mothers with young children are the most discriminated against at work

[paddingtonbear1]

I haven't actually found this in my company, and it's very small - only 18 employees. But I can imagine if I looked for another job, I might find it hard to get one, being a mother still under 40. I couldn't believe some of the comments in the 'have your say' on the bbc website though - most people seem to think that women who can't afford to stay at home shouldn't have kids at all! That would be me then! I don't think in this day and age, with mortgages and other rising costs, that's practical. I don't take advantage though, fortunately dd isn't sick very often, and dh does his share.
I think most of the people making the comments were men, or people with no kids...

reading this post i feel too lucky. at my job, its ok to bring the kids to work sometimes. its ok to have my baby at our companies booth in various conventions. part of my job is even watching tv with my kids.....

i have two babies under two, and a full time job. yes i pay the nanny 95% of my salary, but at least i get to both have a job and raise two babies.

i don;t know what i would do if it werent this way.

My partner has always paid childcare costs in full - nounou and all the holiday and extra-curricular activities (still does... ex-wife doesn't bother to organise activities other than five-star hotel in the sun twice year for a fortnight). But the additional contribution of income to household finances of a second wage in a couple (be it a man's or a woman's) has always to be balanced against the additional costs incurred by their no longer being able to fulfil the domestic and childcare responsibilities they previously shouldered. There are lots of costs incurred by no longer working at home - childcare, transport, clothing, extra tuition, decorating, gardening etc depending on the family. I could go out to work tomorrow (though I don't want to leave my daughter) but I don't believe I could cover my costs unless our standard of living dropped considerably - and I have a serious career with greater part-time earnings potential than any other.

Yes, lots of parents choose to work - most in the UK even with under 5s because that is best for their children and their family. And many fathers and mothers are able quite happily to leave their under 5 to do that and the children are fine. Each couple has to decide what is best for them.... although I have to add that woman subservient to man at home whose sole job is cleaning up and child care and ironing his shirts is politically unacceptable and they should all rise up and take seats in the Cabinet but that's just my view. Far too many women end up doing all the dross dull stuff at home whilst their men have fun.

I always found it much better for children if i have a partner/cleaner sharing the load fairly of boring jobs so you get time to have fun and play with the children.

Not everyone believes the home stuff is dull and dross. I can't wait to get out of the City. I've had enough of barrow-boy traders to last me a lifetime.

I think I'd quite happily never set foot on a trading floor again. Changing filthy nappies is far more appealing than having to listen to the sh'te that these guys come out with.

Admittedly I don't think I would like being at home much if we didn't have a cleaner, someone to do the windows... housework sucks. But cleaning help is so cheap compared with practically any other type of stress-relieving service that it's pretty accessible to a lot of people.

The Home stuff is what you make of it like everything else in life. I don't find it dull at all.

"... although I have to add that woman subservient to man at home whose sole job is cleaning up and child care and ironing his shirts is politically unacceptable and they should all rise up and take seats in the Cabinet but that's just my view. Far too many women end up doing all the dross dull stuff at home whilst their men have fun."

Xenia, my god you're still on about that. Are you basically saying that all women are told to do this by their husbands, that there are no women out there with their own mind who have chosen to do this role? You might think it beneath you to clean your home and care for your children, however there are women (and men) out there who relish this role and take pride in what they do. Just because you don't like it and don't want to do it stop slating all those people who choose to do it - not because they believe that they should because they're a woman but because they want to. For gods sake give it a bloody rest!

You must be joking. Who could prefer cleaning a floor to sitting on the cabinet? And why is it always all these women who get such pleasure serving men's needs? Why can't they serve the nation's needs? They ought to get themselves sorted out and play a proper role in this country. It might even do the country good.

I love my husband and I enjoy looking after him and my Daughter. I think its a very important job and nobody else can do it as well as I can. There isn't anything else I would rather do. I don't know why it should eat you up so much that we enjoy it.

