Our logo is bigger now

Anti-Feminist Baby Bonuses?

100 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Tue, 2009-07-21 19:28

#1

Infosaturated

Anti-Feminist Baby Bonuses?

This is an amusing article but aside from that it turns the idea of paid maternity leave and baby bonuses on it's head. I think it is somewhat tongue in cheek but it also has a kind of perverse underlying truth to it.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/i-really-regret-it-i-really-regret-h...

Ms. Maier tends to agree with those French feminists who see the country's generous maternity-leave provisions (16 weeks at full-time pay) and its healthy cash payments for additional children (1,000 euros a month for each child after No. 2) as tools of oppression: By rewarding motherhood, the state is preventing the success of women, keeping them out of the work force, trapping them in a prison of domesticity. And allowing women to believe that children are the answer.

Baby Bonuses

Quebec

1988 - 500 for each of the first two and 3000 per child born thereafter.

1991 - 500 for the first child 1000 for the second and 7,500 for each child thereafter

1992 raised to 8000 per child third and subsequent children

Above and beyond the single cash pay outs in 1090 monthly per child payments ranged from 9.77 to 19.49 per child depending again on number of children.

Yet another set of bonuses increases based on the number of children under 6 in the household.

http://tinyurl.com/mgxr7h

Thoughts?

Tue, 2009-07-21 19:39

#2

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Timebandit's picture

I think Maier had children for the wrong reasons and is projecting her feelings onto "people". I feel sorry for her.

Tue, 2009-07-21 20:14

#3

remind

remind's picture

Would like to read the book. Agree with many of her points, others not so much, but can see where she is coming from, and see no projection onto others.

Have often believed that white males in power want to end women's choice, and get rid of birth control, in order to keep the "white race" alive and in control.

Tue, 2009-07-21 20:37

#4

Infosaturated

Timebandit wrote:

I think Maier had children for the wrong reasons and is projecting her feelings onto "people". I feel sorry for her.

I think she is using a humorous approach to counter the this:

There's a loud and expensive national crusade to have as many children as possible and valorize motherhood.

She is trying to counter propaganda aimed at convincing women to have lots of children by providing a balancing view. That is, the glorification of motherhood does not necessarily serve the interests of all women and women should decide whether or not to have children and how many to have based on a realistic picture of motherhood not the idealized version being projected by the media.

Her story of the family outing actually illustrates that she and her husband are generous with their children. Driving halfway across Paris because your children chose a restaurant is not illustrative of selfish or resentful parenting. The children are described as being well-behaved but by her account they didn't bother to read her book which she gave them so they don't seem overly dominated or anything.

There are negative aspects of having children and the decision of if and how many to have should be made knowing that. The state's attempts to paint motherhood as all positive in their quest to raise the birth rate is manipulative and dishonest.

Tue, 2009-07-21 21:42

#5

remind

remind's picture

yep, I agree

Tue, 2009-07-21 21:47

#6

skarredmunkey

Baby bonuses are indeed anti-feminist, and more common than people think, even in Canada (outside Quebec). They are almost always used in place of rather than parallel with public policies that actually address the concerns and needs of women and children (childcare). And, they almost always exist for population/demographic and other nation-building reasons.

Tue, 2009-07-21 21:58

#7

Le T

Le T's picture

Frankly I find the author of Merdeuf highly privileged and her analysis is oppressive to children, racist and classist. It should also be noted that aside from white women, many women have had to fight for the right to have children and raise them. The things that she says about children are typical of the bizzaro child-hater mentality that some adults develop. I don't understand it because everyone was once a child. Typical of a person who bathes in privilege, the author seems to believe that now that she is done being a child children should cease to exist.

Quote:
Have often believed that white males in power want to end women's choice, and get rid of birth control, in order to keep the "white race" alive and in control.

I fully agree with this point remind, but I think that the author has written this book for a white audience of privilege (at least that's what I get from the article). To take this one issue in isolation of a larger anti-racist, anti-capitalist analysis seems to be a little self-indulgent and leads to arguments against governmental support for parents (as Infostarated seems to be hinting at).

