I suppose this proves that women just can't stand the heat.........

YOU GET £20 A WEEK!
Hardly rolling in it. That the equivalent to one weeks worth of nappies & wipes for me. If you're going to insult a large chunk of society it wouldn't hurt to do some research first...and maybe give up the Daily Mail for lent

P.S benefits are calculated to allow enough money to get by
not swan about. However that family managed it, most don't & it is not a glamorous alternative to being employed. So get off your high, poorly informed horse. Cheers

I sometimes wonder whether flexible working (which has become the norm in terms of the platter of HR benefits offered to professional women) has resulted in more women being sidelined that if there was not that option.

If it has the result of keeping women in work who would otherwise completely dropped out, it is good thing. But if it has the result of encouraging women to go pt who would otherwise have continued ft, then there's your answer. It also skews employers' attitudes towards women if so many of them request flexi working after children.

Back to the original point of the thread, it's sad to see were steadily slipping backwards instead of progressing in many ways

Ignore the ignorant derailer

Heather Frost - from another angle?

"Childcare is still seen as the woman's problem with a lot of companies being happy to offer flexible working for mothers but not for fathers, which seems like it's woman friendly but it's placing more pressure on the women to be more responsible for the children than her partner."

This absolutely!

Join this thread wasn't supposed to be about benefits was it? I'm sure it was about women being pushed out of jobs with power, or was I dreaming that?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2282142/Mother-11-having-400k-taxpayer-funded-house-built-bought-flying-lessons-partner-Christmas-gift.html

Here you go. Child benefit can't be that low if claimants can buy a horse and flying lessons.

Well that's some spectacular derailing.

join shouldn't your post say 'if a couple can't afford to have a child why do they still choose to have one'?

The cost of childcare should be weighed against both salaries but all too often it's only weighed against the woman's. Why is that? Because women are frequently the lower earners in the couple. Society still expects a woman to want to stay at home while the children are little whereas a man who wants to stay at home is seen as a bit odd. Childcare is still seen as the woman's problem with a lot of companies being happy to offer flexible working for mothers but not for fathers, which seems like it's woman friendly but it's placing more pressure on the women to be more responsible for the children than her partner.

It proves that things are still pretty stagnant when it comes to childcare. Plenty of women WANT to go back to work but earn so little that it seems stupid.

And join - articles like that do NOT represent a whole section of society. And yes, it is taking the piss.

Is that you, GabbyLogon?!

There was a newspaper article a week or 2 ago about an unemployed mother with 11 children who was racking in all sorts of benefits including child support. She had so much she was able to buy and keep a horse.

Don't you think this is taking the p*ss?

Join, you are totally missing the point.

Women can afford to have children. Just not cover the cost of childcare to be able to afford to work during their early years.

If women can't afford to have a child then why do they still choose to have one?

Having children is a choice remember.

Part of the reason is the crippling cost of childcare and the fixation on parents (particularly mothers) being at home during the early years of a child's life.