The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Nanny state threatens nanny with naughty corner > Comments

Nanny state threatens nanny with naughty corner : Comments

By Mark Christensen, published 15/4/2011

Bureaucratising punishment of children in childcare centres will destroy trust, autonomy and damage the system.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All
Why do we need daycare centres anyway?

Rows of little beds for the children to sleep upon, rows of little tables for them to eat off, rows of little toy boxes to keep them occupied.

And if one doesn’t like this type of internment, then send them to the “naughty corner”.

Possibly the most pitiful daycare center I have seen was a council run daycare centre with rows of little toilets. Both the boys and girls shared the same toilets with no walls or doors on the toilets, and no privacy at all.

Daycare centres would have to be the pinnacle of feminism, but daycare centres are also one of the most dehumanising and tragic places in our feminist society.
Posted by vanna, Friday, 15 April 2011 4:18:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mark:“We need to trust, at least in the first instance, the professional judgement of childcare staff, given parents and government representatives can never properly appreciate the circumstances in real time.”
MarkII:“Meanwhile, parents seem content to abrogate their responsibilities by hanging their hat on a government star rating instead of tuning in and assessing if their kids are getting what they deserve.”

So do we trust the professional judgment of childcare staff or be responsible and tune in?

MarkIII“In a political system devoid of leadership, this will only happen if and when people demand government resume its rightful supporting role. Anything less, and things will continue to get worse, not better.”

Government should support and not govern?

Vanna kids don’t want any privacy, they’re intrusive little busy bodies at the best of times and nothing makes them happier than going potty as a crowd.

But I’m with you Vanna, scrap daycare altogether.
Posted by Jewely, Friday, 15 April 2011 5:21:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mark Christensen,

Thanks for the light cast on the essential, fundamental function of society; the rising of children.

You tell us, if I got the gist of your argument that the State, irrespective of the form of government under which it operates, cannot deal with people too young to formulate an informed opinion about their lives.

If we define society as a group of people single or in families with varied needs satisfied by the varied, reciprocal capabilities of each component of the group, we have to accept that the children in that group are of interest to all the adults in view that these will be the novel society forming at the elders’ death.

Let us imagine that an accident deprives one of those children from parental support, the remaining adults must and normally do take the care of the bereaved one. It is for the good of all.

If this is the normal, natural, humane course of events any interference from people extraneous to the natural family of man, is to be constantly and strictly supervised to see that the child’s sense of belonging to a society that care is not lost.

The existence of a minister of State (a parasite to man) regulating the education of children from the remoteness of a seat in a ministerial office is one of the symptoms of an insane society, universities and their products, the inevitable consequences.

An insane society can be defined as one where each member refuses to perform civil duties by forsaking civil (and human) rights.
Posted by skeptic, Friday, 15 April 2011 5:41:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Vanna and Jewely,
I would be happy to see daycare centres made obsolete too, if only the men in our apparently 'feminist society' would make enough money for all us women to be able to stay home and look after our babies, and not have to work both in and out of the home.

Yes, bring back the 1950's !
Posted by suzeonline, Friday, 15 April 2011 11:50:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suxanonline,
Another rather tragic sight is the rows of bassinets and cots in the feminist ideal of a daycare center. One has to wonder if the babies are ever picked up and cuddled, or just left in the bassinet or cot all day.

I would think there should be more than a review of the “naughty corner”

Perhaps a major review of children’s health in our feminist society.

- About half of Australian babies are hospitalised before they're two.
- ½ million children have mental health disorders.
- One in 10 schoolchildren drinks dangerous levels of alcohol weekly.
- One in three young Australian deaths is suicide.
- Forty per cent of Australian children are asthmatic.
- Sixty-five per cent of Australian children will be overweight or obese by 2020.
- Type 2 diabetes in children is skyrocketing.

Institutionalised care in the feminist ideal of a daycare center (so the mother can pursue her "career") has not seemed to reduce the above health problems, and perhaps it does have to be left to men to solve these problems.

Mothers and feminists have had their chance and failed.
Posted by vanna, Saturday, 16 April 2011 6:12:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This list Vanna, you’ve decided that only women in our society are responsible for it? I’m starting to think you have some sort of aversion to anything in rows.

