Unemployed girlfriend of 3 years pressing to have a baby

microfilm1

How can she stay here or does she intend to get pregnant to claim benefits.
Ktel:mad:

Marisco

runningwoman wrote: »

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.
.

Well this sentence pretty much wipes out everything else you wrote!! You are quite happy for the man to be a "wage slave" though, and keep the woman, without any financial input off her? Job's a good 'un!!

VfM4meplse

runningwoman wrote: »

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?"

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

runningwoman wrote: »

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

margaretclare is entitled to her own opinion, as we all are. She is merely commenting on the sanctity of life and not sending anyone to hell as some seem to think.

krlyr

spiritus wrote: »

She tells me money isn't everything and that in her case love is the most important thing and it's hard to argue against that but it's easy to hold such a romantic view if you're not worrying about how the bills are paid.

Regardless of anything else, I think this is a huge issue here. I would love to say money isn't everything - OH is stressed out by his job and if love was enough, I'd tell him to quit and I'll support him. But I physically cannot afford to - well, unless we fancied living in a houseshare as that's all my wage could stretch to.
We're in a society where money IS everything. Love won't buy nappies, love won't run a car. I think if you want any chance of the relationship improving then you need to find away to make her see this. It will be an awkward conversation but if you cannot discuss financial matters now, you will find yourself really struggling when you have a baby on your limited wage and have to choose between sending baby to X playschool or Y playschool, what sacrifices to make to afford such-and-such for the baby, etc. - if you're feeling the pressure now, multiply that by 10 when there is a baby in the equation.

VfM4meplse wrote: »

He is just too good to be on the customer services desk at Sainsbo's and I told him as much.

But if the alternative is unemployment? Would you not say he's "too good" to be sat at home not earning/claiming JSA?

margaretclare wrote: »

although it may be non-PC even to hint at such a thing.

Well you were right about one thing!

runningwoman

Marisco wrote: »

Well this sentence pretty much wipes out everything else you wrote!! You are quite happy for the man to be a "wage slave" though, and keep the woman, without any financial input off her? Job's a good 'un!!


Don't think so mate :cool: I seemed to end up attached to men who certainly weren't "wage slaves" themselves - in the sense that doing their jobs made them proud and was a major part of their identity and not just for an income.

For example, my ex bloke was doing the washing up, topless, after returning from serving his country abroad (oh I'm a lucky woman ).

I joked about how things were going for me career wise and that given his domestic skills and given he looked rather nice topless, he could be my kept man for a while.

His face was all :mad::mad::mad:, it was bloody marvellous :T and he started muttering along the lines of "love my job and I LIKE to feel needed and the supportive one in a financial sense". It's not a view I'm unfamiliar with. FROM MEN.

I think despite the PC approach, a lot of women wouldn't "like to feel needed" in a financial sense, but work because they have to or feel they ought to, not because they want to.

There's a difference between working for identity and working for money. Some people find their vocations early, some late, some don't have them at all and are just working to pay their bills :eek:. Certainly I'm doing something I feel passionately about now, and I hope it'll be lucrative, but it took a roundabout way to get here. When I've worked before, it WAS just for the money.

(I have no pride when it comes to the KIND of work I did - I was a cleaner for some time - but I won't pretend it was character building or made me some chuffing superior moral being over a woman living off a chap, it was just a whole load of "insert slang word for testicles". working for annoying folk I'd have liked to hit in the head with a hammer, many times)

Why on earth should I -or any other woman - have to work in something I hate to "bring an income in" to make some stupid political gender point or to make someone like yourself happy, I have enough trouble keeping myself happy, thanks :cool:

Essentially. If a chap is happy with his profession, and has the resources for a partner not to work, and PREFERS this set-up then your problem is............????

The issue here for the OP seems to be "how can we practically manage the money and fertility timeline". The responses seem to be along the lines of moralising about the details of his domestic set-up, and that's what I'm not happy with. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with a non-working partner even if the non working partner is childless

Given that the OP couple have so far managed without benefits OR getting into debt I think that puts them a lot ahead of the rest of us, so that's why I'm somewhat :rotfl: at all the outrage here!

