To think only women with rich partners are encouraged and celebrated as SAHM.

[malificent7]

If you are skint or single then you are seen as lazy for wanting to be a SAHM.

This is following from my 'terribly entitled' thread. I made it very clear that I had to give up my teaching career as it was destroying my mental health. I am now a skint TA but much happier at work and I alos have time for dd.

The amount of people suggesting that I go back into teaching to balance the books even though it nearly ruined me was strange.
I was being encouraged to take up a more family unfriendly job.

Whereas if a woman in better circumstances comes on and says that she is struggling to balance work and family life she is often encouraged to give up work if she can afford it an did celebrated as being a good mother.

AIBU to wonder if SAHM are less stigmatised if well off?

Having children is a choice. Living with children is a different lifestyle to not.

unexpected yes sorry, I should have included men too. I don't agree though that you can always choose. As an example, where we live, childcare for under school age kids is v expensive, and if I'd tried to work full time, I'd have paid more in childcare than I earnt and that wasn't an option for us financially. We did it for a year and it was a nightmare. Now I'm lucky that the kids are older and in school/school hours nursery I'm able to work part time and still do pick up (although not drop off) but if DH is unable to do drop off for whatever reason (and this is looking likely from very soon) before school care is going to cost me a lot of £. So women (and men) don't always have a choice.

In a developed society people have choices, it's what makes the society civilised, it's what makes living in a developed economy desirable.

The opportunity of choice allows people to flourish and develop and advance their social mobility should they be so inclined. It's desirable in civilised societies to have choice. It's good for everyone, it is healthy.

But you would rather live in a punitive society where by whim of fortune you have choice or not. I wouldn't. I'd prefer for everyone to have choices, we all benefit.

what is with all the benefits bashing on this thread!!? Yes benefits are there to help family life, despite what channel 5 and the daily mail would have you believe. No you couldnt just give up your jobs and live on benefits because you want more time with your family, that couldnt happen, you cant claim the type of benefits you would need if you had voluntarily left your job, you would be without money for a very long time if you did this and would probably have to resort to foodbanks and other emergency measures if you had no savings. You could however cut down your hours and receive benefits to make up some of teh shortfall because you want to spend more time taking care of your child.... and what on earth is wrong with that?!?! Benefits are there for the benefit of society and what is really in the benefit of society is that children are well looked after and have good mental health. If the OP or anyone else feels that their working hours are impacting on the wellbeing of their child and would like to cut down and rely on some benefits so that the child has more of their time i really dont think there is anything wrong with that.
Im sure theres going to be a chorus of 'Dont have kids if you cant afford them' in response to this but i think that is a horrendous thing to say for many reasons. People dont always plan to have children and a woman should never be forced into having an abortion of money worries thats disgusting. Not only the rich should be having kids, we should just be providing better opportunities and support to children from lower income families so that the cycle isnt perpetuated.
Sometimes people on here act like everyone on benefits should just go and die alone with only the bare essentials of food and household items.
I dont claim anything but child benefit btw and im a SAHM, my partner earns just enough to support us but not vast amounts. When i return to work i will be happy to pay my taxes so that other women can work less if they feel that would benefit their family.

You could however cut down your hours and receive benefits to make up some of teh shortfall because you want to spend more time taking care of your child.... and what on earth is wrong with that?!?!

Who decides how much someone could cut down their hours by and that the government will give you the shortfall though? Can you cut down from 30 hours a week to 20? What about to 10? Or 2? Still earning the same.

Who makes that choice?! Many people would want to work as little as possible if it meant they still took home the same amount of money as possible.

I think people have already made a choice. Which is why benefits are being cut and the Labour government has no hope of being in power for a very long time.

You could however cut down your hours and receive benefits to make up some of teh shortfall because you want to spend more time taking care of your child.... and what on earth is wrong with that?!?!

Everything is wrong with that. Benefits are a safety net, not another personal income option. What happens when the next government changes the benefits and you're left short?

I have huge sympathy. Childcare and housing are two major expenses which have become almost unaffordable. That's what the government should be tackling.