I agree Suze, a parent at home raising the young ones is something Australia should support and subsidise instead of daycare. But then that thing about old people and needing more tax payers probably comes up.

Skeptic:”The existence of a minister of State (a parasite to man) regulating the education of children from the remoteness of a seat in a ministerial office is one of the symptoms of an insane society, universities and their products, the inevitable consequences.”

You object to them having offices? Who should regulate it? You lost me.
Posted by Jewely, Saturday, 16 April 2011 9:45:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Parents who stay at home don't register on the government radar much probably because they are not seen as contributing.

People like vanna don't help given he believes women have not contributed much to society. Stay-at-home mums are not valued very highly in modern times, thankfully that never worried me much, I just got on with the job.

I reckon raising children is important, but if vanna's view is the common view it is no wonder there is a migration to day care centres.
Posted by pelican, Saturday, 16 April 2011 10:09:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Vanka, many children live in a two parent home.

Where do the daddies/stepfathers figure in your list of apparent
'facts'?

Don't they contribute anything to the raising of the children in their homes? If there was this mass bad treatment of kids, wouldn't most men do something about the situation?

Gee Vanka, you don't have a very high opinion of men either do you?

Just who DO you like?
Posted by suzeonline, Saturday, 16 April 2011 11:24:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican,
I found that the offspring of stay-home mums are in general way more balanced than those of career mothers.
The problems is that we now have so many people from career parents that hardly anyone can grasp what balanced is thus less well balanced is accepted as normal if not better.
Posted by individual, Saturday, 16 April 2011 12:24:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suzanonline,
Considering our society of “women and THEIR children”, it doesn’t look too good for children.

In fact, the statistics are so totally abysmal, only a feminist could be optimistic, and would want to continue with the system of single parent families, de facto relationships, divorce and of course daycare centers.

The author does not want government interference in the daycare centers, but I do believe it highly necessary for government to thoroughly investigate daycare centers to see if they are fit for children or anyone else, and I do believe it necessary for government to also thoroughly investigate various family types to see if they are fit for children or anyone else.

As far as men and fathers are concerned, I think the current statistics regards children’s health should be made known to them.

Then it can be left for men and fathers to decide what to do.

I tend to think they will want to take some action regards the matter.

I tend to think they would want something better.

I can’t see any evidence that many mothers or feminists want any change.
Posted by vanna, Saturday, 16 April 2011 3:38:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bureaucratising punishment of children in childcare centres will destroy trust, autonomy and damage the system.
Mark Christensen,
It already has done that.
Posted by individual, Saturday, 16 April 2011 4:34:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suzeonline, it seems you're familiar with the Washington Post's Style Invitational which has asked readers to take any word from the dictionary, alter it by adding, subtracting or changing one letter, and supplying a new definition. Winners have included;

Foreploy: Any misrepresentation about yourself for the purpose of obtaining sex.

Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the recipient who doesn't get it.

Dopeler effect: The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they come at you rapidly.

"Yes, bring back the 1950's!" you said, but why not the 1850s? There were certainly more child-care options… down the salt or coalmines, the workhouse, being sold into indentured labour or service, or transportation.
Posted by WmTrevor, Saturday, 16 April 2011 7:03:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wm Trevor,

Why choose 1850? How about we go back to 1750, before the the advent of the Industrial Revolution. It was the establishment of the mills that usurped cottage industry and herded all the country folk into new urban areas.

It was the new "work ethic" that confined small children in the mills, factories and mines. (Btw - Richard Arkwright was a decent chap - he had a policy of not employing anyone under 6 and anyone over 40).

Anyway...one day the powers that be noticed that they were undermining the health of the nation (and its future prospects) by exploiting the young to such an extent) so they began "schooling" en masse as a daycare cum conditioning institution.

So the beat goes on...now we have a situation where consumerism has such a hold that parents believe it is imperative that they consign their infants to "daycare" institutions as a matter of course. Our society is built around the tenet that to consume is glorious - and unless two parents are working, they cannot possibly have all the things that they require (desire).

Strangely enough, we always seem to be playing catch-up, nowadays the cost of house requires two parents to work, especially if they want all the other "stuff" on offer. What a crock we have been fed.

The institutionalisation of infants en masse is a dubious distinction indicative of a society that places the pursuit of excess way above the emotional and developmental well-being of its most vulnerable citizens.
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 16 April 2011 8:04:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirit
It is true that childcare is a new industry, and there is quite a lot of money involved, much of which comes from the taxpayer. In fact, the government seems quite excited about how much taxpayer funding is being spent, and how many children are now in daycare (or the more trendy term is “childcare”)

“Early childhood education and care funding has more than doubled, up from $1.7b in 2004-05 to $3.7b in 2008-09” There were more than 870,000 children using approved child care in the September quarter 2009, up 8 per cent since the September quarter 2005."

www.mychild.gov.au/documents/docs/StateChildCareAus.pdf

I would disagree slightly regards “now we have a situation where consumerism has such a hold that parents believe it is imperative that they consign their infants to "daycare" institutions as a matter of course.”

I would think the situation is now more of exploitation and extortion of the taxpayer.

If the woman does not want the baby, then the taxpayer has to fund the abortion.

If the woman wants a baby, then the taxpayer has to fund the baby bonus.

After the woman has the baby, then the taxpayer has to fund keeping the baby in the daycare center.

Most of this has come about from successive governments attempting to please women at election time, by trying to attract their vote with more and more taxpayer funding. This situation is likely to go on forever, because women are oppressed.

Or so we are told.
Posted by vanna, Sunday, 17 April 2011 6:51:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
vanna,

Government funding of childcare is provided as an incentive to encourage women into the workforce, to keep the childcare "industry" ticking over - in short to keep the cash registers ringing.

Looking after your own children does nothing for GNP - paying someone else to do it helps GNP - and also allows families the opportunity to amass more disposable income. The problem here is that GNP only takes into account the quantitative outcomes and not those involving quality of life.

I know you want to blame all of this on women, however, it's a societal construct undertaken in the name of profit and growth - and one where many of the the female participants are often inducted as a matter of conformity or necessity.
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 17 April 2011 7:17:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirit
I think growth will eventually decline, while health care costs will soar.

More and more Australian industry is likely to go offshore, because the workforce in Australia is too unhealthy.

No one can run a business if 45% of the workforce are asthmatic, a large number have mental health problems and are possibly suicidal, a large number are alcoholic, and about 65% are obese and probably diabetic.

The taxpayer base is slowly shrinking with an ageing population, but at the other end, the number of suitable young workers is also shrinking because of ill health.

Instead of the $3.5 billion being paid outright to mothers to intern their children into daycare centers, the money could be paid only after the mother attends a course on child raising, and can demonstrate that she is actually carrying out recommended child raising practices.

Similar for the baby bonus.
Posted by vanna, Sunday, 17 April 2011 8:02:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
vanna,

Suffice to say, that I think your idea of a course of child-raising is a load of bollocks,

I might add, however, that if society reverted to a more organic way of community organisation and collaboration, the mum's would then regain the broad support of their peers and elders to reinforce their maternal instincts.
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 17 April 2011 8:12:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirit
Well the greatest rort of all is the belief that women have “maternal instincts” and are caring and nurturing.

Its all prestige. A woman has to have a baby to prove to other women that she is a “real woman”.

But now we have come the full gamut, and the taxpayer has to pay the woman money to have a baby, and then pay the woman money to intern the child into a daycare center, so that someone else raises the child.

Of course the woman claims that it is “her” child.

And we are repeatedly beseeched with the propaganda term of “women and their children”.
Posted by vanna, Sunday, 17 April 2011 8:22:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot:“I might add, however, that if society reverted to a more organic way of community organisation and collaboration, the mum's would then regain the broad support of their peers and elders to reinforce their maternal instincts.”

All power to the women who have to work to support their households. But the truth is I’ve found most women want to return to work rather than stay at home with their children.

It’s all this crap about how parenting is the hardest job in the world. They consider it a chore and prefer to be at the office even if they are offered the paid leave, maternity leave, and lots of time off with job security.

Dump and run, go earn more so you can buy more crap and have a giant house. They must spew when 5 minutes after getting to work the daycare staff ring to say come pick up your kid they wont settle.

