Looking after your own children IS work

[Bumpitybumper]

Oxford Dictionary definition of "work":
activity involving mental or physical effort done in order to achieve a purpose or result

AIBU to suggest that the people that suggest that looking after one's own children isn't work are wrong and in some cases are actively trying to devalue and undermine the people (usually women) that do the majority of childcare?

Would be really interested to understand how anyone can read this definition and argue that looking after children isn't work.

I think it's important to separate out domestic, unpaid work vs employed, paid work. Both need to be considered as different things and accounted for separately in terms of urban development, legislation etc rather than lumping everything together as just work.

But of course domestic unpaid work is work As is caring. And women do 75% of it across the world, whether in paid employment or not.

It is work but beyond the early toddler stage it is not completely full time, you can do other things and care for children eg housework

I imagine you pay tax because you have an income that is not based on having a job. Maybe you are a landlord, pay tax on savings, dabble in the stock market. I have what I would call a passive income from investments, something like that.

Plus you actually pay for goods and services so therefore pay tax. I would ascertain your post is subconsciously prompted by feeling a bit attacked as a SAHP but probably because you are bored.

”But of course domestic unpaid work is work As is caring. And women do 75% of it across the world, whether in paid employment or not.“

Yes thank you Pukka. Paid work and unpaid work are different, but both are still necessary to the functioning of society. To argue anything else is to diminish the impact of millions of women throughout history.

In the cultures DH and I are from, you expect to look after elderly relatives, financially and physically, by taking them into your home if necessary. It’s a slight cultural difference, but an important one on a societal level when you think that this unseen care “work” takes pressure off the social services and care homes. We will have this problem with my MIL in the coming years and no doubt she’ll be moving in and guess who will bear most of the impact if that - DH or me? Who do we think? Apparently some in MN would decree I’m not allowed to call this “work” because it doesn’t get paid, but ”work” or not, it will require effort and will be another competing claim on my time. Yet apparently, I can’t complain about ever feeling tired, because it will only be DH who is really actually “working” because he gets paid (even on days when “work” is done sipping champagne on yachts or driving luxury cars on the race track)

Too much children are seen as solely the woman's responsibility. Her decision to have them, hers to arrange care for, for her to potentially feel bad about either working or not working. The men are invisible in this all too often
Most of my female friends work FT and their husbands do as much as they do at home and with the kids. They are far from invisible.

The one I know who do more than their partner are those who work part-time, 4 days but often 3 or less, in much less stressful jobs and both agree that it is reasonable that they should take on more responsibility at home and with the kids as a result.

It's only on MN that there are so many women, working PT or SAH moaning so much about their husbands doing so little -because their FT work bringing back a good income is no big deal and definitely not harder than looking after 2 kids in school!-

Too much children are seen as solely the woman's responsibility. Her decision to have them, hers to arrange care for, for her to potentially feel bad about either working or not working. The men are invisible in this all too often

If MN is anything to go by the women need to start taking responsibility for their shit poor decision making.
You can't change other people.

What I find funny is that DH looks forward going come Sunday night!

*going back to work

Here are my responses to common arguments made on this thread:

Why do SAHPs need to justify their existence through seeking external validation? Why does it matter if society doesn't value your work as long as you and your family are happy with your role?
This argument is so bizarre as it implies that SAHPs are unique in their pursuit of seeking external recognition for what they do. We are social creatures and of course we put a lot of emphasis on social attitudes towards our occupation. For all those WOHPs out there, imagine if attitudes changed towards your industry and job role and there was suddenly stigma attached to what you did and complete lack of recognition that any of the activities that you have devoted you time and energy to as part of your paid employment even counted as "work" at all. Your renumeration may stay the same but I would wager that your motivation and self esteem would plummet. Just look at theories such as Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs to understand how wider recognition is so important to people.

It also has wider implications as people will make assumptions on your character and attributes based on roles you have undertaken in the past. If a SAHP is viewed as taking the easy route, a bit lazy and not really working then this will obviously affect their future employability and ability to run for positions of authority. This isn't the same as saying experience as a SAHP should count in the same way as experience gained in other WOHP roles, but my issue is more that the judgement extends beyond the relevant experiences of individuals to making assumptions about character etc that are often negative and inaccurate.

Finally, if we devalue the work associated with looking after our children then it affects all women. Whether you WOH or SAH the chance are that women will take on the majority of the childcare and domestic chores required to raise children. Minimising the effort and time required to do this well simply works to minimise the inequality that exists in many households. If looking after children isn't work then why can't the father have a hobby that takes him away from the family every weekend? Why does he need to do an equal number of drop offs and pick ups for childcare? Why does he need to worry about world Book Day costumes or pursue that diagnosis for their child's health issue? In fact why should we judge fathers that just walk away leaving the mother doing everything?

@BumpityBumper

I don't agree with every one of the points you've made on this thread but your last post was excellent.

I really do not give a fig whether people are WOP or SAHP, I’m childless, but as a lawyer and higher-rate tax payer I’m laughing at the idea that I have as much financial benefit to society as a SAHP because my sector is apparently BadWrong.

but as a lawyer and higher-rate tax payer I’m laughing at the idea that I have as much financial benefit to society as a SAHP because my sector is apparently BadWrong

That poster didn't clarify why your taxes were apparently ‘nullified’, did she?

