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.

i think you put it very well - and i think that an extention as you suggested is a good idea for those who want to stay at home

Niecie and Custy - a lot of sense in your posts. I completely agree that there is no fundamental reason why a parent of say, 3 teenagers, should go out to work to subsidize a parent of a pre school child to stay at home. Yes, the needs of a teen maybe be different, but that doesnt make them less important - in fact custy describes really well how the teen years can be a minefield.
Twinkle - I also think your posts have been really valuable because you are very honest and open about your feelings. It's interesting that you say you still feel a kind of irrational guilt that YOU should be the primary carer for your child, even though you love your job, and in your own words, your dc is cared for brilliantly by her dad who probably does a better job than you would. You see, that backs up the view that this feeling that the mother needs to be at home is often an emotional feeling and not necessarily to do with being the 'only' or 'best' person to care for the child.
I remember feeling huge respect for my SIL, who had her first child at the same time as me. I was returning to work; she wasnt. As a first time mum I was just begining to have those nagging doubts, and she turned to me and said, 'My ds isnt going to be any better off than your dd just because I'm at home. I'm not going back to work because I never enjoyed my job that much, we can afford to live on one income, and tbh I want a break from work and a change of lifestyle for a while'. I thought that was a really honest answer. Not trying to pretend that either of us was doing something better, just acknowledging that the decision was about HER choice rather than necessarily being better for her son. Which goes back to Custys point: why should some people work to subsidize other people's choice to stay at home? And where do you draw the line? What if someone wants to stay at home even when their kids are at school all day? Or college? No one can really know whether the decisions they make are 'best' for their children. We all make decisions based on how we feel, within the constraints of our own set of circumstances. And there's no fundamental right for anyone to expect that choice to be subsidised.

You see, the point where this arrant bullshit about how peole 'should budget for having children' falls to pieces is it doesn;t take into account how much of life is out of the individual's control, and how easy it would actually be for all you smug 'my-taxes-are-being-spent-on-scroungers' types to find yourselves suddenly dependent on benefits. Say the main income earner loses his/her job because his/her employer wants to get rid of a whole tier of jobs or outsource the lot to somewhere in the developing world where staff can be paid about 50p a day? SO there's an immediate local glut of people with the same skills/experience as that income earner. SO maybe the income earner is determined and proud and won;t go on benefits - but the only job he/she can get is stakcing shelves or something else minimum wage...
Or say one family member, adult or child, has a serious, disabling accident or contract some long-term illness that will need long-term care at home?
Even if you are so smug and previously well-paid that you have savings, they will run out sooner or later, sooner if you are not immediately able to adapt to shopping at Netto, walking everywhere and buying any necessary new clothes from charity shops.

ANd the rise in housing costs has been predominantly caused by the huge push of buy-to-let as a way of making money (because your pension plan is fucked) and cheap credit, not by women working outside the home. ONe low wage can barely keep one adult, lt alone a second dependent adult and a child or two.
THe problem remains the same: women are not appliances to do all society's shitwork for the privilege of being fed and housed. Children need to be cared for, and the person caring for them needs an income, simple as that.

Custardo - do you disagree with public policy to encourage people to have children?

In France there has been public policy to encourage people to have children for many years - including longer maternity leave and greater tax breaks the more children you have.

France has a higher birth rate than almost all developed countries.

Custardo - do you also really believe that children are indifferent to who washes, feeds and clothes them? Do you think those things can be routinely done by someone other than parents/close family members with no negative impact on family relationships?

Scottishmummy said - 'why should someone be paid receive financial renumeration to stay at home with their own children?it is a private personal choice, but not one the state should financially reward'

I'm not sure that staying at home or working is always a personal choice. I agree actually that SAHM should not receive finance for this, but I actually don't think that working parents should either.

Whatever you decide to do, stay at home or go to work, that, it can be argued, is your own personal choice and therefore you should receive no state benefit to do so.

Of course, when parents go to work it's not always through choice so I'm sure there are cases where help is valid. However, I believe this is equally true for some parents who stay at home.

How on earth you work out who needs help I don't know - it's terribly complicated. However, to just sweepingly state that parents that stay at home do so just because they want to is completely ridiculous. As ridiculous as saying that everyone that goes out to work does so because they want to.

madamez - that's a pretty strong response to people who were simply making a well thought out argument. I'm not disagreeing with much of what you say. Life in this country in the 21st century is fucking hard for most of us I think. I wouldnt say dp and I are particularly poor - I see us as very much the norm. And the norm for us is that having worked our way through (state) schools, gone to uni, gone into worthwhile professions (teaching) we've had to really struggle to make ends meet, and probably always will do. We both work, and always have. We live in a modest house. We don't do expensive holidays/meals out etc. I would have loved to have had 4 children. It was a luxury we couldnt afford. (would have NEEDED a bigger car and a bigger house. Yes, NEEDED - our care fits 5 people and our third bedroom is too small for more than one bed - not even a bunk would fit). And we couldnt afford to get those things. Therefore we have had to budget within our means for the number of children we can (just!)afford. That's real life. Most of us do it. Why should I expect anyone else to pay for my 'right' to have another child??

'do you also really believe that children are indifferent to who washes, feeds and clothes them? Do you think those things can be routinely done by someone other than parents/close family members with no negative impact on family relationships? '

• in answer to the first part, no, of course children aren't indifferent! Children are intelligent, sensitive souls who respond to the people around them.
• in answer to the second part, yes, of course these things can be done by other people. Where does this idea come from that maybe the father, possibly the grandparents, but ideally only the mother, can perform these tasks?? I think it's quite an arrogant, controlling view which seems to assume a very low regard for anyone outside of our own immediate families.

