Choose between Career and Mortgage

Morag

Can't believe this, ffs it's 2013, Minister Leo saying that when it comes to restructuring house hold fiances that women should give up their jobs and careers to save on the cost of child care.

Heaven forbid the Dad might want to stay at home.

Faith

So, no abortions, which means if a woman gets pregnant, she's forced to keep it. Then, if she's finding the cost of childcare to be high, she should be forced to give up her job. That's just unbelievable.

ted1

Morag wrote: »

Can't believe this, ffs it's 2013, Minister Leo saying that when it comes to restructuring house hold fiances that women should give up their jobs and careers to save on the cost of child care.

Heaven forbid the Dad might want to stay at home.

This is being taking out of context.
The context is, if you want the state/bank to write of a couple of hundred thousand of mortgage debt and your child care cost exceed your income then you have to quit . Which is fair enough. Basic economics 101

Morag

ted1 wrote: »

This is being taking out of context.
The context is, if you want the state/bank to write of a couple of hundred thousand of mortgage debt and your child care cost exceed your income then you have to quit . Which is fair enough. Basic economics 101

It depends on the circumstances, childcare for those who are not yet going to school is more costly but the cost to your career can equal a lot more and impact on further earnings.

iguana

ted1 wrote: »

This is being taking out of context.
The context is, if you want the state/bank to write of a couple of hundred thousand of mortgage debt and your child care cost exceed your income then you have to quit . Which is fair enough. Basic economics 101

I do agree with that to a certain extent but why does it say mothers should give up their careers? Why not say lower earning parents? It isn't always the fathers that are the main breadwinners.

Paddy Cow

iguana wrote: »

I do agree with that to a certain extent but why does it say mothers should give up their careers? Why not say lower earning parents? It isn't always the fathers that are the main breadwinners.

It's a really out dated view. I know of a few couples where the father is the stay at home parent because the mother is the higher earner and the father's wage didn't or just about covered childcare.

ted1

iguana wrote: »

I do agree with that to a certain extent but why does it say mothers should give up their careers? Why not say lower earning parents? It isn't always the fathers that are the main breadwinners.

On the majority of cases it's the mother who stays at home. I know one or trek guys who stay at home who worked in construction and so there wife is working now.
However in a democratic society the rule of thumb is that the majority is accepted as the rule , sure there are exceptions but that all they are.
Fathers don't get paternal leave or any custody rights, these should be addressed before we worry about weather or not the minister used a poor choice of words

So we can't worry about sexism against women while men have problems, right

xLexie

Just listening to some hysterical lunatic on the radio now saying this is anti women and anti children.

It makes sense that if you're spending your entire wages (and maybe even more than you're earning) on child care, you'd be better off minding them yourself.

fits

xLexie wrote: »

It makes sense that if you're spending your entire wages (and maybe even more than you're earning) on child care, you'd be better off minding them yourself.

And why should the woman be singled out for this????

December2012

Do what you want with your own money. It's nobody's business.

Until it is, such as a bank or a state writing down your debt, then you should do the most financially appropriate thing.

Headlines are never the full story.

ted1

bluewolf wrote: »

So we can't worry about sexism against women while men have problems, right

I'm saying you should fight the good fight this one isn't .picking the wrong fights actually promotes sexism and people get fed up of one sided arguments.

If your truly against sexism then you should tackle the bigger injustices such as lack of father rights.

fits

December2012 wrote: »

.

Until it is, such as a bank or a state writing down your debt, then you should do the most financially appropriate thing.

.

and why should women be singled out by a government minister for this?

Jerrica

ted1 wrote: »

If your truly against sexism then you should tackle the bigger injustices such as lack of father rights.

Way to cheapen both sides of the argument. And no, sorry, I'm not going to consider my rights as a woman of secondary importance to keep the "big picture" in mind. My rights are my big picture.

If the government wishes to tell families how to be financially responsible then they address mothers and fathers equally, and not single out mothers as being the primary persons responsible for childminding costs.

ted1

fits wrote: »

and why should women be singled out by a government minister for this?

Because the state side with the mother and give her all rights with regards the child. So naturally she is the carer. Get the father there rights and this will change

fits

ted1 wrote: »

Because the state side with the mother and give her all rights with regards the child. So naturally she is the carer. Get the father there rights and this will change

Sorry but in this instance that is complete and utter horse****. For parents with large mortgage and young family EIther parent can give up their work for childcare reasons.

December2012

Have you the link to the Ministers full statement?

LittleBook

I can't access that video is this about the following quote?

I know one or two women who probably don’t make very much money at all from working, but they do it to keep their position on the career ladder, if you like, and that is a legitimate thing to do.

But if you can’t pay your mortgage as a result, or buy your groceries as a result, then that is something that needs to be taken into account in any insolvency arrangement

To be honest, my understanding is that he was asked by the journalist "and what about women who are working just to keep their foot on the career ladder?" and gifted them with this beauty of a quote.

I've been keeping an eye on this over the past couple of days because I was shocked when I read all the "mothers will be forced to quit their jobs" headlines but I've come to the conclusion that it's the media who are 100% responsible for whipping up this argument with lazy, regressive and sensationalist assumptions and headlines.

The guidelines specifically state:

Where a person is working and paying for childcare as a consequence of his or her employment, the cost of child care should not exceed the income from the employment

xLexie

fits wrote: »

And why should the woman be singled out for this????

No rational person would take "the woman must give up her job even if her partner is making less" out of it, tbh. It's typical feminists taking offence to everything. In my opinion anyway. If they want help with their debt, they should help themselves too.

ted1

Jerrica wrote: »

If the government wishes to tell families how to be financially responsible then they address mothers and fathers equally, and not single out mothers as being the primary persons responsible for childminding costs.

the governement don't wish to tell people to be financially responsible, this is directly related to whose who are ntot finaccially resposnible and require the state to write over one hundred thousand euros of debt...

LittleBook

xLexie wrote: »

It's typical feminists taking offence to everything. In my opinion anyway.

Actually, it's not. The headlines for the past few days have specifically referred to "mothers" and "women". Even the video (if it's the one I think it is!) in the OP is being diffused out of context.

The government and the media are handling this whole situation appallingly, direct your misplaced ire at them.

lazygal

ted1 wrote: »

I'm saying you should fight the good fight this one isn't .picking the wrong fights actually promotes sexism and people get fed up of one sided arguments.

If your truly against sexism then you should tackle the bigger injustices such as lack of father rights.

Do the 'what about fathers' rights' brigade have some sort of team to bring up their cause every time women discuss issues that affect women? So over this predictable rant that appears on threads like this.

xLexie

LittleBook wrote: »

Actually, it's not. The headlines for the past few days have specifically referred to "mothers" and "women". Even the video (if it's the one I think it is!) in the OP is being diffused out of context.

The government and the media are handling this whole situation appallingly, direct your misplaced ire at them.

Yes it is. If people want help with a debt they caused themselves, they need to accept there is going to be terms, before a lot of money is going to be written off.

Like I said, no rational person would assume women should give up their career if they were the higher earner, that's rags of newspapers sensationalising it so as hysterical women, like the one I listened to on the radio this morning, will be outraged and buy their paper. Paper never refused ink after all.

ted1

lazygal wrote: »

Do the 'what about fathers' rights' brigade have some sort of team to bring up their cause every time women discuss issues that affect women? So over this predictable rant that appears on threads like this.

quite a sexist comment.....

lazygal

ted1 wrote: »

quite a sexist comment.....

And constantly bringing up fathers rights on threads like this isn't? I'm sick and tired of this nonsense on every thread where issues affecting women are being discussed. Why not start a thread on fathers rights instead of whining on this one?

meeeeh

He is correct saying that till there will be a general belief in society that a women are prime carers of children then slip ups like this will happen. The actual document doesn't say only women should stay at home.

xLexie

lazygal wrote: »

And constantly bringing up fathers rights on threads like this isn't? I'm sick and tired of this nonsense on every thread where issues affecting women are being discussed. Why not start a thread on fathers rights instead of whining on this one?

In this case surely it's relevant though? I'm not saying I agree with women having to give up their jobs despite being the higher earner but women want it all.
They want to be seen as the main carer, they'll (mostly) take their 6 months maternity leave, if the relationship breaks down they assume responsibility for the children and in a lot of cases make life hell for the father who has no rights. But, when it suits, it should be equal and it should be the father who stays home. Just kind of contradicts itself in my opinion.

Zulu

lazygal wrote: »

And constantly bringing up fathers rights on threads like this isn't? I'm sick and tired of this nonsense on every thread where issues affecting women are being discussed. Why not start a thread on fathers rights instead of whining on this one?

The state doesn't recognise men as care givers. Hence no fathers rights; hence expecting women to sacrifice their careers. This shouldn't be a surprise. And dismissing an evident sexism as whining is simply further sexism - so there's that.

We need to change our states perception of parents. We need the state to acknowledge that women can be the primary bread winners just as much as men can be stay at home fathers. The sooner we all realise that the two are intricately linked, and stop pulling in different directions, the sooner we can fix whats wrong.

It shouldn't be about who's got it worse, or this is my problem I'm not interesting in your "whining".
It should be about mutual respect and compassion, it should be about righting wrongs.
That's the only way we'll create a fair, equal society for our children - boys, and girls.

eviltwin

This idea is on the list of recommendations submitted by the banks so I can totally understand the fear out there. Its very short sighted. I can understand the request to give up Sky but once you are back on your feet its easy to get your tv channels back. Walking back into a career at a time of record unemployment is a lot more difficult.

I wonder will it apply to other people as well as parents. I know two people paying private companies to mind elderly parents while they go out and work. Could they face being forced to become carers if this kind of idea goes ahead? What about people using childcare while they go to college etc? What about the self employed, people who have other people relying on them to keep working?

I'll be watching this with interest to see if it gets any traction. So far I haven't seen any real anger about it which worries me.

ted1

ted1 wrote: »

Fathers don't get paternal leave or any custody rights, these should be addressed before we worry about weather or not the minister used a poor choice of words

Zulu wrote: »

And dismissing an evident sexism as whining is simply further sexism - so there's that.

Yes, it is


Anyway if the document is his/her and all neutral, this is a bit of ado about nothing

Zulu

bluewolf wrote: »

Yes, it is

...or you could just continue and cause further division, y'know; whatever.