https://x.com/SophyRidgeSky/status/1802785457903661425
So much to unpick with this. Firstly, he says it is a travesty for mothers (this is implied) to “spend all your time at work and not enough time with your kids.” But most parents I know are both working and spending lots of time with their kids, it is not an either/ or.
Secondly, why have they extensively polled mothers to get the conclusion they want to spend time with their children (er, yes I imagine most people who have children want to spend time with them), jumped to a conclusion of “a majority of mothers would choose to stay at home more if they could”and not polled fathers to ask them as I’m sure many of them would also love to stay at home more if they could.
Thirdly, if it is a valid goal to reduce the amount of time mothers spend at work and increase their time at home, how is supporting marriage through the tax system the most effective way of doing that? This does nothing for single or unmarried mothers, so are only the children of married mothers entitled to the “support as they grow and develop” that apparently only a SAHM can provide?
Nothing wrong with choosing to be a SAHM of course, but the blame on women, suggesting because they work they are causing the rise in anorexia and bullemia by failing to counter damaging things seen on social media, is frankly disgusting to me.
Why is no party focused on making it easier for 2 parents to work part time? Means children will get support from both parents, for parents in a heterosexual relationship they will witness a male role model in a caring role, both parents have financial independence, pensions, paid annual leave, paid sick leave, and a career to go back to when the children are grown. The time spent in university and building a career (where relevant) is not wasted for either parent. And similar in place for fully lone parents.