Prime Minister of England, David Cameron, Disses Stay-at-Home Moms in the Worst Way
Photos: Mirror UK / Veer / The Bump
Looks like there’s trouble a-brewin’ across the pond! Prime Minister of England, David Cameron, has gone and done the unthinkable (and the unexplainable!). He’s insulted stay-at-home mothers.
Here’s how it happened:
The British government announced that “working parents earning up to £150,000 each will get up to £1,200 to help with child care because they have a “greater need” than those who do not work,” the Telegraph reports. The scheme only applies to households where both parents are working or in single parent households where the parent is employed. Under the billion dollar plan, up to 2.5 million families will be able to claim vouchers to help subsidize the cost of childcare.
Britain’s genius policy excludes 1.2 million stay-at-home parents. And to make matters worse, the PM had some very choice words for SAH mums and dads. Good ole’ Cameron’s official spokesman (who will probably be unemployed after all of this — just sayin’!) responded to a comment by press asking if the Prime Minister was concerned that the vouchers penalized SAHMs. And the official spokesman responded on behalf of the PM that the measures were “very important as part of supporting those who want to work hard and to get on.” Uh, sorry — but can you explain again how SAHM or SAHD’s are not working hard? And not getting on? ‘Cause to be honest, I’m a little confused.
But here’s the real kicker — the press continued with questions, asking whether or not Mr. Cameron “believed that stay-at-home parents were less in need of state help than working parents.” The spokesman, who officially dug his own grave with this response, said that the Prime Minister wanted to support “aspiration.” AGAIN — SO CONFUSED. How are SAH parents not aspiring?
Never fear! The insults just kept on comin’. The spokesman (can this guy stop talking already?!) added, “The announcement is very specifically focusing on helping those who want to work hard and face the very high child care costs.” He then said that the Prime Minister stressed that the Coalition wants to direct its help at parents “who want to go out to work.”
Let’s pause for a minute here. Where does the Prime Minister — or his quick-to-talk spokesman — come off saying that stay-at-home parents don’t want to go out at work? Perhaps these parents are hardworking but couldn’t afford the cost of childcare, so they made the difficult decision to become SAH parents in order to support their families the best way they could? Sounds like a definite possibility, doesn’t it?
And not to state the obvious here, but isn’t pregnant Kate Middleton technically going to be a stay-at-home mum once the royal babe makes her debut?
Do these comments upset you?
Plus, more from The Bump:
Working Moms vs. Stay-at-Home Moms
What It’s Really Like to Be a Stay-at-Home Mom
A Week in the Life of a Stay-at-Home Mom
The Knot Blog
The Nest Blog
Pretty typical. I often read comments and hear things like this that inadvertently say that SAHMs/SAH parents don’t “work” as if work is defined by “earning pay.” Work is work,. I am a SAHM and I work: I cook, clean, sew, iron, do yard work, grocery shop, teach my children, read to my children, invest and maintain our savings, pay all the bills, make our household schedule, do laundry, fix toilets, etc. A housekeeper gets to say she/he works. A seamstress gets to say he/she works. A chef gets to say he/she works, yet I do those jobs and to some b/c I don’t get paid I don’t “work”. (Frankly, my husband treats his pay check as just as much mine as his, so I do have money to spend and manage.) It’s a lack of understanding. I don’t take offense, but I do understand that the spokesperson must not have had a SAHM or know any SAHMs…he will, I am sure, hear from a few now! (For the record, if I were British, I wouldn’t want the govt…aka people who pay the taxes to the govt…paying for my child care anyway.)
I am very saddened by this turn of events. I have been a SAHM for almost two years now. I was a working mother (elementary and special education teacher) during my son’s first year of life and once I was pregnant with my daughter I took a leave of absence that extended to two years and then a resignation. My children are now almost 3 and 14 months. Before children, I too thought that since I “wanted” to work and loved teaching the easiest and smartest thing to do was to put my children into childcare while at work. However the stresses of working (every working parent knows that having it all is a challenge…) along with the TIME you miss with your child (not to mention the household responsibilities shared between myself and my husband who is also a teacher and supported me with any decision I made) was what made me decide that staying home to raise my own kids was what is best FOR THEM…not necessarily for me career-wise. My decision to finally resign was heart breaking and was not taken lightly. Working, I would have made money even after childcare costs. I think most working families with two parents working do. With me staying home our budget is tighter than before. We don’t have a lot of extra to save but we are comfortable so I guess I am astonished that families in England who have made the sacrifice and decision to try to have one parent stay home…will be funding this billion dollar voucher system (through taxes) for families who want to keep their careers in tact and are fine with their children in daycare for most of the day. Again, I have nothing against working moms who have made that decision because believe me…it is very tempting sometimes to think that just going back to work would be better than the hours at home with temper tantrums, laundry, boredom sometimes, diaper changing, and messes. I still have lots of friends in the teaching profession who are fantastic moms and amazing teachers. They have found that balance and made a decision that is best for their family. And I expect that they wouldn’t judge me and think I just sit at home while my kids nap or watch TV…that I do still have a full time job, even if it doesn’t come with a pay check.
