Single parents.

Topics related to family life.

Re: Single parents.

Postby pinky » 18 Jul 2010, 13:10

I think part time can work Ice as it saves on the cost of childcare the other half of the week. If their income remains below a certain level they still keep their banefits so it works well.

I certainly dont agree with paying anyone to stay at home and mind their children and would not like to see my taxes used in that way. This doesnt address the quality of childcare being offered. For some underpriveledged children it is better for them to be in creche or childcare as their parent/s do not have sufficient skills to offer good enough parenting.
User avatar
pinky
 

Re: Single parents.

Postby Ice.Maiden » 19 Jul 2010, 16:41

Part-time work's fine if a person has a well-paid job pink, but coming off benefits is one of the reasons why many people feel they can't return to work, as they can be worse off when travelling expenses are taken into consideration, or they have to find even half a week's payment for full-time childcare, which can be very costly. I believe they can apply for something towards these costs, but not always the full amount, and so another chunk comes out of their wages. David Cameron's trying to address this awkward situation and make work more beneficial than living off the state, but as someone in one of our newspapers said, the average wage'd have to increase dramatically, and then of course, the more money that comes in, the more rent and Council Tax a person's expected to contribute, so they'd probably return to work, but be even worse off and more stressed than ever.
If people were paid a "proper" wage to have the option of staying at home with their children until at least school age, it'd be their own taxes being ploughed back, along with a governmentr subsidy, not just your own. We're all paying towards "hand-ouits" anyway, and I'd rather see it helping already-stressed mums, than I like the idea of the government using our taxes to fund their own lavish lifestyles and "working" holidays, etc. This disgusts me.
As for some under-privileged children being better off in a creche, or handed to child minders whilst they work, I don't agree at all. If the parent/s don't have sufficient skills to care for their children, then what does that say about them having the skills and determination for getting a job? What one lacks in one area, they often lack in the other, although poverty alone doesn't make a bad parent by any means.
I do believe that a lot more work has to be done to try and help non-working parents, and things ARE improving slightly, but on the downside, there are more cases of female alcoholism, caused through trying to run a home, do a job and care for their children as well. Some manage it magnificently, whilst others feel burdened by guilt or "failure" - not to mention tiredness - when they haven't the energy or enough time to give to their offspring.
I've discussed both sides of this debate many time, with friends and family, and still revert back to the conclusion that a mother's place is to be with her young children until they go to school. If the parent prefers to let someone else rear their child, then to my mind, they're putting work and material gains first. It's fine to say you're working part-time, but does it sound the same to say you're also a part-time mum?
User avatar
Ice.Maiden
Golden Poster
Golden Poster
 
Posts: 70045
Joined: 14 Aug 2009, 23:31
Location: Peak District

Re: Single parents.

Postby Silke » 20 Jul 2010, 07:43

Instead of giving them more money in pay, make it attractive to work. Let us say child-care is free (or almost free) if the single parent or both parents (in cases where both are present) work at least... say 50%? or whatever is doable over there?That will only affect families with children and taxes shouldn't go up much as there are plenty of more people paying taxes.
User avatar
Silke
Brainiac Class Poster
Brainiac Class Poster
 
Posts: 2291
Joined: 07 Aug 2007, 04:41
Location: ??? guess I need to find out...

Re: Single parents.

Postby Ice.Maiden » 20 Jul 2010, 16:40

Yes - that'd be one idea to look at Silke. Free childcare'd be a huge bonus for some mums - but who's going to pay the wages of these workers?
Then of course, if someone's working part time, they probably wouldn't be in a "salaried" job, so if they happened to be off sick, they wouldn't get paid for it. Then that'd cause more worry, and probably mean that bills wouldn't get paid. This is why it was suggested that the basic wage's put up to a minimum of £10 per hour - but that'd mean putting up the prices of everyuthing else to cover it, so it's back to square one again.
I wouldn't like to interfere in peoples' personal lives, but something drastic has to be done, such as cutting off child allowance after one or two children, to discourage folk from having more, ad lib. They could try raising the age of consent to 18 or 21 again, but I doubt it'd stop people from having babies early.
The only thing I can think of, is that if the government implemented a law, stipulating that if anyone under 18 had a child out of wedlock, they'd be forced to do some type of work in order to pay for that child, but whatever we seem to come up with, human nature is human nature, and it won't stop young single girls from getting pregnant. Neither does more knowledge about the subject, it seems.
I definitely think that Councils and housing associations should stop providing homes for these people. If only married couples or single adults on their own and of a certain age could have them, it'd force the youngsters to stay at home, and perhaps think twice about having babies before time.
User avatar
Ice.Maiden
Golden Poster
Golden Poster
 
Posts: 70045
Joined: 14 Aug 2009, 23:31
Location: Peak District

Re: Single parents.

