The Childless Seem to be Forgotten

[roddma]

This isn't a complaint or sadness, but an observation. While parents and human rights/feminist groups argue about fairness in the workplace, paid maternity leave, cloth diapers, car seats,the right formula, etc there is a forgotten group of us -the childless/child-free. Even the ones child-free by choice say they often feel left out of the human race especially women. I used to be baby crazy TTC , but the child-free have opened up my eyes to other ideas. It made me question my own motifs for wanting kids. It's nice to read about others perspectives and how it impacts them socially we never grew up with. Everyone was just expected to be married and a parent at some point. I think this still reigns true today. Even with the rise in childless/child-free, they can seem like an anomaly. I apologize for sounding like a Debbie Downer, but I feel my some of my own gender fails to see not everyone wants or can have kids.

[DGayle]

Maternity leave had been replaced by the Family Medical Leave Act, which you can take for yourself or any member of your family. Brother, mother, whatever. Only California pays you for it. Looking at leave post-birth pragmatically, the body is recovering. A lot of women have to go back to work within days because they can't afford unpaid time off. That slows production for everyone and can decrease workplace safety and even increase medical costs if she ends up injured because she really wasn't physically well enough to be back at work.

When the norm was get married and have kids, even if you didn't like it, the norm was also for a parent to stay home. When kids are left to fend for themselves, they get in more trouble, which is detrimental to society. The talk about making workplaces more friendly to families with kids is really about how to replace the supervision children used to have. It's not feasible to say people should all just stop having kids unless they can afford one person to stay home all the time. It's also a bad idea to say that families with kids should just let their kids run free while all the adults are working.

You will personally benefit from other people having kids, so you have a vested interest in kids growing up to be responsible adults. Who will provide your medical care when you're 80? The kid of someone else. Who will respond if you need to call 911? Someone else's kid. You should want workplaces to enable the parents who are raising the kids who will take care of your tomorrow to be able to monitor their kids as needed so they don't turn into law-breaking, drug-addicted hooligans.

Kids are a necessary part of society, one of the most vulnerable parts, and we need to make sure every part has what is needed to thrive. Someone must have the kids. Since we all will benefit later, we all have an obligation to help a make sure those kids thrive. I thought this even when I wasn't sure if I wanted the responsibility of being a mom, and I still feel that way. If anything, my heart aches more now because I'm seeing parents who have to work 2 or 3 jobs to make ends meet while their little kids are left home alone (and those kids aren't exactly doing so good), and if those parents quit work to be there for their kids, they'd have to get welfare, and then they'd be called leached. Fucked if they do, fucked if they don't. Is it going to be cheaper and better for us to let those kids become outright criminals because their parents wouldn't supervise them, and then pay or prisons later, or to make sure their parents can be there when needed so that those kids can grow up to be productive, tax-paying members of society? We're going to pay, one way or the other.

I don't have any idea what discussion in parent groups over diapers and car seats has to do with you. Is the problem just that this is a topic you've got no interest in, so you're left out? I'm sure you have conversations with your friends that I'd have nothing to say about, but I'm not going to talk about being left out.

So give some examples of the real-world struggles of people without kids. You might pay an extra percent or two in taxes, which doesn't hold a candle to the cost of raising kids. So what struggles are there that you want society to start talking about? How unfair it is that other people with kids have topics to talk about? I really can't think of anything we as a society need to discuss. You don't have to worry about childcare, the crappy quality of schools, the lack of support for moms who breastfeed so that a lot turn to crappy, expensive formula, the bullying, or anything else. You don't need to try scheduling time off for parent-teacher conferences, and can take vacations without worrying about someone to watch the kids or adding a lot of money to drag them a long. You and your partner(s) can have sex without worrying about a light-sleeping kid walking in quietly and jumping on you. So what are the unique struggles childfree people have that society needs to be aware of?

[roddma]

Maternity leave had been replaced by the Family Medical Leave Act, which you can take for yourself or any member of your family. Brother, mother, whatever. Only California pays you for it. Looking at leave post-birth pragmatically, the body is recovering. A lot of women have to go back to work within days because they can't afford unpaid time off. That slows production for everyone and can decrease workplace safety and even increase medical costs if she ends up injured because she really wasn't physically well enough to be back at work.

When the norm was get married and have kids, even if you didn't like it, the norm was also for a parent to stay home. When kids are left to fend for themselves, they get in more trouble, which is detrimental to society. The talk about making workplaces more friendly to families with kids is really about how to replace the supervision children used to have. It's not feasible to say people should all just stop having kids unless they can afford one person to stay home all the time. It's also a bad idea to say that families with kids should just let their kids run free while all the adults are working.

You will personally benefit from other people having kids, so you have a vested interest in kids growing up to be responsible adults. Who will provide your medical care when you're 80? The kid of someone else. Who will respond if you need to call 911? Someone else's kid. You should want workplaces to enable the parents who are raising the kids who will take care of your tomorrow to be able to monitor their kids as needed so they don't turn into law-breaking, drug-addicted hooligans.