Since this woman can drive across paris from her mansion in Brussels to go out for dinner and then stop at the art gallery on the way home I would guess that she's not too worried about how she will feed her kids.

I also feel bad for her kids who must live with the fact that their mother doesn't seem to view them as anything more than a bad decision.

Tue, 2009-07-21 22:15

#8

remind

remind's picture

I do not think she is a child hater at all, though sure enough she comes from a place of privilege.

Contrary to popular current foisted lala ravings, having children is not utopia on wheels.

Tue, 2009-07-21 22:43

#9

Le T

Le T's picture

I say that she is a child-hater because she does not seem to view children as human beings who are part of this society. She sees children as objects that affect her experience of life, a kind of "I shouldn't have bought this Ford 'cause it keeps on breaking down" view.

I get the need to balance the seemingly recent uprise in mother glorification (I'm thinking of celeberties who seem to be getting babies like they're hand bags) but she seems to be using sloppy nods to anti-capitalism and anti-racism without actually developing the analysis. I haven't even read the book though so I think I'm getting a little ahead of myself.

I get what yer saying munkey. I also don't know if such a small amount of money would entice women to have children - although it may motivate a short-sighted neanderthal man to pressure his partner and jet with the dough.

Tue, 2009-07-21 22:48

Infosaturated

Le T wrote:
To take this one issue in isolation of a larger anti-racist, anti-capitalist analysis seems to be a little self-indulgent and leads to arguments against governmental support for parents (as Infostarated seems to be hinting at).

No you miss my point entirely. There is no reason for baby bonuses to get progressively larger the more children you have other than to manipulate women.

I got 500 for my first child even though I needed to get everything such as strollers and a crib etc. Second child is 1000 and every child thereafter is 8,000. You don't need more and more money per child. Daycare for the third child is not more expensive than the first. Women usually keep baby clothing etc. if they intend to have more. Buying food in larger quantities is cheaper by the serving. There are many "family" deals in which the over all cost is cheaper. To a poor young woman getting 8,000 for a baby sounds great. But there isn't another 8,000 for the following year unless she has another infant. So then she has 4 kids, but all under 6 so she is getting extra money. As each child turns six, her income goes down. the 8,000 is long gone. She can't afford to work until they are all over 6 so each year she is that much poorer. Even once they are all in school she can't afford to pay someone to look after her kids before or after school so she is limited to part time work.

As remind pointed out this doesn't put in to place ongoing services that parents need. The women that are going to be influenced to pop out babies for the homeland because of an 8,000 baby bonus (after the first two) can't afford to be having 3 and more children. If the idea was to support mothers daycare would be free. Schools would open early and close late so mothers could work without worrying about where to put their kids. There would be generous meal programs including breakfast free for low income parents and at cost for others at the very least. There would be more programs covering the costs of extra-curricular activities for children in low-income families. And what about housing?

I suppose it's a step forward in the sense that they acknowledge women having babies are providing something of value to the homeland. Now they have to value it enough to actually provide the supports women need rather than trying to influence them to have babies based on immediate feasibility rather than thinking about how they will provide for them longterm.

If someone can provide for 3 or more children over the long term, they don't need 8,000 for each child over the quantity of 2. If they can't provide for them then 8,000 is not going to be nearly enough. What they need is longterm support not a baby bonus that makes young women feel as if having babies is like winning the lottery.

Tue, 2009-07-21 22:58

Le T

Le T's picture

I guess I'm confused 'cause we don't have baby bonuses in Ontario. We have monthly cheques, which are nowhere near enough money to acutally convince someone to have a child. Even the poorest folks in the province on OW and ODSP get this money clawed back so it's not really a baby bonus at all. We also don't have anywhere near the childcare Quebec has.

