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 > Capitalising babies > Comments

Capitalising babies : Comments

By Helen Lobato, published 24/11/2008

All the 'mother wars' regarding paid work and stay at home mothers avoid discussing the new capitalism.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
So if women choose to stay at home to raise children and keep house, they are exploited and abused by an evil, male-dominated capitalist system.

On the other hand, if they choose to work and use some of their income to pay for child support... then they are exploited and abused by an evil, male-dominated capitalist system.

Another wonderful broadside from the Marxist side in the ongoing Mummy Wars.

I just love the final sentence: "The penetration of the values and assumptions of the market place seeps inexorably into every port of every relationship, however intimate." Such a marvelous mixed metaphor, and oooh, its got "penetration"!

Cheers,

Rhys.
Posted by Rhys Probert, Monday, 24 November 2008 11:45:09 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
I think this article epitomises the confusion and conflicting goals of feminism today. Breastfeeding as a policy has been aggressively adopted by many (if not most) in the nursing and midwifery fields. No mention of that.

Of course, then there was the push for more women in the workforce, and now we have the concommitant complaint of exploitation arising from the fact that it's difficult to breastfeed babies and decent childcare facilities most workplaces. These are real issues, and most women (and the men that are in mature relationships with them) deal with them on a regular basis.

As for exploitation by capitalism, it runs both ways. Capitalism supplies us with what we need and it gives us a choice in how that supply should be met. One can argue that capitalism need restraint, and I would agree that everything needs oversight, checks and balances. No solution to the supply/demand/choice equation is ideal, but the the alternatives to capitalism have been demonstrated to be less so.
Posted by Bugsy, Monday, 24 November 2008 12:09:48 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
I'm also going to get panned for this comment too!
I've got a new son, he's 3 months old now. My wife, like so many other mothers galantly tried to breastfeed... with extreme pain and suffering for both her and our baby.

Looking at the science, the supposed health benefits of breastfeeding are small... A slight (and doubtfull) reduction in the risk of asthma and alergies later in life, and reduced infections while being breastfed...

Presumably these infections are just delayed, until after then child is weaned... rather than prevented... simply delayed.

Yet the pain, suffering and sexism caused by the well-funded breastfeeding lobby is clear.

The suffering is more real than the 'benefits'...
Babies under fed (as many mothers don't produce enough), babies suffering due to sucking and feeding problems. Sleepless nights... and a reduction in the birthrate due to parents reducing the number of children they had planned in their families...

It is also very sexist. By giving breastfeeding priority, you are excluding the father parent from being a carer. Once a mother has had many months/years off work, and the dad has already had to shoulder the extra burden of paying for everything, and he has reluctantly accepted the overtime... these roles are very likely to be rusted-on.

After the breastfedding, too many dads remain locked out of the home, locked out of enjoyable part-time work and the wonderful work-life balance. Dads remain relegated to beome the parent who "pays" for the kids, while the mother is at home "playing" with them.

Parttimeparent@pobox.com
Posted by partTimeParent, Monday, 24 November 2008 12:36:17 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mass child care also has enourmous utility in socialism. The capitalist model has much manipulative political value in the hands of apparent socialists, such as communist china. Consumerism, aspiration, ambition and self-interest can be manipulated to control social classes, like family. It can create, maintain and expand classes of dependency, such as women and children (and men too), by tethering them to centralised social support mechanisms like caring facilities, whether privately and/or publicly funded.

The funding impetus is less important than the politicisation. Family is a pretty basic social unit that is easily manipulated. So it makes sense to start at the beginning and pepper away at all levels of familial social interaction in order to set people up for the political game of divide and conquer.

l think that socialism/marxism and capitalism/individualism have been sort of merged in the socio-political sphere and they only really differ in apparent method and intent. It helps politicians to have people believe in a distinction and it helps to have people competing around that contrivance. There's a sort of blurred, muddled middle-way in action now. Though the spin varies and the personal investment people make in the propaganda models differ, we're all plugged into the various tentacles of state control. Look at the family unit. Its replete with all manner of direction and influence by a host of do's and dont's. How people manage to have kids and raise them in the mess of contradiction and counter-intuitive parodies that is politically correct society is beyond me. That they mostly succeed in the face of so much nonsense is very telling.
Posted by trade215, Monday, 24 November 2008 2:53:45 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
The author is on the right track in making the all-too-rare attempt to place gender-specific issues like breastfeeding and childcare within the context of the economic system in which women and men have to function.

It is usually assumed that women themselves – led by feminist trailblazers – drove the massive increase in female workforce participation rates from about 1960 onwards. In fact, the real catalyst was that good old capitalist sacred cow – economic growth. Runaway Western overproduction post-WWII desperately needed women to fill the dual purpose of providing an ongoing pool of cheap labour and a new consumer market.

It’s taken a while for it to sink into our somewhat thick-headed capitalist mentality that society was obliged to give something back to women in return – an obligation that our free-market rhetoric continues to avoid because such a prospect reeks too much of socialism.

While we continue to treat our workplace as a marketplace with an only-for-profit mentality, we will continue to lurch from social crisis to social crisis, personal dilemma to personal dilemma and (as with recent events in China) tragedy to tragedy.

partTimeParent

Would it be at all presumptuous to suggest that if men don’t like being deprived of having a ‘wonderful work-life balance’, then they could pro-actively lobby to change the workplace culture to allow more men to stay at home (as you put it) ‘playing’ with the kids.

I suspect the reason they are failing to do so in droves is because too many men know all too well what being at home ‘playing’ with the kids really entails. Oh … and the prospect of having their earnings and career prospects plummet as they ‘play’ might be a teensy bit of a motivator too!

Trade215

‘How people manage to have kids and raise them in the mess of contradiction and counter-intuitive parodies that is politically correct society is beyond me.’

True. However, as a parent I have found the mass-consumption messages of the marketplace far more riddled with ‘contradiction and counter-intuitive parodies’ than political correctness.
Posted by SJF, Monday, 24 November 2008 3:17:09 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
Thanks Helen for your article.

Despite what the comments above say, my experience and that of many women I know is that there is a lack of public support and resourcing for helping women to breastfeed, particularly for the two years recommended by World Health Organisation and other health research. Midwives in post-natal wards and the ABA are committed to encouraging breastfeeding due to the evidence of benefits to mothers and babies, but I don't think that there is enough support for the kind of ongoing one on one help that is often needed.

I had a lot of trouble breastfeeding - difficulty with latching, milk supply, cracking, etc. - and it wasn't until I saw a trained lactation consultant (who came to my home, paid for privately) that it all became much easier and less painful. Without that specialist advice I would no doubt have given up very early on, and it was advice I couldn't have accessed without living in a big city, having the resources to find out about her, and being able to afford to pay her. My daughter is now two and I am still breastfeeding her once or twice a day.

partTime Parent, breastfeeding my daughter has in no way excluded my husband from being a very involved and hands on dad. We both work part time and care for our daughter equally. Your venom at breastfeeding as causing dads to be locked out of the caring role is misdirected. It's a lack of support from governments, from employers and from our society generally for flexible work/caring arrangements for both parents.

My point is not to say that what I've done is the best/only way to approach things, but that we need to support both mothers and fathers to be able to make genuine choices about how they want to parent - including to breastfeed and to be able to stay at home with their kids when they're small.
Posted by ruthm, Monday, 24 November 2008 3:38:19 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
SJF,
Men would love a wonderful work-life balance... But for the same reasons that the 2nd wave feminists complained about women's choices being restricted, men don't have the choices you assume they have.

As our new-ish 'sex discrimination Commissioner', Broderick, recently said in the media. She was surprised how many men hate their work, and only work because they feel they have no choice. Men are not caught in a guilded cage... somebody forgot the guilding.

Some poor bugger has to pay the mortgage and deal with the household finances - a couple go from being DINKS, to being one-income, multiple dependants when they have children... and society expects dad to put in the long hours to make it work.

Any wonder men are commitment-phobic... they just don't see the benefit.

The only difference between men today and women in 1960, is that women had the support of the mainstream... every politician knows that supporting women and kissing babies is a vote-winner.

Feminists never faced entrenched opposition to women's pressure.

Today, there is an entrenched, very powerful cohort of grey-haired 2nd Wave feminists, controlling huge departments and budgets, who have studied Marx, they know about power, and consequently they are deeply antagonistic to men receiving a cent in funding.

