75 Percent of Women Would Not Date An Unemployed Man

[Demi-fiend]

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/...-unemployed-man-75-percent-of-women-would-not

When a man cannot take care of his own family, it can be absolutely soul crushing. Though many would like to deny this, the truth is that men are still considered to be the primary breadwinners in society today. When a man finds that he cannot provide what his family needs no matter how hard he tries, it can be really easy to descend into a spiral of despair, depression and self-pity.


Unfortunately, the U.S. economy is not producing nearly enough jobs for everyone anymore and it never will again. Meanwhile, the quality of our jobs continues to decline at a staggering pace.


What all of this means is that the number of Americans living in poverty is going to continue to grow, and there will be lots more men that feel worthless because they can't provide for their families.


The following is one example of a single dad that is forced to turn to the government for assistance because he cannot provide for his children on his own...


It means Lyman Curtis, single dad of five kids, will only be able to reliably heat his home in Dexter, Maine, for the first half of this winter, maybe through February.


After that, Curtis will drive to the local gas station to buy kerosene oil in 5-gallon increments -- all he can afford to buy at one time.


"I know a lot of people who do it that way, because there's just not enough money to heat your home and pay for groceries in your everyday life," said Curtis, 38, who is the primary caregiver for his kids and relies on disability benefits and food stamps to survive.


Nobody should ever look down on someone like Lyman Curtis. He is doing the best that he can.


At this point our economy is kind of like a very twisted game of musical chairs. If your family is doing well at the moment, you should not be too complacent because the next time the music stops you might be the one that loses a job.


In recent years, millions upon millions of Americans have lost good jobs, and in most cases it was due to forces beyond their control.

So what do you think about all of this?


What do you think about the fact that most women would not even consider dating an unemployed man?

---------------------------------------------

I purposely did not allow the selection of multiple responses.

 

[Dante's Stalker]

So what do you think about all of this?

What do you think about the fact that most women would not even consider dating an unemployed man?

---------------------------------------------

I purposely did not allow the selection of multiple responses.

My honest thoughts: I'm glad I'm not in America, for one. I'm also glad I'm no longer in South Africa. This thing about losing jobs all the time, every day? That's a harsh reality back in SA, over 10 years ago already. It's old news for me, and maybe that's why I'm not as sympathetic or woe to America as most. It's hard times living in a high paying job in a high managing role for years when you know tomorrow the big bosses can shove a package of x amount in your arms and boot you out, despite the value or length of time you've been there. My dad actually ended up resigning because he couldn't take the stress anymore, and we made our own way for a while, trying new things - studying to real estate and beginning a sideline job as real estate agents, purchasing a coffee shop, etc. You do what you can to survive.

But I am a realist. People who are beggars on the street for the majority of the time choose to be beggars. They give up. They stop trying. People are conditioned to believe that they need a constant income of money to survive, but I think civilization did quite well with trading long before the dollar bill was ever printed. It's about friends and family and your network. People helping people. Grow a veggie patch, grow a few fruit trees, get a pig/some chickens/ a cow from the spca or places that rehome farm animals. Take the cash you've got and if you can't afford a house, buy a piece of land and built a friggin shed on it. Sell your eggs. Sell your veggies, or fruit, so that you can recoup, buy more seeds, plants more, reap more, go to bed with full bellies, use the money to stock up on canned foods, etc.

But people's definition of survival has changed. Anywaysssssssssss.

As for the last question, that's just how society is. They had a chat about this on the radio the other day, asking if you'd rather marry a poor faithful man or a wealthy cheating man. The majority of women said they'd go with the cheating guy because he's rich. And then they complain that they haven't found Mr.Right.

I do think a lot of it has to do with the standards you set for yourself. One of my friends' mum told her to break up with her boyfriend BECAUSE he had no job, and she ended up marrying some other guy because he DID have a j0b. Not her choice, just heavy influence to obey her mother's wishes. But really? It's sad. It's tragic. Money shouldn't be what makes the world go round, neither should it be what decides your heart. It's just so, so wrong.

 

[Loopy]

This is kinda one of my trigger subjects that gets me going. You've opened a can of worms on me with this one:tongue:

Honestly, society needs to change for men and women. For too long, men are pressured to have jobs for money because money= women and status, whereas a woman can just marry a man, pop out a kid and then not work.
Some women are still actively encouraged to do that in the circles I mix with. Personally I find that abhorrent if the woman doesn't even love the man, just his money. The best part is, when these men lose their jobs, these women usually leave them, divorce and take whatever if left from the man. Women like that just want some poor sucker to dupe into fathering an alimony baby.

If a man wants to look after his children and be at home, a woman should also be willing to take a job to support him. It goes both ways. Women shouldn't expect to have a man pay for everything for them unless the women is willing to do the same, especially if the man loses his job.
It's not the bloody 1950's anymore!
Women can have jobs, and men should be encouraged if they want to be at home and look after their children. Attitudes need to change. Men who want to look after children aren't weak, or child molesters and they shouldn't lose status because they want to do something that is traditionally for women.
I've seen too many men marry women who just sit at home like a parasite, take his money, and then divorce him and take a lot of what he earns because she has never worked a day in her life. The man is then left financially ruined and has nothing to show for his years of hard work. He then can't build a new life for himself because his finances are wrecked, and he can't find a woman to support him because women generally won't be with jobless men.
Says a lot really. Women expect a man to keep them, but won't do the same in return.

I've seen men have heart attacks and strokes because of how pressured their jobs were. Men are treated no better than wage slaves in some places. If I was a man in a place like that I wouldn't be stupid enough to get married, or if I did, I'd get the snip to make sure there wasn't a child for a woman to use as a paycheck.

Besides, with the economy the way it is, a man can lose his job easily. If a woman is relying on him to keep her, she will be up the stream without a paddle, aka: screwed. It's hard enough for graduates to get jobs in this economy, so how on earth is a woman who has not worked for 5-10 or more years supposed to get any kind of meaningful job to help her husband during a difficult time? At least get a part time job while raising children and contribute something to the family bank account, that way the blow is softened when the main breadwinner is out of work. I'd say the same to a man staying with children for the foreseeable future. The earning pressure just can't be placed on one parent because it leads to problems that are not just financial
I've seen too many men stray because they felt they did all of the work while the woman was lazy, so the men started having affairs. Kinda messed up, but that's what I've seen on those forums for mothers. Discussions about husbands who have had enough of being treated like a bank account and the wife being puzzled as to why he wants to leave. Gee, I wonder why
The again, if marriage is solely for money, then these woman should expect to be cheated on.

As for me, if the man I married lost his job, honestly, I'd stick by him because I know the man would do the same for me. It's like the marriage vows say: richer or poorer, better or worse and in sickness and health. I wish more people would think seriously about those vows before being married. I'd take them as an honest promise to the man I married that I'd stick with him no matter what. That's what the women and men in my family have always done, and I am determined to continue that.

