Wednesday, February 28, 2007

The hand that rocks the cradle....

If you read this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6402933.stm

you'll learn that women with young children face more discrimination in the workplace than disabled people or those from ethnic minorities.

When I read this, I had expected to learn that jobs were simply not tailored to suit mothers with young children, deterring them from applying for posts in the first place (indirect discrimination). I thought I'd read, for example, that employers were reluctant to employ part-timers, or to reduce the need for overnight travel in jobs, but, no. Recent research cites a survey of 122 recruitment agencies that revealed more than 70% of them had been asked by clients to avoid hiring pregnant women or those of childbearing age. So we're talking 'direct discrimation' against women - they are being sifted out of the workplace purely on the basis of their gender. That alarmed me.

Lots of my friends work (some have children, others don't). Many of them offer an unsurpassable service to society - as teachers, doctors, nurses.... (I know lots of teachers, doctors and nurses, for some reason...)

I, on the other hand, am a 'stay at home mum'. I am a SAHM simply because that is what I wanted to be when I had children and we are darn lucky enough to be able to survive (just) on one income. Sometimes I wish that I worked part time - I sometimes think that I'd have more energy for the children if I had a little 'time off' at work (!!!), and I'd like to add to the coffers. Furthermore, though, there are times when I feel that my role is undervalued. I feel undervalued by the apparent lack of recognition of how difficult it is to find child-care that equals or beats the care I can give my children, as their mother. And also by the number of times people expect that I might be able to volunteer to do things (like clean the church) because "I don't work".

In the light of the article above, news commentators have been saying that highly educated and competent women are being denied the opportunity to contribute to society by workplace discrimination. That statement is true, but don't under-estimate the contribution to society some of us are making by devoting our energies to bringing up children.

And, even more importantly, could we be given real choice, please. It is seen as a privilege now to be able to stay at home with children if that's where your vocation lies. Not everyone can marry Rockerfella, and I'd like to see something done so that all mothers have the option to be the sole-carer for their offspring if that's what they want.

14 comments:

Louise said...

I couldn't agee with you more.

Anonymous said...

I kind of started my views on this one in an email a bit ago. The one that got me was the insistence that single mothers should no longer be allowed to stay out of the workplace for 16 years while bringing up their families - the implication being that bringing up a family develops no useful skills whatsoever...

Which is just ... rubbish ... - that's a polite word.

Sarah said...

How about "all parents can stay at home with their children if they wish"?

There are a lot of part time mums where I work and nearly all of them talk about coming into work for a rest!

I know it complicates things (and costs money) for small businesses to have women on maternity leave and I am sympathetic. But... this sort of thing makes me extremely angry and I can't even manage to be articulate about it...

Ruth said...

Hi Sarah ... I'd be really interested to hear more about what you think. You see, when it comes to this issue, I don't think I'm angry enough...

Sarah said...

There seems to be an attitude that having a baby is entirely a personal lifestyle choice. In line with this thinking, if you choose to have a baby, you should stay at home to look after it. Or at least, work it out for yourself and stop making things more compliated for everyone else.

However, there are problems with this. Firstly, biological imperative - we have to reproduce to keep the species going. I don't think people just think "ooh, I fancy a baby" - I think it's written into our make-up to want children to keep the species going. For a lot of women who want children, it borders on a need rather than a want. Similarly, my uncle had a baby recently and my mum said it was nice to have a baby in the family again - I think she felt like it was time for the next generation. I'm 27, so the idea that there's some sort of biological imperative to have children would support my mum's feelings.

Secondly, children are a part of society and not just an individual possession. I know this sense has been lost, but some people having children benefits us all.

Thirdly, there isn;t an element of choice. If my partner and I decide to have children, I will be the one getting pregnant. We have no choice. The right to work and financial independence have done so much for women's rights and some people seem to want to take that away. It does seem to be men who get most upset by the 'inconvenience' to business of working mothers when they don't have to make that choice. It really really annoys me that we can't decide whose career to interrupt to have a family.

This is further complicated by the assumption that it is the woman who will work part-time or give up work to care for children (partly because she's already interrupting her career to give birth. And women tend to get paid less and have lower-status jobs, so again, it makes sense.

And finally, all women get penalised. Whether I plan to have children or not, I'm treated as a risk - in my late twenties/early thirties, so less employable.

I may not have been as coherent as I would like so am more than happy to expland on any points.

Also, I realise that I've gone off at a tangent from your original point about women's right to be a full-time parent to rant about all sorts of things - sorry...

Ruth said...

Sarah - thanks for that. I agree with everything you say. If I were to add anything to this it would be that I have been surprised, in the past when I was 'working', to hear women who returned after having a baby saying that they couldn't wait to get back to work for the mental stimulation. They were bored at home. Now, I have days and times when I'm bored at home too, but I have to say that there were huge aspects of 'working life' that drove me bananas - endless pointless meetings, tail chasing, form-filling beaurocracy, petty squabbles ... etc. (And I had a reasonably responsible, managerial job). I can honestly say that, on balance, I think that the role of mother to two children is more worthwhile, satisfying and rewarding that the job of 'Training Manager for the Science Museum in London, Railway Museum in York, and Museum of Film, Photography and TV in Bradford' (which is what I was before (and it's a darn sight easier to say as well))!!! Doesn't pay as well though...:-(

Despite the fact that I earned more than my hb, I stayed at home because I particularly wanted to and because we could get by (again I say, just)on his salary.

I've found a group that promotes the value of full-time motherhood:
www.fulltimemothers.org

Ruth said...

Another point from me:

I think that workers are still very exploited - whether it's through low pay, patronising or otherwise poor management, poorly designed jobs. And I detest the culture that's emerged where you are expected to work longer hours than contracted - with no additional pay (I did an awful lot of that). I didn't mind being exploited so much when I had little better to do with my time, but now that I've children at home who need looking after, I'd really resent being exploited whilst having to pay someone else to take responsibility for a much more important aspect of my life.

I must go now - Ive to e-mail my MP about something... else.... again!

Louise said...

It would be the perfect solution ofcourse, if the government would pay me, (therefore, I would have a job, thus pleasing the hb) to be a sahm. I'd have a job, my children would have the best possible care, I wouldn't have to work all hours to pay for childcare to look after the children so that I could work, I wouldn't be under pressure through lack of income to need to work...

I could go on, but I'm sure you get my line of thought.

I wouldn't expect a huge wage. Ten grand a year would do it. I'm not greedy.

Somewhere along I know I've missed the point, but I like to take the simple view of things so I don't exercise my grey matter too much. I might suddenly need to get a job for more stimulation...

Ruth said...

Well, the thing is, I agree, Louise. The gov plays public servants. It paid me as a civil servant for donkey's years. My current job (sahm) makes me responsible for bringing up two children who will not end up costing society in terms of criminal damage, anti-social behaviour etc, and who will benefit society by being tomorrow's contributors to the smooth running of it. (Of course, that responsibility doesn't lie solely with me, but I play a large part). And I need training, to be honest. Yes. I think that there should be excellently run parenting classes. It's time the role was treated as more of a job that contributes tremendously to society and less of an inconvenience.

Louise said...

Hear hear! (Or should that be, 'here here'! I've never been sure...) x

Sarah said...

I believe it should be "hear hear".

There are problems with paying people to stay at home with their children. One argument I hvae heard but am not sure I agree with entirely is that some women can only get to go to work because of the financial need - otherwise they'd be expected to stay at home with the kids - if they need to have that reason for whoever (partner, in-laws, parents, I assume), taking it away would compromise their freedom.

Secondly, it might encourage teenage girls to get pregnant in order to get a house and ten grand a year.

Louise said...

Good point. Could it be a payment only available to a working woman? It would allow more choice, as a woman could then either stay at home to give children the best possible start, (my excuse!) and still have some money coming in, or return to work if they prefer, to earn a 'proper' wage?

A teenager would have to have worked first, by which time, would be bitten by 'the material bug', prefering to earn a wad of money to throw up down their new flash clothes at the weekend! Could prove to be an excellent contraceptive.

Sarah said...

Or possibly over a certain age? 21 or 24, perhaps? I really hate the government's move to only give benefits to over-25s, expecting parents to support you until then (I got married at 23 so being supported by my parents was no longer an option). So maybe this comment just shows I'm getting old...

Louise said...

I suppose it's the governments way of 'encouraging' teenagers to continue education or find employment to support themselves, rather than slipping so easily into being state supported. I am not entirely convinced that this is going to work.

My own children are under no illusion that they will be financially supported once they reach 18. The eldest is only eleven... Mind you, as they are being brought up with no money, they already have aspirations for good employment. One wants to be a vet, I am encouraging this!