"the massive increase in female workforce participation rates from about 1960 onwards" This is actually a furfy. The proportion of women working full-time has not changed in 40 years! (ABS) Yes, more women are working part-time,

PartTimeParent@pobox.com
Posted by partTimeParent, Monday, 24 November 2008 3:40:58 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You see, whatever it is, our society does not want the civic engagement, awareness or expression of dissent on issues from the masses. We are all exploitable and exploited. Often, these commentators overlook the most marginalized of women, those who aren't "kept" middle class women with a "choice" as to whether to work or not, but those who are sole parents and coerced into work at any terms anywhere by government (at industry's behest) while rich housewives can still get baby bonuses and family tax benefits to go and play tennis, gym or get their nails done.
Posted by Inner-Sydney based transsexual, indigent outcast progeny of merchant family, Monday, 24 November 2008 3:42:08 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
"the massive increase in female workforce participation rates from about 1960 onwards" This is actually a furfy. Women increasing their part-time work is not a capitalist conspiracy, it's more like bordom.

The proportion of women working full-time has not changed in 40 years! (ABS) Yes, more women are working part-time, But that isn't a capitalist conspiracy, it's a result of bordom!

When I visit my mother, go to the pantry and it is full, but there is no food there. Only ingredients! Back then a mixmaster was a labour-saving device. Being a home-maker was equally hard work as being a breadwinner! But modern lifestyles have dispensed with the necesity of cooking altogether - with prepared salad from wollies, splashed with prepared dressing. Quikly fry some sliced lean meat and pour on the flavour from a bottle. Vola! That's not cooking, meals today are often 'prepared', or simply 'assembled'!

Society now gives the stay-at-home parent less work than ever:-
- typical families now have only two kids, instead of 6,
- modern equipment (freezers, micrwaves, dysons)
- modern lifestyles (iced birthday cakes from woolworths, cheap fast food and good restraurants everywhere, and the end of expectations that the stay-at-home parent actually should cook has gone.

Again, many men see the deal on offer, seeing the long years of long hours and and are rationally weighing it up and and saying no! Add to that the 50% possibility of having everything they love stolen by the divorce court, it' a bad deal.
Posted by PartTime, Monday, 24 November 2008 3:54:13 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
Well I will probably cop some flak too.

Governments of both persuasions have developed all manner of policies and programs to push as many people back into the workforce as possible (single parents, the disabled, and mothers). Accommodating breastfeeding does not fit with the ‘push’ for skilled labour and economic growth regardless of whether some mothers’ attempts to breastfeed were successful or not (like myself despite persevering).

As a person who stayed home with children for a few years (barring some p/t work) I marvel at the way we have become conditioned to accept childcare as the norm. We made this decision while accepting we would not be as materially well off, but it was something we both believed in. We did not have the baby bonus, were paying off a house @ 17% interest rates and often staggered bills to be able to pay them off without receiving the dreaded overdue notice. We managed through careful budgeting.

Ideally programs and policies directed at families would include some element of choice - as not everyone is the same and we all make different choices (if we are able).

The comment made above about ‘kept middle class’ women misses the point entirely. These kept women have no time for tennis or manicures they are busy raising their children usually on one income. These kept women usually receiving no financial assistance from governments and yet whose taxes go to support subsidised child care for the wealthy as well as the poor.

The reasons why some women are beating a path back to the workforce is not always for reasons of intellectual stimulation but for financial reasons, effects of low status and sometimes before the woman is ready to leave her children. The only choice is which childcare centre rather than home or childcare centre.

The author describes the 'village' concept. Unrestrained capitalism has meant degrading the concept of family raised children in favour of the ‘village’. This is a great misnomer. Child care hardly mimics the tribal and collective caring of children within a larger family or community unit.
Posted by pelican, Monday, 24 November 2008 7:22:25 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
partTimeParent

‘Some poor bugger has to pay the mortgage and deal with the household finances - a couple go from being DINKS, to being one-income, multiple dependants when they have children... and society expects dad to put in the long hours to make it work./Any wonder men are commitment-phobic... they just don't see the benefit.’

Commitment-phobic? Oh, poor diddums!

And do these commitment phobes ever put themselves in the shoes of women now living in a user pays, ageing society in which we are now expected to fund our own retirements?

Do they ever ask what it is like for a woman in such a society who has sent her employment prospects off the rails in order stay at home with the children, only to find herself divorced at age 35, 45 or 55 with a greatly reduced income or no income at all; little to no superannuation; and, more often than not, a post-divorce financial situation directly proportionate to the goodwill or hostility of her ex-spouse?

‘The proportion of women working full-time has not changed in 40 years! (ABS)’

I’ve tried to find an online reference to this, without success. Can you provide one?

‘Yes, more women are working part-time,’

Agreed. But as per my comments above, this does not mean they are spending their lives in a blissful state of work-life balance – especially when, with each passing year, they become ever more dependent on their spouse for their financial survival.