Kids are a necessary part of society, one of the most vulnerable parts, and we need to make sure every part has what is needed to thrive. Someone must have the kids. Since we all will benefit later, we all have an obligation to help a make sure those kids thrive. I thought this even when I wasn't sure if I wanted the responsibility of being a mom, and I still feel that way. If anything, my heart aches more now because I'm seeing parents who have to work 2 or 3 jobs to make ends meet while their little kids are left home alone (and those kids aren't exactly doing so good), and if those parents quit work to be there for their kids, they'd have to get welfare, and then they'd be called leached. Fucked if they do, fucked if they don't. Is it going to be cheaper and better for us to let those kids become outright criminals because their parents wouldn't supervise them, and then pay or prisons later, or to make sure their parents can be there when needed so that those kids can grow up to be productive, tax-paying members of society? We're going to pay, one way or the other.

I don't have any idea what discussion in parent groups over diapers and car seats has to do with you. Is the problem just that this is a topic you've got no interest in, so you're left out? I'm sure you have conversations with your friends that I'd have nothing to say about, but I'm not going to talk about being left out.

So give some examples of the real-world struggles of people without kids. You might pay an extra percent or two in taxes, which doesn't hold a candle to the cost of raising kids. So what struggles are there that you want society to start talking about? How unfair it is that other people with kids have topics to talk about? I really can't think of anything we as a society need to discuss. You don't have to worry about childcare, the crappy quality of schools, the lack of support for moms who breastfeed so that a lot turn to crappy, expensive formula, the bullying, or anything else. You don't need to try scheduling time off for parent-teacher conferences, and can take vacations without worrying about someone to watch the kids or adding a lot of money to drag them a long. You and your partner(s) can have sex without worrying about a light-sleeping kid walking in quietly and jumping on you. So what are the unique struggles childfree people have that society needs to be aware of?

No one is calling for anyone to stop having kids. I know someone needs to have kids. Some of us can't choose to have kids and if they do choose to be child-free, they just want fair treatment. A parent has a kid. They deal with the after the fact. There are kids have the best life and still turn out criminals. It seems society ignores you if you are no longer productive in society or not part of the accepted society. Not everyone is going to benefit us when they grow up. The topic of childless paying more taxes has been discuss. It's unfair to us. We pay enough in taxes as everyone else. FYI I haven't been on a vacation in 14 years. My husband's been doing odd jobs and myself freelance writing to make money. What you described could very well fit someone who has to take care of an elderly parent or relative-crappy nursing homes, elder abuse,scheduling time for yourself, concerned who is going to watch over their care while you work( Believe me they can be worse than a child. )Then there are people with no kids who have disabilities, cancer,mental issues . P.S. Yes, married, childless couples can be' interrupted' quite frequently. Bottom line -My life is not "Sex in the City". Most of us do not have it made as in the common stereotypes.

[louisa05]

No one is calling for anyone to stop having kids. I know someone needs to have kids. Some of us can't choose to have kids and if they do choose to be child-free, they just want fair treatment. A parent has a kid. They deal with the after the fact. There are kids have the best life and still turn out criminals. It seems society ignores you if you are no longer productive in society or not part of the accepted society. Not everyone is going to benefit us when they grow up. The topic of childless paying more taxes has been discuss. It's unfair to us. We pay enough in taxes as everyone else. FYI I haven't been on a vacation in 14 years. My husband's been doing odd jobs and myself freelance writing to make money. What you described could very well fit someone who has to take care of an elderly parent or relative-crappy nursing homes, elder abuse,scheduling time for yourself, concerned who is going to watch over their care while you work( Believe me they can be worse than a child. )Then there are people with no kids who have disabilities, cancer,mental issues . P.S. Yes, married, childless couples can be' interrupted' quite frequently. Bottom line -My life is not "Sex in the City". Most of us do not have it made as in the common stereotypes.

Roddma, you make a lot of good points. Another issue is that childless people are often forced to pick up the slack in the workplace. At both schools I taught full time at, teachers without children were pressured to do more extra work--take on more extracurricular activities, more unpaid duties (such as supervising and assisting at athletic events, Saturday school or detentions), and do more extra (again unpaid) hours of tutoring. Some teachers with children were allowed to do NONE of those things as well as being allowed to skip "mandatory" events like awards nights or graduation and even to leave stuff like parent-teacher conferences early.

