Domestic zombies, motherhood penalty & childcare

[JessSi]

Hi. New to mumsnet & have been looking for a discussion on pre-school childcare provision – I'm starting this thread in S&G because frankly motherhood, triggers the full weight of sex-based oppression, so seems relevant.

As most people know but in Holly Mead's words from The Times, this week:

“The system is rigged against women, who are at a financial disadvantage from the moment they decide to have a family. While they are on maternity leave they typically receive no pension contributions from their employer. They are then likely to remain out of full-time work for three years, until some free childcare is available. Then they often take low-paid and part-time work to fit around family life. In many cases they will not earn enough to qualify for auto-enrolment, meaning the pension gender gap widens to a chasm.”

To avoid motherhood penalty, the solution is often presented as providing women with the opportunity to outsource the care of their children from birth or shortly after enabling re-entry into the paid labour market as soon as possible. See PregnantthenScrewed’s recent protest about lack of affordable childcare. Although, in many developed countries, looks like women are sensibly taking an anti-natalist approach to motherhood given the economic detriment and vulnerability that it triggers.

But irrationally many women (like me) still do choose to have children and apparently, of women who do have children in the UK, the majority, 8 out 10, (see Frank Young in The Times, 3/11/22) want to spend more time parenting their children, not less.
They don’t want to outsource the care of their children, they want to do it themselves.
Mostly likely because they believe this is in their children’s best interests?

We are told that because of a lack of access to affordable childcare, women are concentrated in unpaid and low paid part-time work but perhaps both things are true, women do not have access to good quality affordable childcare and along with a genuine desire to ensure their children’s needs are properly met, women work unpaid or part-time and absorb a massive economic disadvantage, triggered by motherhood, that continues for the rest of our lives. This situation plays out at the sharp end for single parent women and women in economically abusive co-parenting relationships – whether married/cohabiting or separated.

I don’t think this is ethical or fair.

So. What’s the solution? I often lean in to a wage for housework position but this is problematic in lots of ways.

What's the view of mumsnetter's on all this? And what's the solution?

I really think you need to start from the premise that we all make decisions in life that will impact the shape of that life. And being the primary caregiver of children is one of those decisions. Especially if a woman has more than one or maybe two children, you are looking at a potential 10 year commitment. That is the amount of time many people stay in a career position. And parenthood does require time and flexibility even after the younger years of childhood, though not necessarily a FT person.

I think if you start there, you can begin to see that if you want women to have families and the opportunity to care for them, maternity leaves and free childcare are really not adequate to address it. It's not a tiny blip out of an otherwise steady career progression (and often never would be for less well paying types of jobs anyway.)

@MangyInseam completely agree large scale caring responsibilities largely shouldered by women go well beyond pre-school years. And, in fact, depending on needs of child possibly right up to (and poss beyond) maturation.

In the face of this, how would you tackle the motherhood penalty/ financial disadvantage women face?

I agree with better, cheaper/free universal childcare provision.

The benefits from socialisation and early education would have a simply massive effect on these children and for generations after.

In particular it would benefit those at the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum. We all think we are great mums, but something goes wrong with a lot of kids and huge numbers of them turn up at school unable to sit still, go to the toilet, or dress and feed themselves. This is simple fact - ask any reception teacher.

Yes, some kids benefit from being home with a very good mum. It's just a very sad fact that this isn't the case for many.

Feminism isn't about what's best for you, and your kids. It is not an individualist movement. It is about bringing that to all women, and girls. I really think the earlier you can intervene and teach all children to have respect, manners and value education, we all win.

Sorry that 'you and your kids' sounded aggressive, I didn't mean YOU :)

I was trying to articulate that if 8 out of 10 mums think they are better off with them, we'll, that's not necessarily the point. And the evidence doesn't really bear it out in the results...

