Children of working mothers are more likely to mug you

[chomalungma]

I know. It was 13 years ago. It's probably out of context. Sometimes you say things that rattle a few cages.

But it all builds a picture of our current Prime Minister, Boris Johnson.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/04/boris-johnson-claimed-children-of-working-mothers-more-likely-to-mug-you

"“In the last 30 years an ever-growing proportion of British women have been ‘incentivised’ or socially gestapoed into the workplace, on what seems to me to be the dubious assumption that the harder a woman works the happier she will be, when I am not sure that is true of women or anyone else,” he wrote.

In the book, published before he became mayor of London, Johnson said an increasing number of female graduates tended to pair up with male graduates – a process known by economists as “assortative mating” – and that they then pool their advantages.

“The result is that in families on lower incomes the women have absolutely no choice but to work, often with adverse consequences for family life and society as a whole – in that unloved and undisciplined children are more likely to become hoodies, Neets [not in education, employment or training] and mug you on the street corner."

AIBU to think that his articles from the past reveal much about his views on women, Muslims, LGBT people....

@bumpitybump
’I think @formerbabe was trying to say that those parents who choose to work are different to those who are working due to financial necessity in that they have actively prioritised working out of the home over being at home and focussing on their children.‘

And here we go again.... ‘and focusing on the children’ - why that nasty little snide remark? Can’t you see that it’s perfectly possible to choose between being a good parent who doesn’t work and a good parent who does work? It’s got sod all to do with focusing on the children. I had a choice between being the sole carer for my children, dh being sole carer, or choosing childcare for some of the time (and paying handsomely for it) where my children were nurtured, stimulated and very happy. How on Earth is that not focusing on my children? I’m not claiming it’s ‘better’ than me being a home but it certainly isn’t worse either. Why is there this assumption that one way has to be better? Can people really not get their heads round the fact that sometimes choices are simply different choices of equal value?
And yes you can say I was fortunate to have that choice, because if we hadn’t been able to afford excellent childcare or If we’d been in the position some posters have described, having commutes which didn’t fit with childcare then I would have had no choice but to give up work. But i did have a choice, and of course our 3 children were always our number one priority (as with all parents- SAHP don’t have the monopoly on that!)
Our children have grown up into happy well adjusted adults who enjoy spending time with us. As I’ve no doubt they would if I’d given up my career too, because as I’ve said countless times there is way more to good parenting than whether the parents work or not. You can raise children well whether you work or don’t. Equally you could Be with your children 24/7 but not be a good parent. I’ve worked most of my career in education and believe me, there is no sharp divide between children of WOH/SAH parents. Ive worked with children raised by loving parents who instil sound values and who are provided with enriching experiences. I’ve Also worked with children who don’t get that. They don’t fit nearly into ‘children of WOHP/ SAHP’ camps.

As for some of the points you claim people have made about SAHM... if you’d like to point out any post where I’ve made such a criticism then I’ll own it. But you won’t find any. Because I don’t attack SAHM, my belief has always been that it’s up to a couple to decide together how to function.

Formerbabe’s posts on the other hand have been vile. She is clearly quite troubled and resentful about her own upbringing which is very sad. But attacking other people because you have your own issues is pointless.

Ultimately what matters is raising children to become well rounded and well adjusted adults. If you do that as a SAHP - great. If you do that as a WOHP - great. If you have any combination of sharing care/ earning/ domestics - great. There are a zillion different permutations, not some set blue print. Why can’t people celebrate that rather than trying to pigeonhole people into a specific role just because they themselves have chosen that one?

I manage to go out to work, AND focus on my child, like thousands of other parents.

Unlike DD's birth mum, who was a SAHM but spent her time NOT focusing on her child.

It's pretty well accepted that London is different than the rest of the UK in terms of employment and the variety of jobs available. It's a nonsense to pretend that there isn't a geographical element to working patterns as highlighted by the article referenced earlier that noted that areas of London had much higher levels of WFH than the national average

It is totally and utterly daft to compare London with the rest of the country in this way. Different places have different opportunities, pretty simple. Some of those facilitate wfh some don't. Of course there are geographical patterns but many people in London believe that there are no good jobs outside that is quite simply not true.

See this is the kind of thing that can make SAHP's feel defensive and judged. Once again, it may not be your cup of tea, you might not see the point, but for others, in terms of their situation, resources, and experiences, it might make perfect sense, even factoring in the financial sacrifice - which most SAHP's are highly conscious of!

Well exactly - everyone's different. They should do what they want and what suits them. There is no need for anyone to be defensive or judged (there is far more working parent judgement on this thread I think!). Do what works for you and get on with your own life, which is surely what people IRL do.

