Unemployed girlfriend of 3 years pressing to have a baby

runningwoman

spiritus wrote: »

The "deafening silence" ?? You're so dramatic OldTimer. I didn't come online yesterday but even if I did that doesn't mean I have to give you a running commentary on my relationship.......sorry to disappoint you.

What I have shared on this forum has been things that I'm comfortable sharing with a bunch of strangers (however harsh some people may have sounded). It gives me another perspective other than from my family and friends.

I welcome the advice and suggestions and would even welcome more but that doesn't mean I have to involve myself in a "Q & A" session.

I haven't had a baby, and over the last few years I've come to the conclusion I'm not sure I want to :eek: so can't help you much there I'm afraid!

But just to write a (strongish) response to some of the rather nasty responses you've had.

As far as I can see, your girlfriend hasn't been claiming benefits, but you've been supporting her? And there seems to be a lot of blatant hostility to this?

Now. I wonder. How many of the posters questioning your relationship have had their fill of working tax credits, housing benefit, child benefit, whatever?

(I hold my hands up - I had just over a month of JSA this summer. First time on it, bloody nightmare, was glad to get off it).


Ok. So I suspect that the problem isn't the amount of tax credits/benefits you might be receiving in the future, but people not liking the way the finances in your relationship work.

Well, I was "that woman" like your girlfriend in a serious relationship or two and "could have been" in a few more.

(also I'm visibly mixed race and am competent at a good roll in the hay so they could always bring in the "gullible hard working Englishman lured in by alluring seductive manipulative immigrant type" line Unfortunately I do have a British passport, my granddad was a policeman for the RAF and for my sins I was born in bl***y Yorkshire so I can't really take the passport hunter insult though :rotfl:)


But I felt, and would feel, no need to justify OUR choices as a couple just to appease those who weren't happy with their own lives.

I was financially supported by my partners. And no, I didn't have kids.

No, I wasn't on benefits or aiming to be, and my partner didn't have a massive list of "TASKS TO MAKE YOU WORTH YOUR KEEP" (my housework skills are :eek: at the best of times, so it was probably wise to keep me away from the kitchen....).

The reality is, they were chaps who worked hard, wanted to be in a relationship with me (or to have someone vaguely womanly there for them - I'm not that special :eek:) and it was worth more that I wasn't miserable and they could come home to a content woman than an extra ££££ a year.

I have no idea who actually works out a ludicrous tit for tat "how much VALUE FOR MONEY is this person bringing into my household" kind of equation, as some of the posters seem to have suggested.

But they just seem like unappealing people who I wouldn't want to go out with even if I was pretty flush :eek:

(And not just in romantic relationships - I don't care if I've bought a skint friend a few rounds or let them crash with me indefinitely rent free and never got anything back, I assume the universe will pay me back later).

In my case, the chaps I was with didn't want us BOTH working long hours, getting home and then have a massive row because we'd BOTH been working our rears off and hadn't slept enough and needed emotional support. And in a couple - unless your jobs are your vocations - it REALLY doesn't make sense both working long hours and getting into debt and having a low quality of life.

(because of the stress and expense of commuting and the feeling you "deserve" luxury holidays and treats for both being so hard working and never seeing each other and having a cuddle or the thing)


Perhaps there was an element of being "old-fashioned" there too - just as at the time I quite got into the "woman's role" of being emotionally supportive they liked the "man's role" of being the "main provider". I don't think guys like that are an anachronism - I've been single but dating for the last few years and a lot of men do identify themselves by their jobs/or as providers and would feel "wrong" if they didn't have that role. I don't think any of them would have liked me feeling I had to grow chuffing vegetables or iron their pants because I felt guilty that I wasn't bringing X to the joint bank account.

(And of course, if I ever got a big windfall it would have benefitted both of us (not that I ever did ).)

I've moved to the point now where I am working towards my vocation :T and that's my priority (so staying single and having the occasional cute boy suits me fine), but in the future I may change my mind. Who knows?

But if I was going out with someone with living together, marriage, kids in mind for the future, I'd have no shame in looking for a potential good provider so I didn't have to go out and work when the kiddies were born. Why is it not PC to admit this?

Of course, circumstances change, redundancies, illnesses, happen, and I'd think I could rise to the challenge, but "in general" I would like to think that a future Mr Runningwoman would be able to cover my living costs with a few treats thrown in without going "you use electricity and sanitary pads and eat two slices of bread a morning AND my council tax has increased by 25% AND I worked whilst you were enjoying a cup of tea and a film so you're not a good financial deal. NEXT!". ".

(Well, if anyone wanted to work it like that, I'd start doing a going rate for the "special services" that a mans left hand can't provide :eek: :cool:)

I don't want to live like a WAG, but I don't think expecting a couple of modest taste to live on one salary is unreasonable.

Of course, every woman is different and "work" plays a bigger role in most peoples lives and identities than "bringing money in", but I certainly wouldn't feel the need to apologise for bringing that expectation of male financial responsibility to the table. And from my experience and in the future, I'm pretty certain there are men who can cope with that expectation, who aren't pushovers or victims but genuinely feel comfortable and take PRIDE in that role.

I'm sorry some women resent having had to cope with partners who aren't taking on a traditional mans role financially so feel the need to b***h about the internal dynamics of other relationships (my mother was one of them- for her being in a relationship was more important than being married to a non grafter and I've seen the unhappiness that gave her) but I don't think that should change MY point of view.

(Anecdotally, no-one I've seriously dated has EVER been bothered about whether I'm skint or not, or how much I could eventually bring to the table financially. In fact I get the impression chaps enjoy playing the nice guy and treating a hard up girl to a square meal.

But presumably I should INSIST we never go out to anywhere nice and just sit somewhere I can pay half.

Because then some People On the Internet will claim I'm a man-eating golddigger sending the course of womens rights back a million years :eek:. And who the hell do I think I am, not paying? And my date is a pushover for not feeling like a proper bloke if he doesn't pay.

Or maybe not :rotfl:)


Straight up, a lot of the responses you've had look like the lifestyle "sour grapes", which sadly seems to be pretty endemic in this country - "oh I wanted to stay at home and I hate my job so I resent women who have had the chance to do so" With a nice touch of anti Eastern European racism thrown in, too. Classy

I think there's a lot of vitroil directed towards your partner because everyone's struggling so much what with the recession and house prices and all that jazz (personally I'm thinking "escape strategy" to a more sustainable way of life - have been plotting for some time :cool:) and wants to take it out on someone.

But the solution is not to start finding scapegoats who appear to have "beaten the system" by rebelling against living as wage slaves, working for twenty five years for lowish wages to pay for overpriced housing, then dying of the stress brought by an unhealthy lifestyle.

Trash like the Daily Mail tells us that we should all intimately police the lifestyles of people on similar or lower incomes because it's probably THEIR fault that we're in a recession. They tell us that people should be prepared to slave away at just above minimum wage to prove they are a "good person" (making Tatco bosses terribly rich in the process) and pay extortionate tax and housing costs just to prove they are a "good person" (making landlords and bankers terribly rich in the process).

(whilst of course, the millionaire proprietors of rubbish like the Daily Fail and similar ideaologies -sic - are laughing on their luxury yachts and getting away with not paying English tax.... :mad:)

(what's that they say about the classes? Ten biscuits to share out. The upper class gets there first, takes nine biscuits, gives the middle class person one and then points to the lower class one and says "HE WANTS YOUR BISCUIT" :cool:)

Right, gotta get off to work now, off the soapbox :mad:. Good luck, OP, you sound like a lovely chap, and hope things work out well for you and your partner.

melly1980

margaretclare wrote: »

Forgive me, I haven't read through all of this. However, I'm more than a little annoyed by the denigration of supermarket work that the OP's girl-friend seems to think is beneath her.

I have one question for her: 'Who the h*ll do you think you are?' Why do you think that supermarket work is so far beneath you?

I have done all kinds of jobs to keep a roof over my head. Menial jobs, far worse than working in a supermarket. My youngest GD wanted a career in travel and tourism, did a 3-year BTEC course, hasn't been able to get a job that's anything like what she wanted. So she works in one of the big supermarkets doing picking for internet grocery orders. She works some weekends, starting work at 5 am, has to get a taxi to get her there. It's called having a work ethic. I have the greatest respect for her. Her job is part-time, terrible hours but it's better than nothing.

You can tell I'm from a different generation. To me, even with all that I see around me, the words 'girl-friend' and 'baby' do not go together. If you'd said 'my wife wants a baby' that would have been entirely different.

Job-searching is, in itself, almost a full-time job. I echo those people who've said they would do anything, anything at all, rather than not have a job and pay their own way. I've never relied on a man to support me financially, never did, never would.

BTW, when my now-DH came here in 1997 he was 62, some might say already past his sell-by date, didn't think he'd ever get a job again, but he applied to a local call-centre and worked there for another 4 years. We both worked until we were 67.

how ironic that you feel the op has offended then go on to offend in your very own way by suggesting that a couple must be married to have a baby.