Also was thinking about weird statistics. Maybe people answer that they would prefer to have more time with kids because nursery is so damn expensive? It might have skewed their thinking. Could get very different answers if it were cheap or free. They might resent having to send them less!

I think an economic landscape where the expectation wasn't that two incomes should normally be necessary to sustain a household. Possibly different social models around women's careers - many women might well be better off to have children earlier, and then train for a career once they are school aged and work a little later into life perhaps. There are things like mother's pensions and allowances that could help. And changes around spousal support/pension division and such after a divorce.

Some of these would be social, rather than policy, changes.

I've said recently that motherhood has reignited my feminism. I returned to the office workforce in 2019 (in a super-ironic 3 months b4 the homeschooling pandemic - didn't need that work wardrobe!) I'm earning thousands less than I used to and my job title is the same as my first job in 1997.

But it's "my fault". With no family nearby, it was nursery or nothing, I didn't want to do that and the kids are 18 months apart! So I insisted that my husband pay my pension out of his wages and I provided free childcare and supported his career. Very 1950s. (We met at University. )

I have some suggestions:

• state wages for childcaregivers
• child benefit alongside a professional caregivers allowance
• pension contributions alongside child benefit for the main caregiver
• all jobs to be considered part-time, whether worked by 1 person or 2

It really needs society to value caring and nurturing as important, whether that be nursing, teaching, social work, carers or parents. Hedge fund managers were not really important in the pandemic.

The difficulty with massively increasing the state financial support for having more children is that in order to be meaningful to higher earners, it risks distorting behaviour in lower earners to have more kids than they can manage. France did exactly this in the 50s to increase their population - high payout, preferential access to accommodation etc - and it has been argued that this led to increased social deprivation and difficulties for the resulting kids in the 70s and beyond.

I'm a fan of using market forces to change things where possible, with nudges to push them in the right direction. I think it works better - and tends to have fewer unintended negative consequences - than full government intervention.

We currently have a huge skills shortage and under-employment in the UK. Employers can't get staff they need - across all industries and all skills levels.

We've all got used to more flexibile working by necessity during the pandemic. Lots of companies who wouldn't have considered it previously have now experienced having remote workers, and even for roles which can't remote have dealt with higher staff absence due to illness and self-isolation.

These are perfect conditions to encourage a profound change in how we work. For employers to be encouraged to provide flexible working across the board as a way to attract and retain staff.

Wouldn't a better model for early childhood care be for both parents to be able to take more time for their children and both parents to remain part of the workforce? This would certainly remove the motherhood penalty - not only by halving the impact on an individual worker, but by normalising it and - crucially - making it affect men as well as women.

A barrier is that women do feel more committed to doing the right thing for their kids even when it disadvantages them - a combination of social conditioning and evolution (women have already invested more in their offspring through pregnancy and the risk of childbirth). But I think men would do it with the right incentives. The structure of parental leave in Sweden makes it really normal for fathers to be very involved. Here too, I've had colleagues say they would love to go part-time to care for their young kids, but think it wouldn't be accepted for a man.

So my question is: what government nudges would encourage that type of 'flexibility as standard' from employers? You have to get employers over the slight hill of inconvenience and fear, and then it should fly since it will benefit everyone.

this is such an interesting thread

One thing I would say is that we often view spending time raising your children as a bad thing. I was guilty of this myself at the time. to be fair it often felt like one small act of drudgery after another. In hindsight though, it was time well invested. I feel I have a stronger bond with my children than my husband does, and I credit those hours at home.

I do wonder if we could reframe that time, would it make men be more willing to slow their career down to get it?

I mean let's be very honest, if you stop working or go part time, I can't see how it couldn't slow down your career and therefore your earning potential compared to someone who focused solely on work.

I feel it cost me financially, and I also feel it was worth it.

You see, I find this idea that there is a view that spending time raising your children is a bad thing fascinating. I have found this to be true myself but I have listened to other mothers in different circumstances. In their experience, the opposite is true, they feel that the prevalent view is that they are bad for working. I guess it goes to show that, if you excuse the paraphrase, a mother's place is in the wrong.