‘Today, there is an entrenched, very powerful cohort of grey-haired 2nd Wave feminists, controlling huge departments and budgets, who have studied Marx, they know about power, and consequently they are deeply antagonistic to men receiving a cent in funding.’

Sorry, mate. I’m not into femonazi-spotting. However, there are lots of posters on OLO who are. If you wait a while, there may be one or two along very soon.
Posted by SJF, Monday, 24 November 2008 10:25:53 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
Helen, You are speaking with exactly the same words I would use if I could find them. A beautifully accurate summary of the situation. Thank you.

A note to the challenged breastfeeders out there first. The Norwegians (best breastfeeders in the developed world) TELL their mothers to take their babies in to bed with them at night and fall asleep with them there (no drugs, alcohol, smoking, sleep disorder, take them in before you get over-tired, firm surface etc).

Helen Ball, great researcher, found that babies sleeping with their mothers in hospital (by random allocation) were more than were twice as likely to be successful breastfeeding months later. Where did Indigenous babies sleep - not in a seperate bedroom. Little mammals sleep with their mothers. We're mammals, act like it, that's the biggest secret. Mother sleeps, baby quietly learns about breast attachment while mother sleeps. Seek help early - a few will still have trouble - 95% Norwegian women have success. You won't roll on them.

Please try to contact me for the references.

On to the topic. Helen, form a political party and I'll join you on this one! There was a time where we were imbued with the idea that a rampant "Economy" was more important than a social system. Greater fool me. Shareholder profit from childcare is disgusting. There's not enough resources for the staff and the babies, certainly there would be none for shareholders.

I read an awful thing in a newspaper a few years ago - the Chamber of Commerce saying that babies could be trained in childcare from the age of two for the workforce. It was like they had taken ownership of the life. If the businesses were raising them, they could also claim them. Bad, bad feeling there.

A commentary on the female entry into the workforce says that it was only 'allowed' because it was wanted anyway.
Posted by Madeleine Love, Tuesday, 25 November 2008 11:12:23 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
Breast-feeding and working are not mutually exclusive. It comes down to the will to make it work and to find a solution that suits both your baby and your employer. Of course, I think it is easier in a town than in a city, and certainly you need reasonable proximity to the child care location.

Dad's make good carers as well. Often there is a different approach or different set of priorities, but that doesnt make it any less effective (I'm a bit biased, I was raised by my dad). There should be more opportunity for men to be carers for their kids - we pay lip-service to it, but in reality its a lot harder to get acceptance.

Breastfeeding is best for babies - it even says so on a formula can! Building better immune systems is a great start - immune systems are boosted by mothers milk and the anti-bodies it contains. If weaned at 1 year or later, baby's immune system has had time to develop itself properly. Breastfeeding is hard and requires a lot of dedication and self-belief (and patience on dad's behalf as well as mum's). There is a big push for it at hospital (to the extent that women that cannot breastfeed well are snubbed to some degree), but little support after that.

As for the industrial revolution pushing women into factories from their homes, I suggest that it took them from the fields (where they generally had their children with them) to the factories (where they could not take their children). Women have always worked outside the home as well as in it, just in varying locations and numbers.
Posted by Country Gal, Tuesday, 25 November 2008 11:42:47 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
CG,

'There is a big push for it at hospital (to the extent that women that cannot breastfeed well are snubbed to some degree), but little support after that.'

Definately. It is a zealous, blind, ideological, judgemental onslaught against any mother who has trouble breastfeeding by the whole 'support' (ha! what a word) system of breast feeding evangalists, through every midwife/nurse you encounter before and after birth. The doctors, rightly, are just interested in mother and baby being happy and healthy physically and emotionally. Our pediatrician told us of a 7 year longitudinal study that found no significant difference between bottle fed and breast fed babies.

Then after trying their best through tears and blood and infections and hungry babies, the brave mothers who look for help amongst the high and mighty evangilists are basically told, you're not trying hard enough, all mothers should be able to breast feed! (i.e. you're a quitter, a bad mother and less of a women.)

My sample of 14 women from my wife's mothers group is unanimous about this.

Other things they are unanimous about....

1. They'd rather not work until the kids are at school, and those that do wouldn't if they had the money not to.
2. They wouldn't be happy for their husbands to stay home, regardless of breast feeding. (Yet, if you talk to feminists like SJF, it's those nasty chauvinist men enslaving them at home)
3. At least 50% have had a hell of a lot of trouble breast feeding.
4. Those that gave up have had a happier mother and baby ever since.
5. Two of those that didn't have ended up badly depressed, and their kids are still screaming all the time.

