Childcare: the hot potato in the political world

The froth whipped up by the Caroline Spelman story would be funny if it's weren't so damning about the country's attitudes toward childcare. So here's the deal: More than a decade ago a working mother pays her nanny extra - during school hours when the children aren't there - to work at her home office opening mail, filing and answering phones? Then she stopped doing it. It's hardly hookers and cocaine, is it? Ironically, she would have been better off spending more of the taxpayers' money hiring a separate person to do these time-consuming but essential tasks.

Yet what strikes me is that - with the exception of David Blunkett's "nannygate" - it's only professional women who are swept up into nanny scandals. Don't male politicians have young children as well? Yes, but of course it's the mothers who organise childcare. Ultimately it's still the woman's responsibility. And in the male-dominated political world, that's the root of our problems with childcare.

We still have to pay childminders out of taxed income and until recently couldn't use childcare vouchers for nannies. As the Guardian says today: "Gordon Brown was promising a national childcare strategy that would deliver affordable, accessible, high quality care to all. Ten years on, that's one more promise he has failed to keep."

The piece goes on to say,

Whatever the outcome of Spelgate, among her critics there might also exist just a touch of ambivalence. It's a bit rum that in a profession awash with allowances, including the cost of staying away from home, office expenses and a London supplement, there's no allowance for the one job that should matter as much if not more: someone to care for the children.

The general outcry about the affair is not just a little hypocritical, considering how many people pay for their childcare in cash or under the table, or regularly jiggle the numbers - giving the nanny £100 "grocery money" every week to buy some milk and bread. We have to realise that our attitudes about childcare directly relate to our attitudes about working women.

The Times Libby Purves writes, "However much the nation pretends it wants their skills, working mothers are still the bottom of the heap."

Maybe that's why I can't get worked up into a lather about Spelman. Giles Chichester paid hundreds of thousands to a company in which he was a director and now we're talking about paying someone - not a family member, not one's self indirectly but a nanny - to do a little bit on the side. I wonder if Spelman would have fared better if she'd hired the woman as a personal assistant and paid her for babysitting on the side.

Comments

[Jo]

I think you will find that most of those places where they got the vote early had a history of campaigning women - not just for suffrage but temperance groups (especially in the US) etc. Also a lot of countries eg Canada put restrictions in for the new women voters and in the case of Canada they wer only lifted I the 50’s. NZ, Canada and Australia couldn't give women full suffrage because they were still being bossed about by the UK so major decisions like going to war were taken abroad and they couldn’t influence the elections in the UK but when they got their own governments there was already a precedent for female suffrage.
Just noticed that women didn't get full suffrage in Switzerland till 1970!

[Delilah]

Cooo, knock me down with a feather. The Norwegians I know all seem to be divorced or separated. Alcohol or drug addiction is a common reason, but so is incompatibility. But then they don't seem inclined to marry or remarry as much as Brits. Remarriages are far more prone to divorce than first marriages. The Henry VIII syndrome.

When Norwegians do divorce, the fathers do seem to stick around and do at least 50% care. I don't know any divorced Norwegian with a "clean break". If one partner is incapable - alcoholic - the alcoholic's family does his/her share pending the alcoholic's 12-step recovery program. Basically, raising children isn't seen as "women's work" but as a family privilege and responsibility. Which I suppose makes remarriage and spawning a whole new family less attractive, and also less necessary. So maybe this does have a tangential bearing on adultery and affairs, after all!

Intersting about votes for women in NZ. I see Australia and Canada were close seconds; the US didn't get universal suffrage until 1920, but certain states gave women the vote from 1757. Finland and Russia led the way in Europe. Britain got universal suffrage in 1928. At (British) school, I was taught that pioneer cultures were macho and relegated women to inferior roles, but my experience is quite the reverse. You can't relegate a woman to an inferior role when the two of you have to build a farm together from scratch. I'm fond of pointing out that Britain's first female MP was, in fact, American - Nancy Astor - elected in 1919. (Don't know how she managed that, at the time only single women over 30 could vote - maybe she was a widow?) According to the biography I read, as an American she was quite used to the idea of a woman in politics but also quite unprepared for the rabid misogyny she would be forced to experience in the House of Commons for being "unnatural" and "unfeminine".

