Mothers
(Via NealeNews)
Michael Coren steps in it this week in a big way:
I don't really know if there is a different aptitude for science between men and women and don't particularly care. I do know, however, that a woman's place is in the home.
There, it's been said. The unthinkable has been uttered. I can only wonder what the various highly intelligent women who edit my column are saying as they read this, but that's hardly the point. A woman's place is in the home.
Crikey, he said it twice.
Nobody is forcing women to become moms, but if they do they should take their new job seriously and not pretend it is some hobby or part-time occupation. Instead, we have created a situation where many women are embarrassed to admit that they are at home with their kids.
Actually, the situation was created in part by others, and on purpose. Worse than that, the intent was not to make women feel embarrassed for being mothers. The intent was to eliminate motherhood altogether.
I'm reposting a column I wrote back in November 2004 for my old blog. The Liberals were still in power, and though they were in a minority situation, no one had any idea that it would all come crashing down. It was just as likely that they would return with a majority in the next election.
Nationalized daycare was on the horizon, with the Liberals spinning the issue as a helping hand, instead of what we now know it to be thanks to Scott Reid and the "beer and popcorn" remark -- an attempt to usurp the role of parents, and in particular mothers, in raising children.
Scott Reid, John Duffy, Ken Dryden, and the rest of the nationalized daycare brigade are not newcomers on the scene. In fact, the goal of eliminating mothers has a long and proud history with liberal social engineers.
[Originally posted on November 17, 2004]
My good friend smileyme has a thread concerning taxation. In her post, she has a great line:
I suggested a better wording:Why do we have so many taxes? Because liberals want to tax EVERYTHING.
Why do we have so many taxes? Because liberals want to DO everything.
You might just be surprised at what they want to do.
You would think that having children and raising them would be one of the inviolable domains that liberals would leave alone (short of interventions to stop child abusers, for example). Not bloody likely. Liberals would prefer to tax you, and use the money to do it for you, because to do it for you is doing you, your kids, and society a favour.
Don't believe me? Consider this quote from The Feminine Mystique (1963) by Betty Friedman (the handbook of the feminist movement):
They [mothers] were reduced to childlike preoccupation with food, elimination, the satisfaction of primitive bodily needs; they had no privacy, and no stimulation from the outside world. But above all, they were forced to spend their days in work which produced great fatigue...required no mental concentration, gave no hope of advancement or recognition, was sometimes senseless, and was controlled by the needs of others...(306)
If you were a woman and a liberal, and you believed this nasty screed against motherhood, wouldn't you prefer to have some else deal with raising the kids? Sure you would. But to pay for a nanny is expensive -- overtime, cutting back on the luxuries, etc.
No wait a minute, self-sacrifice is how a self-empowered conservative pays for things. You're a liberal -- you'll just impose taxes on everybody, then take the money to set up a national daycare system, and throw in your kids for free (well, you'll pay more taxes too, but less than if you had to pay for your own nanny, and anyway, it's the principle of the thing).
If you look hard enough, you can even find justification for this! You're not being cheap and sponging off others -- the government run daycare is actually good for your kids and for society. The Swedish social democrats Gunnar and Alva Myrdal, architects of Sweden's family policy (including universal, government-run daycare) had this to say about parents who wanted to raise their own children:
The little modern family is almost...pathological.
The old ideals must die out with the generations which supported them.
False individualistic desire by parents for the 'freedom' to raise their own children had an unhealthy origin...much of the tiresome pathos which defends 'individual freedom' and 'responsibility for one's own family,' is based on a sadistic disposition to extend this 'freedom' to an unbound and uncontrolled right to dominate others.
Imagine the conceit of thinking that you know what is best for your kids. Leave it the professionals. Bureaucrats who learned in psychology courses what kids need. People who are willing to take on the job of making sure your children are raised to be good little citizens with the right attitudes and priorities. Not only are you getting "free" daycare, you are contributing to the betterment of society, not like those "pathological" and "sadistic" conservatives and their families, an ideal that "must die out".
And die out it will, as the increased taxes make it harder and harder to afford to have children in the first place. So beware of raised taxes. It's not just money. It's the attitude behind it -- an attitude that might be darker than you ever imagined.
By the way, national daycare was a promise made in the last general election in Canada, by the party that ultimately won the election. The name of the party: The Liberal Party of Canada.
Ah, heck!
[end of post]
Of course, we've dodged that bullet. The Conservatives won on January 23, 2006. They have made it clear that the nationalized daycare program will die at the first opportunity -- after the first year of funding the contract with the provinces can be cancelled. The Conservatives have already publicly committed to doing just that.
Instead, those pathological and sadistic control freaks we know as mom and dad will be getting money in their pockets to use as they see fit.
Oh, the horror.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
Funny how you happened to ignore some facts, such as how some countries in Europe, like Norway, have nationized day child care, and there are still families. It's not the end of the world over there.
You do have good points, about how child care can be problematic, but I think we need to take a neutral look at this instead of going overboard.
Maybe instead of all these silly arguments, we should left this child care debate up to the provinces and let them have choices in what they can do with it.
I guess I'll get flamed for my comments.
Posted by: Crazy Dan at February 25, 2006 03:57 PM
No one flame Crazy Dan. He makes a good point. The family-unfriendly socialist programs have not destroyed these countries yet, but I have to say that these things take time. For instance, many people have noted that in countries like France, the only people having children are socially and religiously conservative Muslims.
We might only be in the middle of the process.
But Dan makes a not so crazy point -- leave it up to the provinces. Which is something most conservatives would agree with. Push to process down, away from the national level. Of course, I would push it down further, but the direction is right.
Posted by: Steve Janke at February 25, 2006 04:04 PM
Okay, I'm relieved. Mmmm, you have an interesting point about how few people have children in European countries, while religious Muslims have more and more children.
But could that be related to other factors? I recall reading one news about how stastics show how middle class and rich, college/university educated people have less children because of their work and money. Or how women prefers to postpone their family and children plans for their future so they could focus on their careers. Or there could be problem with the fertility of the couples.
About the social and religious conservative muslims, well, recall that they lives in poor neighbourhoods and "ghettos". History show that poor people have way more children than middle and rich people. Like in China, India or in poor Catholic Ireland in the past.
