"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!

and I pay taxes and my nanny pays taxes, and neither of us claim any benefits (she lives in her parents house for free) so how on earth is that a bad thing?

It is the absolute Holy Grail to find a job that fits into school hours. Why does she think schools have after-school clubs open to 6pm, to which grey faced mothers literally run in the evening so as not to be late, as they jump off the Tube/bus. And that is assuming the mother works close enough to get to the school in half an hour, between 5.30-6pm. (I don't) Yes, get her on mumsnet.

Why, if I get a job/career as an administrator or a child care assistant or a nurse or a driver or a cook or a gardener or a decorator or a dressmaker or a teacher then it's a real job and I have status and am considered worthy of membership of the club "modern woman". If however I do those things (all of them and more) for my own family then it is somehow regarded (by many according to this thread) as demeaning and tedious and worthy of contempt. The educational level of a child's main carer correlates very highly with the achievement of that child. Graduate SAHM or institutionalised child care from a team with a few GCSE's between them? - It's a no brainer really. What is wrong with being in partnership with a salary-earning person? It doen't make me a 1950's subservient wifey. It doesn't make me or my achievements any less valuable just because I have no monetary pay. It is an incredibly efficient way to run a family unit. In contrast I observe my have-it-all peer group as "grey faced", stressed out and with no time for anything or anyone. No wonder they need that ski-ing holiday. BTW this post is not aimed at anyone who is alone or HAS to work for money to keep the wolves from the door.

Well, 6pack, you're obviously not that bothered about working then. Some people are, because they want to. And actually, child's achievement correlates more to the family's income. So could argue it is better for child to work than SAHM..

I don't think everyone is saying that, 6pack. I think people were making more subtle points about how you can't really dictate to individual families what will be best, given the different variables and types of families involved. It seems some people are trying to do this once again.

Blackwell, SAHMs work, just don't get paid.

It's also more about orientation, about facing the outside world as opposed to the actual work, as well.

For example, I am thinking of the wives of US bankers killed in the 9/11 disaster, who realised with horror than the Gvt had had intelligence of the event but chosen not to act on it. They apparently felt very guilty they had been sitting at home, only concerned with their own minor domestic issues, rather than using their very substantial brains to contribute to something that was ultimately a lot more significant, i.e. becoming politically active and working towards holding the Gvt more accountable.

I think I see the relevance of this in terms of climate change, for example. I see one lot of people dictating terms to another lot of people, getting them scurrying about recycling their jam jars, to give the impression of activity when in actual fact very little of merit is being done. However what is really required is that we all engage with the science behind climate change in a more intelligent and enduring way, considering things like the role of business and industry, and the economics of consumption and market growth instead. Keeping women focused primarily on their own homes, families and local communities rather than issues of international, global relevance means that we are limiting our ability to react with any informed intelligence to issues like this, as things will just not get debated in sufficient depth. We waste the talents of our womenfolk at our own peril.

On a personal level I think it is selfish and greedy to benefit from an education, even if you have paid for it, and then only use it to advance your own family's cause rather than wider society, as well.

ohhhhh, now that's thin ice, BoffinMum. Think of the money that could be saved by tossing girls out of schools and saving them for breadwinners only....

That did cross my mind but I pressed post anyway.

I'm sorry, I just don't "get" this argument that your children benefit from you having a degree as a SAHM and therefore it is better to look after them yourself than have them in nursery.

I have a PhD, but I don't discuss quantum mechanics with my ds's. DS1 was in nursery at 6 months and is now at 5 years old and working in year 2, instead of the year 1 class he should be in. He's keeping up with them (and ahead of some). So obviously the nursery workers with their bunch of GCSE's didn't do him any harm. OTOH at the times when I am at home, both ds's get plenty of support in their learning - probably much more than if I was with them all day.

BoffinMum - We had a very memorable AGM of our school's Parents Association two days ago. Everyone in the PA is a volunteer and many of them are SAHMs - highly qualified SAHMs (lawyers, accountants, educationalists, strategy consultants...), who had given up huge amounts of time to do difficult, time consuming work that is laying the foundations for a massive change for the better in the representation of the parents' voice at school. That is anything but selfish.

6pack

Many Mums (and Dads) choose to work because, among other things, they recognise it's good for their children-either because it improves the quality of their parenting or because the income is critical. You might have both the the choice and a personality suited to not doing so, but you have bog all right to judge others because of your own martyr complex. And studies show no such thing-they show that in the round (i.e. unadjusted) women working improves their kids' outcomes because it improves their incomes. What do you think employed parents do, exactly, go to work, go to nursery, drive round until kid goes to sleep, sick it in bed and get on with being gronn-ups again? In what way are they not raising their kids and giving them the benefit of their education and experience? In what way is a PhD-level mother stacking a dishwasher while her kids cling to her legs or watch Chuggington communicating her expertise?

The point is the structure is sick-flexible working is a sodding joke, child care is ruinously dear and the simplistic condemnation at work and by other parents heaped upon employed Mums is soul destroying. Of course some people would want out in some lottery winning situation, but their dream wish is not a grounds for pontificating about public policy. Do something to make the jobs, make the free childcare, close the pay gap, change the perception that women should stay at home, then we might all start being able to be a bit nicer about the choices we all make within its shitty confines.

Bonsoir, this is the exception rather than the rule. On our PTA the only people doing anything useful are the employed ones. The others watch.

Good post, Adela, btw.

Interesting. Not in my experience: we had to examine very closely the legal and administrative structure of the PAs of schools in a similar market position to our own, and they are clearly run by highly-qualified volunteer SAHMs doing the work as a PT job. The schools are highly dependent on availability of parental skills and brainpower to function.

At one point, I thought left and right were coming together on this thread, in that surely no-one is against giving women the choice as to whether to go out to work or not.

We've got to stop criticising each other's choices if we're to have any clout at all. If we could agree on this, we could organise a campaign against anything that limits our ability to choose or imposes a one-size-fits-all policy.

We can't let them force us either into work or out of work. I think we have to defend our right to choose.

To the streets everyone!

I think in most schools I have had professional dealings with, some SAHM play an important role, but the vast majority aren't really engaging, other than in terms of bake sales and so on, tbh.

I am on the PTA, I also work. This is exactly what the government wanted - to play on the deep divisions between us and force us into doing their bidding. Ultimately we are ALL under threat. Our personal choices and liberty are being threatened and the rights we fought for for decades are at risk of serious erosion!!

Come on, let's stop the us and them, and map out strategy now. I have made vague comments about being nice to other women, at least once a day, which is a start, but are there more meaty things we can start doing?

I am brainstorming here. See this as a flip chart and me writing in big felt tip pen. Not all ideas are put forward as being of equal value. Please add your own.

1. If you are shortlisting people for interview for something, and you have influence, make sure you swing it somehow so the group to be interviewed consists of 50% women unless there is a good reason for it not to be (i.e. very few women applied and/or their CVs were hopeless)

1. Write letters of support to women in high profile roles that you approve of. For example I am always admired Helena Kennedy and now is perhaps the right time to tell her this and urge her to continue fighting the cause.

1. Encourage younger women to take part in activist-type things.

1. If you are a manager, review the salaries of your workforce and see if there are any discrepancies that might be accounted for by discrimination of some type. Argue with HR about women's salaries and advancement more often.

1. If you interview a woman for something, and she doesn't succeed, take time to give her the best feedback you can.

1. If local childcare does not provide what you need, get together with other parents to lobby for improvements.

I think there must be, but we have to choose our battles. There's no point fighting among ourselves - it makes more sense to find out what we have in common and fight for that.

Please don't turn this into another tedious WOHM/SAHM debate - that is pointless and makes everyone feel like crap.

I am a SAHM but am very happy with my excellent female GP, fenmale solicitor and all the teachers and nursery workers I have encountered.

I would defend a woman's right to damn well work if she wants/needs to, to the bitter end.

(and I am looking forward very much to working again. And a make a mean lemon drizzle cake. So there)

That's pretty easy
The thing we all have in common is that we care about the welfare of our children, I reckon. Agreed?

Boffinmum, our posts crossed. I think we need to stick to the issue, which is whether we value our right to choose a flexible pattern of childcare throughout our working lives.

(Though I think you have some good ideas!)