Xenia, Have you not read any of my posts?!

On more than one occasion I have referred to the person at home being the man or woman, it is you who refer to it being the woman the whole time. The person who stays at home is not just serving their partners needs they are serving the nations needs by raising the next generation why can't you get that. I find your coment that women "ought to get themselves sorted out and play a proper role in this country" highly offensive, though of course you may have nothing better to do with your time than wind people up on her as you seem to have everything else done for you (childcare, cleaning etc). I know of several house husbands who also thoroughly enjoy the challenge of caring for their home and their children. My natural father won custody of his 3 children from a subsequent relationship and bought them up single handedly (25 years ago), there are lots of men who work funny shifts so take on a lot of the childcare whilst working a full time job. Yes it is more often the case that it is the woman who stays at home but why is that such a huge problem for you?

I have been very lucky when I was at work, my employer was generally flexible if I needed to collect my DD from nursery or the rare occasion she was sick (time off was alternated with my DH - his employers are also fantastic and family friendly), knowing that I would make sure all my work was done at another time. Thank god I don't work for someone like you who no doubt would make me feel terrible and discriminate against me.

maY I add again....some of us dont have a choice.

or a nanny
or a maid/cleaner

therefore - for those of us who are slaves to the system. our children are completely screwed.

the homemaker argument means i am a bad parent for not being there

the uber mother argument - usually by those rich enough to be a good mum when they arn't working.

its easy to be a great mum - when eerything is taken care of - come home - no cleaning, washing, ironing,

send kids to boarding school - not even any kids!

either way the ordinary 9-5 er, the middle of the roader, the plodding along through the misery of capitalist drugery-er, is fucked becuase we dont fit either profile.

so just remember that will you becuase this fucking argument is getting on my nerves. most of us dont have the luxury of choice.

If I had a choice, I'd rather be a 'slave' to my home any day over some boss.

Goodness, loads of posts!!

I have to say, I got so sick of being discriminated against for being a Mother who NEEDS to work to help pay the bills. Every part-time job I looked for was a really boring one, and didn't put my skills to use at all. So I got my own back and set up my own company!! I work from home now and have the children with me, and I still pay my taxes and contribute to society. But more importantly, I earn the money needed to help support my family.

There seems to be a lack of well-paid part-time jobs about. I had a good career in the IT industry before I had children, and the doors were effectively closed once I'd had them. I was so fed up of doing poorly-paid desk jobs. It made me feel really low and I struggled with that feling for about 4 years.

Now I help parents start their own businesses that can organised around their children, and it gives me a real sense of achievement to know I can help.

Anyway, that's just my view.

Funkimummy, Thats sounds wonderful. Well done!

And I agree with you Custardo. There are plenty of us who have no choice but to do some kind of work to help contribute towards the cost of living. It's either that or live in a cardboard box! And, yes, it was my choice to have children. But this is not an ideal world, and not everyone is afforded the luxury of staying at home, and not everyone wants to!!

choice to have children thats another thing - i didn't chose to have twins. you can't chose that!

You've got a valid point there Custardo! I think we should all rise up and become the next lot of Suffragettes!! (probably spelt that wrong - 'twas a bit before my time!)

There are lots of different situations. Women at home with rich husbands who pay for cleaners and boarding schools and nannies.

More normal women at home often barely managing on one salary but believing that to be best for babies even if it means clothes from Oxfam and bulk buying rice.

Women who work part time because they don't think they can afford what they think the family needs without their wages

Women who don't need to work part time but want to keep their hand in at work, go back full time later and who like it and want a break from the children.

Women who work full time because they are single mothers like I am and don't want to live on benefits or who work full time on political principle or because they enjoy it or because they know it's better for their children.

Then also all the groups with men/partners who don't or can't work, SAHDs etc.

