To think that whilst maternity & paternity leave is so crap women don’t have choice?

[guardiansofthegalaxychocs]

Read this very upbeat article in the guardian that suggests that it should be celebrated that more women are choosing to be child free. I have absolutely no issue with women choosing to be child free…. But I really struggle with the idea that women can truly have a choice whilst the cost of living is so insanely high, neither paid breaks (maternity, paternity etc) nor subsidised childcare are remotely adequate. We also know that high numbers of women experience terrible discrimination in the workplace.

This chirpy girl power article feels like a sort throwback to of feminism, which did us no good at all.

What we need is longer and better paid parental leave and then after that better and more subsidised childcare including relatives being able to get subsidies.

Then we can truly celebrate that women have choice.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/30/if-youre-childless-at-30-and-that-is-your-choice-isnt-that-something-we-should-applaud?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR3NjWennDmPh-zgXOWGnOdWklLz0V6Qvhic23dZzah6laqbUKeELvDpWVg#Echobox=1643540688

You do realise some women genuinely don’t want to have children and better incentives for them to do so won’t change their minds?

I haven’t read the piece yet but are you suggesting women aren’t having children they want because maternity pay isn’t enough?

People have children in all sorts of horrendous circumstances, they always and always will. Most of the time it’s not remotely rational.

I have a child and work full time, so I know the cost of childcare but I honestly don't see why it should be subsidised more than it is. Who is going to pay for this extra subsidy from the government? I don't know anyone who hasn't had children because of the maternity leave pay.

This chirpy girl power article feels like a sort throwback to of feminism, which did us no good at all.

This does sound as if you resent women who choose not to have kids.

I agree op.
I think what you're saying is that it's not really a choice if it's a choice between having no children or having such crap provisions that it may mean having a child and making yourself bankrupt or ruining yoir career or mental health trying to work like you've got no kids and parent like you've got no job.
Yes people will have children in less than ideal circumstances but I agree a true choice would be having great provisions and still saying no to children. Rather than saying no to children because of crap provisions.

@CounsellorTroi

This chirpy girl power article feels like a sort throwback to of feminism, which did us no good at all.

This does sound as if you resent women who choose not to have kids.

I don't get that. I think it's more like attributing chirpy thoughts onto the fact that women are choosing not to have kids isn't appropriate if the reasons aren't really because they don't want them but rather can't see it being feasible.

I agree OP. There was a great, and slightly odd thread about this not so long ago: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4386107-Thank-god-we-don-t-live-in-Sweden-AIBU

As a previous poster said, plenty of women who really want DC simply go ahead and have them in a range of completely dire and inappropriate circumstances. I really doubt very many at all who do want children decide not to based on maternity leave and pay. They may choose to have them later and to have fewer of them, neither of which are bad decisions.

This chirpy girl power article feels like a sort throwback to of feminism, which did us no good at all.

Feminism did us no good at all?! I sincerely hope I have misunderstood that. If not, wear a strange comment. Presumably you don’t vote, drive, have a job or any degree of independence then?

People are misreading the OP. It's not saying that everyone should/would want to have children even under ideal conditions. It's saying that there really isn't a choice for conscientious would-be parents who would like children but feel that they wouldn't be able to provide for them due to poor social provision. That some people do have children in far less than ideal situations is irrelevant.

What we need is longer and better paid parental leave and then after that better and more subsidised childcare including relatives being able to get subsidies.

Who is going to pay for all this?

I agree. I’m on the fence about having kids and a big part of that is the financial impact. If I had no money worries whatsoever it would be a much easier decision I think.

Financially it also means women who want kids are waiting longer, and that can lead to fertility issues.

There needs to be better options in place so it’s not all on the woman. For example, I have a fixed term contract so taking mat leave may be tricky to time. My
Husband has worked for this employer for 10 years and if he were a woman we could take full advantage of that. There should be equal opportunities for men and women, as well as cheaper childcare

What we need is longer and better paid parental leave and then after that better and more subsidised childcare including relatives being able to get subsidies.

Are you saying grandparents should get paid for looking after their grandchildren?

Are you prepared to pay more tax for these subsidies, because someone will have to.

@CoalCraft

People are misreading the OP. It's not saying that everyone should/would want to have children even under ideal conditions. It's saying that there really isn't a choice for conscientious would-be parents who would like children but feel that they wouldn't be able to provide for them due to poor social provision. That some people do have children in far less than ideal situations is irrelevant.

By why are we limiting the discussion to children? Due to unideal financial and social conditions many conscientious people have to make all kinds of choices about how they live their lives and what they can and can’t have. Picking out children as the single most important thing in life that anybody might need to make a decision on is again forgetting that they aren’t terribly relevant for an increasing number of people.

It's a crap article. The whole problem is that is that rising age at first birth isn't something that can be assumed to purely reflect choice, due to what work and particularly housing in our society look like. If those things weren't the late capitalist horror that they are and women were still having children later, ie a real choice, that would be the time to argue it's no bad thing.

DH and I did the “right thing” and put off having children until we were, finally, financially secure enough to have them. However, I’m now under a fertility consultant as it looks like we left it too late. The cost of having DC is the only really we left it so long. It would have been financially impossible to have them any sooner.

Just praying we get lucky one month now!

Only reason

There are two ways of boosting a country’s birth rate. The first is incentivising women to have children via family friendly policies such as maternity and paternity leave and subsidised childcare. The Scandinavian countries, and in particular Sweden, pursued this strategy and it did produce results. The second way is encouraging immigration, which is a much quicker fix. The UK has pursued the latter strategy.

We do get a very long maternity leave here. I was off work for 14 months. How long do you want!?

I have a child and work full time, so I know the cost of childcare but I honestly don't see why it should be subsidised more than it is. Who is going to pay for this extra subsidy from the government?

For God’s sake, why do people act like subsidised childcare is some wild Marxist scheme from the USSR? We’re one of only two OECD countries where more than 50% of the cost of early years care comes directly from parents’ pockets - we are the outliers, not the other way around. And the result is a system that’s not only unaffordable for many parents, it also sees childcare workers (who are predominantly female) struggling by on less than the living wage.

The more people are in work, the more tax revenues the government receives.

Everything else in life is ‘if you can’t afford it then don’t have it’, why should having children be different? Good maternity / paternity pay shouldn’t make a difference, some are simply choosing not to have children.

I've several child free friends (late 30's/ early 40's). Money or the cost of raising a child/ poor maternity has never been mentioned in discussions. These 4 friends are all high earners and could afford to raise a child. All 4 are single and haven't met the right person. Two have said that they wanted dc but as time has gone on I think they think it won't happen.

The financial implications of having children should be considered by anyone thinking about becoming a parent. A lot of us also really need to rethink our interpretation of poverty.

We all have friends & acquaintances who plead poverty, But are paying up a new car, have a TV the size of a cinema screen with Sky subscription, the latest smart phones & still have regular takeaways.

What would you suggest a fair and reasonable maternity pay scheme would be?

AnEpisodeOfEastenders, with that kind of rationale- why have maternity pay at all? So basically if you are wealthy go ahead and have children, if not then forget it! What a regressive viewpoint.

DH and I had our first quite young, particularly in the circles we were working in at the time - professional jobs in London. We have a nearly 15 year old and DH is 40, he is Director at an Architects practice and when clients, colleagues his age find out they are really surprised. The reality is it was tricky financially but we wouldn't have been able to do it without help with buying a place from our parents, particularly his. I had very good maternity pay as I worked for Central government and the reality is that did make us decide that ok this will work out but I think it is incredibly harsh if DC are a choice of the rich only!