Reply to: Harman at it again.

[expat]

Dodgy I agree 100% - just to be clear, I'm far from sure Harperson is right about this, but seeing some of the antediluvian views expressed here it would seem we have a way to go. As usual this many government thinks the answer is making another manky law, which it isn't.

And as usual this government sees people only as cogs in their machine.

What about the white man who is passed over because of his race and gender, how is he supposed to feel? That it's only fair?

Yes, the women, and the black and asian men, are still often victims of unfair discrimination. I fail to see how adding more unfair discrimination will make this right. It is treating all people as numbers, not as individual people.

[EternalOptimist]

Car doesn't disappear when you use it.

You've not met my wife have you

[Lucy]

ok well explain this then. 'You can't have your car and drive it'


doesn't make sense does it ?

Car doesn't disappear when you use it.

[EternalOptimist]

Let me just clear that up:
You can't have your cake and eat it.

Have refers to the possesive, so if you eat your cake, you no longer have it do you?
That saying does tend to confuse a lot of the more, challenged, members of society.

ok well explain this then. 'You can't have your car and drive it'


doesn't make sense does it ?

[ace00]

I've never understood that, what's the point of having cake if you're not going to eat it? Of course you'd do both.

Let me just clear that up:
You can't have your cake and eat it.

Have refers to the possesive, so if you eat your cake, you no longer have it do you?
That saying does tend to confuse a lot of the more, challenged, members of society.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

I'm not relying on a state-funded pension for my retirement, are you?

That may well be the case, or not, I would like to have the choice, not be forced to pay for it.

BTW my parents paid for my education.

You will be relying on others (as you do now) for plenty of other general infrastructural provision though. The idea that you can personally hypothecate your tax is nuts.

[ratewhore]

As I see it, the government does more than enough to support child-rearing...

You're quite right of course, particularly if you are a single mother. Check the benefits system out and see how much better they do than a 2 parent family.

[dang65]

BTW my parents paid for my education.

But they presumably didn't pay for the education of the thousands of people you encounter throughout your life who are able to read and write and add two numbers together, let alone look after your health, repair your car, fly you away on holiday, complete your tax returns, provide you with electricity and gas etc etc.

We'd be in a bit of a mess if we relied on private education to train up all those people.

The wealthy do rely on the poor, you know, vulgar as that may sound to you.

[Diver]

Bet they regret the waste of money now

Stopit!! it hurts

[sasguru]

BTW my parents paid for my education.

Bet they regret the waste of money now

[Lucy]

I guess in a few years time those children won't think they should be forced to pay for your pension. It all goes round.

The money you pay towards other people's childcare and education is of benefit to you in the end, as was all the tax previous generations paid towards your own care and education.

I'm not relying on a state-funded pension for my retirement, are you?

That may well be the case, or not, I would like to have the choice, not be forced to pay for it.

BTW my parents paid for my education.

[dang65]

As I see it, the government does more than enough to support child-rearing, I don't think I should be forced to pay for other people to have children looked after while they work.

I guess in a few years time those children won't think they should be forced to pay for your pension. It all goes round.

The money you pay towards other people's childcare and education is of benefit to you in the end, as was all the tax previous generations paid towards your own care and education.

[DodgyAgent]

Fair enough, but this is my bug-bear. Why does our value system value working higher than bringing up children? I think that that is crazy.

This comes from someone that doesn't have any children of their own, and doesn't even like them that much.

Human Beings have become the most successful animals on the planet over the past 200,000 years. I rate that more highly than the past 40 years of tinkering.

If only it were as simple as a straight choice between career and bringing up children. For a start the two are not diametrically opposed, infact many mothers who work are better mothers than those who stay at home looking after the kids. Secondly women often need to work because they need the money with which to send their kids to for example a decent school (mrs DA is one such individual).

Without wishing to sound superior (which I am anyway ) but you cannot possibly understand anything on the subject of children unless you have children of your own.

[Lucy]

Don't get me wrong, I am all for choice, and I abhor all discrimination, on all grounds.

But it seems to me, that as a society, we have come to devalue the role of being a mother who brings up children, and made it subserviant to having a career.

I think that that is a bit of a wrong turn.

It is not a popular idea clearly, and hasn't been for a while, but I think that aspiring to be someone that focuses on bringing up a family, is infinately more valuable than dedicating their life to doing stuff with computers.

I disagree that we should take thinking the opposite is the optimum way around for granted.

How would you change it, other than having your own family and supporting your wife to stay at home?

As I see it, the government does more than enough to support child-rearing, I don't think I should be forced to pay for other people to have children looked after while they work.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'society', do what ever you like, but don't expect anyone else to pay for it.

[Gonzo]

Gonz, I don't see any evidence of this, I am all for self-responsiblity and freedom of choice, the women who choose work and choose children often do it because they want a lot more than women from previous generations. I think chasing material success is another story, but, ultimately it is a choice, and more importantly women don't have to work in the areas that are rife with bullies and boys clubs.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for choice, and I abhor all discrimination, on all grounds.

But it seems to me, that as a society, we have come to devalue the role of being a mother who brings up children, and made it subserviant to having a career.

I think that that is a bit of a wrong turn.

It is not a popular idea clearly, and hasn't been for a while, but I think that aspiring to be someone that focuses on bringing up a family, is infinately more valuable than dedicating their life to doing stuff with computers.

I disagree that we should take thinking the opposite is the optimum way around for granted.