I think what would really help is if we could support each other. I have, on many an occasion, provided emergency childcare for my friends and was glad to do so. They, in their turn, have understood my circumstances and reassured me that I am not valueless.

I have no solution because I don't think one is possible until there is a full and honest conversation about motherhood and the desire to be with your children.
For me it felt primal. I hadn't expected it and it blew me - and all my plans - away.

I don't think feminism has ever got to grips with it, which is bizarre because motherhood is arguably one of the main reasons we need feminism. This board is about the only place where I see it discussed.

I agree

DH staying at home with 'my' babies would have felt all shades of wrong to me. I don't think I could have tolerated it

@NyanCatForever I don't disagree that good quality affordable universal childcare is essential but at my politest best the classism of your post is objectionable.

"... benefits from socialisation and early education would have a simply massive effect on these children and for generations after.

In particular it would benefit those at the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum."

In my experience turning up at school unable to sit still, go to the toilet, or dress and feed themselves is not a class based issue. That is just laughable. Quick look at stats and around 3-4% of children are recognised by local authorities as children in need. Even if that stat was quadrupled, the vast majority of children have parents/mothers who are good enough.

I'm genuinely worried but how much my views seem to align with the Tories these days, particularly since I consider myself quite socialist as opposed to rabidly individualist. Anyway, by way of critic, this from Cristina Odone.

I'm not sure the solutions she proposes match up to much but at least I do think most women know that their under 5's needs might be best met by having a lot of one to one time with their primary care give aka mum. Presumably, this is why the many families, factoring in the wage gap, decide that women going back into the paid labour market part-time during these years, in full understanding of the economic detriment the woman will experience for the rest of her life, is acceptable. I don't think it is acceptable.

"Neuroscience, too, suggests that the Treasury’s agenda is faulty: the first 1001 days of a child’s life are key; this is when they need to attach to their parent in order for healthy cognitive development. Children whose attachment has been disrupted have poor outcomes – including academic failure, fragile relationships, anti social behaviour. Investing in the early years makes sense; rushing parents back into their job quickly after childbirth does not."

conservativehome.com/2022/10/31/cristina-odone-the-failing-childcare-system-and-how-to-make-it-better-the-time-has-come-to-trust-families-to-look-after-their-own/

@MangyInseam quote "Possibly different social models around women's careers - many women might well be better off to have children earlier, and then train for a career once they are school aged and work a little later into life perhaps."

Stats show that mothers are the most discriminated against group in the labour market (ie. overwhelmingly concentrated in part-time & low paid work) and for women who have their children before age 33, even more so. So unless there is some kind of radical reset, at this time, having children earlier would be very ill-advised. :/

Agree! This is the absolute crux of the whole thing!

I had three under two and even on £££ it would have been extortionate to put them in nursery. With one having SEN and needing taking to appointments etc well into secondary school it’s meant 16 years out of full time work (I was doing lots of volunteering and freelance work when time allowed) now I’m back in a job I’m on the same wage I was in 2006! Pretty soul destroying. Plus, can’t do full time anyway as I’m sandwich generation and have an elderly DM who needs attention too. It will break me one day.

@ZeldaFighter sounds like you lean into wages for housework too. Some people this argument would further institutionalise women in domestic/reproductive labour & undo many of the gains of feminism? And as @JustWaking says, "risks distorting behaviour in lower earners to have more kids than they can manage."

In some ways, the benefits system has attempted to address this in since 2017 by limiting welfare rights to two children. I don't know what affect this policy has had on limiting family size or hate to think what the affect has been on childhood poverty but I do think an honest and frank public conversation about family size would be a good thing. Maybe that's a thread for another day.

@JustWaking "Wouldn't a better model for early childhood care be for both parents to be able to take more time for their children and both parents to remain part of the workforce?"

