Single life as a guy...

Wibbs

Sleepy wrote: »

I've yet to meet a man who thinks that way of all women.

+1000. I certainly don't. I know and have known too many women who are nowhere near that kind of BS. The vast majority aren't.

Given the risks of geriatric pregnancy, a woman in her early 30's is a poor bet if a man wants children at some stage

Early 30's S? I dunno about that. While some women can have issues in both conception and carrying to term a healthy child at 32 the majority would have no problems. Most of the women I've known have had kids in their 30's. Either their first or second, third, fourth. From early to late 30's and a couple had them in their early 40's. My own maternal grandmother had her last at 44 and he's still rocking on about to hit 80 and looking more like 60. A few years back I was reading up on this "biological clock" stuff as a woman mate of mine was worried and while it can be a genetic lottery the healthier and fitter a woman is the more likely she is to be fine. Goes for men too. Lifestyle plays into this and that's becoming more and more evident. Take testosterone levels in men. Among western men there are more with low counts and major falloffs as they age beyond 30, yet among tribal types mens testosterone drops much more slowly and later(about 1% a year after 30 odd). Diet, exercise and the fat you carry all affect these levels.

he doesn't have very long to determine if the fun-loving, independent sex-kitten he's dating is going to turn into the over-weight, demanding banshee that has no interest in sex once she's had his kids.

Sad to say I've known a few of them. In each case the guys adore their kids, but have confided to me that if they had their way they'd have the kids, but not the wife/partner. With the inference that they stay only because they know they'd lose too much of their kids if they left.

It's like russian rouletted: the odds of a romantic relationship going that badly wrong are low, but the consequences for a man can be devastating (and heavily disproportionate to the outcomes a women can expect in marital breakdown).

Well the overall odds of romantic relationships ending is quite high. If you think about it for most people with a relationship history from 18 - 30 most if not all the relationships fizzle out, yet when you hit your 30's somehow the next one will buck the trend. TBH and again IME it's been some of the women I've known who've fallen into this trap more, because they felt it was time to settle down/time might be running out and they drop their BS detector.

As far as divorce goes, the majority are filed by women as a worldwide trend. In some countries the rate itself is nudging 50% and IIRC in one of the Scandinavian nations this is more like 60%. Now it's nowhere near that in Ireland thank feck. We seem more likely to work at things, or it's a cultural thing I dunno. Though mostly I'd say it's cos we marry later than in the US for example. Shedloads of them get hitched at 18, 19, 20 and then are surprised when it fails. You're more likely to stick things out if you get hitched at 30 or 35.

Even so as you say in most cases the man suffers the aftermath more. Divorced men live shorter lives, have three times the suicide rate and that's before the whole divvying up of the shared property and visitation comes into play. Again it can be cultural too. If I was an American man IMHOI'd want my head examined to get married. With a 50% chance of her divorcing me, never mind the remaining 50% some of whom would be in bad marriages, it would be like playing Russian Roulette with 4 chambers loaded. Bad risk.

LordNorbury

Dial Hard wrote: »

As a 32-year-old single woman, these threads always make for really depressing reading. The major vibe I'm taking away from this is that the vast majority (not, all, obviously, but still a vast majority) of men in my dating "demographic" are very wary of women my age because it's presumed that we're all absolutely dying to have kids and pack in the job at the first opportunity. Obviously, I can only speak for myself, but I've already been married and I have absolutely zero interest in having childen. Ever. But I feel (and have done for quite a while) that I'm getting tarred with the "biological clock is ticking" and "all women are, at heart, lazy cows who just want to stay at home" brush. And it's frustrating in the extreme.

I'm not going to lie, if I won the lotto on Wednesday, the first thing I'd do is pack in my job. But I am categorically not looking for a financial caretaker of a man. And frankly, none of the women in my circle of friends/family are. Perhaps my experience is not the norm, but there isn't one stay-at-home wife or mother in my extended group.

I don't think it's that we are wary of women, but there is a not unreasonable expectation I think of a lot of men and women in our demographic group, genuinely do want kids. I personally would love to have made better career decisions over the last 20 years, where I could afford to have a family today and still be able to live a comfortable life, but that is not where I am at the present, and won't be for the foreseeable future, so the simple pragmatist in me says I do not want to have kids, because I shudder at the thoughts of me struggling financially with kids and them going without because of my station in life, this type of scenario, is to me, the definition of misery. If a couple who are on 100K, and who have kids but can barely ends meet, then there isn't a hope that I could raise a family and I have to say, I'm completely and absolutely fine with that.

