Stay at Home Mothers (RTE Program)

Ayla

Wondering if anyone saw the "Now it's Personal" documentary on RTE 1 tonight regarding stay at home mothers & what your thoughts on it were?

http://www.rte.ie/player/#!v=1120798

I'm fairly raging myself, but wondering what the general thoughts out there are?

Moonbeam

I didn't see it.
Why are you raging?

Ayla

Emer O'Kelly (the reporter at the core of the documentary) asked SAHMs if they felt "humiliated" by not being the income earner, she stated that they were drains on society & wasting their intelligence. She said "we're not living in caves anymore and if [this lifestyle] was widespread we wouldn't be in a very good place."

Orion

She actually asked that? Well let's face it: nobody has ever accused RTE of joining the 21st Century.

Moonbeam

That is hilarious.
If only it was a choice for some and not forced by childcare costs.

I can hear the phones in rte ringing off the hooks with complaints!!

MrTsSnickers

Well (I'm a SAHM), I think as a probing question it's (asked SAHMs if they felt "humiliated" by not being the income earner?) legitimate. She wants a considered response on whether the SAHMs that she's interviewing feel that way. Now I didn't see it but did she ask or suggest "that they were drains on society & wasting their intelligence"?

As for the caves part, that's just dull..if someone's staying at home with the kids, they're one of a few things in a financial position to stay at home (and want to), not in a position to pay child care or like to work. There's no right or wrong to any of those.

Okay from having watched the first 5 mins that lady seems to have made a choice in her life and thinks that it should be the same for everyone. She seems set in her belief and that's fair enough, she's entitled to think that everyone who stays at home with the kids is a looser. She's not right, but shes entitled to her view.

I actually really enjoyed it! She had some good points, the mothers (and father) featured had good points. For nothing else it could inspire people to think about options that they may not think they have. Yep, really enjoyed that show now to be honest.

Vego

Rubbish tv show ...altho the bit with the "baby" alarm was funny showing that she couldnt even cope a few days with a toy doll

Morag

and who is be minding the kids, eps the young teens?
the ones who will be causing havock if they get a chance?

She sounds like an idiot.

Yes I am a sahm and yes I miss being at work but these years are the best investment I can make in my kids.

eviltwin

Does she have the same contempt for stay at home dads I wonder?

Silly woman, I always find it a bit rich when someone like her with no children tries to make out they are an expert on the subject.

I feel a bit sorry for her really. All the women featured seemed to be very happy with their choices. I'm sure she was gutted to find they weren't banging their heads against the wall and going loco.

Sleepy

Didn't see the show but sounds like the usual 'have it all' claptrap.

You can raise your children or you can have a career. If both parents want the latter, they need to pay someone else to do the former.

Daisy M

I have it on record will watch it later, but I will never regret choosing to stay at home with our children, it was the right decision for us and I have no regrets. I do feel that I was one of the lucky ones in that I had a choice as we were able to manage on my husbands wage. Some families dont get to choose either way if they want both parents to work or not often the decision is made for them due to childcare costs or a second income been vital to keeping the family going.
I dont see the point of the "humiliation" question regarding not earning a wage. Who would I be humiliated to? My husband who I have vowed to love and remain married to for the rest of our lives? Who shares every high and low and everything in between in my life? I cant think of anyone else whos business our financial affairs would be so who does the interviewer expect stay at home parents to. Pretty silly question imho. Looking farward to watching it now!!

Morag

She's an old school socailist and thinks that no one should be kept by the labour of another, and that spouses who stay at home with the kids while the other works are spongers and that women who think they can marry and then stay at home a spoilt and that men don't have the option to be stay at home parents.

That women need to stay in the work force to pay back the state the cost of educating them to leaving cert standard and beyond and that anyone can tend to the needs of an infant.

I think her ideals are just that ideals and far from the real work and the practicalities of family life and the cost of child care and availability of child care in this country.

