to want to remind people who say the unemployed and sahm's are lazy and

[martini84]

Should go and get a job that on average 5 people apply for every job and this rises to 45 for entry level jobs.
Not quite that simple.

Janey, even when your children are at school, doesn't mean the SAHP gets to fill every hour with hobbies. I'm not working ATM, I seem to have endless chores to take care of, from paying bills to washing clothes etc. Although yes I do have more free time than if I was working. And the school day is 6 hours, as I've said before. Come 3pm I have to stop whatever it is I'm doing a get DC from school.

janey

Some sahps with school aged children are busy too. It can be hard work when they are older too, well it is in our house anyway

Of course all of that is true.
But it denies the fact that by defining being a sahm as 'watching you singlehandedly working your ass off' you are dismissing that choice as idle when you have no idea why someone may have made it, or what their roles have been before or what motivates both partners.

Sighing at having to explain yourself when you are being combative is a bit stupid.

I actually agree with much of what you posted and the 'farming kids out' stuff makes me want to hit people.
But it is perfectly possible to be well educated, have a career, share ambitions, work ethic, career choices etc and still end up living within a traditional role because life is complicated.

Everyone should be able to fund it though there should always be an option for one parent to stay at home should they wish with NMW this is not possible. So I will take tax credits to help in what should be my human right to raise my children.
By the way I quite happily worked whilst my partner stayed at home for a time and would again if he lost his job and I was the first to find a new one and yes I considered him to be raising them as he was the main caregiver.

Your point kind of comes full circle mrbuttercat. Like I said earlier, who decides what is 'acceptable' to a family in terms of working? Left to individual families, some feel its acceptable to have both working, some would say one parent part time until primary school, some would say no wait til they are secondary school age, some would say it benefits their family to never work again! Ditto with family size.. A family may function quite happily with both parents working with 2 children, but 3 would be too much pressure and one would want to be at home

A system has to be equitable to everyone. It can't support people on the basis of what they would personally choose.

When I was a SAHM - at one point to four children, one of whom had special needs - a stepson and a small holding with animals and crops I still had copious time to pursue hobbies.

I am not trying to boast, as I said I was driven by selfish laziness, so there is little to boast about. I am also not some kind of domestic goddess. But IME for most women, if they get up with their husbands in the morning and start "work" as they do, there is a lot of spare time. That is not meant to attack anyone, as I said I would love to still be at home pottering about.

But it should if there are benefits to children or well being as a family.

I'm just getting very concerned re the attitudes to sahp,the idea that they are lazy and the ignoring of the fact that having 1 in a family can have immense benefits.I'm also concerned re the idea that if you don't have 2 wp in a family you don't want to get on.

The Tories are peddling the anti sahp and frankly their experience of 2 working parents bears very little similarity to what the majority experience.

As I say I am concerned.

The thing is mrbuttercat there are families that have 2 working parents and they love it.
I would not choose to reduce my hours, we manage perfectly well and we enjoy our life as it is.

It's not a one size fits all solution, there are so many factors to take into consideration and it ultimately boils down to this, most parents do what works for their circumstances at the time. If that means 2 working parents, or a SAHP with the other parent claiming whatever little bit of help they are entitled to, so be it. It's no ones business.

But what if there are benefits to the family in having one parent home forever?! And what if the other parent can't cope with a pressurised job to fund it? And what if a family want 4 kids and to be supported to get what they want?

At the end of the day, the money to support what each family feel benefits them most has to come from somewhere...

I do wonder when SAHP say they fill their days with cooking collecting their children from school and washing! I do all of that too...(or pay someone to do the pick up from school/after school club)

Also on another thread someone said the split up/divorce rate is 50% when you have children. They were trying to justify people's poor choices in a father for their children and wanted benefits to be increased to cover these poor choices.

If that is the case 50% on this thread could well find that the man they thought would support them forever actually doesnt.

What I am trying to say is that if you choose to rely on one person for your lifestyle and the split up rate is 50% then you need to think very carefully before you give up any career.

Ah the you'll split up comments,funny how they always appear on these threads.Being a sahp doesn't make you lose the ability to choose a decent life partner.

The job market is fierce at the moment but the suggestion that get those who stay at home back to work would be a bad thing is the same flawed logic as those who claim that the over 65s are hogging jobs.

There is no one size fits all solution to TC and benefits because every family is different and people have the right to choose how they want to parent and work.

I am with Bunny it is a right to be a sahp if you so choose and yes the NMW should be enough to support this, but in many cases it isn't.
This is where TC comes in. Of course the tax payer funds the system but some people seem to think that a sahp is given a wage to allow them to do this. It is a top up for those on low income. There are some families with both parents working who receive TC.
It is awarded on household income.
There are many sahps who would cost the tax payer more if they chose to work as they would be entitled to subsidised childcare and TC if they didn't earn much.

No. But being a sahp does place a responsibility upon you to protect yourself from the possibility that your partner may change or turn out o be less decent than you believed him to be.

I don't know any sahms who fill up their days cooking, collecting children and washing. I try to avoid those.

Yes, I agree you do have a responsibility if not to yourself to protect yourself from the possibility that your partner will change. I work with a lot of men.

A number of times they state that their wives really dont understand the pressures they are under or are even interested in their roles. Dont know why they are telling me this though.....

Well we'd been together for years and grew up together so I was pretty confident,I guess if you've only just met it may be different.The fact is I wanted to make the sacrifices,had a need to actually.The misery of not being a sahp was worth any risk.

I think re raising kids as I said one size doesn't fit all and tbh it's one huge leap in the dark and financial drain anyway.

If we all made every parenting decision on head instinct alone instead of gut too we'd never have become parents anyway.

And I have too with my DH, however if 50% is correct (and I am depressed if it is) we need to be prepared. The figure was used to make a point i.e people make daft decisions, ignore the red flags, or just go ahead with a child without thinking it through and still need to be given benefits to effectively support those choices. My point was that if you allow people to make mistake after mistake you will never ensure that they take responsibility for their own lives.

I then got all sorts of horrible stories regarding young girls who had been raped by their fathers and passed around to his friends and worse (!) and how there were no choices for them. Of course I am not talking about these sorts of cases.

I am referring to people who make the same mistakes time and time again and who take and take from society and give little back.

Its not about making decisions with your head instead of your gut.
I have been with dh for 24 years and I am 99.9% sure that I will never be with anyone else and neither will he.
But if the 0.1% chance happens I am not screwed

janey68 Some areas of society haven't changed. Some career choices very much pop families in a pigeonhole whether they can afford it or not.

MrButtercat Indeed. There has been much peddling of the myth that two parents out at work is the new 'ideal'. It's not ideal for me & mine.

I am having a wry smile at the multi-children and missing partners routine that's about to unfold though.

4 biters whom I love, chose to bear and choose to raise our way. I like cooking. The housework I'd like to farm out to someone else and would if finances allowed I don't see the point of staying with a partner if I'm labouring under the assumption he'll do a bunk at some point.

This forum is FULL of people who have been with partners for years and of course people who have rushed into a relationship without thinking.

I actually think it must be quite diffciult for men these days.Previously as a SAHM you were totally reliant on your parnter. FGS - he even filled your tax return in for you despite the fact you might have earned more. My father was a very difficult man and never revealed how much he earned. Of course my DM had to disclose her salary for the tax return.

They are divorced now! After 17 years.

Yes I agree, some careers do pigeonhole people, which is why these things need careful thought. I guess one advantage of meeting ones partner at Uni is that neither of you has yet embarked on a career and can plan what you want out of life as a team