"Couples with children are more important" - Radio 5 this morning

[DrSethHazlittMD]

There was an interview on the breakfast show this morning catching up with some mums who they apparently followed through pregnancy a couple of years ago. They were discussing assorted topics concerning the election and assorted pledged from the parties about improving things for working families and the one mum was very much in agreement that more needed doing for families.

The presenter posed the idea that the parties always promise things to "hard working families" and that single people (11 million) and those without children might feel a bit hard done by. Presenter asked the mum if she could relate to that?

Mum said she didn't agree that couples without children were hard done by (she avoided anything about single people altogether), that even more needed to be done for families, that the recent cuts had hit families most of all and that, in her opinion, couples with children are more important than those without.

AIBU to think that she's wrong in that:
a) the cuts have probably hit the disabled/permanently ill far most of all
b) couples with children are no more important than other couples, nor single people?

[bronya]

I think she probably meant that your income has to stretch further if you have children, whether you are single or not.

[DoJo]

In as much as a couple represents two votes, so appealing to them has twice the value of appealing to a single person, I suppose as far as politicians are concerned, that makes them worth more in terms of appealing to their votes.

[Breadrocks]

Children are the most important and vulnerable section of our society, so by default that means that helping families is more important than helping those without children. It may not be your view but it's a valid one, and one a lot of people will hold and agree with, whether they have children themselves or not.

[yellowdaisies]

I suspect she didn't word it very well (it's very hard when under pressure of live radio I imagine) She probably meant that couples with children were more in need of state support, than couples without children - which is fair enough really. Rather than anyone being inherently "more important" as a human being - which obviously they aren't.

I agree with you though that state support already on offer, with the cuts that have been made to it, mean that single people (those on JSA, even more than disabled) are generally on average struggling more than families

[YoungGirlGrowingOld]

YANBU - if that is indeed what she said then she sounds like a self important arsehole.

I have heard less "hard working families" BS in this election, thank goodness!

[DrSethHazlittMD]

Breadrocks - is a 13-year old child more vulnerable than someone with profound disabilities who can do nothing for themselves? I'm not sure I agree with that.

Yellow - already on this thread we have someone who thinks children are more important than other people.

Young - those were her exact words. While I do agree with Yellow that you can easily misword things on live radio, the tone and vehemence with which this mum spoke said it suggested to me she definitely meant it the way I heard it.

[Breadrocks]

Children are more important than other people. You may not agree but I do think they deserve more protection than your average adult. Personally I don't think it should be one or the other, but some people hold different views. Doesn't make her an arsehole because she thinks families need help, unless she was suggesting stripping resources from the disabled to do it?

[Shakirasma]

"Children are the most important and vulnerable section of our society, so by default that means that helping families is more important than helping those without children."

That's your opinion, you shouldn't state it as fact.

I vehemently disagree with you.

[jeee]

Oooh, we have four dc. Does this make as four times as important as those couples with only 1 dc?

Okay, so it sounds terrible. But given how often celebs/politicians say something to the media which can easily be twisted to sound terrible, I'm not surprised that some random woman comes over pretty badly. I very much doubt that she meant that she was more important than other people solely on the grounds of her breeding ability.

[Shakirasma]

The disabled have been far more affected by cuts than the average family!

[PurpleDaisies]

Children are more important than other people.

No they aren't. We are all important. Vulnerable old people with no family near by are just as in need of looking after by the state.

[juneau]

The most vulnerable in society are small DC, the seriously ill/disabled, and the frail elderly. All these groups should be top of any agenda for protecting people least able to protect themselves.

I agree that families have more mouths to feed and it can be much harder to fit work around caring commitments (whether headed by a couple or a single parent), but then people without DC can also have caring commitments, which is why those with who need care and those who give care must all be protected.

I suspect the interviewee phrased her comments poorly. Generally speaking though I agree that as a childless person I was much more able to raise my quality of life through work. Now I have DC I'm much more limited in what I can commit to outside the home. I cannot work all hours, for instance, whereas when I didn't have DC, I could if I needed to.

[IFinishedTheBiscuits]

Isolated and frail older people are the most vulnerable in society. Children tend to have some family/the public/school looking out for them.

[BertieBotts]

I think the problem is that most people aren't really aware of the realities of life for many disabled people and their carers and either assume that they are adequately provided for, or totally underestimate the effect that lack of funds can have on a person's life.