I suppose this is the nub of the issue. Apparently even in Sweden, men only take 30% of paid parental leave. Women still do the majority of the heavy lifting. I don't know what the pay gap looks like in Sweden but I do know that even with affordable childcare etc, more and more women are choosing not to have children. And there is of course an argument, controversial to some perhaps, babies need their mothers, not fathers during 4th trimester and for sometime beyond?

Make men do their fair share of childrearing including taking time off from paid labour like women do (in partnered heterosexual relationships).

Agreed! As far as I am concerned every mother is a working mother, whether she is in paid work or not! And I certainly make no critic of women who prioritise paid work, frankly, insane not to.

I agree. If it's accepted that women outsourcing childcare, as soon as possible after birth is not the win that feminists thought, or even what most women want, then mainstream feminism does appear to have a motherhood problem. What would your solution to motherhood penalty be?

@Missproportionate sorry to read your post. Had to google sandwich generation. It's completely unfair, exploitative and not right. Apparently, 90% of all unpaid care work is done by women. How can it be that the entire economy thrives on women's unpaid care work, to our detriment and that is exploitation is not only completely socially acceptable but also somehow completely invisible.

If it's accepted that women outsourcing childcare, as soon as possible after birth is not the win that feminists thought, or even what most women want, then mainstream feminism does appear to have a motherhood problem. What would your solution to motherhood penalty be?
Like I said, I don't have a solution because I can't picture what a modern society where this is accepted would even look like. Sorry if that sounds unhelpful - I would like to be more positive.

Thanks for making the thread, OP.

I agree that care is one of the great unresolved issues of feminism.

I think current narratives encouraging women to relentlessly prize ambition and career progression above all else are often just feeding women into the neoliberal capitalist myth of growth and progress, and also fit nicely with our protestant work ethic, the idea we should sacrifice all to win the game.

Having been lucky enough to have both had children and raised them, and also achieved since a modest amount of success in my career, I know which is of more lasting importance to me. Not to dismiss the desire to realise one's skills and ambitions, and have fulfilling work, but I think it's worth questioning the idea that we must always, always be striving for more and better.

A healthier balance might allow women to enoy the years of child raising, while also enjoying work without feeling that one is doomed to fail at one or both, caught in an impossible dilemma.

The fact that one can get govt assistance to pay/employ others to raise one's children, creating effectively a monetary penalty for raising your own children, I find bitterly unfair and absurd.

I should probably have started by saying I wouldn't ever presume to tell another woman how to work out this difficult dilemma. Those are my own personal conclusions I've arrived at. I do have various privileges and various drawbacks, as most probably do, the situation/context will be of course different for every woman (and child).

often lean in to a wage for housework position but this is problematic in lots of ways.

But who would you propose pays for this?

Everyone makes decisions based on what is best for their family, but I really don't see personal family decisions as something tax payers should have to pay for.

I think one of the reasons feminism doesn't talk enough about this is that it's incredibly hard to do so in a way that speaks to all mothers. I'm really interested in this issue but have to admit that, as someone who did shared parental leave, went back to work full-time when my first baby was 6 months and now works nearly full-time and in a very full-on job with a four year old and an 18 month old, I really have to steel myself to engage in a thread where people talk about 'raising their own children', women having a 'primal need' not to do what I do and where the implication is that it's not in my children's best interests to do so. I certainly don't feel I live in a world that lauds and celebrates working mothers. But I know plenty of other women feel equally alienated from the other direction and I have seen awful things said about SAHMs. It is genuinely very hard to talk about this issue and it is in many ways easier not to, but very destructive in the longer-term.

Yes, many of these issues will be emotive. Same goes for many parenting issues, I find - I suppose because they really are some of the most deeply felt decisions we ever make.

Plus any statement we make is unavoidably coloured by our own experiences and feelings, which aren't always easy or settled.