I normally never comment on these articles because of my fear of harsh criticism from Jane and John Doe and I really dislike the harsh judgement people put on both working and stay at home moms…Every family needs to do what is best for their family. However, the PM’s rep basically saying that families with two parents employed have more “aspirations” than families with one parent at home raising their own children is insulting and if I were living in that country I would have a very difficult time supporting a voucher system of that kind. If you want to work and have kids…then fine, but that’s your choice so you need to be responsible for the consequences like paying for your own childcare. Just like if you want to stay home…stay home, but the consequences of less income is the choice you are making. What if the voucher system was for parents who decide to stay home instead since their income is hurt? What would working families say then?
I’m sorry but I don’t want strangers raising my children. I want to teach them good values myself, not rely on others to instill values in my kids. There are too many screwed up people in the world. Apparently including this prime minister who I’m guessing was raised in a barn.
Yeah, but I also do all the things listed above and earn a living that I contribute to a household. A working mom does not have less household duties, just less time to complete them.
I am a sort of SAHM. I am a substitute teacher. I do not always go into work because I am called when needed. Instead I stay at home and cook, clean, take care of my son by feeding bathing, teaching , and sometimes playing with him. AND I am going to school online so I can stay home and do all of this so I can get a career and GO TO WORK like this guy says. I work 24/7. I am an alarm clock for my husband, I get no sick or personal days, I am the chauffeur, the cheerleader, the cook, maid, etc. I am a MOM! that’s my job!
What about the people that want to work but can’t afford to? I’m expecting in August, and I like my job, but with the cost of child care, and the huge hit I’ve taken in salary since the recession, it appears that I will be spending more in child care than I bring home! We’re still researching our options, but it’s unlikely we will be able to afford for me to keep working. Am I just supposed to spend more than I earn to maintain a job just to be part of the working parent group?
Don’t get me wrong, I know that being a SAHM is hard work, and so is being a working mom. I think we’re all just missing the point of this. The PM’s, or his messenger’s, choice of words was not the best, but I don’t think he was condemning SAHM moms. I believe there is good intentions behind all of this. The reason it’s for working 2 parent or working single parent homes is because it is supposed to be used specifically for child care and the PM is assuming that homes with one parent staying home doesn’t pay for child care, so there is no need for a child care extra. It’s not £1,200 because you have a child, it’s £1,200 to help with child care costs. I’m from Canada and we get a Universal child Care benefit of $1200 a year, but it’s for every child up to the age of 6, you don’t have to prove that you use child care, so people abuse it. I think this is stop benefit abuse.
@ Christina… GAG. That is a ridiculous statement to make and I hope you know it. People like you are the reason people get annoyed with SAHMs and their holier-than-thou attitudes towards those who work.
Why are SAHMs so damn sensitive? He didn’t say you made a poor choice in staying home and he’s not even challenging your decision or situation. He is simply giving monetary relief to those who work outside the home. You don’t need $1200 a month for childcare costs BECAUSE YOU HAVE NONE! Why would he give money to someone who doesn’t work outside the home? That’s bad business. And he is after all a business man. Of course he has no sympathies for you and clearly has no understanding of what you contribute to and he certainly doesn’t know how to talk you. Insensitve? Yes. Could he have choosen a better words? Sure. But get over it already! If you need the PM of England to validate your existance as a SAHM, perhaps you have bigger issues. And for those who couldn’t afford to work outside the home, stop complaining about it because now the PM has given you the relief you need to work outside the home…IF YOU SO CHOOSE. I respect all mothers and their OWN situations. Being a mother is HARD WORK regardless of your situation. If you don’t like yours, change it.
Caramia, AMEN! I do all these things. In less time. My nights and weekends are spent bonding with my children and getting ready for the next crazy day/week to begin!
@ caramia- You may have less time to get those things done…..but remember its the child care providers taking care of your children. They are spending signifigant amounts of time with your children teaching them to count, reading with them..etc.
You may do that as well but the majority of it is being done by someone else. That is the point the previous poster was talking about.
So in all honesty you do not do everything a stay at home mother does.
Exactly…facts are facts. Be happy with decisions but we must acknowledge the facts of how children in daycare are growing up.
Look it’s simple. If you don’t pay for child care costs, why would someone give you free money that is specifically for child care costs? I don’t understand the SAHM vs Working mom fight. You are both mothers and take care of your children, stop fighting each other and getting touchy at every little thing. For the record, I’m a SAHM and I don’t expect the government to give me Child Care money seeing as I don’t pay for child care.
But, are you ok with your single-income household being taxed more so that the money can go to a household that pays for child care? That is the main issue: one income households will be subsidizing two income households.
Why should SAH parents receive a voucher to help pay for child care? If they’re staying at home with their kids, they’re obviously not putting them in day care, so why would they deserve a voucher to help pay for a service they’re not using?