The angst comes from our sexist society. Basically we have managed to end up in a situation where women are criticised whatever they do and some women then react by justifying themselves by criticising others. It's frankly ridiculous.

@Acciocats
I am really struggling to word what SAHMs do without offending you. If I said SAHMs stayed at home to raise their children or that they prioritised their children then I could understand your offence. Saying that as a result of SAH, they can focus their energy and time on their children as opposed to splitting it between work too is surely just factual? They don't have to worry about clients, meeting targets or getting that report done. This does not mean that WOHPs love their children any less or they are any less of a priority.

What will never go down well is someone implying or stating directly that their choice is a bad one or one that has no value. You believe being a SAHP makes no difference to children. Lots of SAHPs obviously hold a different view hence their life choices and gave made very real sacrifices to do this. Why go to such pains to justify how children all turn out the same in the end anyway? You may well believe this but it has never been definitively proven so you aren't objectively right or wrong. You can't in one breath bang on about choice and people doing what's right for them and then in the next reiterate time and again how SAHPs are wrong in their belief that it makes a difference to the child. It's inflammatory and unnecessary.

As for some of the points you claim people have made about SAHM... if you’d like to point out any post where I’ve made such a criticism then I’ll own it
But you didn't suggest that did you? You implied all the WOHPs that had posted on this thread has been oh so reasonable compared to those nasty SAHMs. I was pointing out that there were questionable comments and offence on both sides.

Read my posts FGS Bumpity!

I haven’t said SAHP are wrong in their belief that it’s better for their own child. What I’ve said is that parents can only make decisions about their own children. You cannot extrapolate from your own choices that they would be right for everyone else.

And I also made the point (which you seem to have trouble understanding) that no doubt in very many cases - certainly in mine- it’s not about choosing between one thing which is ‘better’ for the children or one thing which is ‘worse.’ It’s a choice between different things of equal value.

In other words, I could have given up my career and stayed home. I’ve no doubt my children would have been fine. Dh could have given up his career and stayed home. No doubt the children would have been fine. Or we chose (as we did) to both work, paying for excellent childcare when we were both working at the same time. Our children were fine.

I don’t think that’s particularly unusual. Yes there are some people who believe that they have to stay at home because other wise their children / family life will suffer. Their children. Their family life. No one else’s.
And there are some people who believe that they need to work because staying home would be detrimental to their mental health or whatever and therefore detrimental for their family life. Their family. No one else’s.

But I imagine there are tens of thousands more who aren’t having to make a choice between ‘good’ or ‘bad’ but are choosing between different equal options. I don’t think I’d ever have got bored being at home, I’m pretty self sufficient by nature and certainly never found being with my children dull. So I could have done that quite happily. I chose to continue working though. Not because i prioritised working over ‘focusing on my kids’ (what patronising shite) but because it was simply a different equally good choice for my family. And our children are great, really great adults. As they would be if I’d given up my career and been at home.

Why the assumption that choices are always driven by something being ‘good’ or ‘bad’? Is it really so hard to understand that often an individual is choosing between several good options?

I suppose a simple way of putting it is:

if you believe your children will suffer if you work then of course you (rightly) give up working.

If you believe your children will suffer if you dont work (eg if your mental health will suffer by being a SAHP) then you (rightly) return to work.

But both these above scenarios are about a lack of choice really... your decision is dictated by the fact that your children will potentially suffer.

But alongside the above scenarios there are thousands of people who could make either choice, because we aren’t going to suffer if we do stay home but equally our children aren’t going to suffer if we work. So yes, I’m happy to hold my hand up and say we’re the fortunate ones because we have a choice. It’s just frustrating when other people’s lack of imagination means they can only envisage scenarios where choices are good or bad

Saying that as a result of SAH, they can focus their energy and time on their children as opposed to splitting it between work too is surely just factual?

You assume that SAHPs focus their energy and time on their children - which is not necessarily the case. There are some who focus on their own interests and life style.

So no, that isn't 'factual' at all.

@Allington
You assume that SAHPs focus their energy and time on their children - which is not necessarily the case. There are some who focus on their own interests and life style
Yes that's a fair point but I guess my argument is that SAHPs have the opportunity to focus more their time and energy on their children as a result of them not working. Of the SAHPs I know (mostly of young children) that's their main driver for being at home.

@Acciocats
Honestly I can't deal with the professionally offended. I have read your posts and understand your points whereas you seem determined to seize upon specific phrases, and interpret them out of context in the worst possible fashion as opposed to understand that our perspectives aren't pole apart. As I said earlier, SAHMs have to tread very carefully when describing their roles as to not offend. Full time mother, rasing the children etc are all taboo. It's a sensitive issue and in a bid to not offend anyone I obviously have still managed it

We both think that different families will make different choices and that each option is perfectly valid. That's the long and short of it. We are ultimately on the same side of promoting choice for women.

