Equality at home - Can this really be achieved?

[marga73]

There is an issue I've been wanting to discuss for a long time. It's the issue of equality inside the house.

Even though women now work and are able to gain respectable positions in the workplace, and we can say that some level of equality has been attained, it seems to me that once they have children, women lose more than men in terms of work opportunities and financial independence. And all because the house and the children still seem to be a "woman's job".

It's all great to find women who are happy being the SAHP, but don't these women feel sometimes that being 100% financially dependent on their husbands is frustrating? Doesn't this situation make them feel trapped and powerless? Is it OK for women to sacrifice their independence for the sake of their children and the house keeping?

I work part-time, and have two small children, and still feel trapped sometimes. I'm grateful in many ways that my husband earns enough so we don't have to worry about paying for mortgage, food, childcare etc - and I contribute to this too - but I feel it's far beyond from the ideal I had when I was young and it really annoys me. If I'm honest, it makes me very angry.

I would like a society where men and women work part time, share domestic tasks 50/50, and look after their children part time, and therefore pay for everything on equal terms. Is this too much to ask in the fierce capitalist society we live today? Am I naive to think that should be the case?

Beachcomber ... If not "the nuclear family" then the roles and responsibilities of parents in relation to their children and each other, then? Which amounts to talking about roughly the same thing I think, although without any assumptions about "nuclear" or "family"

My personal lines in the sand:

• commune? no way!
• I'm not living with my parents etc, or pledging to take care of any future grandchildren.
• I'm quite happy being married to my DH but I know that it's not for everyone

I like the nuclear family. Much as I love my mother and other members, I would hate to live with them and any sort of commune would be out for me. W e are a team. W e do the things we like within in but we can each do both.
Of course teachers are not giving up their budget for TAs and teachers unions are for teachers, TAs are not teachers. I mentioned putting up taxes and it got an indignant negative response. No one is suggesting that surgeons give up their salary budget to hand it to nurses! It isn't a class thing. When I go into a staff room as a supply teacher I can't tell who is a TA and who is a teacher. The TAs have had very varied careers before they became TAs, many of them have a degree.
I still don't understand why TAs,who are vital in schools, are singled out for poor pay and yet people are all for wrap around care when whoever provides it gets a very similar amount to TAs. You cannot live on the wages-they are mainly women who live with a main breadwinner.

i live with my son, a dog and a cat. not being married doesn't mean having to live with your parents or in a commune. my family do live nearby though. both my older sister and i (by different routes) have ended up as single parents with no support from father for me and minimum for her as he lives overseas so can't be much use on a daily basis. living in the same area as people is enough to make a big difference - you don't need to live in the same house.

ef - childcare would become year round thus allowing work in the holidays and therefore improving the rate of pay - it is the 'pro rata' issue where non term time is deducted that makes the salary so low.

and youngsters and students need work and can afford to live on a lower salary so yes they are a part of the workforce than can be used.

and yes they could still do the job over summer because their own children would be provided with childcare. that would immediately add what - 30% more to their salary? it certainly becomes no worse paid than any other minimum wage job then for the unskilled workers and higher rates available for those who are more qualified/experienced and able to undertake more skilled or supervisory routes.

So you can pay youngsters low wages because they are provide for in the nuclear family pot and are just doing it as a fill in fun job but once they are older and married you can't use the same pot and work to fill in and for fun?

A lot of wrap around care is proved for by mothers who finds it fits- this seems to say that you can only have the young doing it, and they are not free in term time anyway.

teachers too could be better paid if the school holidays weren't so long making it a career more people could afford to consider. quality would go up among ta's when more people could afford to consider it. the same might be true with teachers but as i've said imo it is more to do with affinity for the role than just IQ, training so i'm not sure you could procure more natural teachers out of thin air no matter how much money you waved about. you could retain more though if you improved the state of schools and had different agendas when promoting and recruiting senior management.

the mothers would have free childcare themselves - probably on the same site as they were providing it ef. and youngsters need jobs - what's the problem with after school jobs for youngsters doing their alevels? i certainly worked when i was at school and this would be on their doorstep work that they could be getting experience and references and skills in.

it would be afterschool and holiday work - ideal. and no not just youngsters. you could have a payscale - some on minimum wage doing the basics, others having passed their nvqs on a higher hourly rate with greater responsibility, some in managerial or curriculum planning type roles that came with managerial points etc.

and with ema scrapped and crazy uni fees it might be what allows these youngsters to finish their own education.

why is there always such resistance to any change to the school year or childcare provision? we have school buildings and staff sitting idle for 13wks a year - these are our resources and could be far better used and brought into line with the needs of contemporary society.

Take away the length of the holidays and you would find it very dfficult to recruit teachers. I doubt whether the extra money could be found. Teachers are not paid for holidays so the bill for increase in salary would be huge.

that's always the argument but for my generation of teachers, secondary level, i really think we'd have traded half of our holiday for better working conditions, a ta (that is a privilege secondary school teachers do not get despite having way more planning and admin to do and seeing up to 180 kids a day) and a pay rise.

sorry make that 210 kids a day including your form group.

Exotic-

You are right, the economics of childcare are difficult which ever way you look at it.

