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....

acciocats exactly. It’s that type of language and attitudes which contribute to women still being disadvantaged in the workplace.

I lost count of the amount of people who told me how awful it was that I’d had to return to work full time after having DS. It wasn’t awful ( I bloody love my job) and I didn’t have to ....but I wanted to to. I guess that makes me a shit parent too....but equally as shit as my full time working DH who has never been asked about why he chooses to work full time after having a child.

@Acciocats

our childcare bill was the same as my take home pay but I continued to work because our children were thriving in their mix of childminder and nursery

Similarly to you I don't see work as just having financial benefits so for me it was worth the relatively short term pain of paying childcare in relation to my wage.

I don't understand why childcare is often deemed as negative. DC1 went to breakfast club yesterday for no other reason apart from pancakes with friends. Is this ok because it's a day off for me & does it become unacceptable if I needed the childcare because I was working?

Haven't RTFT but I did extensive research into the effects of working mothers in the US and the results showed that it does have a negative effect upon their children and society.

The loss of the housewife role has been detrimental.

Having said this, BJ has articulated his point completely wrong and he is a dick.

What about working fathers Morgan did you look at parents or just mothers?

What were the negative effects? I bet they were linked to poverty and poor quality childcare/education.

@LisaSimpsonsbff
What is 'the effect' on parents and children of having two equal parents? You talk about it as if it's a known bad thing
You can be equal parents without splitting every aspect of parenting equally. That's my point!

Personally I never bothered with extensive research in the US. I just did what worked for my own family. The results are happy, well adjusted adults.

our childcare bill was the same as my take home pay but I continued to work because our children were thriving in their mix of childminder and nursery
So misguided
So sad that people have such poor knowledge of child development

Enlighten us then tvstar. I have an excellent knowledge of child development and my child attended nursery full time.

@tvstar yes so sad for you that my children have grown into happy well adjusted adults. And I have a career and pension too.
You must be gutted.

I think children growing up to be criminals has far more to do with socio economic background than anything else.

So middle class mothers piping up to smugly say how successful their children are is fairly irrelevant.

Quite happy to see a shift in society where no longer is a woman's greatest contribution to the world is getting dinner on the table at 6.

Why are women so fucking marginalised? The loss of the housewife?! Why aren't you talking about the lack of support from husband's? Why is this always pinned on women?

This thread is raising my blood pressure to an unreasonable degree.

It's interesting that children from the Netherlands have the highest rates of happiness & wellbeing. Nearly half of the population works part time & most parents across both sexes work a 4 day week.

Decades ago, single parents (usually mums let's be honest) could claim income support until their child was 12. Effectively this was society acknowledging the fact that a primary aged child needed a full time parent at home.

Then it was lowered to age 5... because fuck it, anyone can look after children, so get back on that hamster wheel and get earning.

No idea what age it is now...

Well clearly primary school children don’t all need a full time parent at home. Otherwise there would be clear evidence that children who didn’t have a parent at home until at least age 12 had suffered in some way. Which there isn’t.

That wasn't especially the point. Society and even the government back then were, by having the age as 12, saying that it was fine to stay at home during those years. Now, it is becoming socially unacceptable.

It's not thought is it formerbabe
When sweeping generalisations are made people will contradict them. People on this thread have been talking about working mothers ....not working mothers from particular socioeconomic background.

But @formerbabe working life has also changed, the internet, flexi hours, working from home.

Now, it is becoming socially unacceptable.

To be at home or to be on income support?

@PanicAndRun
I assume Pp is imagining some kind of ridiculous 50/50 split situation where things aren't equal unless each parent butters one side of a sandwich. Ofc everyone loses out and the partners become resentful in that kind of split
You assumed this wrongly and I imagine you did it intentionally to undermine what I was saying. Raising children extends way beyond buttering sandwiches and there are very real challenges that lots of parents face related to working and raising their children. Not everyone has family support or can/wants to use formal childcare FT.

In these kinds of scenario who looks after the children before the reach school age? Are you really suggesting that both parents should drop days at work? The financial impact of that could be huge, especially if one parent is a significantly higher earner. Even when the children get to school who will do the drop offs and pick ups. I know lots of parents that are not happy with using breakfast/after-school club every single day and feel that the child can't cope with that schedule, yet it's not practical for parents to share the school run if one has a huge commute or has a job (e.g. as a teacher) that simply will not allow the flexibility for them to do this.

