Should women / carers be paid for caring for their 'own' kids?

[AdelaofBlois]

Had a nice argumentative (if in this climate purely hypothetical) discussion last night about whether carers should be paid for looking after their children. Three arguments ran thus:

1. Familial childcare is, even if not done by mothers, predominantly women's work. It is time consuming, skilled and exhausting, contributes enormously in both the short and long term to the economy, yet the women doing it receive no monetary recognition, and indeed risk their security to do so. Financial recognition of the work was a long-standing, although now underplayed, aim of the women's movement.

1. That, until men are equally represented in caring roles, the payment would represent further legal incentive for women to stay at home, which may not necessarily be about their choice. If set at a level that altered decisions it would act as a state scheme to force women back into the home, if too low simply be a drain on resources which creates the same ideological pressure.

1. (where I got bogged down as the wine took effect ) Payment would have to be set against standards because the justification would be value to society. It would seem unfair to pay fulltime carers and not their employed counterparts unless we were willing for the state to say that in all circumstances SAHPs were 'best'. It would also seem unfair to pay 'poor' parents (at the far end of the scale, say abusive ones) money, but monitoring this would involve the state in childcare in a way hitherto unthought of. The whole thing would be a mechanism for enforcing standards of childcare (HE who pays the piper) which reflected neither women's choices nor a feminist outlook.

Conversation drifts off onto CBeebies crushes, this writer feeling but .

Basically, just wondered what others thought. Posted here because don't want this to be the SAHM vs WOHM women-hating discussion it might become elsewhere.

I do pay for the NHS of course. Indirectly, but I still pay.

I do see the arguments. I appreciate that I was in a fortunate position for a SAHM. But I still think then when the state is paying for something as fundamental as looking after our own children, we are losing something to the state that I do not want to lose.

I think that's self-defeating martyrdom.

And based on my recollection of a hospital bill in the US for a bog-standard delivery of one baby, without anesthesia of any kind, I doubt many UK taxpayers pay enough to cover even a fraction of the cost of delivery of a baby under NHS care ($24,000 USD for me plus another $6,000 for the care the baby received). There are different child allowances and tax credits available to parents of children too -- not too many eschew them based on the principle of personal responsibility for their own children. Is something lost to the state by availing of subsidised state education?

I think much of the resistance to accepting a stipend for being a SAHP is based on an outdated idea of what traditional women's work is worth (nothing, or less than traditional men's work). The state pays for something as fundamental as healthcare and emergency services...

but in this utopian society that we are theoretically discussing here, all children should be planned.

why then, would i as a tax payer, pay for other people to stay at home witht heir children? If you plan it. pay for it.

I think that the state should support children, and that it should adjust taxation and welfare services to encourage people to have a reasonable number of children so as to sustain the country (attempting to avoid unmanageable population bulges etc). It's in the interest of the state to have children well cared for and educated, as that's what is needed to be competitive, if nothing else.

But it is parents responsibility having decided to have a child to care for it, and I think it would be a very bad idea, with lots of unintended consequences to whittle away at that.

So making sure that good quality childcare is available (whether directly or indirectly), providing good maternity and peadiatric health care, making sure that schooling is available etc are all good, but direct intervention into family life except where it is essential (neglect/abuse) or needed and asked for (any sort of additional needs, whether the parent's or the child's) is in my opinion not the way to go.

Most people on deciding to have children or finding that they are on their way are aware that the high costs come with high rewards. Both costs and rewards should be shared within the family. The state should support parents not seek to take over, and any additional support should go towards carers who should get a huge amount more support - equipment, funds, options (respite, specialist provision etc) and emotional support too.

But Custardo, I planned to follow the career path I followed AND I get personal fulfilment out of it. I still quite like the fact that people pay me to do it.

Why is there a "your decision your bill" distinction? There's a lot of people out there who'd argue that children represent more of a benefit to society than lawyers!

Everything nooka said.

I think it's the difference between normal care and special care. I care for and parent my average intelligence, average fitness DD, but she does not need any special care. I think 'care' is one of those words with more than one meaning - I care about you and I need to care for you are two different things.

Back to the original issue - I don't think parents of 'normal' children should receive compensation for it, but parents of 'special' children should.

