To agree with workfare in principal?

[IAmMiranda]

Donning my flame retardant underwear - though note I'm not for the current scheme, but the principal is sensible.

Working for unemployment benefits makes sense to me - provided that the "wage" is fair for the hours and skills. Eg. £90 a week job sellers could equal 15 hours of charity work?

Taking into account disabilities, childcare and other responsibilities I really don't think its unfair to provide people with jobs to earn the equivalent of benefits?

I do think its wrong to line the pockets of corporations, reduce jobs for other workers etc but surely charity work is an option?

I think I've probably missed some huge glaring point but AIBU?

(NOTE: I have previously been in reciept of JSA and would happily have done 15 hours a week and had plenty of time to job search)

handcream - well said

Headsdown, life is really bleak for both the teenagers & their kids when they get pregnant. It doesn't follow that they get serious about their careers in their 30's when their counterparts are just having babies. But I suspect you already know that

I don't agree. The perception that "teenage pregnancy" is something that only happens to 16 year old girls from sink estates with no qualifications and no aspirations (beyond motherhood) is false. Though data sets on termination rates across the country do show that young women from affluent areas are more statistically more likely to have a termination if they become pregnant. (I am pro choice btw)

Through my work (and during studies) I've met many, many mature students and job applicants who have returned to study or training in their early or mid twenties, after having children. They will only be entering the job market a few years later than their peers.

If life is "bleak" for others, then I would like to see young mothers with young families get more help and support and training. Not less.

handcream

Who is "we" I wonder? White Anglo-saxon protestants? 'Cause forced marriage is happening to British women.

The more I think about it, and the more you post, the more I'm inclined to agree with offred (and deities know we've had our differences).

A huge swathe of British women do have reproductive freedom (apart from contraceptive failure). But not all women do. Not even all Mumsnetters believe that women have the right to say no to sex in a relationship, if they're not satisfied that the contraceptive measures are good enough.

You're raising your eyebrows at this. Don't believe me? Search or watch for those threads in AIBU by women who cannot use hormonal contraception and are allergic to the copper coil, etc, and who have just told their husbands it's "agree to use condoms/vasectomy or no PIV sex". People go wild at even the condom requirement. Accusations of emotional abuse and emotional blackmail are chucked around.

It's even worse on sites which have a younger population, such as The Student Room.

When people tell women they have a right to control their fertility and they shouldn't promote men's pleasure over their well-being, they get called all sorts of names. Here, too.

Misandrist, feminazi, rad fem, man-hater...

Statistically, I was part of the socio-economic group most likely to have a teenage pregnancy or an unintended pregnancy. I didn't for two reasons. Genetic luck (I have seem to have biochemistry that means my ovulation is easily suppressed by hormonal contraception- this is NOT the case for everyone) and the luck of having access to tranches of feminist textbooks.

By the time I was 18, I believed utterly in my right to control my fertility, etc, and that my concerns about pregnancy weren't "selfish" etc. Many of my female peers did not, and my goodness did we have debates about that. I convinced few.

Check your privilege and instead of castigating women who haven't got it, try helping them obtain it. It's possible to change lives by giving people support, but you don't get that righteous glow you do from a good flame.

But surely a pregnant woman/ mother is more likely to be helped if SS get involved?

Sometimes mothers have been faced with having kids removed if they have a pattern of getting into abusive relationships. People don't seem to care when women are abused, but children witnessing it is a totally different story.

So, why would an abusive man particularly want any children?

His partners body would change, so why would he want that? And you can't avoid a screaming baby/ shitty nappies if you live in the same house as a baby even if you have no part whatsoever in the care.

I don't think pregnant teenagers really did want a baby, teens are notoriously lazy and squeamish, not to mention obsessed with their looks, it's just that abortion is somehow taboo in our culture even when it's the best option for everyone.

And before everyone jumps on me saying that it's too traumatic, think about how traumatic some births are and how much some people suffer with PND.

SugarMouse, you've repeatedly demonstrated a total lack of understanding about domestic abuse and many, many posters have pointed this out to you and suggested reputable sources of information. Why are you persisting with this?

And you've just come out and said that young mothers should just have abortions, and only avoid them because they are 'squeamish' and vain. This sounds nuts. Are you a big fan of eugenics?

on the positive side:

workless men abusing their partners could be forced to work. can anyone see any negatives to the abuser having to work?

Tbh, of all the people I've ever known that had unplanned pregnancies, none ever showed any sign of being forced not to use contraception and forced to keep the baby.

You completely misunderstand my points.

I think teens avoid abortions because it's taboo in our culture, and why the hell should it be? People fought long and hard for every woman to have the right to one.

If anything it ought to be taboo to keep the baby!

My point about teens being vain and squeamish is that I don't think they WANTED to have a baby, but society always pressures the teenage girl to go through with the pregnancy.

I'd also say its more common for the young man to want an abortion, but the girl to insist on keeping it. Now, okay it is her that has to have the procedure, not him, but I do feel sorry for some young men if they didn't want to become Dads. I don't think anyone should be FORCED to become a parent. What about their right to reproductive freedom? Okay they can use condoms, but more failure than hormonal contraception, and you may not believe this, but some girls DO LIE, say they are on the pill, in order to try and trap a boy into staying with her.