Skills and preference is a serious issue too though people like to gloss over it. What if one parent WANTS to do more of the childcare/domestic work and is good at it, whilst the other has less of interest and is naturally less skilled. Why must this be ignored?

In the real world, normal,decent,averagely capable men are more than able to do their share and spend time with their family,willingly without a set time table or a list of their half of the chores
I know this as my DH is a capable and competent father that is very engaged. Who mentioned timetables or lists of chores? Again willfully misconstruing what I have actually written to make some unrelated point about men's ability to do chores.

Where is the evidence?

i don't see any.

I see poor household children doing worse than wealhier household children. Except for fairly unusual case where one earns millions, having both partners work makes households wealthier.

To be at home I meant.

Women have to justify their decision to stay at home... merely wanting to look after your own children is not enough.

Are you really suggesting that both parents should drop days at work?

Why is that so outlandish? in the Netherlands a lot of men have a reduced working week. I would like to increase my hours to 4 days so DH can drop to 4 as I think a better work life balance is good for all individuals.

Even when the children get to school who will do the drop offs and pick ups.

My DH works f/t & does 1 pick up & 2 drop offs a week minimum. He can wfh & has flexi hours. This is true of the vast majority of dads at my school.

What if one parent WANTS to do more of the childcare/domestic work and is good at it, whilst the other has less of interest and is naturally less skilled. Why must this be ignored?

I don't think it should be ignored but that doesn't mean there can't be conversations about why it generally seems to be women who want to do more of the childcare/domestic work? And why men seem to have the skills to thrive at work.

@Acciocats
The suggestion that many couples wish to live balanced lives and not take on a single earner/carer role is turned into ‘splitting everything absolutely equally!’ Some people clearly find the idea of couples who can both earn, care, cook and do housework very threatening!
Why would anybody find that threatening? It's when people state that this is a universal "ideal" that differences of opinion will naturally arise.

I think the problem is that people see raising children and domestic work as intrinsically inferior to working outside the home. Historically women have been repressed through carrying sole responsibility for these things whilst being shut out of the workplace. Now we are in the era where women can enter all spheres of life and are no longer pigeon holed as homemakers or mothers, it is assumed that being a SAHM is a backward step.

I view things differently. Equality can only really exist when we place value on all productive activities and tasks, not just those that are done outside the home for money. If there was nothing intrinsically inferior about being a SAHP then why would it matter that one parent is doing this whilst the other WOH? It would be just the same as two parents that have chosen different career paths or have specialised in different areas. Also it would encourage men to be SAHPs where they actually have the desire, superior skills and it makes most financial sense for the family.

In summary my view is that there is nothing wrong with families that have two WOHPs or a single earner and a SAHP. The right option for each family will depend on so many variables and their values and priorities. Talking down the SAHP role is only entrenching the view that it's not a valid choice for men or women which is actually a huge step backwards in terms of supporting choice and letting families gain a work:life balance that works for them.

And yet the answer is not to demonise working women but to ease the pressure on parents. Better childcare options. Flexible working. 4 day weeks or fewer hours per day. Companies that have tried it (including a care home) have reported happier, less stressed staff and much higher productivity.

We don't need a 40 hour week. We never did - it's the remnant of the Victorian factory age and something society is capable of changing.

And yet the answer is not to demonise working women but to ease the pressure on parents

I know lots of couples who could live very comfortably on one salary yet we live in a greedy society where material things are more important than time and family. They could ease their own pressure.

@formerbabe you’re contradicting yourself all over the place. You said that the former policy of allowing single parents to stay at home on benefits until their youngest child was 12 was ‘society acknowledging the fact that a primary aged child needed a full time parent at home.’ (your precise words)
When challenged on that, you back-pedal and say that’s not the point, it’s that the govt were saying ‘it’s fine to stay at home.’

The fact is, issues such as children getting into criminal behaviour, substance abuse, underachieving academically, teenage pregnancies etc - ie risky and undesirable behaviours - have far more correlation with socio economic factors, family income, level of parental education. It’s not about whether the parents work!

If you want to SAH then fine- no one is sneering at you, no one is belittling you, apart from possibly yourself, as you feel determined to feel victimised. Just don’t try to claim that you know what’s best for anyone else’s children.

And anyway it’s not a simple thing of one way being ‘right’ or ‘best.’ I’ve no doubt my children would be just as happy and well adjusted if I had been a SAHM. Fact is, I wanted to work, I have an interesting and useful job but that doesn’t make me or my children ‘better’ in any way than if I didn’t