Firstly, hats off and cheers to Elena Maloney for an excellent retort to the rubbish espoused by those barren, sad, self-centred poor excuses for womanhood (It’s not all sex and the city for the childless female lawyer, Human Resources magazine, 28 June, page 3)
Firstly, hats off and cheers to Elena Maloney for an excellent retort to the rubbish espoused by those barren, sad, self-centred poor excuses for womanhood (It’s not all sex and the city for the childless female lawyer, Human Resources magazine, 28 June, page 3).
I too have raised a family and had to work, putting my career on hold for a number of years.
I would have preferred to be a stay at home mum, but we could not afford to do it. I have never imposed my children on others at work, nor have I taken time off when they were sick when I should of. Why not? So as not to impose on my fellow workers nor to give anyone an excuse to criticise me as a working mum.
My daughter is now a stay at home mum and I am so happy for her. I hope and pray that she can always have the fortune to do so. As for my daughter-in-law, well she is a classic CS (childless sister) – selfish, self-centred and completely incapable of self-sacrifice.
–Anonymous
Susan, I thought your article in the Human Resources magazine was brilliant!
I’m a single income fur-family member. That is, I have opted for pets instead of kids and professional development over contributing to the population. But do I get six weeks off to go and do a full time semester at uni? Not on your nelly!
My single-by-choice, no-kids-thanks philosophy sees me at the bottom rung of employee and citizen benefits, as you so rightly pointed out in your article. For ages I thought it was just me that was seething under the surface about the inequalities of leave entitlements and health insurance. But your article and the subsequent letters to the editor made me realise that I am not alone.
Thank you and well done!
– Ruth Malley
