Whipped them all soundly, and sent them to bed. A nation of child haters.

MissMoneypenny

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

One thing that astonished me when I became a mother was just how judgmental parents are about one another. This is a good example of that (working mothers = bad mothers, for example)

Some mothers have to work because their household needs the money: other mothers work to get away from their child. I can understand both scenarios and motherhood is not for everyone.

But what I can't understand is why a mother who works to get away from her child, then goes on to have more children...that she also wants to get away from.

michaels

Back to the original proposition, whilst I can't say I like the way the OP has presented her argument I would like to suggest:

Those without children who suggest that they should not support those who do have them should think about how they intend to survive in retirement. Even if they have a fully funded pension to pay for all their needs, who are they actually physically expecting to meet those needs for food, care and support, nursing etc. regardless of how they are paid for there is going to be a need for workers (today's children) to actually provide the services that have been saved for so arguing that those who have children are making a purely personal choice which will not bring the childless any benefit is not a position that can be logically supported. Sorry.

Percy1983

PhylPho wrote: »

Er, um, actually. . . The reason why you think you're seeing so many anti-children posts is precisely because of the above quote from your post.

But posters aren't anti-kids at all. Just anti the not insignificant class of benefits scroungers who think of England (with £ signs in their eyes) when lying back for some profitable procreation.

No-one is blaming the kids. Only the parents -- and a State welfare system that, until recently, has been the softest touch of all.

My point exactly, I actually volunteer in a primary school and look forward to having my own mini me's, I feel sorry for the children born for profit, its the wrong reason to have children.

neverdespairgirl

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Well I'm not going to have a third child just to test that theory:D

My mother was a dedicated scientist. She went on to have a 4th - who confirmed than no. 3 was the exception, not the rule.

no. 3 is now 26, and has thoroughly grown out of tantrums.

neverdespairgirl

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Some mothers have to work because their household needs the money: other mothers work to get away from their child. I can understand both scenarios and motherhood is not for everyone.

But what I can't understand is why a mother who works to get away from her child, then goes on to have more children...that she also wants to get away from.

I work. Not because we need the money, not to "get away from my child", either. It's because I enjoy it, and it's part of who I am.

Caroline_a

I like children, it's just badly behaved ones I can't stand, caused in the main by bad parenting. Far too many people these days (ok I'm old ) seem unable to make choices for their children, they want the child to make the decision for themselves. 'What do you want to eat/wear/do?' when asked of a 3 year old is a nonsense.

The parent (in theory) is the one with the wealth of experience to be able to guide the child in making choices, and to allow a child total freedom of choice is just plain daft. Give 'either/or' choices by all means, but when the child is making all the decisions, he or she is calling all the shots. The child ends up with no respect for the parent ("why do they keep asking me? cant they make a decision for once??"), which will lead to somewhat larger problems when the child becomes a teenager!

LilacPixie

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Some mothers have to work because their household needs the money: other mothers work to get away from their child. I can understand both scenarios and motherhood is not for everyone.

But what I can't understand is why a mother who works to get away from her child, then goes on to have more children...that she also wants to get away from.

Some people just are not cut out to be stay at home parents both male and female. I love my kids dearly, even although DD2 is currently a tantrum thrower so some unknown reason, TBH I think she is willful and too like me and is determined its her way or no way. Her classic currently is refusing to hold my hand while crossing the road. I make her and we get screaming abdabs on the pavement so i just pick her up like a sack of tatties and carry her accross the road type thing.
I could not be a SAHM. Nothing against those that are or want to be but it is not for me. Doesn't mean i'm not cut out for motherhood or I have to work for the money all be it very nice but there is more to me than just being mum. I enjoy my work, I thrive on the stress TBH

StevieJ

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Some mothers have to work because their household needs the money: other mothers work to get away from their child. I can understand both scenarios and motherhood is not for everyone.

But what I can't understand is why a mother who works to get away from her child, then goes on to have more children...that she also wants to get away from.

I think that is where the saying 'OK in small doses' must come from

JonnyBravo

michaels wrote: »

Back to the original proposition, whilst I can't say I like the way the OP has presented her argument I would like to suggest:

Those without children who suggest that they should not support those who do have them should think about how they intend to survive in retirement. Even if they have a fully funded pension to pay for all their needs, who are they actually physically expecting to meet those needs for food, care and support, nursing etc. regardless of how they are paid for there is going to be a need for workers (today's children) to actually provide the services that have been saved for so arguing that those who have children are making a purely personal choice which will not bring the childless any benefit is not a position that can be logically supported. Sorry.

I'm not sure anyone suggested there should be no more children full stop. That is certainly a difficult position to argue.

I don't object to providing some child support and the like to those who are largely responsible for bringing up children. (We claim child support).
I do object to providing total support to generations of families who have no history of work. Tell me, how are these families going to help look after me in my old age?

JonnyBravo

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

I work. Not because we need the money, not to "get away from my child", either. It's because I enjoy it, and it's part of who I am.

What???
There's more than the 2 reasons the MissMoneypenny lecture covered??? :eek: