Talk

Advanced search

Dispatches - Growing Up Poor

(283 Posts)
TurquoiseKiss Tue 03-Dec-19 10:59:48

Did anyone see this? I'm half way through on catch up - very tough to watch.

dottypotter Tue 10-Dec-19 13:19:22

Yes, again, dotty, you assign all the blame to women, they 'choose' to be pregnant, 'get themselves' pregnant, don't use contraception. Your misogyny is stunning.

I realise it takes two. Men are irresponsible and feckless today too.

dottypotter Tue 10-Dec-19 13:17:57

And it's one woman. One family. I have no idea to whom you refer, but for heaven's sake, you are judging all by one family.

There are loads of people like that today. Its certainly not one family.

Mrskeats Tue 10-Dec-19 10:50:00

May be late to the party here but the comment about pets has really annoyed me.
So now poorer people aren't allowed pets?? I put dog food in the collection for the foodbank. People that vote Tory really are dreadful.

Monsterinmyshoe Tue 10-Dec-19 10:42:42

ReanimatedSGB

Your post on the previous page is spot on. You really can't argue with Prince Andrew's ise of taxpayers money over a single mum getting her hair cut (or shock horror, a family owning a TV!).

Gilead Sun 08-Dec-19 20:22:12

Wow! The ONS is not a credible source, that takes some beating!

HeIenaDove Sun 08-Dec-19 18:41:27

Well THIS post from another thread certainly explains what happened upthread. Seems Tory voters arent above using a eco bent to berate poorer people.

Similar to their tactic of only caring about homeless people when they want to pit them against social housing tenants.

OlaEliza Fri 06-Dec-19 15:33:16
Where do people think austerity came from? It was what had to be brought in to mop up after the previous labour government, all the labour voters seems to forget that

Frequency Sun 08-Dec-19 17:00:56

OFGS.

No-one is choosing to have kids to get benefits. No-one is choosing to suffer on UC. They're just not. I know this because I know you can't live on UC. Few can survive on it, much less live on it. And if you do genuinely believe that people are opting to have babies instead of enter the workforce then you need to look at the reasons why not blame the people because UC (and to a lesser extent the legacy benefits) is a miserable, unstable existence. Even before UC people on unemployment benefits were far from comfortable. If people really are choosing to stay on the pittance offered on UC then something in society has gone very, very badly wrong.

And, putting the mythical benefits babies aside, the vast, vast majority of welfare benefits are claimed by working people. I work. I work 13 days a fortnight for two different companies and I still need benefits in order to pay essential living costs.

One of the companies I work for is a global fortune 500 company. Explain to me how it is a) fair and b) my fault that a global fortune 500 company gets to have its wage bill subsidised by the UK government? Explain to me why they are not forced to pay their staff a reasonable , living wage. While you're working that out, you could also have a think about how they managed to be shortlisted in the UK's top 50 companies to work for when they can't even manage to pay their staff without government assistance.

My weekend job is in an essential health care role. Please explain what you think would happen if all care workers (because even those working 40+ hours a week need benefits to live if they have a family) trained up and left care in order to not need benefits anymore.

Society is fucked. The people at the lower end cannot get out of poverty no matter how hard they work because those at the top are hoarding all of the money.

ReanimatedSGB Sun 08-Dec-19 10:38:14

More bullshit. No contraception is 100% effective, and many, many people are aware that not every act of PIV results in a pregnancy. Being a bit inefficient with contraception is normal (as in lots of people do it) behaviour. And a healthy, ethical society would unquestioningly support all children. (We support the children of the wealthy already, remember. All those royal babies that will be living luxurious lives on your taxes.)
That concept of the 'benefit scrounging' family with twelve kids is very rare - more than rare enough for it to be an anomaly that 'society' can easily afford to support.
The other thing not to forget is that, whether your pregnancy is planned or not, whether your financial circumstances were comfortable or not at the time you conceived, there is no guarantee that a baby will be born healthy and able-bodied (or, for that matter, that pregancy complications won't cause a longterm health problem for the mother.) If you have a child who is born with a severe illness or disability which means they will need full-time, long term care so you can't go back to work, then you are going to slide fairly quickly into poverty.
Should the already-poor who find themselves with a baby in need of full-time, longterm care put that child into an institution? I know that's what people were expected to do in the 'good old days' that right-wingers are so fond of evoking...