HeadsDown-

Sure, Wikipedia is so reliable for information........

one in ten children in DP's primary school either has a SW or the school have raised serious concerns and SS are investigating.

that's three children in every class neglected or abused by their parents.

the mothers are sometimes victims as well but sometimes violet to other women and their own children.

its not eugenicist to suggest that this is not ok and these people should have not had children at that point in their lives.

worklessness plays a part because often the devil makes work for idle hands and all that.

violet to other women = violent to other women

Jesus Christ. I am totally, 100% pro choice, but I can't believe that people are posting here, stating that they hand-on-heart believe that young mothers (and the "workless") should just have abortions and that it ought to be "taboo to keep the baby.

you are assuming all women are victims.

what about women who assault their own children?
or break other women's bones with weapons?

are they victims?

Darkesteyes I would never look down on JSA claimaints. If it wasn't for JSA me and DP would of struggled from the get go. I do believe some kind of workfare or on the job training or better apprenticeships is needed. What this govt doesn't understand is we need their help to make it happen. They should be looking out for all of us and building this country from the bottom up not lining the pockets of the rich while squeezing the poor.

Sugarmouse are you serious? I have done a fair few training days on domestic abuse and these women are under a hell of a lot of stress. They are belittled slowly and their confidence is eroded. They are made to believe they are worthless and no one wants them. They are isolated. Abusers are very clever at doing this subtely so that once the are at the beating black and blue stage or removing of contraception stage the poor women is completely under their control.
As I said a fair few training days. I don't work with women like this everyday but the people who do see much worse ways of controlling women. Pregnancy being quite a common way.

Hi I don't agree with workfare for everybody, I think what is the point in paying national insurance contribution and working for years if when you are out of a job and need it they tell you you have go and work for charity for free! Instead I would expect them to give me job opportunities so I can get back to work or some training that I need. But I have seen people who are fit and able never work a day in their life. I think for those young or old people who never have worked 11 hours working for charity is a good idea, not to be mean but people can get stuck in a certain way of life and need a push to get out of bed so called! But never for people who have worked and just need to get a job because if they can find a place in tesco or poundland then that should be a paying job not to earn your benefits which you have worked for in the first place. I think jobs-centres are not doing their job very well and don't do a lot for people!

Sugarmouse your posts about domestic abuse on this thread have to be the most ignorant nasty evil and mysogynistic posts i have ever seen on the subject (and that includes the MSE forum)

And if the abuser doesnt like the fact that his partners body has changed errrr ......ever heard of porn or infidelity.

And as for coping with a screaming baby in the house .....well when a close friend of mine was still with her abusive partner and the baby cried she would get told "shut the kid up or i will belt both of you" In the end he went to hit his child when she was 9 months old and thats when my friend got her dad to come over and change the locks and got him out. the changing of the locks was done while the arse was out.
Thing is abusers can and do live with children in the house because they bully their partner into keeping the kids quiet.

I cant believe ive just had to explain something this simple.

at the risk of being deleted... sugarmouse what are you on?????
apart from the idiot pills that is.

Youaremyfavourite- you make some good points

Bullied or not, there is no physical way possible to stop a baby from ever crying or having shitty nappies, is there?

Like it or not, some women do trick their partners into becoming sperm donors.
That idiot Liz jones has admitted trying to do it. As bad as rape, in my book.

Debs75- I come from an extremely abusive home myself actually, so yes, I know what it's like, had confidence eroded etc

But I am still responsible for my actions

So you came from an abusive home yourself sugarmouse .

It explains a lot about your posts....please look at some of the research regarding the effects on children who witness these things. Having experienced it you are probably too close to appreciate how it works. It is all abput powwe over someone else. Hpw bettwe to make a woman dependant on you by keeping her pregnant or with enoigj children to ensure she is tied. Better still control all the money which then comes in....every penny.

Ah...now I am in mind of Mick Philpott who did just that. He even sent the women out to work.

with workfare, Mick Philpott would have been sent to work. which surely can only be a good thing?

Precisely, philpott wouldn't have had the time or energy to create so many children!

You can recover, get everything back, it's not an excuse for everything I'm afraid

Besides there are cultures were domestic abuse is more common- Russia for example, and no free contraception either, yet the birth rate is lower and people only have the children they can afford. Which is most cases is 0 or 1.

I totally agree that you CAN recover bit not everyone has the strength. A lot depends on what else happens....do you have another stabling influence in your life for example.

As far as Philpott was concerned ...yes he would have been summoned for workfare but I can guarantee he would not have lasted very long. They would then have docked his benefits and hey presto he would control his women (and he saw them as "his") even more financially. Workfare will never work with the Philpott men of this world.

in response to teenagers and abortion

abortion effects people emotionally and it is a very difficult

Yes, abortion affects people emotionally, but so does birth?!

so maybe the message which should be going out to teenagers is to be more choosy who you have sex with and not equate sex with love. as a women or man you have a choice to say no to sex. I know its old fashioned.

I think being tied to someone sexually is also emotional.