AIBU to think that saying the new childcare proposal discriminates against SAHP is like saying JSA discriminates against the employed?

[AnnieLobeseder]

So I know it's fairly old news, but the new government proposals to help working parents with childcare costs have been popping up on my BBC newsfeed this week.

Now there are plenty of things wrong with these new proposals, such as the "help" only being available for parents with under-5s to start with, and that students don't count as "employed" so if you're both/one of you are students and need childcare while you're at college you get no help at all. At least they're apparently going to count being a carer as "employed" so families where one parent stays home to care, they will get help with childcare.

However, what I don't understand is why these aren't the issues being highlighted, but instead, just people whining that SAHPs will lose out. Erm, please correct me if I'm missing some fundamental point here, but isn't that because SAHPs, by their very nature, don't need childcare!! That's why they stay at home - to look after their own children.

I've seem quotes that this is a "carrot dangled at SAHMs to tempt them back into work". Um, no, who the heck would put themselves into a situation they don't want for the sake of claiming a benefit they don't really need?

So to my mind, it's like complaining that you aren't entitled to JSA because you have a job, and saying that having JSA for those who need it is "dangling a carrot in front of people with jobs to tempt them into unemployment".

AIBU?

Yeap, lets blame those pesky mothers who work. How very dare they! Lets return to the good old days when women teachers had to resign on getting married, and many professions were completely barred to women. In fact lets cut out the middle man- why bother sending our daughters to university- after all, they might come out with qualifications and the aspiration to work!!

Not all SAHP are mothers...

Thanks Rino

ihategeorgeosborne family house prices are high because of the availability of cheap credit pre-2007 and people thinking that buying houses was a licence to print money.

Rino- the vast majority are

workers keep the economy going?? come on and go read the alternative view of accounting.

Happymummyofone please get a life - people can lose jobs, they may have chosen to have children when they are well off. They may be one of the many women with children who are first in line to be made redundant by employers.

Honestly get a life. Don't kid yourself!

janey, yes the majority are, but your last post was a little...dare I say hysterical? and soley focussed on women. This is not gender issue.

equality budgeting something George wouldn't properly consider in a zillion years.

ihategeorgeosborne you could also argue that SAHP are bad for the welfare state because they don't earn any of the tax required to fund it.

motown - exactly! circumstances change! we don't all have crystal balls to see into the future so we can plan with absolute precision!

Unfortunately rinoachicken childcare is a gender issue, I wish this wasn't true but it is.

Rino- because it seems to be the agenda among a minority to put more, not fewer, barriers in the way of working parents. And history shows us that it is more likely to be women who are expected to give up careers, to take a back seat.

But wouldn't the welfare state be cheaper to fund if the cost of living was considerably lower, i.e. housing?

Its like stepping back in time. Man by virtue of being born make shall have no choice in working but will be expected to in order to fund not only himself but his wife and children. Women shall stay home. Why bother going to school, getting into debt at uni only to not work anyway? Girls and boys should be encouraged to work regardless of their sex or chosen care/job path. We should be showing them you can have both and dont have to quit working just because you have become a parent.

If you need validation or to be paid for looking after the children you chose to have then, well, words fail me.

I honestly can't stand the line of " Oh Well your choice - you should not have procreated " I mean if there are babies and children you can't send them back! What the actual F!

Also the house prices are mainly due to where jobs are created. 1/3 of of all jobs created since the end of 2009 have been in London and 3/4 quarters of all jobs created have been in London, the South East, South West and in East Anglia.

So it is a North South Divide.

Don't forget the ultra-rich international buyers which George and Dave so love and they create a real bubble in the London property market.

Happymumofone Who is stepping back in time?

You do know Maggie Thatcher never let them cut child benefit because of the impact it would have in disadvantaging women.

I don't think you actually get a number of issues, from the pay gap, from women still not being equal, men still holding the majority of highly paid offices, to SAHM's not being valued by society.

You were the one talking about all these choices.

Tell me where women can choose to be paid as much as men? Tell me why hasn't that happened yet??

Motownmover- you seem to be raising several different issues now

Making childcare more affordable HELPS women to stay in the workplace. It helps them improve their earning power.

As for SAHM not being valued... I think this is the rub. It keeps cropping up. Surely you do it because you want to, because you feel it's best for your family? Therefore the Validation you get is from within your family. Hopefully your partner appreciated and values what you do.

Just like I appreciate and value my husband for being a good dad, and he values me for being a good mum. I don't expect any other form of validation over and above that. Why would I?

If it was valued more parents would be helped to do it.They're not.They're told they don't want to get on,aren't hard working and their CB is taken off them.

It's appalling.

It's hardly a big want desiring to be there and to be the one raising your dc 24/7 in the early years.

No Janey sorry no I raised those issues earlier in the thread.

If posters are going to spout BS like saying that SAHM are not net contributors.

The Govt is only going to make ccare more affordable for people with small children. They are going to take away ccvouchers from wrap around care. They are going to reduce the number of baby places at nurseries because of where they want to fund places.

Lots of women I am sure are a SAHM because they can not afford to work - 1200 won't go far to nursery costs in London.

I don't need validation from a man - and think that is a bizarre and sexist comment.

I actually work as well as being on mat leave Janey but I think that much economic activity takes place in the form of unpaid work by women in both developing and developed nations.

I dont see why SAHPs want valuing by society, its of no benefit to society to not pay tax or claim benefits as many do.

Women are not yet equals in the workplace but we do ourselves no favours. Lots never return when they become a parent, some go back part time and therefore limiting what work and role they can hold if only there x hours etc. For those that want to go far and parent it can be done, isnt xenia a high flying lawyer and a single parent to three children? Lots dont want to be high flying but just have a job that they enjoy or one that covers living costs, whether male or female.

As far as this government's concerned Retro, it's the devils work. We are lower than low. They can F right off as far as I'm concerned. I will be cheering loudly on election day, when those smug, self-satisfied tossers get booted out of Downing Street.

happymummy theres that 'SAHP must be claiming benefits' thing again...

Men dominate most institutions that rule the economy.

Don't you think that women who do rise to leadership in business, finance and politics often find themselves having to play by rules that don't suit women?

If you don't play along you are left out.

So bad policy is made over and over pitting groups of society against each other - the deserving and undeserving poor.

WOHM V SAHM.

So as well as women not being considered for roles they are also likely to leave some positions. Hells bells they may actually think raising children is one of the better things to do in life.