Also, just because things like food are cheaper in bulk other things like housing are not. If you have three kids in a one-bedroom apartment, children's aid will take your kids and give them to a foster parent (who gets more financial support from the state than any other type of parent)

Wed, 2009-07-22 00:17

KeyStone

Well, making the economic burden of having children is certainly not anti-feminist. Putting women in positions where they can not afford to take time off work to have a baby is not helping any movement except perhaps the capitalist labour market.

However, I can see how encouraging women to have more children could be considered anti-feminist. But, in reality, the bonus given out is hardly enough to offset the financial costs of raising a child over the next 20 years. It makes it a little bit easier, but not that much.

More importantly though, we all know the real reason that this policy is in place. They don't want to have to rely on increasing the level of immigrants admitted into the country/province. They want to have home-grown children and not rely on foreigners entering the country in order to keep the pyramid scheme (commonly referred to as the pension plan) floating.

Wed, 2009-07-22 00:32

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Timebandit's picture

remind wrote:

Would like to read the book. Agree with many of her points, others not so much, but can see where she is coming from, and see no projection onto others.
Have often believed that white males in power want to end women's choice, and get rid of birth control, in order to keep the "white race" alive and in control.

From the article:

Quote:
"Generally speaking, people who have children have them for the wrong reasons," she says. "They have them because they're afraid of being alone, and they want to grasp a tiny bit of immortality. And anyway, we never get that immortality. You are doing something that is very foolish for society just because you have believed something that is not true."

and

Quote:
She is painfully honest, as perhaps only a psychiatrist can be, about her own delusions of motherhood. She had been an only child and had hoped that having children would end her feelings of loneliness. She realized too late, she says, that it simply created new forms of loneliness.
"I thought it would be easier. I didn't realize how tough it would be - the organization required, the time you have to spend with them for maybe 20 years. It was the idea of feeling trapped, trapped in something that you are unable to end, it will last you 15 or 20 years and you cannot escape. It is not like a job, which you can change. Or a country."

These two quotes led me to the conclusion that yes, she probably is projecting a certain amount of her own misguided thinking onto people in general. Sure looks that way to me.
Coninuing this in another post because of format glitches.

Wed, 2009-07-22 00:34

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Timebandit's picture

Parenthood is not all wine and roses and filtered sunlight. So what? Like most things, life is what you make it. I could focus on being puked on and losing sleep and extra time spent on making sure my daughters get the education they need, frustrations, etc that all parents experience, or I can take it in stride and decide not to forget that I laughed more in the first year of my older girl's life than I had in the previous decade. Or that they've introduced me to many things that I would never have tried or experienced if I were not their mother, many of which have been for the better.

In some ways, I am more fully human for having the experience of being a parent. Some people may not want any of the work or the compensations and decide not to have kids, and good on them for recognizing that before bringing children into the world. For those who don't think having children through and regret having them after the fact, yes, I feel sorry for them.

I get the sense that Maier is just too urbane and hip to admit to appreciating any of the messier parts of being a parent. Pity.

Most of her 40 reasons are asinine, anyway - Do not adopt the idiot language we use to address children - Who says you have to?; You will inevitably be disappointed by your child. - Why? Because she is? ; Flee from the benevolent blandness. - My children have made me bland? I don't think so. And on it goes.

Wed, 2009-07-22 00:51

Infosaturated

Timebandit wrote:

Parenthood is not all wine and roses and filtered sunlight. So what? Like most things, life is what you make it. I could focus on being puked on and losing sleep and extra time spent on making sure my daughters get the education they need, frustrations, etc that all parents experience, or I can take it in stride and decide not to forget that I laughed more in the first year of my older girl's life than I had in the previous decade. Or that they've introduced me to many things that I would never have tried or experienced if I were not their mother, many of which have been for the better.

In some ways, I am more fully human for having the experience of being a parent. Some people may not want any of the work or the compensations and decide not to have kids, and good on them for recognizing that before bringing children into the world. For those who don't think having children through and regret having them after the fact, yes, I feel sorry for them.

I get the sense that Maier is just too urbane and hip to admit to appreciating any of the messier parts of being a parent. Pity.