My experience has been that women I've dated in the last few years, (most of this has been via online dating), and also the online profiles of women looking to date (who I have not met), they have flagged on their profile that they want to have children at some stage in the future. The odd time, you'll see an online profile that states "does not want children", but this in my experience, is usually because the person in question already has had children. It is rare I think, to find someone with my own view, who has carried out some kind of blunt assessment on themselves (this could be an emotional assessment or a financial assessment as it is in my own case), and has come to a sobering conclusion that having children is simply not for them in this lifetime.

I think the reality is that to be able to raise children these days and not be living in poverty, you definitely need two earners in the household. It is in this context I think that women tend to want to find a reliable guy on a decent income, if she wants to start a family in the near future. I don't agree that single men are wary of single women because we think that a woman is looking for a guy to be the sole breadwinner, so she can then leave her job and be a kept woman with kids. I think everyone these days understands that for any sort of a reasonable middle class lifestyle to be possible, unless one of the couple are on seriously good money, then both partners will be working full time, the exception obviously being maternity leave.

jackofalltrades

Dial Hard wrote: »

As a 32-year-old single woman, these threads always make for really depressing reading. The major vibe I'm taking away from this is that the vast majority (not, all, obviously, but still a vast majority) of men in my dating "demographic" are very wary of women my age because it's presumed that we're all absolutely dying to have kids and pack in the job at the first opportunity.

I think your comments about the thread are unfair.
I must have missed all the posts about men being worried about women giving up there jobs.

The simple fact is the majority of women have children in their lifetime.
And women in there 30's are running out of time to have children.
When you look at how long it takes to go from dating to being married and then having children.
And then when you compare that to say women wanting to have children by 35, this leads to a significantly reduced timeline in which to have children.

This is my primary worry about having children with a women in her early to mid 30's.
It's that I won't get to really know her outside of the pressure of wanting to have kids.
Especially when I see friends who married in their 20's already in sexless/unhappy marriages after the kids have come along.

I'd also never assume any woman in her 30's is looking to have children.

professore

walshb wrote: »

I would imagine the pros are that little bit more freedom and being in charge of your day. Less responsibility towards a partner.

Cons: Maybe loneliness. We are a social animal for the most part. Nice to have a companion to share your day with, your opinions with and your time with.

It's quite possible to be very lonely in a long term relationship/marriage.

Dial Hard

jackofalltrades wrote: »

I think your comments about the thread are unfair.
I must have missed all the posts about men being worried about women giving up there jobs.

Again, this is just my take on it, but to me a lot of the posts about the financial pressure involved in being in a relationship seemed to stem from an assumption that the man would end up being the sole earner. But maybe I got the wrong end of the stick there.

LordNorbury

jackofalltrades wrote: »

I think your comments about the thread are unfair.
I must have missed all the posts about men being worried about women giving up there jobs.

The simple fact is the majority of women have children in their lifetime.
And women in there 30's are running out of time to have children.
When you look at how long it takes to go from dating to being married and then having children.
And then when you compare that to say women wanting to have children by 35, this leads to a significantly reduced timeline in which to have children.

This is my primary worry about having children with a women in her early to mid 30's.
It's that I won't get to really know her outside of the pressure of wanting to have kids.
Especially when I see friends who married in their 20's already in sexless/unhappy marriages after the kids have come along.

I'd also never assume any woman in her 30's is looking to have children.

This was EXACTLY my predicament until I recently decided that I had mulled over it for long enough, and subsequently decided then that I did not want kids. I'm 38, and I'd have to, (for my own peace of mind), put in at least 3 years with a girl, before I'd be confident enough that we had had formed a solid basis for staying together and starting a family. In my case, this puts me over the 40 line. I've never dated girls who were much different in age than me, I've tended to date within a year of my own age, so this being the reality, this also would put my partner into the 40 age bracket before we would be together long enough to start a family, and I'm just not prepared to take those risks with the health of a child I might potentially father.

I've no interest in being an estranged father, I have some friends and some family who have ended up in what I can only describe horrendous situations, I mean the stuff of nightmares, after a relationship broke down with their partner and there were kids involved. I know there are no guarantees against a relationship ending whether there are kids involved or not, but I think the longer you spend together before there are big commitments made, then maybe the better the chances are of you not ending up being a father with visitation rights a few times a week.

