A fair deal for both Stay at Home Parents and Working Parents

The other day I signed a petition asking for a fair deal for stay at home parents. Without question, the recent changes and proposed changes are all in some way encouraging particularly mothers to work. Well, in theory they do, because there are so many ifs and buts, nevermind the lack of jobs that things look quite different in practice.

I'm very much in favour of women having the choice to stay at home if this is what they believe is best for their child, or to work if that is what they believe is best for their child. But let's be clear - it's often not exactly a choice.

With living costs being extortionately high, it's really only a choice to stay at home if your partner has a higher than average income. And even that may well not be enough. And if your ideal situation is somewhere in between, it's often not possible to get reduced hours to have a better work - parenting balance, and if you're looking for a job, part time jobs are rare as diamonds.

There are a few things that rather bother me in this context, the first being the wording of  the above petition. It suggests that as a family that uses childcare because both parents work, we are getting benefits from the tax system and therefore cost the state money. This is factually wrong. The truth is that because we both work, we pay tax, and the only benefit we can get is a tax free allowance, so we still pay tax. The economic benefit of working parents is definitely in the black. And as for low income families - they may even miss out on any tax free allowance if their income is so low that they don't pay tax. This, incidentally, is a very serious flaw in the system which has a devastating impact on the lowest earning, working, families.

What is correct though is that there is a good point for having transferable tax free allowances. What I mean by this is that if a couple without children both work, they each have a tax free allowance. Once they have a family and one parent decides to stay at home, the tax free allowance of the none working parent is lost. In other countries, this works differently - if there is only one earner in a family, this person will receive an additional tax free allowance per dependant. So say dad works, his own tax free allowance is 10,000, he'll get another 5,000 for his wife and 2,500 for each child. Higher incomes are taxed more progressively to make up for this (for instance, in the UK, higher rate tax is only applied to income over the threshold amount, while in other countries it's applied to all the income). A system like this does make staying at home affordable also for people on lower incomes.

At the same time I do believe that the taxation and benefit system has to ensure that work pays. This has not yet been achieved, although some of the changes within Universal Credits will make this the case for more people than before (and I hasten to add that other parts of the changes to the benefit system will have a horrendous effect on many family and are really nothing short of shameful). Childcare is so expensive that without support, only high earners can actually afford it.

What is however totally unhelpful in this particular debate (which is about fairness and insuring that staying at home to raise children is valued, respected, supported and a financially viable option for parents) is to propose that either staying at home or being a working mum/dad is the RIGHT choice. When we should actually be supporting each other in our choices, this turn of the argument leads to alienation and bad feelings.

Sure enough there are studies that demonstrates that children are better off at home up to the age of 3 and that long nursery hours in particular can have a detrimental impact on a child's emotional development.

But there are also studies that demonstrate that maternal level of education is the biggest indicator of a child's cognitive and emotional development, and that children who have 2 working parents also do better than children whose parent don't work.It is thought that this is due to the link with higher maternal education and also the financial ability to provide stimulating experiences for children.


Children from low income families, on the other hand, tend to fare really rather bad in the education system and measurements of cognitive and emotional development, and of course quite a few low income families will have one or both parents out of work - so in spite of parents staying at home, children lag behind their peers. The reason for children not doing so well in low income families are complex and there isn't space here to look into it in detail, but let's say it's a combination of many factors which parents themselves have very little influence on.

There is also the question of the quality of childcare - and Liz Truss' proposal to have more under 5s per member of staff, who are trained to be compliant and purposeful (the toddlers, not the staff!) will certainly not make for better childcare.

My own mother was a stay at home mum, and I don't think this made me emotionally more stable - in fact I struggled severely with shyness and low self esteem in childhood, so much so that I loathed going to school throughout my primary years (and I didn't exactly love it in secondary but at least I had some friends by then). I can't help but wonder if I could have benefited from more nursery hours than the 3 hours per day that I got from 4 years of age.

So there is no black and white, no ideal situation. Because we can't exactly all be highly educated mums who then abdicate their blossoming careers in favour of being Stay at Home Mums. Some of us aren't highly educated. Some of us can't find a job. Some of us can't find the part time job we want. Some of us are better parents if they're not full time parents. Most working parents will go through incredible lengths to ensure that the time they do spend with their children is the best it can be. Above all we've all looked at the evidence and made our choices. I know how important it is to reconnect with my children when I get back, we practice most of what falls under attachment parenting (though I don't follow it as a philosophy, it's just what happened to be our preferred style), we spend quality time together and I listen to my children all the time. I work on improving my parenting and can draw from all the knowledge that comes with delivering a parenting programme. I have amazing childcare providers, so amazing that both my children look forward to it and miss it in the holidays.

And while I believe that Cubling started childcare too early (which was outwith my control and I do not feel in any way guilty about it), there is no doubt in my mind that I've given both my children the best possible start in life I can, all considered.

So,  I do not believe that I'm a worse parent for working 4 days a week. I also don't buy into the argument that having a fair deal for Stay At Home Mums is encouraging people to be/stay on benefits (because really, who wants to be on those meagre benefits? Exactly, nobody). We all make or are having to make different and difficult choices but all of us are trying to be the best parent to our children whom we love more than ourselves. And those choices should be respected, valued and viable.

Why bother having kids if you don't have time to look after them

There has been some media attention on the fact that in the UK job market, about 1 million women are missing. They are missing because work doesn't pay for them as second earners and they've made the decision of not returning to work after they've had children or leaving their jobs.

This isn't surprising as such. I've thought about it. Childcare is expensive and there's not a lot of support with the cost here in this country. For parents with two children in childcare, the second earner needs to be on an above average income to make work pay.

What really got me though is the invariable response when this topic is brought up. Summarised in one sentence: Why have kids if you then go out to work?

Of course, this phrase is said to the mother. Please contradict me if I'm wrong! Now I'm all for extended and paid maternity leave, I know about the importance of child-mother bonding, breastfeeding and responsive care by the primary care giver, who due to breastfeeding usually is the mother. So while I do believe that our roles are different at the early stages of parenting, determined by biological facts, I don't buy this statement because we do have maternity leave (even if partly unpaid) for a full year.

After that, we're mostly equal.

Until the same question is directed to fathers, something is at odds. Because you know, really, kids would love both parents to just be at home with them and play all day, but that doesn't bring food on the table, warmth in cold winters and electricity to your home.

So for the record, as a mum who'd love to spend more time with her kids at home, as I'm sure their daddy does too, this is why I have kids and still bother going out to work:

1. I have skills that are well used in my job and I'm making a difference. I'm a confident trainer, researcher, thinker, writer, project manager. I'm not a confident parent (though I'm working hard on it, being ambitious and all that). In fact, I actually think my kids benefit from a bit of childcare by people who know what they're doing.

2. I've been told all my life that this was an equal society and that both men and women have equal access to the workplace and will be renumerated equally, regardless of whether they have children or not. I've come to understand that in reality this is not the case, but I believe that what I've been brought up to believe is at least something we should aspire to.

3. I've never believed that my primary role was that of raising kids. In fact, for most of my life, I wasn't sure I actually wanted kids. I made a decision to raise kids but did not make a decision for this to be my end all and be all.

4. It's a bloody hard job juggling kids, home and work. Many days I think I can't do this anymore. But it's also a bloody hard job being a stay at home mum, and to be honest, I prefer the juggling situation. Not by much, but by enough to keep going.

5. Let's talk money. Kids are expensive. You need more money to offer a decent life for them, like a bigger home, a car to take them places, days out, and let's not even mention the doubled cost of a holiday as the little ones pay full price. Oh yeah, and there's clothes, toys, presents for them and above all their friends and the incessant fundraising forms from nursery and school. I think I may have even bought a poppy this year, my principles are crumbling.

6. Let's talk some more money. If I took a career break, this is my financial loss: pension contributions. Income while I'm out of work. And then, as I rejoin the strained job market, a 30-40%% cut of my salary because I'd have to start from the bottom again. This cut is for good, also impacting on my already tiny pension prospects. So even if for a few years, work doesn't pay, in the long run the loss of earnings would be so massive for me, that I'd probably work for nothing

7. The insecurity of the job market: would I be able to find another job?

8. I enjoy my job. Nobody wails, whines, screams, hits and kicks me or spills milk over my clothes at my job for 8 lovely hours. But seriously, I do like my job.

9. And just to say.... I'm not a career woman. I don't strive for a 50k plus income, promotion and managment roles. This is not about my career, just about being a worker. I also think that parents who stay at home do an invaluable and tough job, a job that I'm probably not too well cut out to do. I simply don't want to have to justify why I work when I have children just because I'm not a man.

So in the public view I shouldn't have had kids then in the first place. Let's give the dads a voice now too, shall we? Should daddies have had kids because he's out of the house 9 or more hours on a weekday? Can I invite working dads to justify why they're working instead of spending quality time with their kids?

It's all nothing and that's all

My head is exploding because my mind is going around in endless circles.

I am a mother of two preschoolers. My husband works out of town and the commute is long. I love to spend time with my children. I love work too, because it gives me space and time to create, to plan, to deliver, to think and reflect. I'm a better mother if I work some part of the week. I have patience and enthusiasm for my children every day I spend with them.

In an ideal world, I would like to work 3 full days. Alas, this world isn't ideal. There are many fabulous jobs kicking around this week, and for this week only, jobs that appeal to what I'm passionate about.

All of these jobs are full time, involve unsociable hours and a lot of travel. Informal discussions about flexible working hours or job share have led to nothing. These kind of jobs are for people who can focus their whole attention on the job, who do not have to comply with hours offered by childcare providers (or who have granny living next door? Or a nanny? Not sure. Maybe people without kids?). I want each of these jobs. I really do.

So here it is, the weighing scales that is my brain. Redundancy, unemployment, downshifting stay at home mum with some fabulous business plan ideas that may or may not be viable on the one hand. Full time working mum under constant stress in very fullfilling job with a cleaner at home and kids in full time childcare on the other hand.

It's not a choice I ever dreamt of having to make. It's not one I like. Above all, it's difficult to ensure the choice is not led by fear of unscertainty, but by what I truly want my life to look like. And to be honest, neither option appeals too much for all the weighing up I do.

So this is what women's lib and equal opportunities looks like. Opportunities are equal as long as you deliver the same long working week, unsociable hours in the same high pressured job as your childless colleague. I'm 40, and I'm not sure if I've got the energy for this, as highly motivated, enthusiastic, and determined I may be. Seems it's between all or nothing, just that it's not quite clear what "all" and "nothing" are in this equation. Or is it all nothing and that's all?