To think that it's ok to want to bring up your children and to be a mother, just as it's ok to go out to work instead?

[bronya]

I was brought up to 'have a career' and to think about work not babies. I admit I'd be bored doing nothing, and love the tutoring that I do - but I have no wish at ALL to be the main wage earner and leave the childcare to someone else. When my DS was born, it felt like I was complete. I'm happier, have more self esteem and confidence than I've ever had. I've met many other mums who feel similarly. Surely, our choice is just as valid as those who are WOHM? The point of feminism was that we should have that choice - whichever one we choose is our decision, surely?

Indeed, Sovery, I completely agree.

Sunshine - I believe SAHP is the accepted term here.

How about everyone with a child is a "parent?" And everyone with a job is "employed?" And everyone without a job is "unemployed?" or "between jobs?"

Can I be retired nkf

I work 4 hours a week so I'm never sure that counts

My husband would say I'm a full time mumsnetter

I'm not sure about sometime parent but most other roles can be part time. Or are roles you can retire form. It's the muddling of parenting and working or not working that makes no sense.

Retire from not form.

I'm not but dp is - just.

I simply feel all need support financial or otherwise.Both choices do the same thing,ie fund childcare for children and cause financial pain.

Neither are more worthy of support but the spin,rhetoric and actual support put out by gov and others paints a very different picture.

Also like others I worked and paid plenty before,will do again after and bar CB have never claimed for anything ever.

So the gov and anybody else can quite frankly stuff their rich, feckless,lazy,latte swilling picture re sahm they like to paint where the sun don't shine.

Calling a sahp parent unemployed is as offensive as a sahp parent calling themself a full time parent. Whst is wrong with wohp and samp. I am not a sahp btw but work part time out of home .

What on earth are you on about Chunderella?

All parents should get the same, all!

No choice should get preference over an other whether it be CB or anything else and if you're going to actively help parents to be working parents then just maybe they should help families to have a sahp too.

Oh and the pot isn't black or white- it varies,a lot!

the govt paying for childcare is to get more people working & paying tax/NI, particularly as the economy recovers. it is not making a moral judgement on the merits of WOH/SAH.

our taxation system only looks at what you are currently earning - not what you have contributed in the past. and looking at govt IT projects, taxation needs to be simple so the govt can implement it.

the big problem is paying for all our retirements. and however much SAH/WOH suits an individual family, paying tax and NI counts at national level.

But the gov are happy to fund tax credit,CB and childcare help for many who contribute nothing,pay no tax and by working cost more whilst doing nothing for sahp in that bracket or the next and frittering money on those wealthier further up- because both work.

It seems like an expensive way to slap the wrists of those who would like a period with a sahp.

Basically they're saying we will help everybody rich or poor who both work regardless of whether it helps the deficit because we don't like sahp,don't want to encourage families having one and don't care if many families and young children want one,need one or have kids who don't suit cheap childcare.

It stinks and is on a par with the social engineering that is the married tax allowance.

tax credit,CB and childcare help for many who contribute nothing,pay no tax

can you give an example of someone in this group, pls?