"Childcare and housing are two major expenses which have become almost unaffordable."

Diverting the thread, but it would be interesting to know if many couples in the current childbearing generations are deciding not to have dc, or only have one dc when ideally they would like more, as a result.

I don't know if childcare is more expensive proportionate to incomes than 30 years ago (it may even be less, because of initiatives like free childcare hours, I don't know) - but cost of house purchase does seem to be higher (I think the stats show this, not just anecdotal). Looking back, faced with a choice of own own house or have more than 1 dc, not sure what I would have done.

Hmmmm I can see it both ways re benefits. However I absolutely don't believe in unlimited benefits for unlimited numbers of children. Those of us who aren't on benefits have the number of children we can afford so it frankly I don't think another section of society should be funded to have several children after 2.

I think dropping hours would be beneficial to many children and families and I'm in 2 minds re the state picking up the tab however I do think many families could plan ahead more. Going on holidays,buying gadgets,clothes etc and not saving in the years before children then bemoaning others who have saved for some time off is not on.

ciutadella having looked at current childcare costs and comparing it to childcare costs from when I had my first child 14 years ago the costs do seem to have risen well above inflation. Childcare was expensive back then but seems moreso now. The free hours do help to reduce those costs significantly but that is only helpful between the ages of 3 and 5 which is a relatively short time.
House prices, mortgages and rent are significantly more expensive than they were 15 years ago. I owned in a very cheap Area when my first was born - my house was under £30k and the mortgage about £150 per month with only a 5% deposit. That same house is about £120k now which whilst still cheap in comparison to other areas it has increased in value well beyond inflation.
I don't think we are about to see very significant reductions in house prices any time soon so childcare costs should be the govt focus. I think people should be given more help with childcare costs in the 0-3 years. I think the money currently spent on giving 15 free hours to 2 year olds from unemployed families would be better spent reducing the costs of childcare for working parents. Especially as I am not convinced that the extra year really improves outcomes for children from poorer families significantly.

Some interesting points there, sixisthemagicnumber.
I believe the reasons for funding some 2 year olds (based on deprivation data such as unemployment) is because it's seem as early years education rather than childcare per se.
However I see your point: given that there isn't an unlimited purse, it would make sense to direct more funding into childcare for parents who are working.

I think it's very difficult to make a direct comparison with previous generations. It's absolutely true that cost of housing has risen massively and higher deposits are required.
However, once you secure a mortgage, the mortgage itself has actually been really cheap for at
Least 6/7 years.... anyone who had young children during the massive interest rates of the early 90a will remember the huge hikes which saw mortgage payments just go up and
Up and up. We had a manageable mortgage when our dd started in childcare but within a few months it mire than doubled in monthly payments- who remembers when the rate actually went up several times over the course of a day?!

Also another big factor was shorter ML and no childcare subsidies so if you returned to work when the baby was 12 weeks (end of paid ML) you would pay full childcare until they started school. If, like us, you had a September born baby, that was almost 5 years of paying the full cost. 15 free hours would have felt like we'd won the lottery I think! If you take a year ML nowadays, you're only paying full care for a couple of years before free hours kick in.

The big problem has been tax credits - well intentioned but the result has been to mask the fact that NMW is too low, and in some cases people do use them in a way they were never intended.

Tax credits were supposed to help people who weren't working at all to see the value of doing even a part time job. What's happened is that some people see the 16 hours as a target, not a minimum threshold- they choose to work very part time and get topped up.

Of course it's all going tits up now with welfare reforms, and of course while being topped up by tax credits puts some immediate cash in your bank, its doing nothing to secure your long term future, pension etc

Bottom line is: the govt needs to build way more affordable housing and enforce the 'LIving wage', and ideally raise it. I would also like to see more financial help with childcare, plus a higher payment for dads who take the transferable parental leave which I believe is massively advantageous to the child and to society as a whole because it broadens our entire perspective of working/ caring and stops this being a female issue. These things I believe would have a greater long term outcome than trapping people into working very few hours because they have no incentive to work more.

plus a higher payment for dads who take the transferable parental leave which I believe is massively advantageous to the child and to society as a whole because it broadens our entire perspective of working/ caring and stops this being a female issue.