(I mean, one could easily see a situation where the partner had worked 50 hours a week for all the time she was here and they had overspent and got into masses of debt or not saved anything. They'd be in exactly the same financial situation. But this would have been "ok" because she worked and "proved" she had that thing called "work ethic"?)

(I've had a few months where I've just trained for running, read books and lived off savings and extreme moneysaving and it used to crack me up how random people used to insist I HAD to get on and do something, just because..... why?

No benefits, not harming anyone, I think the main issue - as it is here- was "why aren't you doing things JUST LIKE US". )

Have a nice day mate, I hope jobs a good un yourself

margaretclare

southoftheriver wrote: »

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

No one mentioned murder. Perhaps 'cold-blooded' was not quite what I meant. 'Deliberate' might fit better.

And I never at any stage used the words 'going to hell'! That did not even enter my head.

It's just that the term 'girl-friend' implies a casual sort of impermanence. If the OP had said 'my partner' it would have put an entirely different complexion on the matter. I don't think this is entirely a matter of semantics. When my now-DH moved in with me I described him as my 'partner'. I think that's acceptable nowadays, but I still think the word 'girl-friend' is a bit odd in this context.

I agree with krlyr that money may not be everything, but it does put food on the table, buys essentials that a baby needs and keeps the household ticking over. I haven't so far discovered a way of living without it. And with all the discussion about supermarket work as if it was the most degrading thing in the world, I've so far had 2 family members who've done it - one is still doing it. She tells me she enjoys it because it's working as part of a team and they have frequent nights out together. I can imagine an awful lot of jobs that would be far more degrading, really degrading in fact. In any case, we have not heard what skills/qualifications the OP's girl-friend has - does she have some that would make working in a better job a viable proposition?

krlyr

My "other half" is also called my boyfriend, depends on the audience really. Doesn't mean I don't plan to spend my life with him, it's just the terminology for someone who's not my husband or fiance. I just picked up OH from another forum, but it doesn't really sound right spoken outloud so then it's boyfriend. We don't feel the need to get married to make our relationship any more official and I don't see what's wrong with that.

Sixer

margaretclare wrote: »

It's just that the term 'girl-friend' implies a casual sort of impermanence. If the OP had said 'my partner' it would have put an entirely different complexion on the matter. I don't think this is entirely a matter of semantics. When my now-DH moved in with me I described him as my 'partner'. I think that's acceptable nowadays, but I still think the word 'girl-friend' is a bit odd in this context.

By the same token, people hereabouts are constantly referring to their "partners" and, as the thread develops, it turns out they've been together only for a few weeks or months and don't share any financial commitments. That is not a "partner" to me - but clearly it is to them.

MargaretClare - perhaps you don't realise how you come across, perhaps you do, but I don't think it's reasonable for you to pick up on one word used by an OP and then frame judgemental and inciteful posts around that word, despite being perfectly well aware that different people mean different things by it.

MissMoneypenny

Riversong wrote: »

Just promise us one thing... Wear an ahem... Hat until you are SURE you want a baby. You never know especially when it comes to broody ladies.x

Yes, I know it's the Daily Mail but..

"But I do believe that any man who moves in with a woman in her late 30s or early 40s should take it as read that she will want to use them to procreate, by fair means or foul, no matter how much she protests otherwise.

A 2001 survey revealed that 42 per cent of women would lie about using contraception in order to get pregnant in spite of their partners’ wishes."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2056875/Liz-Jones-baby-craving-drove-steal-husbands-sperm-ultimate-deception.html#ixzz1cftXBLQ7

daveys_2

This of course is the same Daily Mail that recommends that ladies should keep their man well fed:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2056977/Kirstie-Allsopps-tip-happy-relationship-Keep-man-fed.html