FWIW, I too wouldnt want to do supermarket work because I'd prefer to do a job that fits what qualifications I have. Its not snobbery nor do I feel that those people are below me I just prefer to apply the knowledge that I have otherwise I'd be bored. Dont get me wrong I would do it out of necessity to provide for my family, but its not what I would wish to do and I dont think that this means Im "above it" or "superior"

margaretclare

melly1980 wrote: »

how ironic that you feel the op has offended then go on to offend in your very own way by suggesting that a couple must be married to have a baby.

And why not? There is a name for a child born out of wedlock, although it may be non-PC even to hint at such a thing. Accidents are one thing, cold-blooded planning is something else.

I don't feel that the OP 'has offended', but look at the title of this thread. He defines his GF from the start as 'unemployed'. That means: she is supposed to be looking for work, 'capable of and available for'. He didn't say she is staying at home to do housework and that he's happy to support her, but that she is 'unemployed'. It's what he wrote, not what anyone else thinks.

FWIW, I too wouldnt want to do supermarket work because I'd prefer to do a job that fits what qualifications I have. Its not snobbery nor do I feel that those people are below me I just prefer to apply the knowledge that I have otherwise I'd be bored. Dont get me wrong I would do it out of necessity to provide for my family, but its not what I would wish to do and I dont think that this means Im "above it" or "superior"

Yes, I probably thought similar when I was made redundant coincidental with widowhood, with a mortgage to pay. I did a lot of things that were well below my qualifications and experience. I did them because the alternative was not having a roof over my head. I even applied for a job in a supermarket but didn't get it. At least it would have been a nice clean job with reasonable working conditions, within reach of home, not having to travel long distances and live under someone else's roof being their cook/bottle-washer/driver/shopper/companion and whatever else they wanted me to do.

daveys_2

margaretclare wrote: »

And why not? There is a name for a child born out of wedlock

Brian

/Monty Python joke

melly1980

margaretclare wrote: »

And why not? There is a name for a child born out of wedlock, although it may be non-PC even to hint at such a thing. Accidents are one thing, cold-blooded planning is something else.

Yes

We all use to have stupid values but fortunately most of us have moved on. May I suggest moving to a 3rd world country if you want to practice outdated views that derive from your invisible friend in the sky.

Errata

margaretclare wrote: »

And why not? There is a name for a child born out of wedlock,

There are several words: much loved and wanted being some of them.

backinbusiness

Mupette wrote: »

... and the pc could be just left on for days... showing me constantly on mse..

Totally off topic - but really, how un-MSE of you!

runningwoman

It's getting quite long, so I thought I'd use the tea break for a Summary of this thread so far.

Original Poster

"I think might have a situation where we might not be able to financially cope if we have a child.

Hmmmm. Thoughts?

PS Did I mention my girlfriend is foreign?"

Other Posters


"you're saying she's FOREIGN!!!! Oh my god she is going to steal your money, take advantage of poor lonely you/plus whatever man takes her fancy, then disappear back to Wanttoinvadeenglandslovakia to feed her family of thirty."

"she's FOREIGN!!! Oh my god she must be fantasising about living in England. Because everyone does. Because living here is so bloody fantastic, obviously. "

"she's FOREIGN!!!!! Bloody hell she's gonna steal all your money and our jobs. Or even worse, NOT going to steal anyone's jobs, because she is being supported by you not by the state."

"she's FOREIGN!!!! Bloody hell, she's going to get pregnant, then move into a high rise council block and claim asylum and have sixteen children for the benefits, before eating swans.... It's MY MONEY SHE'S GOING TO BE SPENDING, I TELL YOU! SHE'S PRACTICALLY TAKING IT FROM MY WALLET RIGHT NOW."

"Eeh lad, when I were a lass I'd work sixteen jobs for five p an hour, no I'd PAY them five p an hour to work, before the foreman would whip me and then I'd go home and cook dinner for fifteen people before sleeping amongst the hot coals, no the cold coals, we couldn't afford a match . Who'd she think she are, lady muck or something?"

"you're planning a baby IN COLD BLOOD when you're not married, you're going to hell...."


TBC.

(sorry).

:eek::eek:

threemuttleys

And why not? There is a name for a child born out of wedlock, although it may be non-PC even to hint at such a thing. Accidents are one thing, cold-blooded planning is something else.

wow. just wow!

What does a piece of paper matter? If a couple love each other, and can financially support a child, then what does it matter if they are married or not

I have a 13 month old, and am ttc another baby, quick, get the rope, and burn me now

southoftheriver

margaretclare wrote: »

And why not? There is a name for a child born out of wedlock, although it may be non-PC even to hint at such a thing. Accidents are one thing, cold-blooded planning is something else.

The OP is not talking about a murder!!! Have some perspective!