Stay at Home Mothers (RTE Program)

Ayla

Wondering if anyone saw the "Now it's Personal" documentary on RTE 1 tonight regarding stay at home mothers & what your thoughts on it were?

http://www.rte.ie/player/#!v=1120798

I'm fairly raging myself, but wondering what the general thoughts out there are?

Moonbeam

I didn't see it.
Why are you raging?

Ayla

Emer O'Kelly (the reporter at the core of the documentary) asked SAHMs if they felt "humiliated" by not being the income earner, she stated that they were drains on society & wasting their intelligence. She said "we're not living in caves anymore and if [this lifestyle] was widespread we wouldn't be in a very good place."

Orion

She actually asked that? Well let's face it: nobody has ever accused RTE of joining the 21st Century.

Moonbeam

That is hilarious.
If only it was a choice for some and not forced by childcare costs.

I can hear the phones in rte ringing off the hooks with complaints!!

MrTsSnickers

Well (I'm a SAHM), I think as a probing question it's (asked SAHMs if they felt "humiliated" by not being the income earner?) legitimate. She wants a considered response on whether the SAHMs that she's interviewing feel that way. Now I didn't see it but did she ask or suggest "that they were drains on society & wasting their intelligence"?

As for the caves part, that's just dull..if someone's staying at home with the kids, they're one of a few things in a financial position to stay at home (and want to), not in a position to pay child care or like to work. There's no right or wrong to any of those.

Okay from having watched the first 5 mins that lady seems to have made a choice in her life and thinks that it should be the same for everyone. She seems set in her belief and that's fair enough, she's entitled to think that everyone who stays at home with the kids is a looser. She's not right, but shes entitled to her view.

I actually really enjoyed it! She had some good points, the mothers (and father) featured had good points. For nothing else it could inspire people to think about options that they may not think they have. Yep, really enjoyed that show now to be honest.

Vego

Rubbish tv show ...altho the bit with the "baby" alarm was funny showing that she couldnt even cope a few days with a toy doll

Morag

and who is be minding the kids, eps the young teens?
the ones who will be causing havock if they get a chance?

She sounds like an idiot.

Yes I am a sahm and yes I miss being at work but these years are the best investment I can make in my kids.

eviltwin

Does she have the same contempt for stay at home dads I wonder?

Silly woman, I always find it a bit rich when someone like her with no children tries to make out they are an expert on the subject.

I feel a bit sorry for her really. All the women featured seemed to be very happy with their choices. I'm sure she was gutted to find they weren't banging their heads against the wall and going loco.

Sleepy

Didn't see the show but sounds like the usual 'have it all' claptrap.

You can raise your children or you can have a career. If both parents want the latter, they need to pay someone else to do the former.

Daisy M

I have it on record will watch it later, but I will never regret choosing to stay at home with our children, it was the right decision for us and I have no regrets. I do feel that I was one of the lucky ones in that I had a choice as we were able to manage on my husbands wage. Some families dont get to choose either way if they want both parents to work or not often the decision is made for them due to childcare costs or a second income been vital to keeping the family going.
I dont see the point of the "humiliation" question regarding not earning a wage. Who would I be humiliated to? My husband who I have vowed to love and remain married to for the rest of our lives? Who shares every high and low and everything in between in my life? I cant think of anyone else whos business our financial affairs would be so who does the interviewer expect stay at home parents to. Pretty silly question imho. Looking farward to watching it now!!

Morag

She's an old school socailist and thinks that no one should be kept by the labour of another, and that spouses who stay at home with the kids while the other works are spongers and that women who think they can marry and then stay at home a spoilt and that men don't have the option to be stay at home parents.

That women need to stay in the work force to pay back the state the cost of educating them to leaving cert standard and beyond and that anyone can tend to the needs of an infant.

I think her ideals are just that ideals and far from the real work and the practicalities of family life and the cost of child care and availability of child care in this country.

