Isn’t it possible that the children of mothers in work do better because they pick up a different kind of attitude from their mothers than the children of mothers that stay home? No evidence to back that up – just a thought.

I’m incredibly wary of cognitive tests in general, for a number of reasons, but if we take from that the assumption that ‘working mothers are better for the children’ – maybe it’s more to do with the emotional benefits to the mother from working; I gather from my friends that being in work is generally better for the self esteem and emotional well being than unemployment, even if that unemployment is a choice on behalf of a child – and a emotionally healthier parent makes for better cognitive development for the child.

I’d like to hear from readers here who have been single parents, about their own experiences in work or out.

Children of working parents are also more likely to find work themselves when they leave school, thus reducing the the cycle of unemployment. That goes for children of couples as well as single parents.

Forcing parents of pre-school children back to work is unacceptable (as well as impractical) but the claim that looking after mentally or physically capable teenage kids is a ‘fulltime job’ is bullshit.

I’d also be wary about making comparisons between benefits and wages without calling for a raise in the national minimum wage, as this plays into Tory calls to cut benefits.

in should be prefectly reasonable and possible in our society to have a child with only its interets at heart, split with a partner because the relationship has become harmful to the child, and get some help from your community to be there for your child in their youth.

with this law, that can never again happen.

Dandle (5): You mean parents should go to school with their children, or school them from home? Most people have their umbilical severed shortly after birth: there is no need for the ‘community’ to bind mother and child 24/7: the ‘community’ merely has an obligation to ensure that the child is cared for.

This ‘a woman’s place is in the home’ bullshit (even when Lauri translates into Marxist terms) went out 50 years ago, and its despiriting to hear it come back from the ‘Left’.

Rather than stamping your feet why not look to a more practical matters?

For instance, the governmemt defines ‘full time employment’ as 16 hours or more. I’ve got reservations about working tax credits because they can allow employers to pay less than the marketable rate, but the over fifties can claim them if they go back to work so why not extend this to single parents who work 16 hours as well?

There has been an irregular but continuing trickle of studies for the last 40 odd years showing that children with mothers who go out to work do better in education. I have never encountered a serious study which comes to the opposite conclusion. Apparently no-one sufficiently likes this result to do a proper investighation as to whether there is any causal relation.

Look.

As a single mother I have an absolute and inalienable right to have others pay for my housing, food, clothes, heating, lighting, entertainment, healthcare and all of the same for my children (plus their education) providing I have a child below school leaving age.

If I have my last kid in my mid thirties I’ll be about 50 by the time that one leaves school and, never having worked, there’s not much chance of me getting a job then before I retire and get my pension.

I love kids and, like I say, I have the right to make my own lifestyle choices without some politician threatening me with work.

Don’t I?

Every argument I’ve seen so far in favour of parents staying at home to look after their children is simply an older argument against women working (most lone parents are women), restated with a pseudo-feminist gloss. Its an attempt to demonise women who go out to work.

I expect we’ll soon be seeing the resurrection of studies claiming further education shrinks the womb as well.

Its no wonder that the SWP (to which Laurie links) is so chummy with the Islamists, or that Mad Bunty is so critical of attempts to help women back to work. The objections are profoundly conservative.

Which is why a good study would be the way forward

Shatterface

“This ‘a woman’s place is in the home’ bullshit (even when Lauri translates into Marxist terms) went out 50 years ago, and its despiriting to hear it come back from the ‘Left’…..Every argument I’ve seen so far in favour of parents staying at home to look after their children is simply an older argument against women working (most lone parents are women), restated with a pseudo-feminist gloss. Its an attempt to demonise women who go out to work.”

Hear hear.

Mind you, the Gender, Race and Class conference Laurie attended had speakers from the ECP and the Black Women’s Rape Action Project, both of whom are involved in Global Women’s Strike, which itself was set up by the Wages for Housework Campaign………

Need I say more?

Oh dear, this is getting all unnecessarily sectarian.

The question is, should women be forced to go out and work even if they can’t afford to leave the child with someone? No one has said they should stay at home, have they? I thought feminism was all about the woman’s choice? And now if she goes out or looks after the child she will be accused of something or the other.

What Sunny said – I think the policy aim here should be that parents have a genuine choice about employment. There’s no ‘one size fits all’ here – for some families, work will be a better option, for others it won’t be.

“The question is, should women be forced to go out and work even if they can’t afford to leave the child with someone?”

Sunny, that’s not the question – the question is, how did this women think that she would feed her baby when her maternity leave ended? You don’t have freedom to choose whether to feed your child or not? You also do not have freedom to use other people’s money as you choose.

Nobody has issues with women staying at home if they can afford it – its when they are using taxpayer money thats the issue. I don’t know why everyone here is too embarressed to attempt to even broach the subject.

“Nobody has issues with women staying at home if they can afford it – its when they are using taxpayer money thats the issue.”

Not for some of us.

“this women”, Lilliput? Are you talking about someone specifically? And what kind of solution are you proposing?

I’m still waiting to see if any single parents are actually going to reply. Otherwise it’s all just hot air on this comment thread. (Yes, including me.)

its when they are using taxpayer money thats the issue. I don’t know why everyone here is too embarressed to attempt to even broach the subject.

Even from an economic perspective it’s a bad question to ask.

Children who aren’t adequately cared for their parent(s) or grow up in unstable households are less likely to become successful, integrated members of society. So even from a taxpayers point of view it makes sense to ensure taxpayers support young children to a decent age so they grow up to be good taxpayers (if that’s all you’re concerned about).
They do this across in Europe to good effect.

Debi – pagar, above…

Seriously? I thought Pagar was just setting up a hypothetical strawman for us all to wring our hands over. Shows what I know.

doh! that’s what happens when you skim read. I stand corrected.

“Children who aren’t adequately cared for their parent(s) or grow up in unstable households are less likely to become successful, integrated members of society. ”

Are you saying that households with working parents are inevitably unstable? Are payments to bad parents going to make them good?

Sunny (17): you are more likely to grow up succesful and integrated if your parents are succesful and integrated, and employment is one of the best ways of insuring this.

As well as the demonstrable financial and health benefits of work it expands your social circle beyond your family and immediate neighbours. Apart from anything else, it offers the possibility (for those who want it) of single parents not spending the rest of their lives as single. I work with several single parents who found their current partners through work.

I’m all for helping support for single parents but ‘support’ has to go beyond simply paying benefits: amending the tax credit system for those who work 16 hours or more is one example: extended career breaks is another.

More employers offering flexi-time or term time work would help too: many of those enforcing the governments new rules will be working under such flexible conditions so lets see more employers being as flexible as the Civil Service. That brings up the question of what grants or tax breaks can be offered to flexible employers, and more effort could be made to encourage them to offer work trials. These are the issues feminists and the left should be looking into.

I admit the timing of the current changes is lousy and as I’ve said before, it should not apply to parents of pre-school children.

And much of the same goes for getting people with disabilities into work.

“Are you saying that households with working parents are inevitably unstable? Are payments to bad parents going to make them good?”

With a leap that good you should try and get in on the Olympics.

Pardon, Lee?

Mr. Sunny seems to be equating parents at home with stability and succesful shining societies.

Unless he`s talking about something completely different – such as the responsibility of parents to raise their children well.
I think it`s going to require rather more than cheques to achieve that though.

I’m trying to find out where Sunny even said he thinks parents at home is the best thing for the kids. Taxpayer support of young families is not the same as actively encouraging home parenting.

“Nobody has issues with women staying at home if they can afford it – its when they are using taxpayer money thats the issue.”

Not for some of us.

Lee, can you expand a little?

Sunny

“Children who aren’t adequately cared for their parent(s) or grow up in unstable households are less likely to become successful, integrated members of society. So even from a taxpayers point of view it makes sense to ensure taxpayers support young children to a decent age so they grow up to be good taxpayers (if that’s all you’re concerned about).
They do this across in Europe to good effect.”

Yes Sunny, I can see that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/magazine/29Birth-t.html?_r=1

Do you wanna have a little read and get back to me on that.

Lilliput & Horace:

“I think it`s going to require rather more than cheques to achieve that though.”

It will take more than cheques in the post, yes. But, on the flip side, not getting the cheques is a surefire way of never achieving it.

” that’s what happens when you skim read. I stand corrected.”

I think I’ll take that as a victory. I always wanted to be Jonathon Swift!!!

Seriously, It’s not good enough for Lee to stick his nose in the air and say that the fact that benefits are paid from taxation is irrelevant. There are all sorts of individual responses to need, particularly when children are involved, but the welfare state is ultimately founded on the goodwill of the people paying the money for its existence.

Where there is clear instance of claimants taking advantage of the system to fund lifestyle choices (not all single mothers) the goodwill is threatened and the system is endangered.

“Where there is clear instance of claimants taking advantage of the system to fund lifestyle choices (not all single mothers) the goodwill is threatened and the system is endangered.”

Gee Pagar, you talk so pretty……….

“It will take more than cheques in the post, yes. But, on the flip side, not getting the cheques is a surefire way of never achieving it.”

Yes, thats very true, but giving money to bad parents is going to do little to solve the problems of the children involved. If those cheques are a form of social insurance to even out a families income and prevent children from suffering from poverty, probably an excellent idea . But to suggest that we should be encouraging people to stay at home rather than work, when this is probably a less important factor in the wellfare of children than many others and will encourage those who don`t take responsibility for their families to take advantage of the money, strikes me as odd.

“Yes, thats very true, but giving money to bad parents is going to do little to solve the problems of the children involved.”

What we have, as in every discussion about benefits, is two sides.

On the one side you have Pagar who would rather take the benefits away from everyone, and/or ensure everyone that wants benefits has to go through some potentially humiliating or unnecessarily degrading process (as if just getting benefits wasn’t degrading enough) because a small percentage *may* be fleecing the system.

Then there are those on the other side like me that recognise, lamentably, that there are probably people that screw the system, but given that the vast majority of the systems workings go to people that DO need it, it seems pathetic to spite them just to send a message to the scroungers through any kind of wide ranging and broad policy on the subject.

Sorry Lee, that’s not good enough.

What we are talking about here is a revision of the rules regarding single mothers. The knee jerk response from many here is that any attempt to modify the current rules where, it would appear, we have a systemic problem is an attack on the system itself.

It doesn’t seem to matter that there is evidence that the change might improve the lives of mothers and children- it is potentially a diminution of the benefits culture so it has to be wrong……..

“Gee Pagar, you talk so pretty……….”

Lilliput, you’d better be female to talk to me like that……

It is interesting to look at the change over time in employment of lone parents. Since 1999, benefits payments to lone parents have risen sharply in order to try to reduce child poverty. But over the same period, the employment rate amongst lone parents has also risen, from 45% in 1996 to 56% in 2007.

What’s also interesting is that the percentage of parents who are ‘economically inactive’ but do not want work has been stable at just under a quarter. The percentage who want to work but were not working fell from 32% in 1996 to 20% in 2007, though will be rising again now.

http://www.poverty.org.uk/46/index.shtml

I’d have thought the priority at the moment should be to help those parents who want to work but are not working to find jobs. And it is interesting that during the time benefit levels were rising at the fastest level ever, the employment rate amongst lone parents was also increasing.

Haha! Brilliant, Chris Thank you.

Sunny, you make an excellent point -’ I thought feminism was all about the woman’s choice? And now if she goes out or looks after the child she will be accused of something or the other.’

And this is exactly the point I’m making. Whether or not a mother decides to go out to work should be her choice, and because of the way our childcare system operates, the state should be prepared to pay for that choice. Whatever she chooses, the state will be better off – either by one worker, or by one child receiving full-time care.

Maybe single mums working might be slightly better, for some children, in some cases. Who the hell cares, though, if the kid’s mum is unhappy?

Laurie (34): feminism is not ‘all about the woman’s choice’, its about equality between the sexes. Plenty of people would like to opt out of work. Parenthood not a licence to quit work for 20 years.

If you think it really is about the how happy the mother is, perhaps you’ll consider comparing rates of depression among those who work with the unemployed.

If you have children are YOU going to expect the state to provide all their support?

34 – “If you think it really is about the how happy the mother is, perhaps you’ll consider comparing rates of depression among those who work with the unemployed.”

That’s a daft comparison, because it ignores the actual choices that people face. If the choice is meaningful, flexible job which pays more than being on benefit, with high quality childcare available as needed vs unemployment, that’s one thing.

But it is completely different from the choice being working in a job where you are no better off in work than on benefit, having to leave your child at a place where they are obviously unhappy while you go to work, doing a crap, meaningless job or having to decide whether to risk getting sacked by taking a day off if your child is not well because your boss won’t let you take leave.

The reality for a lot of parents is that their options look a lot more like the latter scenario than the former.

“If you have children are YOU going to expect the state to provide all their support?”

Between tax credits, childcare subsidies, employment support programmes and so on, the state often provides more support to working parents than to non-working parents. Which is, I think, probably as it should be.

sorry, that was a response to 35, not 34. I agree with 34.

Pagar: What evidence is there that taking women off, or reducing their, benefits after a short period of motherhood, regardless of circumstance, will help both mother and child? I will gladfully rescind if you can point me in the right direction on that.

