Uh - ya lost me.

Its quite obvious.

Dude. If it was a man who stayed at home everyone would have treated the issue differently. But some dumb assed political Demoncratic Hack thought she would make political Hay out of the issue because Romney's wife was a stay at home mom. I know plenty of stay at home dads in the military. And if you told them they didn't know jack about the working world they would kick your ass. The dumb bitch that made that statement is a fool. Don't ever tell a stay at home mom she has no idea what she understands about the working world. Many work harder than some fool who goes off and tries to sell cars or advertising space everyday.

I find Mitt Romney's actions and words suggestive of it. Why else would he say what he said? Why would he turn to her for information on what women want? And the advice he got was kind of..it was just some fucking talking point made up by his campaign. Mitt Romney said of his interactions with is wife Ann:

What is she? His female-talk interpreter? The Woman Whisperer? I'll tell you what. We have lots of women here in the cellar. Think about what kinds of concerns they post about. Yes, they do post about the economy, but it's not anything like "their number one concern is the economy". Sometimes it's being proud of their kids, sometimes it's learning a new scream from her husband. Sometimes it's morning sickness or frustration with parents or spouses or kids. Or their jobs and cow orkers. I've been around here awhile and I haven't seen what Mitt says is being reported to him. Probably Ann is talking with a different group of women I talk with, sure.

Mitt's kind of a clumsy doofus with his words, and his words regarding women are no exception. You know, I can't find the quote from Mitt that started this. And that's too bad, but my memory of it is that he was touting his understanding of women's concerns by touting the fact that he talks to his wife, Ann. I got no problem with that, EXCEPT that I just don't see anything in her experience that makes me feel like Ann knows the stuff he thinks she knows about, or at least that he thinks she's telling him. It doesn't jive with MY experience about listening to what women are saying is their number one concern. Dammit, it's just dumb.

"Hi Ann, what is the number one concern of the women you're talking to?"

"Ann, what are those women you're talking to saying?"

And the answer is "It's the economy, stupid"? No. just... no.

But he's keenly aware of how the demographic he intends to serve live.

You know what, merc, I agree. Staying home to raise children is not the lazy, easy option. It's hard work, valuable work.

Which is why I feel so angry when politicians and rightwing correspondents focus their ire on single welfare moms. They're not 'sponging' they are staying home to raise their children.

Personally, I am in favour of paying a stayhome parenting benefit, equivalent to unemployment benefit, and lasting until the youngest child reaches ten years old.

That gets my vote!

It's kind of a bad idea to pay people to have babies they would not otherwise want. Stupid women already deliberately have extra babies because they can get a new set of child support payments from BabyDaddy #4. Meanwhile, the reason there are so many shitty and abusive foster parents in the system is because there is the lure of taking a kid on for the money.

That is a popular urban believe. Where are facts that support that claim with numbers?

In my whole life I have met two women who deliberately had children to avoid going back to work. One told me candidly that she loved being a mother, had no work experience and qualifications and was therefore a better Mum than she was a worker. I disagreed, but kept my mouth shut. She was a drinker and a brawler. Hence my opinion and my reason for not expressing it. She had three children, so not excessive.

The other was my boyfriend's ex, who chose to stop birth control once her first son (not his) went to pre-school. He swore she trapped him this way, but admitted he knew she'd come off the pill and carried on having sex anyway. He was too stupid to keep in the long run - she moved on as did I, I can't be doing with men who abandon their children.

If you have personal experience of women who squeeze out babies for benefits Clod, then I'd be interested to hear it. As I say, of all the hundreds of pregnant women I've known, only two have been thus afflicted. I don't count the ones I read about in the Hate Mail.

Duplicate post

yeah...I hear that a lot myself. But have found very little evidence of it in the world around me.

They used to say it when I was a kid too. Because back then there really was a council house or flat ready for you if you had a baby. I knew a few girls who had babies when we were teens. One of them, a lass called Donna, was 15 when she realised she was pregnant. She was thrilled. And yes, being able to get a flat was part of why she was thrilled. It would, in her words, get her away from her mum and dad's house, where she was woefully unhappy. But it wasnt why she had the baby. And it wasnt the only reason she was thrilled.

The particular demographic who might rely on such housing if they have a baby are also statistically likely to have had family breakdowns and a chaotic homelife. For a young lass in that situiation a baby can mean a lot of things, including something that is truly 'their own'.


very few of us do anything major in our lives because of a single solitary motivation. Even those for whom extra beneifts or a social house are part of their rationale, will have other reasons all mixed up in there. Including, potentially, the notion that this is what you do as a grownup. This is how you mark yourself an adult: you have a baby and you get your house and you're all set in the grownup world.

Just as an aside, I also think that, given the paltry amount of help these girls actually receive from the State (bad in the uk, but at least they get actual currency not just food stamps), anybody who actually chooses that as a better option in life deserves our pity and sympathy.

The Government is not the answer. AND tax payer dollars should not support those who choose to stay home. This is not a country the size of Rhode Island.... It is not feasible. The bottom line is stop demonizing those who have the choice.

That means religious extremists and the Tea Party disagree with you. They are anti-choice. They will even say that god tells us all what to do. Choice is advocated by evil liberals - according to them. When did you and they have a falling out?