I am disappointed in this programs I have to say, she would of been one of the smart well educated Irish women I looked up to as a role model when young.

bubbaloo

Oh God she annoyed me so much. She said to the baby of the working mother "your mummy is very clever and has a very important job!". Well, I think the sahm of 6 (yes, 6!!) kids is also very clever and has a very important job.
I'm a working mother and I'd like to work part-time to balance home life and work life better but financially we can't afford that at the moment.
She was very closed minded and that enraged me. She was absolutely unwilling to listen to a difference of opinion. She may have heard a few differences but just dismissed them. And all the crap that came from the mouth of someone who has no kids and therefore no grasp on the expense of childcare, the demands of home life with kids and the time you spend running around in Mum's taxi! :mad:

Having said all of that I did kind of agree with the whole "baby alarm" thing - I thought it would have been a pointless excercise and would have done little to bring home the reality of sahm life. Most sahm's have more than one child and they are a bit older than 6 months!

Ayla

What got me about the program is that RTE used a woman who fully acknowledged she is well set in her "principles" (not opinions, but "principles", mind) and had absolutely no intention whatsoever of learning a thing from the people she came into contact with. I agree that she is well entitled to her beliefs & opinions, but the questions she was asking and what she was saying were down right derogatory toward SAHMs.

You can justifiably ask a SAHM "how do you feel about not bringing a wage to the family," but to ask a mother of 6 amazing kids "aren't you humiliated [by living off another's wage]" is wrong. That's not fair, it's not even honest reporting. It's imposing her own views on someone else's life. And then to follow that question with "so you're saying that you're a better mother [than those women who work out of the home]?" when the mother was implying nothing of the sort?! :mad:

Then she goes into a class of teenage girls and basically tells them not to waste their lives & education by "giving it all up" when they become mothers. As if SAHMs become delinquint and ignorant as soon as they leave the workforce? Just b/c someone doesn't earn a wage doesn't mean they don't have a vastly important role in managing finances, reducing household & financial waste, juggling the gazillion responsibilities of a SAHM...

I will grant her the one thing about the electronic baby. I have no idea what the producers were trying with that one, but what it did highlight to me was that she wasn't even going to "play ball" or step out of her comfort zone. She had absolutely no intention of doing or trying anything different.

I think it was painfully obvious throughout the entire episode that she has no respect for the work that a SAHM does and what they do contribute to society. She called them "drains on society" and a waste of an education. She then full out stated that any person could facilitate the practical needs of a child as well as the mother, and that the mother's only staying at home b/c she needs the baby (more than the baby needs her).

I'm still quite fuming about this episode. It shows a massive disrespect for the SAHM and the contribution she makes to her family, community & society. It would have been one thing if Emer O'Kelly has approached this challenge as the reporter she claims to be, when instead it served as a platform for her to spout off her "principles".

Daisy M

I just finished watching it and she was an interesting woman to say the least. I expected to be really annoyed by her but I am not. I think she is quiet a blinkered person who doesnt want to see the other side of the story. Tbh I think her opinions stem from the need to justify how she has chosen to live her own life. Shoving her opinions down other peoples necks and refusing to see another side to the story helps increase her own self worth. I doubt she would like this but when the story finished I felt pity for her rather than anger at her.
As for the class of teenage girls, I was so impresed by them, they were so mature, most refused to make a judgement as they knew it would be impossible to until they were actually in a mothers position. Many could see how difficult it was for their own mothers to balance everything, their parents and teachers should be proud.

CeNedra

I thought the program was very good also and didn't bother me in the least. I think she is entitled to her opinion, regardless of whether she is a parent or not. Nothing I saw in the program changed my opinion so I understand why she didn't change hers. The working mothers sure have a tough time, but then again, so do the stay at home ones. If I could give up work right now, I'm not sure I would, even though I love my children dearly and want to spend as much time with them as possible. Life is all about choices and for the most of us, we do the best we can.