LordNorbury

Dial Hard wrote: »

Again, this is just my take on it, but to me a lot of the posts about the financial pressure involved in being in a relationship seemed to stem from an assumption that the man would end up being the sole earner. But maybe I got the wrong end of the stick there.

I don't think that was ever even implied, let alone stated, to be fair to everyone who has posted. I have plenty of friends who are married and/or settled down, and all of them, without exception, both partners are working full time. Some are angry that every cent earned is paying for their child's creche but they just grit their teeth and get on with it, in the knowledge that after another year or two, the child will be starting primary school, so they are just really holding onto their job until that day comes.

fits

Sleepy wrote: »

It's like russian rouletted: the odds of a romantic relationship going that badly wrong are low, but the consequences for a man can be devastating (and heavily disproportionate to the outcomes a women can expect in marital breakdown).

Why do you say heavily disproportionate?

Wibbs

Who's more likely to have to leave the family home. Who's less likely to get guardianship rights? Who's more likely to have to pay financial support?

Wompa1

Wibbs wrote: »

Who's more likely to have to leave the family home. Who's less likely to get guardianship rights? Who's more likely to have to pay financial support?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-dzkjmNFeY

A contractual agreement that no lawyer would advise you to sign

fits

Wibbs wrote: »

Who's more likely to have to leave the family home. Who's less likely to get guardianship rights? Who's more likely to have to pay financial support?

I don't disagree with you. But women have to financially support the family too. (also if they are the one to leave)

Outside of the access rights (which is a huge issue and can be extremely unfair), I do wonder if the financial effects on men are overstated. Divorce is financially devastating to both parties.

Daveysil15

bnt wrote: »

One thing that struck me recently was the huge gap between how relationships are often portrayed in movies & TV, versus reality. I've never expected it to be "just like the movies", but the movies aren't even close.
- there are no meet cutes, ever;
- no-one ever goes on blind dates;
- I've never been introduced to a potential partner by a friend or cow-orker who thought "you two might hit it off";
- I've never been hit on in the office - not even a look. I work in IT, so everywhere I've worked has been at least 90% men, with no women who would risk appearing to be single;
- if a woman is at the bar by herself, it means her (boy)friend is in the loo or will be there shortly;
- if you and a potential partner fight over something, it doesn't signal attraction, it just means you are incompatible.

I think its very easy to become disillusioned with the whole thing.

I would have had a similar mentality at one stage and said things like:

- women aren't as promiscuous as people make out. Apparently lots of people are having one night stands now, but any women I've met on a night out just want to have fun with their mates and are not interested in hooking up with someone.

- people are clannish in bars and tend to stick to their own social circle.

- gyms are not good places to meet people as they're only there to train.

- I never get any replies on dating sites.

And so on and so fourth. That negative mindset can ruin your confidence. But then I started thinking like Pawwed Rig.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

When I actually started enjoying the nights out and activities for what they were rather than what I was hoping they could be the rest followed pretty quickly.

This is actually excellent advice and something I wish I had put into practice earlier. When I was in my mid/late 20's I was starting to panic because I was getting close to 30 and had never been in a serious relationship. Going on nights out and doing other activities almost turned into a military operation, where I'd put pressure on myself to approach more people and felt disappointed if I didn't get the shift or a phone number afterwards.

Eventually I took a step back and realised I wasn't enjoying myself and I just felt miserable. I'm 31 now and enjoy my social activities a lot more than I did in my 20's. Although I think when you're young there's more peer pressure to go out and pissed and "score." I was never much of a drinker but I don't really get the "dry shyte" remarks anymore, like I did when I was younger.

ancapailldorcha

fits wrote: »

I don't disagree with you. But women have to financially support the family too. (also if they are the one to leave)

Outside of the access rights (which is a huge issue and can be extremely unfair), I do wonder if the financial effects on men are overstated. Divorce is financially devastating to both parties.

Women certainly have to support the family. However, in the event of a separation, a judge will usually order the father to pay child support/alimony as opposed to the other way around. The mother is also significantly more likely to receive custody of any children as well. I'm sure there a re a few cases where these roles are reversed and I'm not saying women don't suffer in LTR breakdowns but the consequences often hit the man harder.

fits

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Women certainly have to support the family. However, in the event of a separation, a judge will usually order the father to pay child support/alimony as opposed to the other way around. The mother is also significantly more likely to receive custody of any children as well. I'm sure there a re a few cases where these roles are reversed and I'm not saying women don't suffer in LTR breakdowns but the consequences often hit the man harder.

