to expect working mums to sort out their childcare

[nametaken]

Is it just me or do any other SAHMs get really annoyed when they get the 3 o clock phone call saying "oh can you pick XXXX up from school her nan/CM/school club can't because blah blah blah.

I mean, they choose to work - I'm a SAHM because I have 3DC and it would be a nightmare trying to organise childcare and I wouldn't want to inconvenience anyone.

I finally fell out with my friend today after one imposition too many. How nice of her to have me to pick up the slack week in week out and then when she finally feels guilty about all the unpaid childcare she asked me to do she swans off and treats her DD and my eldest DD to a cinema visit and meal!!!!!!! Something I would love to do but haven't got time to organise cause I'm too busy doing the drudge boring work.

Working mums - please don't think for a minute I've got anything against you - it's just a rant against the 3rd working mum in 3 weeks to need a favour from me.

I always used to do this because I thought "oh, well if I ever need something I can always ask them" BUT !!!!! I don't ever need anything.

Be honest, does anyone really think that SAHMs should be helping out working mums when their childcare falls through or am I just being evil.

I love my job and I work full time. I earn an absolute pittance compared to Xenia. My job certainly wouldn't pay school fees!

However it makes me feel that I am productive member of society rather than a dependent of my husband. I work in a school as an ICT technican so I can enjoy the long holidays with my son.

In most of the world there is no such thing as a stay at home mum. Women all over the world are economically active. They are part of a wider community.

My son enjoys his after school club. He also get treats like private swimming lessons which we would not be able to afford otherwise.

some careers make school fees impossible, they simply would not be an option for one child let one four (my case) or five (Xenia's). Take school fees out of the equation and you may end up with two teachers with five children at state school with the same disposable income as two lawyers for magic circle firms with their five children in independent schools.

LOL at a monk having to find school fees

Vicars, another case in point. Often from middle class backgrounds but living in poverty and trying to bring up children to the same standards and living they were brought up.

Two teachers 5 children at state school.. so they might be on about £30k each. Two partners at magic circle law firms or two partners partners at Ernst & Young might be nearer on about £1m a each. There's no comparison. The school fees are nothing compared with that. But two lawyers of doctors on say £60k each yes by the time you pay £10k a year for day school fees x 5 out of taxed income that is £83k gross earnings then you're right they may be not that much better off. My children's father is a teacher and that meant free school fees virtually for the son and indeed some of his colleagues in two teacher couples both at private schools got children's education from age 4 - 18 plus a free house, meals etc Not too bad a deal really except you still don't have spare money and it's hard to afford a house.

Perhaps vows of poverty chastity and obedience are the better route after all.

I don't think a priest is that poor Xenia. I believe a C of E parish priest gets about 18K plus a house. In the south east that is not too bad a package. Many private schools charge substantially lower fees for the children of priests. Obviously the problem is that there is nothing in old age to live on.

I think that a happy family is more important to a child than private education.

Yes but they're not alternatives. Indeed private school children may be happier because they've got better buildings, smaller classes, less bullying, nicer physical environment and parents with more money to devote to them too.

"and parents with more money to devote to them too. "

Surely if a child goes to a state school then the parents will have more money to spend on other things because they aren't paying school fees.

There is no point in living on the breadline to pay school fees. The advantages of attending Habs would be cancelled out if a family cannot afford to eat properly.

I realise that private schools have better facilities. However living in a reasonable house with parents who are not too stressed is important as well.

xenia, your comment re children in private schools with parents with "more money to devote to them" finally makes me understand where you're coming from

you seem to think devoting money to your children very important

we have a very low income but devote our time to our children

and I honestly feel its time with the parents children need and crave, not what financial things the parents can give to them

Yes, I agree.

But if you're in a well paid job you have both money for school fees, time to work as and when you please to some extent plus spare money and money to pay someone to clean etc so you have more time to hug the children etc. I certainly think what matters most is love and good relationships with children, not money although we all know poverty is one of the clearest indicators of whether or not a child will succeed on various measure from academics to good life changes even to stability of relationships and home but I mean there comparing real deprivation not on average wage "deprivation" but in a loving home.

yes I agree there

actually I have the opposite lifestyle to you but I do agree with an awful lot you say here

trouble is for me putting it into practise

I gave up a good ish job to look after my kids, now I find it really hard to earn a halfway decent hourly rate, to even cover childcare costs

I agree if I had better training and advice when young I might not be in this situation but looking back I probably would still have done the same things as it was right for me at the time and although its hard sometimes I wouldn't have it any other way (well maybe a lottery win !!)

it is interesting reading your posts, as I said a lot of them do open my eyes to another point of view!

Once you have paid all your bills along with childcare there is no money left in the pot at all, sometimes people cannot throw money at situations like that and need a favour.

Single working parents have got it the hardest and they do not wholly rely on the government to keep them alive. They pay their taxes, which in turn are used to help SAHMs to survive.

If someone needed a favour from me and I could do it I would! If they started to take the piss then I would say so. But I'd never fall out with someone over something as silly as this. Good friends are hard to find so once you find a friend keep her.

You say you never need anything? Well, where do you think the funding for your benefits come from?

I don't mean to sound nasty but YABU

have only read the op, but nametaken, you DO sound somewhat bored and frustrated!! Do you think that is the real problem?