Most of her 40 reasons are asinine, anyway - Do not adopt the idiot language we use to address children - Who says you have to?; You will inevitably be disappointed by your child. - Why? Because she is? ; Flee from the benevolent blandness. - My children have made me bland? I don't think so. And on it goes.

The book is humourous. It isn't supposed to be taken dead seriously. She is using a humourous book to make a political point to counter the government propaganda. She isn't talking about all the wonderful moments of parenthood because the government is already doing a bang-up job of it. She is making the point that women still bear the financial burden of providing babies for the homeland, not only in direct costs but also in financial penalties for having taken time out from their careers.

Wed, 2009-07-22 01:01

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Timebandit's picture

Decrying baby talk (not that I ever engaged in it anyway) and claiming everyone will be inevitably disappointed in their children has sweet fuck all to do with her government's policies. I know she's attempting to be humourous, but I think she's only achieved being an asshole.

Wed, 2009-07-22 01:01

Unionist

Timebandit and Le T, I'm just cheering from the sidelines. Great posts, carry on!

Wed, 2009-07-22 01:06

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Timebandit's picture

Quote:
To a poor young woman getting 8,000 for a baby sounds great. But there isn't another 8,000 for the following year unless she has another infant. So then she has 4 kids, but all under 6 so she is getting extra money. As each child turns six, her income goes down. the 8,000 is long gone. She can't afford to work until they are all over 6 so each year she is that much poorer. Even once they are all in school she can't afford to pay someone to look after her kids before or after school so she is limited to part time work.

Isn't that pretty much the same argument that Rush Limbaugh uses to rail on about welfare mothers? That they're popping out babies for public money? And don't we usually call foul because it's a total crock?

Or maybe I stepped into Bizarro Universe when I wasn't paying attention.

Wed, 2009-07-22 01:13

Michelle

I always talked baby talk to my son when he was tiny - in fact, sometimes I still slip into it when I'm being silly or affectionate, even though he's 10. And as long as we're alone or with family, he still likes it and still finds it comfortable and homey if not taken to the extreme. Baby talk is good for babies and toddlers - it helps them learn how to vocalize and communicate and socialize, and it bathes them in love.

And, in passing, companion animals like it too! :)

Wed, 2009-07-22 02:34

Infosaturated

Timebandit wrote:

Quote:
To a poor young woman getting 8,000 for a baby sounds great. But there isn't another 8,000 for the following year unless she has another infant. So then she has 4 kids, but all under 6 so she is getting extra money. As each child turns six, her income goes down. the 8,000 is long gone. She can't afford to work until they are all over 6 so each year she is that much poorer. Even once they are all in school she can't afford to pay someone to look after her kids before or after school so she is limited to part time work.

Isn't that pretty much the same argument that Rush Limbaugh uses to rail on about welfare mothers? That they're popping out babies for public money? And don't we usually call foul because it's a total crock?

Or maybe I stepped into Bizarro Universe when I wasn't paying attention.

No I don't think it's the same. The government in the States isn't giving mothers increasing amounts of money based on the third kid and above. Also, this money isn't ongoing. Doesn't a mother having her first child have financial requirements? How about a second child? What is so special about the third child that makes it 16 times more expensive than the first and 8 times more expensive than the second? The money is not being given to women to make it easier to take time off from work or to help cover the expenses of having children. If that were the case the first child would get just as much as the third.

Wed, 2009-07-22 08:03

remind

remind's picture

"more fully human for having the experience of being a parent. "

Unbelievable.

Wed, 2009-07-22 08:10

Scout

Quote:
Timebandit and Le T, I'm just cheering from the sidelines. Great posts, carry on!

Unionist is there a thread in the FF you haven't fouled with your unbridled need to talk at us? Shut the fuck up for a change and mind your own fucking business. You do not need to be heard on every subject check your fucking privilege.

Wed, 2009-07-22 08:15

Maysie

Maysie's picture

Scout, that comment was completely uncalled for and way over the top.

Wed, 2009-07-22 08:16

Stargazer

hehehehe. I was wondering about that line as well remind.

