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?

Now I'm working part-time and my career has stalled, I do wonder if I made the right choices. My children are not very independent - is that my fault? Would nursery have actually been better for them? I assumed that working people would see the value and skills I'd developed whilst a parent - yeah, not so much!

I'm involved in recruitment/interviewing, and I certainly do count years off parenting as useful experience. It's sad when women come in and literally apologise for a 'gap' in their CV - and I mean it when I say it's not a gap, it's years of learning to organise, be a diplomat, teacher, team leader, and I tend to assume that a woman who's spent time looking after her children is a hard worker.

So it may depend on industry and who's interviewing you. Employers who can offer flexible working are also helpful, obviously - that goes for both parental leave and in the years when many women need to fit work around school etc.

As for the independence of your child - so many variables - don't discount the effects of the pandemic/lockdown. Research generally supports the theory that children have a more 'secure' attachment when they openly show upset at their primary caregiver leaving, afaik, so a child that appears to be 'less' independent may actually just have a healthy attachment style.

This was true for me to a large extent. To a smaller extent I wanted to be able to stay with my children and give them the childhood that I didn't have ( my Mum had to work). But I totally hadn't expected the strength of feeling.

For most part time nursery from age 1 works well so children can socialise. Studies have found grandparents less good for development etc Some high flying mum's might want to work more- such mum's might be less likely to also have the skillset for childcare. Sahm can be ok if lots of socialising with others but this would be rare in UK. Nurseries just need to be funded properly or funded via a loan similar to the student loan system as aged 3 free hours kick in so it's only 18 months for each child. But families need to survive those months

Lovely thread BTW. So often this discussion descends into a bunfight on MN.
To just be discussing that's it's fine for women to want to stay with their babies and also fine for women to want to work and how can we facilitate both those needs fairly. It feels like a step forwards in itself.

Sahm can be ok if lots of socialising with others but this would be rare in UK.

Not rare, I'd have thought? The time when mine were pre school age was the most social period of my life.

Same, ByTheGrace. Endless socialising. Daily toddler groups, activities, meet-ups.

I think discussion of the needs for balancing attachment/proximity with caregiver, and socialisation, often become quickly polarised. And are often argued defensively. Because again, it's emotive. Attachment theory is commonly accepted, but it is a theory like any other.

learning.nspcc.org.uk/child-health-development/attachment-early-years

I just want to pick up this point regarding women doctors

It takes a lot of time and money and there is also a limited pool of suitable candidates

it kind of highlights the cleft stick we find ourselves in

there are a limited number of people in the world with the right intelligence and aptitude to be doctors. Some of them (half? Maybe more?) will have the kind of body that means if they choose to reproduce they’re immediately in a medical situation where they’ll need 6 weeks off work to physically recover, plus they’ll probably want longer, particularly if you subscribe to the 4th trimester idea.

do we really want to swerve half of the people capable of being doctors because of the kind of bodies they have? That sounds like a disaster for society

so collective ‘we’ really do need to figure this out. It’s not going away

do we really want to swerve half of the people capable of being doctors because of the kind of bodies they have? That sounds like a disaster for society

Not to mention a disaster for women!

Really interesting and informative Women's Hour on this topic a few weeks ago

www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001ddw9?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile

Taxes are used to pay for health, social security, education, defence, transport etc. The reason that these things are invested in collectively is, I guess, because they are beneficial to us all. We could not expect doctors, nurses, people at the dwp, teachers, soliders, bus drivers etc to work for free. But when it comes to care work it's entirely normative that women will do this work selflessly to their own detriment, unpaid (worth noting that the person who directly benefits economically - in the short and long term - it is the women's partner/the child's other legal parent) and without even a whiff of shame, no-one bats an eye. Blows my mind. Surely, there's a moral case for arguing that as a society we should should be compensating/paying/or something, women for all of the unpaid care work that they are doing?

Blows my mind. Surely, there's a moral case for arguing that as a society we should should be compensating/paying/or something, women for all of the unpaid care work that they are doing?

But why not pay everyone for the care work they do? Why just women? And where do you draw the line? I don't see why a man should have a paid woman to cook and clean for him when many individuals work, cook and clean for themselves.

Yeah. This is where I am coming from on this issue too.

I don't know if you have heard of Marilyn Waring. Feminist economist. Wrote a book in the 80's called, Counting for Nothing about how entire global economy rests on women's unpaid work. A film was made outlining her argument - Who's Counting? Marilyn Waring on Sex, Lies and Global Economics. Worth watching.

https://www.nfb.ca/film/whos_counting/

I think you are on to something. And @Dogtooth says,"Destigmatising part time work and men taking more responsibility for domestic life would level the playing field."

Seems to me from reading this thread that after period of maternity leave, many women, (& dad's too probably) would not want to leave a very young child in childcare for 40/50+ hours a week. Several women seem to be arguing for increase in flexible working or situation where both parents are able to work part-time. Which seems sensible and humane to me but the reality is that part-time workers are paid less than full time workers and are often overlooked for promotion etc. Many families (in my experience), given the pay gap, navigate this situation so that one partner (usually higher earner) will work f/t while the lower earning partner (usually a woman) will return to paid work p/t and combine this unpaid domestic labour. Obv while this will get some women back into some paid work, it certainly does nothing to mitigate motherhood penalty.