Emer911

I clicked onto this show randomly, and was rather amused by her attitude. I found her outlook and opinions very one sided. To me, she came across as a bit funny, kinda sad, completely ignorant (from a parenting aspect) and blindly unwilling to take any other perspective onboard. Desperately trying to validate her life choices? :rolleyes: Maybe...

Personally, I am a working mum. Initially I had no choice but to work and honestly I was happy with that. After number 2, it got a bit more complicated. Still didn't really have a choice not to work, but started feeling guilty about not spending enough time with the kids, and feeling very jealous of the sahm.
Got made redundant a few years ago and had the most amazing 8 months at home with the kids, even though things were tight at the time.

Eventually got a new job with much more reasonable hours and I think I now have a fairly ideal balance.

I have a hearty respect for all working mom's - it's not easy and it's always a challenge, whatever the ages of the kids.
I also have an honest and open awe for the sahm (and I'm a wee bit jealous too). That's a very tough job, but the rewards must be great, and I'm honestly a bit stupefied that Emer O'Kelly doesn't realise the vital and very real social and economic worth added by any sahm (or dad)!

nesf

I wonder what that reporter would have made of a stay-at-home dad... (not quite one, myself and the wife both work part time and share the homemaking duties, but it looks very likely that she'll be the working side of the relationship given her better qualifications and earning potential)

Orion

SAHD's are just bums

vicwatson

Who the hell is Emer O'Kelly anyways? :rolleyes:

iguana

I didn't see the programme but did anyone point out to the presenter that somebody has to look after the children? In general, a family can either earn two incomes and pay one income to somebody else to look after the children or earn one income but not pay one to somebody else because the child-minding is being done by the family. A parent who does the job of child-minding is saving the family the cost of paying a third party to do it. For people with more than one or two children it is often financially the better option to have one parent remain at home, for a family with six children the odds are the stay at home parent is doing the job with the higher financial reward to the family.

And so what if the stay at home parent gets great emotional benefit from taking care of their children? In an ideal world everyone would love their job and gain satisfaction from it. That's not selfish. My husband is a film editor, he gets a massive buzz when he edits a good scene or a movie he worked on gets good reviews. Is that selfish? I worked for charities for years and I loved feeling like my efforts made positive changes to people's lives. Is that selfish? That woman probably enjoyed being on tv. What's wrong with being happy in your work.

nesf wrote: »

I wonder what that reporter would have made of a stay-at-home dad... (not quite one, myself and the wife both work part time and share the homemaking duties, but it looks very likely that she'll be the working side of the relationship given her better qualifications and earning potential)

Ime, stay and home dads are often seen as wasters, I'm afraid. I know of such a man who when his marriage broke down found it almost impossible to be taken seriously with regard to custody of the children. He wasn't seen by the courts as the children's primary caregiver but as a mooch who couldn't support his family. That wouldn't happen the other way around.

Tayla

Haven't watched the program but I went on to RTE player and had to laugh at the description.....

'Journalist Emer O Kelly goes on a mission to convince 'stay-at-home' mothers to get out of the house and into work'

Eh where are the jobs?

nesf

Tayla wrote: »

Eh where are the jobs?

Australia...

ash23

Seems the government agree with her.....but only where it's a one parent family.

http://breakingnews.ie/ireland/burton-may-reduce-one-parent-entitlement-age-528164.html

Two parent families can still claim things like FIS, tax credits, an adult dependent benefit if one person is on a social welfare payment, but one parent families have to go back to work. Emer O'Kelly will be happy with that small step.
Next all parents of children over 7 will be expected to work unless totally unreliant on state benefits, top ups etc. If not then it's just blatant prejudice after all!

cynder

That's a bit harsh, i think 12 should be the cut off point, due to childcare costs.... trying to get a job where you can drop off and collect your kids drop them at at the childminders is going to be very hard... unless they bring in a siesta!

nesf

ash23 wrote: »

Seems the government agree with her.....but only where it's a one parent family.

http://breakingnews.ie/ireland/burton-may-reduce-one-parent-entitlement-age-528164.html

Two parent families can still claim things like FIS, tax credits, an adult dependent benefit if one person is on a social welfare payment, but one parent families have to go back to work. Emer O'Kelly will be happy with that small step.
Next all parents of children over 7 will be expected to work unless totally unreliant on state benefits, top ups etc. If not then it's just blatant prejudice after all!

Eh, they can still claim Dole + Child Allowance etc. It's not like they're being put on the breadline or anything here. The real problem is the abuse of the One Parent allowance.

texidub

I find it offensive that some people think it's better to prioritise their career over looking after and spending time with another human being who is totally dependent on them. The selfishness and materialism implied in that is unreal (IMO). And that applies to men and women.

ash23

nesf wrote: »

Eh, they can still claim Dole + Child Allowance etc. It's not like they're being put on the breadline or anything here. The real problem is the abuse of the One Parent allowance.

My main issue is that it's single parents who are being targetted, not all parents who stay at home and receive benefits.
Why is a single parent expected to go back to work when their child is 7 but a couple where one is on the dole and claiming for the other, do not have to prove both are seeking work?
Or a couple earning one wage with one parent at home can claim tax credits? Or Family Income Supplement? Those parents aren't expected to return to work once their kids turn 7. But they are still claiming benefits and allowances to enable them to stay at home.

nesf

ash23 wrote: »

My main issue is that it's single parents who are being targetted, not all parents who stay at home and receive benefits.
Why is a single parent expected to go back to work when their child is 7 but a couple where one is on the dole and claiming for the other, do not have to prove both are seeking work?
Or a couple earning one wage with one parent at home can claim tax credits? Or Family Income Supplement? Those parents aren't expected to return to work once their kids turn 7. But they are still claiming benefits and allowances to enable them to stay at home.

Sure, but pragmatically speaking we have an enormous social welfare bill and need to reduce it and this is a way of doing it. FIS will support these women, they can work part time (at least 19 hours per week) and get a rather large top up to a reasonable amount of money to support a family.

The supports are there for these women to re-enter the workforce once their children are in school. Even working 5 hours a day etc will qualify them for FIS and FIS will allow these women to even get minimum wage jobs and still provide a good quality of life for their children.

ash23

nesf wrote: »

Sure, but pragmatically speaking we have an enormous social welfare bill and need to reduce it and this is a way of doing it. FIS will support these women, they can work part time (at least 19 hours per week) and get a rather large top up to a reasonable amount of money to support a family.

The supports are there for these women to re-enter the workforce once their children are in school. Even working 5 hours a day etc will qualify them for FIS.

Women and men.

You've not addressed the fact that a person who is unemployed can claim for an adult dependent who is staying at home with the children. Or the fact that tax credits are given for a person at home with the children.
I think encouraging people back to work and off welfare is great. But it needs to apply across the board. Not just to one section of people who stay at home.
The government is effectively saying it's ok to be a stay at home parent, even if you are on benefits but only if you are in a relationship. It is not ok if you are single.
Children of couples deserve to have a parent at home even if the state pays for that. Children of single parents do not.
Great system.

Das Kitty

texidub wrote: »

I find it offensive that some people think it's better to prioritise their career over looking after and spending time with another human being who is totally dependent on them. The selfishness and materialism implied in that is unreal (IMO). And that applies to men and women.

I go out to work because I want to, not because I have to. It has little to do with materialism, I need to be intellectually challenged to be happy. The year I spent at home really opened my eyes to that. Perhaps that's selfish, but I'd rather be a little selfish and be a contented person than be miserable. I doubt a miserable yet 100% available parent would be better for my son than what he has.

Although I haven't seen the programme I have read a lot about it. I can't abide anyone judging the decisions of other families. These Stay at home Mothers were happy with their lives as were their families, surely this is the ideal for family life, regardless of the structure needed to achieve that?