My biggest issue with being childless is that so many women treat me like I am an idiot. I've been told that it must be nice to not know how to do laundry, to not have to cook, to never have any obligations, and been point blank told that I know nothing about children. I have worked with kids in one way or another since I was in college. I was changing my cousins's diapers before some of these women were born to tell me that I don't know how to change one. And, lord, the vacation thing...I don't know who the hell these childless people taking all the vacations are, but the only people on my FB feed taking fancy vacations actually have young children. Yet, somehow, that is the number one assumption made about childless couples--going so far as people saying we don't have kids because we want to be able to afford these vacations. Meanwhile, I haven't been on a vacation longer than four days since 2002 and have never been on a real vacation with my husband. We are childless because one or the other of us has been unemployed or underemployed since we got engaged. It would be grossly financially irresponsible of us to have a child that we cannot support yet somehow that gets turned into us being stupid, helpless, selfish people who spend every summer in Europe or something. :angry-banghead:

[Cran]

I AM a selfish childless person. I see nothing wrong with that. People who think they can meddle with my family planning are being told to STFU. And if people try the "You know nothing about children" on me, I tell them: "Judging from the behaviour of your child, you know nothing about them, either...". In most cases, this is, of course, a blatant falsehood, but it does work.

While I have experienced myself parents, especially mothers, getting preferential treatment for holidays (kids out of school) and not having to take over much extra duties, I've also seen them being NOT promoted... I wouldn't call that fair, either.

But of course, I'd really go mad if I had to pay extra taxes. :lol: People without children, especially if they are not married, pay a higher percentage in many countries, anyway, and do not receive benefits for their children, so I think my duty to the solidary community has been fulfilled.

Taxes shouldn't be used to punish people for life choices. And what about people who can't have children, religous people with vows of celibacy? Nah, not going to happen.

I do not think child-free people experience injustice in any way, but can receive quite a lot of pressure from acquaintances and family, but so do people who have a lot of children. No matter what choices you make, some people will not agree. Not inviting people to share their opinion on life choices and giving no heed to them if they do it anyway works in surprisingly many situations.

[Emkay]

I do have to laugh. As a childless woman of 'a certain age' (I'll be 30 this year), I've noticed certain people at work are either asking me why I'm not married and having kids (one of my super traditional female supervisors, who I generally ignore because of most of the things that come out of her mouth), or they side-eye me like I'm going to announce I'm pregnant and taking 12 weeks maternity leave at any moment.

[Toothfairy]

People complain when you have kids and complain when you don't. Who cares if a couple is childless. Not everyone wants children. I know plenty of couples one whom been married for 16years with no kids. Their family doesn't agree. The wife's sister had trouble conceiving and feels "hurt" Their pets are their "babies" It's not a requirement to have kids. And just because you have them it doesn't mean anything. I always hear from people with kids saying they feel sorry for childless couples and that they're selfish. :roll: How do you know if your child is going to care for you when your older? Having kids is no guarantee in life.

[Maggie Mae]

As a person without children who has worked a long line of jobs, I have to say, that yeah, the people with families get special treatment. Who gets priority for holidays? Those with kids or stepkids. When I worked at a restaurant, I specifically asked, as condition of hire, for certain days/times off. They would call me in on my days off (I had class or I just blocked out times to study) and ask me to cover for someone. The few times I accepted, I asked to be first cut because I wasn't scheduled and I needed to get to class. They told me no, because so-and-so needed to get her kids. Why the hell is her lack of child care my problem? I don't care that she is tired or frustrated or poor and we should support her because she reproduced and got divorced. I felt for her, I did. But not to the extent that I should let my future suffer because of her poor life choices. Perhaps if she were a nice person I might have considered it. But to just be told flat out, on a regular basis, that your needs are less important than some random child? What the fuck ever.

Another job I had I worked under a woman who had three children. It was an office job, and it was her first job since leaving the workplace. She was a helicopter mom, and I was very glad when she found something else. It is not appropriate to have your sick 11 year old sleeping in your office. It is not appropriate to have to run out several times a day to pick up/drop off teenagers & college students from their work/school/classes. With her, it was a combination of "I can't believe you think that a 15 year old can't walk home/find a ride with a friend/take the bus" and "Why is your 19 year old relying on you for rides to work & college?" and "You know this is a workplace, right?" She was a nice enough person, but I was ALWAYS covering for her.

Now, in an office setting, it's actually very relaxed but there is still this assumption that someday I'm going to announce a pregnancy and take time off. It's very silly. And my ultraconservative boss keeps mentioning to me that someday I might start a family and that is why he is working to do x, y, and z. Which I appreciate, actually. But there's still the idea that he just expects that one day I will. Even though it's unlikely that I will even be able to do that, without spending a lot of money that I don't have. We just close for holidays, so that's not an issue. However, I've been told that I should go into healthcare and let someone with a family do my job, because it's 'Not Fair'. Despite the fact that I'm highly trained and skilled for the job I have. There is no reason for me to join the rest of the women in my family and get a job in healthcare or healthcare administration.

[tropaka]

I'm in my early 40s, with 3 children, and have a number of friends who do not, and will never, have children. No big deal. They have healthy social and work lives and have never indicated that they feel "forgotten". With employment laws being expanded women (and men) can now take leaves to look after relatives etc (i.e. aging parents).