Wed, 2009-07-22 09:13

Le T

Le T's picture

Quote:

"more fully human for having the experience of being a parent. "

Unbelievable.

I took this to mean that the experiences and learning that comes with being a parent contribute to the human experience for Timebandit, not that parenthood is some kind of sacrement of being human.

Quote:
No I don't think it's the same. The government in the States isn't giving mothers increasing amounts of money based on the third kid and above. Also, this money isn't ongoing. Doesn't a mother having her first child have financial requirements? How about a second child? What is so special about the third child that makes it 16 times more expensive than the first and 8 times more expensive than the second? The money is not being given to women to make it easier to take time off from work or to help cover the expenses of having children. If that were the case the first child would get just as much as the third.

Is there any other jurisdiction in Canada that gives baby bonuses? Does the programme in Quebec stem from a governmental desire to increase francophones in the province? I'd be interested in what info people have on the Quebec program and what data exist before and after implimentation.

I think that there is some weight to skarredmunkey's point that baby bonuses take away from real government support. In the same way that various federal governements point to INAC's bloated budget as some kind of spending committment to Indigenous communities.

Wed, 2009-07-22 10:06

Ghislaine

16 weeks maternity is considered overly generous? Thank goodness for Canada's (relatively recent) maternity/paternity leave of one year! In places like Sweden (which I consider more feminist in terms of policy), it is even much longer.

I cannot comprehend what is anti-feminist about a government providing adequate maternity benefits. It is crucial to feminism and a huge acheivement of the feminist movement. It means that a woman's job must be held for her for one year. The anti-feminist position would be telling her that she either has to come in or lose her job. The US provides mere 6 weeks, which is scandalous - but for some reason the author thinks that that and no baby bonuses or tax credits is more feminist?

The one year provided in Canada is by no means adequate, as for most people it is only 55% of income through EI. It should be 100% and through a seperate program. And what does an unemployed pregnant woman do? It should not be tied to EI and required number of hours at all. Obviously this issue is tied to larger issues such as welfare, child care and as I believe Le T mentioned apprehension of children due to poverty (reason I left child welfare..could not do this in good conscience!) rather than actual abuse.

Wed, 2009-07-22 10:13

Snert

Snert's picture

Quote:
I cannot comprehend what is anti-feminist about a government providing adequate maternity benefits.

I'm sure all would agree. But the idea of geometrically increasing benefits for a second and then again for a third child make it look a little more like a reward than just a benefit, yes?

Wed, 2009-07-22 10:21

Ghislaine

Well snert, that is not the case anywhere but Quebec to my knowledge. The rationale involved worry about the French, "pure laine" population declining too quickly. I don't want to criticize too strongly what the provincial government in Quebec is doing. I think this is also the rationale in France. As someone else pointed out, governments do have the not-mentioned agenda of not wanting to rely too heavily on immigration and worries about our unsustainable public pension plans.

However, I think the societal support, through government programs, should be the same (and at an adequate level) for all children and all women (whether they are employed or not).

Wed, 2009-07-22 10:27

Unionist

Ghislaine wrote:

The rationale involved worry about the French, "pure laine" population declining too quickly.

Really? Only French pure laine families get it? Wonders never cease. Or maybe you have a link to support what you say the "rationale" was.

Wed, 2009-07-22 10:37

Ghislaine

Unionist wrote:

Ghislaine wrote:

The rationale involved worry about the French, "pure laine" population declining too quickly.

Really? Only French pure laine families get it? Wonders never cease. Or maybe you have a link to support what you say the "rationale" was.

Unionist, I know that everyone gets it. In fact immigrants tend to have larger families. I think there is a racist undertone to try and convince non-immigrants and white Quebecois to have more children as well.

Wed, 2009-07-22 10:43

Unionist

These "baby bonuses" were implemented (wrongly and wastefully, IMO) because Québec had the lowest birth rate in Canada following the first stirrings of women's emancipation after the Quiet Revolution, leading to the need to encourage immigration. If you are suggesting that worrying about a low birth rate for a society is "racist", then why not furnish some proof? Otherwise someone who doesn't know you might view your allegation as being xenophobic with regard to Quebeckers.

