I disagree that we're heading back to a culture where women get barely any maternity leave and it's Normal to work an 80 hour week. Where does the proposal suggest that' maternity rights are being eroded? It's simply not true. Maternity rights have actually increased massively over recent years and indeed parental rights are granted
I completely agree about protecting workers rights in other ways and the biggest deal IMO would be an increase in NMW and abolition of Zero hour contracts. But to criticise plolicy which widens parents' opportunities to work? That's good
What is very clear is that there are some women who want to stay at home with their children whatever. They want to stay at home even if their partner is the lower earner and even if childcare is subsidised, and they have a partner who is happy to be the sole earner. Which is fine. But they cannot expect social policy to reflect this choice. Partly because of the financial reasons described above: it simply is not cost effective: why should the govt reward people financially for something they would choose to do whatever, and which has no financial advantage to the govt? Of course there is a huge value in raising well adjusted children- but the point is, that's to do with good parenting, not whether the parents work or not. If there were overwhelming evidence that children of WOHP were more likely to be feckless drains on public funds then I'm under no illusions: the govt with its eye on finances as ever, would chase parents women back into the home. However, that's not the case. The govt knows (as we perhaps all do deep down) that caring responsible parents (WOH or SAH) raise well adjusted children, and equally uncaring, neglectful or abusive parents ( WOH or SAH) cause problems for their children
And apart from the financial reasons, why should the govt support one particular model (because its overwhelming the woman who stops work) over and above recognising that this is the 21st century and women and men aren't constrained by social and educational expectations as used to be the case. Many fathers don't want the expectation of being sole earner, always being expected to push ahead with their career no matter what pressure that creates or how much it prevents them having a share of the hands on stuff with the kids. And let's face it, many posters are very quick to tell us that they have to stay home to facilitate their husbands high pressure long hours job. Well that's fine if as a couple you've chosen those roles. But don't extrapolate from that, that couples all over the country want to replicate that ... Many couples these days both want balance, which isn't that surprising: we only get one shot at life so surely it's quite normal to want to experience the delights of being a parent, running a home and having a work life too? It doesn't have to be all or nothing
Like I say, if you are absolutely determined that you want to stop work and not use childcare at all, I can quite see that this policy isn't of personal interest to you- just as they aren't personably relevant to childless adults, or indeed to people like me whose children are much older. But it's so resentful to not want others to benefit from something just because you won't choose it or use or yourself. This proposal broadens choice. It doesn't force people to use it. It doesn't tell SAHP they are worthless or scum or any of these other choice epithets (it's SAHP themselves who sometimes label themselves like this.) I think being a SAHP is a valid choice if you feel it's right for your family (or to be specific, if both partners feel its right) But that doesn't mean it's a better choice or that society should place some intrinsic value on it: society should value all good parents