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. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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