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....

I don’t think he likes women having much autonomy or independence. A few weeks ago he was writing about how working hard is very important for ones mental health and can cure you of depression. His thinking seems a little disjointed.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/16/boris-johnson-working-harder-mental-health-tax-privatising-nhs

@TulipsTulipsTulips

I am begging you please have a re think. You can go on this website and see which policies you like without seeing which party. They give you the results at the end, to see which party has the policies you agree with the most.

This country will be finished under another 5 years of Tory Government.

voteforpolicies.org.uk

Tulips i am with you.

There are more than two parties Tulips. It is a statement not voting for the main two parties. It shows that they need to sort themselves out and get a grip. It is a reminder that they work for us.

OMG.

I cannot imagine anything more dull than being a SAHM. Please don't get me wrong if you choose to be a SAHM, that's great if it suits your personality or if your family needs you to be around due to special needs, lack of wrap around care etc. and you are also financially functional.

But why should girls attend high school / college / uni, if all women needed for is child rearing, how depressing!

What's very wrong in the UK is how demanding schools are on families' time. Schools should involve parents much less, there would be fewer events to attend and solid after school care ought to be provided by law.

When I stayed at home during mat leave, I felt my brain shrinking day-by-day. I understand that this is not the case for everyone, and depending on your personality, you might find running a household super fulfilling, which is lovely too, but not all women are made for joyfully managing domestic life.

Grrrrr Boris

What's very wrong in the UK is how demanding schools are on families' time. Schools should involve parents much less, there would be fewer events to attend and solid after school care ought to be provided by law.

Schools are not childcare. They are there to educate children. A strong parental involvement results in better outcomes for children, so much so that schools have to prove to Ofsted they try to facilitate/increase that.

What is needed is jobs paying a living wage and/or being flexible and family friendly.

I don’t understand where this information comes from - is it costumary to ask muggers whether or not their mothers worked when they were children during police interviews

"
OMG.

I cannot imagine anything more dull than being a SAHM. Please don't get me wrong if you choose to be a SAHM, that's great if it suits your personality"

I can't imagine anything worse than thinking this is somehow OK to write

Schools are not childcare. They are there to educate children. A strong parental involvement results in better outcomes for children, so much so that schools have to prove to Ofsted they try to facilitate/increase that.

Indeed, school is not child care but childcare options should be in place, such as reliable, good quality before and after school care. Also, the children who do best academically are those who have well educated mothers.

How tedious that schools are just ticking boxes cos of Ofsted, what a load of hot air. Those of use who work are unable to attend so many events, cue sad kids, not very positive in term of learning experience.

How do you tell your team who rely on you to deliver that, you need to leave at 1pm to make it for harvest festival, school rugby match etc, in fact what about teachers themselves? They are unable to attend all these school events as they are teaching. Should all teaches be men?

Parental involvement with kids' education can very much happen at home. Parental involvement is being interested in your kids' education not just turning up to event after event. It's also being a role model to your dc so they know women have lives outside of the home.

If women are required to stay at home to raise their kids so that the kids are well rounded and achieve academically, why even send girls to high school? What for? To help their future kids with homework? To land a good husband?

How many posts do we see on these boards from women who are exhausted from working full time and trying to run the house whilst their husband works and does no household chores or childcare.

But then surely the way to go isn't to send women back home (for those who don't want to that is- being a sahm is a perfectly valid choice). The onus should be on those men who don't pull their weight to become a fully functioning member of the household and not let their wives run themselves ragged.

If women are required to stay at home to raise their kids so that the kids are well rounded and achieve academically, why even send girls to high school? What for? To help their future kids with homework? To land a good husband?

Where did I say that? I'm a working mum. I attend some events, don't even bother to think about others. OH attends the big ones too,sometimes on his own.

I never said anything about women, I said parental involvement. Dads can and should attend parent's evenings,sports day,xmas plays etc.too.

I know people have to work because wages are crap and the cost of living is so high. But I also see kids in at 8 out at 6 (those aren't even the max hours )home for dinner and bed, that is not good for them either.