Harper gives $100 per month. Did you find a "racist undertone" to that?

Wed, 2009-07-22 11:01

Snert

Snert's picture

Were they more concerned with "birth rate" or "population growth"?

In lieu of rewarding motherhood, they could also have increased immigration quotas, if negative population growth was a concern.

Wed, 2009-07-22 12:48

remind

remind's picture

In answer to your question snert, it is quite obvious they were concerned about birth rates within the province, this statement says it all; "Québec had the lowest birth rate in Canada following the first stirrings of women's emancipation after the Quiet Revolution".

Can't have women emmancipated from being coerced breeders after all.

Quote:
I took this to mean that the experiences and learning that comes with being a parent contribute to the human experience for Timebandit, not that parenthood is some kind of sacrement of being human.

Are you not projecting? ;)

The statement did not read that way, and I in no way take it to mean that, nor a "sacrement" of being human. I take it to mean exactly what it says that somehow Timebanit believes that one is not, or cannot be, fully "human" unless one has had the experience of having children. And that is a unbelievable statement.

Wed, 2009-07-22 16:45

Michelle

I highly doubt Timebandit meant that. I realize it came across that way (it jarred me too) but can't we give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she meant that it has more fully enriched HER human experience? Why assume the worst?

Wed, 2009-07-22 17:04

remind

remind's picture

No not going to project here, am taking her words at face value.

And can't imagine how people who have never had children are taking this when they read it.

Wed, 2009-07-22 17:20

ElizaQ

ElizaQ's picture

Well I'm childless and may or may not have children and I didn't read it in any sort of insulting way, that somehow I can't be fully human without that experience. To me since it TB was talking about her experience and using I I I it did read to me as talking about her own human experience and not some sort of generalized pronoucement.

Wed, 2009-07-22 17:36

remind

remind's picture

Well, I believe the implication that a person cannot be "fully human" with out the experience of being a parent is a nasty one. I do not care if she applied it to only herself, the next sentence after that started with "some people". To me it indicated conjunctiveness. Perhaps I am wrong but that is the way I felt it.

Wed, 2009-07-22 18:38

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Timebandit's picture

Well, I do think I'm being taken out of context a bit. I did address the decision not to have children immediately after talking about my own experience.

Quote:
In some ways, I am more fully human for having the experience of being a parent. Some people may not want any of the work or the compensations and decide not to have kids, and good on them for recognizing that before bringing children into the world.

I could also say that nursing my father through terminal cancer and being with him when he died was an experience that was as deeply humanizing as becoming a parent. Both were experiences that profoundly changed me and the way I look at the world. I don't think that anyone would take that as a slam or that I meant they were incomplete for not having lost a parent that way. I am fully aware that having children isn't for everybody and I applaud people making the choice that is right for themselves, but that doesn't change the effect choosing to have children has had on me, personally. I'm also aware that some people will be looking to be offended - yes, I'm looking at you remind. Must you always look for the absolute worst in every freaking post I make? WTF is your problem?
I think I really DID step into Bizarro Universe.

Wed, 2009-07-22 18:41

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Timebandit's picture

Michelle wrote:

I highly doubt Timebandit meant that. I realize it came across that way (it jarred me too) but can't we give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she meant that it has more fully enriched HER human experience? Why assume the worst?

Thank you. You, too, ElizaQ.

Wed, 2009-07-22 18:48

500_Apples

KeyStone wrote:

More importantly though, we all know the real reason that this policy is in place. They don't want to have to rely on increasing the level of immigrants admitted into the country/province. They want to have home-grown children and not rely on foreigners entering the country in order to keep the pyramid scheme (commonly referred to as the pension plan) floating.

One day, the rest of the world will have caught up the first world in living standards, and we'll no longer be able to raid the third world countries for their talented doctors, engineers and labourers in their 20s and 30s to come here.