Postby Silke » 20 Jul 2010, 17:07

Oh my... Come here and you'd think you'd come to heaven, I promise!

Sick-leave is paid here, 100%. You have so many days you can report yourself then the doctor have to sign for you. You are also free to stay home with a sick child, nothing lost from your pay-check. This includes part-time workers as long as you've been put up to work that day.

and who'd pay those workers? taxes of course! Remember, the free childcare would only start at a certain % - you could work over that % at get the same benefit. This liberates your time so everyone have time to work 100% (if they could get a job that is) and the taxes are paid anyway. Now with so many more mothers working the taxes coming in would suffice as less money is needed for benefits (as they can do it on their own) and more people are paying taxes. There would be a bill needed to be paid as the whole thing starts up of course, but after that it is all sunshine and singing birds.

and information does help. If you give it early enough, truthfully enough and not least take away the mysticism. I'm sorry, but I'm prejudiced enough to believe it isn't the way info is given all over. A friend of mine went to school in North Dakota - she was shocked by the lack of knowledge those boys and girls have. And what age they begun teaching about it (no point after the kids start experiment by themselves, eh?)
User avatar
Silke
Brainiac Class Poster
Brainiac Class Poster
 
Posts: 2291
Joined: 07 Aug 2007, 04:41
Location: ??? guess I need to find out...

Re: Single parents.

Postby pinky » 20 Jul 2010, 18:58

I dont see how those having a child out of wedlock should have to work would be either useful or helpful, particulary when you would hope young people under 18 would opt to continue in education instead of seeking employment. I bet their would be some civil liberty issues with such an option given its discriminatory nature
User avatar
pinky
 

Re: Single parents.

Postby Ice.Maiden » 20 Jul 2010, 22:53

Silke - over here, sex education starts in primary schools, albeit in a very gentle way. There's no more mysticism about sexual matters unless the parents opt out of letting their children sit in on these talks, and by the time they reach senior school age, most have a very good idea of what things are about, but STILL they end up getting pregnant, earlier and earlier. The kids know about contraception, but for a variety of reasons often don't bother. The situation's getting ridiculous, and people don't even raise their eyebrows in shock much any more, when you read of yet another 12 year old having a baby. It's a sad situation, and I think more parental guidance's needed, along with - yes - even religious instruction - as well as perhaps a more comprehensive guide to sex education in schools.
The thing is, society's changing over here. Young girls want to dress up and stay out later. It's often peer pressure that does it, but this's always been the case as youngsters hit puberty. It's the parents' fault at times. They're too busy with their own social or working lives to even care where their children are or what they're getting up to, and many homes have no boundaries for their children, and no examples to follow from. It's going to be no easy job to get youngsters back on track again without parents also agree to helping with this. Basically, they've lost control over their children, because of laws which "give them rights" - and they know it. You can scarecely even shout at your kids now, or you could be hauled in front of some "body" for verbal abuse. It's got out of hand.
I agree with pink that education's vital, but when you have children leaving school who can barely write their own names, something's very wrong.
And yes pink, I see what you're saying in your last post, but there are thousands of young people who openly scoff at the thought of learning, and many don't want a job either - because then they can stay at home, or be out with their friends instead, yet receive money from the state. This has to be discouraged, even if it means getting heavy-handed, and this is where, when libeerty issues are raised, the rot sets in I'm afraid. Forget "rights". It seems to me that before all these were implemented, things were a lot better. To my mind - so what if it seems discriminatory against single parents to make them go to work for their handouts? What's an alternative that works? if you want to cut back on underage pregnancies, you need to operate a system whereby it's preferable to wait until you're older, or married, because otherwise, society's going to crumble even further.
User avatar
Ice.Maiden
Golden Poster
Golden Poster
 
Posts: 70045
Joined: 14 Aug 2009, 23:31
Location: Peak District

Re: Single parents.

Postby Silke » 21 Jul 2010, 05:41

I don't see the reason to drag marriage into this, so I won't.

Here people would raise eyebrows at a 12-year-old getting pregnant, and there would be a shout at some immigrants even before we knew what country the poor girl came from. Sexual education isn't just "no, you don't come flying with the stork, your parents lied to you", it is more than "in, out, nine months later there is a baby". It is about every aspect - there is pleasure, there is respect, there is control, there is deceases, there is the future of every part involved. There is how to put on a condom. Laws and what happen to which partner if said laws are broken.

Then we come to education. How can you believe everyone will choose education when it costs money? If people choose not to work because they make more off benefits then how could they even dream of paying for an education??? I'd start working, no questions asked!
User avatar
Silke
Brainiac Class Poster
Brainiac Class Poster
 
Posts: 2291
Joined: 07 Aug 2007, 04:41
Location: ??? guess I need to find out...

Re: Single parents.

Postby pinky » 21 Jul 2010, 13:00

I guess the problem is that no one rarely gets charged when an underage person becomes pregnant. In Ireland the age of consent is 17 yet for those that have babies at 16 and under there appears no consequences for the father. Perhaps stricter use of the age of consent may make folk more responsible
User avatar
pinky
 

Re: Single parents.

Postby Silke » 21 Jul 2010, 13:29

pinky wrote:I guess the problem is that no one rarely gets charged when an underage person becomes pregnant. In Ireland the age of consent is 17 yet for those that have babies at 16 and under there appears no consequences for the father. Perhaps stricter use of the age of consent may make folk more responsible


no consequences for the father??? Say what??? as if that is the only thing to care about, how about the mother??? The whole of the responsibility isn't the fathers until the girl becomes of age and then the mothers! It is joined both situations, only barring rape and then it is the rapists responsibility regardless of gender! Is one of the two over age of consent then it is that persons responsibility, regardless of what is between their legs! I'm going to go cool off now and perhaps think straight again!.
User avatar
Silke
Brainiac Class Poster
Brainiac Class Poster
 
Posts: 2291
Joined: 07 Aug 2007, 04:41
Location: ??? guess I need to find out...

Re: Single parents.

Postby Silke » 21 Jul 2010, 16:20

Ok, I'm calm now. Sorry for the outburst, I'm sure it wasn't meant as I painted it.
User avatar
Silke
Brainiac Class Poster
Brainiac Class Poster
 
Posts: 2291
Joined: 07 Aug 2007, 04:41
Location: ??? guess I need to find out...

Re: Single parents.

Postby pinky » 21 Jul 2010, 17:19

lol I do think there should be consequences for both but as the law stands here at the moment it is easier(not neceassary right) to implement the consequences on the father if the girl is under 17. One would hope this would also have a secondary gain consequence for the mother in that if she knew her partner may be prosecuted she would be less likely to engage in unprotectes sex. I do agree more sex education is crucial for both genders and the whole area of parenting needs further elaboration at scholl. I mean what parent allows a 16 year old girl out in scant clothing til the late hours of the morning.
Soemtimes its easy to point the finger of blame but society as a whole needs a response. Children learn what they are taught and grow up to become adults based on their experience of parenting.
User avatar
pinky
 

Re: Single parents.

Postby Silke » 22 Jul 2010, 04:15

I just can't get past what values that reflect. what... ideas there are of men and women, girls and boys and how we all work. I'm sorry, but it is a long time since the pretty maiden didn't deal with her own dragon. To me this sounds just like "it is her own fault, going out dressed like that!" only in reverse. "Poor girl, she couldn't help it - she was simply overcome with his manliness. As she has no choice in the matter, let us punish him: he should have known better, taking advantage of a fragile creature like that!"

It sounds all 30ties and 40ties to me.
User avatar
Silke
Brainiac Class Poster
Brainiac Class Poster
 
Posts: 2291
Joined: 07 Aug 2007, 04:41
Location: ??? guess I need to find out...

Re: Single parents.

Postby pinky » 22 Jul 2010, 15:56

I don't thnk that at all Silke its just we have no other means here in Ireland to address the matter and we do have to work within the legislation we have whether we like it or not. In my view both are culpable 50 /50. It takes two people to make a baby and both should take responsibility not just for unwanted pregnancys but also for std's
User avatar
pinky
 

Re: Single parents.

Postby Ice.Maiden » 23 Jul 2010, 08:35

Some good points here, and if guys over 16 were prosecuted for having sex with under-age girls, it WOULD prevent a few pregnancies - but by no means all. Our laws are far too lax, however. On the other hand, who can put an age on when nature takes its course?
Our sex education includes all of the things you mentioned, Silke - how to put condoms on, the risks of catching variouis diseases and what they can do to the body, the pressure to respect each other, relationships and so on, but it STILL doesn't alter things.
Males are males though, be it boys or men, and I'm sorry, but I DO think that dressing scantily and trying to make yourself look older and more grown-up has some bearing on how a girl's going to be viewed.
It's all very well for us to say that we should be allowed to dress as we like, but the fact remains that attractiveness to a (particularly young) male concerns what the female looks like, and provocative dressing can raise the hormone levels.
Some guys are unfortunately unable to control themselves, and will rape a women to get what he wants, but over here, for some reason, young women seem to've lost respect for themselves, and simply respond to advances made to them, because they equate sex with being loved.
I think education has to go further than it is at present, and that parents and teachers both have a riole to play in this.
If young girls knew that they couldn't get state hand-outs until they were of a certain age, it'd probably help to make them think twice about getting pregnant. As it stands at the moment, all they have to do is move into a hostel for mums and babies for a short while, and at 18, they're given Council accomodation. If the woman has two or more children, the house can be better than those which'd take years for hard-working couples to save for.
A friend's daughter lives in a fairly new 4-bedroomed detached house with her 3 children. She doesn't work, doesn't have to pay any rent or Council Tax, and is free to date who she likes - so may produce another child soon. I don't think this is a good way of going on at all, but she doesn't seem to mind. She drives a car which her parents bought for her, and has every conceivable gadget and games consoles in her house - so why should she work? There's no incentive at all, and although she spasmodically receives money from the fathers of her children, she doesn't declare any of it, as that'd lower her weekly state payments. In fact, on all three birth certificates, she's put down the fathers as "unknown", with no thought to the consequences of how her children may feel about this when they're older. Sadly, they probably won't care, as this is how they're being brought up, and like'll probably follow like.
The mother's parents've tried their best to encourage their daughter to use some common sense, but from the girl's point of view - she IS. Why bother going out to work every day, when she can sit back and please herself - and get paid for it? This is why our system's so wrong Silke, but she, and thousands of young women like her, have the Human Rights brigade on their side. "You can't let these people and their childen starve; they need help to buy furniture and to put clothes on their childrens' backs...."
I'm all for giving help to those most in need, but NOT when it comes to scrounging - and openly bragging about it. The fake asylum seekers and other immigrants know they're onto a good thing as well. They only have to moan that their houses aren't big enough, or they don't like the area, and they're put into bigger and better places. It'd be impossible for normal working people to ever be able to afford the luxurious accomodation that some of them get, so if someone can tell me that my thinking's all wrong, then I'd like a feasible explanation. I don't mind our taxes being spent where it's going to do some good, but this situation isn't, and that's why I believe that the government needs to put its foot down, even if that's somehow seen as a dictatorship.
User avatar
Ice.Maiden
Golden Poster
Golden Poster
 
Posts: 70045
Joined: 14 Aug 2009, 23:31
Location: Peak District

Re: Single parents.

Postby pinky » 23 Jul 2010, 15:24

Soem very good points Ice. I was reading in the paper in Ireland today that teenage pregnancies have gone down here. Thank god
User avatar
pinky
 

Re: Single parents.

Postby Ice.Maiden » 23 Jul 2010, 20:40

That's cheering news hun. Do they have an explanation for this, or is it because birth control's now being spoken about more openly?
I don't think southern Ireland's ever had the quantity of teenage pregnancies that we have over here, although we have more people living here, and the fact that the predominantly- Catholic population still frown on this sort of thing - which I agree with.
Something has to be done, but without interfering with liberties, it's going to be almost impossible to halt the rise in young pregnancies.
It doesn't help that some parents - still quite young themselves, seem to condone or ignore what their children are getting up to. Does this mean that grandparents, brought up in the 50's and 60's failed in their duty as parents themselves to instill a sense of respect and morals, and therefore the rot was allowed to set in?
I was brought up strictly in some respects, but certainly made to understand that any activity resulting in a pregnancy before marriage or being settled with a partner wasn't acceptable, and therefore made sure that it didn't happen before I was able to cope.
There's always be mistakes and accidents, but not on the scale that we're seeing it now.
I DO think that maybe one of the reasons, is that our education system's been changed over the years. Children often find it boring, and with few jobs on offer when they leave, the alternative life's more appealing - until reality sets in.
Having a child and being able to live independently is atractive to some, who otherwise wouldn't do anything at all, and it's one way of escaping their lives at home.
User avatar
Ice.Maiden
Golden Poster
Golden Poster
 
Posts: 70045
Joined: 14 Aug 2009, 23:31
Location: Peak District

Re: Single parents.

Postby pinky » 24 Jul 2010, 16:59

i think yes yee seem to have a higher rate of teenage pregnancies that a lot of other nations. Seems the recession may have had an impact as well as better education
User avatar
pinky
 

Re: Single parents.

Postby Silke » 25 Jul 2010, 17:09

I didn't advocate that kind of rules, now did I ice?

So what kind of big lie do you think I'd need to get asylum over there...?
User avatar
Silke
Brainiac Class Poster
Brainiac Class Poster
 
Posts: 2291
Joined: 07 Aug 2007, 04:41
Location: ??? guess I need to find out...

Re: Single parents.

Postby pinky » 25 Jul 2010, 18:16

oh lol Silke just some sob story I am sure!!!
User avatar
pinky
 

PreviousNext

Return to Family Relations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron