Stay at Home Mothers (RTE Program)

The Corinthian

ash23 wrote: »

And as I already answered, I don't believe it should be a right. But I dislike my child not being afforded that right when it's offered to the parents of married children.
It is an indulgence and I wouldn't be posting if it also applied to married or co-habiting couples. But it doesn't. So that isn't right. And that is my issue.

I completely agree with you, but your point seems to get lost somewhat in translation as you sometimes appear to be defending said indulgence.

Glinda wrote: »

I might get completely flamed for this, but I don't think it's a good example for my kids, and most especially for my daughter, to see me living off someone else's hard work when there isn't really a job to be done at home any more, or certainly not a full-time one.

I think you just pointed to the elephant in the middle of the room...

Daisy M

Glinda wrote: »

I have been both a full time SAHM (when kids were small - great fun and really hard work!) and a working mum (since my youngest was four, before that I worked part time for a few years).

I might get completely flamed for this, but I don't think it's a good example for my kids, and most especially for my daughter, to see me living off someone else's hard work when there isn't really a job to be done at home any more, or certainly not a full-time one.

It's hard to distinguish between thinking it's acceptable to live on welfare and thinking it's acceptable to live on someone elses wages from a philosophical standpoint - both involve adopting the position that it's acceptable in life not to provide for yourself (or your loved ones).

Before I get eaten, it's completely different with babies (who need someone full-time to care for them) or if you can't get a job etc.

(puts on crash helmet)

I do understand your point Glenda and I respect your point of view. BUT not all families circumstances are the same. Fir instance you may have a stay at home mum whos children are all in school but her husband works crazy hours maybe has a farm too and is very limited in how much he can help out. It would be easy to say he could cut back on his working hours but if the wife does not have the same earning power it wouldnt make sense. I have been so lucky to find a part time job I love where they will work my hours around my family life but there are very few jobs out there at the moment and even less that will be so accomodating. Kids still need to be dropped to collected from school and brought to afterschool activities, they have so much time off between sick days, hols, school planning days and snow days. You would need excellent back up and someone earning minimun wages would probably not be able to afford this.
It would also depend on how many children a couple have you cant compare the workload of a mum of 2 to a mum of 4.

Daisy M

Squiggler wrote: »

Actually, according to the papers a few weeks ago a third of households are financially supported by the woman, not the man, of the house. I'm in that situation, as are two friends of mine.

We get no financial assistance and I had to go back to work 6 months after giving birth to a stillborn baby (the baby died during labour) because there were no other feasible options.

.

I am so sorry for what has happened to you. Wishing you and your husband all the best and a very happy life together.

The Corinthian

Daisy M wrote: »

Fir instance you may have a stay at home mum whos children are all in school but her husband works crazy hours maybe has a farm too and is very limited in how much he can help out. It would be easy to say he could cut back on his working hours but if the wife does not have the same earning power it wouldnt make sense.

I'm sorry, but I don't accept that.

To begin with, (childless) housework - homemaking - is not a full-time job.

Then comes the work that child care brings in. Certainly, there is no denying that it is a full-time, if not more than full-time role when children are young.

But by the time they start going to school, this load begins to decrease rapidly, and even part-time work is viable for a single parent. By the time they're teenagers, there's actually not a Hell of a lot of 'childcare' left.

I have been so lucky to find a part time job I love where they will work my hours around my family life but there are very few jobs out there at the moment and even less that will be so accomodating.

That's nice for you, but what about men who hate their jobs but ultimately can't pack it in because they're carrying the whole load? I've lost count of how many guys have cried into their drinks to me about that.

Daisy M

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm sorry, but I don't accept that.

To begin with, (childless) housework - homemaking - is not a full-time job.


But by the time they start going to school, this load begins to decreaserapidly, and even part-time work is viable for a single parent. By the time they're teenagers, there's actually not a Hell of a lot of 'childcare' left.
.

I am curious to know if you have children, genuinely curious not been picky! By the time kids are teens there is not a lot of childcare necessary but its a whole new ball game and there are as many demands on parents only different. I enjoyed returning to work and I am lucky I obtained a job I like, but with thoughts of my children heading to college in the next 5 years it was nececessary for me to get a job in order to plan for this. If I hadnt liked my job I would have had to suck it up and hope I would eventually find something I liked.

I have to say though I really dont judge what happens in other families, if both parents choose to work full/part time or one chooses to stay at home, Iand they are not been funded by the state then it is really none of my business. Sometimes people are too quick to judge. I had a different part time job earlier this year which led me to have contact with households. The amount of people who have long term illness and dont disclose this to other people is astonishing. We dont know what is going on in other peoples lives or all the dynamics of their families and a lot of time appearences are deceptive. I have a long term illness that for years prevented me working and limits the amount of hours I can work. I have never claimed disability as I felt I had chosen to be at home to mind my kids and as I wasnt looking for work it would be dishonest. Few people know of my illness, they dont need to. I had years of questioning when my youngest started playschool about when I would return to work. I was in pain 24 hrs a day but it wasnt visable to other people, but trust me those questions really didnt help my mind set and its so unfair that some people feel free to judge and question others when what they choose to do or not to do has any effect on them! Rant over!!!

ash23

Daisy M wrote: »

I do understand your point Glenda and I respect your point of view. BUT not all families circumstances are the same. Fir instance you may have a stay at home mum whos children are all in school but her husband works crazy hours maybe has a farm too and is very limited in how much he can help out. It would be easy to say he could cut back on his working hours but if the wife does not have the same earning power it wouldnt make sense. I have been so lucky to find a part time job I love where they will work my hours around my family life but there are very few jobs out there at the moment and even less that will be so accomodating. Kids still need to be dropped to collected from school and brought to afterschool activities, they have so much time off between sick days, hols, school planning days and snow days. You would need excellent back up and someone earning minimun wages would probably not be able to afford this.
It would also depend on how many children a couple have you cant compare the workload of a mum of 2 to a mum of 4.