In my work life I will say that single workers were expected to go above/beyond compared to mothers (but not fathers, must be noted). In some workplaces whether or not you have kids doesn't matter, even the possibility that you might can keep you back (I worked in an engineering firm run mostly by men). It's not just a childless thing; it's a feminist thing. I worked a lot of overtime and did work above my position yet would routinely get passed over in favour of single women/men. My work did pay off eventually, but I certainly didn't get a lot of advantages for having children.

[roddma]

I guess it depends on one's experiences. Ironic, I live in Tennessee which is virtually part of the Bible belt, and never faced the judgment some mention. Of course, people will ask questions about your personal life because it is expected and presumed you will be married and have kids. Thankfully , I haven't been asked anything about kids in a long time. I am going by what I read on pieces from all over the country.

I don't have the work experience in big companies where these instances may occur. I did odd and ends like worked the family furniture store, and babysitting, etc during my 20s. Now, I do freelance writing. I had a Mickey D's job in my mid 20s for a few eeks. The only thing I recall is a man needed Saturdays off because he was a single dad with custody of his kids. Most everyone had to work Saturdays heehee. I told them I couldn't work Sundays and Wednesday evenings because of church and I had no kids, but I had no driving license and parents still made my brother and I go to church even as young adults-that's another story for another day.

Yea Some parents act like what they do is secretive. Anyone can learn to change a diaper and cook without having their own kid and be a caretaker of kids. Ahem the Quiverfull fmailies we discuss are a good example.

[RosyDaisy]

Pregnancy leave is usually covered under short-term disability. My employer offers short term disability as a company paid benefit. Pregnancy and family bonding is automatically covered, and it's paid leave not unpaid. I think it's also automatically covered under long-term disability if the baby is in the NICU for a long time or if the mother has complications that require her to be off work for a long period of time. Of course that varies from company to company. Smaller companies usually don't offer this benefit.

[AuntCloud]

This thread makes me sad. My kids are not an expensive hobby but, as was mentioned upthread, future contributing citizens.

Believe me, when I dare leave my office at 5 I don't have the entire evening to chill out, work out, read a book on the couch with a glass of wine or organize my closets. I literally work two shifts doing kid-related stuff and cleaning kid-related messes, doing four times the amount of housework I would have done if I was living alone. Yes, I have a partner who spends as much time doing house and kid chores as I do, but the work is still there. Most of the time I'm tired, scattered, trying keep everyone happy.

It's sad to receive a message of "I don't really care about what goes on in your personal life and definitely don't expect *me* pick up the slack when you step out because your babysitter bailed out again" - it's very alienating. If I chose to be a stay-at-home mom (why? my kids are in middle school and I like my work) I would have been tagged as either privileged or a moocher. I work, but my family doesn't magically go away between 8 and 5, they're always at the background and sometimes have needs during office hours. If I step out to meet my kid's teacher, resource teacher and principal to discuss her ADD, someone in my office would grumble. If I don't, my kid suffers and will grumble about it sometime in the future. If I try to set up the meeting after school hours, the teachers will grumble because they have kids as well. I'm guaranteed to be stressed out no matter what. The solution is to make workplaces more family-friendly to all.

[louisa05]

This thread makes me sad. My kids are not an expensive hobby but, as was mentioned upthread, future contributing citizens.

Believe me, when I dare leave my office at 5 I don't have the entire evening to chill out, work out, read a book on the couch with a glass of wine or organize my closets. I literally work two shifts doing kid-related stuff and cleaning kid-related messes, doing four times the amount of housework I would have done if I was living alone. Yes, I have a partner who spends as much time doing house and kid chores as I do, but the work is still there. Most of the time I'm tired, scattered, trying keep everyone happy.

It's sad to receive a message of "I don't really care about what goes on in your personal life and definitely don't expect *me* pick up the slack when you step out because your babysitter bailed out again" - it's very alienating. If I chose to be a stay-at-home mom (why? my kids are in middle school and I like my work) I would have been tagged as either privileged or a moocher. I work, but my family doesn't magically go away between 8 and 5, they're always at the background and sometimes have needs during office hours. If I step out to meet my kid's teacher, resource teacher and principal to discuss her ADD, someone in my office would grumble. If I don't, my kid suffers and will grumble about it sometime in the future. If I try to set up the meeting after school hours, the teachers will grumble because they have kids as well. I'm guaranteed to be stressed out no matter what. The solution is to make workplaces more family-friendly to all.

I spent my 20s working in a school where absolutely everything was dumped on the staff members who had no children, most of whom were unmarried as well. We got all the evening duty (unpaid) at athletic events and other activities, and were assigned all the extracurricular activities. Plus we took home a pile of school work every day like every single teacher in this country. I slept roughly 5 hrs a night for six years.

