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?

Just wanted to say that this is a great thread. Thanks for starting it, and it is really informative reading everyone's perspectives, ideas and experiences.

This is so true. Most of the SAHMs I know are professionally trained people, who can't manage full time roles, as their OH's travel for work, lack of childcare etc. But decent or just flexible part time roles are hard to find. I had a psychologist and an accountant cleaning for me when I supervised for a contract cleaning company, the hours meant they could work before school drop off and late evenings after the kids were in bed.

My qualifications are in a very much male dominated industry, 8am to 5-30 5/6 days a week was expected, overtime was also expected and time off for sick kids etc would be treated with contempt. I don't work much now, but it's easy to see how difficult, employers (and other employees) can make it for men to share the childcare load.
Although having said that, I know three women who did return to their careers, whilst their male partners stayed at home, two of these women ended up quitting, as they were doing most of the home tasks as well as working and the children weren't thriving.

which is completely STUPID

having spent a fair bit of time over the last couple of years recruiting for professional roles (thanks The Great Resignation), attitude and aptitude are the most important things when looking for staff. to overlook those in favour how much time a person has available is so daft

We stopped looking for qualified candidates and started looking for the right kind of people. hired some women returning from career breaks or making a mid life career change and they were in general great. plus they're less likely to job hop in my experience.

One of the biggest advantages I have had of recent years wasn’t change from feminism, it was from the pandemic. Suddenly, as a SAHM to a child of disabilities, I could rejoin conferences online, join specialist scientific groups online, sit in an online room full of other professionals and I found that I still retained so much experience and knowledge. It has been fantastic. Lots of people with disabilities say the same.

It really made me realise how women, motherhood, marginalised groups really do not have access to work, places and forums of power, unless they can physically get up and attend at any time and any place. This is usually only available to men once you have a family, my Ex has to work late every single night, go off at the last minute, in order to earn good money. He doesn’t even get how that is only possible because his child has a ‘always be there for appointments or back up’ - our value is very low as we are invisible most of the time.

My honest answer to this is better men and solid marriages.

I even hate myself for saying it, but a good life for mothers is absolutely related to the quality of man they are paired with.

The motherhood penalty is much worse when you have a shit man / no man

I’m so glad that this issue has a thread, for me the impact of motherhood is a crucial feminist issue.

I agree. The feminist solution so far appears to be women leaving very children in childcare or with their fathers. Both of these solutions are problematic for varied reasons, such as, bc workplace does not support flexible/part-time working & male socialisation (?), cultural expectation that women will just absorb economic motherhood penalty & poss babies actually do need their mothers for a variety of reasons etc.

A few women have mentioned how motherhood is devalued. And that there is general disrespect and even hatred of mothers. I agree with this too. I would say that the dominant feminist model also appears to disrespect and devalue motherhood too which is extremely unhelpful.

Sorry to have read some of women's stories on here partners who unashamedly exploit their unpaid domestic labour/care work, to their own advantage. And seemingly without gratitude or thanks. Unfortunately, this from what I have seen this is often the norm.

There are all kinds of careers like that though. Part of what makes them higher paying is often that flexibility, or the idea that a person in that position will be expected to do what is required.

I recently changed from a job that is hourly pay to a salary. A lot of the work is the same, but one difference is that I sometimes have to work outside my regular hours, including in a pinch when someone else is sick or there is a special event.

Similarly certain kinds of shiftwork, the military, things like firefighting. Even farming and fishing. The very nature of the work means availability and flexibility and sometimes long hours.

If a couple in a position like that want kids, and the person who is the fisherman or whatever is going to be as available for childcare, it will probably just mean leaving that job. And jobs with fewer expectations will pay less, in general.

Arguably that is part of the reason those jobs are so highly paid.

I have a friend who is a hotshot lawyer, he has a wife and children, she largely is a SAHM though sometimes does PT work.

He said it's the model in most of the big firms, if you have kids you need a spouse at home, or you need a nanny, in which case the spouse's salary may largely go towards paying that if not also a high earner.

Part of the reason people accept the demands of these jobs is because they pay enough to have a good quality of life with a non-working spouse.

One of the biggest advantages I have had of recent years wasn’t change from feminism, it was from the pandemic. Suddenly, as a SAHM to a child of disabilities, I could rejoin conferences online, join specialist scientific groups online, sit in an online room full of other professionals and I found that I still retained so much experience and knowledge. It has been fantastic.
I have found the same. I was able to become a parish councillor because they were meeting online (and had to resign when they went back to face to face meetings). I have been able to attend conferences and talks online. I have done a few short courses held over Zoom which have been fantastic for upskilling. This was only possible because the pandemic encouraged remote meetings. Now I’m being excluded again because stuff is going back offline.

It's funny how people are different. I became a lot less involved because Zoom makes me nauseous. I think it has to do with an eye problem I have.

I guess, in microcosm, it goes to show that there is no one size fits all solution to the motherhood problem.

Listened to this podcast yesterday on childcare etc in ft.

Woman interviewed working 30 hours a week says she wants to work f/t but says it’s not financially viable - I wasn’t sure why that was. Do the economics of childcare change depending on whether you are f/t or p/t. I thought the decision to work p/t was usually child welfare related.

Hope that link below works. Let me know what you think. 🧐 🙂

Money Clinic Podcast: Childcare in crisis
https://on.ft.com/3hqHtOP

Yes, I've had exactly the same experience.

I'm pushing for hybrid events where possible. Both live and online have their good points.

