Are FF trying to get women back in the kitchen?

I wasn't being smug. My point was that entirely thanks to the current economic climate, rather than me staying at home as I was prior to the recession, I'm back at work and if anyone is going to give up work & be staying home and looking after the kids, it will be my husband.

Am I asleep because I find myself agreeing in part with FF.

If you choose to have kids, then one parent - either parent - should stay at home and mind them, maybe working part-time if they can.

Some people wanted it all, though - the career AND the kids, and then used the double income (and the childrens' allowance) to pay for childcare and get a massive mortgage; now they need the money and can't reverse that.

It's not necessarily old-fashioned or sexist (despite some posters jumping to such conclusions); it's just common sense.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Am I asleep because I find myself agreeing in part with FF.

I think the earth just tilted off of its axis a little bit.

Dravokivich wrote: »

That's all well and good and I do see the sense in it, but a single earner will find it really hard to be able to support a family.

A married couple wouldn't have that much trouble as they share tax allowances. Unmarried couples would be screwed.

Dravokivich wrote: »

That's all well and good and I do see the sense in it, but a single earner will find it really hard to be able to support a family.

As I said, I'm not a completely right-wing nut :

1) I did say the 2nd partner could work part-time
2) The biggest problem in supporting a family these days is down to keeping a roof over their heads, and that cost is partly caused by higher mortgages which were down to combining the expected 2 incomes.

No dual-income mortgages = lower prices for homes = negate that factor completely.

As for being able to, then as I said, it's a choice. I'm not able to afford it and I wouldn't dream of choosing to bring a child into the world for that very reason.

People seem to put the "need" to have a child before anything else, when in fact they'd give more attention to the costs involved in having a pet - food, vet costs, time investment, etc.

P.S. There will always be accidents and surprises, and I'm not knocking anyone who does their level best in those scenarios - I know a few who are to be highly commended for getting that particular balancing act reasonably right (plus "there but for the grace of God" or whatever) but those who made choices re the above should have thought more carefully.

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Before I go any further, I am both a woman and a parent.

I am getting the feeling in recent times that FF are hoping that mass emigration and getting one parent to stay at home with the family will sort the problems with employment. I know they haven't come right out and say it, but it is something I really feel is happening.

I was talking to a person within the FF party (only an office person, not a politician) recently about my financial dilemmas regarding college. The attitude I got back was "sure his father will have a good job, would you not consider perhaps concentrating more on your child" I was shocked, I just want to finish my degree and work!

I know there is a massive recession and that every family should have some income and perhaps it is something you could argue, but to not even think a person deserves a chance !?!

Am I the only person who feels this is the vibe they are pushing?

Look Mary and Brian have large appetites. Now that they are going to have to make cuts int he large government catering department someone is going to have to cook for them!!!

panda100 wrote: »

is this post serious? Maternity Leave caused the complete economic breakdown in this country?? If your company is under strain at the moment then perhaps it needs better management rather than blaming it on women who have every right to have children and remain in employment.

What about men's "rights" ? Why did you only mention maternity leave, and not paternity leave ?

If someone makes a choice that affects their work availability, of course there should be room for discussion and an outcome that suits both parties, but the above - partly due to it's phrasing rather than its general concept - smacks of sexism.

"Women" don't have "every right to have children", let alone combine that with automatic rights re employment.

The old-fashioned way of it being an automatic reason to leave was wrong (and is gladly consigned to history) but saying that it's an automatic right to stay, etc, is also wrong.

If it can be discussed / negotiated to reach a workable conclusion for both parties (or rather, all 3 or 4 parties considering there's a child and a partner involved too), then it's win-win.

But it's not "automatic", and shouldn't be.

If I "choose" to lie in until 11am every day, then that's my choice. If my employer can offer flexi-time, there's no issue.

But if my employment requires a 9am start every day, something's gotta give; and since it's my "choice", then I can see what's most likely to have to give.

P.S. The counterpoint to the above also exists, BTW.....where many employers wrongly only considered people for promotion if they worked late/additional hours for nothing - that despicable approach would add credence to the above argument because of adverse effects on family life, but would - again - apply to both partners / parents.