Being a SAHM isn’t work. If you are so desperate for work, get a actual paid job.

^ And here we have it ^ Say no more. Point proved.
MN’s own special brand of misogyny.

@LaurieMarlow Nope. OP also pays loads of tax as a SAHP though and without “working” in such a grimy industry - clearly I’m doing it wrong...

@LaurieMarlow @ScreamedAtTheMichelangelo
It was me that mentioned that the legal profession haa been shown to have a negative effect on wealth generation for wider society. Conversely academia for example is thought to generate an additional $2 of wealth for the wider society for every $1 spent in the sector. It's not an ethical judgement or a statement about how necessary a profession might be to society. It was a specific point made in response to another poster suggesting that all jobs helped circulate money and thus generate wealth for the wider society. Of course, their argument also depended on having a "trickle down" economy which many people are very sceptical about due to the massive wealth inequality in this country.

Taxation of the individual is a different issue. Of course a high earner will pay a substantial amount of tax but not all WOHPs are high earners and many (especially women) are low or middle earners. They might not earn enough to pay any tax at all but through working will be able to claim additional benefits that a SAHP can't. It is therefore totally possible that the state is actually subsidising these women working in order to allow the woman and her family to financially benefit from her paid employment (or at least not be worse off). I don't have a problem with this but I also don't see how one can convincingly argue that WOHPs are superior because they pay tax when so many don't pay enough to cover the amount of additional benefits they receive from the state as a result of working. The amount of tax you pay is a very dodgy metric to measure how worthwhile or important your role is.

The problem is, whether you agree with 'grimy' lawyers or not, the society we've created makes them necessary. Want a divorce? Want to buy a house? Want to be defended when accused of a crime? List goes on.

Why do people think they can get away with charging so much. Because they are needed in this world we've created.

@ScreamedAtTheMichelangelo
OP also pays loads of tax as a SAHP though and without “working” in such a grimy industry - clearly I’m doing it wrong...
When did I describe the legal profession as "grimy" or even imply it?

It was me that mentioned that the legal profession haa been shown to have a negative effect on wealth generation for wider society. Conversely academia for example is thought to generate an additional $2 of wealth for the wider society for every $1 spent in the sector.

Source please?

Anyway, the legal sector generates a huge amount of tax revenue (far more than academia). Tax funds our society. I’m not quite sure why this very key point is being overlooked.

@Bumpitybumper I’m not clear whether you’re referring to an American study (hence reference to dollars). If so, that may not necessarily be the case for British society, which is all I’m really able to comment on. If you have a citation for the legal profession having a negative financial impact on British society, then I’d love to see it.

I’m not naive that there are some lawyers doing grubby business, but the claim that at a societal level, they do more financial harm than good is pretty strong and I’d like to know what it’s based on.

Work and paid employment don't mean the same thing.

@Bumpitybumper Having gone back to look I can see that I’ve run together your examples of industries with no social benefit (lawyers) and those with massive social detriment (tobacco), so my apologies for suggesting that you’d described lawyers as grimy. I would obviously still take issue with the no social benefit thing, but that’s a different argument.

Work is used in two different ways and you are merging them.
Work as in paid work. You work to earn money.
Work as in work load. Is the effort in doing something.
Work as in voluntary work. Doing something free for others, who are not contracted to you personally, benefit.

The English language has many words that can be used in different ways and mean something slightly different.

SAHP has a work load.

I work as in get paid, my kids used to go to nursery then after school clubs. I would have a work load in my paid job then come home and have a work load looking after the kids and a work load in keeping the house.

I should say several different ways.

I can understand why some people might berate SAHMs for their lack of tax contribution and this comes up time and time again on here. But again, it’s far more complicated than it seems and it depends whether you’re regarding tax in terms if family units, or in terms of individuals. Even though I have been SAH, my DH is very clear, as a father of four, that this was what he wanted because he is self- employed and what he has needed, above all, is flexibility. He has never had fixed hours it a given salary. So if he needs to work 24/7 or go off overseas at the drop of a hat, he has done just that. The way it has been is that his job is his job and my job has been everything else. I realise some people will see that as very sexist and I do understand most would probably prefer a more even balance in their marriages, but we Took a clear and mutual decision to structure our family this way because we could see DH had an opportunity to make the kind of money that would change our children’s lives and futures. We all reap the benefits. DH respects what he sees as my “job” and vice versa. He wanted all his children and he wanted a family life. We see ourselves as a team. It doesn’t matter who does what because, ultimately, it’s all for the kids. In terms of the economy, he has created over 1000 real jobs in the UK, plus many more overseas and has paid millions in tax in recent years. It hasn’t always been easy and we’ve taken a lot of risks at times, but it is what it is. Plus I have never claimed benefits and our DC are not in state schools, nor will our parents need to rely on the state. I’m sure someone will be among now to tell me it will be a different story when he leaves me, but again, it’s not like that because it’s quite easy to take steps to protect yourself against this. If I had insisted on working, I’m sure DH would have been reasonably successful, but not to the same extent and therefore paying less tax and less job creation. Plus life would have been a lot more stressful and we might have split up, to be honest, because him and a job and four kids would have been too much for me.