While security against poverty is a good argument for benefit payments to children and families – increasing the choice of women is a bad one, since whatever freedom is won by the parents is taken from those who are paying for them.

If we accept that parents are performing an important role for society and that this choice is their reward, I think it is reasonable that those paying should have some oversight of the contribution the parents are actually making.

Lee

I am not for a moment suggesting that benefits should not be paid to those that need them. This includes those that, for any reason, cannot get a job and a wage to support them and their families. Remember, however, that this money is something that is given by society and, in theory, could be withdrawn if that were the will of the electorate. It should not be viewed by the claimant as some kind of inalienable right, because it is not.

Some women return to work immediately after having had a child. We can argue the merits of this but it is a lifestyle choice and is dependent on access to childcare. I am happy to accept that for some single mothers this is not an option and that for others, they want to raise their child themselves. This is also a lifestyle choice but it is one that seems reasonable to me to fund until the child is of school age. There should then be a presumption that the woman will work if she can find a job and the welfare system should be structured so that she will benefit by doing so.

We now come to the situation where a single mother chooses to have multiple children, one after another. Anecdotally we are told that some do this in order to get more benefits but that is irrelevant. In my view, the taxpayer should fund the cost of the first child but, at that point, the woman should be made aware that, if she chooses to have further children, there will be no additional benefit entitlement.

I don’t argue the above because I want to punish single mothers but because I believe the act of working is one of the things that provides meaning to life. To get out of the house and interact in the workplace rather than sit at home with daytime TV is, in my view, a healthy thing for people to do.

The structure of the current system, though well meaning by those that created it, condems a whole underclass in our society to a life without purpose or aspiration. They want for nothing except life itself.

“It should not be viewed by the claimant as some kind of inalienable right, because it is not.”

Again, this is where we differ, I feel it is. If you haven’t got employment certainly (assuming you’ve not got massive stockpiles of savings of course), you should be getting benefits from the state. Anything less is inhumane.

“I don’t argue the above because I want to punish single mothers but because I believe the act of working is one of the things that provides meaning to life. To get out of the house and interact in the workplace rather than sit at home with daytime TV is, in my view, a healthy thing for people to do.”

And I differ. The act of living, to me, is what provide meaning to life. If for a woman that is to have 8 children one after the other then that is her choice, and forcing anyone down a path of requirement to work “to give them meaning” is extremely patronising, not to mention illiberal.

“They want for nothing except life itself.”

You make that sound like something so disappointing. Don’t you feel depressed that you’re defined by the constraints of employment?

Horace: “If we accept that parents are performing an important role for society and that this choice is their reward, I think it is reasonable that those paying should have some oversight of the contribution the parents are actually making.”

This choice is their reward? That’s all well and good, but if they can’t feed their family then what good is that?

“since whatever freedom is won by the parents is taken from those who are paying for them. ”

This is not some zero sum situation. The idea that these benefits going to people who need the money to live is irksome to those that want to put an extra few grand in to investments bothers me I’m afraid, as an argument it seems far too “colourblind” to the varying degrees of wealth and freedom people do enjoy. Stopping benefits to those that experience the least of both at the expense of those that enjoy them the most is a little immoral to my eyes.

Lee

What you have just said is that she is entitled to have 8 children and that I am obliged to help pay for them. And if I object to this arrangement I am being illiberal because I am interfering with her lifestyle choices……..

FFS

“Again, this is where we differ, I feel it is. If you haven’t got employment certainly (assuming you’ve not got massive stockpiles of savings of course), you should be getting benefits from the state. Anything less is inhumane.”

Lee, are you saying that all the other countries who don’t have a benefits system or culture are inhumane? I’ve been down this road with you I think but I’ll explain it again – the only reason Great Britain has this amazing capacity to give these benefits out is because of the past (and continuing) centuries of rape and plunder of the rest of the world. How then is it humane – its based on inhumanity and it results in further inhumanity when you need to import foreigners (from countries previously raped) who cannot claim these benefits so that they can work under so called inhumane conditions to ensure this humane benefits system you’ve got going. And this isn’t just my own opinion – its common knowledge amongst us inhumaners…..

There is nothing inhumane about not giving money to a woman who had a child she knew she couldn’t feed – especially when I take that money from someone else who worked harder then we can ever imagine. How else do we stop women having children they cannot afford?

Can you answer me that?

Pagar,

I’m all woman FFS:)

I quite agree with 41 myself.
Our hard-earned taxes go to lots more dubious causes than a ‘single mum’ with 8 kids or whatever. You know, like nuclear weapons.
I would have thought though that we would have moved on from the ‘single mother’ phrase, ‘lone parent’ being a bit better, no? As in, some of them may be fathers. Some of them may not in fact be single (but widowed, divorced). Or is that political correctness gone mad?

As a previously ‘lone parent’ can I say this:
Finding a job was nice. Very nice. Even only working 20 hours a week gave me more money than IS. But only after she started school. And luckily, where I live there was quality childcare in the form of summer play schemes which at £40 a week was affordable. However, I wasn’t in the job long enough to find out how flexible the employers would be if the school closed due to snow, INSET days etc. And, having lost the job (due to the employer moving location) I then had to jump through the same old hoops to get the benefits reinstated. And don’t forget the rent and council tax rebates. Some landlords won’t wait until that’s sorted out. This is the sort of thing which makes lone parents worry about starting work, taking a leap into the unknown.

I remember starting work and having to buy a travel card on my credit card (which not all lone would have). Buying groceries on the credit card because the benefits stopped immediately I started work but payday was three weeks away. Borrowing money off my parents to pay the rent (because rent rebates stopped immediately on starting work and pay day was … well you get it). This is the sort of thing which makes lone parents worry about starting work, taking a leap into the unknown. Benefits, even if they’re not much, at least are consistent and you don’t have to pay for a travel card and worry about having time off when the child’s sick.

A lone parent of my acquaintance was desperate for a social housing flat for her three children and herself, reason being her private rented flat was outrageously expensive, was covered by the rent rebate under Income Support, but wouldn’t be if she found a job. The high rent put her off getting a job, she needed a lower rent home to make working worthwhile. One major factor in helping lone parents into work, which I rarely see mentioned anywhere, is can they afford to work AND pay the rent?

Hi Lolitafatjo

I agree with you about the “nuclear weapons” concept but have to point out that many a very useful discovery was made through the military so I would not be in favour of completely stopping this research.

In addition, if I may ask, for the benefit of my education; What did you think was going to happen when your baby was born? Were you working before and were you just not able to return to work after your maternity leave? Did something go wrong or did you just not think about the future?

Please don’t take it as me being rude but just me genuinly wanting to know what was going through your mind when you found out you were pregnant?

Thank you, #44, for actually giving is your persepective. I didn’t even think of the financial difficulties in transitioning into having a job, and possible fears of starting work. (You can tell I’m still in full time education, can’t you?)

(Feel free to ignore Lilliput’s concern trolling.)

“You can tell I’m still in full time education, can’t you”

Yes Debbie, its normally people that have not worked in their life before (liberal full time students and the benefits class) that are comfortable with the concept of the benefits society where some people work and others let them.

I’d love to have this argument with you in 20 years time – but in the meantime – Grow Up:)

46: I’d agree that there can be enormous difficulties in the transition from benefits to work but surely that should mean finding ways of tackling those difficulties rather than pretending they are insurmountable?

The choices should be about how we ease this transition rather than flinging our hands in the air in despair and consigning one parent families to the benefit system for DECADES.

So far I’m seeing NO SUGGESTIONS AT ALL about how to tackle this difficulty from those complaining about the changes to the system, just a lot of special pleading about why the previous system should have continued.

I can answer the question posed in the title with great ease! Single parents DO WORK, harder than you can ever know, being two parents in one on a very low income and still bringing up children that are happy and healthy and feel they fit in with their peers takes a massive amount of energy, more than I ever gave in paid employment.

I am a lone parent. I gave birth to my child aged 18. After my three months maternity leave was over i went straight back to work. After a year of working I went back to college, studied two A levels and then I went on to University. I worked all the way through until my last year which i decided to leave work to focus on my studies. I finish uni next week and the same day i start my new job. Ihave just also applied to study for a MAsters degree in september. My child has a very good attitude to work/education and we do not live in a council house. Yes we do live in poverty, however, one would not think that by looking inside my privatly rented house at my nice modern furniture and car, and my child is always dressed nice too.
When i do start workm i will not be recieving much more money then if i stayed on out of work benefits. However, i want to work and be independent. I do however, have higher qualifications then many lone parents.
What many forget when discussing lone parents are the men who leave, not always the case i know, but the emphasis is on the mother only. What about poor housing conditions, poor areas; could these not be factors in a childs upbriging?