Yet another article re: why mothers should return to work

[boogiewoogie]

Just snatching a couple of minutes during a coffee break, will come back. What do you think of this?

FM - but all that costs money to the state (the taxpayer). So taxes will rise. Do we want this?

FM - and the babies in day nurseries 40 hours a week is NOT a myth.

In the UK only a minority of children do this.

In France 30% of children are full-time at the crèche.

I pay for a lot of services I dont use with my taxes so why should not some of my taxes go towards nurseries. Then SAHMS could go out and pay some tax too. Great.

FM - it isn't a daily mail myth where i used to work i am afraid - quite a large proportion of prof. women in the corporate world do just that because they are worried about losing their jobs if they don't go back after 6 months

Then I will clarify the argument as I see it - taking your words (if I may) and making a couple of changes

'So we have one article explaining the economic risks of women giving up work to care for their families

Other articles explaining that too much daycare for babies and toddlers can be harmful to their development

So we have a conflict of interest between a family's financial security and the emotional development of the children in that family

That I can live with.

FM - come on, that wasn't the point I was making. We ALL pay for lots of services we don't use through taxes, and lots of mothers who stay at home provide all sorts of services to the community for free through voluntary work - it is a recognised problem that it is today harder to get volunteers in the UK than in the past since more mothers work.

The issue is: how much tax do we wish to pay for collective services? Personally I would rather keep my money and spend it the way I wish, I have paid and continue to pay far too much tax.

FM - come on, that wasn't the point I was making. We ALL pay for lots of services we don't use through taxes, and lots of mothers who stay at home provide all sorts of services to the community for free through voluntary work - it is a recognised problem that it is today harder to get volunteers in the UK than in the past since more mothers work.

The issue is: how much tax do we wish to pay for collective services? Personally I would rather keep my money and spend it the way I wish, I have paid and continue to pay far too much tax.

My answer to the question about the conflict would be what everyone else is saying - better maternity and paternity leave for the first 2 years of life at least.

"Bashing them over the head with stories of the damage that is done to their children just adds to their stress and guilt, I imagine".

Are you sugesting that no such studies or research should be undertaken in case the results are not favourable ? That is absurd.

lazycow - again, who is going to foot the bill for longer maternity and paternity leave?

yr - yes...we should never do studies that might make people feel bad about their life choices, should we . Such an English attitude - like no competition in schools...

Anything goes, no standards...

lazycow - I can live with the change from is to may be

But I don't understand the point of the other change you make, since the articles make a general point, not one about a particular family

if we are talking money i am sure its not beneficial to your tax bill to have such a large proportion of women out of work anna. i might as well argue that because i work and pay a huge amount of taxes as well as for a really expensive nursery which means i also contribute to creating jobs for nursery teachers, I will refuse to pay for nhs treatment and education for children of sahms. after all they dont pay any taxes. i only want to pay for what benefits me me me

No-one which is why I accept that we live in a society where this is unlikey to happen.

We live in a world that is based on capitalism. The making of money is what makes it work. It is a fundamental concept that I don't personally like but no-one has come up with anything better and that is how it is so we have to live in it.

In the meantime we need to make sure we get the best childcare we can. I thin kthe UK does this pretty well actually. We have a history of pretty good quality childminding (from the days when working class women left their children with 'baby farmers' when going out to work'). I use a childminder because she gives ds another extended family to belong to and I personally have no need to control every aspect of his life.

I do not see the choice to be a SAHM as a right, just as I don't see the ability to live in a nice rural environment where we can all gambol with lambs as a right either. Some people are fortunate and can do this, others can't.

We are in an incredibly priviliged position to be able to discuss this at all. Most mothers in the world have far greater worries than the theoretical and quite probably miniscule amount of damage done to a child by leaving it in daycare from a young age.

FM - but that is what Western governments want. They brainwash and coerce women into working outside the home to increase the relative size of a country's economy:

(a) for a nation's relative standing in the world (which I can live with)

(b) to raise more and more taxes so that they can spend more and more money

Finance ministers, PMs etc all have HUGE egos that drive their policies.

My point was that you were saying the choce was between the financial secruity of a woman vs her child's emotional well-being. That is a very loaded way of putting it.

I think that the choice is about the family as a whole and it's finacial security against the emotional well-being of it's younger members.

lazycow - I quite agree that we are in an incredibly priviledged position to discuss these issues.

I have no problems at all with capitalism.

I do have problems with governments that pass bad legislation in the interests of leaders' egos rather than the well-being of populations.

Well looks like we agree on something then

Now I really must get back to work as I usually MN at work (no time when I'm home) - bad girl !!

lazycow - well, I think that you can look at it BOTH ways - from the whole family's economic position (if the couple stay together) and from the woman's alone (say she divorces or is widowed).

Personally, I am VERY interested in how people on this thread think that the woman's economic risk in giving up work to care for her children ought to be covered (her husband? the state? personal savings? something else?)

Actually Anna, a lot of the government initiatives to get women out to work are aimed at making them financially independent of the state. A lot of SAHMS arent the super-sahms you describe when telling us about you and your dd skipping around art galleries and sheep in central Paris. A lot of SAHMS are women -often single mums-stuck at home on benefits because they cannot afford childcare so they can work. Often isolated and not living in particularly inspiring areas they dont have the opportunity to put their child into daycare, not even for a little light relief now and again. I think the reality is that most of the children in UK nurseries are not the ones left to rot in nurseries, but from fairly priviledged backgrounds and with parents who care a great deal about their welfare.

FM - I agree.

But why do we have so many single mothers? Where are the MEN? Why aren't government policies focused on making men more responsible towards women and children, rather than less?

Are they focusing on making them less responsible. I am not sure I understand what you mean.

Two of my friends are single mums. Both were left by their DHs while pregnant totally out of the blue. This is exactly the point the author of the article is making. She is talking generally about statistics and the number of women who end up divorced, widowed etc. Its true that number of women living in poverty in old age is far greater than men because they gave up job and pension to look after their children.

Being a SAHM (or SAHD) is a priviledge, not a right for which anyone one else is reponsible. Giving up work to stay home with your child and live in your fluffly little Parisian fantasy world of sheep and art galleries where 9 year old boys are encouraged to talk about sex and various other aspects of procreation is your CHOICE not your right.

When you become a parent, you are responsible for not only yourself but also that child's welfare. The child is not an excuse for someone else to support you.

Regarding the men who are not there, I completely agree with you. I think men should have to pay 1/2 of all costs. None of this 20% if you feel like getting a job crap. 1/2 of everything: clothes, food, shelter, education, daycare.

Not I sure I made it cleat that my last post was a response to Anna:
"Personally, I am VERY interested in how people on this thread think that the woman's economic risk in giving up work to care for her children ought to be covered (her husband? the state? personal savings? something else?)"

Surely, in our Western democracies, responsibility for most things in a family is shared between husband/father, wife/mother and the state. Most countries don't expect children to support parents in old age (though this is not true in France), be responsible for parents' or adult children's debt etc etc

Responsibility in a family is therefore shared between three parties. If you have policies that aim to make women and the state increasingly jointly responsible for children, men's responsibility lessens.

I don't in any way wish for a return to the days when women and children were the sole responsibility of men and at their mercy. But I do think men are getting an ever better deal with ever fewer financial and material responsibilities for women and children, and I think this is a bad thing for society.

Responsibility generally makes people better behaved and happier.