I support women doing anything they want to, go to battle, be CEO’s, fight fires, but not mothers with young children growing up in daycare. Women who don’t work also put their kids in daycare, so weird. I see pre-school as a daycare as well.
Posted by Jewely, Sunday, 17 April 2011 8:37:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ooh, ooh, Jewely - that is interesting that you are puzzled by the same phenomenon - women who don't work feel obliged to put their infants into childcare...nay, they are actively encouraged to do so.

In our fractured little "mummy world" these days, it's the feeling of conformity that rings true. Many young mum have only their peers to go by, and they think that their infants will somehow not be "socialised" if they don't turf them at the earliest opportunity into a childcare environment. That is the mentality of the modern world.

Hello?....don't you think it is more reasonable to assume that infants need to have a one-on-one or maybe a one-on-two or-three setting where their needs can be met and they can commubicate at will with their carers.

And what is this thing of grouping all children with age peers? When in the history of man have children not been assimilated with children of different ages - in fact children should be assimilated with the whole range of age groups - that is human.

Women put their babies/toddlers into childcare because they feel that this is the way it is done. You get enough children in childcare and in the end there are no kids for the infants to socialise with during the day outside of an institution.
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 17 April 2011 8:56:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Times might be a changing.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/home-mums-rebate-at-risk/story-e6freuy9-1226040243124
Savings options under consideration include:

* Means testing the 50 per cent childcare rebate for the first time, for families with a combined income of between $150,000 and $200,000.
* Applying a new work test to the rebate that pays families up to $7500 per child, limiting assistance for stay at home mums putting toddlers in care.
* Reducing the hours of childcare families can claim without a work/study test.

Families can currently claim the 50 per cent childcare rebate without meeting a strict work, training or study test for both parents, or documenting work related activities.

It's understood Early Childhood Minister Peter Garrett floated a new means test plan earlier this year, with various options outlined. But Treasurer Wayne Swan's office is concerned about mixed messages sent by a means test that might stop some women from returning to the workforce.
Posted by Jewely, Sunday, 17 April 2011 9:46:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jewely, there is a huge difference between daycare and preschool. I am a working mum with two kids, and both my kids hated the daycare centre, but love/d preschool. Preschool has a focus on looking for the activities that engage each child and helping them learn through that process. Eg the teacher knows my son loves trucks, so makes sure the trucks are put out each Friday morning and points them out to him.

The best alternative and one that a lot of families I know look for is family day care. There are a maximum of 5 children (plus two after school kids), looked after in the carers home. There are a mix of ages, and the carer can focus more on the kids, and developing a long-term relationship with them. Both my kids preferred family day care (although my daughter now says it boring, as she needs a higher level of engagement).

I have real trouble with the idea of any subsidies for families where parents are not working. Perhaps for 1 day per week (so mum/dad can get the things done that it is harder to do with kids hanging off you), but I cant see why I need to subsidise any more - if I didnt have to pay as much in taxes I would maybe able to afford to not work as much. There are always exceptions to the rule though - I feel for the mother I know who has (natural) triplets. I dont begrudge helping her pay for a few days of daycare so that she can get a little sanity - I am sure she is a better mother and person for the break.
Posted by doon, Sunday, 17 April 2011 10:48:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Vanka, women have never magically make children by immaculate conception...
What about Daddy in all this decision making about whether junior goes to daycare or not?
If the man does not want his baby, then the taxpayer has to fund the abortion.

If the man wants a baby, then the taxpayer has to fund the baby bonus.
(known to often be used for a large screen TV so he can watch sport)

After the man's wife/partner has the baby, then the taxpayer has to fund keeping the baby in the daycare center.

I know of many, many families where mothers are pressured to go back to work by the father of the baby, for financial reasons.

These days, the father's income is not enough in most situations, so if there weren't daycare places provided, then the poverty in this nation would skyrocket, and welfare payments along with it.
Is that what everybody wants?

If only the men could make enough money to let the mothers stay at home financially.

Of course it is better for the kids to stay at home with mum... I honestly think it breaks the hearts of thousands of mums every time they have to leave a baby at daycare centres.
Posted by suzeonline, Sunday, 17 April 2011 11:49:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey Doon, I’m sure there are awesome fun daycares, preschools, and family daycare out there. I dislike the need for their existence mostly.

“but I cant see why I need to subsidise any more - if I didnt have to pay as much in taxes I would maybe able to afford to not work as much”

It’s a trap/cycle/catch22. Often a trap of our own making but l do appreciate some lack choices. Thing with work is usually the hours are 40 hours a week and not many options to work less, maybe in the long term if you can save but by then I think the kids are kind of gone.

“I feel for the mother I know who has (natural) triplets.”

Hahaha, I feel mostly happy for her. The first few months she would have been a zombie.

Suze:“I honestly think it breaks the hearts of thousands of mums every time they have to leave a baby at daycare centres.”

I swear many trudge on in with little ones in tow and skip all the way across the carpark on the way out. :)
Posted by Jewely, Sunday, 17 April 2011 3:01:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirit
It appears from various research that daycare centers only have positive results if the children are disadvantaged or come from single parent families (and one is often the other).

For the rest of children, daycare centers produce no positive results.

But the taxpayer is expected to fund every child anyway.

Suzanonline,
It is probable that men are making enough money. What matters is how much tax they pay, and what are current prices.

Men pay the majority of personal income tax, but these taxes are gradually increasing due to fiscal drag.

Many men also pay child support, and this acts as a second tax.

As well, prices generally increase according to the ability of the consumer to pay.

An example is the housing industry, where house prices are normally set at what the seller believes the buyer can afford, and not set on the actual value of the house.

So the price of a house could double in 5 years if potential buyers could afford it, but the house is still the same house.

If the average family has two incomes, then prices gradually increase, and eventually most families NEED two incomes (or more) to survive.

However I don’t know too many feminists or mothers who have figured out a way of increasing national incomes while keeping prices constant. Their focus appears to be on how to get more and more and more “government spending”, which is the more PC term for taxpayer funding.

So they want more and more taxes, and then wages have to increase, and then prices increase, and then the treadmill starts again.

So much for the feminist propaganda of “women and their children”.

It should be “women and their children raised by a taxpayer funded daycare worker while the mother and father work on a treadmill"
Posted by vanna, Sunday, 17 April 2011 8:16:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
vanna,

Of course, you're right...woman couldn't give a toss about their offspring - apart from the prestige aspect and all that. In fact there's no better way to prove you're a real woman....it's all a gigantic lark in'it?

Quite frankly, you're nothing but a silly man. What the hell would you know about maternal instinct?
Don't answer - I tell you....zilch, zippo, nothing whatsoever.
You pontificate your odious sexism, and most of time the women on this forum try and talk to you in a reasonable manner - but you continue with your obnoxious rhetoric on and on and on....

Pointless to continue....
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 17 April 2011 8:46:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Birth implies death.

Each baby is born with a death sentence.
Posted by skeptic, Sunday, 17 April 2011 8:46:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Vanna:”“It should be “women and their children raised by a taxpayer funded daycare worker while the mother and father work on a treadmill"”

Oh my goodness.

Hallelujah, Hallelujah, Hallelujah, Hal-leeee-luuuu-jahhhh!

I think I need a tissue…
Posted by Jewely, Monday, 18 April 2011 8:46:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
POirot, Jewely, Suze,

'You get enough children in childcare and in the end there are no kids for the infants to socialise with during the day outside of an institution.'

Haha.

So what is the solution? As a Man ( I love sentences that start with As a Woman, so I figured I'd try it out) many times I have pointed out this ridiculous state of child 'care' affairs, only to hear shrill cries of sexist! Misogynist! Dinosaur! Sex God! (OK I made that one up).

My partner works a couple of days a week (fence sitter!), but if we cut out our social life, and her wardrobe, I'm sure we'd manage without her income. But say 7 years out of the workforce, I wonder what her job prospects would be after all that. I wonder about her superannuation balance if we were to split as Vanna says is a forgone conclusion.

Regardless of feminist doctrine, I also don't know any women who would be happy for hubby to stay home and her to go to work full time. Most men aren't happy with the idea either, but I reckon fewer women are comfortable with that.

So, how do you compensate women for services rendered when money talks. I have argued the ties with children and personal rewards may be enough, but try that on at the divorce court and see how it bites.

I dunno Jewls, motherhood and guilt go hand in hand. I think all mothers would feel guilty dropping their kids off at day care. They're also guilty being a stay at home mum.

I have little kids and when dragged along to certain social events, I have to listen to the constant mind numbing conversation of other parents. Parents are no longer people, they're aliens obsessed with justifying each and every parenting decision.

The only thing that passes the time is playing devils advocate, which has the added bonus of being invited to less of these very cringe worthy events.
Posted by Houellebecq, Monday, 18 April 2011 2:59:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houel not for one minute do I believe you planned ahead for any day you might split with your partner. Vanna is wrong anyway or every few years people would re-partner and we just don’t.

“I think all mothers would feel guilty dropping their kids off at day care. They're also guilty being a stay at home mum.”

That is a very big 3 letter word you got there.

“But say 7 years out of the workforce, I wonder what her job prospects would be after all that.”

Those first 7 years of their life vs what?

“I have argued the ties with children and personal rewards may be enough, but try that on at the divorce court and see how it bites.”

They are enough when all is said and done. It’s one of those things you have to look back on to comprehend and one of those things you can never get another chance at.

It’s probably not a conversation I can be very understanding about as you’d have to prove some dire need before not having a child cared for a by parent over 99% of their childhood was okay with me. I can let slide, cheer along or understand just about every parenting decision a parent can make, as long as they are in fact parenting.

Yeah yuck parenting events, puke, gag, vomit. Do they put Sex God or Devils Advocate on your invites?
Posted by Jewely, Monday, 18 April 2011 3:46:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My partner makes a mockery of the governmnet, of feminists, of any 'study' into workplace participation.

When we met, she was rather conscientious, and although these things are relative, I considered her quite the career woman relative to me. She seemed to thrive and enjoy performance reviews for a start, and I found it hard to relate to this attitude, being of the opinion such formalities existed purely for cynical mockery . She was a 'professional', even outside the bedroom.

But, along comes baby, and silly me suggests I may stay at home and we could both work part time. Utter shock ensues, and after she cleans the drink she violently spat over the table, she concedes this is logically fair, amicable and even 'progressive', but is a 'cute' idea that should be entertained only for entertainment purposes.

Next, strange career woman quotes such as 'I used to like working and wondered how I might adjust and cope with missing my career and the 'mental stimulation', but, I don't miss it at all.'

Followed soon after by, 'If we had the money, I'd really rather not go to work at all'.

Jewls,

'They are enough when all is said and done.'

No doubt.

99% though, well, I think it's less suffocating for a child and mother to have a break from each other once in a while (Poirot?!:-/).

Independence and all that. It also allows us to afford overseas travel to visit grandparents for wife and the kiddies, and crazy alcoholic bender bachelor weeks for me. Justification over:-)

I am of the belief one has children to actually enjoy watching them grow. Men, women, swings and roundabouts. Financial security in old age or divorce vs seeing the kids and not having a boss. Each can choose a role with relative trade-offs.

Feminists and MRAs should make a deal: No whinging about child support and custody, and no whinging about the gender pay gap or women's superannuation. Choices have consequences.
Posted by Houellebecq, Monday, 18 April 2011 4:23:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We zoomed off track eh Houel? We were supposed to be chatting about safety in child care or the government backing off or something to do with not fining them if they mess up, endanger our children (who should be at home in an unsuffocating and independence encouraging way when age appropriate) or how if child care workers are given too many rules they’ll focus on them and not the kids?

I didn’t understand the article or what it was trying to say to tell the truth but I have this masochistic obsession about attempting to understand Vanna... and where did Antiseptic go? Did he finally explode?
Posted by Jewely, Monday, 18 April 2011 4:47:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yeah but it's all a mute point. Don't like how child care treats your kids...

a) Make a noise
b) Move to a new centre
c) Keep them at home (Sell the mansion and rent if it's that important.)

If you leave them in somebody's care it's up to them how they handle it when your kid bites the others.

It's the least of your worries anyway when most kids don't even get a drink all day and only get 'stimulating play' for a mere 95% of the time they're there. I've heard there isn't even any Gymberoo and they don't practise attachment parenting and some kids don't get a vegetarian, low GI nut free lactose free diet.

The kids are supposed to be learning to 'socialise' anyway. Sounds like a good thing really by the way parents are these days. More time spent away from that pressure cooker the better; Went to a 3 yr old's birthday party and one of the parents was super pissed off there was actually lollies in the lolly bag (Apparently lolly bags are mandatory) rather than thoughtful healthy eating options.