Elphaba - the state is already, in the UK, far from family-neutral.

All families receive massive state subsidy in the form of school, healthcare and universal child benefit as well as other financial subsidies that are dependent on income and circumstance.

Madamez - I thought that was a very good post.
Inthegutter - it depends on what you really want. We have more than 4 children. We have 1 car with 5 seats. We have to find alternative transport arrangements if we all need to go somewhere together. A larger car isn't a necessity. You don't NEED a bigger house. My mil had 5 children in a 2-bed house. Smallest bedroom fit 2 sets of bunkbeds and nothing else. It might be NICE to have the bigger car and bigger house but you don't NEED them.

inthegutter - if I understand you correctly, you therefore believe that children prefer their parents to be the ones to wash, feed and clothe them and you believe that this can be done by other people without harming the child's relationship with their parents ?

I cannot for the life of me reconcile these two positions.

Sorry, me again, but I'd like to add to my last post - again, where do you draw the line? You admitted earlier, Anna, that your dd started nursery/school at a very young age as is the norm in France. So in other words, you were handing over control for the care of your dd to other adults. Which is absolutely fine in my view. But then you come out with statements like the one above, which implies that we are disadvantaging our children by allowing others to share in the tasks of raising them. The thing is, we're talking about a spectrum arent we? At its most extreme, you get some parents who home educate, are very controlling about friendhips/activities even when their children are in their teens, because they are afraid to allow the rest of the world to have an impact on their child. I think we get too hung up about the preschool thing personally. There is no reason on earth why a preschool child needs to be looked after by just its mother.

inthegutter - how about sex with your DH? If he wants sex but you are too busy to provide it, it is indifferent to your relationship if he seeks it elsewhere?

Anna - READ the posts!! I said children aren't indifferent! That doesnt mean they 'prefer' their parent to be doing something. It means that they are aware of who is doing it, and will respond appropriately! I remember dcs having stories read to them by a variety of people - myself, grandparents, friends, neighbours. My dcs weren't INDIFFERENT! They knew who was reading to them and interacted with whoever it was. I wouldnt for a moment make the leap from that to saying that they preferred me!

inthegutter - school isn't love/personal care. School does very specific things that are, crucially, completely different to the things that are done at home. For example, my daughter's school specifically prepares small children for cooperating in a group setting with one adult supervisor. It prepares small children for obeying rules laid down by people unknown to them in an institutional environment. It gives children the opportunity to develop friendships with their peers independent of their parents' influence. Etc etc. Things a parent cannot do.

All these things are excellent as a small part of a young child's day.

WTF?! This is getting a bit extreme Anna! I don't think the thread was about sex with one's partner! No, open relationships may work for some people, but not for us!

inthegutter - I am just pointing out to you that you haven't understood my posts .

Don't you think your children should prefer you to other adults?

While I don't believe that a preschool child needs to be looked after by just it's mother, I do believe that it needs to be looked after by someone who is committed to it's care for it's own sake. Not because the carer gets paid for caring. Not a variety of uninvolved carers who come and go. I think a child benefits from consistent long-term care by someone who it can form a proper relationship with and who it can build up trust in. In the majority of cases I think that a close family member would be the ideal for this.

So Anna, you are agreeing that all these things are on a spectrum. You made a choice about starting your daughter at school, for a specific amount of time each day within a particular environment. that's fine. But YOU made the judgements about what you think defines a 'small' part of the day etc. It doesnt mean those are the ONLY right choices or indeed that they apply to everyone. As I said, a small minority of parents arent happy to sent their children to school at all. Some parents are happy to sent their chidren to boarding school. Those are extremes; there are plenty of variables in between.

inthegutter - the point about sex is that having sex is a way that couples express love and care for one another and take enjoyment in one another's company.

I think that taking care of one's child's bodily needs is a way of expressing love and care for my child and taking enjoyment in his/her company. I don't think I exclusively have to take care of her bodily needs (whereas I do want to be the only person having sex with my partner), but I think that if I and my partner are not the main carers for our daughter, we risk jeopardising our relationship with her.

'Don't you think your children should prefer you to other adults? '

• aah, the crux of the matter!

Prefer is an interesting word to use. I know my dcs love me and dp more than anyone else. I think 'prefer' is too simplistic a word. They have a range of adults that they know well and relate positively to, for which I'm grateful.I would feel I'd failed as a parent if I'd brought my children up to feel they had to 'prefer' their mother to any other human being.

Perhaps you just risk affecting the kind of relationship you have with her. Not necessarily ruining it or jeopardising it. Just creating something different.

Excellent point NKF.Life is all about building relationships and exploring what it is about other people and the world which makes us tick. Allowing our children to create relationships is in a sense a risk - because we're acknowldeging that actually they don't BELONG to us. We are there to love and guide them, but it is their fundamental human right to have an independent existence which is not entirely centred around one parent.

I notice also that it's always 'handouts' to the lazy, workshy, etc, poor that get criticized, and you all ignore the way the Government helps big businesses through tax breaks and even grants to exploit desperate people (all those incentive schemes to take on unskilled or long term unemployed people for next to no money (the employees get very litte and that is subsidised by the Govt rather than the company): the companies take the grants, take on the staff them boot them out at the end of the placement to bring in more cheap labour). Then there's the tax loopholes that mean all the city traders pay a lower percentage of their income in tax than the people who clean their offices.
And don;t forget what tax credits really are: the taxpayer is subsidising, not so much the underpaid worker but the profits of the company that pays low wages.

Some people believe the following(as do I):
The "critical importance of secure primary attachment for the healthy emotional development of infants."
from What about the Children website.