Incentives for SAHMs - anyone read Fiona Phillips today?

[bohemianbint]

Link here

I think if you can get past the slightly guilt-inducing title, what she is basically saying is quite interesting. It's the first thing I've read in a while that doesn't write SAHMs off as useless bovine idiots.

Obviously don't want to start the old fight of working vs sahm, but what do we think about some kind of incentive for mums to stay at home?

FWIW I have recently become a SAHM by accident after stupid sexist boss forced me out of my job - I am taking him to a tribunal. I am looking for work but am pregnant so not sure how that'll go down with potential employers! I'd like to work PT ideally but I feel really under pressure from everyone around me to get a job and stop being a "boring" SAHM.

Eleusis - no-one is expecting a fluffy, stress-free world. But you seriously underestimate what Western governments do (policy) and think about (debate) .

Perhaps you don't have many friends/acquaintances in the Civil Service or politics?

eleusis, I'm not talking about children getting help. I'm talking about a government having a family policy.

The crux of the matter is which policy an elected government convinces will be the best thing in terms of the future economy and way-of-life of the nation, yada yada yada.

That's why this discussion even exists.

YEs, Sue, and my opinion is that it is not in the nations interest to make life easier for parents who choose not to work at the expense of those who do work. I think if you are able to do so, you should pull your weight (and a little bit more for the sake of those who can't).

Elderly
veterans
sick
children

Those people need some help. Mothers of young children are perfectly capable of doing their share.

Mothers of young children are perfectly capable of doing their share.

-------

Who said they weren't? I think I've lost your point now. [brainmelt]

soapbox you make it sound like being a sahm was a walk in the park or rather a skip through the coffee mornings for you, and i'm sure if you say so that it was. but the word phase in your post speaks volumes doesn't it?

how long were you a SAHM for? did you know that it was going to be for a finite amount of time?

are financially secure, better than financially secure?

do you employ staff? do you have a cleaner, a gardener? anyone like that?

were you free to choose whether to stay at home or to work?

all of these factor hugely in terms of whether it is hard or not don't they?

Oh well, good thing you aren't standing for election in the UK, Eleusis. Your manifesto won't appeal to the electorate one little bit . They've got used to rather more sophisticated thinking.

Lots of mums don't go to work because they prefer to stay home with their children. They simply don't want to work. Now, if they can afford that choice, fine go for it. But if you want to be paid to stay home ot look after them then working parents will have to work longer and harder and see less of their own children in order to do that. And I think that is unfair.

So I take it that you are dead against universal child benefit, Eleusis?

If that is the case then I see no reason for them to benefit parents who do work either. Surely they to are perfectly capable of looking after themselves.

good job we have French residents telling us how the British electorate will vote. I don't believe even Gordon Brown or David Cameron know the answer to that and I am sure they are involved in the political debates of the day, friends in high places and all.

you see, there it is again - the casual insinuation that by looking after my own children, I'm not 'pulling my weight'.

I vote in the UK, blueshoes. I am British.

Glad you represent the British electorate then, Anna . Don't you live in Paris?

eulesis (sp) i'm staggered that you consider that stay at home parents are not working or contributing towards society and that they should do more and not have their lives made easier than the supposedly fully contributional working population.

nuts.

does no one get that the rearing of a child aged birth to five is THE single most important contributor to society in that it is during those years that the emotional and physical health and the ability to form relationships are developed. it is the neglect all the way along the spectrum that occurs during this time period that COSTS society so much. that in fact the role of primary care taker in infancy and early childhood is one of if not the most important contributors to the greater good there is? and that conversely if this role is not fulfilled well enough it costs society more than anything else?

surely then all those that fulfill this role should be hugely rewarded and motivated to perform that function to the best possible standard whether nannies, childminders or, most desirably stay at home parents.

Anna, not that I know of, have I mised something?

Paula, was that directed at me?

SueBaroo - well, I think you are doing a great thing .

blueshoes - yes, I live in Paris. But you vote in the country of which you are a citizen not the country of which you are a resident.

Eleusis - child benefit is a universal non-means tested payment to mothers, right? So it comes out of taxation - which non-working mothers don't contribute to. So you must hate it.

Oh, I only meant I admire how in tune you are with the British electorate's views despite living in Paris. As for voting, I am not a UK citizen but still have the right to vote in UK - god help us.

It was

sophable - you are, of course, quite right in everything you say.

Sophable, working parents also do those things for their children.

I didn't say SAHPs don't contribute to society in anyway -- some do and some don't. Same goes for WOHPs.

But, the idea that working parents should pay SAHP to stay home is selfish because it means the working paarents have to work more and see less of their children. 'tis not fair.

blueshoes - Paris isn't the back of beyond, you know. TV, newspapers are all available and there are plenty of British civil servants on secondment to the Embassy or working at UNESCO or OECD to have pretty lively debates on UK policy and the policies of other Western governments.

Plus, I go to the UK pretty often.

Paula, childcare (in my case) is an expense incurred for the sole purpose of going to work. I'm not opposed to people staying home, I just don't think I should have to pay for a priviledge I can't afford myself.

Eleusis - no-one has ever suggested that WOHPs pay SAHPs to stay home and that would be politically completely impossible.