Absent fathers to be made into scape goats

[ivykaty44]

absent fathers

as a single mother who has lived without maintenence for periods of time and at times struggled to make ends meet I still think it is awful to suggest making a group of people stigmatised.

there are good NoneResidentParents and there are useless NRP, it isn't just absent fathers but sometimes absent mothers. What sort of country do we live in thuogh where we would want to stigmatise a whole group of people.

Better to keep the CSA free and make it work rather than the clerical mess it is at the moment.

Mary I absolutely agree with you that we need to change the culture of women taking jobs 'beneath' them because they have no choice due to caring commitments. But how? Women are fighting hard for equal pay and for the rights to flexible working (for all employees, not just women). Feminst groups are lobbying about these problems. What else can they do?

Until the law changes, and until more men face this problem instead of leaving it to the mothers, nothingwill change. It is unfair to dump the responsibility for making that change on women, since they are not the cause of it and they are bearing the brunt of it.

Do you actually accept that for all the advances in equality women still face huge gender discrimination in the work place? Or have you bought the myth that we're all equal now?

I also agree with your point about government having 'bollocks suggestions' for us. Absent fathers (which again, your DP is not) are a case in point. If govt really wanted to go after them they could make non payment of maintenance a criminal offence, but they won't. It's all rhetoric.

Yes, agreed if one person earns a huge amount and has to commute, stay away etc of course then it would be better to have one parent in a lesser career so they could fetch from nursery etc.

but I was never talking about that. From the start I was talking about normal men, with normal jobs struggling to support an entire family. Be that a family that is together or a separated one.

Sorry that's not clear, more couples need to join them so that there is a shift and the workplace structures have to change so that they don't assume there's a wife at home to pick up home responsibilities, freeing up all their workers to concentrate only on work. We need a critical mass of couples to be organising their careers and homes in this way. Proper paternity leave would be a start.

HerBeX you have made the same weird point as Bonsoir! If it is so much more expensive to have children at home than at nursery what exactly is it that i have said that you disagree with? Are sahm saving their partners money or not?!

"Do you actually accept that for all the advances in equality women still face huge gender discrimination in the work place? Or have you bought the myth that we're all equal now?" Ha ha ha ha. Only an idiot would think we are treated equally.

What feminists are doing to lobby the necessary changes is fantastic. But actions speak loudly. Say NO! when you talk to your partner about having children and he says, obviously you'll need to go part time or leave work so that i can continue my life exactly as I did as a single man - tell him to Funck right off.

It is expensive to the SAHM to be a SAHM. She may be saving a lot of money that would otherwise be spent on childcare by being a SAHM and it may have a overall gain for the family unit (mum being there for the DC, less money spent out etc), but it comes at huge cost to her own career, future pension, and carries a massive risk if the relationship breaks down.

Workplaces do need to change but where is the motivation? If CEO John's wife Mary is happy to pick up his slack, what do you expect the shareholders (all men) to do?
If she wasn't happy to do it they'd have to change.

then we'd have more Xenia's not giving a shit if she's getting maintenace or not as she has the child's interests taken care of. If men bugger off and choose not to support the children that should be their loss. Not the children's.

Say NO! when you talk to your partner about having children and he says, obviously you'll need to go part time or leave work so that i can continue my life exactly as I did as a single man - tell him to Funck right off.

Oh look, another person who seems to think its women's fault that they so often get shafted by men and society and all they need to do is stand up for themselves more.

Do you honestly think that more than a few abusive twats would actually come out and say that? Most people will agree they will do whatever is necessary to provide the best for the baby and each other. But when the situation arises, compounded by good maternity leave and the absence of decent paternity leave, that's when inequality starts arising.

What are you on about Mary?

What point is the same as Bonsoir's? That it's more expensive to have children at home? In what way? I've just made the point that it's more expensive for both parents to work outside the home but with family friendly hours, because the wage sacrifice both have to make, would not be necessary if the workplace were not still largely designed for people with wives.

sunshine first people were saying outsourcing childcare costs £50 a day so by having a wife at home, men are being saved £50 a day.

Then it was established that the cost of having a child at home is very expensive (trips out, clothes, lunches etc) someone said more so than nursery. So therefore it is costing more to have a wife at home. Personally I don't beleive it costs £50 a day to have a child at home but that's what several of you said.

"but it comes at huge cost to her own career, future pension, and carries a massive risk if the relationship breaks down." This is my point. It comes at ahuge cost, which is then expected to be picked up by the father when the relationship breaks down.

My DH is very senior in his shitty company, he's not really allowed to take time off if the children are ill(and me) and is expected to make other arrangements. He was informally disciplined for taking time off when I was very ill, and three of the dcs, with sickness when my last baby was a few weeks old.

God knows what they would do if I also worked.....they would expect me to take time off my job. But then his boss married a secretary, calls her the ball and chain and encourages and drinking, partying and shagging culture.

Obviously men wouldn't come out and actually say that but it is what it amounts to.
Well, I don't think that things are going to change of their own accord. The only way men and companies will stop relying on women to stay at home is when women start refusing to stay at home. But I suspect that a great many actually like it. And if that's the case, you have made your choice and the consequence is no financial stability.

Are women now complete idiots that are never responsible to what happens in their own lives? People either accept being treated like a doormat or they don't.....

Mary....I don't want someone else spending time with my dcs when they're young. I get one chance to watch them grow and like it or not if you work you do miss out, and whilst I would love both a career and to spend as much time as possible with my dcs I can't have both and my career is a sacrifice I'm willing to make. If my DH buggers off then I expect the law to recognise my sacrifice and compensate me. I want a system that means my lifestyle is not crippled by my DH being a shit.

Why are you so hung up on costs Mary?

It saves a partner far more than the direct childcare costs, of having another adult around to pick up their "wifework". It's the indirect cost benefit of being able to stay late at the office in an emergency, do meetings at the drop of a hat, pop out with colleagues/ the boss in the evenings to have a quick pizza after a fraught professional incident, go for a promotion that you know is going to lead to longer hours initially but will bring in #20K extra etc., that are very difficult to actually put a price on, but mean that someone who knows that their domestic responsibilities are being taken care of by someone else, can benefit from all that lovely free labour while pretending that it actually isn't worth that much. It's worth a bloody stack.

I have said nothing about it costing £50 a day to keep a child at home. IME most SAHMs don't have leisure money like that for the month, let alone the week. Only high earners are in a position where a SAHM has endless coffee mornings and children's activities. The reality for most is a morning with various household tasks to be carried out, coffee at a friend's house if you're lucky, maybe one or two activities a week if they're free or only a couple of £s (though these are fast disappearing under the cuts), and CBeebies as a form of entertainment. Having a SAHP usually means those early years are very tight indeed. Sadly, having the SAHP go back to work (even if it is logistically possible to organise it) is even more expensive for many.

crapoladeville fair enough if your husband agrees but what about those who don't think it's important for mum to be at home with the children, yet have to pay for the fact that that's what the wife thinks is important? then go on supporting the mum long after the children are young because she can't earn alot of money owing to the fact she's been out of employment for so long?

sunshine is right, this does boil down to me beleiving that women should dp paid work where possible.

Mary, if men don't want to support financially, women who think it's important to stay at home with their children, then they shouldn't have children with them.

As you rightly pointed out, everyone's got a choice...

Anyway they can always walk out on them and then not bother to financially support them if they want. The state generally allows that.

s1Yes isitreally lots of couples start out with every intention of equality but the workplace and society well and truly stymies the best intentions.

It's not just because all men are sexist and all women are doormats. It really is hard to try and structure your life as a couple in an equal way, when the workplace, schools and society are structured as if we live in the 1950's.

2It really is hard to try and structure your life as a couple in an equal way, when the workplace, schools and society are structured as if we live in the 1950's." I managed it.

"Mary, if men don't want to support financially, women who think it's important to stay at home with their children, then they shouldn't have children with them." I could tell you of at least 8 couples where the man has married a career focsussed women who turned their noses up at housewives then changed their minds when children came along.

"I managed it"

Do you know how smug that sounds? More to the point, do you know how pointless that is as an argument? Of course some people manage it, just as some black people get to the top in spite of racism, some disabled people like Helen Keller make remarkable, inspiring lives despite their disabilities, etc. etc. The fact that a few individuals manage to do sth in spite of the way society is weighted against them, isn't an argument, it just lets employers and sexist men off the hook. A few people managing it, isn't a solution, we have to change society so that everyone who wants to, can manage it.

Were you privy to the discussions all those couples you knew had?

Well, I knew the wives before the marriage, and I knew the wives after, and I heard the story from both side for 6 of those. It's surely no surprise that women change their minds about wanting to work once they actually have children.

I am smug, well, not smug as such. Just disbeleiving that if I can do it with minimal effort, why so many other women see children as such a barrier to having the same lifestyle most men have after becoming parents.

Well yes it must be nice to think you're so much cleverer than other women Mary.

And it lets society and sexist men off the hook doesn't it, if you can blame them for their bad choices instead of doing a proper analysis of the society in which they make those choices.