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?

Offering it to everyone means that no one just under the income threshold would miss out which can be problematic with other things that are means tested. It also means that there's no stigma and hopefully the children who would otherwise go hungry can access it.

It's optional and using it doesn't mean children never spend any time at home.

Oh I really feel for you, I can sense how much you care and what a lovely Mum you are, please try not to worry about it. The cost of living is insane, you are keeping your family secure, you are everything to your children regardless. I hope you can find a way to alter things if it’s upsetting you, that’s really sad.

You are overthinking it. Don't use the breakfast club but don't deprive dcs who need it but whose parents are too disinterested, chaotic or absent to apply for 'means-testing'. You care about children yes, but only your own.

But don’t you think it’s normalising ‘this is where all children should be’ and that in schools where there is a larger uptake those who opt-out may be made to feel they are missing out socially or educationally? Breakfast is the cheapest and healthiest meal to prepare. Most who use breakfast clubs here are from the wealthier families 🤷🏻‍♀️

Like having lunch at school has become normalised- when I was at infant school lots still went home for lunch, I never ate lunch at school until I was 7, our whole extended family ate together- it was lovely. That would probably be considered weird now 😂

Really @KatMansfield6, don't beat yourself up.

I have an adult dd and ds just turned 18. It makes me laugh that using childcare made any difference to their outcome. However my having a ft job and being able to fund their schooling, university and house deposit has made a real difference to their life chances. You will too. Parenting is the long game.

Yes this was what one Mum said to me when I met her. We had gone round to her house, a very big and expensive one, for pre drinks to pop in.

Absolutely in no way being derogatory, she was morbidly obese, sat in her, as she quoted, £7000 settee and yes she actually said to me I have children which keep you in your employment. I was young and always polite so I just laughed to her joke.

Just an experience I had, as a young teacher going out with colleagues. I really wasn't bothered and don't judge, it was just meet and greet. I was alone with her and just asked what she did. Perfectly fine response would be SAHM, but the defensive attitude that I provide my DC for your job.

Just sth that stuck with me, being young I felt a bit put in my place when I was just being friendly. Xx

I’ve said it’s great for any children in poverty, but come on, most who use them from what I’ve seen are from the wealthier families?! It should not be something which is forced on all families, like nurseries- so many mothers are questioned by health visitors etc about why their 1 or 2 year old doesn’t attend nursery- how rude, none of their business!

No, not really. I don't think school shouldn't offer something just because it may become popular and those that have breakfast at home might feel like they are missing out seeing their friends a bit earlier. It just sounds very insecure.

It's a perfect age to start to learn that families are different and just because Bob is doing something, it doesn't mean you have to or need to as well.

It’s a matter of semantics though, isn’t it? Which demonstrates the point being made by the OP and others.

If a SAHM is ‘unemployed’ because she does not get paid for the work she does at home then technically the father, who is presumably not there caring for his children for anywhere between 8-12 hours a day, is only a part time parent.

See how ridiculous and pedantic it sounds? It’s snide one-upmanship that is designed to denigrate.

Teachers and TAs are now expected to potty train, clean teeth, and now source staffing and provide time to run these breakfast clubs. They used to focus on educating. There is a huge recruitment and retention crisis, but hey, let’s just keep on delegating more and more parental duties onto school staff…that’s working out really well. Perhaps those staff would like to have breakfast with their own children?

You think you can competently decide social policy on 'what you have seen' rather than evidence based? You don't want to better the life chances of one child who free breakfast could make a big difference just because you don't want to feel uncomfortable? PS it is all in your head anyway.

Indeed! If we didn't have to work we wouldn't, but to keep on top of mortgage, bills and save for holidays to spend time together as a family we have to these days. Unless a DP earns enough to pay for it all then great 👍

To be clear, my school is trialling these. All parents were canvassed for their views. I expressly stated that whilst I personally would not use it for my own reasons, I would fully support the scheme if it ‘benefitted even 1 child in poverty’. That’s literally what I said. But that is absolutely not the main reason the government is pushing these. There are many, many better things they could do to reduce the overall cost of living for struggling families.

What good is educating a hungry child? Though, to be fair, I'd prefer it if instead of breakfast clubs, they had just offered free lunch for at least all primary school children instead of just some of primary school as it is currently.

Conversely, a SAHP is not doing all that a working parent does.

Agree- lunch may be a child’s only hot/substantial meal of the day if they are living in poverty. Really sad to think of a child struggling to pay for a school lunch/not having an adequate packed lunch if they are then also not guaranteed much dinner.

But that is absolutely not the main reason the government is pushing these.

This is simply not true but a figment of your imagination.

Obviously I know that.

My problem is a thread which is full of people who work "full time" while doing school drop off and finishing every day at 3pm telling SAHMs that what they do is pointless because it is completely possible to work full time and look after your children full time. If you can't manage that you're clearly lazy or unproductive. There are a lot of self congratulatory posts from the privileged.

I rely on lots of nursery and wrap around childcare because we don't have jobs that magically finish at 3pm and I know that my children would benefit from me being around more. It's offensive to everyone to claim that because you have a weirdly flexible job, a partner who works very few hours, parents down the road, and no commute, that doing everything full time is possible. There is a lot of judgment that anyone who is compromising by working longer hours or staying at home is failing.

Precisely as you point out, those decisions are often based on circumstance and the people making them know they are not ideal and deserve some compassion.

We have free school lunches for P1-P5 in this part of the UK, and our local primary school offers a breakfast club for those who want it. I agree, a hungry child will not thrive at school.

Have a read of this:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/free-breakfast-clubs-roll-out-as-costs-for-families-cut-by-8000

Of course not. But the difference is they don’t keep lying and making out that they are. When my friends who work full time discuss paying for new extensions, skiing holidays, paying for multiple expensive extra-curricular activities, etc. I don’t sit there saying to them ‘I do that! I do exactly the same as you!’ as I would be lying 😂 I’m pleased for them, they work hard for that extra money and have every right to spend it how they choose. There is clearly a trade-off between more money or more time, just be honest about it! 😂

@KatMansfield6

i understand what you’re saying but the majority of mothers working full time don’t finish at 3 and aren’t saying sahp are pointless.
They're just saying that running a family and working full time is bloody hard work.

I can imagine it is hard work. I think people in all groups feel judged and want some acknowledgement for what they are doing. I personally think it would be really hard to work full-time with young children, and that everybody should be able to afford to have the choice not to. I also hope anybody doing this has a fair spilt of the domestic and mental load with their other half, as surely if both work full-time then both should share equally everything else/outsource things, or it’s extremely unfair on Mum. There are issues with certain industries and their toxic work cultures, excessively long hours and intense, inflexible workloads which can become incompatible and unsustainable with parenting.

I think people do recognise that, that it’s bloody hard work. Saying that is not the issue at all.

The comments that annoy SAHPs are those along the lines of “I do every single thing that you do and I make a financial contribution too”. The sort of comment that position the SAHPs as inferior iyswim?
And that’s not nice, even though I also realise that sometimes people are just being defensive when they say these things.

Yes, working parents do the same things as SAHPs, of course they do, but not as much, for as many hours, because childcare is partially outsourced. And that is sometimes not acknowledged in these sort of comments..

We all feel guilty. I have been a SAHP for many years now as one of my children has significant additional needs and no longer attends school. I do feel I am letting my family down financially but my choices are very limited.

And conversely, WOHM (always the mums - never working dads) are accused of doing their babies and children a massive disservice by sending them to nursery or childminders - which they apparently do because they put fancy cars and expensive holidays over their child's welfare. And so it goes on and on.