Finally, my partner believes, and I'm inclined to agree, that it's a sick psychological need of the mother to breast feed once the baby has teeth.

PartTime,

The time spent cooking has been replaced, in this age, of children as king of the house, with 100% attention and daily activities, with swiming and gymbaroo (don't ask!) for 2 month old babies.
Posted by Usual Suspect, Tuesday, 25 November 2008 2:55:19 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
Several Re:'s
Re Usual Suspect:
"The time spent cooking has been replaced, in this age, of children as king of the house, with 100% attention and daily activities, with swiming and gymbaroo (don't ask!) for 2 month old babies."

That's true, Usual. Again you are right on the mark... But is that good to produce little emperors and princesses?

I have 2 kids; a baby and 4.5 year old, so I know both work, and life. I'm a lucky man!

I know all about Gymberoo. It's fun for the kids and the parent. It's not 'work' WOuld you rather be facing a day of office-drag and office politics? or a bit of shopping, playing, gymeroo and so on? Sure, it's 'child-care' but it is enjoyable!

SJF:
I do know about juggling work-life with two kids. I choose to work a 4-day week, and have never had such a pleasant life! Even now with 2month-old-from-hell, it beats working!

The proportion of women working full-time has not changed in 40 years! (ABS citation below) Yes, more women are working part-time, But that isn't a capitalist conspiracy, it's a result of CHOICE!

The proportion of women working FULL-TIME in 1978 was 29.1%, and by 30.9% by 2005!
A massive increase of 1.8% in 27 years! I am woman watch me roar!
Australian Bureau of Statistics 6202.0.55.001 Labour Force, Australia, Spreadsheets : Table 01. Labour force status by Sex - Trend
PartTimeParent@pobox.com
Posted by partTimeParent, Tuesday, 25 November 2008 3:09:44 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Due to medical reasons my wife could not breast feed. The result was distain on the part of mid wife and envy from the other mothers when my wife slept in and I fed the children.

Both my kids are strong smart and seldom ill, so I am not sold on the overwhelming benefit of breast feeding.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 25 November 2008 5:14:13 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
Midwives feel strongly about breastfeeding because the evidence shows that it is best for babies and mothers, and because they take on the responsibility for countering all the negative stereotypes and misinformation out there about breastfeeding.

For example, the view that it is a sick psychological need of the mother to breast feed once the baby has teeth: this is not backed up by generations of babies being breastfeed to full-term all around the world nor any evidence, and suggests someone that perhaps needs some professional psychological help themselves.

Usual Suspect, there is absolutely NO link between breastfeeding and post-natal depression. There is a connection between new mothers feeling unsupported and depression, and this is surely the issue. This is about support from professionals such as midwives, but more importantly support from partners, families and friends.

The ten women in my mother's group all breastfed and when one of us had problems, was supported by everyone else to make the choices that were best for them and their baby. Three of us are still breastfeeding our 2 year olds. All of us except for one are back at work, a combination of full and part time, and though some of us may not be if we didn't have to for money, pretty much everyone I know wouldn't be at work if they didn't have to! For 4 of us, our husbands/partners share the care part time.

The broad generalisations about what women and men want just don't apply to a lot of people and really aren't that helpful in working towards everyone having a better work/life balance
Posted by ruthm, Tuesday, 25 November 2008 6:39:57 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
ruthm,

'Usual Suspect, there is absolutely NO link between breastfeeding and post-natal depression.'

I never suggested there was. What I am saying is that mothers struggling with breastfeeding, in the breastfeeding evangilist environment that is mid-wifery, with a constantly hungry screaming baby, being told to 'tough it out', with all the judgement from the breast feeding brigade have ended up in a world of screaming, hungry unhappy baby, guilt, sleep deprived themselves for such a long period, leading to a state of depression.

Mothers who have luckily had the mindset to reject the blind single-mindedness of these do-gooders, are happy enjoying their babies, and the babies are happy and healthy.

I'm inclined to believe our paediatrican and the studies he quoted rather than midwifes and hippies about the benefits of breastfeeding. Sure, if it's all working well, why not. It's natural and free and often more convenient. What I am against is the guilt trip of 'this is best for your baby', 'every mother has enough milk, you just musn't be doing it right, here see this $300 an hour consultant' attitude.

'more importantly support from partners, families and friends'
Yes. The kind of support needed to reject the industry of guilt trips mentioned above to instead just do what's best for the mother and baby.

'The broad generalisations about what women and men want '
I merely put forward the opinions of women I have asked, that show a rejection of the broad feminist generalisation that women are coerced in some way into being the primary carer.

With regards to your breastfeeding, I make no judgement, and I am sorry to have offended you. My partner just feels that some mothers continue feeding for a long time due to their own wants rather than the child. I mean, there has to be some cutoff where it's not healthy? Maybe you think that's 3 years old, but I'm sure even you would think it a bit troublesome to have a 6 year old feeding? If not, how about a 12 year old?
Posted by Usual Suspect, Wednesday, 26 November 2008 8:50:21 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
I'll stay away from the feminist issues and agree with the main thrust...
Profits are currently allowed to be maximised without many limits, which is why there are huge profits in things that people cannot substitute: Health, childcare, banking, housing.
Manipulating government health and childcare policy in the name of profits is pretty low, yet in the modern economy the norm.
Economic theory actually reveals that high profits are a sign of inadequite competition. Utility is maximised when profits are lowest. Certain "industries" should never be privatised because competition is either undesirable (medicine: race to the bottom), or unachiveable (water, power, transport).
*Some* government industries are essential. (Though certainly not all!)
We have seen how the financial system is coping with rampant capitalism. Time to revisit some of the "economic rationalism" which should be called "profit worship" and revisit the social infrastructure destroyed in the last decade.
Posted by Ozandy, Wednesday, 26 November 2008 8:53:27 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
Part-time parent, your wife may have been unlucky because she could not breastfeed... but I am not going to give up breastfeeding my own child just because it is 'sexist' that men can't do it! Would you like the labour too?
Your comment that a woman sits at home 'playing' with the children while Dad does the work makes me glad that my husband is a real tryer in the workplace.
On the family front, my experience tends to reflect the studies which report that Dads overestimate their parenting and housework contribution, (doing all the 'fun stuff'), while Mum does the washing up forever...
Overall though, I wouldn't have it any other way. Life is a co-operative game when it comes to happy families.
Posted by floatinglili, Wednesday, 26 November 2008 9:57:32 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 article is a bit of a rant

The fact is we are all “worth” what someone else is prepared to pay us.

That is the “Old capitalism” as well as the “New Capitalism”

Regarding “She quotes German social theorist Jurgen Habermas . . . . “

Quoting “theorists” and “theory” from anyone of any gender, nationality or political persuasion does not alter the “fact”, any more than ranting against something being wrong because it pulls those of us who would prefer to flit among the clouds back to earth.

Gravity remains the same, just as ‘economic reality’ remains the same, regardless of all those who rant against it.

The capitalist solution to issues is for everyone to be free to independently choose the life balance and choices which suit their particular aspirations, acknowledging that no one can ever expect to get everything which their hearts might desire.

We are ultimately, all individuals. We can choose to make the most of what life hands us or we can choose to whine about it and rant for changes to suit our particular agenda.

Under the “capitalist system” it is YOU who decides, not some government flunky, securely employed and paid by our taxes who dictates what is in our children’s best interests

Personally, I believe life is too short to worry about other folk, I have enough to do living and taking care of my own cherished children as they evolve into independent, thinking, feeling and determined adults, ready to breed another generation of capitalists.

And anyone who believes “20th century capitalism has exploited women and their babies and children.”

Should ask themselves

Under a capitalist system, who is responsible for doing their research into what is best for themselves and their children.
And
Who gets to decide whether to breast feed or choose which brand of manufactured formula or not (recognizing that some ladies do not have breast feeding as an option)?

Reading history it would appear “20th century capitalism” has prevailed over inferior “socialist” systems and despite the ‘roller-coaster’ of the market, will prevail into the future, regardless.
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 26 November 2008 11:34:11 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
In my experience, I encountered far more pressure to GIVE UP breastfeeding.

Advice to put my twins on the bottle – always unasked for – was persistently offered to me as a panacea for everything imaginable during their first year – from ending sleep deprivation to ensuring the babies’ weight gain/loss to achieving a better post-natal sex life. I lost count of the number of times I was condescendingly told to get rid of all those ‘misguided notions’ about ‘doing everything the natural way’.

I often found myself wondering what drives all this hostility to breastfeeding, as well as the widespread tendency to overexaggerate the existence of a breastfeeding 'mafia'. All I can think of is that breastfeeding falls into that murky realm of natural feminine power – a huge threat in a society based on materialism and a mostly male-centric value structure.

Madeleine Love

Fully agree. Our twins slept with us until they were about 18 months old, and then intermittently until they were ready for their own beds full-time (at about 4 years). We took our cues from them.

Ozandy, floatinglili, ruthm

Well said.

Country Gal

Also some fantastic points. Until the work-life balance dramaticially changed with the Industrial Revolution, not only mothers, but also fathers had their children close by them at work.

Part-timeParent

I don't disagree with you re women and part-time work - but do disagree that this gives them a edge in work-life balance, especially if their PT status is not their first choice. Because of childcare commitments and difficulties, a high proportion still work casual or part-time - which means they languish at the menial and/or low-paid end of the work spectrum. Also, you cite statistics fron 1978. The big influx of women into the workforce really started about 1960.

Usual Suspect

‘(Yet, if you talk to feminists like SJF, it's those nasty chauvinist men enslaving them at home)’

Please DO NOT deliberately misquote or misrepresent people in this way. It is not only childish, it is unhelpful and confusing to the other posters.
Posted by SJF, Wednesday, 26 November 2008 5:54:37 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
SJF,

So you agree women stay at home because they want to. This is news to me. There's no deliberate misrepresentation, and obviously no quoting going on, since I didn't quote you. I likely got my impression of your thoughts from the constant rantings about 'the patriachy'.

Why are you complaining so much about women in part time work then? Obviously they are choosing to work part time as they are choosing to stay at home. You mention super, but I cant see the problem. When your husband will likely die well before you, you will get all his super, and the sole use of the family wealth. If you divorce before then, you will get the house, and some of his super even if you were never married since the changes in the de-facto laws. In these feminist arguments about 'inequality' the concept of family money is conveniently ignored.

Even if you take into account loss of career development, the woman still gets CSA payments, and possibly a new man's income, while still being able to work, and having a great relationship with her kids. Sounds much more attractive to me than a man in an unhappy marriage, staying because he knows if he gets divorced, he'll be renting a 1 bedroom flat, with half his income going to his kids that he only gets to see on weekends.

I often wonder what would make feminists happy. I suppose 3 day a week 9:30-2:30 CEO jobs would be a start. Maybe free child care, and 5 years paid maternity leave would be good. I'm sure even then there would still be something to complain about.

BTW:

'breastfeeding falls into that murky realm of natural feminine power – a huge threat in a society based on materialism and a mostly male-centric value structure.'
Thanks for that, I really did get a chuckle. I should save these kind of quotes up for next time you accuse me of deliberately misrepresenting you.
Posted by Usual Suspect, Thursday, 27 November 2008 8:56:32 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
"breastfeeding falls into that murky realm of natural feminine power – a huge threat in a society based on materialism and a mostly male-centric value structure."

Have to wonder about this statement. It detracts from everything else in the post. Who was it giving unasked for advice re breastfeeding?
Posted by bennie, Thursday, 27 November 2008 9:18:26 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
SJF, I wouldnt say that the work-life balance changed with the industrial revolution, rather that the type of work changed from menial and physical labour from dawn to dusk, gradually changing to what we have today. Labour in the fields is less dangerous to small children than factory work, so no or little impediment to kids going to work with either parent. My name probably gives away that I grew up a farm girl - went to work on a regular basis with dad from the age of 1 year (think I was too much of a handful for mum, and best kept very occupied).

Usual suspect, you and SJF seem to be at opposite ends of the spectrum. I see good points from both of you however. As to your wife's mothers group opinions, perhaps you may find that women (and men) with similar opinions tend to form friendships, resulting in the responses you have given above. As far as the choice of home or work goes, men and women would generally give the same reponse - no work if I dont have to!!

I point out though that even if you are playing with young children, the constantness is very wearing. There are no tea breaks, no lunch break and trying to do even the simplest of household chores takes 3 times as long as normal. I certainly find work much less frustrating (even if less personally rewarding). In the old days with larger families, the early kids were still hard going, but older kids started to entertain the younger ones - a friend who has 5 young children now insists that 5 is much easier than 2.
Posted by Country Gal, Thursday, 27 November 2008 3:38:13 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
CG,

'As far as the choice of home or work goes, men and women would generally give the same reponse - no work if I dont have to!!'

That being the case, women ARE better off. They are choosing this more desirable role, but it is used by feminists as a representation of inequality. I'd say about as many women truely want a high flying career as men want to be primary carer.

It's hard work bringing up the kids, but most people would rather not have to go to work every monday morning. It's all well and good to say, as many women do, that going to work is easier than raring the kids. But that's understandable when you are only 'adding' to the family financial resources, and aren't primarily responsible for the family's financial survival.

Maybe that's why men also see raising the children as 'easier' as they haven't the emotional involvement and sense of self worth wrapped up in their parenting abilities. The same self worth that is played upon by the breastfeeding evangilists to guilt women who are struggling with it into persevering regardless of what's best for them.

I saw an advert recently showing a woman in horror that another woman may use her bathroom and she wasn't sure how clean it was. This demonstrates my point above, and explains why women complain about men not doing enough housework. If men stay home, they often don't care if the kids have a bit of dirt on their clothes, or the toilet isn't always sparkling.

In the same way many women don't have the interest in career, and many reach their 30s with no money behind them, as they expect they won't be primarily responsible for providing for a family. My wife was quite the career woman, but said to me the other day she really doesn't care for it now she has experienced the joy of motherhood. I suspect many women are the same. Doesn't stop the feminists from using wage differences and workforce participation as evidence of inequality.
Posted by Usual Suspect, Thursday, 27 November 2008 4:26:59 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
Well US, I say its easier to go to work, and I am the primary breadwinner (house-provider etc), and the primary carer of our two children. That's not to say my husband doesnt work hard - he does, buts its in low paying labour-based jobs with little job security (although that might be a rare thing for anyone soon). We would be as well off if he quit work and cared for the kids, what with a bit of extra money from Centrelink and the savings in childcare. But he has been conditioned to think that men are worthless if they are not at (paying) work, and that child-raising is "womens work" (read valueless). So our kids go out to daycare 4 days a week, which I think is a bit sad.

Women put an awful lot of peer pressure on each other, as do men, its just in different ways. My mother-in-law denigrated me for sticking to breastfeeding as long as I did (7 and 8 months), but she was a bottle-feeder and resented not being able to take the babies for any length of time. In my family bottle-feeding is pretty much unheard of, so whilst I didnt have support nearby I knew it wasnt easy and stuck with it (even though I was feeding every 2 hours at one stage including during the night - sheer hell, but was just a stage). As for feeding for a long-time, babies often get stuck in their ways and wont have a bar of anything different. Mine got miserable when teething and sucking a bottle is easier (and therefore hurts them less) than sucking a nipple, so that's how they both converted. Its horses for courses - every child and family is different, and there are some that lookdown on breastfeeding and others that lookdown on bottle-feeding.
Posted by Country Gal, Thursday, 27 November 2008 6:01:04 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
Its beginning to look as though U Suss came merely because he couldn't wait to start in on the latest female group he's encountered, the "breastfeeding evangilist(sic) environment". Six months a parent and now he can add breastfeeding to the list of things to blame women for.

I am truly sorry your wife couldn't breast-feed as you said she wanted to. No matter what the cause of it nor how irrational it may be,a women who is unable to breastfeed when she has planned on it always feels a niggling of guilt. If you have made the choice to bottle-feed from the beginning it does not, of course, apply. From your posts you are beginning to discover this.

This first year is always difficult for both parents and the challenges and changes in focus are immense. While I applaud your willingness to get involved with the whole process, I wish you could do so without focusing blame, derogatory sentiments, and more sweeping judgements around on people (the women on this forum) who have nothing to do with those who you percieve as the current enemy.

You know, if you just came on and said "you know this parenthood thing is a roller-coster, " or words to that effect and spoke simply about the problems you'd been having, you'd get so much support.

You really are your own worst enemy, aren't you?
Posted by Romany, Friday, 28 November 2008 2:03:06 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
It's beginning to look as though Romany came merely because she couldn't wait to start in on U Suss. I thank her for her patronising, arrogant and sexist response. I would never be so corny or quaint as to say 'you know this parenthood thing is a roller-coster'. Though I will cease and desist commenting on any parenting issues, as I don't earn that right until my child is much older, or else I become a woman, or else I am happy to be patronised and kept in my place. I will also practise my spelling.

Being a mere male, I would never have understood that women may feel guilt about breastfeeding. Thanks for the pat on the head, and the applause for a man who would be interested in being involved in his family.

You really are wonderful aren't you?
Posted by Usual Suspect, Friday, 28 November 2008 9:04:27 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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