A message on father’s day

David Cameron has clearly spelled out his desire to continue a policy of preferential taxation for families and he says that absent fathers should be stigmatised as much as drink drivers. Though I find it a little bit hard to believe that the Liberal Democrats do not favour a tax policy that helps complete families along.

I think it is a very important step forward that David Cameron now wants to stigmatize the absent fathers when under Thatcher it seemed like single mothers were the ones to blame. It was a very hard fight to have acknowledged who the real victims are and it seems now the general consensus is that the victims are the single mothers and their children and that it is up to the dads to put in an appearance, show interest in their children’s education and financially support the children.

I simply do not believe however that women should be replaced as carers for their babies in saying fathers are better at nappy changing. Women are not a “rent – a – womb” service, giving birth, letting the bloke do the nursing and going back to work either.

Only 15% of men who were asked believed their partners do a better job than they can looking after babies. Yet the immensely important emotional bond that is there between a mother and a child cannot be surveyed as this is a natural bond that cannot exist between a baby and the father as much as it does with the mother as the baby grows inside the mother’s body. It is for that reason I believe that 61% do not trust father’s as much as they trust mum’s to look after babies.

PS: Having just read a comment to the Prime Minister’s suggestion from gingerbread, I must say I would not support it if mothers had to pay the CMEC any fee to use the service. It should be the fathers, or the person who supports the caring parent, who should have to pay the fee if any. If any absent father makes a voluntary financial agreement and then pays the money he would save himself and the tax payer using the CMEC and if he needs to be reminded of his duty then he should be charged the fee and not the parent needing the money.

It is always difficult to ‘punish’ or reward for being married or not in a society that allows divorce and has fairly liberal  moral rules. There is no boundary on being married, there is not just one marriage, there are early marriages, late marriages, first and second and third marriages, neither of which exclude the possibility of children somewhere out of any of those marriages with other partners. When I hear the Prime Minister on such issues, it always seems to me as if he suggests people only marry once or have no other children after they got married elsewhere.

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 53,390 hits