Just try to have a social life that allows you to meet someone, marry and have kids in that job circumstance. I lost most of my friends while working at that job as well. When the single people get everything dumped on them to accommodate the needs of people with families, it is a big help in keeping them single and childless. So that is just incredibly family friendly. We should keep that up.

And I'm sorry, but if your kids make your life so stressful and difficult...what is that? Why does everyone with children want to brag about how awful it makes their lives? I love kids. I wanted kids. And I have been the primary caregiver, 24/7, for someone else's child for extended periods (6-8 weeks at a time). It was not awful, stressful and difficult and I never felt the need to tell people such things. How do your kids feel about that attitude?

[AuntCloud]

I'm sorry the school you worked for was so unfair. In my kids' school, teachers with kids attend all extracurriculars, evening events, Council meetings and the such. I can see how hard everyone involved is working, but the principal makes a point of letting everyone unwind as well. Everybody needs a balance between private and work lives, and it seems some employers don't realize that.

My kids are just fine, thankyouverymuch, even if their mother is not as accomplished in getting stuff done with a smile on her face as she should be. Let's not get into the "how hard can it be, I've done it with one hand tied behind my back" and "if it's so hard, why did you have kids?". Here's the thing: if I only did things that come easy to me and I'm naturally good at, I would not be doing much of anything, because the way I see it, if it's not challenging, it's not worth doing. Hiking is hard. Getting to the top of that darned mountain is hard. Getting a graduate degree or a professional designation is hard, building a house is hard. What I feel towards my kids is my own, private thing. The conflict between family and work commitments is a very public issue. And can you really not see the difference between getting paid to be a nanny, and being a parent who needs to actively parent, hold a job, commute, keep the fridge stocked and the house clean, and all in 24 hours?

And yes, I don't as much down-time as I would have liked. I'm grouchier than my old stay-at-home, working-part-time me used to be. I can work to provide the money to support my kids, I can be a relaxed SAHM, I can't be both.

[Mecca]

When I leave work I also "don't have the entire evening to chill out, work out, read a book on the couch with a glass of wine or organize my closets." If you think that what many childless people do with their free time, then you would be incorrect. We, too, have responsibilities. Would be nice if that is how my evenings were, but sadly they are not.

Not to sound bitchy and all, and I was not going to say anything in this thread because it could easily turn into another glorified pissing contest about who has it the hardest, but some of the things said in this thread just read condesending and has gotten under my skin a bit. There is an air of superiority that the childless have to put up with daily from parents, and it gets rather old.  We get it. We get that children are needed. We get and do not dispute that we have to pay a bit more to make sure society with kids functions properly. You do not have to preach to the choir. We are not stupid. You say we benefit from children in society, but you have to realize families benefit from us too. People always forget about that. 

As a married, childless woman, in my career I was expected to work longer hours, horrible shifts, on all holidays, and take up the slack of the people that do have children. I do not mind helping out people, but damn, it was an everyday occurrence with no consideration to my responsibilities outside of work or my family. Same goes for my husband. He was sent out on a long, two year assignment with his job while I was in school for a career change. I could not just drop everything to follow him at the time. The reasoning? He did not have kids, and I quote: "had no family to deal with." Really? So my husband and I are not a family, eh? Hell fire, we went for a family picture recently and the photographer even made mention of us not being a family. We are a family. May not be the family some people like or want, but we are a family. Full stop.

As someone that worked in indigent care, I can tell you that the childless get passed over for help because they do not qualify. Many are stuck in the middle and without safety nets. It happens a lot. It is silly to think the childless have piles of cash to play with when many struggle just like everyone else, but yet they get passed over simply because they are childless. 

We are having to relocate with my husbands job. When looking for a house, our realtor made mention of loans in this particular state that had low interest rate, insane financing, closing cost deals, and it sounded great because we have a house to sell in our current area and any break we could get would be good because chances are we will have to carry two mortgages for a bit. Well, come to find out, we cannot get that deal because, you guessed it, we do not have children. Yep, because I have non-functioning ovaries, we cannot get a good deal on a home loan like people with children. Kinda sucks, but par for the course.

 

Have I mention how many mothers treat me like a complete idiot because I have not birthed anything? Yep, because many do that too. I always get the insane questions, the fact many of my family believes I am seriously going to hell because I have not had kids <-- true story, friends drop you once they have kids, jobs and promotions passed over because the person with the kids needs the money more than me <--- yes, happened to me, name calling, and the general attitude we have to deal with a lot. 

Not trying to be a jerk off here, but being a parent is not some magical thing just invented over the last few years, but seeing how many parents act nowadays, you would think otherwise. I get and sympathize that it can be a struggle to keep it together, but parents are not better than us. We all have to work together, but it really is hard to do at times when you deal with so many people thinking the world owes them something for making a personal choice that some of us will never get to make. 

