to wonder where you are going to put the children?(85 Posts)
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?
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.
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?!
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.
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 )
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!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
YY, Sock. When will everybody realise we're being governed by a bunch of blatant liars?
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."
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.
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.
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.
And I don't mean that ^^ as a personal whinge, I mean being called to account politically, structurally, economically.
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?
I saw that as well Kelly. And they was a different Poster saying it on a different thread last week.
I'll have to disagree with worra and many other posters (sorry ), 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.
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!
Waff in the book 'Chavs' (demonisation of the working class) by Owen Jones he makes exactly that point
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?
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.
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.
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.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.