Agree with this absolutely. Except for the very early months/years there should be no reason why women are the default child carer and career sufferer as a result.

I'm not sure whether tax credits are solely to blame for low wages munster. I started working before tax credits were introduced and I was on a very low wage and most of my friends were in even lower wages. Even taking inflation into account we were paid well below today's national Minimum wage. The minimum wage has been fantastic at raising wages but fortunately the cost of fuel, housing and travel has far exceeded inflation meaning that even though minimum wage has really increased the pay packets of the lowest paid is not sufficient to live on and top ups are needed. I don't know what the answer is but I don't think removing tax credits is the solution because unfortunately it means work won't pay for many and more people will have to make the choice whether to give up work in order to just survive financially. It's particularly going to hit low paid workers who have a third child after April as they will get zero help with childcare for that third child. It's all very well people saying that the state can't help with the cost of endless amounts of children but ultimately it is the innocent children who will be affected the most and plunged into poverty and that doesn't sit well with me. Perhaps part of the answer is to put more money into finding childcare directly so it doesn't need to be done through tax credits but no doubt that will have problems as well.

You could however cut down your hours and receive benefits to make up some of teh shortfall because you want to spend more time taking care of your child.... and what on earth is wrong with that?!?!

Let me see - everything? Why don't you try selling that proposal to all the people who are working full-time and have children themselves. Or better still, how about all the people who are child-free and working full-time?

Make your own choices, then pay for them. That's life as an adult.

"You could however cut down your hours and receive benefits to make up some of teh shortfall because you want to spend more time taking care of your child.... and what on earth is wrong with that?!?! "

The very fact that someone wrote this (assuming they weren't being ironic) proves that some people really do think like this - that one can decide they want to work fewer hours, for whatever reason, and get top ups. That's precisely what's wrong with tax credits. If NMW were higher and tax thresholds adjusted so that the more people worked, the more of their wage they got to keep, it would be far more effective than topping up with tax credits.

Tax credits aren't to blame for low wages, sone jobs jobs st pay a minimum as it needs to skill or qualifications. That was the case before tax credits.

What they did, along with IS, was allow people to make choices they couldn't finance themselves so people took advantage and they weren't a safety net but chosen.

The sad reality is it's no longer shameful to not provide for your own children, it's become ok to let others feed and clothe them.

All it has done is make a lot of voters cross hence the changes that are slower taking place.

Oh I agree with you so much MunsterMonchGirl. Partic your last sentence.

The sad reality is it's no longer shameful to not provide for your own children, it's become ok to let others feed and clothe them.

Well of course it has, because housing and living costs are sky high and millions of Brits earn less than £13k pa.

So the essential workforce we all depend on has been infantilised and forced into dependency.

And if you were to say 'some people choose to work only 16 hours a week because tax credits will cover the shortfall' you are called a Daily Mail frother.

So the essential workforce we all depend on has been infantilised and forced into dependency.

Just as Labour intended.

You could however cut down your hours and receive benefits to make up some of teh shortfall because you want to spend more time taking care of your child.... and what on earth is wrong with that?!?!

Please tell me you weren't being serious!

Just as Labour intended

Not all of them. Gordon faced a lot of pressure from colleagues to increase NMW instead of TCs, but, for reasons best known to himself, he vigorously resisted.

OP, you seem very concerned about what people think about your situation and you should try not to be. In real life people will just know that you have a job. They won't know (or probably care) whether or not you receive tax credits too etc and even if you do many/most won't see it as an issue.
I sympathise with your issue of finding a job too stressful as I was in that situation myself many many years ago. Ultimately you should try to find a better paid career that isn't stressful but in the meantime being a TA is a very worthwhile job.

*So the essential workforce we all depend on has been infantilised and forced into dependency.

Just as Labour intended.*

Could this be explained please?

You see so much "I can't go back to work because child care will just be equal to my wage". What is actually meant by that is "I can't be bothered because it will be really hard work in the short term".