But there is a difference between young people doing a low paid first job which gives them experience and a bit of money, and setting up the way we manage work and families so that mature adults with higher education and a ton of experience say that the best choice for them is a low paid job that pays no more than a school leaver earns.

Most parents wouldn't subsidise their child to do a dead-end job for ever, at some point they would say - I think you've learnt all you can at this level, you should go for promotion/find another employer with more opportunities/get a different job if this isn't the one for you etc...(or just, please move out now.. )

But the arrangement for wives doing pin money jobs is exactly the opposite of this conversation. It's more like the husband saying (implicitly) I will subsidise you as long as you like in this dead-end job, but please don't go for promotion, look for a different employer or move into another sector where your ambitions lie, because that would mean me having to change my working patterns and expectations to enable you do a non-mum-job.

It's like all the things that matter to for children as they become young adults (financial independence, living out your potential) are said to not matter to women once they become mothers.

I agree Himalaya but TAs are vital in the primary school classroom, students are not available and they don' t have the maturity to do it. There is no way to pay them. There would be uproar if people asked doctors to have less pay and give it to nurses so I don't see why it is a sensible suggestion for teachers. Child care is vital, it is low paid, women do it, by and large. It seems catch 22 to me. Care if the elderly is similar. My aunt if 91 has just gone into care, she wouldn't want a man looking after her. I think that anyone caring should get paid more- I just fail to see where it comes from.

Sorry- no way to pay them more.

but exotic if schools were open as childcare providers in the holidays then the ta's would not be on such a low salary as they could be paid for a full year instead of pro rata which is what makes it such a joke of a salary.

You seem to be missing the point that TAs do it to fit in with families and they like the hours. If I was a TA there is no way I would work holidays! They might be grabpndparents, looking after their own children, they may have 12 year old who need them there and are too old for the child care. Their DCs are probably at different schools. They may want to go away the entire summer. They are TAs for pin money-the hours are the attraction- take that away and you won't get TAs - they are not doing for the money.

TAs that I know have no interest in the pay - it is the hours that suit.

SaF - quite! That is what they do here. So they employ qualified school support staff who work all year round, then subsidise that with student jobs during the long holidays. The school buildings are open 7.30 til 6pm. In the winter, the holiday clubs rotate between the 3 state schools in the area. In the summer they use the council owned sports complex. After school care costs me about 35 euros per month. A week's holiday club costs about the same.

It makes the world of difference. I normally drop dd 5 mins before the bell goes and collect her at 5ish. They have homework 3 days a week, and there are supervised sessions for those that stay in the afterschool club. They get a break/snack/drink first.

It sounds a great scheme but I can't see it working in my area, TAs want short hours in term times, they are generally well off.

If women only work because childcare is free/heavily subsidised, isn't that perpetuating childcare as the woman's responsibility we need childcare to be offset against both parents income.

childcare vouchers are a step in this direction.

One of the reasons that I kept with the teaching was the holidays and I never needed child care for them. They only went to anthing if they chose it as an activity. If I was a TA I would be doing it because of the hours and I would want to be free to get up late, not have a timetable, let my DCs see their own friends, go out for days, stay with family, go on holiday. No way would I be constrained and have to take my DC s who would rather be at home. All the perks of the job would have gone so I might as well get a higher paid job in the first place. Doing supply teaching in a great many schools I would say that the majority were similar. If they wanted more wrk and more pay they wouln't be TAs!

exotic -

I agree it is a catch 22....but that doesn't mean its right, or that we can't aim for a way out of it.

what you are describing is a job which only works through institutionalised age discrimination and sexual discrimination.

Equal ops at work says if you have a job to fill that needs someone with a certain number of years of relevant experience and a degree then you specify it that way, you hire people on that basis and you pay them the same as you would for other posts with similar requirements.

If you specify in the JD that this is an entry level job that requires someone who has done a 12 week course or an NVQ then by definition you are saying it can be done by a school leaver.

What you are describing is a system where with a nod and a wink you are creating a job which on paper looks like a school leavers job, but really is a graduate level plus job, and hiring almost exclusively women to do it, but paying them way below the value they are bringing to the job.

Can you see how that is an ethical minefield (if not a huge legal liability for education authorities at some point).

There used to be lots of jobs that worked like this - all fields that predominantly employed women but paid them less than an equivalent man because, as they said 'men need a family wage'. We found ways out of those catch 22s, and low-and-behold the economy didn't fall to pieces.

You ask where the money comes from. It comes from supply and demand - the same as anything else.

If you want an experienced, mature, skilled professional to do a valuable job you pay them whatever it takes to attract them.

It doesn't cost much to attract experienced, mature, skilled women to local, school hours work, because there are a glut of them on the market.

They are there because the job they had in their original field is not easily compatible with their role as a parent, and their husband's field say 'role as a parent? isn't that your wife's job?'.

If on the other hand women weren't pushed out of their career on becoming parents, there wouldn't be such a cheap supply of them to prop up the education system.

So we are back to the principle that if you want an experienced, mature, skilled professional to do a valuable job you pay them whatever it takes to attract them even if they are female.

I am not saying that it is therefore the sole responsibility of all the middle class TAs to rise up and overthrow the system, but the fact that there are all these underpaid, underemployed female brains is a sign that the system isn't working not that this is the only way it can work.