Many families (in my experience), given the pay gap, navigate this situation so that one partner (usually higher earner) will work f/t while the lower earning partner (usually a woman) will return to paid work p/t and combine this unpaid domestic labour.

There are so many other issues here including narrowing the gender gap in waged labour so that it isn't overwhelmingly always the woman who is paid less. This will help women more generally too.

ummmm. I was thinking the care work women do unpaid for people who are too unwell or young to look after themselves. Not other unreciprocated domestic servitude.

(worth noting that the person who directly benefits economically - in the short and long term - it is the women's partner/the child's other legal parent) and without even a whiff of shame, no-one bats an eye.

I misread this bit then.

I didn't want to be paid for the care work I did for over 20 years, to be honest. I wanted better accommodations at work and fewer career penalties.

Glad you think so. It is very emotive. Women are made to carry a lot of shame around choices we don't have, choices that we have made etc - we are pitted against each other in pointless ways.

A higher earning woman who can afford good quality childcare is not making the decision to outsource childcare in the same context as a lower earning woman whose (possibly poor quality) childcare, costs as much, if not more than her salary. Obv in this situation, woman in lower socio-economic bracket cannot afford to outsource childcare. There is a class based element to this conversation too.

and I'm not trying to be a smart arse here, but it's very easy to talk about women outsourcing childcare, when in fact it's both parents

and I'm not trying to be a smart arse here, but it's very easy to talk about women outsourcing childcare, when in fact it's both parents

Exactly. And this is what gender criticality is all about.

It isn't even always the lower earning partner that reduces their hours. Can't remember the source but I think the woman's salary has to exceed the man's by some margin before he is more likely to go part time or take some of the parental leave.

Longer overall leaves for each baby with at least 40% or so (ideally 50%) being use-it-or-lose-it paternity leave (with completely single parents, i.e. the other parent is not in the child's life, allowed to take the whole lot so that those babies don't miss out). I think about 1.5 years would be about right, but perhaps a little longer or shorter.

Where I live both parents get 6 months of paid leave, paid by the state and not the employer. One parent may transfer up to 6 weeks of leave to the other parent, but no more than 6 weeks. So it's about 30% use-it-or-lose-it. I think it could do with being extended a little more so that the total length of leave is more than 12 months, up to the point at which they could make it 50/50 with no transfers. Of course with only 12 months the mother almost always takes more than the father, for biological reasons as much as anything, but as it gets longer complete equality is more workable, say 8 months + 8 months. There are lots of benefits to encouraging equality in parental leave. It's good for mothers, fathers and babies in my opinion - the whole family. Win-win-win.

Of course you also need government-subsidised childcare between the end of leave and the start of school. It is such an economic own goal for the UK to make it so that some people can't afford to work because the nursery fees eat practically their entire wage. This should not happen. Not everyone might want to work while their children are very young, but it should not be the case that someone can't afford to. Absurd.

The bottom line is that getting women more economically active will only work optimally if it goes hand in hand with getting men more domestically active.

There is absolutely a class based element to this conversation. I mentioned earlier that my Mum worked for all of my childhood, but she had no choices, financially she couldn't stay home (and different times - ad hoc child care, latchkey kids). Whereas I had more choice, it has still impacted on me negatively, careerwise and financially, but I did have a choice.

And again yes, it is both parents outsourcing. But in reality it is often the mothers salary that is seen as sacrificial and swallowed up by childcare costs. Whereas if it was split between two wages...Although if all money comes from the same pot this just becomes circular argument.

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.

This. And for employers to make it possible for father's to step up to the plate.

Yes to some extend. But as you yourself say, for example:

"there are a limited number of people in the world with the right intelligence and aptitude to be doctors. Some of them (half? Maybe more?) will have the kind of body that means if they choose to reproduce they’re immediately in a medical situation where they’ll need 6 weeks off work to physically recover, plus they’ll probably want longer, particularly if you subscribe to the 4th trimester idea.

do we really want to swerve half of the people capable of being doctors because of the kind of bodies they have? That sounds like a disaster for society

so collective ‘we’ really do need to figure this out. It’s not going away"

Just to be upfront, I do subscribe to 4th trimester and attachment theory. That said, I would never suggest or argue that a woman should put her children before her career/financial independence. In fact, I think children benefit if their mother's are financially independent - in more ways than one.

But if we accept that women have particular kinds of reproductive bodies and because of this babies are dependant on their mother's in particular ways for survival and well-being - then after the period of maternity leave, yes, agreed unpaid childcare becomes an issue for both parents. But fact is, rather than outsourcing, women tend to do this work unpaid for a whole bunch of reasons, some mentioned above.

I guess, the question posed is - if women don't want/don't think its in their child's best interests to be in childcare for 40/50 hours a week, can't find good quality affordable childcare, can't afford for partner work p/t, give up paid work etc. Is it ethical that women bringing up the next generation absorb a huge economic penalty for bring up the next generation? And if not, what should be done about it?