Jobless mother-of-10 vows to keep having more babies

[ladyaudley]

And you know what? All of us who work? The vast majority of those things we do too. So do we have two jobs?

you do in my eyes, yes.

but I'm fine with the term occupation :)

[moodygirl86]

I hate articles like this with a passion. I completely agree that this is just another attempt by the Daily Fail to say, "see, this is what unemployed people are like". As others have pointed out, anybody in the UK with children under 18 can get child benefit, and her husband is the main breadwinner. If anything, they're the Daily Seig Heil's idea of the nuclear family that was the norm back in the Good Old Days, y'know, before all that pesky equal-opportunities-for-all destroyed their 1950s style utopia. So what's their fucking problem?

The other week, that bloke who went down for torching his kids to death was referred to as "jobless Mick Philpott". Just call him Mick Philpott! Being unemployed isn't what made him a murderer, being an evil bastard is.

[bananacat]

what would you call it then? an occupation? because it is a way of spending one's time on things other than leisure. The OED definition for job is "1. a paid position of regular employment (which I agree it's not) 2. a task or piece of work (which is most certainly is)"

So I'm gonna go ahead and keep calling it a job.

Being a mother is just part of life, for women who have kids. Just like being a father isn't a job, it's just part of life.

[Mama Mia]

I wouldn't even describe Michelle as a housewife as she seems to do f* all.

Being an at-home parent is a job - the worst paying one in the world, maybe - but it's a job (provided of course you're looking after children etc and not just hangin' out).

The Daily Fail likes to bring these stories to you once or twice a year to keep up the "welfare queen" myth and stir up the Mommy wars.

Truthfully, I do not get this argument of it being "the worst paying job in the world " -- if you are home with your kids someone is paying for your food, clothing, shelter, health care, leisure activities and so on. The level you receive of each of those things will vary greatly depending on the income coming in to pay for them, but someone is paying for that to happen. So how is it the "worst paying job in the world " ?

I have nothing against stay at home parents, and would have loved to have been one, I think it's fantastic for the children and the family as a whole -- BUT -- I really, really, hate the impression that is thrown out that they are more overworked/underpaid than anyone else.

[alba]

I hate articles like this with a passion. I completely agree that this is just another attempt by the Daily Fail to say, "see, this is what unemployed people are like". As others have pointed out, anybody in the UK with children under 18 can get child benefit, and her husband is the main breadwinner. If anything, they're the Daily Seig Heil's idea of the nuclear family that was the norm back in the Good Old Days, y'know, before all that pesky equal-opportunities-for-all destroyed their 1950s style utopia. So what's their fucking problem?

The other week, that bloke who went down for torching his kids to death was referred to as "jobless Mick Philpott". Just call him Mick Philpott! Being unemployed isn't what made him a murderer, being an evil bastard is.

Yeah, pretty sure George Osborne himself said it was because he was on benefits. Maybe we should sue them for defamation :P

[Sola]

This woman is horrible! I have no words!

Why?

[moodygirl86]

Had to go and look. What a vile man Osbourne is, using dead kids to try and score political points.

[snarktastic]

Another thing occurs to me - if you're getting Attendance Allowance as this woman is for one of her kids, isn't that something that they only give out if you're looking after someone that's so disabled that they need a full time carer? So in other words, even if she only had that one child, she wouldn't really be in a position to go out and get a job.

If her husband wasn't a low earner, the Fail would be making her out to be a saintly heroine devoting her life to her family and far better than those horrible mothers who WORK.

[alba]

Another thing occurs to me - if you're getting Attendance Allowance as this woman is for one of her kids, isn't that something that they only give out if you're looking after someone that's so disabled that they need a full time carer? So in other words, even if she only had that one child, she wouldn't really be in a position to go out and get a job.

If her husband wasn't a low earner, the Fail would be making her out to be a saintly heroine devoting her life to her family and far better than those horrible mothers who WORK.

So true.

[Sola]

Another thing occurs to me - if you're getting Attendance Allowance as this woman is for one of her kids, isn't that something that they only give out if you're looking after someone that's so disabled that they need a full time carer? So in other words, even if she only had that one child, she wouldn't really be in a position to go out and get a job.

If her husband wasn't a low earner, the Fail would be making her out to be a saintly heroine devoting her life to her family and far better than those horrible mothers who WORK.

Basically yes. Although it will be Disability Living Allowance, not Attendance. Attendance is for the over 65s. DLA is NOT easy to get either. My daughter gets it and I had to fill a 58 page form which examined every aspect of her life and provide numerous pieces of evidence from various medical professionals to get it for her. You cannot get it just for having a rowdy kid or one who is a bit out of control through crappy parenting, despite what the daily fail would have people believe. If she gets DLA for one of her kids she will have had to jump through a load of hoops to get it and getting DLA does open up tax credits. We get a disabled child allowance on TCs so that might be what she gets. Having a disabled child might be what pushes her under the tax credits threshold.

If you actually read the article this mother doesnt' say anything about 'demanding' a bigger council house - she's in private rented anyway. But even if she did apply for rehousing, that doesn't mean she 'demanded' a house.

Her husband has a job, she is a carer and they live in rented accommodation. So fucking what? The only part I find questionable is her desire to have fertility treatment if she can't conceive. Though even then I am sceptical that she said that - this is the daily fail after all. Not exactly a bastion of truth. I would very much doubt that any primary care trust would refer her for fertility treatment, although they might investigate why she wasn't conceiving. Fertility treatments on the NHS are for the childless or those with only one child. There isn't a primary care trust in the UK that would give her IVF for example, on the NHS.

[badmath]

Does that go for multiples and adopted kids too?

For multiples not conceived naturally, yes. Adoption, no.

[formergothardite]

China will be perfect for you then. Any reason for your beliefs?

[rollmeover]

Isn't this a case where the mantra "her body, her choice" comes into play?

[formergothardite]

What is someone has a third child and can't afford the tax? Do you force an abortion, take the child from them and put it up for adoption. Throw the parents in jail?

[badmath]

Move to China? ;)

Lol, I know my view on this is a little harsh, but it's just a personal view. I don't see the need in this day and age to have a slew of children... and I think at some point it becomes selfish and irresponsible, putting unneeded stress on our resources. I don't believe in the extremity of putting a cap on the number of children people can have, but I also don't think they should get assistance for every additional child.

[Salamander]

Lol, I know my view on this is a little harsh, but it's just a personal view. I don't see the need in this day and age to have a slew of children... and I think at some point it becomes selfish and irresponsible, putting unneeded stress on our resources. I don't believe in the extremity of putting a cap on the number of children people can have, but I also don't think they should get assistance for every additional child.

I'm just trying to understand your position here...In your world, is it that parents with more than two children would be taxed for each additional child, or that they wouldn't receive government assistance for any child over the limit? Isn't either of those options a de facto cap on the number of children people have, and one that disproportionately impacts poorer families?

[formergothardite]

And if the poor parents have more than two children, what happens to those children if the parents have to pay and additional tax PLUS they will get no extra assistance for those children? Are the children going to be allowed to starve and suffer? Are the parents going to be forced to give up the children to the government? Are poor women with two children be forced to have abortions? It is easy to say, well people should be taxed if they have more than two kids and those kids don't get assitance, but it is harder to look at what that really means.

[yewchapel]

Another thing occurs to me - if you're getting Attendance Allowance as this woman is for one of her kids, isn't that something that they only give out if you're looking after someone that's so disabled that they need a full time carer? So in other words, even if she only had that one child, she wouldn't really be in a position to go out and get a job.

If her husband wasn't a low earner, the Fail would be making her out to be a saintly heroine devoting her life to her family and far better than those horrible mothers who WORK.

Attendance Allowance is for carers, yes. My grandma's husband received it when she was in a wheelchair and couldn't dress or wash herself. I *think* it differs from Carer's Allowance in that it goes on top of benefits already being claimed as opposed to being the main benefit, so my grandma's husband had Attendance Allowance on top of his State Pension.

[CuriosityMuseum]

Lol, I know my view on this is a little harsh, but it's just a personal view. I don't see the need in this day and age to have a slew of children... and I think at some point it becomes selfish and irresponsible, putting unneeded stress on our resources. I don't believe in the extremity of putting a cap on the number of children people can have, but I also don't think they should get assistance for every additional child.

You do realise that the assistance is for the children, to keep them clothed and fed? It isn't leisure money for the parents. People really don't live the high life on benefits, especially those with kids.

[ILoveJellybeans]

I dont have any problem with people having large families. I actually would love to have a large family (depending on how easy I find caring for the first few future children, and also things like income...although it is incredibly likely that mine will be adopted) and think that as long as the parents can look after them, provide for them and give each child individual attention, theres no problem at all.

The story sounds way worse than it is when you consider that although the mom is unemployed, the dad of the kids works. Its not like theyre both unemployed and not making any attempt to earn money. Theyre also only getting benefits that most people are entitled to, and the amount of money they do get isnt actually that much considering they have 10 kids. I imagine most of that money is taken up with feeding the kids.

[duplessis3]

If any of the work the mother was doing was performed by others, it would be a "job", so why isn't it an unpaid job for the mother? (or father or whatever?)

And the two children- what if dad has two kids with someone else, and then has a second partner with none? Anyway, sounds like a lovely totalitarian state, and a recipe for infanticide.

[tropaka]

If any of the work the mother was doing was performed by others, it would be a "job", so why isn't it an unpaid job for the mother? (or father or whatever?)

That's how I look at it - if I wasn't home looking after children, I'd be paying others to look after them while I worked outside the home.

This is irking me today because my husband and I got into it last night over dinner - I asked if he had any ideas/wanted to cook and he said no even though I said I was tired etc. His comment was "try working". Bastard.

[treemom]

If any of the work the mother was doing was performed by others, it would be a "job", so why isn't it an unpaid job for the mother? (or father or whatever?)

And the two children- what if dad has two kids with someone else, and then has a second partner with none? Anyway, sounds like a lovely totalitarian state, and a recipe for infanticide.

Because it is what you do when you are parent. I am in the sandwich generation. That isn't a job either

[treemom]

That's how I look at it - if I wasn't home looking after children, I'd be paying others to look after them while I worked outside the home.

This is irking me today because my husband and I got into it last night over dinner - I asked if he had any ideas/wanted to cook and he said no even though I said I was tired etc. His comment was "try working". Bastard.

I would not at all say the try working thing. If anything my point is that by insisting it is a job we are trying to fancy it up, when we don't need to it. Parenting stands on its own. We shouldn't have to call it a job to respect and appreciate the works parents do.

[alba]

I was reading about the new benefit caps and it made me think of this woman. The new caps are at £350 for single people and £500 for parents, families and couples, regardless of how many children. If she's currently getting £30 000 a year in benefits, that's £576.92 a week. If it's being capped at £500 a week, her yearly benefits will drop by nearly £4000. Having another child won't change that, whatever the Daily Fail thinks, it will just mean that her husband's income and the family's benefits will be stretched more thinly.

On the bright side, the family's not at risk of succumbing to the bedroom tax.