Are childcare subsidies unfair to SAHM?

[MotherWol]

There's a letter in today's Guardian: Give Parents a Real Choice on Childcare arguing that the current system of childcare subsidies discriminate against SAHMs and don't acknowledge that the work they do is economically valuable, and that there should be equal financial support offered to families with a SAHP.

The campaign group behind the letter, Mothers At Home Matter, are focused on the benefits that a SAHM (their wording) is hugely beneficial to families and society, but stigmatised by a society that values economic activity over everything else.

I don't know whether it's their exclusive focus on women staying at home with children that set my feminist alarm ringing, but my gut reaction is that choosing to stay home with your children isn't equally important at a societal level to working, however important it may be to to families at an individual level, and therefore it's fair enough that there's no SAHM subsidy.

We already have maternity rights to enable women to take spend the first year of their child's life with them, although those benefits could arguably be significantly better. Also arguably better support is needed for families of children with disabilities where returning to work isn't possible due to their child's needs, but in the absence of those factors, is it really fair to expect the state to meet the cost of women choosing not to return to work?

I realise this is a thorny issue, and I honestly don't believe all mothers should be in paid work immediately after having children - they should be free to make the choice that's right for their families. But if the consequence of being a SAHM means losing one income, is it fair to expect equal subsidy from the state to compensate for that?

Nice to see the view you have and value you place on single parents and people on low incomes though. Nice.

@PurplGirl

I'm not threatened by your choice to be a sahm.

Bit odd that view the reality of women in poverty, globally, as an attack on you personally.

Even more odd that you claim to be raising your children alone, when that choice is funded entirely by someone else. Including their education.

And to whine about unfairness when your family already has at least their fair share of a slice of the pie via your ohs higher than average income that allows you to get what you want.

Being a sahm isn't a criticism of working parents. Saying things like there is evidence to say that children of working parents have worse out comes (there isnt) is

Your criticism is irrelevant and unfounded. I'm entirely secure and confident in our choices.

Nice to see the view you have and value you place on single parents and people on low incomes though. Nice.

This makes about as much sense as the rest of your posts

I was referring to your assumption that I was a single parent and accompanying statement that my choice was unhealthy and I was effectively draining the state.

my husband and I chose tiger get and our choice is entirely self-funded. I am not funded by someone else because I have a healthy marriage where we operate as a team and value each other’s financial and non-financial contributions. You seem to only place value on people who contribute financially, which is your choice of course.

I haven’t said anywhere that children of working parents have worse outcomes…?

Good for you. I mean, people who feel secure and confident in their own choices don’t usually attack other people’s choices or them personally, but sure :)

@PurplGirl I didnt make an assumption.

I asked you a question because you said

As a SAHM, I am the main person raising mine. A working parent will share that with others - childcare providers, family members perhaps.

The question highlighted your hypocrisy

You also share the raising of your children with others. Mainly your oh.

Does he know you dont think he is raising his kids?

@PurplGirl

haven’t said anywhere that children of working parents have worse outcome

Didn't you?

You didn't say there was lots of evidence to prove that having a sahm was of great benefit to kids?

mean, people who feel secure and confident in their own choices usually attack other people’s choices or them personally

I'm not attacking you.

You asked me to back up my point. I am.

🤷‍♀️

Why are you so defensive about being a sahm?

“I am the main person raising mine” - where did I say my husband was not also raising our kids? I am the main carer, that’s a simple fact. I have also referenced the day to day care of my children, which is also mainly done by me. If you are working and using childcare, you are doing less of that. That’s not a judgment, it’s a fact.

so where did I say children of working parents have worse outcomes?

and where have I been hypocritical?

@PurplGirl

When you said that working parents share raising their children with others but you don't.

Did you read the link you posted as evidence of having a sahm being better?

You're being hypocritical by suggesting working parents need others to help raise their kids but you don't. When you clearly do.

They go to school. They have a dad.

Who funds your choice to be a sahm

I dont raise my kids alone and have never wanted to.

Having a village is very much a positive in my view

You have attacked me and my choices. I've got better things to do than cut and paste it all - you can read back for yourself.

I have not once criticised working parents. You have criticised SAHM/Ps, made derogatory comments about us and accused us of being a burden on the state (without any recognition that working parents also receive money from it in order to fund their choice). You have made derogatory inferences about single parents and those on low incomes.

You’re the one who has been defensive about your choice to be a working parent. You wrongly assumed my choice to stay at home and all the benefits that brings to my children, family and society was an attack or criticism of your choice. When I have said repeatedly that all I want is fairness and choice.

I’m going to sign off from this convo now. I feel we’re going round in circles and there’s nothing more to say.

Anyone who doesn't need to work and therefore doesn't need childcare should be thankful instead of moaning that they don't get more than they already have. I had a look at MAHM a few years ago but saw no one with anything potentially in common with me there, they were the stereotypical middle class baby yoga mums with well paid husbands, complaining about how outrageous it is that a single mum working at Tesco gets a bit of help with childcare.

@PurplGirl

Nah.

That's not what happened at all.

But yeah. Probably best to bow out than admit you can't back up what you've claimed or to further show up your iwn hypocrisy and defensiveness.

@DrCoconut

The irony of complaining about lack of choice and fairness eh?

So, out of interest, I've just read both the MAHM article PurplGirl linked to, and the Lighting up Young Brains report it references.

What utter rot from the MAHM campaign. If that is the sort of rubbish they are spouting, then it is probably best to dismiss them as irrelevant. By the second paragraph, the author of the MAHM article has started to make biased assumptions that have no evidence to back them up (these 130,000 children most likely are not the children of stay at home parents, but of working parents, for the statistical reason that most parents now work.). Anyone with a modicum of intelligence would know that making that correlation is unfounded and that it certainly doesn't prove causation. Someone who actually cared about improving outcomes for children, rather than just clumsily trying to make a point, would immediately call for more research into the backgrounds of those 130,000 children to see if there were any commonalities.

It's hilarious that the author wants to leave the final word to the Lighting up Young Brains report and then completely misunderstands what it says. Nowhere does the report say that a qualified Early Years Professional practitioner can’t achieve a secure relationship with a child.

Utter codswallop, the lot of it! I have sympathy with parents who want to stay at home and look after their children and for a lot of children, that may be best. But sloppy, lazy, biased, and unintelligent reports are not the way to achieve that.

@DontMakeMeShushYou

Exactly.

Utter bumpf that says precisely zero about the alleged benefits of being a sahm.

They have a point. SAHPs are effectively part of the nation's childcare workforce in some sense.

I think the personal tax allowance of sahp's for under 12's or carers of older children/adults with disabilities should be fully transferable to a partner resident at the same address. I agree.

Responding to OP I would say that the best analogy for funded childcare I ever saw was like the government building a big infrastructure project like a bridge. Building a bridge is done to connect people. To make it easier to get from a to b. And funding childcare should be seen as an investment in social infrastructure. It absolutely has a role to play to helping women transition back into the workforce; whether that's directly at the end of their maternity leave or when their youngest is 3 or 5 or 8 or 13. Women work, and then if we have a child we need a period off work, 6 weeks 6 years whatever, then we want to be able to work again. Government building bridges to help keep us connected is a good thing, the bridge being there is a good thing even if you don't use it - or use it much - because it gives you more confidence that you could get from a to b if and when the occasion called for it.

Let's have more of it I say. Fully funded high quality childcare (which is not of course compulsory) for every kid from the period the mother's maternity leave ends. Flexible enough for satm to dip into and out of for training, interviews, or just because they need a day to do other stuff. At least that way we know that the mums do are SAHM actually want to be there doing that and aren't trapped by circumstance.