Yes I too ssd like reading other people's points of view. My sister who like me is a working single mother has a much harder time of it financially and may be in life terms too, because of the career she picked which is not badly paid but not perhaps like me (or even our brother). And when we were 14 being driven to school by our father having careers talks she knew what she was picking was a bit worse paid than our own choices. It was an informed choice and I doubt she'd regret it nor her few years out in a cult etc.

Single working parents certainly have it harder. The hardest thing for me hasn't been that their father does pay anything nor that I had to pay him on the divorce but that he chooses not to help or have the children at all. So you get some single mothers who have every other weekend "free" whether to clean, shop, rest or even work and I don't get a single weekend a year free because of the choices of their father. It matters less as they get older and easier of course. But if we had a requirement that after divorce the norm was 50/50 care particularly where both work full time as it is in some bits of Scandinavia a father would have to make out a jolly good case to do less than his share. As it stands you can't force the other parent ever to see their chidlren.

"I gave up a good ish job to look after my kids, now I find it really hard to earn a halfway decent hourly rate, to even cover childcare costs"

Is that because your old, full-time job paid a salary and now you want to work fewer hours you are looking at jobs that pay an hourly wage?

I think this is critical issue for future parents - which jobs allow you to reduce your hours and still maintain your same hourly pay? Very, very few, as far as I can make out, unless you are in the public sector.

Xenia, interesting point: "But if we had a requirement that after divorce the norm was 50/50 care particularly where both work full time as it is in some bits of Scandinavia a father would have to make out a jolly good case to do less than his share. As it stands you can't force the other parent ever to see their chidlren."

Too often, custodial access is seen as a privilege when it is in fact a responsibilty as well. And could be the key for single parents to go back to work eg they have the option of doing job shares, say 2-3 days per week.

Anna, I'd like to do a job similiar to the job I had before kids (10 years ago!!) but the job I had involved a lot of travelling and was full time only. So I've taken a big step back down the career ladder to do a job I did at 18 (sales girl) as in retail I haven't been able to find part time management with the hours I want. And so now I earn poor money. Actually I did have part time management with a good rate when the kids were small, but as my mum got older she couldn't help me out anymore and as my job involved weekends and late night no childminder would accomodate me. Well I didn't even try as I couldn't bear to leave the kids with anyone who didn't love them as much as me. That was my choice and now job wise I'm suffering for it, although as far as the kids/family life go we're a really close, happy bunch so although financially its dire, emotionally its great (if that makes sense!)

Xenia, again yes I agree, being a single parent must be so hard when your ex does nothing to help with the kids, you've done well, may I say, not to end up twisted and bitter, can't say I wouldn't in your shoes! As I said earlier, this thread makes interesting reading!

ssd - yes, I can understand that retail management is difficult to combine with motherhood if you have irregular working patterns. Irregular hours are a killer for childcare arrangements unless you are fortunate to have family support who are willing to put up with the irregular stuff, or else are paid pots of money and have a couple of nannies on call

yes, I've got no family support at all now and no nannies (I wish!!)

c'est la vie

can i just ask what this means as it's come up a few times on this thread:

"They pay their taxes, which in turn are used to help SAHMs to survive"

what do SAHMs receive, to enable them to stay at home?

nothing.

child benefit - well we all get that.

surely we can only stay at home if dp earns enough to support the whole family?

The only thing I get as a full time working single parent is child benefit. I don't get tax credits or anything like that.

I suppose high earning single mothers pay their effective marginal rate of tax/NI of 41% and that goes to those who receive tax credits who may be stay at home mothers' husbands perhaps? Or may be she meant the taxes of single parents of either sex are used to pay benefits for all those stay at home mothers on benefits? Not sure.

Would certainly be better if we had a flat 20% tax rate and perhaps a state income paid to everyone over 18 whether you work or not of say £200 a week and that woudl then not penalise pensioners who have saved during their lives too and we could abolish all state benefits at the same time and cut back government.

A state income? That's an interesting thought, Xenia - just been mulling that over. I guess you'd retain a number of disability benefits, as costs of living if you are disabled can be disproportionately high. Do you think a flat rate of tax would reduce tax evasion/avoidance?

You know one day you will need something I promise you. I work 3 days a week and DP works from home and several times we have helped out a SAHM. She has also helped us.

This economy needs women to work (with kids or without) and the strength in the economy today is in part thanks to women's contribution. WOHM sometimes need help because this society is not geared up to be supportive.

I can think of far bigger things to fall out with your friend over.

Yes, probably need to support some and may be families with 10 children on state benefits would need rent paid plus the £200 a week. You'd also have to deal with all the benefits workers out of a job. I'd raise the tax threshold to about £10k a year too. You'd get possibly a higher tax take because the lower you have taxes the more tax is gathered perversely but you'd probably need to cut back the frontiers of the state a bit. There are a few countries in Eastern Europe with a flat tax but not the universal income at the same time.

name - Just read your first post. Quite simply , if you don't want to do it then say no. It isn't rocket science. Don't be a martyr

i've always though that the main carer should be 'paid' to stay at home...

i'm a full-time employee and mother. my hubby stays at home to look after them and works far harder than i do.

the children get child benifit (which really means it goes into family weeklies, food, activities etc) and he gets a portion of his pension contributions paid for...

are all those years and hard graft producing socialable young educated people, worth just state pension contributions?

i don't think so!