You say all this and yet can't understand why a single parent needs state assistance.......I find it ironic.

ash23

The Corinthian wrote: »

I completely agree with you, but your point seems to get lost somewhat in translation as you sometimes appear to be defending said indulgence.

No I was mainly pointing out the difficulties that face single parents who work that don't have the same impact on couples. Because those issues aren't being addressed or remedied and so, will remain. Other issues were discussed, as is the natue of a conversation. I made my points clear in my earlier posts.

I've stated a few times that I don't disagree with the actual idea of encouraging mothers back into the workplace. However it should be done with support and opportunity and on an equal basis, single, married or co-habiting.

The Corinthian

Daisy M wrote: »

I have to say though I really dont judge what happens in other families, if both parents choose to work full/part time or one chooses to stay at home, Iand they are not been funded by the state then it is really none of my business.

If they can afford such a lifestyle choice - and let's be clear, once a child is over a certain age it does become a lifestyle choice - then that's their business. What is being discussed here is those who see this as a 'right' that should be funded by others.

ash23 wrote: »

No I was mainly pointing out the difficulties that face single parents who work that don't have the same impact on couples. Because those issues aren't being addressed or remedied and so, will remain. Other issues were discussed, as is the natue of a conversation. I made my points clear in my earlier posts.

I've stated a few times that I don't disagree with the actual idea of encouraging mothers back into the workplace. However it should be done with support and opportunity and on an equal basis, single, married or co-habiting.

I agree with you, especially as to the present system that makes little effort to tackle child care, the cost of which is a very real disincentive to find employment for parents, be they single or not. As I said earlier, what is required is both a carrot and stick approach, and that all is presently being suggesting is the latter is typical of the short sightedness that characterizes public policy in Ireland.

Still, I'm not sure if you were that clear in what you were saying earlier; at least, not to me. No biggie.

ash23

The Corinthian wrote: »

Still, I'm not sure if you were that clear in what you were saying earlier; at least, not to me. No biggie.

ash23 wrote: »

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!

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.

ash23 wrote: »

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.

ash23 wrote: »

I did it so I know it's possible. But it's making single parents suffer more than married or co-habiting couples which isn't fair but is popular with the public I guess.

ash23 wrote: »

No I don't think benefits should ever be the same as what you get working. Why bother working? BUT my issue is that there are being restrictions put in place for single parents of children aged 7 and up which are not applying to married or co-habiting couples.

ash23 wrote: »

I think if someone can afford to stay at home, completely unreliant on benefits then that's fine. However if a single parent cannot rely on state benefits to be a stay at home parent, then a married person should also be unable to rely on state benefits to be a stay at home parent.

Hmmmmm....I don't think I could have been clearer to be honest.

Glinda

I think Ash has a point.

State support should not be available to anyone (married or single or cohabiting or whatever) who has made a deliberate choice not to support themselves.

Tbh the idea of any woman (or man) sitting around at home assuming they have some entitlement to behave as a dependent while their partner feels all the pressure of unemployment, disgusts me. It is completely immoral :mad:.

It's different if someone is looking for work and can't find it, or if they are caring for a young child (definition of young to be debated!), or if their work doesn't pay well enough to cover childcare (they should be helped with childcare costs and supported in finding better work, whether that means further education, or just financial support while they gain experience and move up the food-chain).

In terms of judging circumstances in others' lives, being afraid to do this and assuming always that there is some kind of special reason for whatever is going on has resulted in years of complacency about all kinds of wrongdoing in this country.

Of course you don't know what's going on in someone else's family (and unless you are paying for it, or there is actual harm then it's none of your business), but you can still arrive at a considered position about what kind of behaviour is acceptable in general, or make a judgement about principles that should apply to everyone.

Daisy M

ash23 wrote: »

You say all this and yet can't understand why a single parent needs state assistance.......I find it ironic.

Please point out to me where I ever said that single parents dont need assistance, thats a really unfair statement to make when my views are so different. I (unlike you) believe that all families should get assistance should they need it. I wouldnt dream of discriminating against any sector of society or think my needs are more important than theirs. I like having a debate and seeing other peoples points of views and getting a little more perspective on a certain situation, but when someone comes along like you did and makes false statements its fustrating to say the least.

ash23

Daisy M wrote: »

I certainly never recieved any welfare payments during my 11 years at home. Single parents are entitled to a higher tax credit and its astounding that you would believe that the circa 750e tax credit paid to the spouses of a home carer should not exist. The system needs to be fairer to everyone not just the segment that you happen to occupy.

Apologies if I took you up wrong. You were saying you never got assistaance to stay at home and the system needed to be fairer to everyone, not just the segment that I happen to occupy (single parent).
So does that mean you think everyone should get state assistance to stay at home or not or what?
I took it to mean that you didn't agree with me saying about single parents benefits being stopped when the child reached 7, because you never got benefits when you were at home.