"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!

I agree with all of these comments and more it puts woman movements back to the 1940's when they waited with cocktails for the good husband at the front door with there slippers and pipe. What next take away our rights to vote?.

The Good Wife Guide

I've just read the link. It was difficult over the sound of the elephant in the room trumpeting, namely that the numero uno cause of inequality is not being unmarried but having no MONEY.

There have been numerous reports into increased mortality rates caused by poverty. Yes, even the Black Report carried out under Thatcher stated the same thing.

I can remember in the 90's recession, Barbara Cartland wrote into the DM stating, that women should give up their work as men needed the jobs more. She was laughed at, but I suppose to some she was a visionary.

Do people not remember why flexible working was introduced? It wasn't about fluffy feelgoodness, but protecting the ecomony from the loss of millions of skilled workers.

"AIBU to think that women working is a bad idea - you should all be at home with your children. And the state's not giving you any money to be able to do so, you leaches".

Anyone want to try and post that in AIBU now and see what happens?

haha - I would post that Abs......but then the first thing they'd say is that I was a hypocrite

PMSL @ thinking she might run the other way

this is really scary, this woman is paid to think for all of us and this is what she thinks

we're all up shit creek

Thinking is not really a job is it?

She is in the ultimate non job.

why didn't I think of that???

So that's one extra stressed Mum about to be fired, and one CM made redundant - great idea!

If she does come on for a webchat, please can it be called "A smack in the face for feminism"? Or "Second class citizens: know your place"

im perfectly happy to pay someone else to watch dc whilst i work i would hate to not be working

Another example of how the rich like to patronise the plebs...

Like DC calling him "middle class" and needing to keep out of the SureStart centres.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

He went to Eton. Like a prince.

Actually, thinking about this. Perhaps this could lead to the revolution at last...

www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/workingpapers/wp87.pdf

Ignore the formulae. Skim the paper and you will see that in times of hardship it is useful if women are unemployed, as often they are prevented for various reasons from claiming benefits and thereby adding to unemployment figures. They are instead categorised as 'inactive'.

That's a fair point BoffinMum, explains a lot.

FFS... What is that fucking woman's problem? She must really have a problem with other women. Wonder where that stems from? Don't however care. This stuff is dangerous. Very dangerous. And many men and women will support it.

That paper is interesting, BoffinMum, and delves deeply into the "economics of the second earner" issues that I think are so often missed when discussing female employment.

August 1998 Bank of England Bulletin

This effectively says there is not necessarily a direct link between the employment (or unemployment) or women, and changes in childcare provision, as this only accounts for about a third of changes in the 1990s. Other labour market forces account for the bulk of shifts in female employment. Therefore I think it's a bit disingenuous to start arguing that women going out to work represents a 'cost to the state', as there is also a demand for skilled workers to fuel eocnomic growth, for example, contributing to GDP. In other words, the economy relies on women going out to work even if they are not making much money personally doing so. Shoving them back in the kitchen for social reasons is likely to be a disbenefit to the economy.

"Women with young children may be constrained in their working lives by the need to look after young children or use childminding facilities. Table C shows that the proportion of children under five years of age in local authority nurseries or with registered childminders almost doubled between 1974?93; the number of children under
five years old receiving day care or childminding increased by roughly 200,000 between 1984?93. But these long-term increases in childminding facilities, which have increased female participation over the longer term, are unlikely to have played the most significant role in making female
unemployment fall, because they are slow-moving compared with the large and rapid fall in inflow rates and unemployment".

There is another Bank of England report from the late 1990s saying all this more clearly, but I'll be buggered if I can find it.

I think the best thing is to go on the game. You choose your hours, pay is really good and what's more, because it's not legal you can keep it hush-hush and pay no income tax. Might even keep the old CB if hubby can keep his wages down. Plus you can do it all the comfort of your own home so you won't fall behind with the cooking and cleaning.

I wonder if they'd class prostitution as 'worthwhile' though?

Well Jill if that's the quality of your thinking I strongly suggest a return to cupcake land for you. Proper thinking appears to be a bit much for your female brain to cope with. Let's leave it to the men eh?

I'll follow your lead shall I? I'll shut my three companies and make my almost exclusively female staff redundant. I'm sure they'll love being at home with the children.

Of course you won't miss the thousands I pay in corporation tax, NICs and PAYE will you?

WOMEN - KNOW YOUR LIMITS - for pities sake don't work (or drive)

said ala Harry Enfield.

Utterly terrified of this policy taking hold... I'm currently a SAHM (DD 9 months) and was hoping to find a job by Jan.

So apparently I should continue to stay at home, earn no money, and continue to live in a tiny 1 bed flat, that could be bought by a first time buyer, with no spending money and no way to save? That'll help the economy.

BeerTrix - mmm yes, I suppose she'll argue that the education of girls employs too many female teachers, as well. Shouldn't they be at home?

Jill Kirby is a twunt.

(thought we might need a laugh)