That's why in my ideal world the problem would be tackled by increasing wages and more flexible working arrangements (obviously not possible in certain industries) .

Tbh either way it's shit, we either end up sacrificing money in the bank or barely seeing our kids . Stressed,running around and juggling who knows how many plates,that are on fire.

Yanbu judgemental, selfish git.

My DD has just turned 15 months and me and DH work.

Have been training her hard since she started walking to grab at people's handbags in passing, steal food from plates and perfect her 'innocent smile'. It's hard being a working mum, so many mini-mugger-training responsibilities...

Personally I think both parents would benefit from having flexible working arrangements so that they can both be around for their kids and earn a decent wage

Instead it’s historically been the man at work, mother at home. Dad isn’t a proper parent and mum takes the whole load.

It’s better for children to have as many decent role models as possible and that doesn’t work as well IMO with a detached working parent and one being the SAH.

Boris Johnson is a dick. We know that. He was paid loads to write his sexist nonsense. I don’t think for a second he’s changed his views.

There is pressure for both parents to work, but it is still a shit thing to say.

Having one stay at home/ part time woh parent should be financially doable for more people. Current climate makes that out of reach for many, conversely some can't afford to go back to work.

I know people have to work because wages are crap and the cost of living is so high. But I also see kids in at 8 out at 6 (those aren't even the max hours )home for dinner and bed, that is not good for them either.

People do work for other reasons not just the £ though.

With regarding to school hours my DC1 often does activities until 6 eg tennis, coding & they offer some in the morning. He has sometimes gone to breakfast club (his choice) & done a club on the days I don't work. I prefer him to do clubs after school so our weekends are free.

As a working mum, my children have my full permission and blessing to mug Boris Johnson, should the opportunity ever arise.

Well he's totally right about assortative mating. The rest, somewhat right.

The death of the stay at home housekeeper/parent/whatever has been far more detrimental to the country than the previous governments probably ever intended it to be.

Not only in early years education and levels of adult interaction for children, but also for family life, stability, stress levels as a whole.

"women who are exhausted from working full time and trying to run the house whilst their husband works and does no household chores or childcare."

Umm the answer is for the husband to do equal share of household tasks? Equal pick ups and drop offs? Men are just as capable of working and running a home

And both to push for four day weeks or flexible hours.

To be fair, DS - the 18 month old child of a working mother - got very close to stealing his grandmother's TV remote just earlier today (he put it down his trousers) so he may indeed be tending towards criminality due to my dreadful neglect

Personally I think both parents would benefit from having flexible working arrangements so that they can both be around for their kids and earn a decent wage

Totally, our plan is for me to increase to 4 days & DH to reduce to 4. It's important for him too to do reading at school, assemblies, have more down time etc.

If children who have no choice but to be left to their own devices because the parents are working then society needs to bring down the cost of living so that a single minimum wage (or two part time wages) is sufficient to pay the basics (I'm not talking about holidays etc but being able to pay rent, council tax, utilities and buy food and run a car - necessary in rural areas.)

So many low paid adults simply can't be there for their children because both have to work so many hours to afford only the basics.

Personally I'd love to be a SAHM. As a single parent that isn't an option and my children are left on their own far longer than I'm happy with. Thank goodness for my older children, extended family and considerate workplace otherwise I don't know what my younger children would do.

As for becoming criminals - despite me being a single parent my two adult children are both in full time work and doing well for themselves.

I thought there was only a small window in the past where most families had one SAHP, historically didn't both parents work?

Correct @Songsofexperience yet so many of us are trying to fight that losing battle against internalised mysogyny and also undo years of nannying by our spouse's idiot Mothers.

I think the reason so many women dislike each other is because we're constantly battling other women to stop encouraging men's pedestals and putting up with bullshit behaviour from them.

I thought there was only a small window in the past where most families had one SAHP, historically didn't both parents work?

Yes absolutely. One parent at home is a product of the rise of the middle class. Historically, both parents had to work (though for the upper class "work" is a pretty loose term, however they would have outsourced their children to nannies).