/rant. 

[Maggie Mae]

This thread makes me sad. My kids are not an expensive hobby but, as was mentioned upthread, future contributing citizens.

Believe me, when I dare leave my office at 5 I don't have the entire evening to chill out, work out, read a book on the couch with a glass of wine or organize my closets. I literally work two shifts doing kid-related stuff and cleaning kid-related messes, doing four times the amount of housework I would have done if I was living alone. Yes, I have a partner who spends as much time doing house and kid chores as I do, but the work is still there. Most of the time I'm tired, scattered, trying keep everyone happy.

It's sad to receive a message of "I don't really care about what goes on in your personal life and definitely don't expect *me* pick up the slack when you step out because your babysitter bailed out again" - it's very alienating. If I chose to be a stay-at-home mom (why? my kids are in middle school and I like my work) I would have been tagged as either privileged or a moocher. I work, but my family doesn't magically go away between 8 and 5, they're always at the background and sometimes have needs during office hours. If I step out to meet my kid's teacher, resource teacher and principal to discuss her ADD, someone in my office would grumble. If I don't, my kid suffers and will grumble about it sometime in the future. If I try to set up the meeting after school hours, the teachers will grumble because they have kids as well. I'm guaranteed to be stressed out no matter what. The solution is to make workplaces more family-friendly to all.

But it's your job. Employers don't care what goes on in anyone's personal life. We all have obligations and commitments. We all have houses that need to be cleaned and laundry that needs to be done. Every person you work with has something going on in the evening, and it might be something that sounds stupid to you, but they made the commitment. They also have people that depend on them. I have no problem with people who need to run errands or whatever, but if one person is constantly running personal errands, or finding work-related reasons to "pick up office supplies" so they can piggyback a trip to drop their kid off at soccer practice and no one else has that luxury, that's unfair.

If I have to use my leave to go to the dentist, or stand in line for an hour so I can get my bib for a race, or take my cat to the vet, or drop my car off at the mechanic or really just anything, yet someone with kids doesn't have to use leave to pick up Johnny from school (which is 3 blocks from their house) every day, and she still takes lunch, what is that? Why should a salaried employee who has grandchildren be forced to use leave to go to the doctor, and yet Suzy in accounting gets a free pass to come and go as needed?

I personally think that for most administrative jobs in an office setting, the work can be done whenever. There is no reason to have us tied to a clock, as long as the work is down. However, there are times when all staff is needed in the office - brainstorming sessions, meetings, whatever. As long as the work is done, it shouldn't matter. However, it seems that children seem to always need their parents when everyone else is working late to prepare for something important. Of course, that's probably confirmation bias.

My current workplace is cool, and everyone, regardless of salary or hourly, regardless of seniority or any other status, gets hour long lunches and three extra hours to use for errands or going to the gym or doctors or dropping off kids. Personally I like to skip lunch and take it at the end of the day. I still end up working more hours, because I know that once the boss leaves, everyone leaves at least a few minutes early. And I know that me taking lunch at the end of the day annoys the mom, because she's said so. Which is stupid, because she used her time throughout the day. Yet, she wants me there until the end with her, for whatever reason.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Where the fuck is this "free pass"? Because I sure don't remember getting it when I was an employee with a baby. I had to take my leave days to go to doctor appointments. As the only one in the department who lived within walking distance of the office, and as the Jewish employee, I also got to take over whenever there was too much snow and work during Xmas vacation.

Yes, there were times that I had no choice about calling in sick, and times that I had to book time off because of my kids. That wasn't a free pass - I still had the same workload to carry, and it eventually cost me a position. Employees with family responsibilities tend to end up in "pink collar ghettos", at the bottom of the pay scale in exchange for some benefits and flexibility. There is still a pay gap between men and women, and childcare responsibilities are a big factor.

Most parents do their best to take care of responsibilities at home, but it's not realistically possible to cover everything 100%. Even if you have daycare in place, kids get sick. Sometimes, if you have a nanny, the nanny gets sick. You try your best, but some things are simply not optional. In a busy and competitive work environment, what often gets sacrificed is a parent's sleep. I remember desperately trying to prep for a major trial one Sunday, when Girl 1, who was 11 mos., got sick and I had to meet her dad in the ER and deal with her dehydration. The trial still started the next day, and I had to be on top of it while dealing with a baby nursing all night. Yes, I may have mentioned at some point that week that I was exhausted. That wasn't my life every week, but it was something that I was dealing with at that point in time. There were plenty of great points too, but I figure that work colleagues don't need to hear about every cute face and the joy of babies. So yes, the bad moments probably do stick out. My kids know I love them, but they also know that kids can occasionally be a lot of work.

Do we want a workplace that is only suitable for those without children or other family responsibilities, or those with a stay-at-home spouse?

[AuntCloud]

This. 2XX1Xy1JD, I was hoping you would chime in.

