Cherful

It's you who are denigrating the value of motherhood by suggesting that no-one would value it unless they were threatened with imprisonment to force them to pay for it.

If we put aside all your personal arguments, or rather all your attempts to turn it into a personal argument, all we are left with is your double standard: that some mothers are to be forced to pay for others who are no worse off, and in many cases are better off.

The basic flaw in your argument is identifying value with what is obtained by violence or threats of violence: moral and factual nonsense.

The idea that, by having babies, a woman automatically generates an entitlement to live at others coerced expense is simply anti-social - the opposite of your conception of it- and besides, not even you believe it, because otherwise, why should some mothers be taxed to pay for others? Or I suppose men should be the only tax-payers and all women should enjoy the unequal privilege which you partially confer on single mothers?

It's the other way around: why don't *you* go out and live in a desert until you can learn that the basis of human social co-operation is not in threatening to kill and rape and cage people to get what you want?

Talk of the "value" of mothering is vain if no-one is willing to pay for it voluntarily. If they are, no issue arises. And if they're not, then all it means is that you value violence above caring, and everything else you say is just the expression of your moral confusion.

Jardine K Jardine

What I am saying to you is that children have an inherent value to you and society as a whole, otherwise you would soon find a decaying, decrepit, aging society with no-one to man the stations. You enjoy the vibrant organised society you have around you, the reasonably young nurses that are there when you need to go to hospitaL. You only see the very occasional much older one because the work needs agile fitness and older people lose that agile fitness in later years.

You also have a supportive society around you in times of cyclones, fires and other catastrophes to get things up and running again. You will expect the young to go and fight for you if the country is threatened as you age. You enjoy all these benefits but you don't want to acknowledge it or give it any value. Your very survival would be threatened without new generations growing up around you. You seem to want to enjoy the privileges that other people's children confer on your wellbeing for free. Who's the real freeloader?

The fact that daycare workers supervise the children all day proves that looking after children requires full time work and attention,the mother at home who has been doing the job of the paid childcare carers all day still has the night shift as well, because children don't just switch off at a convenient knock off time.

And I am not trying to take credit away from women with jobs outside the home either, motherhood however it is handled is a tough job.

They can't keep daycare staff because of the high burnout level of staff and because they are not paid enough for what the job demands.
Why do you think that is if it's such an easy job? The mother minding a child under 4years at home is already putting in the work load of a full time job. She is unpaid while the professional childminders are paid. However when the child goes to school it is best for the mothers wellbeing to go back to work.

>>Women have everything they need to obtain child support, and it's right between their legs.<<

So single mothers who can't find work should be denied social security payments because they can make good money as prostitutes? A noble sentiment I'm sure we'd all agree but I'm not sure if it is an economically viable solution. I haven't looked at any statistics but I fear that a sudden and dramatic increase in the number of ladies of negotiable virtue offering their services will see supply greatly outstrip demand and there simply won't be enough work to go around. Besides: a lot of the single mums I see pushing prams around my neighborhood are single for a reason: they are repulsive bogans and so ugly that they'd have a hard time giving it away for free. So it looks like your good idea is a bit of a dead-end.

Besides: where did it leave the men receiving the sole parents pension? As gigolos? It might make for an interesting HBO comedy-drama but I'm not sure how well it would turn out in real life.

>>It's the other way around: why don't *you* go out and live in a desert until you can learn that the basis of human social co-operation is not in threatening to kill and rape and cage people to get what you want?<<

Huh? Bit of a non-sequitur there Jardine. I double-checked CHERFUL's post and there's noting in there about living in deserts or killing or raping or caging people. You seem a bit confused - are you sure you're on the same page as the rest of us? Literally: I usually have at least half a dozen tabs open and I've been known to get mixed up between threads and even forums.

>>why should some mothers be taxed to pay for others?<<

Because that is how tax works. Everybody has their gripes about how the government divides up our tax money - gripes that cannot be relieved if there is bipartisan support for whatever bit of spending they object to. Welcome to the club.

Cheers,

Tony

The neo-liberal economist proposition that making single parents more impoverished will force them to work does not resolve questions of suitable jobs, adequate skills, accessible alternative care for children, transport to and from child care and work, let alone the health status of family members. It DOES make it harder to pay rent, utilities, food, clothing,transport, education and health costs. The single biggest predictor of long-term problems is growing up in poverty yet all this bloke can do is suggest increasing poverty in the poorest households with dependent children. A better course of savings would be to address the obscene tax rorts and middle class welfare at the top end ( but that would mean picking on himself ).

Good comment from mog, although I think society is justified in discouraging welfare as a way of life. Perhaps long-term contraception should be required for women who have become pregnant while on welfare or with no prospects for supporting a child.

I wonder whether Jardine K. Jardine would take the same attitude to forcing single mothers into prostitution if the shoe were on the other foot. Let's suppose that there is a global depression on and Australia is not immune. Jardine's employer has gone belly up. He has tried very hard to find another job, but there are hundreds of applicants for every vacancy, and the job usually ends up going to a friend or relative of an insider. He doesn't have the capital to go into business for himself, and even if he did, it would just be pouring his savings down a rat hole in the current economic climate.

Eventually, he turns to Centrelink in desperation. The woman behind the counter looks him over and tells him that he doesn't need help because he is young and attractive enough to earn his living as a prostitute. She then gives him the address of a brothel for gay men. Would he take it with thanks or say that a decent society doesn't force people to prostitute themselves to survive or feed their children?

Cherful
The fact that people have intrinsic value is an argument against, not in favour of one group of people having the unequal privilege of living at the expense of others who are to be locked up if they dare to refuse to submit to being plundered to pay for your opinions.

And the fact that human beings, by living in society, generate many social benefits, does not in any way justify what you are contending for, which is that some people have a right to exploit other people against their will by threatening to lock them in a cage.

If everyone, just by being human and living in society thus generating social benefits, had an equal right to live at the coerced expense of others – obviously society would just collapse wouldn’t it? Yes. Therefore what you’re arguing for is not some kind of higher social principle, but an anti-social principle. Obviously it cannot be an equal right, but only the unequal privilege of a minority backed by force.

Tony, mog, Divergence
That’s why it’s not valid to talk about the issue in terms of “us” and “society”, as if the benefit accrues to society as a whole, rather than to one privileged group at the expense of others (exploitation) – a point you have completely missed.

Your arguments all founder on the fact that you are trying to pretend AS IF the sole parents’ pension is paid from voluntary donations. For example you, and everyone who agrees with your opinion, could pay it all and there would be no issue. But you don’t want to do that, do you? No. You want to force other people to pay even if they disagree with your moral and social opinions, don’t you? Yes.