"It may be better news for women... to look after their own children and fit jobs into the child's day"

[SleepWhenImDead]

So says Jill Kirby, director of the Conservative think tank, the Centre for Policy Studies in this BBC article.

Seriously, what planet is this lady on? She makes out like it's a NEW idea for women to either not to work or to work hours to limit the amount of childcare that's needed. Well done Jill, we'd never thought of that before you suggested it!

I'm going to be hard hit from these cuts to public sector, I'm currently on maternity leave but due to be made redundant anyway. The public sector is the place I'd need to get a job, and get child-friendly hours. DOes this Jill think we get to CHOOSE these things, like a job is something you do for fun to avoid looking after your own children?! Think I might as well give up even hoping for a job and soon we'll lose our child benefit as well. I'm attacked on all directions!

how fucking patronising

and employers are so flexible about when you work, it should be a doddle Just pop in between dropping Jacquinta at playgroup and picking up Augusta from the nanny

Couldn't agree more. I'm also in the public sector and being made redundant in the middle of my maternity leave.
I think most women would like to do as suggested but its nigh on impossbile to find jobs that are as flexible and would pay enough.

I actually heard her say this on the radio & my jaw hit the floor. They were discussing the case of an ambulance driver who was also a single mother & who was facing unemployment so would have to take her children out of childcare with a childminder too, so the childminder would also lose work. Jill Kirkby said that this was ok because neither of these women do jobs which generate additional revenue in the economy (or words to that effect). So obviously, there's no point being an ambulance driver or a child minder? I mean seriously WTF?

I am outraged by this Big Society sh*t. Essentially it is saying, 'You (women) lose your paid jobs & stay at home with the kids, but don't worry if you think you'll get bored because you'll have to take responsibility for huge chunks of public service delivery, on an unpaid basis.' the Tories want to return us to the Victorian era. Seen & not bloody heard. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

How fucking patronising. Little woman bringing in a bit of money to the household. Why is this always assumed that the man is the main wage earner? Heroic hard working man looking after poor helpless wife and children.

Why are we not looking at men fitting in around the children? And how patronising could she get - does she not think families have thought about this?

And another thing ( I'm on a roll here) she also said that most of the jobs that Labour created were 'second-incomes' I.e. women's jobs and therefore didn't count. Yeah, quite right, why should women need to work, what could their skills & training contribute to the economy, why should they be bothering their pretty little heads with earning their own money & using their brains and talents. Much better that they stay at home & do something that fits around the children. Aaaaaaaargh!

(Perhaps I should also mention that I am a sahm with various voluntary roles, but I would like to think that was a choice and at some point I could choose to go back to work.)

Wow, Jill, astounding news! I'd not even thought about trying to fit my work around my children. I guess I've worked unsociable hours (early mornings, late at night, while they slept), turned down promotion chances to maximise my working at home and now am going part time JUST FOR FECKING FUN.

As for 'second incomes', agree with TheFowlAndThePussycat - 'women, know your place'.

And this Jill advises the government on family policy.

Gah!

Agree, Riven. Oi, SamCam - design your posh leatherbound diaries* while Florence is having her afternoon nap!

• Disclaimer - I'm not sure what Mrs Cameron actually does for a living. But I'm thinking of the children! Because that's what women (mothers, not parents in general, you understand) should do.

Also (I realise I am ranting now, but this has got me really wound up), who brought in the flexible-working legislation that has made it easier for parents (note the use of parent, not mother, Jill) to fit work in around childcare?

Was it Labour?

This is still going round in my head and annoying me! Surely we can get Jill on for a MN webchat?! I am astounded that this lady is giving the present government advice about women and work. Especially as she has 3 sons!

No time to respond now but will be back later.

and us single mums too?? are we included???

Is it too early for a G&T? Because when I hear stuff like this I seriously need one...

I was just coming on here to post this link.
I cannot believe what she said.
I have thought all along they have wanted to return to the model of wifey at home and the husband earning. But they live in a different world to most when a family cannot live off a single salary without government help.
I am so so angry
Single parents too are always never included in these discussions... I need a lie down

WTF?

Oh yes, we silly little women with our silly little jobs really must get back in to the kitchen and start taking responsibility.

Women of MN, know your place.

I work 9-3 so I can drop off DD and pick her up from school, I also happen to be the main wage earner, becuase, even part time I earn more than DH in his crappily paid civil service job.

I don't know anyone else whose employer was as flexible as this, I got it under disability legislation not childcare reasons (I was part time befoe I became a mum). I also go this deal as my company didn't want to lose me, they really didn't, they even put up with me having time off each month to have treatment. I'll stay there till I retire, they know that, I know that.

For all other mums, it's crappy part time work with no pension or no work at all round here.

It doesn't seem to have occurred to her that if a mum works and pays a childminder, then both those people pay income tax on their wages - so even if it isn't benefiting the economy (because the mum couldn't possibly be doing a job of any worth, obviously), it is generating more money for the government. Isn't that a good thing?!

And it also seems to contradict the way that the recent change to child benefit can penalise stay at home mums - a few mixed messages there?

It's not just mums as SAHM they want - it's 'voluntary work' ie get women doing all the caring, cleaning etc jobs for free becaus they don't 'need' proper jobs and they're only women. Not people - 'women' exist to do the shitwork for men and 'society'.

oh please PLEASE tell me MN can get her here for a grilling chat

I am not defending this woman at all. Our society has changed so much.

In 1973 my house was bought by a teacher with 4 children. His wife didn't work. It was their second home (ie they had a smaller house before) and they paid 13k ( which my mother says was quite a lot).

I bought the house in 2006 for 570k ( it was my 7th house and we self built the last one ). No way could a one working teacher family afford that mortgage. They could probably do 150k max.

To go back to a world where only one parent works would need radical changes across every aspect of society.

What she suggests would cause another recession, collapse in housing market and the economy.

The woman is a wanker. Hence why she can't get a proper job. I mean, what contribution to society is that think tank, exactly?

There speaks a woman who has never managed to secure a job in the real world.

Right, MNHQ, please get Shit-For-Brains in for a webchat, and whilst you are at it, haul Xenia in.

omg yes - I would dearly love to see Jill Kirby vs Xenia. Ring side seats, popcorn...

Where can we start a serious bid to get this woman in for a webchat?!?!!

I found this particular quote amusing (it is not, obviously, from Jill Kirby, but from someone with a brain!) ...

"There's an assumption by politicians that women will be willing to bear this burden. But many will be pretty resentful that they have to go back into the home with the disappearance of large number of jobs in the public sector, all to pay for the mistakes of a rather well-paid group of men in London."