Yet again, there is an attack on mothers who choose to stay home and raise their families. This time, it's the British government. This is all too common these days, and is completely unfair, and also detrimental to society as a whole. First, the article:
Priti Patel’s ‘Economically Inactive’ Comments Betray UK Govt’s Hostility to Traditional Family
“Almost communist” comments by the Home Secretary
that “economically inactive” people should be mobilised into the
workplace have underlined the actively hostile policy environment for
young families created by the government, and have angered a vocal group
of stay-at-home mothers.
A fringe discussion around the British immigration policy debate is
rapidly turning its focus towards the attitude of the government towards
the much under-appreciated occupation of homemaker. As British
housewives take to social media to vent their frustration at being
treated so dismissively, one prominent trendsetter in the so-called
‘tradwife’ community has called the government’s stance “insulting” and
“almost communist”.
Asked who would perform menial job roles as the United Kingdom pivots
away from an open borders immigration system to one that focuses on
issuing visas to individuals with a demonstrable baseline of skills and
reasonable job prospects, Home Secretary Priti Patel cited the 8.5
million “economically inactive” people who could be put to work instead.
Yet as the BBC and others pointed out since the remarks were made, the United Kingdom is presently in a period of historically high employment,
and low unemployment, so there isn’t a large pool of people looking for
a job. In fact, just 1.8 million of the “economically inactive” people
identified by the Home Secretary actually want a job, a very low number
for a country the size of the UK — with many of the remainder engaged in
studies, retired, or too unwell to work.
One of the largest groups is the nearly two million people who look
after their families or a home — what would once have been simply known
as housewives. The oversight has left some expressing displeasure at the
suggestion that being “economically inactive” means they aren’t working
as just hard, or harder, than everyone else.
Speaking to Breitbart London Thursday, Alena Pettitt — a homemaker who has become a focus for both curious attention and disgust in the mainstream media’s sudden interest in the ‘tradwife’ movement — said Patel’s comments were “incredibly insulting”.
Pettitt, who said she founded her Darling Academy
as a means to help support other women who had chosen to raise families
with technical know-how but had latterly found herself being forced
more into the position of activist on behalf of other mothers, pointed
out that stay-at-home mothers had largely chosen that role for
themselves and didn’t want to be forced into work.
A stable home environment helps husbands achieve their full potential
in the workplace — aiding economic growth which the government gives
wives no credit for — and is the best possible way to bring up healthy
and happy children, she said. Many mothers didn’t have children
intending to immediately “hand them over to the state” to be raised, she
said, pointing to a school system which forces value judgements onto
children that may not align well with those of parents.
Pettitt told Breitbart London that it was an irony of the way
government values citizens that humans are judged to have worth if they
look after other people’s children or clean other people’s homes — in
return for wages — but are looked down upon if they perform the exact
same tasks for their own family. The only interest the government had
was turning women into taxpayers, she said, following up earlier
comments that Patel’s position was “almost communist”.
Noting that finding any work that would comfortably fit around school
hours, school holidays, and unexpected absences — for instance in the
case of an unwell family member — was already difficult, the pay in many
such roles is so low it doesn’t break even with the extremely high cost
burden of paying for childcare and high taxes, Pettitt added. This, she
said, made returning to work uneconomical or merely break-even for
many.
The comments of Home Secretary Patel, and the lived experience of
Alena Pettitt and others, underline the hostile attitude of the state
and the modern economy towards the family.
Taxation is levied on individuals rather than family units, meaning
two individuals — even with the paltry married couple’s allowance
factored in — earning a basic-income tax rate salary of £30,000 each a
year pay less tax than a single breadwinner earning the same collective
amount of £60,000. While the total income of that household is the same,
it being paid to one individual puts the earnings into the high tax
bracket instead, disadvantaging a traditional family over a “modern”
one.
This deliberate policy of getting women into the workplace is working for the government. The latest job figures show clearly
the fastest-growing group of new entrants to the workforce is already
women, and that has been a broad trend for decades. Government figures
show that while in the 1970s around half of women were in paid
employment, the proportion has risen to nearly three-quarters today, an
increase of millions.
While some of this growth has been driven by women wishing to forge
their own careers, much is also informed by the changing economy and
government disincentives for single-income families where a breadwinner
is able to earn enough to keep the whole family and allow the partner to
manage the home and raise children.
The British approach — which closely resembles many other Western
nations including France, Germany, and the United States — is not the
only model, however. Poland and Hungary, which both share a broad
European culture that suggests their policies could easily integrate
with the United Kingdom if there was a political desire to do so, are
strongly pro-motherhood and pro-family.
In Hungary, new policies
will see mothers who have four children exempt from paying income tax
for the rest of their lives, while the government will give generous
loans to families which would be totally written off if three children
are born to a couple.
In Poland, the state is to award special pensions
to show “gratitude and respect” to mothers who have raised large
families, helping to secure their old age after a lifetime of dedication
to the future.
These policies are already seeing benefits, with birthrates rising.
In Hungary in particular, the pro-family policies are born of a
recognition of a particularly vicious cycle born of low birth rates
leading to demands for high immigration — a demographic factor that
returns to this particular argument to Priti Patel’s comments.
The Patel Paradox is that responding to a theoretical labour shortage
by pressuring young women into work means fewer children will be born,
aggravating the problem in decades to come. So far, the British response
has been to prop up the economy with immigration, but supporting
families is a long-term sustainable solution.
Do human beings have any value beyond being GDP production units,
especially if the process of reproduction can be subcontracted abroad
and then imported? Why should children be raised in families, if the
state can nationalise that function? Is the Conservative party
conservative in any meaningful sense of the word?
Home Secretary, over to you.
