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?

Agree janey sounds so nasty and bitter
she still thinks we live the life of riley.

ahhh work I remember it well

i got to go toliet alone
I got to drink hot coffee
I got to have a lunch break
I was actual name and title not just xs mummy.
we discussed things other than kids
people engaged with me and respected me-lonly life being at home mums can be so cliquey
I wasent tidying up same room several times day.
could afford the coffee shop or going out after work for hwta remember as social life or engage in hobbies.
I think i took less painkillers
the house ident look like a bomb had hit it.

Calm down Motown- YOU raised the issue of SAHM wanting a break!
I just replied that I would have no objection to them having a payback of £1200 for £6000 spent, which is what a WOHM gets

janey.

This is one of the comments and attitude that makes many (not me) sahps want recognition. They are doing the same job as a child care worker, gardener, chauffeur, cleaner etc. But wohps quite often call them lazy, say their contribution is zero because they themselves think you are only contributing to the rest of society if you pay into "The Pot".
I also don't know of any sahp who expects to be paid to sah. I hear plenty who complain about the system as do wohps, opinion isn't just given to workers you know.
Of course nobody begrudges child care support to those who need it, but the system needs to be fair for everyone.
Yes we did choose to have a sahp, I gave up as soon as I was pregnant and didn't want to continue and dh did. I have no regrets and I don't resent anything, . I just believe in fairness and object when some people make up their own version because they don't have all the facts.
I have said that child care vouchers would be of no use to me because I wouldn't use them, as long as they go to the needy I see no problem but 300K thats some benefit scrounging imo.

Get your facts straight Motown - I work full time. And please stop the personal remarks - it's a really weak form of debate. You asked how a SAHM is different to a WOHM. I answered factually . It doesn't mean I think being a SAHM is the life of Riley. It just means its different to being a WOHM. That's all.

mam29: We're certainly not the only ones sounding bitter.

You seem to remember your working days from when you didn't have children.

A normal day for me is getting up early, rushing around like mad getting everyone and everything ready and out of the house.

Rush to nursery and then rush to work where yes I do get to drink hot coffee. Half an hour lunch break (had it shortened so I can finish 30 minutes early to spend more time with my kids). I rarely have time to gossip with my colleagues at work.
Finish at five, rush to nursery again so I an pick DS up as early as possibly.

Get home, cook dinner before the kids go nuts. Spend time with children, help with homework and try to get hem to bed.

Come eight o'clock I start doing housework as children DO have tin to make a mess even though they don't spend all day in it. We also have breakfast and dinners together and prepare packed lunches at home so lots of washing up is generated but we have less time to deal with it.

Oh, and I don't have time for a social life of my own as all time not at work I prioritise to spend with my children.

I think there is plenty that is a grind about being at home- a lot of the tasks are repetitive, and it can have moments of absolute boredom and can also be isolating. Having said that, I loved my maternity leaves and I loved my days off even more when I worked part time, probably because my toddlers were great fun and I enjoyed those years more than the eat/ sleep/ change bum repetitiveness of the newborn phase. And of course there was housework and gardening to try to fit in on my two days off at home with the kids, because no way could we afford a cleaner back then in the days of double nursery fees. In fact because all my wages went on childcare, we led a very modest life on my days off- it was picnics in the garden, not soft play or trips out. Not that I minded because I really enjoyed those days. As for the idea of being able to afford a bit of extra childcare to give me a break- not on your life. Every bit of childcare we ever had was when we both worked.

So yes, I do know what being at home with young kids is like, and my house was frequently like a bomb site. But I never for a moment felt entitled to be paid for my days off, and I certainly didn't need validation for it from anyone other than my family.

Sorry Janey if I did get my facts right - you did work part time for a while didn't you - didn't you state that up thread about 3 days a week? ?

If not I apologise.

Your remark using the word fancy and I interpreted it as a put down as if a break wasn't really needed. It did seem a flippant remark and a put down.

I have mixed feelings about this one...

I don't actually think childcare/nursery is intrinsically better for pre-school children's development so in one way I see that SAHMs and their children are not being discriminated against since they don't need the childcare.

However if the majority of children are in some form of childcare they are more likely to develop within the 'norm' since they will have a more standardised socialisation. This makes their development more predictable, homogenised if you like, and in a way better received / more valued by our educational establishment, since it is not geared up to deal well with any pattern of development which is outside the 'norm'.

In my view, this is a shame, since I believe the developmental experiences of children in childcare are not necessarily better, just different.

Of course SAHPs should get a break from their children. They can get that from the other parent, who doesn't work 24/7, looking after their child. Or by the other people who are in the same situation who could help each other out.

There's a reason it takes two people to make a child.

There is no reason why the state should pay for SAHPs to 'have a break'. If they do decide to, then shouldn't everyone else be entitled to paid child/work free time too?

motown- you are assuming SAHP are always women.

No one has called SAHP lazy on this thread morethan-its not helpful to keep bringing in emotive unfair remarks others have made and using them in a different debate.

