Mothers at home matter

Just catching up on this thread - some very interesting points made. I’ve seen a lot of stuff recently about this organisation in the media (Mothers At Home Matter) - what a fantastic voice for mums/parents wanting choice. If only more mums knew about it, they’d hopefully feel more supported.
They’ve got a conference coming up tomorrow apparently - might be worth looking into —> www.mothersathomematter.com/events/conference22

My son has been a house husband for the last two years since their daughter was born. He loves it.

My son has been a house husband for the past 2 years since they had a baby. He works part-time. He loves it

Thank you Chardy

Norah There was no formal childcare, no family childcare near or available. No part time or flexible hours in my husband's main job.

This was me in the late 1970s. DH had a job that took him away frequently, with little notice and for indefinite periods of time, especially in the summer months. He was frequently in some of the less salubrious parts of the world - and of course no mobile phones or internet. My life was akin to being a single mother. But I managed and worked part-time.

M0nica

Norah I had no advantages. I worked and managed without any formal childcare at all.

Nor did we have any of the advantages I listed. I suspect, today, many of the things I see as advantages are readily available to many.

Our location was and is not near anything.

There was no formal childcare, no family childcare near or available.

No part time or flexible hours in my husband's main job.

Now hours are self directed and we don't need childcare.

Like much in life, wait awhile and it all works out.

Norah I had no advantages. I worked and managed without any formal childcare at all.

Norah

Luckygirl3 It is a matter of choice, but both choices need to be supported. At the moment help is available to buy child care, but no help is available to offset loss of earnings/pension rights. That does not make logical sense.

Staying home with children is a matter of choice, end of. However, I don't understand why anyone making that choice could expect an offset for loss of earnings/pension? That's part of the choice. Or was for us.

Exactly my point.

MissAdventure

The option to stay home is almost eradicated, apart from, I'd imagine, if a partner earned enough to keep you.

Too true MissA.

M0nica In many households these days, jobs are more flexible and childcare does not necessarily mean paid care. There are many other ways of covering the need, from part time working, to flexible working, to family care and indeed so it has ever been.

Clearly "these days", location near work and childcare, availability of any family care, and part time or flexible hours in worker's jobs - matter.

Not everyone has the advantages you list. We didn't.

Luckygirl3 It is a matter of choice, but both choices need to be supported. At the moment help is available to buy child care, but no help is available to offset loss of earnings/pension rights. That does not make logical sense.

Staying home with children is a matter of choice, end of. However, I don't understand why anyone making that choice could expect an offset for loss of earnings/pension? That's part of the choice. Or was for us.

My mother never worked after she got married - she firmly believed that it was the man's place to be the wage earner and the woman's place to be the home maker. She still didn't entirely approve of me going back to work after I had my children. Even though this was in the early 90s, I still remember one of my (very male chauvinist pig) colleagues expressing his astonishment that I planned to return to work too. He firmly believed that the only place for a woman was barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen! No irony whatsoever. I couldn't believe his attitude.

The option to stay home is almost eradicated, apart from, I'd imagine, if a partner earned enough to keep you.

ETA to my post above - I am talking about the logic that was mentioned in your earlier post, from the perspective of the state (and its contributors) which needs a workforce - not necessarily from the perspective of those who want to SAH but are not able to afford to do so.

I agree with your last post, Luckygirl, but it is saying something very different from your previous ones. .... I don't think so!!

Ok, maybe I am misreading, in which case I am sorry. to clarify - what do you think is logical about the state paying for people to stay at home when we need workers? What is logical about making those who work both at home and at work, and who pay tax and NI, which SAHPs don't, and then hit them with a double whammy of not getting the 'wages' given to those who are not paying in? Wouldn't it be more logical for them to decide not to keep working but live off the state instead, thus increasing the shortage of workers?

I agree with your last post, Luckygirl, but it is saying something very different from your previous ones. .... I don't think so!!

My SIL has virtually never worked - she had one child and then stayed home for good. And she also believed that children should not be educated above their parents' standard as it causes problems in the family - it used to make me cross and her own DD did not have any sort of higher or college education. Sadly she is infertile so an interesting career would have been a big asset to her. And my brother was not at all well and I used to seethe quietly to myself as he struggled and his wife stayed at home - and played golf a lot!

There does semm to be an assumption that if a mother works the children are in professional childcare.

In many households these days, jobs are more flexible and childcare does not necessarily mean paid care. There are many other ways of covering the need, from part time working, to flexible working, to family care and indeed so it has ever been.

Both DH and I, and now DS and DDiL have been able to manage to amalgamate work and childcare with a minimum of outside care. A solution I fully understand is not available to everyone.

But my feeling from many of the SAHMs, who assume and do not hide successfully, their sense of moral superiority (not all of them, but most of them) is they all assume working mothers drop their children off at the nursery at 7.00am and do not collect them until 7.00pm, which of course is, to put it mildly, inaccurate.

I was just about to point out that for every single mum, there is a father, presumably family on his side...

We take it for granted now that parents want their children to have more life chances than they had. One would imagine that parents who had been through WWII would want to see their children get on and have improved job prospects.

However this was not necessarily the attitude back in the 1950s and 1960s. To want something different from what your forebears had was seen as disrespectful and snobbish. My father actually said "Whats the good of educating a girl? Your only going to get married and have babies."Im sure there were girls in middle class homes who met this attitude as well to their detriment. They were sent to secretarial college while their brothers went off to university. My father was incredibly hostile because I had to open a bank account for my salary when I went into librarianship. Only "posh" people had bank accounts and cheque books.

Well done Shandy3. You should feel proud. It's amazing how many fathers seem to feel paying for their own children is optional. Just as well we kept working.

Doodledog

I agree with your last post, Luckygirl, but it is saying something very different from your previous ones.

The logic behind providing (or helping with) childcare from the public purse is that it benefits the public purse to do so. Whether the individual mothers benefit in the short-term is debatable, I agree.

Paying parents to stay at home would be very unfair though, for all the reasons I've mentioned, but which boil down to the fact that (most) working parents also do the things that (most) SAH ones would be being paid for, so they would be being penalised for going to work.

Maybe working parents could be paid double! They could have help with childcare and be paid for doing a double shift when doing the housework and looking after the children as well.

(PS. I'm not entirely serious.)

If I hadn't kept working my children would not have eaten, let alone have a roof over their heads! My husband decided he didn't want to remain married, it appears he didn't want to pay for his children either! Despite several attempts to get him to pay, legal system exhausted, he never paid much as he kept moving house, job etc so nobody could find him!
It was tough, but looking back I feel proud that I did it all single handed.

I started married life in a small terrace but no by the time I had children I had a 4 bedroom house. I also massively benefitted from selling my tiny house for 3 times what I paid for it, a situation not available today.

I agree with your last post, Luckygirl, but it is saying something very different from your previous ones.

The logic behind providing (or helping with) childcare from the public purse is that it benefits the public purse to do so. Whether the individual mothers benefit in the short-term is debatable, I agree.

Paying parents to stay at home would be very unfair though, for all the reasons I've mentioned, but which boil down to the fact that (most) working parents also do the things that (most) SAH ones would be being paid for, so they would be being penalised for going to work.

My hairdresser who works from home, told me this week that her D who has a 2 year old now needs to go to work full time as their mortgage cost has gone up to £1400 a month.
None of my business I know but do young people really need large 4 bed houses with conservatory etc.
We, as I am sure many many of you did, started married life in rented then after 3 years of saving managed a 3 bed semi and I was able to be SAHM which I loved.
However I am told constantly “ times are different “.