They are called ‘capital letters’. Use them wisely. And please cut back on the bingos, they make you look silly.

I debated whether I should respond to you and I lost.

1. Clearly, tax money that went to bettering you as a kid got funnelled off to bettering some prime minister’s 2nd home.

2. You have so many bingos in your post, I must refer you to the (currently) latest blog entry by Britgirl: http://thebritgirl.com/2008/06/09/40-questions-the-childfree-get-asked-all-the-time/

With increasing number of Cf families we cant be ignored in the long run.

these children wouldnt get into knife fights, so less policing, they wouldnt need the childcare which is billions a year.. they already get child credits, child payments, baby bonds.. and more, consolidate those into the first 4 years..

it would work.. but it wont.. for the reasons you mention. just imagine less crime by hoodies,graffiti, stabbings, and less gang culture.. all of which cost.. but as you said it wouldnt work.. still one day we can dream of parents taking responsibility for their own kids.

http://bestparentever.com

My company does an accrual based system of 20 “personal days.” You use those days as you see fit. If you’re sick, if you want vacation, if you just want a day off…and you can take the time at 2 hr chunks. So, if Breeder Mum has to leave early for Snotleigh’s soccer game, she needs to submit the time and get it approved. Our company is actually quite strict on that. Now, individual managers, on the other hand, may treat the situations differently.

I’d also bet that if that support was given by govt, it would be paid for by our taxes. Not long ago the government was mooting more plans for parents to be able to stay home. I personally don’t like the thought of my taxes going to support that. I have to weigh that against any benefits to society.

Hey, no probs with the length. I appreciate all the comments - whatever the length. In most places in Canada and the UK people aren’t eligible for maternity pay until they’ve worked at least two years, which I think is fair. It at least reduces the “shopping around.” But mat leave is usually always paid at least for the first year. I totally agree women should ensure they have marketable skills so that they can either create their own jobs or find a job with an employer should they want/need to and would even say particularly if they have children since the chances of becoming a single parent are not small.

The point I wanted to make in reference to mercuriors suggestion re staying home during the early years is that - these days, staying at home for the first few years of a child’s life is a luxury particularly if formerly there were two incomes - unless you have a partner who can comfortably carry the overload. given today’s cost of living. That of course brings a whole other issue - being the sole breadwinner is even less fun even if cutbacks are made. Friends of ours who recently had a baby said to me… “well, the wife would love to be able to stay home… didn’t like her job much anyway and going back was hard. The reality is they cannot afford for her not to work - even though a good chunk of their earning goes on childcare. And yet, less time with the kiddies in the early years could be producing the violent juves on our streets today.

Just to add one point… since both my parents had to work I went to a childminder when I was small. I was also lucky that being a nurse my mum worked night shifts and my dad days, so we always had one of them around…

Anne-Marie - our comapny now offers “personal days”… 3 days a year you an use as you wish. It’s a start.

Just my 2c.

I don’t entirely agree that a person (be it man or woman) should choose either parent or career. I don’t know how many times I’ve seen women whine that they can’t leave their husbands because they have no skills and won’t be able to find a job. Essentially, like Britgirl said, they’re legalized prostitutes. Having seen my single mother struggle, I’m all for a woman taking it upon herself to have a career - regardless of whether she chooses to breed. Really, it is only for HER best interest to have skills to give her greater possibility to be employed and support herself (and any possible children) should she find herself single. As we all know, women’s standard of living GOES DOWN when she gets a divorced. Usually, if she’s a mother, she’s saddled with the kids and even any amount of child support she may receive really wouldn’t cover much costs in rearing a child.

I’m not supporting breeders or even parents by this argument. I am supporting women (regardless of parented status) and that I feel women should be independent and self sufficient. It is how you have equal footing in a relationship. If you don’t need a man, you’re not beholden to him. If you want a man, that gives you power to choose who you wish to be with. It’s a poweful place to be in. I am in that situation in my life. So many women are stuck with men who ignore them, treat them poorly, etc. Anyway! I’m more about equal footing and having the power to choice and options in my opinion on this.