As a working mum I have to say, as much as you SAHP say they do need a break, I always think, well when's mine?

Up in the morning, breakfast with son, then to work (work isn't a break!) then home, spend time with son, meal, bedtime, then spend time with husband because he's been at home with son all day.

So when's my break again???

eMustBeAnotherExplanationTue 06-Aug-13 19:31:46

No I'm not kidding - you have to be in the top 40% of earners (roughly speaking) before you put in more than you 'get out' (in benefits and services).

But youre using this as an argument for sahms not working which doesnt make sense. If they work theyll maybe still not be a net contributor but the effect will be less!

I don't think childcare is intrinsically better for pre school children either. Neither do I think it's worse. It's just different. And not in any way the primary influence in shaping the child anyway. It's another dimension to their life that's all. The parents exert the major influence whether they work or not.

I have to say I don't recognise this homogenised , predictable mass of robots being produced by WOHP one bit! Honestly, my teenage kids have friends whose parents worked/ didn't work/ worked part time- every permutation under the sun. You wouldn't be able to tell what working pattern their parents did or didn't have

I don't resent the 'break' my husband gets when our son is at preschool, but it does sometimes come across like SAHP think working parents have it easy at work all day too.

The judging goes both ways!!

Would be better if everyone stopped judging and just accepted that everyone is working hard in one way or another. It's not a competition!

I'm a sahm and I think it's a good policy childcare is ridiculously expensive.

My only fear is like in Scandinavia women will feel that they have to go back to work and being a sahm isn't an option.

I do feel that people IME are becoming more hostile towards sahm. I don't think the likes of Laura Perrins are helping the perception of sahm's.

I do realise that men now make up not quite 10 per cent of those who care for children.

I do think that such a low percentage does demonstrate just how biased the current govt's policies are.

janey but you wouldn't need validation for being a worker though because that is the norm. It is the sahp who needs validation because people like you say it is repetitive and boring, and others (not you I must add) believe sahps to be lazy unimaginative and many other comments you'll find throughout society and on these threads. You haven't been a sahp so how do you know how you would feel with all kinds of nastiness being thrown at you? No matter how you look at it you do have a problem with sahm, tax credits, etc. I can't see why it should bother you as it doesn't affect you and yet every time a thread is started you are there to show bitterness, resentment and jealousy. Do you wish you had been a sahm?

I should clarify the nearly 10% figure is for those who care for children on a SAHP basis.

The other +90% are women who are SAHP.

I think it may serve to be divisive in terms of the differing experiences between children who have both parents going to work and those who don't. For the reasons I explained in my last post.

This puts extra pressure on those who have made the decision to stay at home, as staying at home may be best for their situation but they may not be able to afford the childcare which would make their children's developmental experiences more similar to that of the majority.

FGS, having a child costs. Whichever way you look at it. Either it costs as in you pay someone else to look after your child while you work, or it costs as in you give up work and lose a salary. What seems unfair about the government targeting all its help to 2 x WOHP families is why exactly they need help with these unavoidable costs but families with one SAHP don't. For arguments' sake let's say a WOHP earns £1.5k per month and pays £1.5k out in childcare. Why do they need help with this cost but SAHP don't need any help with their costs when essentially the net effect is the same as the SAHP? And please don't do the 'But WOHP contribute tax' line - it's way too simplistic - some families with one earner will, as a unit, contribute way more than some families with two earners. It's not black and white.

I agree it would be wonderful for more dads to take flexible working or time out. But at least these options are available now- my DH didn't even get paternity leave

It has to start with families taking up their rights though. Unfortunately as rino proved with her dh's example, there are still a lot o women about who see it as intrinsically their right to stop work, and actually feel hostile to dads who SAH.

And why is everyone saying the proportion of couples who earn 150 each must be tiny? Probably true but I dont think the 300k has to be split equally. Presumably one coukd be on a quarter of a million, the other on less

Thank you janey

You only have to look at the names of groups and activities. It's always 'mothers and toddler group', never parent an toddler. Makes SAHD feel excluded before they've even started.

Wannabe

You have hit the nail on the head there. I too hope that women won't feel pressured into going to work, sahp should always be an option.
I am beginning to see the hostility you refer to, at first I thought it was because I H.ed dd and we are quite often shopping during the lunch hour.
But many of the comments are on the lines of I'd like to do that but have to work. etc. I do point out to them that its possible to do both, but some people lack imagination

Who is Laura Pennins?

Its interesting morethan that you always accuse WOHM as being jealous and bitter when in RL I have found it to be the other way round.

My DH and I share care and I had nothing but nasty remarks about his contribution " Are you sure he is trustworthy" "I couldn't leave my DC with their DF ,he wouldn't know what to do.
All aimed at making me feel bad for WOH .
DH is a fabulous SAHP on the days when that is his role

janey has always been well balanced in her posts and your constant resort to you are jealous, bitter, resentful is becoming a bit predictable and desperate .