2015 post UK election discussion

[chicoazul]

The whole of society is screwed against men.

Sure Cameron wants to come out and say single parents or even single mothers are the biggest threat to society but couldn't. He had to use the term absentee fathers.

That's the problem no one puts any blame on women for anything. If they get pregnant by a man who can't or won't pay then they're matrys doing their best. There's no blame which says don't [Poor language removed] those men to begin with.

I blame both men and women. I'm for equality. The worse thing is even when men do the right thing they get screwed.

Is anyone else getting the words "shallow graves" when reading this lad's posts?

 

[Allezfan]

Tell that to @edge

The whole of society is the divorce court, now?

I've never been divorced but I'm willing to believe that men have it tough in there, but that's not the same as the whole of society being against men, you paranoid loon.

 

[SpurtingLesbian]

Allah Akbar

Women?

They're a trap!​

 

[bluemangroup]

Im sick of seeing this glass ceiling and looking up women's skirts.

 

[Tree13]

I really would not believe everything you read in the papers.
Yr 1. Food costs - minimal especially if breastfeeding. Clothing - minimal. You will be given a ridiculous amount of new and 2nd hand. Toys - minimal. Again you will be given loads or they will be fascinated by boxes, pans and other everyday items etc.
Take a full year's maternity. Losses from earnings will be negated by the fact you no longer go out to the pub, restaurants etc. You'll be more than content staying in anyway. The Mrs won't go shopping so much, as she fits back into the pre pregnancy clothes. Small sacrifices won't feel like sacrifices at all and time with the little one will make you feel like the richest people on earth.

Year 2 onwards becomes trickier. The Mrs will probably be torn between being a stay at home mum and returning to work. Either way you will miss out financially. Child care is expensive but you can cope. You could of course be prepared to change your working lifestyle. Can flexible working be accommodated for example? You have the right to request it. Can you minimise the amount of childcare required by working around it. Not everyone can. Not everyone wants to, but it is an option. My Mrs did home tuition in the evenings to bring in a few extra pennies for example.

As Esk said earlier. Now is the time to be ambitious with careers. You can use the fact you are a new parent to your advantage in job interviews. You can speak of the responsibility and dedication without it being bull and potential employers see someone who's prepared to graft in order to provide. They may even have a little sympathy for your situation although I wouldn't milk that one.

Life won't be the same as it was before and planning that it will is not necessarily the best way. Like I said, the Mrs may have all the intentions of returning to work and then suddenly choose to stay at home and not miss out on the early years. Would you deny her that?

Sometimes you just have to wing it.

If it's all so cheap, as you're suggesting, then how do people struggle financially?

If people do indeed struggle financially, why are you suggesting raising a child is cheap and affordable?

The idea of having the child first and then HOPING that a prospective employer would view me as MORE responsible and dedicated as a consequence seems, to me, to be a huge risk. And if it doesn't pay off (i.e. no pay rise) what happens to Mrs Tree and the new sapling?

Finally, by planning financially in advance I mean saving up money - thereby allowing greater flexibility should Mrs. Tree change her mind about returning to work.

Nothing you've said has convinced me that having children WITHOUT saving up for a few years first is remotely sensible. To do so would make it virtually inevitable that we would leave ourselves very vulnerable to changes in child benefit, statutory maternity pay and the like. We would also be far less prepared for dealing with either one of us being ill for any period of time, or made redundant. We would end up struggling to make ends meet on an income that didn't cover our outgoings, and we'd be looking to the state for support. We might even start worrying about where our next meal came from, or having to chose between heating or new clothes. I do not want that type of life for myself, my wife or any child we might have. What's more, I don't think it would be right, having made such a flippant decision, to then expect other more prudent people to pick up the bill, by way of increased taxation to fund welfare provision for people who have made stupid decisions.

If everyone did it that way, the state would fail. This is one of the reasons I vote Tory and you presumably don't. Deliberately choosing to have children you can't afford to raise is feckless and every legislative measure that can be taken to dissuade such behaviour should be put in place, IMHO. I really do appreciate the patience you've shown in explaining the way you look at the scenario, it helps me understand your point of view a bit better. I hope you aren't too offended by the degree to which I am amazed that anyone would deliberately choose to follow the decision-making process you've outlined though.

We tell impoverished African nations that one of the most important steps to take to improve their quality of life is to convince their citizens to have fewer children. I don't view the situation in this country as particularly different, on a conceptual level. Child poverty will continue for as long as people wilfully choose to have children without preparing adequately beforehand, but no child of mine will ever experience poverty.

What's most sad to me is that the genuinely needy and vulnerable invariably suffer because some of the funding that should be going to help them is diverted to fund the sort of people who "just wing it".

 

[marty mcfly]

The whole of society is the divorce court, now?

I've never been divorced but I'm willing to believe that men have it tough in there, but that's not the same as the whole of society being against men, you paranoid loon.

It's an example of how society always assumes men are the guilty party. Now that might be right in the majority of cases but not all.

It's not women that are the problem but men as the posters here have illustrated.

But that's probably just to alleviate their guilt for what they did in their younger days.

 

[SNova]

It's an example of how society always assumes men are the guilty party. Now that might be right in the majority of cases but not all.

It's not women that are the problem but men as the posters here have illustrated.

But that's probably just to alleviate their guilt for what they did in their younger days.

Don't even bother going down the women arent oppressed in the West argument. I tried, but most on here still believe that the gender pay gap is because of sexism. There's no getting through to them, just leave this subject alone.

 

[marty mcfly]

Don't even bother going down the women arent oppressed in the West argument. I tried, but most on here still believe that the gender pay gap is because of sexism. There's no getting through to them, just leave this subject alone.

Agreed. There's a lot of guilty men out there.

 

[Khalekan]

Finally, by planning financially in advance I mean saving up money - thereby allowing greater flexibility should Mrs. Tree change her mind about returning to work.

Nothing you've said has convinced me that having children WITHOUT saving up for a few years first is remotely sensible. To do so would make it virtually inevitable that we would leave ourselves very vulnerable to changes in child benefit, statutory maternity pay and the like. We would also be far less prepared for dealing with either one of us being ill for any period of time, or made redundant. We would end up struggling to make ends meet on an income that didn't cover our outgoings, and we'd be looking to the state for support. We might even start worrying about where our next meal came from, or having to chose between heating or new clothes. I do not want that type of life for myself, my wife or any child we might have. What's more, I don't think it would be right, having made such a flippant decision, to then expect other more prudent people to pick up the bill, by way of increased taxation to fund welfare provision for people who have made stupid decisions.

Tree, you would be better off just saying now you ain't having children and get on with your life if that is how you feel.

No amount of saving will put in a position to start a family.....take it from me, you could live five lifetimes of saving but the moment those kids come along a black hole opens up in your financial plan no matter how much you have saved (assuming you are not a millionaire).

Start your family and let life take care of itself.

And it will.......provided you accept the fact that life as you know it is over.

Forever.

You cannot have your cake and expect to eat it.

Your lifestyle will change and you will need to direct your dough toward the raising of those children.

But it's all good.

After a day or two you wouldn't be without them and you will gladly make any sacrifice you need to.

Then one day they wil grow up and your money is your own again

Provided you ain't got a daughter getting married and you are footing the bill for the reception.....like I have had to do twice

But hey.......I love those gals to bits and they are worth every penny I have had to spend feeding them, clothing them, educating them and leading them down the aisle

So go for it pal.....don't let fear get in the way

Because before you know it the old body clock in your wife starts ticking away and it becomes harder for her to conceive......even dangerous on occasion.

 

[chicoazul]

Tree, you would be better off just saying now you ain't having children and get on with your life if that is how you feel.

No amount of saving will put in a position to start a family.....take it from me, you could live five lifetimes of saving but the moment those kids come along a black hole opens up in your financial plan no matter how much you have saved (assuming you are not a millionaire).

Start your family and let life take care of itself.

And it will.......provided you accept the fact that life as you know it is over.

Forever.

You cannot have your cake and expect to eat it.

Your lifestyle will change and you will need to direct your dough toward the raising of those children.

But it's all good.

After a day or two you wouldn't be without them and you will gladly make any sacrifice you need to.

Then one day they wil grow up and your money is your own again

Provided you ain't got a daughter getting married and you are footing the bill for the reception.....like I have had to do twice

But hey.......I love those gals to bits and they are worth every penny I have had to spend feeding them, clothing them, educating them and leading them down the aisle

So go for it pal.....don't let fear get in the way

Because before you know it the old body clock in your wife starts ticking away and it becomes harder for her to conceive......even dangerous on occasion.

Thankfully my bird doesn't read this forum.

 

[Khalekan]

Thankfully my bird doesn't read this forum.

Do you not get her to proof read the previews

 

[summerisle]

And, as with any right, the right to procreate comes with associated responsibilities.... doesn't it?

Do you not get her to proof read the previews

Proofread

 

[Kiwi]

Goodness gracious.
Who ordered a JDL and Nik combo with fries and a side order of kid coupons.

 

[Blue 1]

According to the article posted a couple pages back by @Jib in lad , the first five years cost just over £70k in total. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11360819/Average-cost-of-raising-a-child-in-UK-230000.html

Your points aren't making much sense to me mate. I would never, ever consider taking on a responsibility as profound as raising a child without planning how to financially support the whole thing first. And how could we as a couple possibly NOT miss her income when faced with the costs listed in that article?

Its bollocks. Does it [Poor language removed] cost that much. I've got two of them, I don't get anything from the government other than child benefit, and we're scraping by, although I'm somewhat terrified by the election result. I earn a lot less than £140k in five years, too.

 

[Tramps_mate]

The whole of society is screwed against men.

Sure Cameron wants to come out and say single parents or even single mothers are the biggest threat to society but couldn't. He had to use the term absentee fathers.

That's the problem no one puts any blame on women for anything. If they get pregnant by a man who can't or won't pay then they're matrys doing their best. There's no blame which says don't [Poor language removed] those men to begin with.

I blame both men and women. I'm for equality. The worse thing is even when men do the right thing they get screwed.

My mates missus cheated on him, kicked him out the house which she refuses to now sell, so he has to fund his own new flat and the CSA are finishing him off.. He's in a bad way tbh..