MSE News: Minister answers concerns on lone parent benefits

looby75

sh1305 wrote: »

Well, for some, it is an excuse to get drunk for the next 3 years and get paid for it!:p

lol well my daughter is in for a shock if she thinks thats what she's going to do......she's only going to uni a 40 min train ride away, I can sneak up and spy on her lol

moggylover

FBaby wrote: »

have you ever heard of quality over quantity? You are making asssumption that mothers who stay at home are better mothers because they have more time with their kids, but more time doesn't systematically mean better time. I have seen so many SAM overwhelmed with the feeling of having no time for themselves, all they do all day is shout and scream at their kids. The image of the goddess SAM, organised, spending all her time playing with her kids, baking lovely home made meals etc...is one that is just not the reality.
Being a good parent has nothing to do with staying at home or not, it's to do with devotion and commitment. I worked very hard, but my kids will always come first, always, an that includes making sure that I can support them financially. In the end, the only reason single parents are able to be SAH mums in only because the government is supporting them. Take away benefits and that would not be an option any longer. In the end, as a working mum, I can financially support my children AND be a good mum because I will make sure that I am (and my kids are a credit to that), whereas a SAH single mum will be able to be a great parent too, but will never be able to support her children financially on her own if she remains a SAH mum.

The quality over quantity argument is, as far as I am concerned, a get out for those who were unwilling to take the rough with the smooth where parenting is concerned.

The fact is that the working parent may be capable of giving quite a nice time when there (much as divorced partners without care often do) but if they are unwilling to do ALL of the slog as well then they are truly lacking the right committment to having children. To me it is a little like a friend I once had who wanted a horse to ride, but none of the work of cleaning it out or feeding it:(.

I know plenty of women who work and have children and who are far too worn out and grumpy to be of any use whatsoever to their children when they are around as well and who also complain of "no time for themselves" and so I am afraid that old sop doesn't work for me at all.

I had worked (often two jobs amassing some 16 hours a day, plus weekend shifts) for many years to provide a decent home and to have the basics that were (to my mind) necessary before having my children, and was in a committed relationship (or at least I thought so) before having them (at 37 btw). I had done the career bit, I had also chucked the career and done something different, and then I had escaped to the Country and chainsawed trees, chopped wood, worked on farms for a complete change of scenery and hard work holds no fear for me whatsoever.

However, I believe that any job/career choice will have bits you like and bits you just drudge through and that if you are REALLY good at that job, and truly committed and hard working then you will get your head down and do both, not just nit pick for the best bits. The same should be true for parenting, and anyone who only wants the "best bits" cannot ever truly claim all of the honour for how well the child turns out because quite honestly the child minder, the nanny, the nursery school, the school have all spent far more time with the child during its development and are therefore far more entitled to claim the glory as all you have done is paid someone else to raise them and guide them:(

As someone who is well educated and highly qualified I am always sickened by the attempts of those who are unwilling to truly give of themselves wholly to their kids for a wee while to make it seem as if it is only because most SAHM's are of inferior intellect and that they will be unable to find decent jobs once they wish to return to the jobs market. In truth, if you are as good as you think you are, then the job will eventually be there. Maybe you will not have time to make it quite so high up the ladder as you might had you worked through your children's infancy, but if you are unwilling to make any sacrifices to your own ambition for your children then you really should not be having them.

In exchange for that sacrifice, you will get the reward of having truly shared yourself with your child during the most important period of their development and the child will have shared their important moments with you. I don't believe that any money in the World, or any job I could have had, would have made up for missing the first steps of either of my children, and I would have been devastated if my childs first word had been the name of his childminder (as a neighbours child's was) or had he cried for the childminder who had him for the majority of his waking hours (as said neighbours child did) when over-tired or ill!

As I previously stated, you will also have learnt management and relationship skills that are sadly lacking in businesses nowadays and that should be considered valuable and sought after.

I remained a SAHM rather longer than I had intended to. I envisaged staying at home full time until the youngest went to school, and then working part-time within school hours. As it was, life did not go according to plan, and it was some while after that before I was able to return to working (and that I do from my own home and around the needs of my family) but within a few short months I was contracting enough work to be back almost to higher rate tax level (and will be in that bracket this year) so the suggestion about SAHM's never being able to support their children financially is really a very sad attempt to denigrate those who choose to be real parents 24/7.

seven-day-weekend

Absolutely terrific post moggylover and one which I wholly agree with. I could thank you ten times over!

I was a SAHM for five years and then worked part-time in menial jobs for a further ten because it suited the needs of the family. My husband was the main wage earner. And you're right, some of the work of being a SAHM I didn't like at all, but gritted my teeth and got on with it - bringing up my son was my duty and my job, as well as my pleasure.

Now I am old enough to have grandchildren (although I don't actually have any yet), my role will be to take the nice bits of childrearing and leave all the nitty-gritty not-so-nice bits to the parents. My job is done.

But if you are away from your children all day, then it is the childminder/nursery who does the job, as you say.

However, I do appreciate that single parents may not have the options available.

FBaby

moggylover, that's all very well, but why should tax payer substitute this 'supposed' better way of educating children? If you are so adament that you want to be at home to raise your children, you should be spending many years working very hard to save enough to be sure that you can afford to stay at home, even if you end up a single parent.

As for your statement of the 'best bits', I had to laugh. As if you get to choose as a parent. You are right, as a working mum, i tell my kids that our evenings together are going to be spent playing puzzles and watching TV together, and they can forget about me cooking for them or washing their clothes, because as I work, I only have time left for the good part of bringing them up!

You do seem quite defensive about your role, which makes me wonder why? I have never said that being a SAH parent was a bad thing, heck, I would have certainly have done it if I could have afforded it, but I couldn't so had to work and make the best of the situation so my kids didn't suffer.

Oldernotwiser

moggylover wrote: »

Can't possibly be true! That would mean........................a child of benefit scroungers going to Uni:eek::eek::eek::eek:

That might of course be true for someone who had used (in thought or words) the term "benefit scrounger".

Oldernotwiser

looby75 wrote: »

:T:rotfl:

didn't you know that going to uni is the easy option these days. Just like getting good GCSE results and good A-Level results, and getting a place on the course at the uni you want and like.....bloody hell our kids have it so easy these days don't they

All of which are far easier than they used to be.

seven-day-weekend

FBaby wrote: »

moggylover, that's all very well, but why should tax payer substitute this 'supposed' better way of educating children? If you are so adament that you want to be at home to raise your children, you should be spending many years working very hard to save enough to be sure that you can afford to stay at home, even if you end up a single parent.

As for your statement of the 'best bits', I had to laugh. As if you get to choose as a parent. You are right, as a working mum, i tell my kids that our evenings together are going to be spent playing puzzles and watching TV together, and they can forget about me cooking for them or washing their clothes, because as I work, I only have time left for the good part of bringing them up!

You do seem quite defensive about your role, which makes me wonder why? I have never said that being a SAH parent was a bad thing, heck, I would have certainly have done it if I could have afforded it, but I couldn't so had to work and make the best of the situation so my kids didn't suffer.

I can't speak for moggylover, but I don't think that society SHOULD subsidise this choice. I received no benefits (other than Child Benefit), neither did my husband, when I was a SAHM in the 80s and early 90s.

That is why a single parent will not probably have this choice and have to have childcare of one form or another.

looby75

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

All of which are far easier than they used to be.

don't know about that, I passed my GCSE's in 1991 and there is no way on this planet that I had to work as hard at them or do as much work as my daughter did when she took hers 2 years ago.

Oldernotwiser

looby75 wrote: »

don't know about that, I passed my GCSE's in 1991 and there is no way on this planet that I had to work as hard at them or do as much work as my daughter did when she took hers 2 years ago.

I was thinking a bit further back than 1991!

Oldernotwiser

moggylover wrote: »

The problem is not new. The blocks of flats opposite where I lived in Slough had plenty of unmarried mums when I was a young teenager in the early 70's and, and they were not working and claimed benefits then (although there are many on here that say they were not available) granted only at the basic unemployed level, but still benefits and thus the extra money nowadays hasn't actually created the problem,comes.
.

The difference being that reliable contraception and easy abortion were not nearly as readily available (or free) as they are these days.The late 60s and early 70s were a time when more young people were sexually active but contraception hadn't quite caught up.