Child free people being told they deserve less yet being expected to do more!

[JenniferBooth]

Has anyone on here experienced any of this?

1. Employment..........being expected to work the Christmas shifts (because the parents want the time off) even though you did it the previous year or the last few years..
2. Family Being expected to take on the care of a child even though you have chosen not to have your own because of emotionally charged comments like " i feel sorry for the child cos none of his family members want him"
3. Housing. particularly social housing, where if you dont have children you are only entitled to a small flat or a bedsit, and God forbid if you happen to live in a bigger place you are told that it is your moral duty to downsize for families.
4. Being asked at a job interview if you have children and then being asked "why? Dont you like responsibility" when you say no. Happened to me back in 2004

I was never asked directly but if a job description mentioned that the role was not always 9-5 & flexibility was required sometimes I always said that I do not and will not have commitments at home, meaning I won’t be clock watching or requesting regular last minute time off. I was careful how I worded it but got my point across.

1. I can't comment here as I don't work anywhere that requires Christmas cover thankfully.
2. I am named as guardian of my niece and nephew in my DB's will, should anything happen to them. They didn't expect us to do it though and asked us first. DC haven't happened for us for a few reasons and I never felt the desire to be a Mum. I love my DN's dearly though and would take them in in a heartbeat if anything happened to them.
3. Social housing I can kind of understand though I doubt many childless people would be living in a property that was too big for them. In social housing there is a responsibility to ensure people are adequately housed and you don't need a bigger place. I used to live alone in a 1 bedroomed flat and I liked it. I did eventually move to a bigger place so I could have visitors and more room to spread out when I met my DH. We now live in a 4-bedroomed house and there's only two of us. My FIL lives alone in a 4 bed house. I've never been made to feel like I'm stopping someone else from having a home.
4. No-one should be asking anyone if they have children at an interview. I will sometimes ask "what do you like to do in your spare time?" as a chatty conversation, but often I won't know if my colleagues have children until they've started working with us. I would frown very much on this question being asked at an interview and I certainly wouldn't want to work somewhere that asked it.

Most people with kids? No one I know is entitled to the COL payments.

Working single people do have the biggest outgoings, since they have nobody to split costs with. They probably also qualify for the least assistance. That said, children cost a fortune, even more so with COL increases, so probably need any financial assistance going.

We got told one year that 'Those with families' would get first chance of Christmas. There was nearly a riot. I think the fact they basically said those of us with no children had no families or a second class family made their proposal even worse

They backed down. Christmas is now done fairly - as it should be

If working single people have the biggest outgoings, why don't THEY qualify for financial assistance? they're not immune from COL increases - although you'd think so, the way the media goes on about 'hard up families.'

Most families don’t qualify for the COL payments either.

No 4 is illegal these days. Very illegal!

Hi! Welcome to the childfree board

I hire people and 4 would get me into massive trouble. Never happened to me.

1 happened all the time before I became a manager. I don't do it to others.

No experience with 2 or 3! But the only people in my family who ever hinted at childcare have SEN children who are high and low and I don't think I could handle it so I just went quiet. Wouldn't have minded less challenging children though.

Why should they?

@teadi Why shouldn't they, if they meet the requirements? Do you genuinely think that social housing should only be for people with kids?

A close relation working in the NHS gets this crap.

at one interview I went to in May I was asked if I have children and I said no and was told it was pointless carrying on the interview because I didn’t need the job if I didn’t have children to support, almost exactly the same thing happened about 5 years ago when I was asked if I didn’t have kids why did I need ‘the money’….

Bloody hell. I didn’t realise having no children made everything free! Did you ask them where we find this endless supply of free food, housing, and electricity? I've obviously been missing out.

1. I've definitely experienced being given the worst shifts at work due to not having children. The nice day shifts were reserved for parents, evenings and weekends for those childfree heathens with nothing better to do. And of course, holidays like Christmas. Mother's Day was always a fun one. "You're not a mother." "Yes, but I have a mother."

1. Yes and no. None of my family members have small children to fob off on me but "you have more free time" is definitely a thing. I have a family member who still uses "yeah but I have kids" as an excuse when their children are all adults.

1. YABU. You don’t get to live beyond your means because you're in social housing. Childfree people who aren't in social housing can't just get a giant mansion, we have to earn the money to afford it. If you want a larger house/flat, you'll need to earn more money. It's not fair on anyone for the tax payer to give you a large house you don't need. There is already a lack of social housing. It has to be allocated within reason.

1. Obviously that's illegal but I've heard some right bullshit from bosses before alone these lines.

Anyway we did get offered a flat which is still the same one bedroom flat we are in now 29 years later.
Why? Because im childfree by choice and we have always been low income.
So we are still where we are because i havent reproduced. Im not moaning about it Just stating a fact

What do you think should have happened? Surly you are not saying childfree households should be offered flats with spare rooms?

The answer to Qu 4 is 'Does this have any relevance to the position being advertised? ' before you get any further. Then you won't get 'why'

I work in housing and I will say that one of the ways you keep WOMEN safe is housing MEN. Because in a jurisdiction where women with children are housed and men without aren't, the easiest way to find housing as a man is to glom onto a vulnerable single mum, making the woman and the children massively less safe

Interesting. So we house men because of something they MIGHT do. Over women who are actually homeless. Or women who MIGHT have a child.

And men like this are usually housed in a one bedroom flat. If the guy underneath me wants to latch on to a single mum (lets use him as an example) he only has to walk up fourteen steps and knock on the door opposite ours. Because blocks here are a mix of one two and three bedroom flats. Its not a mass load of blocks that are all one bedroom. So they are housed near single mums anyway. Saying its good to house men over women like single mums only works if they arent housed in the same place. The temptation to try and cocklodge and the appeal of a domestic slave will be much easier for them to access if a single parent is just within a few feet of them.

Working in housing I can tell you it doesn't matter if you're a man or a woman, if you are able to get on a list you get the same points. Housing isn't given out based on genitals, its given out based on need.

Interesting. So we house men because of something they MIGHT do. Over women who are actually homeless. Or women who MIGHT have a child.

In fairness, that's not what she said.

I can only say what i have seen And we have had single men in the flat underneath us for the last 25 years

Anyway we did get offered a flat which is still the same one bedroom flat we are in now 29 years later.
Why? Because im childfree by choice and we have always been low income.
So we are still where we are because i havent reproduced. Im not moaning about it Just stating a fact

You are also still there as you are low income and have lived in social housing for at least 29 years.

An alternative would be to rent privately or get on the property ladder.

I'm a single mum, working full time and paying a significant sum in tax every month. Never received benefits in my life. Part of my tax goes towards supporting those in social housing despite being a single mum with my own bills and mortgage to pay.

I don't have an issue with this and it isn't an attempt at "benefit bashing" as I know how lucky I am to be in the position I'm in. However, what I do have an issue with is someone spending at least 3 decades in social housing and complaining it's not good enough as it's not a 3 bed family style property.
If you want to be supported by the govt via taxpayers funding, it should be to give you a "reasonable" property for you circumstances. Not everything you want or feel you deserve

No, I haven't.

Which is not to say they don't happen but honestly...

1. I have only ever found Xmas breaks to be more a 'first come first served' kind of deal. Or decided closer to the time by everyone volunteering which bits to cover and it all sort of working out.
2. there are no children in my family in need of non-parental care
3. I bought a house but I can see how single people are expected to live in the smallest properties
4. I have never been asked about children in an interview

Sorry OP but I don't think these are universal experiences.

I remember when a home used to be a home not a ladder.

And need doesnt just mean children

To be fair, in terms of social housing allocations, "need" means a bed space per person or couple.