If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Full-time Parenting
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
Kind of following on from the Jobseekers' thread, and Patricia "retard" Hewitt's comments about "stay-at-home mothers being a leech on the economy", here's another question:
Should stopping at home to look after your children be classed as a full-time job?
The benefits of giving full-time parents the status of having a job, rather than as some sort of "scrounging benefit cheat" would be fantastic- there would be some incentive to stay at home and look after children, rather than going off to work just to pay the bills, and this could only have benefits for society as a whole. It's generaly true that children who have had one parent at home whilst they were growing up are more well-adjusted, being a "latch-key kid" is felt in many circles to breed anti-social behaviour, through not having a stable home life with lots of parental contact and through being spoilt by guilty parents.
As far as I am aware being a full-time parent is considered a vocation in France, not a scourge on society, and this is how it should be. In the United States "benefit mothers" are forced to work for 12 hours a day in McJobs, so it's no wonder that American kids go off and kill each other with guns- that was a major point in Bowling for Columbine, after all. It's sadly becoming the same over here, with people always tarring single mothers with the tag of being lazy good-for-nothings who just scrounge off society. Some inevitably are like this, but most are not- but hell, I'd be smoking 40 B&H a day (and the rest) if I had to juggle looking after a toddler with working in a McJob for 10 hours a day.
It's a shame being a parent is not seen as the valuable and important vocation it should be.
Should stopping at home to look after your children be classed as a full-time job?
The benefits of giving full-time parents the status of having a job, rather than as some sort of "scrounging benefit cheat" would be fantastic- there would be some incentive to stay at home and look after children, rather than going off to work just to pay the bills, and this could only have benefits for society as a whole. It's generaly true that children who have had one parent at home whilst they were growing up are more well-adjusted, being a "latch-key kid" is felt in many circles to breed anti-social behaviour, through not having a stable home life with lots of parental contact and through being spoilt by guilty parents.
As far as I am aware being a full-time parent is considered a vocation in France, not a scourge on society, and this is how it should be. In the United States "benefit mothers" are forced to work for 12 hours a day in McJobs, so it's no wonder that American kids go off and kill each other with guns- that was a major point in Bowling for Columbine, after all. It's sadly becoming the same over here, with people always tarring single mothers with the tag of being lazy good-for-nothings who just scrounge off society. Some inevitably are like this, but most are not- but hell, I'd be smoking 40 B&H a day (and the rest) if I had to juggle looking after a toddler with working in a McJob for 10 hours a day.
It's a shame being a parent is not seen as the valuable and important vocation it should be.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
Now here is a person in a job which is in short supply unable to work (and thus contribute in tax) , absolute madness. Unfortunately this is a story I have heard time and time again not a one off.
Another friend of mine who was sending his children to a private nursery had to put in so much overtime to afford it, it caused a strain in his marriage and almost caused a divorce. We work some of the longest hours in Europe is it any wonder we have the family and youth problems that we do.
It might be cheaper if there were free creches or something
if my mum could have done, she would have stayed at home and brought me up, and taught me to swim at 4/5ish so i wouldn't have had to endure the tornts, and names when i had to sit on the side of the pool as the other had fun, because they could all swim and i couldn't, the same with the bike rideing. yes, i did miss out big time and when/if i ever have kids, i would like to be able to stay at home, though knowing me i most probably wouldn't because of loveing my job (i made a pact to my mother, that i would never end up doing a job i didn't enjoy, after her stress-cause illness), though i would like someone to be at home with the kid/s, because i wouldn't want them to go though what i went though. in this situation, i think it was manily because of my father forcing my mother to go out to work that stopped her, but also the fact that she got no suport from anyone- including my father.
but to say being a full time mother staying at home is not a job ...and is in fact a scrounger ...is fucking outragous!
But saying that I'm all for day nurseries, kinda like the ones we had back home. When I was growing up the kids went to playgroup for the morning whilst the parents got some time to themselves. And is social integration not good for children too?
As for parents staying at home, maybe they could rotate jobs? One could work during the day and the other in the evenings (say... barwork maybe?) until the kid could go to school.
The stigma on single mothers is what really pisses me off. For example the New Right, who accuse single parents of bringing up delinquents. Does that mean I'm a delinquent too? (Ok... I used to be on a minor scale but I know lots of kids from single parent families who ain't).
Why should my wife, who has a part-time job but is a full-time Mum, be made to feel like a scrounger because she chooses to take on parental responsibility?
Thank goodness someone sees my point!
Absolutely, and those spaces are out there. Maybe not enough, but there is free care for nursery places, both of my children have benefitted from it.
My personal opinion is that we should be encouraging one parent to stay at home to raise their children until they reach nursery age, then provide free care.
Friends of mine who are parents in London and Bristol told me it was near impossible to find in those areas unless in extreme circumstances. I do know quite a few people who were forced to make unofficial, cash in hand arrangements with unregistered child-minders, especially single parents.
We're lucky because we live in an ex-mining village and so still get support from the Govt and ex-mining charities which help our nursery fund places. I appreciate that.
I can only echo the feelings locally that this is a very vaulable set-up.
The idea that people who choose to stay at home with their children are scroungers probably doesn't apply to the majority of people but I am sure that everyone knows someone who at the age of 16 chose to get pregnant so that she could get a council house and lots of benefits. It is these people that are the scroungers. Unfortunately this has led to many parents who choose to stay at home and look after their kids being tarred with the same brush.
I don't know what the solution to the problem is. I agree that there should be a system in place whereby parents are able to return to work but these things will always be exploited. Maybe we should sterilise all those out there who can't afford children!! (Joke)
As a small child I lived in a very rural area, my dad farmed a smallholding and fished and did the odd electrical rewiring job. My mum stayed on the farm and taught me to read, write, tell the time etc. She occasionally did peples hair in their homes. Then when I was 8 she went to University and I was a typical latch-key kid. I knew how to make tea at 7 and feed myself if I needed to. When I was 12 my parents were both working and our standard of living went up hugely. I wasn't unhappy - I didn't feel neglected.
But I am thankful that my parents were there for me as a small child. This, though, was only because of the lifestyle they were able to choose. Had we lived in a City it would have been different.