I wouldn't care if the man I married was rich either.Besides, in this economy, fortunes and jobs are gone easily and quickly, but true relationships last.
If he wanted to raise children, I'd support him any way I could, not just finances, but emotionally or whatever he needed. I couldn't marry a man for money, especially if children were involved. How damaging would that be for the children to know their mother only likes their father because he is rich. It sends a bad message to little boys and just perpetuates the idea that men are only useful if they have money. Plus I could never be happy like that. I'd think I was no better than a prostitute if I lived off a man's earnings, a man who I didn't even love. I just don't understand how a woman could be with a man she doesn't love. It seems so sad.

My dad took a few years off work to look after me, but I know we were lucky to afford it, and he kept up with his job from home. I wish more dads could do this because men can have a really positive impact on their children's lives if they are given the chance. It shows boys that men can work, but they can also be great parents, and men have a real impact on how girls handle relationships with other men later in life and can teach their girls valuable skills.
I know I don't remember much of that time my dad stayed at home with me, but it's nice to look back at photos where we went to the park, baked cakes or played with Batman figures. :happy:

 

[Laurence Barnes]

This is kinda one of my trigger subjects that gets me going. You've opened a can of worms on me with this one:tongue:

Honestly, society needs to change for men and women. For too long, men are pressured to have jobs for money because money= women and status, whereas a woman can just marry a man, pop out a kid and then not work.
Some women are still actively encouraged to do that in the circles I mix with. Personally I find that abhorrent if the woman doesn't even love the man, just his money. The best part is, when these men lose their jobs, these women usually leave them, divorce and take whatever if left from the man. Women like that just want some poor sucker to dupe into fathering an alimony baby.

If a man wants to look after his children and be at home, a woman should also be willing to take a job to support him. It goes both ways. Women shouldn't expect to have a man pay for everything for them unless the women is willing to do the same, especially if the man loses his job.
It's not the bloody 1950's anymore!
Women can have jobs, and men should be encouraged if they want to be at home and look after their children. Attitudes need to change. Men who want to look after children aren't weak, or child molesters and they shouldn't lose status because they want to do something that is traditionally for women.
I've seen too many men marry women who just sit at home like a parasite, take his money, and then divorce him and take a lot of what he earns because she has never worked a day in her life. The man is then left financially ruined and has nothing to show for his years of hard work. He then can't build a new life for himself because his finances are wrecked, and he can't find a woman to support him because women generally won't be with jobless men.
Says a lot really. Women expect a man to keep them, but won't do the same in return.

I've seen men have heart attacks and strokes because of how pressured their jobs were. Men are treated no better than wage slaves in some places. If I was a man in a place like that I wouldn't be stupid enough to get married, or if I did, I'd get the snip to make sure there wasn't a child for a woman to use as a paycheck.

Besides, with the economy the way it is, a man can lose his job easily. If a woman is relying on him to keep her, she will be up the stream without a paddle, aka: screwed. It's hard enough for graduates to get jobs in this economy, so how on earth is a woman who has not worked for 5-10 or more years supposed to get any kind of meaningful job to help her husband during a difficult time? At least get a part time job while raising children and contribute something to the family bank account, that way the blow is softened when the main breadwinner is out of work. I'd say the same to a man staying with children for the foreseeable future. The earning pressure just can't be placed on one parent because it leads to problems that are not just financial
I've seen too many men stray because they felt they did all of the work while the woman was lazy, so the men started having affairs. Kinda messed up, but that's what I've seen on those forums for mothers. Discussions about husbands who have had enough of being treated like a bank account and the wife being puzzled as to why he wants to leave. Gee, I wonder why
The again, if marriage is solely for money, then these woman should expect to be cheated on.

As for me, if the man I married lost his job, honestly, I'd stick by him because I know the man would do the same for me. It's like the marriage vows say: richer or poorer, better or worse and in sickness and health. I wish more people would think seriously about those vows before being married. I'd take them as an honest promise to the man I married that I'd stick with him no matter what. That's what the women and men in my family have always done, and I am determined to continue that.

I wouldn't care if the man I married was rich either.Besides, in this economy, fortunes and jobs are gone easily and quickly, but true relationships last.
If he wanted to raise children, I'd support him any way I could, not just finances, but emotionally or whatever he needed. I couldn't marry a man for money, especially if children were involved. How damaging would that be for the children to know their mother only likes their father because he is rich. It sends a bad message to little boys and just perpetuates the idea that men are only useful if they have money. Plus I could never be happy like that. I'd think I was no better than a prostitute if I lived off a man's earnings, a man who I didn't even love. I just don't understand how a woman could be with a man she doesn't love. It seems so sad.

My dad took a few years off work to look after me, but I know we were lucky to afford it, and he kept up with his job from home. I wish more dads could do this because men can have a really positive impact on their children's lives if they are given the chance. It shows boys that men can work, but they can also be great parents, and men have a real impact on how girls handle relationships with other men later in life and can teach their girls valuable skills.
I know I don't remember much of that time my dad stayed at home with me, but it's nice to look back at photos where we went to the park, baked cakes or played with Batman figures. :happy:

that last bit was so heartwarming i almost got heart burn.

 

[V]

Well, dating isn't marriage... I'd date whoever if they were interesting enough. Their wealth doesn't interest me.

That said, I do still know females who get told by others (even now) to look for someone with money. They either seem to have the attitude that if they can depend on someone else they should, or that if the guy doesn't earn at least as much as they do it's somehow embarrassing.

 

[LordOfDarkness]

Well, dating isn't marriage... I'd date whoever if they were interesting enough. Their wealth doesn't interest me.

That said, I do still know females who get told by others (even now) to look for someone with money. They either seem to have the attitude that if they can depend on someone else they should, or that if the guy doesn't earn at least as much as they do it's somehow embarrassing.

Thats quite a sad thing really. I only earn slightly over half of what my Fiancee earns. But for me i am not ashamed to admit this because a job is a job and money is the same object for everyone no matter what you do. I helped her find the job as it would benefit us both. You work for each other in a relationship and not your own selfish need.

 

[Loopy]

That said, I do still know females who get told by others (even now) to look for someone with money. They either seem to have the attitude that if they can depend on someone else they should, or that if the guy doesn't earn at least as much as they do it's somehow embarrassing.

Yep, it's quite sad really that in this day and age, women are still encouraged to take men for a ride.
It's not like women are banned from working anymore, so there is no excuse not to get d job, barring severe illness or disability of course. And its not like kids are the only achievement a woman can have now. We can be CEO, prime minister, IT techs, business owners and mechanics. With all that opportunity there, why mooch off a man? It's like going backwards to me.

It's just totally incompatible with how my parents raised me. I am educated, I am physically healthy, therefore I should work instead of mooching off the hard work of others. Besides, in this day and age, I meet few men who would put up with that because women can now work just like men. They've seen the women who go after money and are wising up to the scam. Good for them I say. I know if I was a guy, I would hate to constantly wonder if a woman liked me for who I am, or for my money. It's like when I wonder if guys like me for who I am or my looks. It's not a nice way to live.

What really gets me are women who have worked, but only to meet a man who she will pop out a kid for an excuse not to work. Then they call themselves a 'kept woman'. That phrase makes me think of a pet Do these women think they are like pet dogs to be kept by a man?
I could never be in a relationship like that, asking my husband for money like a kid does for allowance money with their parents. It would just be humiliating for me. I was never raised line that, and my dad would be so disappointed in me that I wasted my education to mooch off someone in that way.
I just cannot see any equality in a relationship like that, especially if the woman is uneducated. I'd say with those kind of relationships, both parties are taking each other for a ride. Guy has uneducated women he can keep at home like domestic help servant and baby machine who will never get a decent job, and stuck with him due to financial dependance, and woman gets man who is only like a living bank account. Looks like a recipe for disaster to me. Personally, I have never seen a relationship like that last because there is no love or respect there, or mutual interests because they're nit inthe same intellectual level. All I see is just mutual using where the woman pretends to love him while popping out kid after kid to drain his money.
And if he only likes her for her looks, more often than not, those are gone after pregnancy takes its toll and the shallow man looks to younger women. Totally toxic relationship to be in for all, especially with children involved.

Sure, I could understand women marrying for money in a place where women cannot work and have few rights, where having kids is still seen as the only achievement a woman can do. But I'd assume then that the man would be very aware of why he is being married. Even in those places I hear men are beginning to feel fed up of being sole breadwinner and think their wives are lazy for being home all day. So maybe women will gradually be allowed to work. seems like only a good thing to me. That way women can have enough money to leave possibly abusive husbands and opens up a lot of choice and freedom for women who never had it before, while also taking pressure off men to be wholly responsible for earning and busting their butts at work.
This just makes me even more peeved at women where I live who choose this financial dependence on a man and had kids to secure that. They want to live like women who have no rights. I just don't get it. What if their husband turned abusive or had constant affairs? Woman would just have to put up with it because she relies on him for money. It's no way to live at all.

Thats quite a sad thing really. I only earn slightly over half of what my Fiancee earns. But for me i am not ashamed to admit this because a job is a job and money is the same object for everyone no matter what you do. I helped her find the job as it would benefit us both. You work for each other in a relationship and not your own selfish need.

Exactly, with a relationship, both work to help each other and share the money because it helps both people, not one person staying home while other has burden of earning enough to pay mortgage and all other bills. It's terrible pressure to place on one person, especially with this bad economy. Two jobs are better than one person earning in case one partner becomes unemployed. Plus, working gives people self esteem, place in society and financial freedom to marry for love not money.
Plus if children are involved, it gives children a good image of work ethic when both parents work, even if it is only part time work. Then there is more money to give children good education and provide for their needs. Or if one partner died or became unable to work, they wouldn't be up a river without a paddle with children to support. It's just a practical thing to me as well as an ethical one.

 

[V]

It just kinda surprises me since the social expectation is that women 'should' work now... but there are all these conflicting factors like, women less likely to be employed because it's expected they'll have kids, and take the dreaded maternity leave which no company wants to pay for, or that they just don't get paid as much on average compared to men. These things happen, laws exist to stop it, but we know employers don't give a rat's about laws when they can still pick and choose who to employ and how much to pay them. There's the stick, but not much of a carrot.

The maternity thing is stupid. Nobody want to fork out for maternity pay, whether company or taxpayer, but someone has to have kids or there'll be no society in 50 years. The attitude is just "well whatever, but it shouldn't be ME paying for someone else's kids." Everyone wants to pass the buck and take no responsibility. I appreciate someone has to have kids because I'm not gonna have any. So I don't point at women because they might, and because kids are expensive to bring up.

Tbh, I'm not sure that both parents should work and kids should be brought up in the care of someone else because their parents can't be there. That just sucks to me. We already don't do the extended family thing here to help take the burden off, what's next, raising kids in jars? I was brought up with both my parents always around because they were artisans working at home. I wouldn't swap that for anything. I got a decent upbringing because they were there and they had time for me. What price on that? Seems bad that now families can't get by on a single wage and the standard of life is falling for everyone.

 

[Loopy]

It just kinda surprises me since the social expectation is that women 'should' work now... but there are all these conflicting factors like, women less likely to be employed because it's expected they'll have kids, and take the dreaded maternity leave which no company wants to pay for, or that they just don't get paid as much on average compared to men. These things happen, laws exist to stop it, but we know employers don't give a rat's about laws when they can still pick and choose who to employ and how much to pay them. There's the stick, but not much of a carrot.

I would say that it's not even an expectation but a fear that women will have kids while working. All you need is 1 accidental pregnancy from a high up employee and then the whole operation goes down the toilet. Factor that in with once women have children, they are expected to be the ones that look after it when it is ill, and you are left with a very unproductive employee who is a risk to the company. And you're right, who would want to pay for maternity leave, have the woman come back and then have to pay to retrain her. Society just isn't built for having children anymore.
Which is ridiculous considering society is made in such a way that people need to breed more and more to pay for the older people through taxation. It's like a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme. Or maybe it's a good thing. Too many people here already, too many poor and suffering and exploited for greed. Maybe a lower population would be good. Reduces strain or resources for a start, especially in an island nation like UK where we only have so much land, and we import more than export now. Worrying really that we import most of our food instead of grow locally.

I don't know why more fathers don't take paternity leave. It would share the pressure that way and maybe make women less of a risky prospect when it comes to hiring them. Plus, children need their dads in their lives as a positive influence. I know I benefitted heaps from mine.
As for women earning less, again, it's because they're the ones who do majority of childcare, and maternity leave greatly reduces earnings. In this day and age, only way for women to escape all that is to be sterilized. It's extreme, but that's the only way out when we're in a world that still holds women back in their careers because they have children. It should be made easier for women with children to work, especially if her money is needed to supplement her husband's earnings. Otherwise it makes it near financially impossible to raise a child these days with the price of everything going up. Either way you slice it, someone loses.

The maternity thing is stupid. Nobody want to fork out for maternity pay, whether company or taxpayer, but someone has to have kids or there'll be no society in 50 years. The attitude is just "well whatever, but it shouldn't be ME paying for someone else's kids." Everyone wants to pass the buck and take no responsibility. I appreciate someone has to have kids because I'm not gonna have any. So I don't point at women because they might, and because kids are expensive to bring up.

