Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Re: sense of entitlement?

105 replies

thebirthlyhallows · 28/03/2014 11:31

My DB and SIL do not have children nor do then plan or wish to in the future.

During a recent conversation SIL said that when she hits the menopause she should be allowed to take a 9 nine month break from work in order to do whatever she wants whilst receiving "pay" from the government.

I am currently on maternity leave with my first child and it is definitely not a "break" from work!

This makes me feel uneasy but I'm not sure if I'm being unreasonable. Why should she feel like she wants 9 months off work just because she has decided not to have children? Should men also be entitled to 9 months off if they decide not to give birth!?

AIBU to feel that she is being ridiculous? Has anyone else ever met anyone with the same view?

OP posts:
niceguy2 · 28/03/2014 13:22

What absolutely bizarre logic.

A woman taking maternity leave is our society showing that we value the future of our economy, country and by extension the human race.

Afterall, without women having children who is going to be our future workers, who will pay taxes that ultimately pay for our pensions in our old age.

And as we all know you don't just work until you go into labour, pop a baby out then go back after a week off. Babies take a lot of time, attention, love and nurturing. Especially at the start. Jesus when my daughter was born I took 2 weeks off to spend at home. I remember secretly being ecstatic and my partner was crying about the fact I had to go back to work. I was bloody exhausted! Working was far far easier than taking care of a newborn.

Ideally we should grant mums much longer in maternity leave so that they can bring their kids up without having to rush back to work. But economically that's hard to the length of time we have now is a balance between what we would like and what we can afford.

GreenLandsOfHome · 28/03/2014 13:26

Was going to comment, but nice guy has posted pretty much what I would have.

(Not stalking you nice guy, this is the second of your posts I've commented on today lol)

NotJustACigar · 28/03/2014 13:29

Afterall, without women having children who is going to be our future workers, who will pay taxes that ultimately pay for our pensions in our old age.

In case you hadn't noticed, there is no shortage of people who would love to come and live and work in this country. No need to worry about a potential population shortage of all things!

TwoJackRussellsandababy · 28/03/2014 13:34

Before I had children I wondered why people said children were hard work, how difficult could it really be?

Oh how I laugh now remembering that!!!

I can see where she is coming from, it seems like the rest of society are paying for mums to have a year off, now I have a child I know how hard that year was!

Everyone is different and has different experiences, I'd just ignore her comments tbh

Cactuar · 28/03/2014 13:37

YANBU - I don't have children and am not intending to have any and quite frankly I think your SIL is being ridiculous. How on earth is maternity leave the same as having 9 months off to do whatever you like??

It may not be the reason people have children but it does not change the fact that society and the continuation of the human race relies on people having children and so it is not unreasonable that society offers some assistance to those bringing forth the next generation. I don't see how your SIL wanting 9 months off to travel or doss about or whatever assists with the continuation of the human race!!

People without children have far more free time than parents in my experience anyway.

holidaysarenice · 28/03/2014 13:39

I honestly think everyone should get two episodes of paid 'leave' if that's two maternities, that's it. No more, if you want any more you don't get the 'leave' you can use your holiday/giveup/ask for unpaid.

If you don't want children you can still have your 'leave' to do as you wish.

It would stop my colleague who has 5 dc and comes back from every mat leave pregnant. She has cost the firm a hell of a lot more than she has given.

YouAreMyFavouriteWasteOfTime · 28/03/2014 13:44

its a slightly odd remark by the SIL but i do wonder why the OP is dwelling on it after the event.

FraidyCat · 28/03/2014 13:44

The argument that parents are doing society/the country a favour by having a baby is nonsense. There is no world shortage of people, not even of educated and productive ones who can speak English.

If government contributed nothing to children (leaving parents to pay for healthcare and education) there would still be enough children being born and raised. Most countries in the world have, compared to the UK, negligible spending per child. It doesn't stop the population replacing itself.

BreakingDad77 · 28/03/2014 13:44

Wheres the sisterhood?

YouAreMyFavouriteWasteOfTime · 28/03/2014 13:50

in the same place as the brotherhood of man

FoxesRevenge · 28/03/2014 13:54

Having a child can be a life choice. Some people can't have children or choose not to have them. I think there should definitely be more flexibility for taking time out at some point to do something you want to do , travel etc. I'm not sure how it would work in the long run but it should definitely be considered. As it stands now it is at the discretion of your company whether they allow it or not. Not all companies do which is a shame really because an employee may go away and come back with a whole set of new skills and experiences which they can transfer back into their role.

OnIlkleyMoorBahTwat · 28/03/2014 13:58

I agree holidaysarenice. There should be something for people that have not taken extended paid parental leave, which is 9 months at full pay where I work. And, when someone goes off on maternity leave, that person's workload is shared out amongst those of us that are left, as it is too specialist to get temps in.

I would be happy with a six months paid sabbatical on my 50th birthday, or something similar. Just a token in recognition that you have put more in than those who could have taken 2/3 years in leave.

FoxesRevenge · 28/03/2014 13:59

I too agree with holidaysarenice

Kaluki · 28/03/2014 14:04

Fraidycat - now there is no shortage of people willing and able to work here.
But if everyone stopped having children there would be in a few years time!!!!
Nobody is saying that childless people contribute nothing but having children contributes to the future of our society and economy.

YouAreMyFavouriteWasteOfTime · 28/03/2014 14:07

just as not having children contributes helps to keep population growth slower than it would otherwise be.

we don't produce enough food to eat in the UK or fuel to keep the lights on.

TruffleOil · 28/03/2014 14:08

I too agree with holidaysarenice

Me three. Most people have children, ergo it makes sense to manage it individually. I'm very happy for my tax dollars to support (for example) parents at home caring for children who are disabled, because it's rare and unplanned.

In the absence of such a scenario (people managing their own maternity leave), it makes sense to extend maternity leave to everyone, 2x over.

TruffleOil · 28/03/2014 14:10

I find these universal tax breaks or credits or allowances or whatever just maddening. Doesn't redundancy and lack of transparency bother people?

Cactuar · 28/03/2014 14:14

Of course people would continue to have children if the government did not assist but I, for one, am glad to live in a country which assists parents and provides for parental leave. And it still not does change the fact that people having children HAS to happen for the human race to continue so why should we not try to make it a bit easier for those who choose to have children.

I am quite surprised at the amount of people agreeing with the OP's SIL. Of course everyone would love to have a paid sabbatical from work to do what they want to do but I cannot see why anyone would think this is something the government should fund?? It is entirely different to maternity leave and the two are in no way comparable. Maternity leave is provided so that the woman can give birth, have time off to recover from the birth and time to care for a small baby which is, as most people have recognised (childless or not) bloody hard work. People fancying a paid jolly from work is no way the same thing.

Guineapig99 · 28/03/2014 14:18

I'd ignore that kind of daft remark completely. Good luck to her if she can survive on 400 quid a week for 9 months! If she keeps muttering about children remind her than someone needs to pay towards her free health care & pensions when she's 70!

MomOfTwoGirls2 · 28/03/2014 14:22

Consider it sour grapes.

FoxesRevenge · 28/03/2014 14:25

But on the whole it is a life choice to have a child. Why shouldn't childless people get similar benefits in terms of time off for life choices or 'jollies' Hmm as some people refer to them.

We also don't need to worry about the human race declining due to people having less children.

sandberry · 28/03/2014 14:28

Children in themselves are not a benefit to society, if nobody had children it would be perfectly possible to plan to support the aging population, not least by the enormous saving on education/maternity leave/child related health care etc and personally I couldn't care less about the continuation of the human race. I won't be here.

However people are likely to continue to have their little luxuries and those luxuries being raised well by their parents does indeed benefit society, so I am happy to support maternity leave. It pays off later in savings on mental health care, cost of jails etc. In the same way ensuring children have adequate housing, education and income does. I don't think national sterilization is an ethical policy so investing in children's welfare is a sensible approach for any government

However I can see the point that the government should compensate childless people who cost less in healthcare, education, benefits and who are more likely to have made adequate provision for their old age. A sort of 'thanks for saving us money' award. However there is no benefit to the government for doing this unless it makes more people choose to stay childless and that level of incentive is unsustainable, hence why they don't.

Peacesword · 28/03/2014 14:36

Sounds like she's not that happy with her lot. She could do with taking a look at her life and see what she has to be grateful for, rather than comparing her life to the life of someone who has had children.

Littletabbyocelot · 28/03/2014 16:07

There are plenty of people who pay more in taxes than they will ever cost the Government. Otherwise, how could we justify higher rate taxes? Is an average earner with no children really making a bigger net contribution than someone earning £200,000 a year who privately educates their children and has private health insurance? Why is one more deserving than the other of a rebate? We don't pay taxes to get out what we put in, we do it to contribute to the overall society we live in.

zeezeek · 28/03/2014 19:10

Some of the comments on here about childless women are really shocking, hurtful and insulting. No wonder so many childless people are so pissed off with the immense sense of entitlement that some parents have. I don't think that anyone will disagree that children benefit society - but they are not the only way. In a world that is totally geared up towards helping parents, surely it is not unreasonable to have something for people who don't have children - after all, they are the ones that have to pick up the slack during maternity/paternity leaves, when a child is sick etc etc.

And yes, I do have children.