When my kids were younger, simply getting out of the house was something that needed to be orchestrated. It's so easy to bring horror stories about that woman who took 2 hour lunches so she can drive her teenage kid to school, but no one mentions all those times when a woman puts the equivalent of a day's work between waking up and arriving to work. I agree, this is not a pissing contest of who has it harder. However, April is the absolutely insanely busy month in my office. There are 6 men and 5 women, three of the women are in their mid-twenties with no kids, one has a toddler and I have middle-school aged kids. The men all have children ranging between 25 and 6 months and everything in between. None of the women dared take a single hour off and we all did the mandatory Saturdays and Good Friday. I came in on a day my daughter had dental surgery, luckily I have a husband who was able to take the day off - not everyone has that luxury. One of the men took off for two weeks to attend a family wedding abroad, another one moved house, and another didn't show up on any of the Saturdays or Good Friday because he is a devout Catholic. No one got a "free pass" because of child issues, and I wouldn't want to work for an employer who demands that I pretend my family doesn't exist.

[louisa05]

This. 2XX1Xy1JD, I was hoping you would chime in.

When my kids were younger, simply getting out of the house was something that needed to be orchestrated. It's so easy to bring horror stories about that woman who took 2 hour lunches so she can drive her teenage kid to school, but no one mentions all those times when a woman puts the equivalent of a day's work between waking up and arriving to work. I agree, this is not a pissing contest of who has it harder. However, April is the absolutely insanely busy month in my office. There are 6 men and 5 women, three of the women are in their mid-twenties with no kids, one has a toddler and I have middle-school aged kids. The men all have children ranging between 25 and 6 months and everything in between. None of the women dared take a single hour off and we all did the mandatory Saturdays and Good Friday. I came in on a day my daughter had dental surgery, luckily I have a husband who was able to take the day off - not everyone has that luxury. One of the men took off for two weeks to attend a family wedding abroad, another one moved house, and another didn't show up on any of the Saturdays or Good Friday because he is a devout Catholic. No one got a "free pass" because of child issues, and I wouldn't want to work for an employer who demands that I pretend my family doesn't exist.

You shouldn't have to. But I shouldn't either. My family exists even if it does not include children. True example:

The last school I taught at had graduation on Mother's Day. Every fricking year. Year after year when it was time to make the schedule, staff members pointed out that this could be changed. Attendance was mandatory. Finally, after six years, the principal proposed a "compromise": rather than changing the schedule, staff members with children would be allowed to choose whether to attend or not.

It actually had to be pointed out to him that people who do not have children do have mothers. Because our families did not count.

[Sarietty]

Just seconding that, as a working parent, any time I take off for a family-related responsibility is covered by the same sick time, personal time and vacation time available to all of my coworkers. It has never occurred to me that colleagues might perceive I am getting a "free pass" to come and go as I please. I can see how this perception might lead to resentment, but it's incorrect.

Childfree employees in my workplace have adjusted their schedules in relation to their own needs, which may or may not include caretaking responsibilities. If someone is out of the office for whatever reason, and this absence has been approved by their supervisor, it's not a matter for my concern. Any issues related to my increased workload are something for me to discuss with my supervisor, so that we can work out an appropriate solution - or at least stay on top of the situation.

We all have needs, whatever we've chosen to do in life. I don't think it's particularly constructive to focus on other people getting "special treatment" when you don't know for sure that this is the case. They may be using their allotted leave, and/or they may be passing up promotions, raises, etc., in exchange for flexible work schedules.

If, as a childfree employee, you are asked to take on a demonstrably greater workload, bring it up with your supervisor and ask for greater compensation. If they don't agree to this, see if they will agree to another arrangement - more time working remotely, for example. It's easier for an employer to pay a productive employee a little bit more, or grant them a little more flexibility, than to hire and train someone new.

[dawbs]

Since I've had a child, I've heard no end of people at work saying "oh, yeah, you have to take care of yourself/not drive in snow/whatever because you have a child now".

Because it was apparently OK for me to make my (long, and, honestly, yes, somewhat treacherous) commute and get myself killed if I only would have left behind my husband.

I do know that my boss understands and accepts that I have kid-stuff that means, no, I can no longer pull all-nighters or work from home easily on snow days (although, truth be told, I have done BOTH since having a kid), but I'm also damn lucky to have a boss who recognized that 'family issues' happen besides just to parents (I've had to leave work for all of the following: my husband being sent to the hospital, family member's mental illness, family member's death, family member's illness, dog emergency, cat emergency, my own illness, to 'adult relative sit', etc. I actually have only had to leave/be off for a sick kid 2x in 3 years, which is a shocker)--I've had bosses who didn't.