Jodie77 Sun 08-Dec-19 09:14:05

So you punish who? The kids? How do you define bad choices and not taking personal responsibility?

TheRightHonerable Sun 08-Dec-19 09:10:46

@Jodie77

I disagree. Adults who cause their own problems Via bad choices and lack of responsibility don’t deserve to be bailed out at tax payer expense. If you were barely getting by and you chose to have 3 kids in that situation you’re selfish and irresponsible.

Lots of people would love 3 kids and don’t have them as can’t afford them.

Jodie77 Sun 08-Dec-19 09:00:04

I don't believe that anybody deserves to be so poor they don't have a roof over their head, heating and eating. I don't need statistics to know how many undeserving poor we have because there is no such thing so it would be hunting for unicorns.

TheRightHonerable Sun 08-Dec-19 08:25:07

@Gilead

If you want to use those sources that’s fine - but I don’t find them credible. The debate over ‘what constitutes an unplanned pregnancy’ demonstrates the vast grey area so any ‘statistics’ which rely on people being honest or categorising their own actions isn’t credible.

I know a lot of UC claimants who are responsible for their own circumstances - choosing to bring children into poverty, choosing to reduce hours to ‘maximise’ their benefits with the excuse ‘FT doesn’t work for us as a family’ - I see situations like this everyday ... so please don’t tell me it’s ‘rare’ 😂🙈

Gilead Sun 08-Dec-19 07:54:32

I tend to use sources like the Rowntree Foundation and the ONS, thank you TheRightHonourable. I prefer legitimate sources, they tend to take the emotion out of anecdata on Mumsnet threads.

TheRightHonerable Sun 08-Dec-19 07:39:32

@Gilead

There are no ‘legitimate’ figures that outline the ‘deserving poor’ vs the ‘irresponsible’
It would be virtually impossible to design a research method to accurately identify these figures.The only statistics available relate to number of claimants of each benefit type and variables such as age and gender.

But what this means is that when you say ‘people who make irresponsible choices are rare’ you’re basing that on as much actual fact as me believing it’s pretty common.

I certainly see/read an awful lot of it, I’d be happy to link you to a few recent threads where’s its a very prominent issue and appears to be exceptionally common 👍🏻

Gilead Sun 08-Dec-19 06:51:51

The point that is being made to you, * TheRight*, is that it isn’t in fact the 999 that are the numbers to be reckoned with here; it is fact the one. And because there is the odd one that thinks for whatever reason ‘ oh I’ll get pregnant, or doesn’t think, you have assumed without checking any legitimate figures first, that the majority are doing this.

TheRightHonerable Sat 07-Dec-19 22:00:47

@rasko

To me it’s pretty black and white.
You were supposed to be infertile therefore had no need to use contraception. You got a ‘miracle baby’ similar to people who get pregnant on the implant or long term contraception.

Im not talking about the 1-1000 situation. I’m talking about adults who knowingly make really irresponsible choices and then blame/expect it to be rectified by, the government.

The problem with MN is everyone is so focused on the 1-1000 that nobody holds the 999 accountable 🙄

If a swimming pool put up a sign saying ‘everyone must wear arm bands’ 500 MN’s would jump in with ‘well what if someone doesn’t have arms?’ - it doesn’t mean that for 99.9% of swimmers it’s not a sensible and safe policy.

raskolnikova Sat 07-Dec-19 20:33:16

There is no physical difference between TTC and ‘having unprotected sex’. By your logic anything you do without direct intent isn’t your responsibility no matter how common sense it is!

(If you reasonably believe you can’t conceive for whatever reason then that’s equivalent having contraception in place and any resulting pregnancy would obviously be unplanned.)

Well I thought I was barren but obviously I wasn't.