Now, all of that being said, I don’t believe that parents (of either gender) should get any more special treatment simply because they have decided to breed. The decision to breed, or if one finds oneself pregnant, the decision to keep the child, is not something that other people should be FORCED to support. Now, if Jane CF Worker doesn’t mind taking on the extra workload for Mary Mother Worker, then that’s on Jane. However, if Jane CF Worker DOES mind, she should NOT be forced to take on any extra work just because Mary Mother Worker decides to run off and breed.

I’m not exactly clear on the FMLA here in the states. I do know that FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) is a law that requires employers to allow a certain amount of leave time for employers based on qualified reasons for a leave. Maternity being one of them. I know a woman who was given 6 weeks leave to care for an elderly parent.

Leave may or may not be paid out. That is at the discretion of the employer. Usually leave is not paid out. However, in order to be “family friendly,” many employers offer paid maternity leave. I have noticed that many employers, in order to prevent abuse of maternity leave, will not offer paid maternity leave for the first year of employment.

I had a situation at my last job that pissed me off to no end. I was on the interview team as we needed more developers. First and foremost, I did not want to hire this one particular woman because I didn’t think she was qualified. I noticed, however, during her interview she wore a baggy blazer and kept a leather folder infront of her the whole time (until we sat at a table). I was wondering if she was convering up something.

Sure enough, the bitch was pregnant. We hired her against my and another coworker’s recommendation. Not because she was pregnant, we didn’t find that out until AFTER she was hired. And guess what? It wasn’t six months later she was wanting maternity leave. Now, my boss, not realizing our company policy, approved it as paid. He got chewed out. In her last week of maternity leave she found out she was NOT going to be paid. I felt a small victory. Yes, we all had to pick up HER work. I was not happy about this. I think she did go back to work after her maternity leave. But see, here’s the thing. She got a job *with insurance* to pay for her having a kid. IMO, she should not have been able to use the insurance to pay for it either. I suspect she got the job for maternity leave AND for the insurance. Yes, my thoughts about her are “cunt.” I left that job shortly after but not due to this.

Now, to counter that, I do have a friend who, last year, was able to take 6 weeks off to care for an elderly parent. This is covered under FMLA. However, due to her position, she was not paid for those 6 weeks. (It was a low paid CSR position.)

I hate to use the “T” word, but - I will! Traditionally, married couples with children were the largest voter base. And of course, politicians will do what they need and what they can to get voted in to office so they can accomplish their own agendas. And that, traditionally, meant to appeal to the largest voter base of married people with children, i.e. “families.”

However, politicians, I think, are going to have to start changing tactics of attracting votes. With the rise of single people, and childfree families, they’re going to have to start appealing to a voter base that may not necessarily be mostly childed families any more. Atleast, *smart* politicians. Although, if you look at all of the candidates we have running for president here in the states, they’re all “traditional family” people - i.e. married, with children, all clean cut. Even the woman candidate and the African-american (black? not sure which to use) candidate. So there is still the same traditional roles and attitudes about “families” and what that means, prevalent in the person we’re going to elect to be our next leader.

(PS: I hope you don’t mind this being a long post, Britgirl.)

i am not saying, 24hours for 18 years, everyone knows the most formative ages in a kids like is zero to 4, before school, thats where they learn the manners, and who are they learning that from, if not the parents, TV. or nannies, or child carers.. So i would say let the mothers or fathers spend those 4 years with their children, teaching them, reading to them. Then when they are old enough to go to school, go back part time, to fit in with the school schedule. Then when they are in secondary school, go back full time. (They can do open university courses correspondance courses to fill in the time)

This i think helps more than it hinders. you have children growing up in a safe secure environment with the love of a parent, and it gives society a better chance of having a decent child. These parents bleet on about how their children are this and that, they need more childcare, more this more that. better education. yet the foundation of all this has to be the parents and children.

i dont say force them, i say they should consider it. its only 4 years, which isnt much in the scheme of things. Just think of the benefits to society.

well adjusted children, better future workers, because they have that human contact, rather than being on a conveyor belt of nursery places.

