Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Christina Odone on Today this morning.

65 replies

OrmIrian · 09/10/2009 12:44

Nothing like a good old fume and shout with your toast.

Please could someone answer the question that she failed to - how does giving help and choice to working mothers, take anything away from those who choose not to work?

Because I'm buggered if I can work it out.

OP posts:
Original poster
OrmIrian · 09/10/2009 20:31

juule - I wouldn't have a problem with that. No skin off my nose. As it is her attitude seems a bit like litchick suggested 'if I can't have it neither can you.'

However I suspect that you are correct to be cynical. Sadly.

OP posts:
BonsoirAnna · 09/10/2009 20:33

Have you read the paper, OrmIrian? Quite interesting reading - and a good case for not helping WOHMs.

Original poster
OrmIrian · 09/10/2009 20:39

I just did and I don't think it is a good case. It is one set of opinions:

"The establishment should stop forcing women into a mould, and allow
them instead to realise their ambitions."

Well perhaps many of us have by working. But that is probably because we aren't real women

OP posts:
Original poster
OrmIrian · 09/10/2009 20:42

"mothers are being pushed out to work. But that is
not where they want to be."

Yes it is. For some of us.

OP posts:
shabbytabby · 09/10/2009 20:56

Actually I'd much rather not be.

AvengingGerbil · 09/10/2009 21:23

I wish I was working.

shabbytabby · 09/10/2009 21:41

Point taken, Avenging. I think my position is preferable. And I appreciate there are lots of positives in the increased freedom for women to work etc over the past forty years. But Odone's paper reflects how I feel. A walking anachronism, basically.

blueshoes · 09/10/2009 21:41

The government is primarily there to support people in paid employment (because of the skills and services they provide to the economy outside of their household, and their taxes), not what women want.

She certainly does not speak for me as to what women want . She demonises ft work and seems more supportive of pt work as what women want, but pt workers need childcare too, yes?

Original poster
OrmIrian · 09/10/2009 22:41

shabby - I was like you for many years. WHen my DC were tiny it broke my heart to have to go out to work. ANd my god it wasn't made easy! But now, my youngest is 6 and I love it. I wouldn't have it any other way. But if I hasn't worked all the time I wouldn't be here now. Why shouldn't it be made easier for all women to do what they want to do? Odone is a fossil

OP posts:
Original poster
OrmIrian · 09/10/2009 22:42

BTW part-time working was the worst of all possible worlds. Short changing everyone especially myself.

OP posts:
BonsoirAnna · 10/10/2009 08:44

I don't think that is quite right, blueshoes. Governments are elected by the whole of the adult population and are there to represent and defend everyone's interests; people in paid employment do not have any kind of priority over others in the United Kingdom.

moondog · 10/10/2009 08:52

Christina Odone.....yaaaaaawn
WOHM versus SAHM.......big fat yawn

Northernlurker · 10/10/2009 09:02

Of course people in paid employment have priority in the eyes of government - our taxes and NI pay for services for everybody else. That is the break SAHMs get from the state, they get to stay at home and not contribute to the economy directly and still access services. I fail to see why they need paid childcare suppport as well just to make it 'fair'.

ssd · 10/10/2009 09:15

I think a lot of women working full time either lie or kid themselves on when they are asked "would you prefer to be at home or working as you are". So so many woman genuinely couldn't stand being at home all day with their kids and they know it. But it is seen as unmotherly to say this and so they answer of course they would stay at home.

I've worked for many mums working full time and I've worked in the work place with many FT mums and I can't think of any of them who genuinely would rather be at home all day with their kids. Its just not what they want.

So this report that states mums would much rather be at home is to me a load of rubbish. Maybe thats the answer a lot of mums give, but the reality of being at home with no job, money, workmates, prestige and kids all day makes a lot of women shudder. The honest ones will tell you this, the guilt ridden ones would say oh I'd rather stay at home all day with my kids but I have to work for the money, career progression, etc etc

Sunshinetoast · 10/10/2009 15:38

Reading the report it seems that Christina Odode's data doesn't support her conclusions.

She goes on at length about how women are being forced into full time work against their will but doesn't mention that her own polling shows more men than women (28% men, 19% women) currently working full time would not work at all if money were no object.

Of course some women in paid full time work would rather be working part time or not in paid work. But the report doesn't mention the women who are not in paid work who would like to be or the women who are happy in paid work. It doesn't take more than five minutes with a group of mothers (or on mumsnet) to realise that different people have different needs and preferences.

And it assumes men should have no choice at all - in her case studies the men who don't want the sole responsibility of breadwinner are portrayed as failing to support their partner's choices - as though their choices were not relevant. What about the men who are in full time work who might prefer to be looking after their children?

But the thing that grates more than anything is the repeated reference to what 'real' women want. Presumably those of us who don't want what we are 'supposed' to want are fake? or surreal?

What is sad is that there is an important point to be made about the undervaluing of unpaid caring work and how to provide support for people who are doing it - but this report isn't it.

blueshoes · 10/10/2009 17:13

Anna, 'women' in Christina Odent's study as a voting group is no more or less significant than lots of other groups out there, like people who drive, clamouring for a piece of the pie.

They don't represent 50% of the adult population. They are women who want/have children and are of childbearing age with children who still need some form of childcare.

To give to this group, you take away from other groups, all of whom are also voters.

On the other hand, by supporting paid employment, everyone benefits from the bigger taxpayers' pot.

I know as a voter I won't be voting in a government who proposes to give money to parents just because they want offspring and are fertile enough to produce them. There is not enough money to fund lifestyle choices, over paid employment that has a clear and beneficial impact on the bottom line.

BonsoirAnna · 10/10/2009 17:27

"There is not enough money to fund lifestyle choices..."

What does the state pay for collectively but for lifestyle choices? Different groups argue who about who has more of a claim on the funds raised from taxation, and governments arbitrate. I would rather we all retained more of our own money and made our own lifestyle choices, rather than have the state make them on our behalf.

blueshoes · 10/10/2009 18:31

Anna, I would agree about retaining more of my money for my lifestyle choice - if that comes in the form of lower taxes that I would have to pay. That is from a purely selfish point of view though.

Bumperlicioso · 10/10/2009 18:56

'It is unfair for the taxpayer to offer childcare assistance to WOHMs and not to SAHMs. That is the point.'

I disagree with this statement by Anna, WOHMs are being given assistance to go out to work, they're not getting a 'break', if you gave the same help to SAHMs what you you be paying them to do? Sit and crochet while watching reruns of West Wing (cos that's what I would be doing ) while their children are in childcare?

That's not to say that I don't think SAHMs don't need a break, but it's not like WOHMs are getting a complete break either.

Bumperlicioso · 10/10/2009 19:05

Just reading the report and agree with sunshine, this paragraph doesn't make sense:

'This is not about women being work-shy. While 19% of women
working full-time wouldn?t work if they didn?t have to, a
whopping 28% of men working full-time don?t want to; it is about
women having different priorities from those promoted by the
governing élite. Ordinary women ? and men ? value the whole
woman, who can fulfill more than her role as worker.'

Men, more than women, don't want to be, or at least admit to not wanting to work full time. And I agree with SSD that some people might not be quite honest with their answers, saying what they think they should say.

And that last sentence makes it sound like men want women who don't work and stay at home doing all the cooking and cleaning.

BonsoirAnna · 10/10/2009 19:24

I know plenty of SAHMs who use haltes garderies in France. They use the time to do chores and errands, mostly, without being slowed down by the presence of children. That's what it's for.

I know, from my own experience, after having been a SAHM for three years when DD was little, that I had a massive back log of chores and errands to get through when I finally got some time to myself. And, if you read the threads on MN, you'll see that lots of SAHMs are in a similar position.

Bumperlicioso · 10/10/2009 19:39

And when do full time working mums get time to do those chores Anna? I'm not denying it's hard work, I've done both, but I work 4 long days and very much feel out of control at home, I'd like time to catch up on chores and stuff.

BonsoirAnna · 10/10/2009 19:42

Most FT WOHMs do get some child-free time to ring the bank, shop etc on their journey to work or in their lunch hour. A lot of SAHMs can go for a very long time indeed without spending a second on their own. I know, it happened to me.

And halte garderie type childcare can be used by WOHMs too, either on their days off if they don't work FT, or by their nannies/childcarers/grandparents, to let them do chores and errands.

FairyMum · 10/10/2009 20:23

Doesn't everybody get about 15 hours free childcare once their children are 3 regardless of WOHM or SAHM? What is all this money WOHMS are supposedly getting? I must be missing out.

BonsoirAnna · 11/10/2009 08:52

Three years is quite a long time to wait to get a second to yourself...