It’s not all about the childcare

Susan Horn - 2 May 15

All election campaigns at one point or another try to play on parents heartstrings with promises to make the world a better place. Politicians oft like to claim that they’re doing this ‘for the future of our children’, and at some point most will invoke the ‘I want my children to grow up in a Britain where unicorns run free’ line – well maybe not unicorns, but something equally unlikely and unbelievable.

This time around, as with many many others, the all-important female vote seems to be pinned on cheaper childcare – because apparently we’re all supposed to pop out our kiddies, then bound back to work with the enthusiasm (and energy) of a Labrador puppy.

From what I’ve seen, all parties are unified in the belief that mothers need to stop lazing around and get back to work. They also all seem to agree that more affordable childcare is the silver bullet that will make this happen. Leaving aside the fact they assume we’re all desperate to go back – and by implication are saying that women who stay at home are in some way inadequate – I have a question that I would like them to answer.

Where are all these amazing, well-paid, and flexible jobs that will allow mothers to advance their careers while also balancing the demands of work and family?

I have fallen into being a stay at home mum because I didn’t have a job to go back to. I’d love to dress up and head into the office. It would be fantastic to go to the toilet on my own and use my brain for more than memorising nursery rhymes, but I wasn’t in a position to negotiate part time hours with an existing employer, and I haven’t been able to find a part time role that is interesting enough or paid well enough to tempt me back.

I have moments where I feel like I’m falling short because I’m not back at work and ‘having it all’, but a quick look at a few job boards is all it takes to convince me that this ideal of the perfectly balanced working mother doesn’t really exist. On a typical day there are over 2,200 jobs advertised in my sector, and less than 50 of those are part time or flexible. Where is the balance in that?

If I’m willing to compromise, I could get a job at relatively junior level that would (pro-rata) pay less than half of what I was earning before children. But really, why should I put myself through the inevitable stress of trying to juggle work and home life in order to drop about four hard-fought rungs on the career ladder, and not get paid my market value to do it? Am I really over 50 percent less qualified or less experienced just because I had a child and want to work three or four days instead of five?

I am a realist, so I accept that I have to make career and salary sacrifices in exchange for the luxury of working part time. What I have a problem with is the sheer depth of that sacrifice, and the assumption that making childcare cheaper will make the pay cut more palatable. We all know that women are already paid less than men before they have children. I for one, would be interested to know how that gap changes post-children. I have a sneaking suspicion that it gets even wider.

In my mind, childcare isn’t the only barrier preventing women from going back to work, and the quicker politicians figure that one out, the better.

Susan Horn

Susan Horn lives in Melbourne, Australia. Before children, Susan worked in PR and Marketing Communications and was a complete Triathlon geek. She is currently a full-time Mum who squeezes a bit of exercise in between indulging her chocolate and coffee habits.

View profile for posts, events and more info