Of course working hours should not be spent to compensate for “lost” parenting time.

My point was just that the CF choice gives me so much daily space to do what I want, that if a parent goes away for 6 weeks to be with his kid, I dont waste much energy to think about it. Simply happy with what I got.

I rather take some extra turns at work than spending my whole life raising a child.

I think in todays society many people are too focused on what their believed rights are and also that governmet benefits are something we deserve. F.ex. sick-leave from work. In my country it seems like many people calculate this as extra holiday every year because they feel it belongs to them.

There are children in our society and it want change. I believe its good for parent and child to spend time like this and for the future it might count for something in that family`s life and later benefit the society?!?

Sadly its always those who are back at work either because they are never sick or dont have kids, that will be less granted with government “benefits”.

I pay my tax too and would certainly like to be more appreciated for my contribution to society instead of being accused for being selfish or a parazite.

Hmm…Maybe I start a storm with this…but please…no TROLL-hunt…I am not one of them…:)

Oh and what does Gordon Brown promise to bolster his failing fortunes? Why, MORE perks for parents! What else? Three guesses as to who will pay for these “perks?”

Strawberry… agree. Most still believe they can have it all and they want the state/government to help, because it’s pretty hard to have it all. I’m not against maternity leave per se ( and in the UK and Canada it’s a lot better than in the US) but there should be some ability for non-childed people to have time off to do the things that matter to them too. After all, having kids is a choice. Chances are though that it’s going to be hard for you not to take up the slack when they buzz off mat leave, particularly in a smaller company.

Mercurior - with the number of teen stabbings in England this year,people are beginning to ask questions… like, where are the parents? Probably slogging away at jobs in order to pay for the many kids they have. The fact is now youth crime is escalating. And some of the culprits are from well to do families. I am not actually advocating women stay at home because these days most can’t afford to. And being at home with the kids 24 hrs a day isn’t everyone’s cup of tea even if they could afford it. But if they do want to work they should put in hours like we all do… not get to put in less and earn the same just because they have children. And though I get the concerns of smaller companies, refusing to hire a woman on the probability she may or may not have children is discrimination. They can hire someone short term.

Kylie - thanks for that link!

Lurker… it would be good to to have to take on any extra workload. At least in our company they will try to fill the role… but it’s a big company and it can only maternity leave cover. I see no reason why anyone should have to take on a parent’s work simply because they’ve gone off to have kids… and if they want to do kid related things they should make up the time.

I have never thought much about this kind of benefit for the parent since I feel their daily life cant be compensated by a few weeks of extra holiday. But principally its not correct that parent employees should benefit more than the Cf employee.

Also there should be economic compensation for the person who has to take over the extra workload.

I too am sick to death of the ‘hard working families’ example. So, nobody else is hardworking?? Because they are referring to the traditional nucleus family when they say this, it always makes me think that the parents of these ‘hard working families’ must be sending their kids up chimneys or down coal mines, the way it sounds, LOL.

The other week I was listening to BBC radio 2 (I listen to Jeremy Vine most lunch times). There were two MP’s (can’t remember the names) supposedly ‘answering questions’ (of course, more avoiding answering questions, than actually answering …). After hearing the word ‘family’ for the sixth time, I decided to change station.

I did like the article overall, because it is questioning the norm of ‘families first’ which can only be a good thing. But one comment I didn’t like:
“They don’t want to be on the campaign trail kissing 40-year-old men who have been co-habiting with a beer fridge”
Is she trying to make out all 40 yr old single men spend all their extra money on booze or something? Talk about gratuitous stereotyping. Am I over reacting? And what about single 40 yr old women? I guess she is assuming most women are hitched and with child/ren by then? Yeah, I guess it will be a minority, but she makes it sound like the house owning, single woman doesn’t exist. She says herself in the article that single households (male/female) are going to match family households soon.