I'm frankly getting tired of the attacks. Years ago, my husband and I made the decision for me to stay hoe, raise the kids, care for the house, and also to home school. I'd been working, because we had then believed that we needed two paycheck, to make things work. There was never enough time to get things done as we wanted, in the home, and there were issues with schooling as well. As for daycare, that was an even bigger issue, with a "better" daycare place still coming with a host of problems, not to mention ridiculous costs. I did the math, and we realized that, even with a decent paycheck, we were not actually better off with me working. During school months, after accounting for all of the costs associated with my working, we were only clearing maybe $200 a month, and in summer, with all-day daycare required, we were actually losing money. So, I quit. We started home schooling, the house was manageable again, and there was a lot less stress, without twelve hours a day being lost to work, prep for work, and travel time, plus the stresses from work itself. Home schooling was a huge benefit, as the kids learned more, and were also more content. Safer, too. We've raised children who know how to be responsible, who are well behaved, not promiscuous, not on drugs, not social media slaves, and who can relate to people of all ages, and treat others with respect and decency. We saved a fortune in expenses, and there was always a parent around for the kids. I'd call that a good outcome!
Yet there are people who refuse to see the benefits. Not only is a woman who is at home helping her husband in his job, by creating a good environment, not only is she caring for her children, so they aren't raised by strangers, she's also adding financial benefit, and that's good for the economy. She's saving her family money, by doing work they might otherwise have to pay someone else to do, and that means the family has more to spend. here is the logic, as the author of the article points out, in paying someone else to care for a home and children, when one can do it herself, and better? There is no benefit. Lower income paid help tends to not pay much in taxes, anyway, and families with less parental supervision end up having kids with more problems, and that also causes strains to the economy. How, you ask? Well, for starters, these kids could act out in school, causing problems for all depending on the schools for education. These problem kids could need counseling, which requires even more resources. Many of these kids end up committing crimes, and that means more police are needed, and more first responders of other sorts as well. That's all at increased cost to taxpayers. Plus, when you have more people in the workforce, you have lowered wages, so families have less to spend, and the economy suffers yet again. Stay-at-home wives and mothers are good for the economy!
Let's talk, too, about the claims that such women are "lazy". Any woman who has ever been in that position knows that isn't true, for most. Maintaining a home takes work, and that work takes time. Dishes have to be done, floors have to be cleaned, beds made, laundry washed, dried, sorted, folded, put away, bathrooms need regular scrubbing, dusting must be done regularly, trash carried out, groceries purchased, sorted, put away, various other household needs located, purchased, cared for, minor illnesses tended, a budget managed, bills paid, pets tended, kids taken to various activities, school work monitored, hair trimmed, advice an counseling given, and on and on and on. Mothers who stay at home do quite a lot! Smart ones do teach kids to help with the chores, of course, but that takes time as well. Just caring for younger children can take up a tremendous amount of time. Why do we allow some in society to tell us we are wrong for caring for our own families, instead of paying someone else to do it for us? Can any paid child care worker care as much for the child as the child's own mother? No. Not in any mormal circumstances!
Just look at how much our society has fallen, since women have been pushed more and more into the workplace, and out of the home. We have seen drastic increases in behavioral issues with children and teens, and a lack of responsibility in general, from people who don't value solid, strong families. Now, I know there are many who still do care about families, strong families with a father and a mother, families with a parent who is home with the children, who prefer to care for their own, rather than handing them over to someone else. Yet these families are under attack. Women who choose to play a traditional role are treated as outcasts, instead of as the stable building blocks of society that we actually are. Just as society needs men to be strong, to provide for families, protect them, and be solid guides, we also need women to be nurturing wives and mothers, to understand how important is that role, and to be appreciated for that. Counties that provide incentives for traditional families have the right idea. We need to see that again here. I see a woman who raises responsible and decent children as far more important and successful than one who advances in some career, while others raise their kids.
And, no, not trying to step on the toes of women who have had careers, and still managed to raise good kids, or who have had no option but to work, because of various issues. I'm happy that some can manage that. It's not easy. For me, that wasn't the right option, and it isn't for a lot of women, and we should be appreciated just as much. We aren't lesser because we choose to be wives and mothers. Those are necessary roles. We aren't here just to pay taxes, and we should not be willing to allow the government, any government, to decide how we raise our children, to mold their beliefs for us, to train them to be serfs to the system. I've been a working mother, and I've been a stay-at-home mother. When working, I was more than capable, values in my jobs, and intelligent enough to manage quite a number of things. I dimply don't need that, to feel important. I know what I can do, and I know where I am needed. I'd prefer to spend my energy and capabilities in my own home, rather than for some employer, while someone else gets paid to manage my home and children.
To all those moms doing the Mom job, thank you! You are appreciated. You are needed. You are capable. Don't let anyone tell you different. To guys who have such a wife, make sure she knows she's appreciated! We need to hear that now and then. To any thinking about it, look at all of the factors. When working, the added costs included additional gasoline, wear and tear on the car, a higher insurance rate since much more driving was necessary, professional work clothing, meals for while at work, daycare costs, and a higher tax bracket. If I'd continued, we could easily have had to hire someone for maid service. There was no spare time, as weekends were mostly spent trying to catch up. I'd be up at six a.m., rushing to get ready for work, and get two kids up, dressed, fed, and out the door to different schools, then into traffic, with a long drive, 8-9 hours at work, another long drive back, pick up at the daycare, and lucky to be home by six p.m. Then, dinner prep and eating, clean up, hours for homework help for the kids, maybe a few minutes to straighten up the house, ad collapse, to repeat. Tons of stress at work, too, and tons for the kids, with daycare and school issues. All for a job, remember, that netted at most $200 a month, after expenses. Thanks, but no thanks!