Who said things like "well, I need to save that shift for people with kids" or "your parents will understand if you can't be there for *event*" and the like. I also fought (mightily, but in vain) for things at my workplace that were for 'women in science' to NOT be *only* about balancing mother/wife and career roles, but to be about common plights. (I did successfully get the poster to not *only* talk about what legacy we left for our daughters, but to talk about the legacy we leave, period, fullstop)

There is give/take in the office--and right now, I'm in the stage of life/parenting/whatever where I"m the 'taker' not the 'giver', simply because of family (mostly kid related) obligations in my life--but I will echo the childfree people and say it really sucks when the CF are expected to always be the giver. And I think it happens a lot--I know it did at previous jobs.

(although, to be fair, if I lived somewhere that people could make reasonable demands of employers (right now, in my neck of the woods, unemployment rates are such that it's a bad BAD time to be job hunting), that could be different--even in my position--where I"m union and have a great working relationship with my boss, I don't think there's much in the way of accommodation I would dare ask for in this envirionment)

[Little Miss Alien]

I'm a single parent to a child on the autistic spectrum. I'm also quite lowly in terms of my job despite having more education than others around me (for some reason I can't catch a break). At my last job, the people being afforded flexible working arrangements were often childless/free but got their demands met because they were senior. I was lucky enough to have a boss who allowed me to work from home if needed, which worked well. In the UK, if you are full time you are usually allowed time off for medical/dental appointments, something that I, as a transplant patient, virtually took advantage of, until they gave me a work phone - then I was doing work whilst on the trajn/motorway/in the waiting room etc just because I didn't want to be seen to be taking the piss.

My last boss was a parent to twins of a similar age to my son and was sympathetic about childcare/sickness/school stuff, but my previous boss was child free and in the interests of treating us all 'equally' it meant I had to fight it out for holiday time, and if my son was sick I had to literally BEG for carers leave, even though I was entitled to it. Once, she was in a meeting so I said I would call when she was back to discuss it, but in the meantime wouldn't be in. She called me back to tell me I could not just inform them I would not be in and my status as a mother did not make new special. I asked her if I should have brought my feverish, vomiting child into the office then, and she said I should have found childcare! The stupid woman thought someone would take an unwell child so I could go to work. I informed her my childcare was attached to his school and if he was too ill to go to school, his childcare (which only ran outside school hours) would not take him. My parents still worked then and it was not fair to get them to take time off to appease MY boss. She seemed to think that there was an abundance of childcare out there and that you don't have to register your child or anything, you can just 'get a sitter'. I asked her that if there was a 2 day exclusion policy at work when you were sick for infection control, why did she think that schools/childcare wouldn't have the same safeguards in place to stop the spread of infection? She couldn't answer.

The kicker? The woman was a nurse of nearly 40 years! So much for a caring professional!

Really, I think that it depends on your boss and their views. I know another career driven woman who had 3 kids, 1 I was friends with, who doesn't allow her staff flexible working if they have kids because "It's kids or career". Her kids were always in daycare, and eventually ended up with a Nanny. Her staff, I have heard, are absolutely miserable. Sone have toddlers but they've had to make a choice between having a job or being with their kids. Their salaries just about cover childcare. My Mum, whilst never as high flying (by choice), still reached managerial level in the last 10 years before she retired, even though she worked part time when we were kids to always be there for us.

Some bosses/workplaces are sympathetic towards people with kids, others are not. I personally like to think I have a choice to find another job if my employer cannot accommodate my needs reasonably. I'm not asking the earth, but I don't want to have to pretend my son doesn't exist whilst I'm at work. He has special needs, so there are meetings and appointments and phone calls to be had. I want a career, so I am willing to put in what's required to meet my targets, but no one is going to demand that I go over and above to the detriment of my child. I think being reasonable goes both ways.

[Luvmyskinnyjeanz]

I have actually quit a job because my child was sick and my partner works FIFO, it wasn't fair for others to have to pick up the slack. Another job I had was in retail and the owner and 2IC had kids so we all helped each other, I did put my hand up for Easter Sunday, my choice, sit at home with kids who had chocolate eggs for breakfast or get paid double time ($40/h) for 4 hours work and be entertained by watching others try and control their kids on chocolate sugar highs.

As I was 19 when I fell pregnant I have dealt with people who carried on about me being too young, so I wonder if they believe there is only a certain age that you need to be to be considered acceptable? Too early your a slut or irresponsible, not at all selfish and stupid.

[GolightlyGrrl]

I'm going to get away from the childless/childfree vs. the parents at work debate to ask one very pertinent question.

Can someone tell me why mommy bloggers are a thing and why the media falls all over them?

[Megan]

I'm going to get away from the childless/childfree vs. the parents at work debate to ask one very pertinent question.

Can someone tell me why mommy bloggers are a thing and why the media falls all over them?

Probably because moms are a huge demographic for companies to sell to since they make most of the purchases for a household. It's the internet age version of soap operas - they're able to get a bunch of women who seem to have beautiful, wonderful homes shill their products to other women without paying a fortune.