I have an additional issue as a Childminder that we could not get the tax breaks of childcare. I asked if my DH could pay me with childcare vouchers, so that we could get the tax breaks that all the other mindees parents receive and I was told 'No'.

Children have care needs, some disabled and sick people have additional care needs at varying levels.

IMHO the support for both should be a combination of financial and practical.

For most children this is already the case,
money (CB and tax credits) towards their care,
provision of advice and social support (children's centres, mumsnet, toddler groups)
and help towards educating a child (pre-school, school, collage).

For people with additional needs this support doesn't always fit so a more tailored approach needs to be used and this is where I think we fall down.

When free maternity care, and free children's health care for minors up to age 16 was proposed in Ireland in the early 50s (the Mother and Child Scheme) conservative groups, mainly the Catholic Church and elements of the medical profession, came up with exactly the same arguments against it that many posters here have used against paying sahps a stipend -- the it represented unwarranted government interference in the family, in the prerogatives and responsibilities of the family; I think the phrase 'socialised medicine' was used.

(Riven: I meant 'worthy' in quotation marks -- a patronising use of the word. Just a mother, as you said)

I also think that the phenomenon of women working for free in the home makes it difficult for employed women to counter the notion that their work deserves equal pay, especially in the so-called caring professions, where they deal with children or the sick.

tortoise, i think its becuase i have to pay for your decision and i have to pay for mine

but i pay for mine with a job, so i don't see why i should pay for someone to be a SAHM.

That is completely different from saying that being a SAHM isn't worthwhile.

What it is is a lifestyle CHOICE. esp in this imaginary utopia we are discussing.

we don't live in a society where whats mine is yours and whats your is mine, there is little community and society built on capitalism is about making money to pay for lifestyle goods and services. Therefore if YOU choose the lifestyle where you think its the best choice for you and your family that you stay home. You pay for it. I can't see why i should WOTH so you can SAH?

But are you saying that SAHMing is not work if you insist it's not a job?

We do live in a society where what's mine is yours and what's yours is mine. You pay for the health problems of the obese, you pay for the stomach pumping of drunk teenagers, you pay for the quadruple bypasses of smokers and people who spend 40 years hardening their arteries and avoiding exercise. We pay for the education of children whose parents couldn't give two hoots about school. We pay for wars and adventures overseas by the armed forces that hardly anyone supports.

We pay for the lifestyle of anyone who chooses to work in the public sector. It's as much of a lifestyle choice as having children is -- a lot of people are attracted to the public sector, paid by the taxpayer, for the benefits, the working conditions, the perceived fairness towards women, maternity leave, etc. Many higher level public sector employees could make more money in the private sector but they choose the public. And the taxpayer pays.

so who is going to work

when you get paid for staying at home?

i did try hard to phrase things incorectly, but the line below i did say that it didn't necessarily mean that being a sahm ins't as good as

i do take on board your point about my taxes paying for others lifestyle choices - good point.

so i shall simply say that i don't think my taxes should pay for this one

Exactly, Custardo. I can't beleieve for a second that anyone believes we should be paid for staying at home with our kids...!! Even though actually many people are due to benefits etc.

Its not like the population is dying out and we need to give people an incentive to breed... Parenting is not charitable, selfless work for the sake of the country.. its basically a selfish thing, no?

You want children, you pay for them!

have to disagree about the public sector, comparitively it isn't paid as well. i don't think that working in the public sector is a choice. a job is available and people go for it and hope, not exactly a job for life is it?

Is work at home not work then?

I don't think the payment of a stipend to sahps would result in any kind of a mass exodus from the paid workplace.

indeed dinosaur, this was alluded to in the OP.

a whole new industry could arise ala the NHS, parent monitors, area parent trusts - oooh lots of new quangos

but of course the same kind of monitoring would have to take place to account for the spending of public funds.

tell you something, looking back at my many years, i'm glad that i wasn't monitored and appraised on my performance

Oh come on, its ridiculous. Anyway, its never going to happen so im not going to get my knickers in a twist anymore.

i suppose it depends on the job?

by job i meant outside the home.

i did later use the appropriate accornyms.

dont get hung up on the word job, i am not saying that sahms don't work.

do mums of twins get more?