously didn't go down well with my employer. Shortly after that, I took voluntary redundancy, as it seemed the best thing to do at the time.

I am responding to the posters that are asking how two high earners can posibly have time to spend with their children.

The majority of SAHM's are saying that it would interfere with their partners current job, it depends what you can agree with your partner! He has always been used to letting me know potential dates he is away and running through diaries every week.

I am not sure if he was used to coming and going as he pleased business wise for say 5 yrs whether it would be so easy!

TBH, I find it difficult to take advice from people who are not parents on this subject.

I am also not right wing and a lot of this sounds like the rantings of Cameron or Osborne, whom I have no respect for.

The only thing I'd add on the end of that list is that when life doesn't leave you choices, it doesn't necessarily turn out bad.

I had no choice but to go back to work part time soon after having dc1. High interest rates and dh had more professional training to do so his salary wasnt great. Sometimes I wonder whether I would have done It differently if I'd had a choice... Maybe I would have stayed at home. Of course, if I had done, I might have been tempted to feel a few years down the line that my happy children were a result of me being at home... As things panned out, by the time dc2 arrived we were far more financially secure and I chose to work because I could see how happy and settled dd was, and I really enjoyed my life balance

So I think it's important to remember that just because you're happy with one way of life, it doesn't necessarily mean you would be un happy with another path. And where you don't have a choice things can still be good. I now look on the fact that I financially needed to return to work as a blessing in disguise.

I actually know a significant number of men who have reduced hours because they are worried about full time childcare for their children. All are in careers in the 40-60K bracket. In terms of the people I know with kids, it's probably about 33%

(non London wages there obviously)

I have two adopted DC and ttc our first now. Came on here due to mc. But I am sad to listen to some of this stuff.....

goldenbear I am treating you with the contempt that you deserve.

That's really great to hear working9while5. i
If a couple have any concerns about childcare it should be as much the dad's concern as mum's

God, I must remember never to even open threads like this!

Still dont understand how the hell they are discriminated against.

I actually think its very selfish, lazy and entitled to choose not to work and then claim state benefits. I'd rather the money was spent on more nurses, schools etc not people who actively choose to do nothing and take from the pot. It is the parents job to provide, not the states. If you want to not work once children come along then work hard beforehand and save for the luxury.

Helping households were all the aduts work makes sense. Childcare is only needed for a certain period and the worker will still be there and paying tax whn they no longer need childcare. In the mentime, they are still paying tax and keeping others in jobs through the use of the childcare service.

Just read on another thread that SAHM should be paid NMW by the state! Never laughed so hard. Being a parent is not a job, nobody makes you do it or controls the number you have. We all make choices in life but when you actively choose a lifestyle then moan about the lack of money being handed to you theres no sympathy.

Golden - who isn't a parent and is giving out advice.....

"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. £

Eh, no. I chose to work in the job that I could get. Full stop. I would MUCH rather be local but there simply weren't jobs. I chose the best childcare I could afford. Dh works more locally but he is sent on site regularly and is expected to work these long hours. When I made these choices, I was young and didn't really understand the implications: I thought there would always be the possibility of jobs closer to home/the opportunity to move etc.

Everyone's "choices" are half chance and mostly dictated by the economy.

Janey I often wonder how I know so many. One is a child psychologist, one a manager of a courier firm, two work in hr in high level roles etc.

I think the key is that their salaries are equal to that of their female partners. One has a salary that is less.

I suspect that money is the key factor, given that women still earn less in many sectors they are more likely to make the career sacrifice.

This is a genuine question. We have all had the chicken pox issue. No childminder will take a child with this illness.

How do these things get managed by others and work out a
OK. Leaving a career for chicken pox seems a bit drastic tbh. Unless of course you wanted to leave anyway.

Yes, I agree working9, no one has total control over every aspect of their life. But within the parameters of choice, people should make their decisions and get on with things without complaining. It's not a bad philosophy of life you know!

I was raised in the SE. I moved because it was too expensive to live there. Someone else might complain and stamp their feet and say 'why should I move away from family?'

I chose to continue working after dc2 even though someone else might have said 'two kids in nursery, theres no immediate financial gain to working so I'll give up'

I see both the above scenarios regularly on MN, and people respond in different ways- some move, some stay put, some work, some give up

My point is that there isn't a right or wrong way. The only thing thats wrong is to make a decision and then moan and resent everyone else who made a different choice

maisie, obviously the chicken pox issue was not what made me leave my job. It was in fact the final straw of a long list of things. With dc2 on the way, I knew many of these issues would become more insurmountable. Also dh got promoted and was earning more. I was part time and was earning less. It wouldn't have made financial sense for dh to stop working instead of me at this point.

maisiejoe123 - of course you can be a SAHM and a taxpayer! Come on!

Dh has done a bit of calculating, and he has worked out that he, as a single earner, pays 35% of his earnings into the State, by way of tax, NI and the loss of child benefit, whereas a two-earner family with the same total income will pay approximately 26% into the state.

How is this fair to families like ours, where one parent is a SAHP?

I do think there are arguments for families on the same overall income to be taxed less onerously when both parents have to work FT (or significantly PT) to generate that income than families where one parent does not work (or only very PT). There are significant costs associated with working for second earners.

SDT, Don't even go there. You will be hung, drawn and quartered. I've tried with this many times and have given up now. Just hope for the best and that one day we'll have a government that sees sense.

We had a Gov that thought likwe that. Look at the ecconomy now.

Actually SDT, where someone earns between 50 - 60k and have 3 dc, they have a marginal tax rate of 68%, factoring in loss of CB.