Id rephrase that. The judge orders the non custodial parent to pay child support. That happens whether they are the mother or father. Now I know that in the great majority of cases, the mother ends up with custody, but the parent with custody should hardly be expected to pay for everything on their own.

A lot of these assumptions about men being hit harder in the pocket are based on them being the higher earner, with more assets. That is not always the case, and is less and less so as time goes on.

LordNorbury

I think emotionally for a father who has been or who has tried to be a good father, the outcome of a split can be an absolute trainwreck on an emotional level. It must feel on some level that you have been banished from the place you called home, the place where you set up a home for your kids. This is the bit I would have a real serious difficulty with if it ever came to pass in my life, where one day I'd be a family man, then it could come to pass where the family unit that I was part of, basically fell apart. I know I would make a useless estranged parent, I'd end up depressed, being a part time parent, with part time access. Maybe it was a Catholic upbringing that has me feeling like this, I dunno, but it would be the ultimate nightmare for me I have to say, emotionally more than anything else because as for maintenance, if you have kids, they are going to cost you money to raise, whether you are living as part of a family unit or estranged from the kids mother.

I know of a situation, and it is not an uncommon one, where a couple I know split up, he moved out, and it wasn't too long before she was seeing someone else and he was staying over in what was the family home. The young child they had, started innocently talking about mammy's new boyfriend one day, who was staying over. This must be very very hard to process as a father, and I'm sure if the shoe was on the other foot and it was daddy's new girlfriend that the kid was observing and reporting back to the mother, that it would be equally difficult to process.

ancapailldorcha

fits wrote: »

Id rephrase that. The judge orders the non custodial parent to pay child support. That happens whether they are the mother or father. Now I know that in the great majority of cases, the mother ends up with custody, but the parent with custody should hardly be expected to pay for everything on their own.

A lot of these assumptions about men being hit harder in the pocket are based on them being the higher earner, with more assets. That is not always the case, and is less and less so as time goes on.

Of course one parent shouldn't have to shoulder the entire financial burden but the other parent should have equal rights in terms of being with the children.

fits

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Of course one parent shouldn't have to shoulder the entire financial burden but the other parent should have equal rights in terms of being with the children.

In general, yes. But every case is different and the childrens best interests (whatever they are) should be at the heart of any decision.

anyway, way off topic and I'm not a guy, or single, so I'll bow out.

Yearning4Stormy

This, imho, is one of the best threads in months... and I only accidentally stumbled upon it with the new Android app-thing.

Wibbs, (despite your avatar giving me the bird, which riles me unaccountably) you deserve a medal for your well-thought-out reasoning throughout this thread, but I'm not going to paraphrase you, it's all good.

What about guys who are simply taking themselves out of the dating game, explicitly and intentionally? Since my marriage imploded in 2008, I've been in three LT relationships (a year-ish each) and couple of lesser (time wise) relationships where all but one disintegrated (ultimately) due to the ongoing commitment I have to my children and the financial commitment I have to my ex-wife. (The all-but-one was a trainwreck where she decided to go back to her feckless, separated, abusive husband.)

God know I'm not try to apportion blame (on my ex) or be in any way misogynist, but that's just the way it is. When my marriage broke up, I made commitments (before the courts) that I'm now committed to; commitments I've never reneged on.

I find the two (dating and ex-ness) to be mutually exclusive (certainly in my current economic state). I try to play Devil's Advocate, but it's got to be difficult for a woman to realise you're not exclusive 24/7 (I have my kids all weekend, every weekend, and their mother precludes anyone else being here.)

So, I've made the choice that I will be forever-single (or at least until my kids are grown), but as previous posters have said, it's the crippling loneliness that's the worst. What I would give to be able to cook something other than a meal-for-one during the week, to hear someone say after a jangling of keys, "Hey, hon', I'm home!", or to wake up in the morning with someone beside me.

Incidentally, Wibbs, "The One (tm)" was the one who went back to her husband. Typical, huh.

Sleepy

fits wrote: »

Why do you say heavily disproportionate?

Because, due to educational and career choices, the impact of maternity leave on a career and living according to the societal norms that legal system has created (or been codified from), Irish people typically default into the roles of father as primary earner and mother as primary carer (whether she has a career of her own or not).