Very true allington.

I’m for promoting choice for people
It’s not just about women.
Historically women have suffered though lack of access to careers, childcare etc but men have also been limited by the historical expectations that they should be the sole earner or chase promotions which take them away from home and family for more of the time.

Many of us have relationships which don’t conform to a model of fixed roles and where we’re both competent at work/caring/home skill and each want a balance of those things.

The more this debate focuses on women, the more it perpetuates the idea that it’s women who are held accountable for whether to work/ stay home/ make parenting decisions.

@Acciocats
Again, the pedantry is unreal. Me saying I support choice for women does not mean I don't support the same for men. You are finding issue where this is none. The discussion has so far centred mostly on women hence my comment. This is a forum populated overwhelmingly by women and the article linked at the start of the thread specifically references women. The "what aboutery" regarding men is tiresome. Yes, they form part of the overall issue but every statement ever uttered does not need to reference them.

I was just clarifying my view since you tried to speak on my behalf with your ‘we’ in the previous post

But men already have that choice. If they work they are a good provider if they sah they are a wonderful father and supportive partner.

Women on the other hand are selfish if they work and lazy if they sah and 'live off' their partner. Particularly if 'the taxpayer' has to top up with tax credits. (And let's face it many poorer women actually are forced to sah because of the cost of childcare).

It is ridiculous to suggest that men aren't the ones who are better off here.

@Teateaandmoretea yes historically I agree women have been disadvantaged most. But I also think it’s been unfair on men who might not want to shoulder the responsibility of being sole earner or might not want to chase promotions to ‘prove’ themselves when actually they might be happier having a better work life balance. Historic, stereotypes roles served no one well, because women and men don’t have simplistic character traits which can be pigeonholed into ‘carer/domestic work’ or ‘earner.’

Also it’s not that many generations ago that men were banned from labour wards so couldn’t see their own children being born. And I’m only in my 50s but when I had my first child paternity leave didn’t exist. My dh had to go back to work the day after dc was born and his absence from work was recorded as ‘agreed leave for sickness of a close relative’ - there was literally no formal process for paternity entitlement.

Thank god we’ve come a long way since those days. Defaulting people into roles simply by their gender serves no one.

You often see SAHMs say that their DH is a workaholic, lives for his job, thrives in the work environment, great at what he does. Due to the pressure of said job which involves long hours & travelling etc the mum stays at home which makes sense.
What frustrates me is why these traits are overwhelmingly positive if you're a male parent or a male in general but not if your a woman. I don't believe men have a greater capacity to work & enjoy that work in the modern world any more than women do (yes historically a caveman would be better at hunting due to strength). I don't believe women are not able to be capable & effective surgeons, judges, CEOs, entrepreneurs etc.

But I also think it’s been unfair on men who might not want to shoulder the responsibility of being sole earner or might not want to chase promotions to ‘prove’ themselves when actually they might be happier having a better work life balance

Yes I agree. The narrative tends to be "I didn't enjoy my job, but DH loves his". I don't believe that all men love their jobs & working hard in general. I think it would be great if men & women were both allowed a better work life balance.

Completely agree duckyolucky. Of course everyone has particular individual strengths to play to but it’s ridiculous to suggest that men and women are poles apart in what they want their life styles to be

You are right ducky
I've done quite a lot of research into the career development of women. The language used to describe how men and women interact with the labour market is different and similar traits are described positively in men but negatively in women. This is also true when describing parenting ... When asked to use words to describe single mums you hear words like benefits, struggling, council estate but when asked to describe single dads you get words like hero, great dad, widower.....

I am not convinced that men do have the same choice as women to stay at home. I think traditionally male employers are far less open to flexible working requests and I have several friends who were horrified when their husbands suggested that they stay at home whilst friend worked full time or even part time. I think there are women who are it as their right/job/role and their partners are not given a choice in the matter.

I heard what I think was the ultimate in macho workaholicness today. A guy proudly proclaiming he hasn't had any holidays since 2010, and he works in the evenings - every evening. He has young children.

My DH was stunned, saying 'mbos wouldn't put up with that shit for a flat second'. He's dead right there. As I said to him, 'as much as anything, I love you too much to stand by and watch you work yourself into an early grave'. Thankfully, all the other highpowered big wigs he was with, were similarly unimpressed.

Heh. Didn't his mother work?

That would explain why he's a bit of a dodgy bastard then.

The main problem is that there are no grandparents around to help out!

They are either still working or live to far away.....due to finances people are also having babies later, making the grandparents even older.....the worst is yet to come...,if you don’t have grandparents around to help when both parents work you are screwed!