Census has a tick box for carers of the elderly & disabled but no box for parents!!

[candleshoe]

Surely caring for a child full or part time should be acknowledged on the census form. Why are carers of the ill and old the only carers that are valid?
Now on my form I look like a part-time layabout! And my DH looks like a 58hours a week working superman!!!

GGGRRRRR!

Guessing they can work it out because you will have listed dependent children on the census form? Not disagreeing though, perhaps they should have a box if you are not employed, you can say you are full time caring for your children. Would give it a bit more "value" perhaps? But that isn't what the census is for (what the fuck is the census for anyway??) and they can clearly see on your form if you have a child or not already.
Carers of ill/elderly might receive carers allowance? Perhaps they have to be making budgets for that. Parents obviously receive nothing whatsoever for staying at home with children. Although perhaps they should address that?!

Census is used mainly for historical purposes - not political ones. So I don't think it is to do with budgets.

I just object to the fact that it looks like I don't contribute because I only 'work' less than 15 hours whereas DH 'works' for 58 hours. When in fact I do the important job of childcare for 24 hours a day 7 days a week (except for 15 hours!)

I agree - if carers are being officially recorded then that should include parental care too.

I also didn't like the focus on paid work - it devalues SAHMs.

My family can look me up on this census in 100 years time and they'll think I was unemployed!!!

I hate that - I am a G.P. - the fact that I am on maternity leave should be recorded - is there no box for that?

So frustrating!

Are you sure it is only used for historical purposes?

They have just had to postpone the census in NZ due to earthquake the Christchurch and have said that it will cause problems for planning provision in the near future. We have a census every 5 years.

It is used for planning purposes as well as historical recording.

At least that's what our local council would have you believe - they certainly imply it.

I think when you state that you have children then it is implicit that the parents care for them. Either way I wouldn't worry about it the census is a waste of time and counts for very little.

there was a box for "caring for disabled" (or similar - dh filled ours in online), which is what I got put down as (dd1 is ASD). (we are in England)

but agree it is a poor show - if dd1 wasn't disabled then I would have been all but invisible as "just" a sahm.

I don't feel fully comfortable with the idea of looking after your own children as work although I think I have reasonable grasp of the arguments surrounding it and would like it to enjoy a higher status than paid work - it seems to make it easier for men to evade doing their share, and somehow just sounds so grudging.

I'm good at fantasy.

I think I wouldn't want my children to feel that I hadn't enjoyed my time with them, although of course you are right - it is work, and I paid and cajoled other people to do that work and the work that comes with them like cleaning so I could go to university, have jobs and so on. It's an occupation and a role but work sounds like something you for personal and financial enrichment which feels entirely different from cherishing your offspring.

I dropped this: do

I would presume it is done this way because of carer's allowance, which is classed as a difference type of care than that of your own small children.

Although it's an interesting point.

I thought that the education box was confusing. It was full-time education - yes or no. I wondered about H/E children and children who attended school P/T due to disability such as ASD.

Describing it as work is probably the most useful way of raising its status, so it is just a personal niggle, you're right.

I haven't done my census form by the way, do you absolutely have to?

yes there's a possible fine apparently - dh hasn't done his bit yet