I am disappointed in this programs I have to say, she would of been one of the smart well educated Irish women I looked up to as a role model when young.

bubbaloo

Oh God she annoyed me so much. She said to the baby of the working mother "your mummy is very clever and has a very important job!". Well, I think the sahm of 6 (yes, 6!!) kids is also very clever and has a very important job.
I'm a working mother and I'd like to work part-time to balance home life and work life better but financially we can't afford that at the moment.
She was very closed minded and that enraged me. She was absolutely unwilling to listen to a difference of opinion. She may have heard a few differences but just dismissed them. And all the crap that came from the mouth of someone who has no kids and therefore no grasp on the expense of childcare, the demands of home life with kids and the time you spend running around in Mum's taxi! :mad:

Having said all of that I did kind of agree with the whole "baby alarm" thing - I thought it would have been a pointless excercise and would have done little to bring home the reality of sahm life. Most sahm's have more than one child and they are a bit older than 6 months!

Ayla

What got me about the program is that RTE used a woman who fully acknowledged she is well set in her "principles" (not opinions, but "principles", mind) and had absolutely no intention whatsoever of learning a thing from the people she came into contact with. I agree that she is well entitled to her beliefs & opinions, but the questions she was asking and what she was saying were down right derogatory toward SAHMs.

You can justifiably ask a SAHM "how do you feel about not bringing a wage to the family," but to ask a mother of 6 amazing kids "aren't you humiliated [by living off another's wage]" is wrong. That's not fair, it's not even honest reporting. It's imposing her own views on someone else's life. And then to follow that question with "so you're saying that you're a better mother [than those women who work out of the home]?" when the mother was implying nothing of the sort?! :mad:

Then she goes into a class of teenage girls and basically tells them not to waste their lives & education by "giving it all up" when they become mothers. As if SAHMs become delinquint and ignorant as soon as they leave the workforce? Just b/c someone doesn't earn a wage doesn't mean they don't have a vastly important role in managing finances, reducing household & financial waste, juggling the gazillion responsibilities of a SAHM...

I will grant her the one thing about the electronic baby. I have no idea what the producers were trying with that one, but what it did highlight to me was that she wasn't even going to "play ball" or step out of her comfort zone. She had absolutely no intention of doing or trying anything different.

I think it was painfully obvious throughout the entire episode that she has no respect for the work that a SAHM does and what they do contribute to society. She called them "drains on society" and a waste of an education. She then full out stated that any person could facilitate the practical needs of a child as well as the mother, and that the mother's only staying at home b/c she needs the baby (more than the baby needs her).

I'm still quite fuming about this episode. It shows a massive disrespect for the SAHM and the contribution she makes to her family, community & society. It would have been one thing if Emer O'Kelly has approached this challenge as the reporter she claims to be, when instead it served as a platform for her to spout off her "principles".

Daisy M

I just finished watching it and she was an interesting woman to say the least. I expected to be really annoyed by her but I am not. I think she is quiet a blinkered person who doesnt want to see the other side of the story. Tbh I think her opinions stem from the need to justify how she has chosen to live her own life. Shoving her opinions down other peoples necks and refusing to see another side to the story helps increase her own self worth. I doubt she would like this but when the story finished I felt pity for her rather than anger at her.
As for the class of teenage girls, I was so impresed by them, they were so mature, most refused to make a judgement as they knew it would be impossible to until they were actually in a mothers position. Many could see how difficult it was for their own mothers to balance everything, their parents and teachers should be proud.

CeNedra

I thought the program was very good also and didn't bother me in the least. I think she is entitled to her opinion, regardless of whether she is a parent or not. Nothing I saw in the program changed my opinion so I understand why she didn't change hers. The working mothers sure have a tough time, but then again, so do the stay at home ones. If I could give up work right now, I'm not sure I would, even though I love my children dearly and want to spend as much time with them as possible. Life is all about choices and for the most of us, we do the best we can.

Emer911

I clicked onto this show randomly, and was rather amused by her attitude. I found her outlook and opinions very one sided. To me, she came across as a bit funny, kinda sad, completely ignorant (from a parenting aspect) and blindly unwilling to take any other perspective onboard. Desperately trying to validate her life choices? :rolleyes: Maybe...

Personally, I am a working mum. Initially I had no choice but to work and honestly I was happy with that. After number 2, it got a bit more complicated. Still didn't really have a choice not to work, but started feeling guilty about not spending enough time with the kids, and feeling very jealous of the sahm.
Got made redundant a few years ago and had the most amazing 8 months at home with the kids, even though things were tight at the time.

Eventually got a new job with much more reasonable hours and I think I now have a fairly ideal balance.

I have a hearty respect for all working mom's - it's not easy and it's always a challenge, whatever the ages of the kids.
I also have an honest and open awe for the sahm (and I'm a wee bit jealous too). That's a very tough job, but the rewards must be great, and I'm honestly a bit stupefied that Emer O'Kelly doesn't realise the vital and very real social and economic worth added by any sahm (or dad)!

nesf

I wonder what that reporter would have made of a stay-at-home dad... (not quite one, myself and the wife both work part time and share the homemaking duties, but it looks very likely that she'll be the working side of the relationship given her better qualifications and earning potential)

Orion

SAHD's are just bums

vicwatson

Who the hell is Emer O'Kelly anyways? :rolleyes:

iguana

I didn't see the programme but did anyone point out to the presenter that somebody has to look after the children? In general, a family can either earn two incomes and pay one income to somebody else to look after the children or earn one income but not pay one to somebody else because the child-minding is being done by the family. A parent who does the job of child-minding is saving the family the cost of paying a third party to do it. For people with more than one or two children it is often financially the better option to have one parent remain at home, for a family with six children the odds are the stay at home parent is doing the job with the higher financial reward to the family.

And so what if the stay at home parent gets great emotional benefit from taking care of their children? In an ideal world everyone would love their job and gain satisfaction from it. That's not selfish. My husband is a film editor, he gets a massive buzz when he edits a good scene or a movie he worked on gets good reviews. Is that selfish? I worked for charities for years and I loved feeling like my efforts made positive changes to people's lives. Is that selfish? That woman probably enjoyed being on tv. What's wrong with being happy in your work.

nesf wrote: »

I wonder what that reporter would have made of a stay-at-home dad... (not quite one, myself and the wife both work part time and share the homemaking duties, but it looks very likely that she'll be the working side of the relationship given her better qualifications and earning potential)

Ime, stay and home dads are often seen as wasters, I'm afraid. I know of such a man who when his marriage broke down found it almost impossible to be taken seriously with regard to custody of the children. He wasn't seen by the courts as the children's primary caregiver but as a mooch who couldn't support his family. That wouldn't happen the other way around.

Tayla

Haven't watched the program but I went on to RTE player and had to laugh at the description.....

'Journalist Emer O Kelly goes on a mission to convince 'stay-at-home' mothers to get out of the house and into work'

Eh where are the jobs?

nesf

Tayla wrote: »

Eh where are the jobs?

Australia...

ash23

Seems the government agree with her.....but only where it's a one parent family.

http://breakingnews.ie/ireland/burton-may-reduce-one-parent-entitlement-age-528164.html

Two parent families can still claim things like FIS, tax credits, an adult dependent benefit if one person is on a social welfare payment, but one parent families have to go back to work. Emer O'Kelly will be happy with that small step.
Next all parents of children over 7 will be expected to work unless totally unreliant on state benefits, top ups etc. If not then it's just blatant prejudice after all!

cynder

That's a bit harsh, i think 12 should be the cut off point, due to childcare costs.... trying to get a job where you can drop off and collect your kids drop them at at the childminders is going to be very hard... unless they bring in a siesta!

nesf

ash23 wrote: »

Seems the government agree with her.....but only where it's a one parent family.

http://breakingnews.ie/ireland/burton-may-reduce-one-parent-entitlement-age-528164.html

Two parent families can still claim things like FIS, tax credits, an adult dependent benefit if one person is on a social welfare payment, but one parent families have to go back to work. Emer O'Kelly will be happy with that small step.
Next all parents of children over 7 will be expected to work unless totally unreliant on state benefits, top ups etc. If not then it's just blatant prejudice after all!

Eh, they can still claim Dole + Child Allowance etc. It's not like they're being put on the breadline or anything here. The real problem is the abuse of the One Parent allowance.

texidub

I find it offensive that some people think it's better to prioritise their career over looking after and spending time with another human being who is totally dependent on them. The selfishness and materialism implied in that is unreal (IMO). And that applies to men and women.

ash23

nesf wrote: »

Eh, they can still claim Dole + Child Allowance etc. It's not like they're being put on the breadline or anything here. The real problem is the abuse of the One Parent allowance.

My main issue is that it's single parents who are being targetted, not all parents who stay at home and receive benefits.
Why is a single parent expected to go back to work when their child is 7 but a couple where one is on the dole and claiming for the other, do not have to prove both are seeking work?
Or a couple earning one wage with one parent at home can claim tax credits? Or Family Income Supplement? Those parents aren't expected to return to work once their kids turn 7. But they are still claiming benefits and allowances to enable them to stay at home.

nesf

ash23 wrote: »

My main issue is that it's single parents who are being targetted, not all parents who stay at home and receive benefits.
Why is a single parent expected to go back to work when their child is 7 but a couple where one is on the dole and claiming for the other, do not have to prove both are seeking work?
Or a couple earning one wage with one parent at home can claim tax credits? Or Family Income Supplement? Those parents aren't expected to return to work once their kids turn 7. But they are still claiming benefits and allowances to enable them to stay at home.

Sure, but pragmatically speaking we have an enormous social welfare bill and need to reduce it and this is a way of doing it. FIS will support these women, they can work part time (at least 19 hours per week) and get a rather large top up to a reasonable amount of money to support a family.

The supports are there for these women to re-enter the workforce once their children are in school. Even working 5 hours a day etc will qualify them for FIS and FIS will allow these women to even get minimum wage jobs and still provide a good quality of life for their children.

ash23

nesf wrote: »

Sure, but pragmatically speaking we have an enormous social welfare bill and need to reduce it and this is a way of doing it. FIS will support these women, they can work part time (at least 19 hours per week) and get a rather large top up to a reasonable amount of money to support a family.

The supports are there for these women to re-enter the workforce once their children are in school. Even working 5 hours a day etc will qualify them for FIS.

Women and men.

You've not addressed the fact that a person who is unemployed can claim for an adult dependent who is staying at home with the children. Or the fact that tax credits are given for a person at home with the children.
I think encouraging people back to work and off welfare is great. But it needs to apply across the board. Not just to one section of people who stay at home.
The government is effectively saying it's ok to be a stay at home parent, even if you are on benefits but only if you are in a relationship. It is not ok if you are single.
Children of couples deserve to have a parent at home even if the state pays for that. Children of single parents do not.
Great system.

Das Kitty

texidub wrote: »

I find it offensive that some people think it's better to prioritise their career over looking after and spending time with another human being who is totally dependent on them. The selfishness and materialism implied in that is unreal (IMO). And that applies to men and women.

I go out to work because I want to, not because I have to. It has little to do with materialism, I need to be intellectually challenged to be happy. The year I spent at home really opened my eyes to that. Perhaps that's selfish, but I'd rather be a little selfish and be a contented person than be miserable. I doubt a miserable yet 100% available parent would be better for my son than what he has.

Although I haven't seen the programme I have read a lot about it. I can't abide anyone judging the decisions of other families. These Stay at home Mothers were happy with their lives as were their families, surely this is the ideal for family life, regardless of the structure needed to achieve that?

Morag

Supports? are you kidding me?
Cos there are soooo many childcare options :rolleyes:

saa

Ah come on girls just go to college get a good job and then when you have a baby get on with it and leave it in a creche.

My partner and I both went to college and can only get minimum wage jobs if they're available so if we have a child one of us would have to stay at home as you can't pay for child day care on certain wages with other child care costs and everything else.

We could both have jobs if we could alternate shifts, I don't want to live like that but I also don't want to live a life without having a child.

nesf

ash23 wrote: »

Women and men.

You've not addressed the fact that a person who is unemployed can claim for an adult dependent who is staying at home with the children. Or the fact that tax credits are given for a person at home with the children.
I think encouraging people back to work and off welfare is great. But it needs to apply across the board. Not just to one section of people who stay at home.
The government is effectively saying it's ok to be a stay at home parent, even if you are on benefits but only if you are in a relationship. It is not ok if you are single.
Children of couples deserve to have a parent at home even if the state pays for that. Children of single parents do not.
Great system.

I agree with you for the most part, but they have to start somewhere and politically this might be the easiest place to start.

The problem comes down to couples abusing this payment and pretending to be living apart when in fact they pretty much live as a couple. They need to rework this payment so as to make this less appealing while still supporting women and men who need the payment.


I said women in my post because it's extremely hard for non widowered men to get this payment due to the way our system works.

Morag

Did go to college and got good jobs but the shift engineers are expected to work never matched up with what little and costly child care there is in this country.

confusedone

another poor effort by RTE, glad to see our license fee money being well spent

Squiggler

ash23 wrote: »

Women and men.

You've not addressed the fact that a person who is unemployed can claim for an adult dependent who is staying at home with the children. Or the fact that tax credits are given for a person at home with the children.
I think encouraging people back to work and off welfare is great. But it needs to apply across the board. Not just to one section of people who stay at home.
The government is effectively saying it's ok to be a stay at home parent, even if you are on benefits but only if you are in a relationship. It is not ok if you are single.
Children of couples deserve to have a parent at home even if the state pays for that. Children of single parents do not.
Great system.

I don't know of a single married couple where a non-working spouse qualifies for any Social Welfare payment if the other is working, although many of my friends and acquaintances are in a situation where only one of them has a job (and we count our blessings that even one of us is working). The married tax credit isn't much compensation for being legally responsible for finanacially supporting another person. It is only slightly higher than the single tax credit, another disincentive to married couples for both to be working.

ash23

nesf wrote: »

The supports are there for these women to re-enter the workforce once their children are in school. Even working 5 hours a day etc will qualify them for FIS and FIS will allow these women to even get minimum wage jobs and still provide a good quality of life for their children.

I'm a single parent with one child. Using me as an example, if I earned minimum wage, working 40 hours a week, not paid for lunch break of an hour, I would get the grand total of €302.75.
I would get FIS of €123 per week. So my income would be €425 approx (and that isn't factoring in pesky things like PRSI and the USC charge.
So my rent is €150 per week and my childcare is an average of €85. Leaving the grand total of €190 to pay transport, bills, feed and clothe two people, school expenses etc.
If the government pay an allowance of €188 for me and another €29.80 for a child dependent, then I would actually be living below the very basic standards set by them and working 40 hours a week.

And I live in the country where rent and childcare is much cheaper, so I can on'y imagine how someone would manage in a city.
I work and earn a fair bit above min wage and can manage but the reality of someone trying to pay childcare on minimum wage is stark.

Squiggler if you have a couple where one is working and claiming Family Income Supplement, they could both work and not claim it. A single person can only ever earn one fulltime wage. And from that they have to pay childcare. A couple can either have two incomes and pay childcare or have one and pay no childcare. They are at an advantage. Why not make both work?

If you have a situation where the working person loses their job, they can claim for the other adult even if that adult isn't trying to find work.

iguana

Squiggler wrote: »

I don't know of a single married couple where a non-working spouse qualifies for any Social Welfare payment if the other is working, although many of my friends and acquaintances are in a situation where only one of them has a job (and we count our blessings that even one of us is working).

Afaik, a married or co-habiting person who loses their job will be entitled to 9 months Unemployment Benefit regardless of their working partner's salary as long as they have paid the correct number of stamps. After 9 months they switch to Unemployment Assistance which is means tested, so if their partner has a reasonably decent wage, they won't be entitled to any further payments.

If one partner has always been a stay at home parent they won't have up to date stamps so if the other partner loses their job they will get UB of an amount for themselves plus a supplement for their partner and child/ren. This supplement however is not the equivalent of an extra dole payment, I think it's roughly half of a single person's amount.

Moonbeam

If they get laid off they are entitled to their JSB while they are job searching but limited to 9months.

I think the issue is the treatment of a couple living together as married for social welfare reasons but not for tax.

nesf

iguana wrote: »

Afaik, a married or co-habiting person who loses their job will be entitled to 9 months Unemployment Benefit regardless of their working partner's salary as long as they have paid the correct number of stamps.

If and only if they are not self employed or a director of a company (or a child working for the parent or similar). Believe me it's ****ing rough to be self employed in this country.

stovelid

Yes, because raising the next generation of citizens is such piddling and unfruitful work compared to working in an office all day.

nesf

ash23 wrote: »

I'm a single parent with one child. Using me as an example, if I earned minimum wage, working 40 hours a week, not paid for lunch break of an hour, I would get the grand total of €302.75.
I would get FIS of €123 per week. So my income would be €425 approx (and that isn't factoring in pesky things like PRSI and the USC charge.
So my rent is €150 per week and my childcare is an average of €85. Leaving the grand total of €190 to pay transport, bills, feed and clothe two people, school expenses etc.
If the government pay an allowance of €188 for me and another €29.80 for a child dependent, then I would actually be living below the very basic standards set by them and working 40 hours a week.

You're forgetting child allowance.

It's rough I agree, but honestly I've lived on less money than that in the past and while it's not pleasant it's really not much different to what may parents went through when we were very young children in the 80s.

ash23

nesf wrote: »

You're forgetting child allowance.

It's rough I agree, but honestly I've lived on less money than that in the past and while it's not pleasant it's really not much different to what may parents went through when we were very young children in the 80s.

I did it so I know it's possible. But it's making single parents suffer more than married or co-habiting couples which isn't fair but is popular with the public I guess.

Moonbeam

At the moment it is cohabiting couples that suffer most.
I don't agree anyone should have to suffer but I do agree the single parents allowance as it is has to change and fis should be overhauled to include this change so whether there are 1 or 2 parents living in the house that income is similar.


Expectations were different in the 80's,people were used to not having much and most people were in the same boat.

ash23

Moonbeam wrote: »

At the moment it is cohabiting couples that suffer most.
I don't agree anyone should have to suffer but I do agree the single parents allowance as it is has to change and fis should be overhauled to include this change so whether there are 1 or 2 parents living in the house that income is similar.

If the childcare issue was addressed it would be much easier for parents, particularly single parents, to get back to work. If my daughter had been younger when I became a single parent, I probably would have had to give up work.

Moonbeam

I would rather other benefits then childrens allowance most of the time.

Free gp visits for kids,subsidised childcare,school meals,etc etc

Childcare costs are prohibitive for most people in this country whether they are single or not. I know the costs of running creches is very high too and I am a believer that the child minding sector has to be completely regulated.

ash23

Moonbeam wrote: »

I would rather other benefits then childrens allowance most of the time.

Free gp visits for kids,subsidised childcare,school meals,etc etc

Childcare costs are prohibitive for most people in this country whether they are single or not. I know the costs of running creches is very high too and I am a believer that the child minding sector has to be completely regulated.

Indeed, but two wages stretch furthur than one in most cases

nesf

ash23 wrote: »

Indeed, but two wages stretch furthur than one in most cases

The problem is (if you live in one of the main cities) before they are school age you need to have the second income earning quite a bit before it makes it worth having the second income.

nesf

ash23 wrote: »

I did it so I know it's possible. But it's making single parents suffer more than married or co-habiting couples which isn't fair but is popular with the public I guess.

It's not a question of suffer. I mean do you think single parents should be given State benefits so they have the same income as a couple earning mid 30K a year? If that was the case, why would any couple get married?

Moonbeam

In Dublin costs are crazy.

1230 for a commuter ticket pa (taxsaver before tax deductions)
2000 for creche for 2 kids

So that is 2100pm before paying mortgage,food clothes,anyhting.

You would need to love working or earn alot to make it worth your while.