Of course, there are deviations from the norm, there are mothers who are the primary earner and men who give up or put their career on the back burner to be the primary carer but I don't think it's any great claim to say that they're still the exception rather than the norm.

Despite huge advances in gender equality, our legal system still defaults to the seeing the mother as the primary carer (even when that doesn't match reality). Both in our constitution and through a court system of judges born in an age where such deviations were unfathomable.

So, while there's no arguing that women don't suffer emotionally and financially in a relationship breakdown, our society is far, far less likely to make them leave the family home, far less likely to leave them as part-time parents and, as the suicide statistics demonstrate, far less likely to see no future for themselves.

LordNorbury

Yearning4Stormy wrote: »

I have my kids all weekend, every weekend, and their mother precludes anyone else being here.)

I would have thought this could never happen if the two of you have separated & basically permanently spilt up? I don't want to go off topic but that sounds like a strange rule to be living under.

Having said that, I ran into something very similar when dating a girl last year, she had a kid & her ex (the child's father), wished to meet me and basically vet me. This hugely annoyed her, on the basis that she did not have the same right to sound out his new girlfriend and vet her. I felt though that if I was a father, I would be the very same, putting my child's safety first and before anything else, given the times we are living in. In the end I never met the ex but it did make me stop & think about dating a girl with a kid.

Yearning4Stormy

<temporary_off_topicness> M'Lud, it was something she insisted on, many years prior to the full Judicial Separation (2013). I was familiar enough with Family Law to know you don't féck with the system; I didn't want anything going against me, come court time. </temporary_off_topicness>

EDIT: Mea culpa, LordNorbury, that was *totally* disingenuous... I've been living in total fear these last few years that anything untoward I do will be reported back to her brief and I'll lose access to best part of my week, my children *My* life choices will *not* let that happen.

/Thread back on track

fits

Sleepy wrote: »

Because, due to educational and career choices, the impact of maternity leave on a career and living according to the societal norms that legal system has created (or been codified from), Irish people typically default into the roles of father as primary earner and mother as primary carer (whether she has a career of her own or not).

So having children has a heavily disproportionate impact on the careers of women.

Of course, there are deviations from the norm, there are mothers who are the primary earner and men who give up or put their career on the back burner to be the primary carer but I don't think it's any great claim to say that they're still the exception rather than the norm.

In no way uncommon though. My father was my primary carer in the 80s and 90s. (after he retired)


Here's what needs to happen to even things out imo

1. Subsidised childcare so both parents can afford to continue to work. (current situation is shockingly bad)
2. Parental leave after initial maternity leave which can be taken by either parent. If fathers want to care for their young infants they should be allowed the opportunity.
3. Custody should not default to either mother or father, simply whatever is in childs best interests.

If women can remain financially secure and independent after having children, things would change a lot I think. The financial burden on separated fathers would be less.

LordNorbury

fits wrote: »

So having children has a heavily disproportionate impact on the careers of women.



In no way uncommon though. My father was my primary carer in the 80s and 90s. (after he retired)


Here's what needs to happen to even things out imo

1. Subsidised childcare so both parents can afford to continue to work. (current situation is shockingly bad)
2. Parental leave after initial maternity leave which can be taken by either parent. If fathers want to care for their young infants they should be allowed the opportunity.
3. Custody should not default to either mother or father, simply whatever is in childs best interests.

If women can remain financially secure and independent after having children, things would change a lot I think. The financial burden on separated fathers would be less.

I think though that the other bigger problem still is that the sheer amount of income that is needed to have a family in this country, is so high, that it still requires both parents to go out and work full time. It really does often appear like it is running very fast, just to try to stay on the threadmill, and the chances of falling off the thread mill seem very real these days, the the consequences of falling off the threadmill, to me, are so high, that you'd question the logic of getting up on the threadmill in the first place.

This on the face of it, probably sounds like I am very distrustful of women, whereas this is not where my distrust actually lies at all, it is the whole system these days, the way it squeezes the absolute and utter shít out of the middle class, the average Joe, a system where the cost of a crèche for a child, is the same as your monthly mortgage, (if you are lucky to have a mortgage of around 1k a month!), where couples on 100k are struggling to pay bills, the stress of enduring this must be enormous.

fits

LordNorbury wrote: »

it is the whole system these days, the way it squeezes the absolute and utter shít out of the middle class, the average Joe, a system where the cost of a crèche for a child, is the same as your monthly mortgage, (if you are lucky to have a mortgage of around 1k a month!), where couples on 100k are struggling to pay bills, the stress of enduring this must be enormous.

agreed mostly. Couples on 100k really shouldn't be struggling if they don't have boom time mortgages and debts though.

