Guest post: Why is society so ambivalent about stay-at-home mums?

[KateMumsnet]

Historically women (and children) have always worked. The poor would either take their children to work with them, or leave them with extended families. At the other end of the scale, rich women would leave their children in the care of a nanny while they managed household staff and organised events - long before these activities became viable career choices.

What's changed is that there is now an expectation - or illusion - of choice in the matter. When I was growing up, we had a female prime minister, and Alexis Carrington was the most famous woman on TV. We were told that we could have it all – glittering career, thriving children and a happy marriage.

It was a lie. As adults, we discover that economic necessity, the needs of children and our own aspirations all pull us in different directions. Rather than 'having it all', we choose our path and passionately defend our decisions against the different choices, opinions and expectations of others. Someone, somewhere will always disagree.

Obviously, there's a tension for those who would love to make a different choice, but can't. For some, working just isn't worth it. Salaries can't compete with the crippling cost of formal childcare, and for many of us, family aren't on hand to help. For others, rocketing property prices and rents mean that often both parents must work to afford the roof over their heads and an acceptable standard of living. With the prospect of meagre pensions, tuition fees, care homes and future property prices, there's a strong chance my children might, at 25, wish I'd traded those extra games of Scrabble for a decent deposit on a flat.

Over the past eight years I've worked part-time, freelanced, stayed at home and run my own business. I gave up my “glittering” corporate TV career and moved out of London, back to the village I grew up in, after the birth of son number 2. Not one of those solutions has been perfect, none of them have been easy and I have beaten myself up over each and every decision.

But the decision to stay at home was the one that I struggled with most. Like squabbling siblings, what I wanted for my children, my own identity and my relationship constantly clashed. Enduring stereotypes are of either the dull but worthy women, who were relieved that finally nothing more was expected of them in terms of their career - or the wealthy, well-groomed types who rule the PTA with an iron fist. The woman who actively chooses to stay at home seems to stir a wealth of confused emotions in all of us.

And as a feminist, I couldn't help feeling that I was letting the side down. By the time I had children I was successful, financially independent and viewed my marriage as a partnership of equals. The notion that I could give it all up in favour of singing ‘the wheels on the bus’ and sorting the laundry seemed extraordinary. I was uncomfortable with being financially dependent on my husband and I didn't like what it did to our relationship (there was an argument about aubergines I shan't forget). I had grown up with my mother laying out my father's clothes in the morning, but had expected something different for myself: this was not what feminism had fought for; this was not my place. How could I bring my sons up to respect women and treat them as equals if I wasn't an equal partner in my own house?

And yet, I wanted to be at home with my children. I wanted to be the one that cuddled them, read them stories and watched them grow. I wanted to make them toast when they came home from school. I felt my children needed me - and for many women, no job is more important.

And what about the state's position on all this? It seems to be ambivalent at best; fundamentally, it views you in terms of economic worth. We have an ageing population and we need people of working age to pay for them. The fact that children need nurturing, educating, and caring for is overlooked. That future generation of voters is not important right now. Politicians might pay lip service to the value of carers, but the welfare system reveals the truth – they are a burden; they've made a ‘lifestyle choice’ and they aren't ‘pulling their weight’.

The government's answer is to institutionalise childcare; to lengthen school days and cut holidays. They seem to be arguing simultaneously that looking after children is worthless, and yet too important to be left to mere parents. This benefits no one, except employers who no longer have the hassle of negotiating flexibility. It certainly doesn't benefit children or families.

The result is that we all feel confused and a little resentful. Working women will label stay at home mothers as ‘lazy’ or ‘lucky’, and stay at home mothers will accuse working mothers of being ‘selfish’. Both sides feel guilt and resentment over the choices they feel they should have had but didn't - the nagging doubt that we should be providing more, either emotionally or financially. Round and round we go, constantly striving to do better and tying ourselves up in knots.

There are simple, albeit naive, solutions. Cheaper housing and childcare would make staying at home or working a genuine choice rather than a necessity, as would a working culture that is not defined by the hours you work but by the quality of the work that you do - enabling mothers and fathers to do their bit at home and away.

Maybe this is feminism's next task: to redefine how society views the role of caring, and to challenge the notion that ‘progress’ is always moving in the same direction. A stage on from 'women competing in a man's world' would be to elevate caring to a level at which it can also be seen as successful - equal to the providing bit. Then we could, perhaps, put down our defensiveness, and acknowledge that we're all just doing our best with the circumstances we have - and that, most of the time, that's good enough.

We may never see the day when all we're competing over is who raises the most emotionally stable and contented children - but it's a nice thought.

I know they have no employment rights, which is my point.

But returning to the subject of work. Why is caring for children work when you are paid but not when you are not? Are grandparents providing childcare not working? Are parents providing childcare not working?

I'm not talking about employment or a job, clearly free work does not fall into those categories, but what about not being paid makes something not work?

I think the expectation of women has swung so that we do expect them to work, to be flexible in that work, but to contribute financially to their own family, whilst also caring for it. To be a supportive wife, mother and a capable employee.

I simply don't think the same pressure is on men. I don't see the majority of men balancing work, child care, house work in the same way women are expected to. I don't see them reducing their hours once they have a child.

The state does try and help women to work, the increase in child care options, and things like child tax credit, which wasn't around 18 years ago does help women who want to work, able to work.

Society, however has a bit of catching up to do. Sahm are often regarded in the same way as 'benefit scroungers'. People on benefits are currently being ostracised as a drain on the public purse (when in fact many recipients of benefits are employed) therefore sahm's are also a drain.

If the society expects both adults in a family to work, then working hours, pay, time off for child appointments, flexible employers all needs to be addressed and enforced by the state.
Equal house work, equal child responsibility, equal leisure time, equal financial control, needs to be addressed by the individuals within that family. You only have to look at MN boards to see that we are a long, long way from equality.

Who on earth stays at home to be a housewife?

Any Individual can report abuse to police or health/social care it will be investigated.Abuse can be include

Physical abuse

Sexual Abuse

Psychological/ Emotional Abuse

Financial Abuse

Neglect and Acts of Omission

Discriminatory Abuse

Institutional Abuse, Neglect and Poor Practice

Why is paid childcare work?because it's regulated,Runs on for profit basis,employs staff

I'm aware of what abuse is, thank you.

I think you fail to understand my point. Abuse is not illegal. A person has no right to not be abused unless it is covered by specific legislation such as the matrimonial causes act or offences against the person act. The government definition of abuse is helpful only in encouraging individuals to take individual action when a relationship is problematic. Social services may step in in order to help with abuse but the only thing that can be done is for the woman suffering the abuse to leave. That is not much help really is it? If you're abused by an employer there are numerous claims available to you which serve the dual purpose of discouraging abuse and compensating the victim for losses/bad behaviour suffered.

that's a definition of a job not of work. Work is putting mental or physical effort into something in order to achieve an outcome.

Part of the reason mothering isn't highly regarded, is because child care workers are poorly paid, and not highly regarded.

even if we accept your definition of work. Why do women not deserve protection from exploitation just because they are not paid? Why would you be opposd to giving women (usually) greater protection/status?

and the choice is only an illusion. The gatekeepers of choice are still men. Any father can choose to go to work while the mother is producing their child, the father can choose how much the pregnancy and birth affect his employment. The mother has no or limited choices. This is why women end up sacrificing their careers to raise children. The choice only exists if the father of her child is willing to allow the choice to exist. The terms of the choice are often dependent on how many concessions the father is willing to make. Obviously women can increase their power through getting and keeping secure and higher paid work but this is not a reality for most people nevermind most women I think.

I hold nursery workers and childcare workers in high regard.

But not mothers?

The point was that society doesn't. Neither economically or socially. Being a doctor (of most kinds) is no more or less important or difficult than being a childcare worker IMO but look at the difference in status.

It was interesting to read your post. I am still reeling in some ways from the experiences I have had during the last twenty years of parenting, including those of my own misconception. I too have dealt with the conundrum of working versus staying at home (the former still wins for me) even eventually homeschooling my teens, but the latter is what has been needed most of the time. I am viewed, rather negatively at times, as a feminist but have only ever wanted to keep my independence, as well as parent but as the years have gone on and I have experienced the negative attitude formulated by the government about Parents that 'choose' not to work and stay home to bring up their children, and how that is then integrated into society - much the same way as the anti-smoking message has been. I find myself thinking that the minions are only hamsters on a wheel and sometimes you just have to step off and look at life differently - but be prepared at times to be alone, as you may become invisible to/or even considered a threat by your peers.
Caring is not valued in this country, it is overlooked and dismissed and I truly believe that it is a wonderful quality to hold and I for one feel very lucky that I care!

scottishmummy - you contradict yourself. On the one hand you object to the terminology "institutionalised" childcare and on the other you claim that work only exists where it is institutionalised by regulation.

Like I said upthread - maybe you should avoid talking quite so vociferously about economics and take an evening class.

you dont get paid for looking after your own children, in the same way you don't get paid for doing your own laundry.

want someone else to do it, and you will need to pay them.

Offred - a handful of points:

Vast majority of households get tax credits As far as I can make out from as search for statistics, this isn't true. The most recent stat I could find (2011, here ) says 17% of working age households are in receipt of tax credits. Unless this has gone up to over 50% in the last three years, which I doubt, then the vast majority of households do not get tax credits, no.

It is the govt who have the power to actually change the structure of the economy My point in my previous post was not that governments have 'nothing to do with' social/economic changes. The government of course has some ability to affect the economy, but I would argue that this ability is often overstated.