Ah kids, the high powered career woman's special science project. Cracks me up there's a 'let kids be kids' movement and it's all about what little girls wear. Their priorities are screwed. They should start at Gymbaroo and Baby Einstein DVDs and attachment parenting and hypochondria and that rubber stuff in the playgrounds before they worry about the length of the skirt on princess outfits.

I miss septic too. Vanna is a poor substitute. But he said something scarily accurate and profound and intelligent on a topic that even he couldn't relate back to feminism. Cant remember where sorry.
Posted by Houellebecq, Monday, 18 April 2011 5:14:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirit
You are extremely abusive, and I can fully understand why you are so attracted to feminism.

Disregarding normal feminist propaganda such as “women and their children”, the true face of modern motherhood would have to be: -

• Throw away babies in abortion clinics.
• Throw away infants in daycare centers.
• Throw away husbands in family law courts.

And currently, producing some of the unhealthiest children in the history of this country.

Houellebecq,
I congratulate you in your role as a stay at home dad, and I hope other men do similar as a part of save the children.

However, I could advise to stay away from the whisky bottle, stay away from the midday shows, stay away from clothes and shoe shops, and stay away from daycare centers.
Posted by vanna, Monday, 18 April 2011 6:04:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
vanna,

"Poirit
You are extremely abusive, and I can fully understand why you are attracted to feminism."

Why, thank you vanna - coming from you I'll take that as a compliment.

Btw - I referred to you as a "silly man"..... which could be the most abusive thing anyone has ever written on this forum...I'll try and pull my head in : )
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 18 April 2011 6:18:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houel:”Yeah but it's all a mute point.”

I guess it is, or I don’t understand the fuss. These are private companies providing a service to private individuals? I sort of missed where the beef was.

“…there was actually lollies in the lolly bag (Apparently lolly bags are mandatory) rather than thoughtful healthy eating options.”

Well they’re just crazy, the one time you want your own kids on a sugar high is when they are in the person’s home that gave them the lollies.

I missed the kids be kids thing – what should we do to encourage this? Untie them?

“… he said something scarily accurate and profound and intelligent on a topic that even he couldn't relate back to feminism. Cant remember where sorry.”

Oh you bloody great tease.
Posted by Jewely, Monday, 18 April 2011 6:21:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yeah life is full of trade-offs and sacrifices.

People who go on about 'having it all' are delusional. It is possible to have it all but only in a superficial sense and the journey is fraught with exhaustion and unrealistic expectations. But to each his/her own.

"The institutionalisation of infants en masse is a dubious distinction indicative of a society that places the pursuit of excess way above the emotional and developmental well-being of its most vulnerable citizens."

Well said Poirot. I have used child care part time for a couple of years but spent most of my children's early years at home. It has been worthwhile.

I never had any trouble getting back into the workforce - one just has to start over to some extent - that is one of the trade-offs and that is okay. Why do people think life has to always provide them with exactly what they want at all times. Start your own business.

The idea that women become unemployable after raising kids is something myself and many friends and acquaintances have never experienced. It is more myth than reality. The proliferation of home computers and access to information means women are less apt to lose their skills.

I have many rigorous discussions with other women about the implications and long term effects of child care - mainly started by them in an attempt to justify their choices. Just saying you were a stay-at-home is enough to spur others to launch into a self-fulfilling ethical debate about the benefits of child care and the rights of women.

It is human nature to justify one's own actions. Studies of child care reveal the benefits of child care tend to apply in dysfunctional family situations and where incomes are lower and where good child care can provide a positive contrast.

The dreadful 'Working Families' has become so ingrained and necessary for some that the idea of staying at home is not seen as a viable alternative even if many women would choose that option.
Posted by pelican, Monday, 18 April 2011 6:52:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot,
"odious sexism" and "obnoxious rhetoric" etc

You have not made a single verifiable or justifiable point in any posting, and saying that the modern mother has "maternal instincts" is not verifiable or justifiable considering modern motherhood.

The situation is rather grim for the younger generation.

Most companies require a medical if someone is applying for a job with that company, but I can’t think of too many companies who would want to employ someone who is asthmatic, obese, diabetic, fatherless, depressed and was raised in a daycare center.

