Should women / carers be paid for caring for their 'own' kids?

[AdelaofBlois]

Had a nice argumentative (if in this climate purely hypothetical) discussion last night about whether carers should be paid for looking after their children. Three arguments ran thus:

1. Familial childcare is, even if not done by mothers, predominantly women's work. It is time consuming, skilled and exhausting, contributes enormously in both the short and long term to the economy, yet the women doing it receive no monetary recognition, and indeed risk their security to do so. Financial recognition of the work was a long-standing, although now underplayed, aim of the women's movement.
   

1. That, until men are equally represented in caring roles, the payment would represent further legal incentive for women to stay at home, which may not necessarily be about their choice. If set at a level that altered decisions it would act as a state scheme to force women back into the home, if too low simply be a drain on resources which creates the same ideological pressure.
   

1. (where I got bogged down as the wine took effect ) Payment would have to be set against standards because the justification would be value to society. It would seem unfair to pay fulltime carers and not their employed counterparts unless we were willing for the state to say that in all circumstances SAHPs were 'best'. It would also seem unfair to pay 'poor' parents (at the far end of the scale, say abusive ones) money, but monitoring this would involve the state in childcare in a way hitherto unthought of. The whole thing would be a mechanism for enforcing standards of childcare (HE who pays the piper) which reflected neither women's choices nor a feminist outlook.
   

Conversation drifts off onto CBeebies crushes, this writer feeling but .

Basically, just wondered what others thought. Posted here because don't want this to be the SAHM vs WOHM women-hating discussion it might become elsewhere.

[PortoTreasonAndPlot]

Um, where is the money going to come from?

[AdelaofBlois]

As I said, this discussion in today's climate was hypothetical (one reason I didn't put it on the politics thread).

Does it matter? What about from general taxation-in which case it in effect forces working partners to provide independent recognition of their partner's childcare? Would it be more theoretically justifiable if pruned from defence but not SureStart? Where are your limits?

Sorry, as I said, this is not a 'proposal' to discuss, but a puzzle to me. As far as it has a practical application it's within feminist circles-why has a 'traditional demand been heard so little lately? And is this really due to concerns over funding, or over the idea itself?

[AdelaofBlois]

Because one of the things that seemed to emerge was that the moral case in (1) was as irrefutable now as ever, but that the variety of family set-ups which 'now' exist created problems in a way they didn't to, for example, Marilyn French, who assumed that one parent would be looking after children and doing the dishes, and that that would be the woman because their love for children was different.

[pointydog]

No. People should be paid to carry out a job that someone else wants them to do.

I don't want the state to be paying out cash so that people can stay at home with their own children.

It would be logistically impossible to organise.

And what would people be paid for exactly? Would workin gparents be entitled to some money if they cared for their children for part of the day? Would they be entitled to money for looking after their children in the evening and night?

[AdelaofBlois]

But the state does want people to look after children, otherwise it would fund free 7-day nursery care, and it benefits from it.

I don't think the logistics would be beyond the wit of woman, and are in someways distinct (a good idea but impractical is different form a bad idea) although would accept that they would involve judgments about 'good' care, which is why I wonder whether the problem is now really about the complexities of childcare arrangements. And I think everyone was careful to think of carers NOT just parents.

[colditz]

Many women would refuse payment and raise their child as they saw fit, rather than having to conform to the ridiculous bumptious paperwork filling that all other 'child care providers' have to deal with. I know I would.

[pointydog]

Yes, if the state (or an employer) is going to pay people for raising their children, then they have every right to set standards that must be met.

[msrisotto]

I don't think parents should be paid to look after their own children. Maternity leave should be parental leave, flexible working should be easier and it should become the norm that 2 parent families share childcare responsibilities 50:50.

[PortoTreasonAndPlot]

But is quite possible to have children AND a job. I know - I do. My family going back generations did too. My gg grandmother had a huge number of children, AND a job - it is listed on her census return. This idea where you stay home solely to devote yourselves to your little darlings and do arts and crafts etc is a totally modern invention. It even postdates the start of the welfare state.

In mho, raising children is a responsibilty, one that should be shared amongst the family ideally, but it is NOT a paid JOB.

[bobblemeat]

I don't like the idea of my lifestyle choice becoming a job, and not only a job, a public sector jobs so members of the public can rant at me about how they pay my wages and I should be doing x,y and z when I want to do a,b and c. I would also be concerned that women who want to work and put their dcs in childcare will be berated even more because it would be a clear choice to spend time away from their children because they would rather be at work rather than for financial reasons (assuming the new job of getting on with your life is suitably well paid).

[ISNT]

Hmmmm complicated. All good points in OP.

I suppose if you provided good quality and cheap childcare universally, then gave an amount for every child to pay for this, but the parent could keep it if they wanted to do the care themselves.... That would work I think?

I think that (as per your point 3) you need to be wary of the payment restricting choices rather than assisting families IYSWIM.

[moraldisorder]

And wouldn't there be unscrupulose (SP?) types just having kids so they could earn?

This is a bad idea.. My opinion echos mrsrisotto and portotreasonandplot's.

[blueshoes]

To answer the OP, no. People don't need financial incentive to reproduce. Not all parents are good, people take the piss, no quality control. Lifestyle choice, no money, in good times or bad.

[ISNT]

Surely this is intended to be a theoretical discussion about how to elevate the status of the very hard and important job of looking after children? It's about ideals/utopia rather than a genuine policy suggestion for the condems

[ISNT]

I think good quality universal affordable childcare has to be in there.

Also msrisotto's points about moving to a situation where parents look after children, rather than mothers. The idea being that if more men took "maternity" leave, and did more hands on stuff, then things would improve for all parents and the status of this work would increase.

[ISNT]

I am always interested when people don't see looking after children as being a caring role.

[ISNT]

The line between looking after an elderly person who needs assistance, looking after someone who is disabled, and looking after a baby or young child, is a fairly artificial one though isn't it. It's one that has been invented by the benefits people, rather than it actually being a wholly and fundamentally different thing to be doing. They're all caring roles.

[ISNT]

You don't "parent" a baby when you're BFing it at 3am or changing it's nappy or whatever. You're caring for it IYSWIM.

[AnnieLobeseder]

I'm with Riven. Parents who choose to stay home and raise their own children instead of earning money and paying for childcare should not receive anything. They are making a choice to do so.

But carers; mothers or daughters or husbands or wives or fathers.... anyone who has given up their career to look after a sick or disabled family member should be paid. And they should be paid well - national average at least. More often than not they have no choice because if they don't do it, no-one will. It's 24/7 work and totally exhausting, physically and mentally.

[AnnieLobeseder]

ISNT - I would make the distinction where alternative care is widely available at a reasonable price or not. Childcare for an NT child is widely available, and though a bit expensive, not out of the reach of most working parents.

Care for sick or disabled children (or adults) is NOT widely available, and very much more expensive. Hence a family member being forced to do the caring, often at the expense of their own career.

I really don't think the difference is 'artificial' at all.

[ISNT]

So looking after a newborn is not a caring role? I mean in general, rather than in the terms defined by the benefits people.