For example the decline of the UK's ports is sometimes blamed on Margaret Thatcher's industrial policies, but in reality a far greater culprit was containerisation, which reduced the number of stevedores required and made an entire workforce largely redundant. I tit's human nature to imagine ourselves (and our governments) as having lots of power, as it's preferable to seeing ourselves as basically at the mercy of geopolitical forces with the government of the day simply twiddling knobs at the edges. Which is, I think, far closer to the reality of what governments are able to do.

Finally, the money [capitalists] make from the economy (and therefore steal from the state as a whole) Do you seriously see any and all profits made by businesses as 'stolen' from the state? Do you mean that all money in the economy should properly belong to the state? If so I think you and I have quite different ideas about the kind of country we want to live in

I realise this is all a bit off-topic for a thread on SAHPs though. As you were

i'm a bit stunned at all the 'wife' centric talk and complete disregard for what policy and discourse changes are really about and the people who really are suffering from it and will suffer further. even if people only had self interest you'd think they'd be able to think of their potential self (re: if divorce or bereavement occurs).

there are women out there being sent on workfare an hours distance from their home with 5yo children forced to be in childcare and school for ten hrs a day regardless of needs because a woman can't find a job in the current economic climate. this in exchange for jsa. it's not about whether you're valued or which wife has made the best choices vis a vis childcare and career.

the state doesn't give a fuck if you live off of your husband or go out to work - you're just a woman and in your right place by living with a man and can do what you like (or what he likes as after all a man has the right to manage his household as he pleases). what they care about is what happens if you are not living with a man and are expecting to be treated as an actual citizen whose needs need to be accounted for within the system. either people are being a bit dim or are just so self interested and short sighted as to where their 'self' could end up that they don't bother to think this through further than their own back yard.

Part of the reason mothering isn't highly regarded, is because child care workers are poorly paid, and not highly regarded

Which is insane. I'm pretty sure writing my PhD was less hard work than taking care of a room full of babies/toddlers. A whole room, not just your own. I have a lot of respect for those who work in childcare.

There's insidious classist angles to that too. People who work in a lovely Montessori daycare in a nice middle class area tend to have their occupation regarded with greater respect than people who work in state nurseries.

and in the context of more than a quarter of families being led by single females of whom about 70% receive zero child maintenance and of those who do nearly half receive less than £10 a week clearly saying well men need to pull their weight and do more childcare and take career breaks etc is a bit of a red herring. it'd be nice if men were even made to take financial responsibility for their children in law even when they don't come attached to a wife washing their socks and shagging them be she sahm or wohm.

but don't mind me nero. navel gaze away.

Those stats are expressing a rise in poverty by looking at tax credits over and above the family element. They aren't stats relating to numbers of families receiving tax credits. It may not be as true since they lowered the thresholds but it is still a high percentage and it has been lowered through engineering rather than assessment of need.

Yes, we do have different views on the economy and what kind of state we would each like to live in. Mine is based on the fact profit is made by workers underselling their labour to owners. That unaccountable companies shouldn't have greater control over the economy than a supposedly accountable state.

ScottishMummy
Whilst you hold childcare workers in high regard, obviously some of us don't, hence we don't use them.

This is one example of a differing opinion in terms of the wohp and sahp debate there are many.
Everybody has their own view of what they want to do, how to raise their children, what is best for them, what makes their family happy and of course it is a personal belief system.
Maybe society should realise this first, then we can move forward and expect to get acceptance of our choices.

We still have almost the highest teenage pregnancy rate in this country so making work obligatory for single parents might be seen as a way of tackling this. With the morning after pill, contraception freely available something must be encouraging girls to have babies early, possibly lack of opportunity but starting a family isn't the answer to that. Perhaps this policy will lower the numbers.

Well the capitalists exploiting the workers is one way to look at this but in theory if you start working young enough and work to improve your situation you will eventually be able to invest in the capitalist economy yourself and benefit from it financially. This theory has recently been scotched by the immigrant incomers contributing to keeping incomes low.

And instituionalising DCs? Isn't this partly to improve the opportunities for some DCs at the bottom of the pile. There has been research done which says that if DCs are behind at 3 they will behind their peers for ever (sorry not prepared to look this up and provide links)

No one has brought up the point that we live much longer nowadays. So flexibility in work to allow mothers to continue working part time once their DCs are born, with a view to returning full time at some point in the future. Or fathers of course.

Surely this would be the best situation. If your youngest goes to secondary school when you are 40 you have 30 years of working life still ahead of you. That is a long time to do pin money work and tricky to start again as competing with 18-25 year olds. Thinking of all those girls qualifying as doctors nowadays, gov should encourage keeping them in the workforce or all that education is not being exploited.

thehoneybadger the demonising of single mothers has been a problem, since... well forever. My mother was made a single mother because my father walked out on her in the '90's. It was the time of the Tory back to basics campaign, and she did feel she was demonised because of this.

You are completely correct when you say fathers must be financially responsible, and have that enforced. You are right when you say lone parents must have a safety net which is much more conducive to parenting, and sympathetic to those particular needs.

I don't need to be in that position to believe that. It is part of making parenting more equal, and choices more equal.