Such an interesting discussion.
I feel there needs to be a shift in how our society views the family. When I was working and my dc were young, I had to act like my family didn't exist. If the dcs were sick, I pretended to be sick so I could take care of them. There was no way I could have asked for a day off (even out of my own leave) to look after a sick child.
It was so looked down on.
I agree with what a pp said about a shift towards marriage (or a change in law) so men are committed emotionally and financially, before children come along.

I work in local government and my employer is excellent - flexible part time hours, home working, and I have kept my professional job and been promoted during the time when I've had two kids. There are a high proportion of female employees and lots of part time workers so it's a culture where it's normal to understand that people have lives outside work. Unfortunately many employers are not like this. I do wonder how quickly it would suddenly be sorted out if all the women just became unavailable for a while and men were left trying to cope.

Maybe they could get family to help for the part time hours but not full time?

But while couples go on saying 'the highest earner must keep their job' nothing will ever change. If women are choosing to enjoy the lifestyle afforded by a high-earning partner in preference to furthering their own career, they are perpetuating this situation and I have little sympathy for them.

But while couples go on saying 'the highest earner must keep their job' nothing will ever change. If women are choosing to enjoy the lifestyle afforded by a high-earning partner in preference to furthering their own career, they are perpetuating this situation and I have little sympathy for them.

There are deeper issues here about men's work, women's work and entrenched sexism in organisations that see women's promotion opportunities stifled and men's encouraged as well.

Yes, I agree; but women choosing to be SAHMs are making it easy for companies to go on doing this, because they're taking themselves out of the equation altogether, not challenging it in any way.

There might be a few reasons. Firstly, progressive taxation may mean she gets less for that fifth day in her pocket. This may mean it effectively costs her to work that final day because the cost of childcare may exceed her net income for that day, such that she is effectively paying to work. This might especially be true during the first 3 years where childcare costs are highest but also your earnings are potentially lower than later in your career. It is also a bigger issue if you have multiple children.

If it would take you over the 50k threshold where you both get an income tax increase plus you lose child benefit (so your marginal rate can be high, depending on number of children could be up to about 70%), this is even more significant.

If a very high earner, it could take you over thresholds were government support for childcare reduces. Between 100k and 125k is another significant area.

I don't know about the interaction with benefits but can well imagine the cost of childcare combining with cost of childcare leading to other cliff edges. I think 16hours is a significant threshold. Probably not her concern in your example, as saying 30h or above.

That FT podcast was really good but no comments were allowed. It obviously generated a lot of letters though as there's a follow up article here:

on.ft.com/3fVukwY

That's a really good article. ^. Thanks.
Interesting to see situation from perspective of higher earners. £2500 a month for full-time fees for under-threes/ £30,000 a year is a lot of money but really for a 10 hour day, 5 days a week works out at £11 an hour. The couple probably pay their cleaner more.

As for your average lower income woman with a potential salary of less than £30k a year, outsourcing childcare is impossible. Not least of all because UC only pays 85% of childcare costs for one child up to around £645 a month! If she could find a nursery, p/t paid work is the only option for a woman in this situation - but given the way that UC treats income from paid work, financially she would be better off.

I agree. The argument for good quality affordable childcare is compelling. Probably particularly for those who are more ethically minded & not comfortable with an entire economy that is built on financially penalising women providing care unpaid. (Or all the other ways, as a consequence of economic vulnerability, that women are exploited). Although, that said, I would still say that many women would rather care for their children themselves in the early years (or combine childcare with paid work) rather than outsource f/t to a formal childcare setting. For that we would have to imagine and create a whole different way of being, one that really valued the care work, connectedness, attachment etc. Maybe as one poster said earlier, that is completely unimaginable.

And thanks@MamaSharkington. The podcast didn't disclose couples income etc. Although they only had one child. My sense was that what the woman was saying was that because she was only just breaking even working f/t, it wasn't worth it. ie. separating her child from her all week to be in f/t work. She wanted to work f/t but only if it was financially worth her time and it wasn't. This interpretation at least does give a nod to the fact that most parent/mothers would not choose to leave their very young children unless there was a significant financial incentive. But of course, the podcast was not clear on this point.

Thanks for all the posters. It's been a really interesting discussion. I was sorry to read the posts from the women with really disgusting exploitative partners but unfortunately to varying degrees this appears to be the norm, if it was not the entire economy would not have built in the exploitation of womens/mothers unpaid labour. Glad PregnantThenScrewed's campaign is gaining some visibility and really hope the campaign gains more momentum!!

When I went back to work full time when DS2 was 3, we briefly had a cleaner and an after school nanny to do the school run and give the kids tea a couple of times a week (actually just an older woman who lived up the road). The cleaner was on more per hour than the nanny.
In fact both turned out to be useless and I ended up sacking both of them! DP went back to doing the cleaning, was persuaded to do the school run ONCE a week (Fridays, when he was generally wfh and there was no wraparound at school) and I agreed to drop a few hours a week with my then boss so I could do a second pick up,

Childcare is essential to working and should be tax free as a minimum.
Cleaning isn’t.

I wouldn't say that cleaning was non-essential. I have no expertise in taxation and cannot get into a discussion about it. Although suspect that increasing personal allowance if a woman/couple have childcare costs would only benefit higher earners.

Yeah, I think that raises a lot of questions around why the mum wanted to work f/t, was it really mainly the potential for money, but I think especially around the question of - if this would represent something that was a kind of sacrifice for the kids involved, how are we supposed to think about that?

More generally, I think it's worth remembering that as a generalization, jobs pay more depending on how difficult it is to get a person with those qualifications, and also how demanding the position is in terms of time, etc.