Even a feminist wouldn’t employee such a person.

Or maybe they would.
Posted by vanna, Monday, 18 April 2011 6:59:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
vanna,

You really are a most delightful fellow, aren't you - I'll be sad when you return to your home planet.

Meanwhile - while you're still with us - the writer Rebecca West once made this canny observation:

"People always call me a feminist when I express opinions that differentiate me from a doormat."
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 18 April 2011 7:39:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poriot,
You are soo unfunny and humourless.

The feminist cry went out that women have to achieve "financial independence", so many women sent their children off to a daycare center and went to work.

This now costs the taxpayer $3.7 billion per year, and has simply increased prices of such things as houses, so women are no better off eventually.

So far as the children are concerned.

Well who is concerned?

I've never heard a feminist show concern about what is happening to children.

Sacrificial lambs to some worthless cause.
Posted by vanna, Tuesday, 19 April 2011 4:19:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
vanna,

I'm probably one of the more dubious about feminism among the women of OLO - and if you read my posts you'd realise that.

However, I realise, as I have stated many times, that our institutionalised culture is a product of rabid consumerism - something that is wholeheartedly endorsed by both genders and encouraged by all stratas of society.

It's the pursuit of excess by the entire population (some of whom are men) that delivers a warped society.

Btw - yours is a singular misogyny. It seems that if something doesn't meet your approval, you automatically blame feminists or women in general....I have to tell you that it comes across as a tad "unbalanced".
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 19 April 2011 8:08:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot:I'm probably one of the more dubious about feminism among the women of OLO - and if you read my posts you'd realise that.”

I still don’t even understand what it is.

Before this feminist thing women did work, kids in school or an Aunty or older sister looked after them. I don’t think women working is a new thing at all. But childcare became big business and businesses like to grow and advertise and convince everyone how necessary they are. I’ve not met many men unhappy that their wives work or who attempt to discourage it these days.

Vanna:”I can’t think of too many companies who would want to employ someone who is asthmatic, obese, diabetic, fatherless, depressed and was raised in a daycare center.”

No but keep looking babe.
Posted by Jewely, Tuesday, 19 April 2011 8:51:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot
Daycare centers have little to do with consumerism, but are now a political system, and the spending of taxpayer funding on daycare centers has doubled in 5 years.

“The Office of Work and Family is working with relevant departments to ensure the Government's policies support families to effectively balance their work and family responsibilities. In particular, it is supporting the Government's new directions for child care and early childhood education and the COAG early childhood agenda, including for Indigenous Australians.”

http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/progserv/economic/Pages/office_work_family.aspx

I cannot see how putting young infants or babies into daycare/childcare helps balance “work and family responsibilities”.

It is feminist hype only.

The $3.7 billion per year currently being spent on daycare/childcare would be better spent helping to address the very serious issue of children’s health.
Posted by vanna, Tuesday, 19 April 2011 1:17:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
vanna,

The whole paradigm of Western society is based around consumerism - and daycare centres are not only a huge industry in themselves (as are schools), they also free up a mother's time so she can plunge herself into work outside the house.

How can you arrive at the conclusion that daycare has little to do with consumerism - it's an accomplice to the system and a mechanism to enhance participation within it.

Btw, do you ever read my posts? I'm not in favour of daycare for infants.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 19 April 2011 1:34:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poriot,
Read carefully between the lines of the following.

“In particular, it is supporting the Government's new directions for child care and early childhood education and the COAG early childhood agenda, including for Indigenous Australians.”

“The Office for Women works with the Office of Work and Family to ensure the particular needs of working women are appropriately considered and incorporated into the Government's broader work and family agenda.”

http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/progserv/economic/Pages/office_work_family.aspx

It becomes very important to define what “family agenda” actually means.

Australia has one of the highest rates of divorce in the world, and is No9 in the world for divorces per 100 marriages.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_div_per_100_mar-people-divorces-per-100-marriages

After divorce, the father is mostly removed from the children’s lives.

With daycare, the mother is mostly removed from the children’s lives also.

Eventually the children are raised by the state.

This is not consumerism that is gradually taking over our society.

It is Marxist/feminist.
Posted by vanna, Tuesday, 19 April 2011 6:15:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy