to wonder where you are going to put the children?

(85 Posts)
Unacceptable Sun 24-Mar-13 14:03:53

I read on here (and hear in RL) so often the delightful phrase

"don't have children if you can't afford them" or some similar line, always when putting down families who claim benefits.

Parents who at one time could afford to have DC but then through a change in circumstance: be it a DH deciding he'd actually rather bugger off and live the life of Riley without contributing towards his DC (my situation) or a DH being diagnosed with a terminal illness (close friend) can no longer support DC without some assistance shouldn't have those DC as they can't afford them?

Can anyone on here who has ever trotted out that line please tell me what they would like these Parents to do with their children?

wongadotmom Sun 24-Mar-13 14:10:32

You could use them as a cheap alternative to turkey at Christmas

wongadotmom Sun 24-Mar-13 14:12:33

Sorry about your situation op I didn't read properly before posting blush

WorraLiberty Sun 24-Mar-13 14:13:04

I've never heard it said to people who already had children and then experienced a change of circumstance.

I've only heard it said to people who have no intention of earning a living and yet continue to have babies.

TWinklyLittleStar Sun 24-Mar-13 14:19:43

What worra said. I've only ever seen people whose circumstances change for the worse be offered kindness and support. And surely it makes sense to not take on any major financial commitment that you know in advance you can't afford, be it children, a mortgage or something else?

zeeboo Sun 24-Mar-13 14:21:22

I've never known anyone say that to someone who has had an unexpected change of circumstances. It's a world away from actively choosing to do it.

ImTooHecsyForYourParty Sun 24-Mar-13 14:21:43

That's the only context I've ever heard it in too, Worra. I didn't think anyone was thick enough to not understand that we don't have bloody crystal balls and can't actually tell what's in our future. I thought people who say it always mean those who make a decision to have children when their circumstances at the time of conception mean they know that they cannot afford to feed, clothe and house those children.

If it turns out they mean that they think we can all see into the future then they're daft as a brush!

Booyhoo Sun 24-Mar-13 14:28:50

the only times i've heard it is on threads talking about benefits where posters just spout it in reference to benefit claimants. they only specify which benefit claimants they mean after someone else says " what am i supposed to do with my children? i was married and working full time when we had our dcs, my husband was made redundant and i became ill" at which point the 'dont have children' poster will say "of course i dont mean YOU, i mean all those others who are on the 7 millionth generation of never having worked and have 1453763 children all 7 years apart in age so the scroungey single mum never has to work and can sit at home and smoke all day" hmm

zlist Sun 24-Mar-13 14:31:19

Another one who agrees with Worra

WileyRoadRunner Sun 24-Mar-13 14:37:57

Exactly what worra said!

kinkyfuckery Sun 24-Mar-13 14:39:04

What Worra said!

I'd like to point out the myth if generation after generation is just that. Look up the statistics on it...It occurs but is not anywhere near as common as people are led to believe.

Sorry about your twunty EXH op thanks

Also agree with worra!

LineRunnyEgg Sun 24-Mar-13 15:01:39

I am in the 'Having a twunty ExH' category, like the OP. I have had people say some pretty shitty things to me on MN about my not having miraculously predicted that my ExH might one day just up and leave.

I'm guessing they were wind-up merchants, or arseholes. Most people on here are pretty supportive.

In RL, though, I have had people make some cruel remarks and mean them, when I have been having a hard time juggling work, childraising, illness and finances. When I ask them what they think I ought to be doing better, they say stuff like, 'Can't their father have the children?' Well, that would be bloody lovely if he and his latest girlfriend gave a shit, but as they don't then it's all down to me. smile

squeakytoy Sun 24-Mar-13 15:03:32

Its fairly obvious for anyone with common sense that it applies to the people who are already struggling, yet continue to have more children when they know damn well they are not able to support them.

YouTheCat Sun 24-Mar-13 15:07:22

I have actually seen someone on here suggest that 'well you should have thought of that and made savings to cover for this', when a poster had been left with nothing due to a feckless ex.

Most people will mean those with nothing who keep churning out offspring but there is a small minority of people who have no empathy whatsoever and don't have a clue what it is like to struggle.

Lonelybunny Sun 24-Mar-13 15:23:26

Think it applies to people like a lady I know who now has 5 kids by 3 different men and never worked.

thebody Sun 24-Mar-13 15:25:14

Wot worra said.

LineRunnyEgg Sun 24-Mar-13 15:31:14

I have actually seen someone on here suggest that 'well you should have thought of that and made savings to cover for this', when a poster had been left with nothing due to a feckless ex

Yep, had all that. I even had, 'Well you chose to marry him.' Still doesn't explain what I meant to do with the kids I apparently should not have had.

Oh, and any savings I had, I had to hand over to him anyway when he divorced me.

So I think the OP does have a good point, personally.

garlicbrunch Sun 24-Mar-13 15:36:58

The myth of generation after generation is just that.

- Yes, and Orchard has been kind to the Worras of this world, since no three-generation families have been found. None.

Interestingly, the bedroom tax introduces a very good reason for benefit claimants with little prospect of finding paid employment to have an extra child. Another own goal, I suspect.

twofingerstoGideon Sun 24-Mar-13 15:40:53

Yes, I've seen the 'don't have children unless you have sufficient savings to support them until they're 18' bollocks on here, too.

Gatorade Sun 24-Mar-13 15:42:10

I don't necessarily agree with that line being parroted out again and again (what's the point...people are already in the dire and i imagine uncomfortable situation of needing benefits, saying 'you should have planned for x' won't change that), however I do think there is a lot that parents can and should do to protect both their own and their children's futures and reduce the risk they will end up on benefits. This is personally what I did (I'm sure it doesn't cover all eventualities though and I fully admit I have been incredibly lucky, I'm certainly not saying only people who can do the below should have children):

Didn't conceive children until I could afford them and had the below outlined in place (abstained...tmi!)

Married to DH to ensure some (although limited) legal protection

Owned own property (with relatively small mortgage) and back up property which are let out (held individually in own names by DH and I so we each have our own) although I appreciate this will be beyond the means of most. Basically as secure as possible housing and asset base and not over stretching on mortgage/rent etc.

Savings for a rainy day in place (would recommend at least 6 months of expenses)

Insurance (health related, redundancy (although we don't have this as we could survive on one salary only) and death, not too expensive if started young and incredibly important if the worst happened)

Finally, and most important to me, maintaining my own financial independence (actually largely due to a thread I started on here about working or staying at home post DC, wonderful advice revieved). I don't need to work but I do because I need to know I could support myself and my DC if DH left/died.

I appreciate I haven't answered your OP, probably because there isn't a sensible answer other than 'struggle on trying to give DC the best life they can with the benefits available', but I do think there is a lot to be said for protecting yourself from the situations highlighted in your OP.

YouTheCat Sun 24-Mar-13 15:50:54

Doesn't even cover half of the situations, Gator. Doesn't account for those unable to buy their own properties (extortionate rents therefore virtually impossible to save a deposit).

Doesn't account for those left with very young children, by feckless arses, who won't pay their way. Leaving the other parent behind to pick up the pieces and try to negotiate a job and pay for childcare, which then leaves them relying on tax credits etc.

Not everyone has the luxury of saving that much from their wages, though what they have coming in is enough to cover family expenses.

sarahtigh Sun 24-Mar-13 15:52:33

gatorade I think that would mean about 60% of population at least not having children

sarahtigh Sun 24-Mar-13 15:53:49

gatorade I think that would mean about 60% of population at least not having children

LineRunnyEgg Sun 24-Mar-13 15:55:20

Gatorade I did all of that and more. But if a husband chooses to leave you as a single parent, not support his DCs, barely see them, and stitch you up for every penny he can get, whilst locking you in place with a contact order he doesn't adhere to himself - then being told that 'You should have planned better' is really best directed at the man in the arrangement, wouldn't you think?

LineRunnyEgg Sun 24-Mar-13 15:57:08

Actually, could the strapline be directed at men and say, 'You shouldn't have had children if you were going to leave them?'

TheRealFellatio Sun 24-Mar-13 15:57:47

Can anyone on here who has ever trotted out that line please tell me what they would like these Parents to do with their children?

I think people who say that are usually aiming it at people who go ahead and have children already knowing in advance that they cannot support them financially and/or do not have adequate housing for them.

I am not defending those people, or siding with them necessarily. Merely pointing out that the two situations are totally different, and the comment probably has very little to do with the two scenarios you are talking about in your OP.

