Are stay at home mums “unemployed”

[Protectmydaughter]

I only ask as my daughter is getting divorced and her husband’s lawyer has referred to her as unemployed rather than acknowledge her homemaking role; this feels so belittling. Are we being over sensitive? What do others think?

YANBU - she is a homemaker/housewife. The government classes those who are ‘economically inactive’ (not looking for work, usually not claiming benefits) as different to ‘unemployed’ (actively seeking work). Homemakers, those caring for children, carers, students and those who are too unwell to work are classed as economically inactive, it is different.

Having a job doesn’t make you a part time parent. For most people, working is a necessity.

If you choose not to work and do not claim work related / unemployment related benefits it is described as being ‘self unemployed’ or it was a few years ago when I was sorting out some NI payments for someone in this position . It is how I describe myself as I’m retired but not actually receiving a pension yet .

Totally agree. It's insulting to all working parents.

This thread is horrifying. I work full time but I can see that being a stay at home parent is hard work and deserves respect and acknowledgement. If you are not looking after your children, someone else is, and we are quite happy to pay them and see their role as a job. There are studies that sending your babies to childcare is free really bad for their social development. I've gone back to work but acknowledge that the opposite choice is a valid and valuable one. The distain for other women's choices is sad. I'm unsure about the law on this but I don't think we generally refer to students or children or the elderly as unemployed just because they are not employed.

Whether someone steps outside the front door and gets given £1500 a month from someone else to replace the £1500 going to childcare or they simply prevent £1500 a month leaving the family account in the first place - the effect on the finances is the same.

Re the second paragraph. Goodness, you poor thing. A full time job and a full time sahp role is not a life many would want. You must be knackered.

Children aren't unemployed because they are too young to be employed
Retired people aren't unemployed because they are retired from employment
etc

Looking after other people's children is a job but no, of course looking after your own children isn't.

Came here to say this!!

Well she’s not employed.

she may no longer be able to afford to chose not to be employed.

She is unemployed, she does not have a paid job. That’s just a fact. What you do in your own home for your own family is not “employment” otherwise we’d all be chefs,
cleaners, childminders etc.

That doesn’t mean it’s not hard work- but it is not employment.

There are studies that sending your babies to childcare is free really bad for their social development.

@KatMansfield6 what is horrifying is how you throw about sweeping statements like this without context. If you truly believe this, I am so sorry if you have to use childcare, working ft as you do.

My point was that the general principle cited above that if you are not employed you are unemployed is clearly incorrect.

Children aren't unemployed because they are too young to be employed
Retired people aren't unemployed because they are retired from employment
Students arent unemployed because? ...they are studying.

Mothers aren't employed because they are mothering.

The only difference is that we think being a student is worthwhile and mothering isn't.

Someone has to do it though -- either the mother or a paid stand in.

No - unemployed is someone actively jobseeking. A sahp is not unemployed, their productive work time is fully utilised with caring for children and namaging the home on behalf of the family unit and is entitled to half of the salary earned by the other half if the partnership who is freed from domestic duties by the hard work of the sahp.

What do you put then?

Well, no because some mothers are employed and we can't exactly say that some children are employed so it's rather different.

Unless employed mothers have 2 jobs?

It is true. Preschool (2/3 onwards) it is beneficial to be in nursery and childcare. Under 18 months it is detrimental. My daughter has been in full time childcare since she was 9 months. It doesn't mean I have to pretend that was they best option. I just couldn't afford to stay home until she was 18 months because we live in a capitalist dystopia with insufficient paid maternity leave.

That’s correct. You put housewife/homemaker/stay-at-home mother. There’s actually usually a separate category to tick or option to select for that online.

When I recently filled out an application form to do reading volunteering at my chikdren’s school, they specifically stated that you put ‘stay-at-home parent’ with dates as they value greatly your caring duties at home, and would like to know about your transferable skills gained from them. I thought that was extremely respectful and sensible of them.

Employed mothers pay someone else to look after their children, as I do. This idea that they do double the work of a SAHM is nonsense. My daughter is looked after by paid nursery staff, we pay a cleaner and a gardener. We outsource the work of a SAHM because I earn more than all these costs put together. But I don't do two jobs, I pay someone else to do one of them.

Freed from domestic duties? Not according to many threads on MN where sahm will complain about the fact that their dh/ps do nothing in the way of domestic duties. There are usually a range of responses, with many posters claiming that looking after children is a f/t role and just because they’re at home during the day doesn’t mean they should be doing all the domestic duties as well.

Many working mothers don’t have cleaners or gardeners. I’ve worked a ten hour day and spent the evening doing washing, cleaning, cooking and child care. That’s pretty normal for most people I know.

to all the people who are sharing that they think sahps are unemployed…

do you call adults who are retired but not yet 67, or people with disabilities - unemployed?
(because these people are also economically inactive whilst not actually looking for work).

because if you wouldn’t, then you should question your own motives as to why you are happily calling sahps it.

i cannot think of any other reason than trying to denigrate women.

Not all of us do this😂 My husband and I both work, we also do our own cleaning, gardening, cooking we look after our own child before and after she is at nursery. Being a mother is far more than just what you do between the hours of 9am and 4pm, I’m still taking care of my child for every single hour between those times.

So I suppose I’m a real overachiever then as i must have 5 jobs: my employed job, mother, chef, cleaner and gardener?

She isn't looked after them 24/7 though and some SAHM's also use some childcare or only have school aged children.

You still parent your child after work, at weekends, during the night if they wake up, annual leave etc.

Not to mention the many years of parenting left after they grow out of nursery.

Exactly.

No cleaner or gardener here either.