To want to sink to my knees and cry?

[tessofthedurbervilles]

When my baby is born I would be better off not working than returning to my well paid respectable job....that is just the most stupid thing ever. All I want to do is pay my way but the system is making it easier to live on handouts.....

But Xenia, wouldn't flat taxes and no allowances be brutal for those on low incomes? Look at the whole abolition of 10% band fiasco.

Here's a really really really radical thought.

Abolish personal taxes altogether. What would the consequences be?

I don't want to pay tax to subsidise people with SAHPs. I've no business commenting on SAHPs' choices if I'm not expected to pay towards those choices, but in my opinion tax breaks are supposed to encourage desired behaviours and I don't think simply increasing the affordability and therefore number of SAHPs is desirable because I think this would disproportionately increase the nos of SAH mothers and I would rather pay towards parity of parental leave that would encourage a more equal division of home and work duties. I want to see more female high flyers where I work, I want them now as role models and later as peers. And I want the men and the women I work with to feel comfortable working flexibly for family or other reasons. I want my children to grow up seeing childrearing as a responsibility for all parents and for society, not for mothers.

(By 'people with SAHPs' I mean people with stay at home partners - I've no objection to subsidising children!)

V interesting ooint, MavisG.

I am wondering in a radical sort of way, because it's that kind of day, if true equality of the sexes would happen more quickly if SAHP were actually discouraged?? Then workplaces would have to flex pretty rapidly to enable bf mothers to be accommodated, sick children to be looked after, school holidays to be catered for, etc etc.

I think that if people could genuinely work the hours they actually need to, instead of being tied to a 45/whatever-hour week and 48-week year, and I mean all people, not just parents, we'd have a more vibrant economy and better work and family lives. Fewer people would want to not do paid work at all. But this needs to be an option for everyone, men and women and of all ages, otherwise P/T or flexible work is seen as only desirable to women of child-bearing age and is consequently lower status, and all women are taken less seriously in the workplace, and men's parenting role undermined too.

47-week year, sorry. Maybe things are improving...

Mavis G, the prospect of you not wanting to fund/encourage SAHP brings up an important point.

Once there is a system of taxation in place that pays for our childcare through allowances etc, the government gets to tell up what childcare is right.

My children have had private nursery, day nanny, school nursery and then out of school club. I do not agree that it is in the best interest of a baby or any under 2s to be in group childcare, based on my own experience. I do not really want my taxes to pay for this kind of childcare. Younger children should be with a day nanny or childminder and then when older should go to a school nursery with extended hours.

But that is just my opinion, while yours is don't fund SAHP, and others will not want to fund a full time nanny or a grandparent or whatever. There is not going to be a consensus.

It would come down to the government to decide, and I don't want them to, because IMO they have ruined state education, and there is no way I want them having any further say in the raising of children.

Because of that, I have to say, I agree with Xenia's proposal and there should be no tax allowances of any kind. Then we can all make our own decisions about childcare. In any democratic society there is a tension between freedom and equality. This thread has gone down the line of wanting to tell other people how to live their lives (not just you, I did it earlier to LLL). I have to then say we are proposing far too much equality at the expense of individual freedoms. I do not want to live in a version of Cuba.

MavisG - the voice of reason!

I totally totally agree with everything you say.

The problem is, the issues of SAHP/flexible working etc have become hugely distorted in the debate so that they are seen as female issues rather than people issues.

I agree that a major shift at grass roots level is what is needed - so that the whole perception of paid employment is viewed differently.

You say:
'I mean all people, not just parents, we'd have a more vibrant economy and better work and family lives. Fewer people would want to not do paid work at all.'

• and I think you are dead right. The ideal would be for all adults who are capable of paid employment to see it as something to aspire to - not in a negative way, but as a normal, challenging, useful part of life. And I don't mean everyone having to do a 50 hour week, I agree with you that flexibility should be availabe to everyone, so that people can work in ways which suit them for whichever stage of life they're at. If I were single, for instance, there might be perfectly valid reasons why I wanted to work flexibly for a few years, eg to pursue an interest - flexible working shouldnt be seen as something that's just to do with parents of young children.

Over the last few decades there has been a huge shift towards parents being expecte3d to have equal responsibilities both at home and in the work place, which is surely a good thing. Women and men are equally capable of working and equally capable of parenting - the only thing a mother can do that the father can't is bf, and that is just one aspect of parenting - there are many others which are far more important anyway.

MillyR - there are all kinds of things we pay taxes for which on a personal level we may not agree with.

As you say, it is your own experience that group childcare for under 2s is a bad thing - but many people would disagree, and the age thing is arbitrary - eg some people wouldnt like group care for under 3s or whatever.
Likewise it is your opinion that state education is crap - but many people don't agree with you!

There is no reason why childcare being subsidised means that the Govt is telling us how we 'must' bring up our children.

Does the idea of making all childcare tax deductible leave choice to individuals in that case? Which would allow people to do what is best for them without too much Gvt interference?

I can't see how making all forms of proper regulated childcare tax deductible is reducing choice.

There are so many variables when it comes to making childcare decisions that it's pointless to make generalised arguments such as 'group care isn't best for under 2s'.

My dd1 went to a CM because when she was born there were no day nurseries in the locality. This worked fine - until the CM was ill, or (eventually) gave up. I was then screwed. So actually, in retrospect, a nursery might have been better TAKING EVERYTHING INTO ACCOUNT.

Life is all about making decisions within the range of choices available to us. Which very often means compromise. Can any of us honestly hand on heart say we have the ideal house/job/childcare/education etc.Of course not! As long as we're doing the best we can then that's fine.

Milly, I don't want to tell you or anyone else how to live: I don't want to pay towards a system that would increase the already distressing inequality between the sexes, because this affects all of us and all of our children. This is my objection to simply increasing the affordability and therefore number of SAHPs - it's not a criticism of individual choices, it's that the macro effect, because of more women earning less than their male partners, would be more women at home full time and fewer in the workplace. I want more women, and higher up, in business, because I believe that business and society will benefit, as business develops accordingly.
More SAHDs, I'd happily pay for - actually, I'm in the middle of trying to persuade my own partner that this could be best for our family for the next year or so, and of course I'd fund that completely.

Just an aside - I don't think nurseries are the end of the world for babies - it depends a lot on the nursery, the parents and the actual baby in question, as you say. It's all quite personal. I've used two nurseries in the past, and one had a particularly cosy baby room and cuddly nursery nurses that DS2 really, really liked. I think it did him quite a lot of good going there. But there are other nurseries I felt were less cosy and suitable.

Violethill, yes. Under MavisG's proposals SAHPs would be in the same position as homeschoolers are now. Surely the point she was making was to get most Mums into work and thus most children into childcare.

You are right, the government couldn't force anyone into their version of childcare, but they would heavily control what they would consider suitable and would tax everyone more to pay for it, so it would be very difficult to acquire any other form of childcare. I would be like being a parent of a private school child, but from the moment you had a baby; taxed once for state controlled childrearing, and then having to pay again to get what you really want.

And yes, many people are very happy about state education, but I'm not. In my experience, schools cannot teach the basics and the explicit intention of the government (Rose report) is to increase the amount of social issues dealt with in schools, so yet more interference and monitoring of my family life. And you can't really opt out; I did not sign the consent form for the year six weigh in for my (thin but not underweight) son and they weighed him and asked questions about our diets/family activities anyway.

I want less state interference, not more.

Before I came on this thread, I was quite keen on the idea of more funded childcare, now I am vehemently opposed to it. So there is probably no point in me commenting further as it would be totally OT!

I'm not sure there would be a particularly strong correlation between tax deductable childcare and government interference. All sorts of business expenses are tax deductable - and childcare should be viewed as such - but the government doesn't dictate what carpet you should have in your office or what sort of photocopier you should use. I think with childcare, all they stipulate is minimum standards of care so registered childminders, CRB checks on nursery staff, minimum staff to child ratios which I regard as sensible regulation rather than sinister.

Sorry, took too long writing that one, the debate moved on.

I have never been convinced about the CRB checks as there are data suggesting paedophiles operate for 6-8 years before being caught, so a CRB check does not tell you much about these people.

'Surely the point she was making was to get most Mums into work and thus most children into childcare.'

Ummm, not exactly...

Childcare has a role, though I agree that the type should be a personal choice. I want most parents - indeed, most adults - in work that they can combine with their family/outside life.

PS I have had four CRB checks in two years as well, some at my own expense, which is equally pointless. I'd have been going it some to acquire a criminal record that quickly, given the present state of the justice system, frankly.

CRB checks aren't failsafe but they are a useful minimum requirement. I believe they flag up crimes other than sexual ones: I would not want my children left in the care of someone with a history of fraud, for example, or violence.

Why is 'getting mums into work' such a big deal?

Why not translate this into 'getting able bodied capable adults into making an economic contribution?' Because that's what it is. And apart from the relatively very few people who are born into such wealth that they will never have to earn their own living, and those who unfortunately are not able to work in any shape or form, this is just a perfectly normal part of life. The tragedy is that society has become so polarised, with certain sectors having 3 or 4 generations of family who have never worked, and other sectors of society where it's expected that the husband will work his bollox off doing 100 hours a week as some high flier while his wife sits at home bored shitless.

Isn't it time we acknowledged that most people want a healthy balance in their life which means enjoying being a parent and enjoying all the other things(including work) which make life great?

It's not about women, it's about people. The majority of adults choose to have children, which is great, but it doesnt mean the rest of our lives grind to a halt. I didn't stop becoming a professional when I had children and neither did my DH!

Right - ive never said this, but im going to because i am sick SICK SICK of being made to feel like a second class citizen because i choose to stay at home and look after my child, because I think that it is the best thing for my child. Many women are forced back into work for one reason or another, sadly some do it because they feel that they have to feel they have to do it all. What exactly is WRONG with staying at home and doing, what i consider to be the most important job in the world LOOKING AFTER OUR OWN CHILDREN. I will make my contributions when she starts school thankyou very much, although the high flying career is really secondary now to my family. This doesn't mean my life has ground to a halt - it is just this sort of attitude that demeans motherhood and makes women feel worthless. I thought feminism was about choice - but it seems to be that only if you make the right choice - .

I didn't want to leave my baby with a stranger, I wanted to be there when she took her first steps, comfort her when she is worried, hurt or upset - not drop her off in the morning and pick her up at bed time just for the sake of my "career".

LEM, I don't think you need to justify yourself or your choices. It will always be the case that many people feel undermined/challenged by people making different choices from their way of life. That isn't a specific thing to do with bringing up children; it happens over all issues. Its the kind of 'I'm a Christian/agnostic /pagan and if you believe different to me you are wrong and immoral' type of thinking.

Most working women don't have a problem with SAHM and when/if you go back to paid work then you will find most SAHM will not have an issue with you working.

And I am sick (SICK, SICK, if you will) of my senior colleagues and business contacts presuming that, because I have a family, I am more of a risk - less likely to be fully committed to the job. I can get over it by proving myself over and over but it doesn't happen to my male colleagues and it's down to cultural expectations.
I would like to see our culture changed so that we all - women and men, parents and non-, can make our own choices, and where what we choose is a non-issue for others.
The no of women not working outside the home would be a non-issue for me if there were enough women in business. The personal's political. And it's very emotive language to suggest that any parent leaves their baby with a stranger.