LordNorbury

fits wrote: »

agreed mostly. Couples on 100k really shouldn't be struggling if they don't have boom time mortgages and debts though.

I think most couples I know would be on the 60-80k income bracket, where each would be earning around 35k, so a median income would be around 70k. With 2 kids, I could see how, (and I see it every day so I know these folks are struggling financially), this would be a struggle. It is worth mentioning also that in my view, the stress of these situations is fairly apparent, these marriages don't seem like happy & content marriages, the struggle in my view, has taken a toll on the relationship.

Sleepy

fits wrote: »

So having children has a heavily disproportionate impact on the careers of women.

In no way uncommon though. My father was my primary carer in the 80s and 90s. (after he retired)


Here's what needs to happen to even things out imo

1. Subsidised childcare so both parents can afford to continue to work. (current situation is shockingly bad)
2. Parental leave after initial maternity leave which can be taken by either parent. If fathers want to care for their young infants they should be allowed the opportunity.
3. Custody should not default to either mother or father, simply whatever is in childs best interests.

If women can remain financially secure and independent after having children, things would change a lot I think. The financial burden on separated fathers would be less.

Couldn't agree more. While the changes you've mentioned would be a great start (though I'd probably prefer to see a tax credit for each child and an increase in funding for childcare in 3rd level institutions than universally subsidised childcare: if you're not contributing to society or improving your prospects to do so in the future, I'd have a real problem with paying towards your childcare).

I think biology will always have a part to play on the impact of childbirth on a woman's career. Unless parental leave was forcibly split evenly between the parents, or women begin to include a willingness to put a career on hold as selection criteria for their sexual partners, I can't see it ever being widely used by fathers. Even in either of these cases, women will still require / continue to take more parental leave than men and this will have it's impact.

LordNorbury wrote: »

I think though that the other bigger problem still is that the sheer amount of income that is needed to have a family in this country, is so high, that it still requires both parents to go out and work full time. It really does often appear like it is running very fast, just to try to stay on the threadmill, and the chances of falling off the thread mill seem very real these days, the the consequences of falling off the threadmill, to me, are so high, that you'd question the logic of getting up on the threadmill in the first place.

This on the face of it, probably sounds like I am very distrustful of women, whereas this is not where my distrust actually lies at all, it is the whole system these days, the way it squeezes the absolute and utter shít out of the middle class, the average Joe, a system where the cost of a crèche for a child, is the same as your monthly mortgage, (if you are lucky to have a mortgage of around 1k a month!), where couples on 100k are struggling to pay bills, the stress of enduring this must be enormous.

I think you may be focusing too much on the financials tbh. As someone doing what I hope is an okay job of raising a family on less than that, while financially it can be difficult and we don't have much capacity to deal with the unexpected, it is do-able and since the 100k figure only applies to a small percentage of Irish households, there are lots of us managing it.

I think many of us who were raised in middle-class families fail to recognise that while, in worldview and education we share middle-class values, our own families represent a new breed of working class. We tend to be white collar cogs in global IT/Pharma/Finance companies rather than blue-collar labourers and factory workers (which exist in far fewer numbers than during our own childhood).

In much the same way that few of us have remained in the same class as our parents, the children of that old working class either took advantage of our education system and joined the ranks of this new "white collar working class", took to the building sites / retail / low-skilled service industries or ended up as part of the non-working classes and merely exist as a drain on the state.

Pawwed Rig

Sleepy wrote: »

Couldn't agree more. While the changes you've mentioned would be a great start (though I'd probably prefer to see a tax credit for each child and an increase in funding for childcare in 3rd level institutions than universally subsidised childcare: if you're not contributing to society or improving your prospects to do so in the future, I'd have a real problem with paying towards your childcare).

Swings and roundabouts. You subsidise the childcare while the child subsidises your pension and health insurance when you get older.

Sleepy

Or more than likely, I subsidise the cradle to grave welfare of the child...

Either way: why would someone who's not working or studying require childcare?

howamidifferent

To mind the childer while they go to the bookies or the pub or both...

Pawwed Rig

Sleepy wrote: »

Either way: why would someone who's not working or studying require childcare?

Ah yeah I agree with you there.