I would say though that no society in 50 years is a bit early. People are still having children, plus in the UK there is a lot of immigration to keep the population numbers high. So there's no need for the indigenous people to have children, especially when all I hear are people complaining how immigrants breed like rabbits and their children take up school places. Can't decide if these people are racist or what...:bored: But in general, don't they say there are too many humans on the world anyway? Resources of this world are finite, and more children will mean an even greater drain. Besides, if you have a kid these days you're just setting them up for debt and joblessness.
Due to those reasons, and loads of others, I couldn't in good conscience bring a child into this world, despite what this advert says.

This advert makes me so angry on so many levels. Firstly it's exploiting emotionally vulnerable people, secondly it's manipulative propaganda. Sure, have more kids because this advert by a multinational corporation tells you to on the off chance that breeding more people into this already full world just might solve sustainability. Load of crap. Only way sustainability will be reached is for people to have fewer children and to distribute wealth evenly. But corporations don't want to do that at all. They just want to put up a façade of caring. Makes me sick.
I'm glad people in the comments section are seeing through all the crap. They know the only thing this advert cares about is getting people to breed more consumers.
It reminds me of the 1984 book where they use this exact method to convince people to breed.
So excuse me for being wary of emotionally manipulative 'sustainability' campaigns when they are run by multinational corporations who are responsible for a lot of damage in this world and are only interested in profit and the breeding of future consumers. It really is a sick sad world we live in. :bored: No way I'm bringing a kid into this; a world that is giving more and more power to corporations who see humans as nothing more than cattle to be bred for exploitation and profits.

Tbh, I'm not sure that both parents should work and kids should be brought up in the care of someone else because their parents can't be there. That just sucks to me. We already don't do the extended family thing here to help take the burden off, what's next, raising kids in jars? I was brought up with both my parents always around because they were artisans working at home. I wouldn't swap that for anything. I got a decent upbringing because they were there and they had time for me. What price on that? Seems bad that now families can't get by on a single wage and the standard of life is falling for everyone.

Should or should not work, but sometimes both parents need to just to afford the child and the expenses that come with it. Wages are so bad, job prospects so few and threat of unemployment so high that it is necessity to work.

But I guess then some would say that if a person cannot afford a child, then do not have any...but I think that's okay so long as people don't deliberately have lots of children and then expect to be given public assistance money to use their children as a pay check excuse not to work.
On the other hand, accidents happen, and it is not fair on the child that it is born into a life of poverty. It's not fair at all to do that to someone who didn't ask to be here.

Speaking from personal experience, it was great that my dad looked after me. Then when I was well enough, I had a nanny who was really nice, and my grandma also looked after me loads while my parents worked. I never felt deprived and I have a great relationship with both my parents. I never went without. We had great family holidays all over the world, and at weekends we went on trips to museums, art galleries, historical sites or plays. During the week, they would a make time to help me do homework or just pal around, my dad would always cook breakfast, and then mum or dad took turns cooking the evening meal. So I always had home cooked food. Eating out or takeaway food was a treat once a month if I'd been good:tongue: So it's not like work hindered them spending time with me.

I'm glad my mother worked because it showed me women don't have to give up their life to look after children and can actually do something meaningful. Don't get me wrong, she does household chores too, cooks and cleans and looks after us, so that stuff isn't beneath her, but she also has a career where she contributes to society and her family at the same time.
And I'm really gad my dad took years off to look after me because it had a really positive impact. How many dads stay at home for years and bake with their child, bought their first toolkit or microscope and then taught them what to do with them? I don't know of many and that is a shame. My dad taught me loads of skills like wiring a plug, making a bike, putting up shelving and fixing TVs and computers. They're useful skills and they were bonding experiences too.
Since typing about my dad on here before, I went back home and did some rummaging in the attic and found some really old videos of my dad trying to teach me stop motion animation. 3 year old me was crap at it:laugh: But me and my dad did have a laugh watching it.

 

[V]

I was thinking more that you do need a variety of ages in any population, even if you have immigrants fill the gap children don't, if they also are not having children, 50 years of that would totally reduce the capability of the world population to maintain the current standards of living. It would be on the edge, not to mention the quality of people's sperm/eggs degenerates over time.

There are probably too many people in the world. Not that there couldn't be more, but if there are more then you have to expect more to die when the resources don't stretch and for life to start sucking pretty bad. And yeah, UK imports about 40% of its food and water because at present it can afford to. Scary, huh.

Unilever made that? Sorry, I'm cracking up a bit here. I know a few things about them, my mother was dealing with them for a while as a contracted research fellow a few years back. They're making quite the claim there? "It's never been such a great time"? How do they know? Somehow I don't think they've got all the answers and somehow I don't think we're gonna get any answers from them for free. You know when the company that makes ice cream and toothpaste start telling you to have babies something's up.

I'm gonna assume and say all through human history bringing up a kid has been difficult and risky and society has always looked to the people in it like it's about to collapse. In fact, if I think about cavemen, ancient Rome, the Renaissance, the Sengoku, WWI, the 80s... I'd be asking myself in every one of them "why bring a kid into this? This sucks." XD There's never any great time to have them I reckon, but there's always going to be people having kids as sure as the sky is blue. Even in countries with one child policies, accidents happen.

That's a point, I suppose like China did if things got serious enough that's what would be implemented. They did so because of the vast amounts of people starving at the time, and as draconian as everyone thinks the OCP was, I do think the government owed it to the people to do something about the horrific state of affairs that had resulted since the revolution. Governments social engineer all the time. If they want people to have kids, they offer them money or propaganda to do it, like the bonus every kid got for being born in the UK a few years ago. If they want them to stop, they can disincentivise by making it more expensive, other types of propaganda or just going all out and enforcing stuff like OCP. I expect we'll see it happen soon enough.

 

[Loopy]

I was thinking more that you do need a variety of ages in any population, even if you have immigrants fill the gap children don't, if they also are not having children, 50 years of that would totally reduce the capability of the world population to maintain the current standards of living. It would be on the edge, not to mention the quality of people's sperm/eggs degenerates over time.

That is true, some studies have show that immigrant families who traditionally had lots of children actually reduced the number of children after living in a new country for a few generations.
I suppose that after a while, you're right, the world would not be able to carry on due to being based on people having a lot of children. UK , for example, is based on a service economy instead of an industrial one. For this economy to keep going, people need to have more and more children who will use the services.
You're right about the quality of sperm/eggs. But, these days, it is impossible for people to have children at an early age. Barring accidents, more and more people are choosing to have children in their early to md 30's which is when the chance of birth defects increases, as well as dangers to the mother's health. But with the way society is, people have to have children later because it is impossible to afford them otherwise. I've seen it with my older friends.

There are probably too many people in the world. Not that there couldn't be more, but if there are more then you have to expect more to die when the resources don't stretch and for life to start sucking pretty bad. And yeah, UK imports about 40% of its food and water because at present it can afford to. Scary, huh.

Yep, way too many people, and there just aren't enough jobs to go round. More people are born means more houses, sure that also means more construction jobs created, but it also created more demand for food and even more strain on the healthcare system, while simultaneously creating more demand for jobs in the health care sector. It really is strange, because at this rate, the population will need to have unmitigated growth to sustain this kind of service economy. But it's just not supportable on such a small island like UK.

Unilever made that? Sorry, I'm cracking up a bit here. I know a few things about them, my mother was dealing with them for a while as a contracted research fellow a few years back. They're making quite the claim there? "It's never been such a great time"? How do they know? Somehow I don't think they've got all the answers and somehow I don't think we're gonna get any answers from them for free. You know when the company that makes ice cream and toothpaste start telling you to have babies something's up.

Yep, that company. It's a multinational company spanning many subsidiaries and is one of the big 10 companies that basically control and manufacture what we eat.
Unilever has been responsible for deforesting Indonesia for palm oil, which destroys the local wildlife and economy. They dumped mercury waste into a river a couple of years back, and now they have the gall to talk about sustainability while simultaneously encouraging irresponsible human breeding which will not help sustainability at all. They just want consumers. They even admit it here:
http://unilever-rss.com/images/ir_i...e-Sustainable-Living-Plan-KW_tcm13-276976.pdf
It says here that they are aware of all the problems in the world, but instead of encouraging a decrease in population, they just want to profit and cater to the increased product demand. Apparently, the only reason they're doing anything is because, quote 'Inaction will lead to a reduction of >20% in earnings by 2018 and will 'drive consumer preference' for their products if they appear to be 'sustainable'. It's just disgusting.

I'm gonna assume and say all through human history bringing up a kid has been difficult and risky and society has always looked to the people in it like it's about to collapse. In fact, if I think about cavemen, ancient Rome, the Renaissance, the Sengoku, WWI, the 80s... I'd be asking myself in every one of them "why bring a kid into this? This sucks." XD There's never any great time to have them I reckon, but there's always going to be people having kids as sure as the sky is blue. Even in countries with one child policies, accidents happen.

Each generation has problems, and I don't think that it's fair that people pass the failings of their generation onto a new one just on the small chance that they may solve the problems. But, more likely, they make new problems, or make the old problems even worse. Humanity just creates a self perpetuating cycle of problems and misery for itself with no though to the consequences and impact it will have on future generations. If people really cared about the future, really cared about their future generations, they wouldn't have children at all until they sorted out all of the problems.

That's a point, I suppose like China did if things got serious enough that's what would be implemented. They did so because of the vast amounts of people starving at the time, and as draconian as everyone thinks the OCP was, I do think the government owed it to the people to do something about the horrific state of affairs that had resulted since the revolution. Governments social engineer all the time. If they want people to have kids, they offer them money or propaganda to do it, like the bonus every kid got for being born in the UK a few years ago. If they want them to stop, they can disincentivise by making it more expensive, other types of propaganda or just going all out and enforcing stuff like OCP. I expect we'll see it happen soon enough.

[/quote]
Now this is where I get uneasy, even though I think world population is too big. I know with China it was an extreme policy born from an extreme situation, and it was necessary, but I don't agree with how they carried it out. If reports of kidnapping women and forcing abortions of much wanted children is true, then I do not agree with that one bit. It's disgusting to kidnap someone, let alone force them to abort a child they wanted. Yes, I know something needed to be done, but that just seems terrible to me.
As for UK, they're already making it hard for some people to have children. People like my older friends who worked hard with their education, then worked hard at their careers, then when they were financially stable, student debts paid and a house secured, there were so many obstacles to having children; from expensive childcare to infertility. But my friends said they'd rather they waited than pop out a kid in their teens which meant the end of their education and reliance on state funding.
Funny really, my friends who worked hard have to put off having children because it's responsible, then you have others who start in their teens, get a free house and carry on procreating as a source of income. :facepalm: It's just not fair on the children of these people. Who wants to be born to rely on state assistance, or be born just as a paycheck? They should be making it harder for the irresponsible and feckless to have children because it's not fair on the children themselves.

As a aside: if someone wants to be sterilized, and they have thought long and hard, they should be allowed. I have friends, and myself included, who are in our 20s and never want children. But apparently we don't know what we want and we are too young to make that kind of choice. :facepalm: I've even been told I'm the sort of person who should have children because I'm educated and attractive. Or 'what happens when I meet a man I like who wants children?' Well, clearly, that isn't the man for me if he wants children. :facepalm::facepalm: Also how about the fact that heart disease and stroke run on both sides of my family. I don't want to pass that on. Plus, if I had my own children, I wouldn't have enough time to volunteer helping children already here.
I really don't know why they deny people sterilization who really want it. I even have a friend with 2 children who isn't allowed sterilization in case one of her children dies If her child dies, I doubt she'd want to have a new child just to replace it. Children aren't like the pet goldfish to flush away and buy a new one. These doctors really should listen to women and men who don't want children, or don't want any more. Maybe they can afford 1 or 2 children, but then a 3rd would ruin finances and deprive the children already alive of a good life.

 

[V]

Regarding your last paragraph... I do remember when someone said to me "soon they will start paying people to have kids, you'll see" and they did with that bonus and with not caring how many children the state is prepared to fund a person to have. They could just as easily flip the tables and start offering sterilization, vasectomies, male contraceptive and so on. They may be in the mode atm where they are made to put people off having it or refuse to give it, because that's the way it's been for however long but things can change in an instant. Another example, and you'll see it happen - GM foods. Ten years ago, GM foods were the devil. But watch what will happen as GM foods become the only means of feeding all the people on the planet because you can actually produce more of it and more quickly. There will be campaigns to tell people that GM foods are great, not so bad after all (it's already happening). So yeah, in a short time I do think they will be offering it more than they used to.

And your second to last: I don't think people ever give much thought to the future as a whole. The majority of people are always too busy surviving in the present. It's kind of up to the leaders who are in a position to do something to be the force for good then and they often just suck at that. And... peoples' reasons for having kids are often just selfish or practical. Whether it's just to make sure your family name doesn't die out, having fifteen because ten will die of cholera, whether it's to provide workers for a family business or someone to look after you in your old age, or now just because "I'll probably regret it if I don't" attitude or "everyone else is having one, so should I". It's odd but nobody cares about the sort of world their kids will inherit or even if they themselves should be having the kids (like are they really fit to or capable). I will never have kids but the first thing I would think of would be how screwed up I am with my various 'disorders' and passing that on to a potential kid - I just wouldn't want to. More people should adopt but the system is dumb where it's easier for a total lowlife to have a bunch of kids and live in squalor than it is for someone to adopt.

 

[Loopy]

Regarding your last paragraph... I do remember when someone said to me "soon they will start paying people to have kids, you'll see" and they did with that bonus and with not caring how many children the state is prepared to fund a person to have. They could just as easily flip the tables and start offering sterilization, vasectomies, male contraceptive and so on. They may be in the mode atm where they are made to put people off having it or refuse to give it, because that's the way it's been for however long but things can change in an instant. Another example, and you'll see it happen - GM foods. Ten years ago, GM foods were the devil. But watch what will happen as GM foods become the only means of feeding all the people on the planet because you can actually produce more of it and more quickly. There will be campaigns to tell people that GM foods are great, not so bad after all (it's already happening). So yeah, in a short time I do think they will be offering it more than they used to.

True, and it does bug me how people can be swayed so easily to have children via cash incentives. Yes, because children born from monetary reward are going to be truly wanted.
So long as they do not force people to be sterilized who do not want it, I welcome easier access to sterilization from people who really want it. It's not fair on the resulting child to be born to someone that doesn't want it. Better to take preventative measures and sterilize than pay for all the consequences of unwanted children. It'll cost the government more in the long run to allow unwanted births than pay for vasectomies and tubal ligation.

Not sure about the whole GM food thing either. Population reduction would be preferable to running the risk of feeding GM food that we do not know a lot about right now.

And your second to last: I don't think people ever give much thought to the future as a whole. The majority of people are always too busy surviving in the present. It's kind of up to the leaders who are in a position to do something to be the force for good then and they often just suck at that. And... peoples' reasons for having kids are often just selfish or practical. Whether it's just to make sure your family name doesn't die out, having fifteen because ten will die of cholera, whether it's to provide workers for a family business or someone to look after you in your old age, or now just because "I'll probably regret it if I don't" attitude or "everyone else is having one, so should I". It's odd but nobody cares about the sort of world their kids will inherit or even if they themselves should be having the kids (like are they really fit to or capable). I will never have kids but the first thing I would think of would be how screwed up I am with my various 'disorders' and passing that on to a potential kid - I just wouldn't want to. More people should adopt but the system is dumb where it's easier for a total lowlife to have a bunch of kids and live in squalor than it is for someone to adopt.

Leaders do a lousy job, you're right. The majority these days seem only in it for themselves. They need to realise that only caring about profit and privatisation while filling their own bank accounts at the expense of the public cannot go on. Soon they'll be running a 3rd world country as far as UK is concerned if things continue like this. :facepalm:

I really don't understand why people have children considering what I've seen in my life. Seems like babies just ruin marriages, women's bodies, cause depression and divorce. The babies grown up, get bullied, struggle at school, can't get a job, let alone university and then live off the state. But the lie of how wonderful babies are must keep going because society depends on fresh meat.

At least in agrarian societies, they are honest about the nature of children. They don't expect them to be this source of emotional happiness and know they are hard work. The Western world just expects children to bring fulfilment to adults who are bored and looking for something new, or fill a emotional hole in their life.
Children should not be born to fill some emotional gap or give life meaning. Adults should find their own meaning and sort out their own emotional issues instead of inflicting them on a child who didn't ask for it. More often than not, a child brings more stress and problems than it was supposed to solve in the first place, and that's with 'normal' children. My friend is now going through a sticky divorce because her husband bailed on his son due to his autism. So she and the child have had to relocate and take a drop in earnings/ living standards. Thank goodness he can still go to the special school, or I think my friend would be going insane with how hard it is to look after him. I guess people don't think of that when they have a child, they just think about having a 'normal' one. :facepalm:

You must pass a test to drive, to advance in a career, you are extensively scrutinised if you want to adopt, be it pet or child, but it seems like any unfit person can have a baby the natural way, without any thought to the potential child being messed up for life.
There's a strong history of heart attack and stroke on both sides of my family. I could not in good conscience pass even the risk of that onto a child. It makes me wonder how people with severe depression, incapacity, schizophrenia or psychosis can have a child knowing that it is very likely to be passed on. It's like sharing the misery and is no good for society if you are having children who will grow up to be adults who will need to be medicated and put in therapy. Not in all cases, but it just isn't a life I would want to even risk passing on. I've seen what those illnesses do to people I know and some days it is hard for them to even be out of bed. What life is that?

As for adopting, I would like to do that when I'm older. I'd rather help a child already here, but I have heard how hard it is. One couple was refused because they wanted to change the baby's name from 'Chardonnay', but were refused because it was denying the child a link to her 'working class heritage' and was seen as snobbery:facepalm: I've even heard that people are turned away for being 'too white and middle class'. So what? If they want to give a child a good home and look after them, it shouldn't matter what colour a person is. At least people who adopt think long and hard about how a child will impact their life, and these people really do want a child, instead of having a child by accident and just are left to deal with it.
They are making too many barriers for people do adopt, and meanwhile there are children languishing in care homes with no future once they are 18 and too old to be there. :bored: It's so messed up on so many levels.

 

[V]

Discriminating on the basis of being white and middle class? I thought that's kind of (in UK) the criteria for being eligible to permanently adopt, they want you to have perfect record, they want you to have an absolutely stable home, they want you to have lots of money, etc.. I guess it's not quite the same as fostering because names can be changed. My ex actually went through that name change process for adoptive parents way back but only middle and last name... not sure why bother, tbh. Apparently the parents thought if they did not change the surname then there would be bullying, it wasn't on account of any first names belonging to some "class" like that but that WAS a middle class family. I guess it depends on the kind of environment the kid is going into whether it would be worth it. Chardonnay is a lower class name? And lower class children are somehow automatically going to care about their heritage if adopted? Funny, I never much thought names were class dependent before but I suppose they are subject to fashions.

No come to think of it I remember hearing how my parents had this issue over what my name would be and someone said "not some common name". :/ Which is why I ended up with one that was slightly rarer at the time but now is everywhere. Lol. So I guess people do have issues with being seen as having low class names, and my family isn't anything special, they just didn't want the kids to have what they thought common names at the time. And now it's everywhere, I know lots of people with my name, it's annoying. XD

The one case that got me a while back of how selfish people can be was a couple that already had children with icthyosis. They knew having another child would almost certainly mean the next child would also suffer icthyosis like the others, and it sounds like a terrible disease, the children themselves have to spend long periods in a special bath everyday and covered with cream or their skin will just split apart. And they deliberately wanted to create another human being that would have to go through it? Personally I think that's just sick. Adopt, ffs.

 

[Loopy]

Discriminating on the basis of being white and middle class? I thought that's kind of (in UK) the criteria for being eligible to permanently adopt, they want you to have perfect record, they want you to have an absolutely stable home, they want you to have lots of money, etc.. I guess it's not quite the same as fostering because names can be changed. My ex actually went through that name change process for adoptive parents way back but only middle and last name... not sure why bother, tbh. Apparently the parents thought if they did not change the surname then there would be bullying, it wasn't on account of any first names belonging to some "class" like that but that WAS a middle class family. I guess it depends on the kind of environment the kid is going into whether it would be worth it. Chardonnay is a lower class name? And lower class children are somehow automatically going to care about their heritage if adopted? Funny, I never much thought names were class dependent before but I suppose they are subject to fashions.

It's pretty crazy when they deny the exact sort of people who should be adopting. They could give the child opportunities it would never have had with their birth family or the care homes.
Name changing sometimes is a necessity, especially with some schools. You'd be up for a lot of bullying with a name like Chardonnay as it would be perceived as 'Chavvy'. In that situation, the adoptive parents were trying to save the child from a miserable school life. Besides, what's a name change compared to all the opportunity and social mobility gained from going to a high performing school?

No come to think of it I remember hearing how my parents had this issue over what my name would be and someone said "not some common name". :/ Which is why I ended up with one that was slightly rarer at the time but now is everywhere. Lol. So I guess people do have issues with being seen as having low class names, and my family isn't anything special, they just didn't want the kids to have what they thought common names at the time. And now it's everywhere, I know lots of people with my name, it's annoying. XD

My parents thought a lot about my name, but it turned out that at the school I went to, it was quite common. My parents were also insane enough to give me 3 middle names.:laugh::facepalm: They also have this crazy generational tradition of giving all boys the middle name John, and girls have Jane, and this runs on both sides of my family. Even weirder is that my parents had the same surname prior to marriage. :laugh: Makes it sound like I'm inbred or something, but it's just a weird coincidence.

The one case that got me a while back of how selfish people can be was a couple that already had children with icthyosis. They knew having another child would almost certainly mean the next child would also suffer icthyosis like the others, and it sounds like a terrible disease, the children themselves have to spend long periods in a special bath everyday and covered with cream or their skin will just split apart. And they deliberately wanted to create another human being that would have to go through it? Personally I think that's just sick. Adopt, ffs.

I've heard about that. Isn't that when the skin cracks and falls off all the time due to faulty protein bonds? It looks so painful, plus most don't make it past being a baby. I don't know how a parent could willingly do that.
I'm just watching a program where parents had a child with a bone forming disease called Crouzon syndrome. It fuses the skull, leaving the brain nowhere to grow, malformed face and severe brain damage. It is very life limiting.
They knew the mother already had a mild form, but took the chance anyway, and ended up with a child with the syndrome. :facepalm::frown: It also makes me wonder what sort of a man would willingly procreate with a woman with an obvious syndrome.
These people then took the 50% risk and decided to try for a sibling because they thought their disabled child 'needed' one. What a stupid excuse to potentially inflict that syndrome on a child again.
They ended up with triplets, each with this syndrome, each needing operations just to survive being a baby.
They knew there was a chance, and they not only wrecked 1 child's life, but also wrecked 3 more who will have to have so many operations with hardly any chance of living past being a baby, let alone having a normal life. Total selfishness. Children are not a human right, not when they come with a lifetime of responsibility. How can a parent live with themselves for knowingly inflicting that on a child? They've set their children up for suffering, bulling and never living a normal life, and that's if they even become children, teenagers or adults.

Besides, even people without genetic disorders/diseases should think long and hard before deciding their existing child 'needs' a sibling. They could be setting the children up for a lifetime of resentment, arguing and competition for parental love and resources. This in turn impacts the parent's lives with children fighting, more money needed to pay for extra children...it's just a recipe for disaster which could have been avoided.

I dread to think what happens when a family has one or more 'normal' children and another or more with severe needs. The normal child/children just end up neglected and playing second fiddle to the sibling(s) with special needs. It just creates a huge strain and burden on the family, with the normal children feeling neglected and resentful in a lot of cases.
I've seen a load of forum posts on those mother sites from women in that situation and some say they wish they could kill their disabled child because it won't ever live a normal life, they can't cope, and feel like they're depriving their 'normal' child/ children. It's extreme, but I guess these women feel so burdened and have no way out. That situation just isn't fair on anyone.

 

[V]

I can only understand pro-life people who would also be pro-quality of life as well but it doesn't always go in hand. If a pro life attitude takes the form that a child has every right to life over the mother's/father's decision, then it should also be the right of the human they create to a good life and not an awful one. People who think being born is more important than suffering cruelty, starvation, disease etc. are just way over my head. It would be considered cruel to breed animals with a severe and debilitating defect, I consider it cruel to breed humans into having them as well, if they are serious enough to mean the human born would not be able to live the kind of life a human should.

That's something as severe as ichthyosis though with a massive mortality rate, or something that would mean the child would be permanently hospitalized or not expected to live more than a few years. Learning difficulties and Down's and things like that aren't any reason to destroy a person just because they would be a bit more difficult to bring up. Nobody is really 'normal' anyway. But I draw the line at bringing a child into a life of physical agony.

 

[EllDawn]

This is kinda one of my trigger subjects that gets me going. You've opened a can of worms on me with this one:tongue:

Honestly, society needs to change for men and women. For too long, men are pressured to have jobs for money because money= women and status, whereas a woman can just marry a man, pop out a kid and then not work.
Some women are still actively encouraged to do that in the circles I mix with. Personally I find that abhorrent if the woman doesn't even love the man, just his money. The best part is, when these men lose their jobs, these women usually leave them, divorce and take whatever if left from the man. Women like that just want some poor sucker to dupe into fathering an alimony baby.

I didn't read your whole post. I just don't have the patience right now. But when you said that a woman can just marry, have a kid and not work I had to say something. Taking care of those kids is work. 24/7 work. And it doesn't end when those kids become adults. I know there are some women that use men for money, but it's not all.

As someone mentioned before women have a harder time getting work than men. Employers have the thought that, because it's a young woman, she might meet a man and leave her job to get married and have kids. Or there's the possibility that she'll stay long enough for maternity leave only to quit because her maternal instincts have kicked in. I bet it's even harder for single mothers.

