PAMELA MURPHY,
Madam, - Kathryn Holmquist makes much of the fact that she's a working mother - ad nauseam, in fact, if you look at the thread of her articles over the past few months.
Lots of people pad to their home offices in the mornings, as she does, to do a day's work. For some, location is irrelevant. The job is still extremely demanding, involves long hours and is rarely confined to the desk.
And, like her, only the very lucky ones can sit at their computers, take a flight of fancy and write just about whatever comes into their heads. Usually about family life - not just family life in general, but their very own personal family life. This could involve research, phone calls, driving across the city or around the country to gather information for an article but in Ms. Holmquist's case, it evidently doesn't.
Her working life bears no comparison to that of a working (in Dublin) woman with two young children living in Mullingar who rises at maybe 5.30 a.m. so she can drop her children to a minder and still be in time for work after battling the traffic. Let's not talk about what time she returns in the evening and what kind of life she, her husband or her children have as a result.
As for the stay-at-home mother who Ms Holmquist believes has "to justify her existence" - given the choice, would said mother prefer to spend her afternoons ferrying children from one activity to another, maintaining her children's social network (to use a bit of psychobabble), helping less able children with homework, cooking an evening meal having cleaned the toilets (Ms Holmquist is famous for saying that a six-year-old is capable of cleaning toilets) and washed the underwear so her children won't have to etc., etc.? Or would she prefer to be in front of a computer spouting whatever comes into her head believing she's "doing it all" ? I don't know - it's up to you.
A letter to your letters page last week called for more research and less psychobabble in the "Education and Living" section. Been there, done the psychobabble. I'll second that. - Yours, etc.,
PAMELA MURPHY, Clontarf Road, Dublin 3.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
A chara, - Kathryn Holmquist's article in today's Education and Parenting section (You've got nothing to be guilty of..., November 26th) is in contrast to the tone of respect for carers and the value of their work shown in her article in yesterday's Health section (Who cares about the carers? November 25th). Ms Holmquist rightly pointed out the value of the caring work of the three carers, who are among the 200,000 carrying out such work with little State support or recognition.
From the context of the stories, it was clear that at least two of the three carers in yesterday's article were also at-home mothers. Ms Holmquist wrote of them and their work with respect.
In today's article, however, Ms Holmquist seems to be implicating at-home mothers for the guilt suffered by mothers who are employed in the labour market, according to Dr Miriam Moore's study for Céifin.
Women choose to stay at home not to "bake bread", or to make mothers in employment feel guilty, but to look after their children and other relatives who need care and support services. It is a positive, though difficult choice at times, as is any other choice of life-path. It deserves the same respect as other choices of life-path.
Looking after children is a full-time job. A recent Ark Life survey estimated the value of the contribution of the woman in the home to the family as between €700 and €1,400 per week . Yet although my contribution to society is recognised in Article 41.2 of the Constitution, I have no right to an income for the work I do, and no automatic rights in the social welfare system. In the tax system, a single-income couple benefits up to minus €55 per week irregardless of the number of people dependent on this one income. (If tax individualisation is completed in the next budget, the difference could rise to minus €130 per week.)
Women who are full-time in the home provide services in the community, including informal childcare for women in employment, the value of which is not included in the Ark Life survey mentioned above or, for that matter, in the GDP. This invisible work needs to be recognised, along with the all work which benefits our society.
Volunteering for charities, setting up play groups, providing music and art lessons are only some of the activities that at-home mothers participate in regularly. It is not that people in full-time employment do not do these activities, it is simply that they have less time to devote to them. For example, programmes such as Meals on Wheels are finding it increasingly difficult to find people available during the day.
Tax individualisation and dual-income mortgages have increased the pressure on the 531,000 women (and 5,000 men) who want to stay at home when their children are small, or whenever family members need support. The choice to stay at home needs to be recognised as a valid one, and a financially viable one.
Many of us who work full-time in the home will not be able to afford to any longer if tax individualisation is completed. We are worth more than a source of cheap childcare for women with proper incomes for the work they do. Equal pay for equal work? For everyone except women in the home, it seems. - Is mise,
ÁINE UÍ GHIOLLAGÁIN, Vice-Chair, Women In The Home, Ráth Cairn, Áth Buí, Co. na Mí