*If it’s ‘not the point’ then why did you make such a point of sharing it?
I’d say it’s very much the point when ascertaining whether an irresponsible adults actions have inflicted poverty on a child.*

I shared it in the wider context of having a job, losing a job when pregnant, having a place to live and then not, etc. It seemed relevant to a discussion on poverty and how it can happen. I didn't consider the circumstances of the conception to be a bigger thing than everything else.

Yes circumstances change, redundancies happen, illness happens, disability happens and all sorts of other things which can all be put into the ‘this is what the benefit system should be for’ category. It doesn’t change whether you knowingly brought a child into poverty or not.

Well I don't know if I would be considered deserving or undeserving poor or not, of course I would say that I didn't knowingly bring a child into poverty, as I said in my original post that circumstances snowballed. But I'm aware that other people would look at my situation and judge me on numerous counts and I believe this kind of thing would be the same for many others.

housinghelp101 Sat 07-Dec-19 20:26:28

Felt so sorry for Danielle and felt that she had to bear the weight of her dad's MH problems. Him showing the photos of where he had burned himself with cigarettes really angered me, I cannot imagine the anxiety that poor girl must have. There but for the grace of God go I.

TheRightHonerable Sat 07-Dec-19 18:30:55

@raskolnikova

I agree that your personal circumstances aren’t the issue - but I don’t agree that adults who are blatantly irresponsible with their reproductive organs aren't the issue - I think they’re very much an issue.

TheRightHonerable Sat 07-Dec-19 18:27:23

@Rasko

🤔 There is no physical difference between TTC and ‘having unprotected sex’. By your logic anything you do without direct intent isn’t your responsibility no matter how common sense it is!

(If you reasonably believe you can’t conceive for whatever reason then that’s equivalent having contraception in place and any resulting pregnancy would obviously be unplanned.)

If it’s ‘not the point’ then why did you make such a point of sharing it?
I’d say it’s very much the point when ascertaining whether an irresponsible adults actions have inflicted poverty on a child.

- Did you choose (or take no reasonable steps to prevent) pregnancy?
- At the time of conception could you provide a basic standard of living for a child?

Thats ^ the difference between unfortunate and irresponsible!

Yes circumstances change, redundancies happen, illness happens, disability happens and all sorts of other things which can all be put into the ‘this is what the benefit system should be for’ category. It doesn’t change whether you knowingly brought a child into poverty or not.

raskolnikova Sat 07-Dec-19 17:06:09

Well I also have fertility issues and thought I wasn't fertile, so to me, it was a surprise. But again, I don't think that's the point.

Jodie77 Sat 07-Dec-19 17:03:31

I don't think it's a planned pregnancy but I do sometimes raise an eyebrow when somebody says it was a "surprise" in those cases

raskolnikova Sat 07-Dec-19 17:00:35

It's not a planned pregnancy unless you completely distort the meaning of the word 'plan'. No protection = potential pregnancy. No protection =/= certain pregancy, therefore, it's not a 'plan'. And sympathy? I don't want sympathy. I'm trying to make the point that people's situations are complex, I already said I had an education, a job, a flat, a life, it's not like a pregnancy seemed like a distaster, planned or unplanned. I actually don't think whether people plan to get pregnant or not is the main point here.

TheRightHonerable Sat 07-Dec-19 14:15:27

@raskolnikova

Oh lord! 🙄 Right well let’s be clear, If two healthy adults don’t use any form of protection against pregnancy when having sexual intercourse then it’s not an unplanned pregnancy and you should immediately stop using that term and sponging off the sympathy that mothers who have had genuinely unplanned pregnancies deserve!!

^This is why women who have had genuine non fault pregnancies don’t get the sympathy/support they deserve. Because others won’t acknowledge nature 😂🙈😂🙈

Any thread where a man calls a pregnancy ‘unplanned’ gets Immediately shot down in flames as ‘Irresponsible’ and ‘stupid’! So let’s apply the same logic to women.

No protection = Potential pregnancy.

HigherFurtherFasterBaby Sat 07-Dec-19 08:40:27

@ReanimatedSGB

Everything you said. Everything.

Billionaires disgust me in every way possible.

Join the discussion

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

Get started »