Who on here doesn't have children?

[Old Hack]

You keep talking about these situations about 'putting them first'. Well, what if faced chosing between two of your own then? Who do you put first?

It's an artificial narrative. I put my stepdaughters before any adult because children have greater needs than adults do. There are a few things I would do very differently if I didn't have stepdaughters - such as move to a different town, as I'd feel it may provide my own daughter with more opportunities in life than this place. But we're tied to the region, because every now and then their heartless and indifferent biological mother desires to see them and I'm not going to interfere with that. So I can't put my daughter before them in that instance. And I'm okay with that. If you get involved with someone with 'baggage' (as people like to phrase it), you learn pretty quickly that it's never going to work out unless you align your priorities with that of the biological parent. You just grow into that.

Oh dear, you really have utterly no idea of what is about to happen to you love.

[formant]

If women want equality in the workplace then men need equality in the home.

Currently the UK family courts (supported by the government) treat women, by default, as the better person and thus women don't deserve equal rights in the workplace.

HTH

FTFY

I agree by the way. Equality must go both ways. I have a lot of experience of the injustice and maternal-bias of UK family law. It's seriously messed up. In contrast, I have no experience of being disadvantaged in the workplace on the grounds of sex discrimination, though I'm sure it exists. Both need to change radically.

[BrilloPad]

Your pontificating about how you feel about children, life with children is a joke, and is all about to be shredded up and changed completely. You have utterly no idea about the train crash thats coming to your life as you know it.

If you had read the Instruction Manual that comes with the kids it would have been easier.

Also you should have tried keeping the packaging that the baby comes in.

I am told my daughter will get better once she starts to sulk in her room - despite my hints she has not managed it yet.

And of course having disabled kids makes it alot worse. I wish I had to good natured child like Spod's. Of course even Spod and CM will tell you that even the best natured child is hard hard work.

[BrilloPad]

FTFY

Its a good point. We need Muslim laws where girls and boys under 7 stay with mum. Boys 7 and over stay with dad. Alot easier.

[formant]

I don't know, I just don't. I have my own kids. If my wife and I split up and I met someone else with their own kids. I know, from the getgo, I wouldn't love the kids as I love my own, I may grow to, buit I doubt it. I would always, even if subconciously, put them first.

You "may". So it is possible after all? Or only for you, and even then it's unlikely? What is it now? Basically you have no idea about what it's like to live with children that aren't biologically yours and treat them as though they were (not even addressing the 'love' part here). So you're the one who's making blanket statements and assumptions out of complete ignorance. Glad you finally admitted that.

[formant]

The thing is, you are pretty disparaging about such a set up and you refer to your partner as 'better' than that. So, you either feel that a traditionalist setup is offensive or sub-standard. I'm curious to know which it is.

For many people, the option of sharing child care just isn't feasible in the way that it is for you. Some people have to work away for long periods of time, others work too far away to be able to do get children to school and pick them up afterward, there are lots of reasons - usually, cold hearted practicality - why a sole-carer and sole worker model are adopted within a family environment. Given that that is the case, I fail to see how you can identify your family model as being 'better'. It's not; it's just different.

Where the traditionalist setup is a choice, I do find it somewhat sub-standard. I don't think the world needs more validation in numbers about how women should be nothing but mothers and men need to be the breadwinning type.

And for every couple where sharing childrearing responsibilities truly isn't feasible, there's one where it's just slightly less convenient, or one where one party just isn't interested. Oh, and one where the man just so happens to have picked themselves a partner with an earning potential below 20k/pa. In that case, factoring in the outrageous cost of childcare, the woman really does have little choice but to stay at home, particularly if there's more than one child below school-age.

Involvement also doesn't equal being physically around more, just to clarify that. You can have deeply involved full-time working parents.

I've had a part-time and later full-time working mother and a full-time working father, both on similar income levels. I grew up being a lot closer to my dad, although no doubt my mother was 'around' more.

[Old Hack]

You "may". So it is possible after all? Or only for you, and even then it's unlikely? What is it now? Basically you have no idea about what it's like to live with children that aren't biologically yours and treat them as though they were (not even addressing the 'love' part here). So you're the one who's making blanket statements and assumptions out of complete ignorance. Glad you finally admitted that.

No, I was being honest, in that I don't know, as I don't. You see, that's the whole point of my argument. You have utterly no idea what it is like to have your own children, and how it alters how your whole world is. Not an idea. Me, I am realistic enough to know I do have children, and know how much it has changed me as a person, and my life as a whole. I do not know what it is like to live with other children not my own, so have admitted I don't know.

I can't wait to see what you're like after going through childbirth, of your own child, and then nursing it as it relys solely on you for a good 6-9 months. Then, and only then, will any thing you say be taken with anything other than a sceptical pinch of salt.

You honestly have no idea about how your whole life is about to be completely turned upside down. Ahead of our first born, with about 14 weeks to go, we spent a month on the beach in Thailand 'preparing' for life with a child. The kicker is, that you can't.

You really are dense.

This is Gentile and I claim my £5, although I doubt anyone were foolish enough to mate with her, so the pregnancy might be a spoof.

[Old Hack]

Where the traditionalist setup is a choice, I do find it somewhat sub-standard. I don't think the world needs more validation in numbers about how women should be nothing but mothers and men need to be the breadwinning type.

And for every couple where sharing childrearing responsibilities truly isn't feasible, there's one where it's just slightly less convenient, or one where one party just isn't interested. Oh, and one where the man just so happens to have picked themselves a partner with an earning potential below 20k/pa. In that case, factoring in the outrageous cost of childcare, the woman really does have little choice but to stay at home, particularly if there's more than one child below school-age.

Involvement also doesn't equal being physically around more, just to clarify that. You can have deeply involved full-time working parents.

I've had a part-time and later full-time working mother and a full-time working father, both on similar income levels. I grew up being a lot closer to my dad, although no doubt my mother was 'around' more.

Jeez, the hatred is coming out now.

[Lockhouse]

And again, that's cool. But you'll never know Lockhouse.

You can't possibly know how I feel OH.

[Old Hack]

You can't possibly know how I feel OH.

But I can Lockhouse, for you don't have your own children, so you can't possibly know. Surely you can see that?