It seem little harsh to me to blame the children problem on childcare only.
But I admits I don't know lot about the child care issue, the child birthrate in Europe and Canada, the reasons for lower birth rates and all these things. So I need to hear more information related to the pro-arguments and arguments against nationalized child care issue.
Just wondering, Steve Janke, how Stephen Harper would deal with these provinces, like Ontario, who plans to ask him to "keep the child care deal" alive?
Posted by: Crazy Dan at February 25, 2006 05:02 PM
Here's one messy, half-baked idea on how to respond to the provinces who want to "keep the child care deal alive". Let the old deal stand if the province wants, but, in such provinces, reduce the money payed to individual parents by a corresponding amount.
When parents see they are not receiving the money they expected under the new plan, they can then lobby their provincial government to scrap the old plan.
Or they can say, "Please, Mr. Premier, keep the money to set up state-run day-care, don't let me buy more beer and popcorn."
Provinces that insist on setting up state-run day care will then have to justify the cost to their constituents.
Posted by: Ben at February 25, 2006 06:25 PM
I love it when a man steps in and announces someone other than himself should be staying home and caring for children. And of course, while the little ladies are at it, cook clean and have everything ready for when the man gets home so he can sit with his feet up and a beer in his hand while his dinner is served. Only a male with delusions of patriarchy would support that kind of choice.
Not all women are designed to be full time stay at home mommies. Sorry guys, but you don't want the job for a bunch of good reasons. It's boring, its tiring, its draining, and the rewards are few and far between. Many women burn out fast. I did the full time stay at home mommy thing until my eldest was in kindergarden and I did the day care thing with my youngest. I have yet to hear anyone advocating that all chbildren be home schooled. Why is that? because we'd end up with a nation of laregly iliterate malcontents. So why are the early years different? My experience shows that young kids are better off with a blend of both good quality daycare and parents involved and around. Parents with young children should be able to access choices that work for them. A blend of daycare plus both parents having flexible enough workplaces to come and go as their kids need them works best all around without condemning half our society to dullard chores with inadequate training and support. Condemning all women to 24/7 childcare is a idiots choice and it costs children and society more than we can afford. Imagine saying all men should become ditch diggers (and nothing else) and you'll have it about right.
Posted by: Judith at February 25, 2006 07:23 PM
From John Robson's column in the Ottawa Citizen today, "New kid on the block will be famous one day":
http://www.thejohnrobson.com/columns/2006/060224.htm
'There’s a new kid on the block. He might look kind of dorky, but I think one day he’ll be famous. I refer to the new Institute of Marriage and the Family...
To say family is important is trite. And important is not a synonym for good. But just as good families are very good, bad families are very bad. So surely we ought to proceed carefully if there’s any real danger we’re making them all worse with ill-advised policies. Instead, politicians ritually praise the family but won’t discuss it. Mention 100,000 abortions a year and they all move away from you there on the bench. And speaking of the bench, how about that swingers’ club ruling?..
I think the most important observation on this subject was Malcolm Muggeridge’s: “Sex is the mysticism of materialism. We are to die in the spirit to be reborn in the flesh, rather than the other way around.” It can hardly be accomplished while changing diapers. It is not clear how much government policy influences life choices; state subsidies to certain lifestyles may be the result, not the cause, of voters adopting them. Nor is it clear whether having both parents work is good, bad or neutral. But wouldn’t it be nice to know?
This new institute is a project of Focus on the Family, a Christian organization. With our newfound hypersensitivity to religious sensibilities, I know no one will say anything nasty about faith orientation and research credibility. Well, someone might. Opening night saw a dreary little protest by people favouring “equal marriage.” It was so cold they left quickly. But apparently they already know solid research will undermine their position, which might make lesser minds uneasy about the position, not the research. And while you ain’t no one in this town until you’ve been protested, one point is worth making.
When same-sex marriage went from unthinkable to unstoppable in four years, advocates defended it on constitutional and abstract ethical grounds. Any sociological inquiry was dismissed as offensive and irrelevant. Yet when polygamy raised its ugly heads last year, a Status of Women Canada call for research said: “It is vital that researchers explore the impacts of polygamy on women and children and gender equality as well as the challenges that polygamy presents to society.” Indeed. But why stop there? Much of the press and the handful of experts cited ad nauseam take for granted that all types of family are equally valid. What if they’re not..
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins at February 25, 2006 07:54 PM
Before industrialism, only 150 years ago, a typical peasant family, with little birth control would have perhaps 8 to 12 kids, farm work was divided 'equally' and then some, and 'the home' was not just the house, but also the barn, the fields, the threshing floor etc etc. Men, women, and children worked together on many of these tasks. There were no washing machines, pre-manufactured foods, or vaccuum cleaners, etc etc.
During the early industrial revolution, with the forced enclosures forcing peasant families off the land, women formed at least half of the wolk force manning the new industrial weaving industry.
Economists noted back then that women were used as the 'reserve labour army' drawn into the workforce in greater numbers when needed, and released when the economy slowed down.
During WW II, women were drawn into industrial production in greater numbers than ever before, and were encouraged to vacate jobs to make room for the returning soldiers. The war economy could not have functioned without an army of women leaving the 'home' to man the factories.
As the industrial economy advances, changing from heavy to light industry, there are an increasing number of jobs for which women are simply more suited. An early example: In the 60's, Japanese camera assembly plants situated in peasant regions in the Phillipines found that women were more suited for this nimble task and hired mostly women, paying very high wages relative to a peasant economy, and this created much sociological confusion in traditional peasant societies.
In today's advanced industrial economies, with a declining birth rate, a return of women to the 'home' would be economic suicide. Most of our consumer products are designed to make the work we have to do less, so the fact now is that compared to our peasant origins, there is simply not enough work around the home to keep either a man or woman busy. We don't have 8 kids anymore. We don't use a washboard to do the laundry. We don't milk the family cow or churn the butter anymore. We don't grow a garden and can and dry and pickle our food for winter anymore. The list goes on...and this list means that 'the home' is not a place where anyone can be fully employed. And, oh yes, the public schooling mandatory child care option, scarcely a hundred years old, means that after age 5, there are no kids in the home, so how can 'having children' or 'minding the home' be considered anything like a productive full-time job?
Historically, the upper classes have always hired nannies, so the concept of 'child care' even for the early ages is nothing new. It has always been the peasant and industrial working classes that have been expected to 'do it all on their own'. If it is childcare that produces juvenile delinquents, then one must conclude that the scions of the upper classes, historically, have produced mostly juvenile delinquents.
Like the pre-Enlightenment medievalists in only some Islamic quarters, there is a romantically-driven movement in advanced industrial societies by only some to try to turn the clock back to a mythical past when things were simple and everyone knew their place. yet, this mythical vision never existed. To justify 'the woman's return to the home', you need 8 kids, a washboard, a cow, a garden, no public education,and perhaps a half mile walk to fetch water.
Posted by: brock at February 25, 2006 08:06 PM
Way to go Judith. "A woman's place is in the home." What a load of nonsense. What is a man's place, then? In parliament? At the helm of a Fortune 500 company?
Posted by: Ade at February 25, 2006 09:45 PM
Judith, I was so disgruntled by your comment I devoted a whole blog post to it:
http://therawlife.blogspot.com/2006/02/yes-i-belong-in-home.html
cheers!
Posted by: Jodie at February 25, 2006 11:54 PM
Way ta go, Ade, completely missing the point of Judith's post.
And Judith, in her rush to condemn Steve's post, actually sums up the conservative position on child-care perfectly: "Parents with young children should be able to access choices that work for them." Bingo! But pity poor Judith, actually taking care of her own children. How awful!
Posted by: colin at February 26, 2006 12:33 AM
What bothers me and should bother everyone is how the man is left out of all considerations on family. We've turned all males into biological cash machines whose only purpose is to work, lead or die. DUMB! Real dumb.
I raised my kids alone: No woman. A lot of men do. Yet, all talk of child care is female centered and female centered ONLY. Worse to my mind, Coren knows the size and scope of the daddy population. He ignores massive numbers of children to make a point which has little if any merit. So do other posters in this thread.
Look, based on personality preferance we should be running a third of children being primarily male raised and two-thirds primarily female raised. THAT, that gives us the greatest probibility of the largest percentage of children being raised by the parent with the greatest ability to be the primary care giver. We currently run about 11% of children being primarily male raised: This is far too low and is one (among many) of the causes for our disgustingly high child abuse rate.
Canada is running with a child abuse rate of about 112,000 cases a year: Way too high given what we spend on stopping child abuse. One of the many things we need to do to get that rate down is to throw aside our gender bigotry. We need to say "The best interest of the child is also in the best interest of the better parent." The better parent is between the EARS, not between the legs.
Posted by: jw at February 26, 2006 05:55 AM
So Steve I guess you support wages for housework, for stay at home moms. The wage would be around $100,000 annually. But of course who would pay for that? Why the corporations of course cause they need workers. And who breeds workers? Well according to your two posts you have four already, waiting and growing to be the workforce of the future.
Posted by: Eugene Plawiuk at February 26, 2006 06:14 AM
"Parents with young children should be able to access choices that work for them."
Access to choices isn't the problem. There are lots of choices in the marketplace, provided of course parents can afford and, or, are willing to pay for those choices.
If parents can't 'afford' those choices, or they're unwilling to give up the 2nd car, the electronic toys, the big house, the dog, the vacations in the sun, the dining out to pay for those choices, then perhaps they should figure out if having children is something that really fits into their lifestyle to begin with.
Posted by: JM at February 26, 2006 09:37 AM
It's interesting to see the perpetuating of the double-standard of female vs. male childcare rears its hypocritical head, even in this thread.
Why is it that feminists can advocate (with hearty support of the courts) the position that it's the female who is the "natural" caregiver and thereby deserving of the lion's share of child custodies and payments... yet they are also the ones bleating the loudest that the workplace system doesn't naturally allow them to break free of this?
Let's say you're right. Let's agree in principle that women are the best at nurturing and raising our young children. Who would argue that this isn't incredibly important in this particular time in society?
So then why all the bitching that the government won't look after your kids for you? Or that those nasty workplaces won't build daycare slots for you so you can leave your kids with somebody else to raise? Since the system agrees you're typically the first choice at caring for your kids... why are you objecting to it?
Talk about wanting to have everything your own way. And it drives the feminists and social engineers nuts that no matter how well you create daycare spaces or jig the system... kids are still better off at home in the presence of a loving parent, usually (but not necessarily) their mother, rather than off-loaded to a third party.
Where did we go wrong on this? Coren has a good point, despite all the hatred and derision that'lll flow his way after his article.
My wife stayed home with each of our 3 kids so that she was actively involved in their upbringing. She could have easily worked, as she's a professional, and we'd have a bigger house and likely a plasma screen or two to show for it. But we didn't want our kids to be raised by anybody other than the two of us. It was my wife who stayed with them, as I earned the higher wage (honestly, I think it worked out better that way), and she was able to work in her field part-time during the time the kids were preschool.
Why is this devalued in today's society? Why is the raising of our children almost looked upon with scorn, when my wife could have worked outside the house in her field? Is it because we chose not to opt for that bigger house, or take those extra trips?
Is it because my wife "sacrificed" opportunities to raise her children first-hand, rather than leave it for somebody else? We don't feel it was a "sacrifice", either, BTW. What more important job is there than raising your kids? And unless it was financially unavoidable, for us, why sub-contract to a lesser party?
Or - worse yet - is it because my wife's work at home with our 3 kids is somehow "lesser" than the remunerating work she'd have done outside the home? I tend to think, with exasperation, that society's social engineers would find this last reason the most applicable.
I, for one, am not convinced that Johnny or Suzy benefit more from having Mom working as a corporate lawyer or whatever, as opposed to staying with them, and nurturing them all day. And of course, in other cases, Dad could do the same thing.
But anybody who's of the mind that shuttling them off to a third party to care for them - when it's not truly essential - is more beneficial than staying in their parents' care at home... you're entitled to your own opinions.
But I feel a little bit sorry for your kids. And for you, too; you are making a sacrifice that can't be reversed. Your kids only grow up once, unfortunately.
mhb23re
(emails is above username at Google webmail service)
Posted by: mhb at February 26, 2006 09:54 AM
"Not all women are designed to be full time stay at home mommies."
I agree, BUT the V-A-S-T majority of mothers would much rather be stay at home moms and look after thier children.
AND THATS A FACT.
Horny Toad
Posted by: Horny Toad at February 26, 2006 01:39 PM
CPAC on Goldhawk tonight has the childcare issue and people are welcome to call in if your interested... www.cpac.ca
Posted by: Sara at February 26, 2006 03:20 PM
Wow, JM. Those are some radical views.
Do you have kids? Did you wait until you'd done all your traveling, etc. and were financially secure before having them? Do you really think that people should only be (morally) allowed to have kids if they can provide for them solely on their own?
Someone said that it takes a village to raise a child.
If people were to save up to have kids, then no one would have them. I know I wouldn't want to start raising kids at 40.
Your form of social engineering looks like an attempt to 'breed out' the lower class or something. Hmmm. I smell Fascism.
Posted by: Gargoyle at February 26, 2006 06:38 PM
Re 'lower class' comment: This brings to light perhaps the most important aspect of this debate: Social class.
In no so-called 'left-right' issue does social class matter more than in this child rearing, working outside the home, and child care issue.
The leading feminists have for a long time asked for things only a professional woman or upper middle class woman could realistically carry through. Note what Betty Friedan realized long ago: "A worker’s wife, for example, is least free to join the (feminist) movement. She knows that her husband is more exploited than most feminist leaders and that he depends on her role as the housewife-mother to survive himself." Simone de Beauvoir interview with John Gerassi, “Society”, 1976.
Since the success of feminism in drawing women into the workforce, real wages of working class men have declined, except for the small, shrinking,union sector. This means, if a working class family wants to own a home, they have no choice but to have the woman work at least part time as well. This is no feminist plum, its dire necessity.
It's fine to tell women to stay home, but are you willing to pay all men union wages? Can North America compete with India and China on the basis of a one wage earner worker economy?
Posted by: brock at February 26, 2006 07:07 PM
I am quite baffled by your comments brock. why do there need to be 8 kids, a cow to milk etc. to justify a woman staying "in the home?" If you were to hire a woman (most housekeepers and child care-givers are women) to live in your home, do all of the cooking, cleaning and shopping and care for your 1-2 children, you would have to pay her a decent full-time wage including vacation and overtime pay. This is a legitimate full-time occupation (and it is one that I have personally done). So why would it be injustifiable for the actual mother of that family to stay home and do the same job? Is it simply because she could earn more and make more of a contribution to our economy by participating in the work force and increasing her level of consumption?
I also wanted to point out that many women still have vegetable gardens, can some foods, make home-cooked meals, do their own baking, sew their own clothes, etc. although I admit that since even more women are in the work force, these domestic arts are dying out. This is a pity, imho.
Since when were we really better off supporting corporations like Nestle by buying baby formula rather than breastfeeding and supporting the health of both children and mothers? Should we abandon breastfeeding because it is "unnecessary" and bad for the economy? Supporting a strong economy through increased consumerism does not justify feeding our kids unhealthy processed foods and paying "trained professionals" (but is there really all that much respect and prestige for those people who choose to go through for ECE?) to look after them. Children are suffering because of their parent's addiction to spending money and aquiring possessions. To put the health of the economy above the well-being of children (who do not have a say in any of this) is inhumane. It is also very degrading to women to value them based on how much they can produce and contribute to the economy. When you reduce a person to nothing more than a cog in an economic machine, you deny them the humanity that is inherently theirs.
Posted by: Jodie at February 26, 2006 11:36 PM
You make very good points, and in my heart I agree with them, and the option you envision is one I hope will remain forever. Inclusive of such an option is a small business or farm where people are self-employed and don't have to bargain with a corporation or government re childcare, and kids have an up bringing with both parents around and about.
My posts were to respond to the Coren piece envisioning a simplistic return to a past that never was except perhaps in islands of the upper middle class, and too often, upper middle class ideologues (whether 'male-ist' or feminist), spin visions of freedom which no one else can afford.
Diversity and expansion of freedom of choice is where I like to see things continue to develop. So many diverse individuals, both men and women, and no one formula, like a blanket 'women belong back home' should fit all. Best,
Posted by: brock at February 27, 2006 12:04 AM
Interesting discussion.
For what it is worth we have decided to not use daycare because we aren't comfortable with the level or quality of attention we feel our daughter would receive in day care. We just don't feel comfortable abdicating that level of responsability for something so vital.
Posted by: Andrew at February 27, 2006 10:00 AM
I think this discussion dovetails nicely with recent statistics that indicate men now live 10 years fewer on average than women. 20 years ago it was roughly the same. Why has this alarming trend occured?
It seems that men now are called upon do more with child-rearing, household chores, have less or no opportunities in the workplace because they are not minorities or women, expectations create extreme money earning pressures and are taken to the cleaners if their marriage breaks down.
I think a good dose of reality would level the playing field.
Posted by: Liberal Ron at February 27, 2006 10:11 AM
The reality.....
Outlaw home-schooling.
Encourage stay-at-home moms.
Remove funding for daycares but make those expenses a 100% reduction to taxable income.
Open up workplace opportunities to the most qualified.
Lower a families economic expectations.
Reform divorce/separation laws as they pertain to support payments.
Posted by: Liberal Ron at February 27, 2006 10:28 AM
Brock, so are you saying that expecting all women to stay home with the children is asking too much of most modern families? I guess I see more possibilities b/c I see my "option" being lived out by many of my social peers. I grew up in Mennonite country (although am not Mennonite myself) and know that there are such family farms and small businesses operating in Ontario today. Living on a single income is a different lifestyle for sure, but it is far from impossible. A single income family has different priorities and goals. There is more pressure perhaps on the breadwinner, yet at the same time they have a full-time spouse supporting them. I think it is much more strenuous for both parents to be pursuing separate careers. The cost of child care and time-saving conveniences make that option quite unappealing to my husband and me. Both spouses have to be earning very decent wages to make the amount of time they are each absent from the home (the centre of their family life, we may presume) worth while. I see the double income option as much more of a trap for lower income earners. The quality of family life and the health of each family member suffers more for not having one parent cultivating the home full-time for the rest of the family. We are living this option. We are a student family living in a small 2 bedroom apt with 2 small children. We have our stresses, but generally, life is comfortable and content. It is obvious to us that having me here is better for us all in the long run and we are happy to "get ahead" at a slower pace than others. We don't want to find ourselves "ahead" 15 years down the road with a crumbling marriage and teenagers who don't speak to us.
Posted by: Jodie at February 27, 2006 10:56 AM
Liberal Ron, why out-law home schooling??
Posted by: Jodie at February 27, 2006 10:58 AM
Call me a conspiracy theorist if you will, but I think the Liberal/NDP left has a far more nefarious plot in all of this - and if so, the democratic and free thinking implications for the future of Canada would be very dark if it weren't for Conservatives.
Posted by: Irwin Daisy at February 27, 2006 11:02 AM
Home-schooling...Someone here has said this is what creates illiterate malcontents. I partially agree with this but the main reason to me is that it's just plain inefficient.
Public schools in some ways aren't the best but in other ways they are the best. Sure there's problems and conflicts as well as quality issues and peer/gang pressure. However, they are staffed with professional educators who are trained to deal with these problems in a structured environment.
Parents that home-school typically aren't trained teachers and have way too much emotional attachment. You can not become an educator by reading a couple of books on child developement. By learning to let go and having a great relationship with your spouse you are doing far more good for your child than having 24/7 contact with them. They will leave the nest eventually and will only have required independence skills if they are not coddled.
By placing a child in a public school there's structured regimintation and the conflicts they deal with build character. Parents are then free to build their relationship and career(s).
In conclusion I believe parents that home school are lazy, paranoid, short-sighted and posses a false sense of dedication.
Posted by: Liberal Ron at February 27, 2006 01:00 PM
Irwin Daisey...You certainly have a vivid imagination. As a lefty Liberal I can assure you there is no plot whatsoever, wicked or otherwise.
I wouldn't even know who to plot with or what to plot.
Posted by: Liberal Ron at February 27, 2006 01:18 PM
Liberal Ron:
What? And I'm supposed to be asssured by a self-proclaimed 'lefty liberal?' Well, that certainly makes me feel a whole lot better.
However, your bit,
"In conclusion I believe parents that home school are lazy, paranoid, short-sighted and posses a false sense of dedication."
Should of went on to read,
"Sense of dedication to the state that is, because all children must be wards of our progressive soviet style child care plan...and if you choose to be different, we will call you names like lazy, paranoid and short-sighted for starters. Resistance is futile."
Read Jonathan Kay's Op Ed in todays Post. He nails these miscreants on these very same issues.
Posted by: Irwin Daisy at February 27, 2006 01:56 PM
FYI
According to my accountant friend's calculations, a second income earner needs to gross about $28,000/year to break even, if they have preschool kids. If they make less, they're just wasting their time. Of course a lot of people make it work by getting grandma to look after the kids for free.
With those kinds of numbers it's clear that tens of thousands of people have either never seen the numbers or are going to work for reasons other than money. There are lots of 2nd income earners making less than $14/hr fulltime. They are working due to the social pressure and personal preference to work.
The excuse "I have to work" quite often just isn't true. In fact, for many of these people it would be more effective to use that time to reduce expenses.
Posted by: PlaidShirt at February 27, 2006 03:58 PM
Just as a reality check, it's worth noting that all the Scandinavian countries have fertility rates higher than Canada's, and France's isn't much lower than the U.S. rate.
Total fertility (children per woman)
Canada: 1.61
Sweden: 1.65
Denmark: 1.72
Finland: 1.72
Norway: 1.75
France: 1.89
United States: 2.08
Posted by: Intellectual Pariah at February 27, 2006 04:28 PM
plaidshirt touched on it...just wait till the grandkids come along and they will. who takes care of them while mom and pop are out trying to make ends meet. three guesses and the first two don't count. i think i see more of my grandkids than i ever saw of my own except for the 42 year old that is still at home. fortunately he is self suffcient but now that my wife and i are suppose to have some time to ourself, supposedly, we now have the responsibility for the grandkids to a large degree. don't get me wrong. we love them all but it would never happen in a one paycheque family or extended family. to top it all off my wife has the added responsibility of looking after her 91 year old mom who is in a nursing home. she would be better off in club fed the way nursing homes treat there charges. its a cycle and one parent staying home in todays society just won't cut it. nor will daycare for the young as nursing homes don't for the aged. unfortunately in the end it comes down to $$$.
Posted by: spike at February 27, 2006 05:01 PM
Regarding the following comment: "I have yet to hear anyone advocating that all chbildren be home schooled. Why is that? because we'd end up with a nation of laregly iliterate malcontents."
I thought I should stick up for the home-schoolers out there, all the studies I have heard of or seen referenced indicate that home-schooled children are doing quite well in comparison to their "traditionally" schooled counterparts. While perhaps not for everyone, there is no point in dragging home-schoolers' names and reputations through the mud based on someone's biased opinions that stand opposed to the facts.
For example:
"When it comes to the standard measures of school achievement, some studies show that home-schooled students outdo their counterparts in traditional schools. In 2000, the average SAT score for a home-schooler was 1100, compared with 1019 for the traditional student.
And 35 of the 265 finalists in the 2004 Scripps National Spelling Bee were home-schoolers. That translates to about 13 percent of finalists, though even the most generous estimates put those taught at home at 4 percent of the school-age population."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/08/13/b2s.homeschool/index.html
"Home schooler achievement is in the 76th percentile results on standardized achievement tests, compared to a national baseline of 50th percentile."
Ray, B.D. (1994). A Nationwide Study of Home Education in Canada: Family Characteristics, Student Achievement, and Other Topics. National Education Research Institute (via http://www.fotf.ca/familyfacts/issues/homeschool/stats.html)
Posted by: Denis at February 27, 2006 06:06 PM
People/societies do better with an intelligent division of labour. Little else would get done if everybody had to do their own wash, cook, etc. Given the comments about Coren's article (here and elsewhere), I was surprised when I actually read his article, how he DOESN'T portray the issue as black and white, as though every woman should be in the kitchen. He writes that his words do not apply to 'every woman' nor to 'every home'.
However, possibly the most striking part of his article is as follows, "There is no compelling case that the world would be a better place if more women were lawyers, bankers, soldiers or engineers. There are many such arguments, however, that the world would be a far better place if more women were mothers. Which means more than the mere act of procreation. It means devotion, sacrifice and time. Not quality time, just time. Lots of it. It means refusing to accept that self-esteem can only come through a boss, water cooler gossip and a generous pension scheme." This rings particularly true - I think of my mother (a registered nurse who gave it up to raise 8 of us) and my wife (a professional teacher who is staying home to raise our 5, so far, children). I think also of the many women I've heard personally tell of how they wish they could be home with their kids, but cannot afford it. I can only surmise that their 'understanding' partners are telling them they need the extra money to afford the plasma tv, extra car, etc. A mother at home would make a big difference in the lives of many children, not just the under-5's. I speak of this as a public school teacher, who sees kids of all kinds every day. Yes, we can often tell the difference between those raised by parents, and those raised by tv/nobody/someone other than parents.
Quick aside on the home-schooling thing - yes, homeschooled kids typically do better in all areas, including socially (even with some parents of the lazy/paranoid variety mixed in, the group does better than those I teach at my high school). It seems that having kids interact with people of a variety of ages is more natural than throwing 30 of them into a room and expecting that to produce anything other than the lowest common denominator. If you think about it, where else in any normal person's life will you spend long hours with people only your own age? The early public schools made more sense, with many grades taught in the same room. I see I digress.
I agree with some of the critiques of Coren, I've felt them myself when reading his stuff, but I think the thrust of his column is correct here on this one.
Posted by: Shane O. at February 27, 2006 09:10 PM
Shane, I agree that this part:
"There is no compelling case that the world would be a better place if more women were lawyers, bankers, soldiers or engineers. There are many such arguments, however, that the world would be a far better place if more women were mothers."
Might be the most striking part of the article. Most striking, in that it is the most ridiculous.
Saying there is "no compelling case" is to cast aside the opinions and enormous accomplishments of a great number of women with a blithe wave of the hand. I could as easily say there is no compelling case that Coren can tell his ass from the newspaper he writes for. Or that there is no compelling case that the world is round. Saying it doesn't make it so.
According to Coren, there are "many" arguments that "the world would be a far better place if more women were mothers", as if the number of arguments bears any relation to their quality. Even here, I suspect a census of argumentation on the issue would reveal arguments for the full participation of women in society may well outnumber those advocating the opposite.
Because that is really what we're talking about here: the full participation of women in society.
Raising children is all well and good and no one can reasonably claim this is not important (although one can make a convincing argument that possession of a penis does not entitle one to unilaterally opt out of this important role). But there are other important roles in Canadian society, such as representing Canadians and perhaps leading the country.
After all, look at the mess the world is in right now, and it's mostly run by men. Surely women could not do a worse job.
Posted by: Ade at February 27, 2006 10:01 PM
Muslims are not having children (lots of them) because they are poor and uneducated. They are having them because give 20 - 40 years, the nation with the most people WINS. Some countries in Europe are already 50% muslim and the non muslims are having 0-2 children and the muslims 7 - 12. Just do some simple arithmetic.
A great book that we read 20 years ago is called:
_The Birth Dearth_ The subtitle is something like: what happens when people in free countries don't have enough children? The author is something like Wallenburg - sorry I can't get the rigth name right now, my books are in boxes.
This book is a real eye opener and something that should have been read years ago by many more.
As to a personal note. We have/are raising seven children on a single income. I am proud to be a mother at home. And I am far from dumb and uneducated. I have taken a keen interest in nutrition, and health, and education. I am a mother who is raising kids on purpose! It is still possible to raise kids on a single income. It is tough. Really tough, but it can be done. Sadly, our society and our standards of living are working against us.
Something as simple as seat belt laws. Sounds like I would be half crazy to even consider disagreeing with this law. But it negatively impacts large families and makes families hesitate to have more children. Why? Because the cost of car seats, especially when the standards change so frequently, you have to replace them every few years. Secondly, the cost of vehicles big enough for a family. What does a family of nine drive? And then I hear rumblings of people (city people from the east) who want to outlaw older vehicles, and put extra taxes on anyone driving a "large" vehicle. Who are they hitting with these kinds of ideas. And now all this talk about clean cars and green cars and what not all - tiny little vehicles that set 2 people max! Yeah, and big rewards for people who make the change and drive sensibly!! Who do they hurt with this kind of pressure. Oh, I guess some rich people who have the funds and so can drive a big gas guzzler SUV, but they also hurt families.
So you start with - everyone must be in a seat belt, then everyone must be in a car seat, then no vehicles bigger than four passanger, and so forth.......
Listen, I'm not against car seats and seat belts. I am just against the subtle changes that hurts or hinders families. These subtle changes make it harder and harder for families to get by on one income.
I am a SAHM of seven children - all living at home. What an honorable position. My work is so challenging and invigorating. I am teaching reading and writing and carpentry and home repairs and basic mechanics. I teach politics! we teach social issues. Some of this just happens naturally around the supper table, as we eat supper together as a family EACH night of the week. We have set out to do this on purpose and we have accomplished it. My job is far from finished after the last child turns 5. I am swamped with going out for coffee with the oldest, and listen to the next perform, taking one to swimming class, and teaching skills around the home.
Baloney to people who think you can't have home life without horse buggy and washboards. What gives? We are a highly modern family with all modern conveniences, but who can see that it takes tons of work to raise children. It takes hours of time to listen to the older kids talk, to be there for them, it takes lots of time to teach them how to cope in this world. Believe me, I am not leaving that up to "experts" to do.
Yes, I believe mothers should be at home raising their children. I think we need to have a change of attitude in society that it is a massive job to raise children. An honorable job, an interesting job, and rewarding job. If a couple wants to have children,then they should raise those children! There is a cost, there must be a willingness to do without and live with less. But it can be done.
Grace
happy mother to seven.
with a very supportive husband.
Posted by: Grace at February 27, 2006 10:31 PM
"Liberal Ron," so as not to cause this thread to go too far off topic, I have responded to your misinformed comments about home schooling here:
http://therawlife.blogspot.com/2006/02/liberal-ron-trashes-home-schooling.html
Posted by: Jodie at February 27, 2006 11:34 PM
I appreciate Coren's unapologic political "uncorrectness", but his view is too simplistic for my liking. I usually root for Karen Selick in the WS, and couldn't stand his NDP support during the election.
Does he just want an NDP that will pay SAHMs, rather than daycare workers? I don't like either option.
Women and Men have to have the freedom to choose their own paths. Although it pisses off many radfeminist/affirmative action-types, most often it is the woman who wants to stay at home. I know that's the way it is with most of my twenty-something friends.
But, some women don't want children, some men want to stay home, some families want to have dual-earner families, some are one-parent and must work out of necessity. In a free society, talented individuals open quality daycares, parents don't have to take a punitive tax structure or forced payments to SAHMs or daycare workers into account in their decision-making. I loathe the demonization of women who don't stay home, as much as I loathe the demonization of those that do stay home. (I speak as someone who wants to be able to afford to be a SAHM more than anything)
I used to work in child welfare, and I saw some of the highest birthrates in the country. Oftentimes, "dark humour" creeps in and child welfare workers joke about the next generation of clients. More often than not, former foster children do get their own kids apprehended. What does this tell you? The State is a crappy parent. The structural problems of our child welfare systems are too complex, and bureaucratic to delve into here, but one of the messes the child welfare system cleans up after is our society's lacksadaisakal attitude towards sex.
How many teens associate sex with real live babies, with procreation? How many are taught the mechanics of "safe sex" (by the State), but nothing about love, commitment, what sex feels like emotionally? When you don't love yourself? Or what happens when you create children with no one to care for them?
Liberal Ron: Read up on the results of the last 80 years or so of offical federal "Indian" policy, (residential schools and the sixties' scoop)notice the horrendous, ongoing injustice and failure, and you will see why some people fear a move such as the Liberal/NDP daycare program.
Posted by: futuremom at February 27, 2006 11:37 PM
Well said, Shane O! I agree with you.
Posted by: Jodie at February 27, 2006 11:43 PM
jw:
"The best interest of the child is also in the best interest of the better parent." The better parent is between the EARS, not between the legs."
well-said. Coren can barely hide his desire to social engineer society to a "one size fits all" mold.
Posted by: futuremom at February 27, 2006 11:45 PM
Jodie, I agree with what you say; that is one great option for those who can manage it. Social stratification means that there are many who do not have that option, and others who, by personality bent, do not want that option.
The length and depth and breadth and emotional honesty this particular theme has raised shows that this is a very raw nerve in Canadian society today, and that the 'political elite castes' of whatever stripe do not reflect the reality of the concerns of most Canadians. Would that someone would submit all these postings in both their sensitivity and diversity, to those in government who think they know everything better than those who actually live all these respective realities and try to make do.
Posted by: brock at February 28, 2006 01:30 AM
Say ahhhhh
Posted by: Dr. Wayne at February 28, 2006 09:41 AM
Home schooling……
I’m sure proponents will find the necessary “findings” to back their attitudes. Anybody can prove a point by massaging experiments. Personally I go with my knowledge and ‘gut’ feelings…observing, evaluating and making mid-course corrections along the way.
My children went through what some of you call a soviet style system. Sure it wasn't always the best but the negative aspects once conquered built character. Today they're both bright emotionally fit university students. They make great decisions, think independently and are religion free.
There is nothing wrong with choosing to be different; I made that choice a long time ago. However, it can't be misguided and must pass the 'litmus' test. Home schooling is what’s accomplished after formal school hours; at the dinner table and during family activities. A blend of what’s best in both worlds will make for a superior education.
Posted by: Liberal Ron at February 28, 2006 10:05 AM
Well Jodie,
Let's start with efficiency and use Grace's comments as a template.
We'll not consider the emotional aspects for the time being.
The buildings have been bought, insurance paid, supplies procurred and teachers trained. By not enrolling your children and the shared expenses they would be allotted very little money if any is saved.
When you (Jodie) do a job that you're not trained for you are removing yourself from a career that university educated you for.
Efficiency is a numbers game that utilizes resources in the best possible manner. I see home schooling as a waste of resources on both fronts.
Posted by: Liberal Ron at February 28, 2006 11:34 AM
From The Motherhood Study:
There is a striking gap between mothers’ current work status and their ideal work arrangement.
Currently more than 41% of the mothers we studied work full-time. However, only about 16% of mothers across the entire sample said they would prefer full-time work if they could choose their ideal work situation. One in three mothers said they would prefer to work part-time and about 30% said they would prefer to work for pay from home. Overall, a majority of mothers today would prefer to be employed — but in positions that do not demand so much of their time.
Government policies are never neutral. Inasmuch as social and taxation policies affect women and families, they affect their choices. Tax policies that discriminate against single-income families are just one example.
Posted by: Linda at February 28, 2006 12:12 PM
My wife is at home with babies and would not have a problem with mikes comments but some mom who works for an MSM left her kid at daycare 9 hours ago and has no idea what the kid has done since whether they ate, are regular, or practised the alphabet but she has her career will care.
The state is probably the worst parent one could have. So the best thing to do is to raise my taxes to subsidise those who already make more than me by having 2 incomes to use a terrible parenting method.
God bless ya mike,
Posted by: DrWright at February 28, 2006 12:17 PM
Ron said: "In conclusion I believe parents that home school are lazy, paranoid, short-sighted and posses a false sense of dedication."
Hmmm, I beg to differ with you, Ron. I home schooled my 15 yr old step son for most of a school year, not because I am lazy, paranoid, short-sighted or with a false sense of dediction. Rather, he came to live with us with a rather large plateful of behavior and learning problems. I believed it would have been unfair to impose his attitude on a set of teachers in the state he was in at the time, is what it came down to. He hated home-schooling as much as he hated public schooling, but at least it was only me who had to deal with it on a daily basis and he wasn't in a classroom interrupting and acting out, distracting the rest of the kids.
I have an aunt and uncle who home-school their own 3 kids and 2 foster kids full time. They do it more for personal religious and moral reasons (as do many home-schoolers), yet their kids are some of the happiest, well-adjusted and socially adept children I've met.
Jodie: I too was taken aback with Judith's comments, particularly the bit about children being somehow better off without their parents (mothers) around all day. Your blog post was a great response.
Judith: If a person (male or female) considers caring for their own children within the home to be a condemnation to a life of drudgery, I dare ask: why bother having them in the first place?
Because I was a single mom at the time, I had no choice but to have my older daughter in the care of a babysitter while I worked. With my second, I was afforded the opportunity to stay at home. There is absolutely no doubt that the second child benefitted far more from the stability and security of having me at home than the first did from any perceived benefits to being away from me. The difference was night and day, for them as well as me.
Steve: Great post with some very interesting points. One of the best discussions in some time.
Posted by: RippleRock at March 1, 2006 01:01 AM
In the "Good Old Days"...my old man cried when old Grampa said he couldn't go to grade 9, he hadda go to work. Before that, kids went to work at sea or in coal mines at the age of 8-9...people(parents) usually were dead of old-age in their mid-forties...these parentrage issues here are based on our cultural imagination of "what we'd like it to be"...only recently have we had the luxury and time to SENTIMENTALLY contemplate our human navels.....
Posted by: Raymond Hietapakka at March 1, 2006 07:05 AM
RippleRock...Perhaps I should have been more specific. I assumed home-schooling meant the K to 8 years. I didn't consider a 15 year old who had issues to reconcile.
Posted by: Liberal Ron at March 1, 2006 09:04 AM
Liberal Ron is the poster boy for his party. Facts only get in the way of 'gut' and 'instinct' and due to programming in a 'progressive' soviet style system his children are 'Religion free' - he gushes.
This country is in trouble.
Posted by: Irwin Daisy at March 1, 2006 10:37 AM
Isn't that the goal, to emancipate oneself from mental slavery?
I'm no fan of communism but wasn't it Karl Marx who wrote that religion is the opiate of the masses. Isn't ones religious fervor like a drug induced high.
Irwin, go back into history and you will find religion has caused more wars, pain and human misery than anything else. Religion should be about solace/spirituality, not what its turned out to be...pitting people against each other by brainwashing our youths to carry on and make centuries old mistakes over and over ad nauseum.
Your 'facts' are what got this country and planet to the state its in. It's time to rewrite the fact book so it can be part of the solution.
Real change occurs when old ideas and institutions are destroyed so as to make room for new ideas and concepts.
Posted by: Liberal Ron at March 1, 2006 12:13 PM
Rewrite the fact book? I get it, the fact is you're either not familiar or comfortable with facts. Certainly from your ramblings here thats proven. The moral relativism you spout simply exposes more of your ignorance. I'm surprised you like to display this so openly in public. Alas, like all small minded Liberals, if you don't like the facts, you simply go back and revise them.
I can also see that if you were to believe in any facts they'd come from Karl Marx, not surprisingly. And I'm sure Karls pupils Lenin and Stalin would have agreed with you wholeheartedly on the last point. Though it cost 100 million lives or so.
Posted by: Irwin Daisy at March 1, 2006 01:36 PM
You can't discount and ignore ideas and concepts just because of the source. There is good and bad in every ideology/religion, Conservatism, Communism, Liberalism, Christianity, Islam and Judaism are no exceptions.
Your comments remind of a child that covers their ears and hums when they're being told something they don't want to hear.
By stating my views publicly I'm opening up for dialogue and debate. This is really the only way to advance ideas and truly better ourselves.
Irwin, keep going down that same old road if you want but as you do you'll notice fewer and fewer will be following you.
Posted by: Liberal Ron at March 1, 2006 02:31 PM
Unfortunately, it is capitalism that has done more to destroy the family unit and community than the watered down, diluted beyond recognition socialism that you claim we have. And I say that as a capitalist.
Capitalism values money and efficient distribution. It was industrialization that separated families from the land and communities, moved people from their homeland and extended families. Caused children to grow up in cities, provinces, even countries where they did not know cousins and grandparents. This did make woman's work much more drudgery without the community and family support networks. It's todays capitalism that keeps us from having a family dinner every night and the father away from home and now the mother as well. A family needs both by the way. Was that all of the good?
Capitalism has been the great democratizing and liberating force and has eliminated much hardship and poverty. But just because we support an efficient market system, doesn't mean it hasn't brought some nasty side-effects with it. Recognizing that should be the first step in re-building family life. Not pointing fingers and decades old books that very few people have read.
Ted
Cerberus
Posted by: Ted at March 1, 2006 02:36 PM
See Irwin...Ted's last comment implicates capitalism as 1 of the culprits responsible for family breakdown but he goes on to point out some of the good features of it as well.
Good and bad...yin and yang.
Posted by: Liberal Ron at March 1, 2006 02:58 PM
What "same old road" are you accusing me of going down Ron? Facts vs feelings?
And if as you say "...fewer and fewer people will be following me", that would be a shame for humanity now wouldn't it?
I like to consider others ideas as long as the argument put forward is rational and fact based. Unfortunately Ron, your feelings include neither.
And what's this "See Irwin" stuff? Sounds like a line heard in a school yard.
Posted by: Irwin Daisy at March 1, 2006 03:44 PM
Irwin, It was schoolyardish and that's not right.
I think there's too much on the table to digest so let's take it 1 fact at a time.
Fact...Religion is like a drug in that it causes a heightened sense of emotion.
Your reply...
Posted by: Liberal Ron at March 1, 2006 04:11 PM
'Religion is like a drug..." Is not a fact. It's your feeling. Besides, analogy is the weakest form of argument. I've got to go. Perhaps there is someone else that would like to debate you.
Posted by: Irwin Daisy at March 1, 2006 05:29 PM
 
|
|
