Why do so many posters hate mothers/children

And for reference there are 100 threads in Active. I counted 9 that were specifically about parenting or pregnancy.

The rest of them include a huge range of topics from legal advice for a rental contract, interior design, a name for a cat, plant identification, help with employment issues, relationship advice, the name of a drink from the 1990s, general philosophical ponderings and a snake that lives in a basement.

I find that there is often a bit of an attitude of “I suffered so they should to” in all areas of life. The thread about SMP attracted lots of “back in my day we went back to work at 6 weeks” comments etc, when surely we should all be hoping for progress and for better as time goes on rather than being bitter that our experience was different. It’s not always a competition of who struggled the most.

@ttcat37 well done for hitting Mumsnet bingo. It's been,oooh 3 weeks since the last accusation of 'wHy ARe yoU on MUMSNET iF yoU dONT haVe Kids?'

Because it's just a name based on where it started. The boards are full of useful advice and amusing chat about things that don't need someone to have procreated to get involved in. I don't get involved in the ones that discuss weaning, soft play, sleep training or shitty nappies. I assume you don't get involved in anything other than the ones about weaning, soft play, sleep training or shitty nappies as you are a MUM.

A lot of people like their own children not others

Expressing is not easy or practical for a lot of people.

Perhaps the solution is that the government should pay for maternity cover, so that employers are not out of pocket because humanity depends on ‘women’s personal choices’. Not sure how you managed to miss the fact that a man is also involved in that choice….

@RomeoRivers a woman doesn't need to be at home on full pay for a year to breastfeed. She can express milk. It's not the employer's or state's responsibility to cover the costs of women's personal choices.

Why would any employer hire a woman of child bearing age if they were going to get landed with financially supporting them while they had as many babies as they wanted and sat at home breastfeeding them for a year at a time? Businesses have a right to the services of the people they have hired to do a job - not pay them to be at home while also sucking up the cost of cover staff.

Is it sanctimoniously harping, or offering a different perspective? Do you feel similar about posters who comment on threads where someone is complaining about managing on £100,000 a year to say, 'well, I manage on half that?'
Many people on this site are doing the same thing, but have different perspectives based on finances, family situations, etc. Is it really only helpful to hear an echo chamber?

Is it really of no use, if you are struggling to manage, to hear that others did and do manage with less? Isn't it reassuring to know that there's people worse off than you who still made it work, so it may be possible that you can, too?

6 months is not sufficient for those that breastfeed and women should not be forced to stop breastfeeding early to placate their employer.

Biology dictates that women are the default parent in the 1st year. This is not something that we should be trying to fight or solve, but rather something that we should look to support.

CNBC here. I don’t hate mothers or children, but do hate thoughtless generalisations about childfree/childless people.

I dont hate children or mothers.
I just dont like children or mothers that are none stop talk about their kids.
Parking spaces i coudent care less about it.

@MidnightPatrol I'd support full paid leave for 6 months, capped at 2 or 3 dc. And not taken one straight after the other as I do believe that employers are entitled to have the staff member do the job they've been paid for.
If parents feel this is too young to leave a baby in childcare, I'd support a second 6 months being available to the father. I think we have to do something about mothers always being the default parent and the impact this has on women's employability.

No need to wonder. There are a lot of threads on here that have absolutely nothing to do with children. And there is a board here, too, now. Like I said, children aren't the centre of everyone's universe. It's allowed.

Having children is a choice the government is not a charity and should not be paying parents to have children

For many women SMP is paid from six weeks.

I had to stop work at 40 weeks, but my baby wasn’t born until over 42 weeks.

This meant at the six week cut-off, my baby was <4 weeks old (and I was way off recovery from the birth).

Would you support high SMP for the early months, if not for the full 39 weeks?

@Sleephound the top 20% of earners are net contributors not the top 5%.

I pay astronomical amounts of tax, I’m confident I’m paying far above what I ‘take’ - particularly given I’m not eligible for child benefits, childcare benefits etc.

Materntiy leave isn’t entirely predictable. And - what is the rationale behind supporting people who have lost their job and so have no income, but not someone who can’t work because they’ve recently given birth?

Given the UK has a rapidly declining birth rate, I would argue the state cannot only afford this but it’s actually critical investment for the future ie having enough future tax payers.

Women obviously need time off to recover from birth and adjust to the new reality. Women who've had C sections have had major abdominal surgery and after no other surgery would you be expected to look after a newborn as soon as the anaesthetic wears off!
Again, it should be obvious that an employer needs to keep your job available for a reasonable amount of time.
Women might need support with breastfeeding or learning how to care for a baby.
Women definitely need support. I'm just not convinced that it's reasonable for support to come in the form of repeated long term leave at full pay every time a woman gives birth.

There's a finite amount of money and ultimately I think it's for parents to meet the costs of their own families, but employers or the state,

MN may have started as a parenting forum but now it's much bigger than that, and there's no competitor in terms of a female-dominated discussion space. It also has a large and very active infertility Board, which attracts women without kids who then stay for the rows about parking and debates about pythons called Mr Hissy.

We have our own Board now here as well.

Very very few people are net contributors to the state. Only something like the top 5% pay in more than they take out over a lifetime. Unless you're a very high earner it's highly unlikely that you've "paid" for the support, especially if you're having children.

I absolutely support a welfare state that supports those in need to get through hard times following illness, disability, job loss, and am grateful for it, happy to contribute, but maternity leave is entirely predicatbale and should be covered by parents IMO. The state can't afford to do everything.

No bad children guys, only shitty parents - you know the drill.

Because you’re not able to work because you have had a baby, and it is too young to use any formal childcare.

It seems to be quite a recent and rather childish thing to regard disagreement as hatred. Being a woman or a mother doesn't mean immunity to having your views challenged. Presumably most of the posters you think 'hate' women and mothers are women and mothers themselves.

I do wonder why anybody would be on Mumsnet when they’re apparently ‘child free’ though. I put child free in inverted commas because child free to me means no children by choice.

Why do you need support to pay for that child?

I agree OP to an extent. Obviously all are welcome but this is a site aimed primarily at mums in the throws of parenting, the clue is in the name and the graphic.

What I have certainly seen a lot of is (presumably) women from an older generation coming on here to berate young mums struggling with phrases like “but we had 15% interest rates” “we had no central heating in my day” “I only got 3 weeks maternity!”, which is not helpful or particularly relevant given the conversation is about modern day parenting and it’s not a race to the bottom.

No doubt I’ll be slammed for being “ageist”, but I have to seriously question the motivations of people who are no longer actively parenting coming onto a parenting forum to sanctimoniously harp on about how much harder they had it. The pensions one is a classic example, the conversation was about SMP NOT pensions, surely that can be discussed on a separate thread or on gransnet?

Again, I expect cries of “ageism” but it doesn’t really wash with me when it’s the same people pulling down mums that need support.