Question Parents

[Scouse]

So. Question.

Given that parenthood is a lifestyle choice and that parents get an awful lot of help (in terms of tax credits, paid parental leave, ability to return to jobs that are kept open when people without kids don't have a statutory right to similar time off, etc. etc.) is it fair that people with kids expect no detrimental effects at all from their choice?

My o/h has chosen to concentrate on her career and not have kids whilst people all around her disappear off for theirs. Fair enough. But she's the one that picks up the inevitable pieces when that happens and it causes massive headaches that she has to work to fix.

It's bad enough that she's battling the gender pay gap in a male-dominated industry - and I'm fully behind any moves to end pay discrimination based on gender.

But the fact is that people with kids don't work the same hours and have different priorities than those fully committed to their careers. When the shit hits the fan parents, absolutely rightly, prioritise their families. But this leaves non-parents to pick up the pieces.

How do you reward non-parents for their dedication? Or should paid "parental" leave just be rolled out to all?


This goes for dads as well as mums. It's not a gender issue.

 

[Raven]

I would like some maternal leave, please.

Thanks.

 

[Tom]

I'm not sure you can call the propagation of our species a lifestyle choice.

 

[Moriath]

It really is becoming one in the western world. More people are choosing not to have kids.

 

[Job]

The wifes sister waltzes from one. 80K -100K job after another, she says the fact she hasnt had kids and is past having them has helped her career immensely.

 

[Gwadien]

The vast majority of businesses out there work with working parents, for example schools are strapped for cash but they always keep money on the side for paternity/maternity leave when push comes to shove.

I'm partially surprised (partially not, because fuck children right?) you're arguing this @Scouse your other half shouldn't be picking up the pieces, the business should be providing the means to pick up the pieces.

It appears more of a 'they get time off, why shouldn't we' argument.

Personally, I think it depends on the type of place you work for; if you're working for a massive corporation, then no, you should not expect to be the victim of a 'motherhood penalty' because realistically, they can afford to pick up the pieces.

Smaller businesses where your work is required and they have no means to cover the work whilst you're gone? Perhaps not.

 

[Scouse]

I'm not sure you can call the propagation of our species a lifestyle choice.

I'd say that's highly debateable.

Our species is, I'd argue, self-evidently over-propagated. There's no danger of us going extinct by any hand other than our own. The imperative to have kids for continuation of our species is no longer an issue for human kind. Whether or not to have kids is now completely optional regarding our survival.

Regardless of that argument however, the points above still stand.

the business should be providing the means to pick up the pieces.

I agree with this totally. Business should be looking after itself - and it does - by leaning on those without kids and ensuring there are enough employees to cover. I didn't mention it because I want to keep it separate from this argument.

It appears more of a 'they get time off, why shouldn't we' argument.

That's an oversimplification. Given what I've said to @Tom above, I think it's a personal parity argument. Right now, things are skewed massively in favour of parents who are given, quite rightly, lots of assistance to enable their life choices.

I think life choices should be enabled and rewarded whatever they are (whether through time or financial support) not given to just a proportion of population whilst being denied to an increasingly large alternative proportion.

 

[Hawkwind]

gender pay gap

This has been proven in general to be feminist agenda BS. Plenty of material around the web on this. The gap in general is due to working less hours and the life choice of putting kids first. Which, if you are a parent you absolutely should. The figures they quote are usually the ONS report based only on salary paid and do not take into account hours and flexi working etc.

 

[dysfunction]

This sounds more like a moan about having to do other people's work while they are not there than to do with people having kids.

Everyone has to deal with crap at work. That's life I'm afraid.
I've had to do it too. Someone left work, the company didn't employ / couldn't find anyone to do their work and I have had to do it.
This means I've had to work till 9 or 10 at night for the past week or so getting their and my work done.

I'm not going to get compensated for it or anything.

Usually companies employ temp people to cover maternity leave.
If this is not the case then that's going to make life difficult but it's not the person leaving to have childrens fault.

 

[Raven]

Part of playing well with others is taking up the slack when they are off for any reason, be it long term illness, giving birth, etc.

If there is too much workload then it is up to the employer to make provisions, as it would be if the work load increased for any other reason. The vast majority of employers will employ maternity cover which is either exactly that or can lead to the option of a perm role, if the person having a kid chooses to leave at the end of the maternity period.

 

[Scouse]

I think you're missing my argument there @dysfunction - I've covered the fact that companies can, should and do provide cover (although separately I'm a bit shocked that you seem to be OK with working until 9 or 10 at night and don't seem to have an issue with it, rather than a "shrug - normalz!" reaction). I also disagree about gender pay gap being non-existent @Hawkwind but this thread isn't about this so meh.


This is about the fact that parents already get a lot of help - legal, financial and time - based on their lifestyle choice whilst others don't get support for their choices or, worse, their forced circumstance.

Other than it being an obvious vote-winner for politicians desparate to get elected - and a quick way to lose votes if they ever broached the subject - what makes parents more deserving than everyone else? What makes them so special?

Though it looks like it - this argument isn't a specific "attack on parents". I think parents should get support. Even though I don't have kids I'm not blind to the needs and wants of my friends and family, and the benefits that helping parents brings to society as a whole, including material benefit to myself via indirect means. Rather - this is an argument for more equality.

My original question was: "How do you reward non-parents for their dedication?" - for non-parents are disadvantaged in favour of parents in many ways - and that question still stands.


However, if people don't want to entertain the argument that everyone should be given similar assistance to help enable their lifestyle choices (for unless someone can counter the point made above then lifestyle choice it certainly is) then we can broaden the argument out?

How about - why are parents given so many advantages to the exclusion of people that require help - many of which aren't given much choice about their circumstance as they weren't conscious lifestyle options?


For example: Carers.

My sister is currently (just about) holding down a job (works with schools looking after truants - kids who's parents are failing them hard, trying to get them to attend (was assaulted a couple of months ago for her efforts)). Following the death of an elderly relative's husband she's currently having to provide daily care for for someone who to all practical purposes is incapacitated. For this she gets no rights to time off work, has no partner to call on who's in any position to help, gets no financial compensation or tax brakes - and she's not got much choice either. More of a very stressful forced-lifestyle of necessity. None of this absolutely necessary work costs the state or wider society anything and she's no legal protection for when it disrupts her work, in fact she's more likely to be forced into a precarious employment position because there's no legal reason why it should be seen as work's problem.

In a world of finite resources an argument can easily be made to provide more support for people forced into this situation. Two-parent families have made a choice - withdrawal of a proportion of funding for this group of people to divert limited resources in this direction is surely not only in all of our interests but the moral/ethically correct thing to do.

We all get old and the majority have limited control over their future circumstances (especially when you figure in unforseen circumstances). Providing a secure future for everyone rather than throwing humans on the scrapheap when they get past working age and expecting working people to cover un-assisted is surely a higher priority than making lives easier for people who've made a conscious decision to have kids?

Parents aren't the only people who need help. Babies aren't the only thing that matter. The sick, the elderly, the disabled all require support but are not assisted in anywhere near the same structural manner that parents are. Caring roles also tend to fall disproportionately on women. At the moment we bend over backwards to pamper parents at the expense of areas that are in more critical need.

 

[Job]

This could easily be resolved by pushing women out of the workplace...letting them retake traditional care roles for children parents relatives.
The resultant drop in general incomes would bring down house prices to compensate.
Its almost as if the monstrous anti female chauvanistic behaviour of the past worked.

 

[Tom]

This could easily be resolved by pushing women out of the workplace...letting them retake traditional care roles for children parents relatives.
The resultant drop in general incomes would bring down house prices to compensate.
Its almost as if the monstrous anti female chauvanistic behaviour of the past worked.

 

[Job]

Just because Nike tells you to Do it and women flying helicopters in perfume adverts, doesnt mean the base roles of men and women have suddenly changed after 500, 000 years of evolution.
Two people working in a marri..partnership..conscious coupling...just up the financial ante for everyone, now the wife HAS to go to work to buy that house.
The liberal progressives are only interested in the goal, without considering the consequences of winning.

 

[Raven]

Women should be sent down't'pit with the children.

Also, @Job you are basically just a parody of yourself now. It isn't particularly out there, daring or interesting.

 

[Scouse]

Plus he's properly derailing the thread. Anyone got owt to say about the actual topic? Trying to have a serious and interesting conversation for once

 

[Raven]

Go on then.

Women who chose to have children do already suffer penalties, you said it yourself, your other half has decided to not have children to concentrate on a career. We can be all cuddly and say that having children should not affect a career but if someone takes a year out to breed then why should they get special treatment over someone who has worked hard?

It probably accounts for more of the gender pay gap than anything else. It could be argued that men should take just as much time off but the bond between a mother and a child is far more complex than a father and child, it just is, biologically and psychologically.

As for it being a lifestyle choice, I would argue that is part of it. It's certainly my reason for it, I do what I like, when I like and enjoy that, if I was to have children then the extra responsibility would stop me from doing that so its a big nope from me. Most of my friends have kids now and they actually have to ask permission to go out ffs. Everyone who has children turns into a miserable bastard who isn't allowed to do anything.

 

[Scouse]

Most of my friends have kids now and they actually have to ask permission to go out ffs. Everyone who has children turns into a miserable bastard who isn't allowed to do anything.

That's the main reason for my choice and I don't disagree with much of you've said there.

But your answer doesn't really address any of the main points I've posted on fairness, equality and, especially, the withdrawal of funding for parents and reassignment to much more deserving cases.

 

[Ormorof]

Your argument that we are over breeding is flawed, parts of the world are overbreeding

But combined with xenophobia and actual lack of births many western countries are going to be in a crisis if we don't figure out a way to automate/replace the oldies that retire

The "generous" help parents get is a pittance compared to actual costs of having kids, and i say this as a parent living in a country with one of the worlds most "generous" systems

Its a choice yes of course, but these "lifestyle choices" are the ones who are going to be paying taxes while you are drooling in a hospital in your old age

Next up: maternity leave - going on maternity leave is not a fucking holiday, you are working 24/7 for months with little sleep and zero free time while on reduced pay

Yes carers need more support bit it is an entirely seperate issue

Regarding women in workplace, really this is even a topoc for discussion what is this 1905? Women being part of workforce id a huge part of why 21st century europe actually functions, if you think of people as a resource then parking half of it at home seems idiotic no?

 

[Scouse]

Aside that I never said we're over breeding - I said we're secure as a species so the imperative to propagate to keep our species going is now a choice and a luxury, not a desparate necessesity. This:

Yes carers need more support bit it is an entirely seperate issue

Absolutely not a separate issue at all.

Finite resources means you can't divorce the two. A massive chunk goes to parents of working age (two people who made a choice) and nothing to carers (who had no choice and who may be parents too). We don't provide cradle-to-grave support for all yet two-parent families take massive financial and legal precedence over clearly much more needy cases.

 

[Ormorof]

By that logic you cant seperate any spending the government does

 

[Scouse]

By that logic you cant seperate any spending the government does

True. There's absolutely an argument for reassessing a lot of things. The logic is sound, sensible and realistic.

This falls into the social care category and this topic is about why parents are seen as more deserving than other, often more deserving, categories - when it was a choice they took in the first place.

 

[Gwadien]

What about the economic argument?

Who's going to work for you when you're retired eh?

 

[Bodhi]

Can't say this is something that's ever especially bothered me - sure, parents get some preferential treatment in terms of time off, tax credits yadda yadda yadda - but in return non-parents have the benefit of not having kids - so more money, sleep, free time etc. A trade off I am more than happy with tbh.

 

[old.user4556]

Can't say this is something that's ever especially bothered me - sure, parents get some preferential treatment in terms of time off, tax credits yadda yadda yadda - but in return non-parents have the benefit of not having kids - so more money, sleep, free time etc. A trade off I am more than happy with tbh.

I mostly agree, it was mildly annoying when I first started out in IT in my early twenties because the 30+ "two kids" lot were very precious about their holidays and did a lot of "nipping away" which had an impact on those without kids as we were always covering them, particularly on bank holidays out-of-hours stuff because they had family stuff to do. On the flip side, I'm fucking loaded and can do what I like because me and the missus are sanctimonious DINKYs who can indulge our selfishness.

Also as a humanist misanthrope, fuck the human race and it's propagation.

 

[fettoken]

I'm with @Big G on the misantrophic human race sentiments.

 

[dysfunction]

I think you're missing my argument there @dysfunction - I've covered the fact that companies can, should and do provide cover (although separately I'm a bit shocked that you seem to be OK with working until 9 or 10 at night and don't seem to have an issue with it, rather than a "shrug - normalz!" reaction). I also disagree about gender pay gap being non-existent @Hawkwind but this thread isn't about this so meh.


This is about the fact that parents already get a lot of help - legal, financial and time - based on their lifestyle choice whilst others don't get support for their choices or, worse, their forced circumstance.

Other than it being an obvious vote-winner for politicians desparate to get elected - and a quick way to lose votes if they ever broached the subject - what makes parents more deserving than everyone else? What makes them so special?

Though it looks like it - this argument isn't a specific "attack on parents". I think parents should get support. Even though I don't have kids I'm not blind to the needs and wants of my friends and family, and the benefits that helping parents brings to society as a whole, including material benefit to myself via indirect means. Rather - this is an argument for more equality.

My original question was: "How do you reward non-parents for their dedication?" - for non-parents are disadvantaged in favour of parents in many ways - and that question still stands.


However, if people don't want to entertain the argument that everyone should be given similar assistance to help enable their lifestyle choices (for unless someone can counter the point made above then lifestyle choice it certainly is) then we can broaden the argument out?

How about - why are parents given so many advantages to the exclusion of people that require help - many of which aren't given much choice about their circumstance as they weren't conscious lifestyle options?


For example: Carers.

My sister is currently (just about) holding down a job (works with schools looking after truants - kids who's parents are failing them hard, trying to get them to attend (was assaulted a couple of months ago for her efforts)). Following the death of an elderly relative's husband she's currently having to provide daily care for for someone who to all practical purposes is incapacitated. For this she gets no rights to time off work, has no partner to call on who's in any position to help, gets no financial compensation or tax brakes - and she's not got much choice either. More of a very stressful forced-lifestyle of necessity. None of this absolutely necessary work costs the state or wider society anything and she's no legal protection for when it disrupts her work, in fact she's more likely to be forced into a precarious employment position because there's no legal reason why it should be seen as work's problem.

In a world of finite resources an argument can easily be made to provide more support for people forced into this situation. Two-parent families have made a choice - withdrawal of a proportion of funding for this group of people to divert limited resources in this direction is surely not only in all of our interests but the moral/ethically correct thing to do.

We all get old and the majority have limited control over their future circumstances (especially when you figure in unforseen circumstances). Providing a secure future for everyone rather than throwing humans on the scrapheap when they get past working age and expecting working people to cover un-assisted is surely a higher priority than making lives easier for people who've made a conscious decision to have kids?

Parents aren't the only people who need help. Babies aren't the only thing that matter. The sick, the elderly, the disabled all require support but are not assisted in anywhere near the same structural manner that parents are. Caring roles also tend to fall disproportionately on women. At the moment we bend over backwards to pamper parents at the expense of areas that are in more critical need.

So tell me who is financially better off:

1. A couple with 2 kids with 60k p.a
2. A couple no kids with 60k p.a

 

[old.user4556]

So tell me who is financially better off:

1. A couple with 2 kids with 60k p.a
2. A couple no kids with 60k p.a

Money cannot buy back the time you need to invest in a child.

 

[Ormorof]

You make spending time with your kids sound like a bad thing

 

[Scouse]

I guess people don't really want to face the question posed - why parents over clearly more deserving cases?