[Gipsy]

OK I know you're just talking about Europe, but just thought I'd mention that NZ gave women the vote in 1893.

[j]

thats very interesting as Delilah thought that divorce ratyes in Norway would be much higher than here. Your figures (Jo) make more sense as they argue that marriages are failing less, with the changes in behaviour, or that people are only getting married under circs where they are content to do so. Thats much more reassuring that we had feared from Delilah's original analysis.

[Jo]

Women did war work (men's work) in countries like france during WW1 but it was the countries with a strong established suffrage movement that gave women the vote first - UK 1918 (1928 same basis as men), France 1944.
I just went and looked up the statistics (yes I am procrastinating) and the divorce rate is actually a lot lower in Norway (3/1000 rather than 12/1000. Divorce rates in Europe have all been going up because isn't seen as a bad thing for men or women to do and women can look after themselves a lot more now. These are legal and cultural changes that have taken time but don't really just happen on their own it has been a long hard slog in many cases.

[j]

Jo, what do you think about why they are still divorcing?

[Jo]

From studying the Votes for Women movement in the UK at school and comparing it with other European countries it was quite clear that the most vocal, active women got the vote and I think that would still stand today. This makes me agree with Delilah about why Norway is pushing forward with more equality laws - the women are perhaps more assertive than in other countries and Norwegian men are supportive of this. I think you have to be feisty first to get the laws.

[j]

I also wonder if it is chicken or egg, then: either Norwegians are more feisty to start with and they both get their laws sorted out, and are independently also more likely to divorce, or whether the laws help people to survive better after divorce so the divorce rate is higher.

What seems to be interesting is that these men- who do sound very well-trained- are still being divorced by their wives. Presumably it's not for not doing their share? I'd be very interested to know what is behind the observation here that even when social systems are redesigned to remove some of the basic inequalities, divorce continues to be high- even grows. I'd be sorry to think that the problem was intractable and that changing laws doesnt help at all, and even sorrier to think that it actually made it worse.

Two things would be fascinating, if you know them anecdotally. In Norway, are men or women more likely to initiate the divorce? and do people cite other factors, such as drink, or is it the same range of issues as people cite here?

[Delilah]

Oh, Katie, I see. You're saying that perhaps Norwegian women are more assertive because the patriarchy decided to give them (and their children) better legal protection. Think about that one for a minute. It seems more likely to me that Norway had better laws (if indeed they did) because the patriarchy making the laws had been raised (by Norwegian women) to see equal treatment for women and respect for the wishes of the children as entirely natural. And British lawmakers at the time did not, because they were raised to expect women and children to be forced, if necessary, into subservient and powerless positions at home.

It all starts at home. Not in the courts.

[Delilah]

J, I can't be arsed to look it up, but I think I'm safe in saying the divorce rate in Norway is comfortably higher than in Britain.

[Delilah]

Kate, I think you're confusing my post with Supermother's. I'm the Norwegian Battleaxe expert and couldn't agree more with your analysis of British divorce laws. See my posts on the adultery thread and my numerous plugs for Professor Stone's marvellous treatise on the subject, "The Road to Divorce" (available second-hand on Amazon for not very much money).

Some time ago I posted the following Norwegian divorce story(friends of my b-i-l): the divorcing couple transferred the marital home into the names of their three children, and arranged to spend equal time living at the house caring for them; and the remainder elsewhere (rented, staying with Mum, girlfriend, whatever). The children had a vote about who got to sleep over, and when. When the eldest child reached 21, the house was to be sold and the proceeds divided between the children. Funky, eh?

[Kate]

Delilah, until recently (as in, just over a century) in this country women had no rights whatsoever to their children on separation, even if the father had been adulterous and violent. And unless a woman appeared to be sexually virtuous, the courts sided with the father in custody hearings until really quite recently - certainly 40 years ago, they still could. So I think female wariness of courts on child-related issues is pretty understandable, if unnecessary.

I also tend to dispute that courts side with women on principle, rather than the facts in each case. Courts, when children are concerned, tend to side with the status quo, and women do usually have far more day-to-day childcare responsibility. A primary carer will almost always be awarded residence, so as not to disrupt the child's existing life, and that's usually Mum. It can be Dad, and if so he'll probably get residence. The guiding principle is what's best for the children, not female supremacy.

As to the Spelman issue - it staggers me that so many people are so outraged. If buying a rockery installing a state-of-the-art shower or kitchen, and getting windows cleaned weekly are all within the rules, surely childcare shouldn't be outside them? The allowances are astonishingly generous, sure, but it seems a pretty bizarre place to draw the line.

[J]

"My mother thinks it has to do with generations of women running everything alone while men were off a-Viking, but whatever it is, it is responsible for the state of Scandinavian society - not the laws. It may be one reason for the mammoth divorce rate, of course.
"

Delilah thats very interesting. Did you mean the mammoth divorce rate here, or in Norway?

[Lucie M]

Just a little, out-of-context point:

Bob: "And I defy anyone to believe that a woman breastfeeding her child does not develop a stronger bond with the child than the father can even dream of."

I take up your challenge :-) as somebody who has always had a much stronger bond with her father. I'd say it's one of those things you can't make blanket statements about. I don't think a few weeks/months of breastfeeding (and not all mothers breast feed, of course) can count so much in the grand scheme of things (yes, I know it promotes the release of the hormone oxytocin, but I don't believe that's a permanent fix - after all, sex does the same and that hardly guarantees a permanent bond). Just as, say, men are taller than women in general but some women are taller than some men, it is true that some men are more fitted to parenting than some women. My father was always a very natural, 'wise', fun and self-sacrificing parent, whereas my mother was not really cut out for parenting, too self-centred. And yes, she breast-fed me! It was my father who brought me up after they divorced. Although my mother and I live close by, we don't often speak - not through bitterness, but we just don't have that bond. She never phoned the house in case my dad picked up, but she never phoned my mobile either and now of course I am grown-up and still no sign of interest...

Excuse the essay, it's not that relevant, just couldn't let the assumption lie!

[Delilah]

I don't have a single problem with sex discrimination laws - and I would agree, up to a point, with affirmative action laws to get women into management - but I have HUGE problem with laws that discriminate AGAINST men who opt to take on "female" roles so that their women can work freely. Of which Britain is rife. Largely because women themselves seem completely uninterested handing over any control at home, and keen on any state initiative which keeps the buggy out of men's hands.

Norway is different because Norwegian women are different (I should know, my sister married a Norwegian) - they are TERRYIFYING. No man would dare to expect a Norwegian woman to accept less than a man, or to cut them any slack at all when it comes to duties at home. There would be no debate, no humoring, he would be simply marched to the sink (or the baby, or whatever) and expected to get on with it. My mother thinks it has to do with generations of women running everything alone while men were off a-Viking, but whatever it is, it is responsible for the state of Scandinavian society - not the laws. It may be one reason for the mammoth divorce rate, of course.

[supermother]

legal changes have underpinned women's rights. They were badly needed and still are across much of this sexist planet. Women could not vote. Married women could not own property. All that had to be changed. Until 1970 there was no right to equal pay for equal work. No sex discrimination laws. We really really needed those changes. Cynics will say laws are changed like that when there is a business case for them and that may well be so but the law was needed.

I would now like a requirement that 40% of boards in the UK are female. We need the kick. I know how people are appointed to boards. People go through a semblance of good corporate governance, publicly advertise but then appoint someone like them.

The positive discrimination so inimical to many women has not damaged them in Norway and elsewhere. Client are helping too in requiring their advisers to show to prove their lack of discrimination. It's all getting better but not quite fast enough largely because women are so very silly in losing gains which have been hard won.

What we really do need most of all in terms of legislative chance is non transferable paternity leave and pay - use it or lose it. This government has delayed laws already made which would have given men 6 months paternity leave (albeit on the usual female pittance rate) which they could take after the mother's 6 months.

But even more key is for women to marry men who earn less, to marry down not up. It is the marrying up which is the main reason women give up work to become dull unpaid domestic servants at home because the economic choice is always to have the woman at home as she earns less. Women seek the wealthier stable provider. I don't see that changing as it's in their psyche and probably in their genes but I would like to be wrong.

[j]

But my question again - If it is so, why the need for the law????? (which is the main point I am arguing)

Bob very briefly- what is the need for law that prevents the sale of dangerous or substandard goods? Answer: it can briefly pay some individual companies to sell fraudulent rubbish, but also they are tempted into foolishly bad behaviour by being frankly poorly advised and not very good at business.

Maternity leave is at that basic level of health and safety proection. Many companies go well beyond that, there is no law to make them, and as you rightly say, the economic case for doing more is strong enough on its own.

[Lazy Mummy]

KM - Glad the blog's working again. I'll catch up with it over the weekend (and thank you for letting me know).

[Delilah]

Trust a feminist to put the boot into lazy slob women, when a bigger problem is lazy slob men, who still expect Mummy to sort out nursery pickups, laundry, cleaning, and dinner regardless of what she does at work. And of course control-freak women who want - to - DO - it - ALL.

Men don't work to set a good example to their sons or justify their education or even to please their wives, they work to make money and satisfy themselves. Women should do the same. If they don't find the work as satisfying as being at home, and don't need the money, then I'd say there is no obligation - NONE - to work.

I've already posted on tax, and find it very curious how relaxed the posters are about the obscene levels of taxation that working mothers are burdened with. Don't you care? Do you really believe that it's all going to help women, rather than paying for a cancerous bureaucracy that feeds off and in fact promotes their inequality?

[Nicky Rodgers]

Paying her Nanny to make the phone calls gives more time for mother to spend with the children when they are home. Living abroad when my children was a valuable time - I could afford to have staff do the housework while I enjoyed activities with the children.

Leave mothers alone to work out how they use the available staff. On the whole we how to use this privelige to best effect.

[Nicky Rodgers]

Paying her Nanny to make the phone calls gives more time for mother to spend with the children when they are home. Living abroad when my children was a valuable time - I could afford to have staff do the housework while I enjoyed activities with the children.

Leave mothers alone to work out how they use the available staff. On the whole we how to use this privelige to best effect.

[Sarah]

And that would be 'preferable' not 'oreferable' of course.

[Sarah]

"what I object to is the immense expense demanded, by law, of the employer and taxpayer so that the woman can be both mother and career-person"

I can't speak for employers, but as a tax payer I don't object to paying for a society where people can be good parents and also have a career. Why shouldn't women be mothers and 'career-people'? Very few of us want to be just one or the other. The same goes for men, surely it's oreferable to not have to choose between being a good father and having a good career? Women have suffered badly from workplace discrimination and limited opportunities, but also plenty of men have missed out on being with their children because of the obligation to single-handedly 'provide' for the whole family. In a good relationship, you are partners, you share both the burdens and the joys of life with each other.

No there will probably never be complete equality in this situation between women and men (or women who give birth and those who don't, in the case of same-sex relationships) because the biology is not equal - there will always be the need for time to physically recover from the birth and any complications, and to establish breastfeeding etc. That's just the way it is, and I don't think anyone is really objecting to that! But surely it's reasonable that, since people *do* generally have children, and people do generally need to work for a living, that we try to come up with sensible ways of making these two things compatible?

I feel it's in my interest to make this work, and in the interest of society as a whole. And despite short-term costs, surely it's generally in the interests of business not to lose good, talented people just because they also want to have children?

[Gipsy]

Bob - the law is there to give a fair chance to women. Biologically, we don't have much choice but to be the one who has the child, and if for no other reason, some physical recovery time needs to occur. There also needs to be some time for the mother and baby to spend together.

We also have laws that give employees sick leave, paternity leave and paid holiday time.

It is in a company's best interests to provide these things - it helps them retain valuable staff who are the people that make money for them. And indeed most companies do pay more than the statutory minimum for that very reason. Which shows that it does indeed work in their favour to have these benefits for employees. But, if that's the case, then why do we need those laws in the first place as well?

Because not all companies are that concerned about their staff or see the value of practicing business this way. And without these laws, a great many people mostly at the lower socio-economic end of society wouldn't receive even the most basic benefits, and the people that need them the most are the ones who need their jobs the most - and we need them to be in employment as well. The alternative is to have a permanent underclass FORCED into being, who have no choice but to live on welfare and handouts. I know that you can argue that this has already happened - but I'm talking about it happening to people who would otherwise be working, tax paying, productive members of society.

[Bob Finbow]

J, To your 14:07:36 post. I don't dispute some companies may decide it pays them. But my question again - If it is so, why the need for the law????? (which is the main point I am arguing)

I have to sign off now but I'll be back!

Have a good weekend