More on topic, I would date a man that didn't have a job. Mainly because I don't expect gifts, don't exactly feel comfortable with accepting gifts from anyone outside of family and am fine with just having a simple picnic for a date. The real question would be if I would marry a man that wasn't employed. I grew up in a family that never had much money. I know what it's like to hardly see my father because he was working so much, resting or out fishing/hunting because that was his way of relaxing. Then there's how worried my mom got because they had six kids (my dad didn't believe in preventing pregnancies) and, with my dad being a mine worker, concerns about being able to pay bills and buy enough food to feed anyone. This was even worse when the mine workers went on strike (before I was born) and my mom had to get a job to make ends meet. Throw in a few special needs that take money for three hour trips to hospitals for surgeries or someone to do a psycho-analysis and decide there's nothing wrong, even though there is, and life gets even harder for the whole family. To prevent going through that again, or possibly putting kids through it, yes I'd prefer marrying a man that has a job and knows how to save money. Obviously that's to keep from repeating the past.

If I had the money to afford a comfortable life I'd stick to my current plan and not get married anyway. I'm not trusting enough.

 

[Loopy]

I didn't read your whole post. I just don't have the patience right now. But when you said that a woman can just marry, have a kid and not work I had to say something. Taking care of those kids is work. 24/7 work. And it doesn't end when those kids become adults. I know there are some women that use men for money, but it's not all.

I'm talking about the women who hire maids, cooks and a nanny to do all the household chores. They don't work at all. I can only speak about the experiences I've seen, and those haven't been the best.
Then there are the women who actually like staying at home and the man earning the money because they no longer want a job. Then these women complain on the internet about how they hate their lives. All I can say to that is I hope divorce isn't on the horizon. It just isn't worth the risk these days. Having children is still the quickest way to divorce, depression and financial ruin, especially if you're a woman staying at home.

As someone mentioned before women have a harder time getting work than men. Employers have the thought that, because it's a young woman, she might meet a man and leave her job to get married and have kids. Or there's the possibility that she'll stay long enough for maternity leave only to quit because her maternal instincts have kicked in. I bet it's even harder for single mothers.

It's either one stereotype of the other. Women aren't hired for fear of having a baby and impending career suicide, or women get jobs to easily because they just have to use their attractiveness, or are at that job to fulfil a quota or PC agenda.

Got to say though, I wouldn't hire a woman who stayed long enough for maternity leave. That's just using the company until she can find a way out. From a business standpoint, that would be a risky investment. You'd have to hire someone else to fill the gap, possibly retrain the woman on return to work (if she returns) and then deal with the woman having to leave work to pick up kids from school or take leave to look after sick kids.

Society should make it easier for women to work, more affordable childcare, adjusting the work life balance so that men and women can look after their children when they get sick, so that both parents can have a fulfilling social life instead of the mother having a nervous breakdown on a mothering forum. I can guarantee for every woman saying how much they love motherhood, there are women going crazy with boredom and gagging to be back in work, but society makes it hard to do this because having a baby/children is still like a trap for women.

Besides, I don't believe in maternal instinct. It's just a myth to foist all the childcare on women and keep them at home like pets. If maternal instinct exists, why are there so many children abused by their mothers or other women? I also think there are more reasons women have children other than instinct told them to. Maybe the condom broke/ pill failed, or they do it to please a man, to avoid working a job/ the outside world, no ambition in life, or because they genuinely want children.

 

[Vergil'sBitch]

I don't know if this has been said, but what about the percentage of men that won't date a woman out of work?

These are bad times for economics and industry so everyone faces the prospect of not having a job.
Are these women saying that, if their man had become unemployed because he's been made redundant through no fault of his own, they'd dump him? It's a tad unfair... kick a man when he's down.

Personally, if you love someone enough, you'd take them for who they are (as the marriage vows say 'for richer, for poorer').
And I've also learnt that you shouldn't rely on someone for financial support (especially in a relationship). I can't explain why (it's too complicated), but I have experience with that sort of 'predicament' (Not first hand, but I see it everyday).

 

[EllDawn]

I'm talking about the women who hire maids, cooks and a nanny to do all the household chores. They don't work at all. I can only speak about the experiences I've seen, and those haven't been the best.
Then there are the women who actually like staying at home and the man earning the money because they no longer want a job. Then these women complain on the internet about how they hate their lives. All I can say to that is I hope divorce isn't on the horizon. It just isn't worth the risk these days. Having children is still the quickest way to divorce, depression and financial ruin, especially if you're a woman staying at home.


It's either one stereotype of the other. Women aren't hired for fear of having a baby and impending career suicide, or women get jobs to easily because they just have to use their attractiveness, or are at that job to fulfil a quota or PC agenda.

Got to say though, I wouldn't hire a woman who stayed long enough for maternity leave. That's just using the company until she can find a way out. From a business standpoint, that would be a risky investment. You'd have to hire someone else to fill the gap, possibly retrain the woman on return to work (if she returns) and then deal with the woman having to leave work to pick up kids from school or take leave to look after sick kids.

Society should make it easier for women to work, more affordable childcare, adjusting the work life balance so that men and women can look after their children when they get sick, so that both parents can have a fulfilling social life instead of the mother having a nervous breakdown on a mothering forum. I can guarantee for every woman saying how much they love motherhood, there are women going crazy with boredom and gagging to be back in work, but society makes it hard to do this because having a baby/children is still like a trap for women.

Besides, I don't believe in maternal instinct. It's just a myth to foist all the childcare on women and keep them at home like pets. If maternal instinct exists, why are there so many children abused by their mothers or other women? I also think there are more reasons women have children other than instinct told them to. Maybe the condom broke/ pill failed, or they do it to please a man, to avoid working a job/ the outside world, no ambition in life, or because they genuinely want children.

Okay. With women like that, I agree. Then again the rich tend to just get on my nerves anyway. The only two rich people in my home town spent a lot of years competing with each other, buying senseless things. Not the best use of money, in my opinion.

If a woman is planning on having kids, I don't think she should get a job just to quit it after the baby is born, or during maternity leave. I've never known anyone to do that, but I know it can happen. And you've pretty much explained why women aren't usually considered for jobs.

I agree they should. Especially single mothers. There isn't always a babysitter, daycare, anything for a single mother to use for her kids to be taken care of while she's at work. And then there's usually a shortage of money if these things have to be paid for. I think one of my sisters had that problem, and they're both married.

I do believe in maternal instinct. It's not strong in all women, and some just don't have it. Also it's not something that is there before a woman becomes a mother. As for why so many children are abused by women, my main guess would be that they're not mentally stable women. None of the women in my family have been abusive. And having children does mess with a woman's state of mind. If she has too many, too close together, it could cause some major health problems. If she was mentally unstable in the first place, having kids can make it worse. Pregnancy changes hormone levels and basically any chemical released in the brain. At times like that, even common sense is beyond a woman's thinking. Another reason why I believe in maternal instinct is because, even though I really don't like kids, if I hear a baby crying my main instinct is to calm it down. I hate to admit it, but I do have a strong maternal instinct. Despite that, I don't think I'd make a good mother. The instinct doesn't determine how good a mother a woman will be, anyway.