That just shows how hard it is to generalise but if 4/5 women mothers of under 5s in the UK work and IF that is psychologically damaging for children (which I think is a load of rubbish) then there's an issue for the country to address. If more women would prefer to work but can' afford the child care the opposite issue is whether we should have as cheap childcare as some other countries have. If you think it's reall better if more mothers were home then it's just as well we have some of the most expensive childcare in Europe as it serves that purpose well.

Yes, there also needs to be aid for women who want to stay at home but can't afford to.

Not under Government by Target, ppb. Oh, I meant, NuLabour.

They want everyone working so they can pay more stealth taxes.

....which is why you must all vote Cameron in next time.

There used to be a transferrable tax allowance between husband and wife. It was regarded as sexist and a legacy from the days when women were the property of men. We changed that iniquitous system so that men and women were taxed as separate people rather than as "one person". That was a very good move. However it doesn't reflect the views of many stay at home mothers who see the marriage bond as "one flesh", all money shared and think perhaps we should revert to transferrable tax allowances. However even if the non working wife could give her £6k or whatever it is tax free allowance to her husband you'd only be 23% of £6k a year better off I think or roughly £1380 so that's not really going to be the deciding factor in whether to work or not.

If you want people to take sexually neutral decisions over which one stays at home you need to do what we have from 1st April - 6 months maternity and 6 months paternity leave. You need to force men to mess up their careers for 6 months as much as women. You need to change the politics of your home so that children are as much his responsiblity as yours.

What has Cameron said he would do?

The trouble with cheap "childcare" (I hate that expression) is that it is often terrible childcare. Here in France, and also in Spain (where my sister lived for four years), "childcare" is generally an immigrant worker who cannot find any other type of employment because they are barely literate. They work terrible hours (no 35-hour week for household employees) and are lodged in tiny attic rooms, often with a shared lavatory. Government tax breaks don't cover the cost of employing a proper, qualified nanny, and proper qualified nannies don't want to work in countries where "childcare" has been been devalued to such an extent that it is barely indistinguishable from slavery.

In France there are also state run crèches, but it takes a certain state of mind to commit a 10 week old baby to a state-run institution with strict, central government set regulations - and in any case, state crèche places are means-tested and poor families/single parents get absolute priority ie they are destined for the desperate. And there are a few private nurseries, and I did visit a couple out of interest and shuddered in horror at the conditions in what are supposedly the best nurseries. Again, they are run on a shoestring and pay slave wages.

Not sure if someone has already mentioned this but in Australia, there is 12 months parental leave that can be split anyway the couple like. Some couples take 6 months each back to back, some take it at the same time so both parents can be at home with a new baby.
There are still plenty of issues with not enough childcare places, lack of good childminder/nannies etc, but at least the brunt of the career break is not forced upon the mother.

Also, on the issue of psychologically damaging children... I have a dear friend who is a paed / child psychiatrist who works with truly emotionally damaged children. Given some of the things he has told me, I fail to see how providing a loving, stable home where children are cared for and provided for results in damaged children, regardless of whether both parents work or not.

potoroo - the trouble with "childcare" is that it often fails to live up to its premise of "care". However much parents love their child and however much they provide for his or her material needs, if the parents subcontract "care" to a third party and are not present, they are running a substantial risk that their child will not be looked after and brought up to an acceptable standard. In the park where our Anglo-Saxon mothers' playgroup sometimes meets, there are masses of "nounous" (what the French euphemistically call the slaves they engage to mind their children) who huddle together in nationality groups ie Algerians, Camerounians, Moroccans speaking their own language to one another while their charges idle strapped into buggies with biscuits and bottles while our mother-reared children of the same age run around playing on the climbing frame and slides, chatting to other mothers and generally learning to get on in life. I have seen these nounous slap their charges on no provocation just to keep them quiet so they can carry on chatting to their friends. And everyone knows that when they stay home they park children in front of the TV (in France there are still concierges in every building who know absolutely everything about what goes on in each apartment).