In her experience, families with children are struggling more than families without. She probably hasn't factored disability into that at all because it isn't within her experience. Most people don't consider it at all because it just isn't on their radar.

[lambsie]

Children are amongst the most vulnerable. There are others just as vulnerable. Ds is likely always to be more vulnerable than a typical school aged child.

[suzannecanthecan]

I believe that children are the future

[Skiptonlass]

The attitude that group x is more deserving than group y is what's gotten us into this mess.

Everyone is important, some people are more vulnerable than others. The disabled particularly have been screwed over in recent times, but the elderly, those with mental health problems, those dealing with domestic abuse etc,....all are vulnerable and all need resources and help.

[TiggieBoo]

I bet every one of us, put on the spot on the radio, would say something a bit daft just because they haven't had time to think about how to phrase it. She could have meant lots of things by that comment on importance:

1. that there are more families with children than without, so purely based on numbers, helping families with children would impact on more people
   
2. that children are vulnerable and should be helped
   
3. that people with children have fewer opportunities for work/work progression than single people so any state help is useful
   
   Unless the conversation specifically asked about disabled people, I don't know why you would bring this up. For the record, I've got no idea if disabled people have been hit harder than families - I've got no first or second hand experience of disabilities, all my information comes from media and I simply can't gauge the impact on disabled people compared to families.

[JoanHickson]

Let's hope she doesn't get ill and her DH leave her.

The old scapegoated disabled and lone parents again. I judge people who treat the vulnerable badly.

[QuintShhhhhh]

promise things to "hard working families" and that single people (11 million) and those without children might feel a bit hard done by. Presenter asked the mum if she could relate to that?

Are you miffed that the poor woman on the show did not immediately thing about disabled people when she was asked if she as a mum could relate?

She was not asked about disabled people, then, was she?

[BlackeyedSusan]

people with disabilities and the elderly are also vulnerable, possibly more so.

single people possibly have more flexibility, but lets face it there are plenty of downsides... they are really screwed if they lose their job. they have no less need of community than families, and the presumed flexibility to move wherever is not great in terms of mental and emotional health.

[toomuchtooold]

There's a whiff of whataboutery to this. From what you've said, the woman was asked about whether childless people had reason to feel hard done by compared to people with children. There was no mention of disability in the question.
On the thing of couples with children being more important, would agree it was clumsily said, but if she meant that all things being equal people currently raising children are more important than people not, yes, I would agree with that. Of course we're not inherently more important individuals but from a government's point of view, when I had no kids, if I died all anyone had to do was bury me and cancel my Sky subscription. Now someone would need to cover everything I do for the kids and if it ended up being the government it would be really expensive.

[DrSethHazlittMD]

Quint & Tiggy - no, the mum did not specifically mention disabled people but she said that families had been the most to suffer under the recent austerity cuts. I don't think that is the case and feel, based on the experience of families and people with disabilities I know, that the latter group have suffered more. Therefore I feel perfectly entitled to ask if I am unreasonable in thinking that!

[SnowyPiglet]

Agree with juneau basically.
And I think it's the 'more important' description that is winding people up.
(It is just the bit about couples with children that I am talking about). There is no doubt that it is more difficult to be flexible, change jobs, increase your working hours - whatever it takes to improve your income basically - if you have children. A single person, or a couple without children, are way more flexible.
Think school and nursery hours. Working shifts. Even going out enjoying yourself is more difficult when you have children (babysitters). Holidays are more difficult (can't get the term-time discounts). Food, clothes, petrol for school runs, other school costs (after school activities, clubs), not being able to nip to the supermarket anytime you like, taking time off work when kids are ill........the list could go on and on........obviously life is more complicated with children.
I know it's what we sign up for when we have kids, but DO give us a break!
Children really are the future....parents now are bringing up the future doctors, nurses, carers, politicians, scientists, EVERYBODY who will shape his country in years to come. Let's at least take some of the strain off those who are doing their best to bring up a decent future generation!
(Just re-read the original post. Why do people without children feel 'a bit hard done by'? Don't get it. Read all I have said above. It is OUR children who will be looking after the single people when they are old).

[GoodbyeToAllOfThat]

People with children are generally more in need of state-delivered services, so politicians need to court them more heavily than they do childless couples. That's all.