Gatorade Sun 24-Mar-13 15:58:25

I really don't mean that sarah, I wouldn't want to live in a country where only the well off could reproduce, how awful.

The above are just examples of some of the things that can be done to protect yourself as much as possible in a very difficult financial world. The financial independence as far as possible being key.

I personally think it is a great shame and disgrace that people working hard in minimum wage jobs should need benefits to survive and have a family, it's not fair on them or society as a whole. I don't however want that to stop a loving couple who emotionally have a lot to give from having children.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Trills Sun 24-Mar-13 15:59:57

"AIBU to wonder where you are going to put the children?"

Who, me? Where am I going to put what children? Yours? I'm not going to put them anywhere.

YABU because your title makes no sense whatsoever and doesn't seem to have much in relation to what you posted.

The advice don't have children... is not the same as your children should be taken away, if that's what you are trying to imply.

Gatorade Sun 24-Mar-13 16:01:29

I completely agree line, that is why I tried to say parents and not mothers in my post, both parents should be responsible for the successful upbringing of their children, the sooner something is done to ensure that feckless parents who don't support their children are brought into line the better (more stringent and enforceable child maintenance for example).

RandallPinkFloyd Sun 24-Mar-13 16:03:35

I've had some similar comments tbh.

I should have had savings - I did, they went pretty bloody quickly when H lost his job a month before DS was born.
I should have my own job - I do.
I shouldn't have married him - well my crystal ball was fucked, what could I do.
I shouldn't have left him - he cheated on me but thanks for making me feel just a little bit more shitty about it than I already do.
I should have waited until I could afford to buy a house - well that's me a childless old woman.

I used to get very angry and upset but not any more. I can see it for exactly what it is. Fear. Plain and simple.

If it's my own fault it can never happen to them.

Machli Sun 24-Mar-13 16:05:29

I have seen "well why did you have children/get pregnant then" many, many times on here when people's circumstances have changed and it infuriates me. I started a thread about it a couple of months ago actually. So it isn't just aimed at feckless layabouts that keep churning babies out despite their shaky circumstances at all.

bochead Sun 24-Mar-13 16:07:05

I'm beginning to think the populace is being softened up to accept the reintroduction of the workhouse.

There is no political will whatsoever to call the feckless that abandon their children to account. The Cecil Parkinson model of parenting is that favoured by those in power.

Indeed one of this government's first acts was to impose punative fees on parents who ask the CSA to handle maintenance payments as their ex's are being unreasonable (unfair as the CSA is completely ineffective against the "won't pay" brigade).

musickeepsmesane Sun 24-Mar-13 16:08:14

Going back to the 3 generations thing, I have been involved with families who have three generations on benefits so they do exist. When these things are investigated is it just unemployment benefit? Families are usually a mix of disability/unemployment benefits.

LineRunnyEgg Sun 24-Mar-13 16:08:58

Randall yes, I think it's probably fear, too.

If it can happen to me - job, house, PhD yada yada, didn't stop my relentless descent into an endless struggle of lone parenthood and too many early grey hairs - then it can happen to anyone.

I do get fab support mostly on MN, though. I wish I'd found it earlier tbh.

janey68 Sun 24-Mar-13 16:18:05

What worra said.
I've only ever heard it in RL when it's clearly referring to people who have children knowing they can't support them

You do read some strange things from a minority on MN, and sometimes an occasional poster might say people shouldnt have kids unless they know 100% in advance they can support them to adulthood (which is indeed daft) but equally you get some occasional posts the other way- I was reading on relationships earlier from a woman desperate to have another child to satisfy her whims even though her relationship was screwed.

The majority of people are sensibly in the middle though, and would offer nothing but support to those whom life has dealt a harsh hand, but aren't sympathetic to people who selfishly churn out kids to satisfy their own whims when they can't adequately support (whether it's financially OR emotionally) the ones theyve got. And I emphasise the emotional aspect, Because there are people out there who may have a large enough house and can provide materially, but carry on having kids because they like babies but have scant regard for the emotional well being of the older ones. The UK is a first world Country: we don't have kids to send out to work or support us in our old age- lets be honest, bringing children into an over populated world is ultimately selfish- I don't mean in a terrible way, but it's about fulfilling our wants basically

CouthySaysEatChoccyEggs Sun 24-Mar-13 16:22:14

It's been said to me on here enough, ignoring the fact that when I had my first 3 DC's, I was the main earner, working in a good job, no benefits except Child Benefit, High Rate Tax Payer, buying my own house blah blah blah.

Then I was dxd with epilepsy and my life turned on a dime.

My insurances refused to pay out as they said my epilepsy was an undeclared pre-existing condition that had been misdiagnosed (which was true, but there was no way of ME knowing that it had been misdxd).

I lost my career as it was barred by law to anyone with epilepsy. I then lost my home. My partner at the time was unable to earn even 1/3 of what I had previously been earning.

So, I ended up in social housing, on benefits, with 3 DC's that I could no longer 'afford'.

WTF was I meant to do at that point - give them up for adoption?!

TheRealFellatio Sun 24-Mar-13 16:22:38

Oh I shouldn't have bothered typing all that - in future I am just going to follow Worra around the board, going 'What she said'

It's easier. grin

ProphetOfDoom Sun 24-Mar-13 16:26:19

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

CouthySaysEatChoccyEggs Sun 24-Mar-13 16:26:20

Oh - before my dx I even HAD £20k savings in the bank.

What people don't realise, or seem not to, is that while you have savings over £6,000, you can't claim ANY benefits, and are expected to live off your savings, and even when your savings dwindle to £6000, you only get a 'reduced rate' of benefits until your savings are under £1000.

It only takes your washing machine and your fridge freezer to break down for that last £1000 to go and leave you with nothing.

So even people who HAVE got substantial savings will be screwed eventually in certain circumstances!

RandallPinkFloyd Sun 24-Mar-13 16:29:10

Oh absolutely, the support definitely far out ways the knobbers!

I'm always grateful that I was an MNer when it all happened. I honestly think things would be very different without this bonkers place.

I'm luck in that although my H was a crappy husband he's a lovely dad. He does buy things for DS when he can (bits of food, nappies sometimes) and looks after him for the 2 days a week I'm in work. Yes he could do more but in all honesty he's pretty skint himself. He's still not found regular work after a year and a half.

It's a crappy situation all round, there were no winners that's for sure.

(So sorry about your situation thanks )

FasterStronger Sun 24-Mar-13 16:30:22

Can anyone on here who has ever trotted out that line please tell me what they would like these Parents to do with their children?

be responsible for the ones you have as best you can and don't have more until you are able to provide for them.

WafflyVersatile Sun 24-Mar-13 16:31:40

Some people are never in the position to put all or even any of those protections in place.

As a society the nurturing of our children should be paramount. For our own sake, for our own children's sake and for society as a whole. When we punish people for having children but not jobs or wealth then we perpetuate social problems.

I don't think anyone truly suggests children are in any way to blame for their circumstances or that they should be punished for them. I would hope that all people agree that children should be supported. That means providing support for parenting and parents, in whatever way it is needed. We don't do nearly enough and hardly too much as some seem to think.

People who parrot 'they shouldn't have children unless they can afford it' can fuck the fuck off quite frankly.

They are a bigger part of the problem than any number of families living in poverty.

janey68 Sun 24-Mar-13 16:31:40

Another thing that crops up periodically on here are posts from women who want a 3rd/4th child but their dh doesn't, and they ask 'AIBU to cajole or even trick him into having one?'
So although I am sympathetic to those who've been dealt a shit hand, there are also people out there (women and men) who are prepared to have a child against the will of the other parent, which frankly is a disaster in the making

RandallPinkFloyd Sun 24-Mar-13 16:31:53

X-posted with everyone.

That was to Line but applied to Couthy too smile

RandallPinkFloyd Sun 24-Mar-13 16:32:53

And Matilda obvs!

WafflyVersatile Sun 24-Mar-13 16:35:42

bochead I agree. This govt are steering us back to Victorian times.

ReturnOfEmeraldGreen Sun 24-Mar-13 16:39:13

What Booyhoo said. It's always "Oh no, I didn't mean you, it's all those feckless scroungers on the estate over there that are the problem" hmm

CouthySaysEatChoccyEggs Sun 24-Mar-13 16:43:19

9 years down the line from my dx, and I'm too disabled to work, I am caring for 4 DC's, 3 also have dxd disabilities.

YES, I had one more DC that I couldn't 'afford' to support - because I had a contraception failure due to my epilepsy meds, and I couldn't bring myself to terminate. I WASN'T a Lone Parent at the time - my Ex partner left when that child was 4 months old. To ensure that doesn't happen again, I am getting sterilised, and abstaining in the meantime.

It's not fun, I've been celibate for 2 years now, but it's what I have to do to ensure I have no further DC's. Nit everyone has enough self control to do that for two years in their 20's or 30's.

I can see their point. It's natural to want to have a relationship with someone and for that relationship to have a sexual element. And contraceptive accidents DO happen, even to MC mums that DO have enough money (currently) to support an extra DC. So why is that expected to be any different for a woman on benefits?

Is it just that if you are on benefits, you should either be sterilised or abstain for the entire time you are on benefits to ensure no contraceptive accidents, or that if you are on benefits and have a contraceptive accident, you should automatically terminate?

I'm quite sure that these women on benefits didn't manage to fall pregnant alone without a man's input. So why is it ALWAYS the woman's fault? Why is it ALWAYS the woman who seemingly gets castigated for having another DC that she 'can't afford' while the man gets hardly any censure for creating another DC then buggering off and not supporting that DC adequately?

It boils my piss tbh, that it's always the woman in the wrong, without anyone thinking about the fact that she didn't get that way alone.

Why do women have to be made MORE responsible for having had another child whilst on benefits when the men should be treated as equally responsible? I've never understood that.

It's not as if the Government makes it so that the father that has fucked off is equally responsible for childcare costs to ensure the Mother's ability to work, is it?

If that was the case, I could guarantee you that many more Lone Parents would be out at work, if they were only responsible for half of the crippling costs of childcare.

And anyway - if you had to be able to support your child independently, without recourse to Tax Credirs, ANYONE working in a NMW job would be unable to EVER have DC's.

SOMEBODY HAS to do these NMW jobs. Should they not be allowed to have DC's simply because their employer doesn't pay them a LIVING WAGE.

CouthySaysEatChoccyEggs Sun 24-Mar-13 16:47:04

And no, NOT all of them would be able to get a job that pays enough to raise a family without TC's. In my local area, a supermarket managers job only brings in £22k pa before tax. You can imagine what the store cleaners or checkout people are on - £12k pre tax for a FT job!

WafflyVersatile Sun 24-Mar-13 16:54:52

Well said couthy Make people poor then punish them for being poor. Criticise them for doing anything that's in anyway fun or entertaining or joyous.

IneedAsockamnesty Sun 24-Mar-13 16:57:03


I always snigger a bit when I see the conveniently spaced out crap as well. And occasionally I can even be arsed to reply to it but even when you point out that the expected to seek work youngest child age has changed so frequently in the last few years that it makes it impossible for anyone still to be doing it ( from this year you would have to have one every year but no more than 4 times due to the cap or more likely twice if you private rent)

But they just won't have it. They still insist that they know people who are doing just that and they had a conversation about it just this morning with a feckless single parent whose been doing it years and is openly admitting that she's intending to carry on.

LineRunnyEgg Sun 24-Mar-13 17:04:35


be responsible for the ones you have as best you can and don't have more until you are able to provide for them.

Fine, but best said to men, eh?

RandallPinkFloyd Sun 24-Mar-13 17:05:12

I'm thinking of doing that myself sock. Being an LP is a piece of piss, why not just have another one? It's not like they cost loads of extra money or time or stress or anything like that.

Although unless sperm can get though double glazed windows I'm not sure how exactly I'm going to go about it.

SanityClause Sun 24-Mar-13 17:06:11

I do think our society vilifies single mothers.

I think that a few years ago there was a campaign in the US against "deadbeat dads" who don't provide for their children, and they are the ones I would like to see the likes of the Daily Mail moaning about.

But in the UK, it appears that it's bitter and twisted women who are keeping the fathers away from children, rather than the fathers who are not bothering to provide for and have contact with their children. hmm

FasterStronger Sun 24-Mar-13 17:08:54

Line - best said to parents.

LineRunnyEgg Sun 24-Mar-13 17:09:21

My DC's father is a deadbeat dad, but in the UK he is allowed to believe he is a valiant hero.

Chunderella Sun 24-Mar-13 17:13:34

Music I think the stereotype is of families where 3 generations have never worked rather than being workless at the moment. It's quite possible for a family to all be on benefits now but have worked in the past.

Couthy these days usually benefits aren't affected until you have 6k savings- so you could have eg 4k and be ok, I think. Regardless, it doesn't last that long.

WafflyVersatile Sun 24-Mar-13 17:36:13

there are so few families where no one has worked for 3 generations, if any.
Statistically insignificant, a relatively tiny amount of tax burden and not even close to being the reason we're in economic meltdown.

It's almost as if the rich and powerful want us to be too busy hating people on benefits to put our energies into hating the people who have the power to change all this.

FasterStronger Sun 24-Mar-13 17:43:21

Waff It's almost as if the rich and powerful want us to be too busy hating people on benefits to put our energies into hating the people who have the power to change all this.

I disagree. I think the govt (of whatever politics) is fairly powerless against the global forces that drive our economy. of course politicians aren't going to admit that.

we have the triple whammy of global competition driving down wages in real terms, the debt crisis (all of it, from the Euro, US, to personal debt) and an aging population.

musickeepsmesane Sun 24-Mar-13 20:38:09

Never worked. Okay, don't think that would be the case in the older generation, def the kids and grandkids (grandkids in their twenties) but the older generation maybe not worked for a long time. It is hard the way things are going. I had to use benefits when I was younger and thank god for them. I was very proud to eventually be self sufficient again. I agree with being able to afford your lifestyle. I agree you cannot see whats next. We are all going to regret allowing things to get so big. Global economies, huge hospitals, merging police forces, massive supermarkets etc etc. We lose control when things are too big. mutter, mutter, shakes head, sounds like PIL.

WhatsTheBuzz Sun 24-Mar-13 22:45:20

really fucks me off is people who think being able to afford kids is
being wealthy. What about those who realistically are stuck on shit
wages for the forseeable future, how dare anyone tell them they don't
deserve to have children because they're poor, unlucky or whatever?

WhatsTheBuzz Sun 24-Mar-13 23:31:05

in fact, what couthy said.

sarahseashell Sun 24-Mar-13 23:40:59

Waff in the book 'Chavs' (demonisation of the working class) by Owen Jones he makes exactly that point

maninawomansworld Mon 25-Mar-13 16:22:23

The people the OP refers to are exactly the people the benefits system was designed to support as a safety net while they get back on their feet.

What it was NOT designed to do is provide and income for someone who want's to stay at home with the kids and not go to work, expecting us hard workers to support them.

Of course if you already have kids and fall on hard times, you deserve help but you have no business having kids when you are already reliant on handouts!

KellyElly Mon 25-Mar-13 16:30:28

I'll have to disagree with worra and many other posters (sorry grin), I saw this exact same thing the OP is talking about on the UC Credit thread hopes I have the right one. One lovely sympathetic poster said you shouldn't have children if you can afford them or if you couldn't afford them if your circumstances change.

IneedAsockamnesty Mon 25-Mar-13 16:31:46

I saw that as well Kelly. And they was a different Poster saying it on a different thread last week.

LineRunnyEgg Mon 25-Mar-13 16:34:14

Of course if you already have kids and fall on hard times

That makes it sound like an accident, though, not the calculated behaviour indulged in by my ExH. Why is he never questioned on why he had children? Why is he never fully called to account?

LineRunnyEgg Mon 25-Mar-13 16:36:33

And I don't mean that ^^ as a personal whinge, I mean being called to account politically, structurally, economically.

georgie22 Mon 25-Mar-13 16:41:29

As many others have already commented I think the phrase you object to is aimed at those who choose to have children when they have no way of being able to support them without state assistance. Generally I think that most people believe that support from the state should be for those individuals who find themselves in just the circumstances you mention.

I'm sure many people would like to have larger families but make the decision to have 1 or 2 due to finances, housing etc. It's irresponsible to continue having children when you do not have the means to care for them; ultimately it's the poor children who suffer.

garlicbrunch Mon 25-Mar-13 16:52:20

I think the stereotype is of families where 3 generations have never worked rather than being workless at the moment.

Exactly. I do go on about this, but it gets my goat that the government made up these 'problem' families and now everyone keeps moaning about them! There are no such families. Organisations have searched for them.

Line, yes, the advice - if it had any merit, which it doesn't - would be better directed at random inseminators.

IneedAsockamnesty Mon 25-Mar-13 16:55:02

Oh no garlic don't forget there are 120 thousand of them and there still managed to be that many when the gov changed the criteria to be considered as troubled.

Yet the dwp couldn't find them.

garlicbrunch Mon 25-Mar-13 16:56:14

You know, when I was a kid it was usual for people to spout vile hatred about 'blacks' and 'coloureds', then add something about Nelson down the road who, of course was not like them and a decent chap. This was highlighted as a sure sign of bigotry.

Just thought I should point this out to the many who say "Most feckless parents, yadda yadda ... but not you, you're different."

garlicbrunch Mon 25-Mar-13 16:57:10

YY, Sock. When will everybody realise we're being governed by a bunch of blatant liars?

ModernToss Mon 25-Mar-13 17:01:04

I have seen "well why did you have children/get pregnant then" many, many times on here when people's circumstances have changed and it infuriates me.

Me too, and me too.

IneedAsockamnesty Mon 25-Mar-13 17:02:41

Its not much different to the well why did you have a child with him or marry him.

Often said just after someone has said he used to be decent but turned into a cock.

MooMooSkit Mon 25-Mar-13 17:08:03

I agree, I've had it to. When I had my child I was a married, student nurse (seconded so salaried) and had a great maternity package and my husband worked full time. My crystal ball failed me when my husband decided to become a useless, lazy abusing arse hole and the marriage broke down and I had to leave said nursing course as I just didn't have the support.

Luckily I met another man and am again working and supporting for my child but some people have terrible attitudes I agree.

LineRunnyEgg Mon 25-Mar-13 17:09:23

It would, politically speaking, be terribly easy to find men who need to support their own children, as actually most of these men are earning, and accessible via HMRC databases as are their former partners and children.

And to expect me to contribute 100% of my time and earnings to raising my ExH's and my chidlren, whilst he gives a tiny % of a generous salary and NO TIME, is frankly morally and politically disgraceful and economically unsustainable.

We are asking the wrong questions, of the wrong people; because it's so easy to bash women.

YouTheCat Mon 25-Mar-13 17:13:46

Couldn't agree more, Line.

Unacceptable Mon 25-Mar-13 22:31:26

Glad I looked at this today, after the first dozen or so posts I thought maybe I was a bit paranoid and was taking things to heart but it seems others have heard/read these things said.
I do hear it quite a bit in RL. Maybe it's something I notice more than those who have never been in a situation where they have needed help because it touches a nerve. It's often throw away comments from people who don't 'know' a family's situation they only think they do.

My thread was posted after correcting some numpty who didn't realise I was a close friend of the lady mentioned in OP. They had presumed her DC were conceived and raised in a family reliant on benefits. In fact they never claimed anything and DH worked right up until his diagnoses.

Of course, after being put straight about the actual facts of the situation the gossip mongers decided it was perfectly fine for my friend to now be claiming benefit as a widow until she is in a position to work (once she's over the grieving, they said she was allowed time to grieve hmm)

I almost didn't start the thread but then read a similar kind of post on another thread and thought I'd get the question off my chest rather than have my head explode!!

blackeyedsusan Mon 25-Mar-13 22:49:04

that is the solution to all difficulites line shame a few won't or are not capable of having the children or won't pay. [eyeroll] I have been told to just leave them with their dad and go out and he will remember to feed them... he cna not connect the fact that he is hot/cold with the fact the childen my be hot or cold though... a vest and no blankets is not acceptable wear for a baby in winter. sleeping though screaming 6 inches fom you ea does not show that you ae capable either.

he does pay for them though, so not all bad.

CouthySaysEatChoccyEggs Mon 25-Mar-13 23:23:42

Having a disabled parent makes you part of one of these 'problem families' that the Government harps on about.

Because the disabled parent has chosen to be such a problem, haven't they?!

Yeah, right. I must have forgotten to stand in the 'work ethic' queue, and instead stood in the 'have a disability and be classed as a problem family' queue. That wasn't a good choice I made, was it?!


LineRunnyEgg Mon 25-Mar-13 23:31:41

Frankly, the whole thing needs a new take on it. Because at the moment women seem to do much more work and men seem to have more earnings, and childen are left bearing the brunt.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now