To dislike the term "full time mum"

[LunchpackOfNotreDame]

Last time I checked all mums were full time mums, you don't clock off when you go to work.

What's wrong with housewife or stay at home mum or unemployed? When did being a parent become an employment status?

Speak for yourself, Itsmine - when I'm gardening, an activity which I loathe, I am most definitely working, whether it's in my garden or someone else's!!!

The difference is that if you are in full-time employment, all these jobs can be left until your spare time. You don't have to get someone else to do them if you are working 40 hours, or even 60 hours, a week. If you have young children and you are in paid employment, their care cannot be left until you have finished work; someone else has to look after them while you are working. So if you are not delegating any of this care to anyone else, it seems perfectly reasonable to me to call yourself a 'full-time' mum. I have never thought about it before but don't find it cringeworthy at all. SAHP seems fine as an acronym but why use 4 words when 3 will do.

I never have any idea how to answer the question "what do you do?"
I stopped working after the children were born.
This enabled my husband's job to go in a direction which allowed for immense professional flexibility, sleeping away a couple of nights a week, returning home after the children are asleep other nights.
Financially this is now an entrenched situation.
I was once in a well paid, long hours,professional role (although not very happy in it)
My children are now both school age.
There will be no 'going back to work' as the type of role I once had is now inconceivable with our family set up, even if we were to imagine that any company wished to employ a mother returning to work after an 8 year career break.
I have no idea what to do next.
but when I work out what the hell I am now and how I'd like to define myself I'd prefer it was a description of my own making rather than one imposed upon me by someone pissed off by how I describe myself.

Yuup...... it is another stick to beat women with. I didn't have my first child til i was 32. I'd worked for over a decade. within 3 short years I had people who weren't that different from me really, just maybe at a different phase in their life, making me feel I had to justify myself!

"Describing parents who do this as "unemployed" seems like a calculated insult - a devaluing of a job that is very important."

I think you are absolutely right there Hackmum. A calculated insult is exactly it. So I do hope CookieMonster and others who insist that this is the case are feeling good about themselves and the choices they made re. how they spend their time after the birth of their children. Somehow I think they do!!

I really dislike the term economically inactive too, and my work sounds like it might be in a similar field to sooty's. In Ireland, the role of the stay at home parent (assumed to be a woman, granted, but still) gets a mention in the constitution!! The unpaid army. It isn't phrased like that but however it's worded, there is an acknowledgement that this uunpaid army must have pension rights, children's allowance, access to services, health care, state run courses etc...

The theory is one thing and the execution is another mind you. But given that the FAMILY is known to be a more successful economic unit, then to unfairly brand one half of what is a TEAM "economically inactive" when it was a team decision who took what role is a bit goady in my opinion. Maybe not sooty's own personal goady but it is not a model that would motivate or inspire people's confidence if they were out of the workplace for a long time.

Also, if the UK social welfare system is anything like the Irish Department of Social protection then their first priority is not to motivate or inspire or recognise the efforts of those doing unpaid work which contributes to society. It is to number crunch, save money from one column, send a cost to another department. Too look good. To be seen to be making progress.

Recognising the obstacles to work, and recognising people's contribution to society is the last thing that is acknowledged, but failing to receive a tick in a box marked ''economically active'' does not mean that one isn't contributing economically. To save the 'team' (family) a big childcare bill is contributing economically to that 'team'.

I agree Mintyy, another way to make women feel inferior.

hairy

I'm in a similar position and have barely worked in 24 years.
I/we decided this when ds1 was born.
We have 2 grown up dc and one dependant who weekly boards at school.
I am not looking for a title tbh as have no idea how to define myself other than me, which is fine too.
I agree that people should refer to themselves how they want to and of course we go through different stages.
I consider myself to have been a full time mum, sahm, full time mum again, sahm, and full time mum and H.educator.
So now, I'm retired from much of that and am pt mum, pt housekeeper, wife, PA, secretary, problem solver, negotiator, cook, cleaner, finance manager etc. and of course pt Lady of leisure.

SheGot If a WOHP is sitting at their desk at work and someone asks what they're doing, I doubt they answer "I'm cleaning the oven", just because the money they earn pays for a cleaner to do that. Parents who have another job obviously arrange for someone else to care for their children during the time they're not there. I'm using 'caring' here as a shorthand for changing nappies, preparing food, the general supervising of children that has to be done.

If had a quid for every time a new mum who had just gone back to work after maternity leave had muttered to me how much easier it was being at work than at home with DC, I would be fairly rich. It's work, bloody hard work - and I think we all really know that at heart.

You don't clock off when at work? I have an 18 mth old and I swear during my last contract I sometimes forgot I had a baby at home.

When my DC were small I worked mostly from home or wherever the DC and I happened to be.

I think someone might have called social services if I'd forgotten about them .

Once they got to school, it was much easier to crack on of course.

*that should have read being at home is bloody hard work, if it wasn't clear..

But I suppose the point was that even when I'm working, as opposed to cooking, helping with homework etc there's parenting involved as a huge part of parenting is providing a home, food, activities, travel, educational opportunities etc.

I don't see that side of parenting as any less neccessary than the practical tasks IYSWIM.

I have so much respect for long term SAHP. Full-time work in a busy demanding environment was so much easier than what I'm currently doing (only temporarily), staying at home with an 18 month old.

I'm with the 'I'm not working at the moment' crowd.

I would never say full time mum or stay at home parent.

Gosh Long term stay at home mum covers so many variations: I certainly wouldn't respect one any more/or less than anyone else. (All other factors aside)

I still find the "I'm not working" concept a bit bizarre. Not in paid employment, maybe, but not "not working." If you don't like "full time mum" for what it implies about mothers in paid employment, you ought to be more sensitive to what society is implying when unpaid work isn't allowed to count as work. It makes unfairly irrelevant the massive army of unpaid carers of the young, the elderly and the disabled. It also minimises the importance of family life to the level of what you do when you are on holiday from "work," rather than being the main reason for your "working"... It is actually extremely disrespectful. Put the two phrases together and you are basically saying that whatever women do shouldn't be allowed to count as a proper contribution to society, because they are always failing to pull their weight somewhere.

Why is it, when a significant part of our population are parents and/or carers, that society still devalues this care work, to the point that it's not even classed as working because it's unpaid?

I know that we tend to forget how hard it actually is (DC2 is 18 months, and I had forgotten how hard it was within the space of a few years) but do people just not believe us? I know it's not just me that finds motherhood hard work sometimes.

Why is it that our contribution to society seems to measured solely on how much money we earn? I wondered if perhaps it has something to do with caring being more mentally than physically draining (IME, but not always of course) but it's not like the people in our society that do the most physical work are the best paid.

(Sorry, that's all questions. I'm not expecting all the answers - just musing!)

It's all about power, control and bullying, isn't it? You can give a good kicking to those who don't hold the cash if you are an unpleasant, disrespectful little bully.

It's not though. If I do my own waxing, or my own gardening for example, I don't then earn an additional X amount - I just don't spend that amount. It's like saying you bought something at the sales that was reduced to £400 from £600. You didn't save £200, you spent £400! Plus, when you're working you're paying into pensions and keeping your career prospects going which will stand you in good stead for when you are no longer paying childcare.

Btw - agree with those who don't like the term 'unemployed'. To me that means you want to work but can't get a job at the moment - which is different from actively choosing not to work for a period of time to fulfil another role in your life.

I've never seen children equated with manicures and leg waxing before. Interesting. Are all children an unnecessary self-indulgence? Discuss. Include in your argument consideration as to whether there is any point to human beings in the first place.

I'm sure you understand the point I was making about income/expenditure.