Wed, 2009-07-22 19:12

remind

remind's picture

Timebandit, I do not call those things "humanizing" as the opposite of not doing them is "dehumanized" or less human. And frankly I am not picking you personally I would say the same to anyone using such examples of what it takes or means to be more "human". I do not think we should be dehumanizing people.

I nursed my mother too, until she died and it too profoundly impacted me, however, I would not for a minute suggest it made me more human. As then I am saying those who did not, or will not, do so with their parents, are less human than me. Nor did it make me more humane.

What I am doing is objecting to a descriptor of more or less human. or a notion than one can be more human than another. All people are human.

Yes people can be more humane than others, but not more human.

Wed, 2009-07-22 20:49

well well well

This type of policy has been in place in Spain, England, France, Germany for a good part of this decade. Some in this thread conclude this policy is both anti-feminist and anti-immigration.
Wouldn't if be safe to say that the governments of these countries did some research to try and understand why women stopped having as many children as their mothers did? If most families consist of 2 children then the rational becomes clear, a larger incentive to push them outside of the norm and have the third baby. Why offer a monetary incentive? Most likely because most women said money was the reason for not having more children. While it may be cheaper to buy in bulk - once a woman has 3 children she has very little time left for other activities. The more children you have the less time you have for money making.
As it becomes more and more expensive to live in a city such as London or Paris it becomes clear - the "free market" discourages women from having children. Does the "free market" address this?
If the state tries to counteract this does that mean the state is filled with bad intentions? In the United States nothing is done about this issue (maternity leave of six weeks). Are women better off there? Are the gains won by the feminist movements in the US under attack?

Maybe the title of this thread is part of the problem - attempting to frame this as an either/or question. The issues raised by the question are
why are women having less children?
Should we try to change this?
Does our economic system value children?

Wed, 2009-07-22 22:00

Boze

What? We know why women are having less children. More education for women, and less religion, equals less children. Less children is a good thing. I don't know why it's such a bad thing to increase our population through immigration instead of more births, and it doesn't just have to be young talented doctors and such coming over here. One of these days we had better realize that we have a lot of space on this continent and in this country and that's a form of wealth, one that we should be sharing, or else forced to share. This planet belongs to no one.

By the way, I haven't had children but I think I'm more fully human for having done a lot of things. And I don't see how that can be interpreted as a "slam" against people who haven't done them.

Thu, 2009-07-23 01:21

remind

remind's picture

Humaness or the the denoting thereof runs the spectrum of behaviour from frailities to courage. To say that one is a more human human because of so and so experiences is incorrect. It would denote othering or less than human.

Thu, 2009-07-23 01:58

Infosaturated

well well well wrote:

This type of policy has been in place in Spain, England, France, Germany for a good part of this decade. Some in this thread conclude this policy is both anti-feminist and anti-immigration.
Wouldn't if be safe to say that the governments of these countries did some research to try and understand why women stopped having as many children as their mothers did? If most families consist of 2 children then the rational becomes clear, a larger incentive to push them outside of the norm and have the third baby. Why offer a monetary incentive? Most likely because most women said money was the reason for not having more children. ...

If the state tries to counteract this does that mean the state is filled with bad intentions? In the United States nothing is done about this issue (maternity leave of six weeks). Are women better off there? Are the gains won by the feminist movements in the US under attack?

If the governments concern were providing the financial means for women to have more children a one time baby bonus is completely inadequate. Subtract 8.000 from the minimum 100,000 and much more that it takes to raise a child. I don't think anyone here is taking exception to parental leave. I know that I am specifically referring to the baby bonus which I believe is a manipulative means (as opposed to a genuinely supportive means) to get women to have more than 2 children. 8,000 does not remove a barrier to having a larger family if the womans reason for not having a third child is financial.

Thu, 2009-07-23 15:44

Jabberwock

remind wrote:

Humaness or the the denoting thereof runs the spectrum of behaviour from frailities to courage. To say that one is a more human human because of so and so experiences is incorrect. It would denote othering or less than human.

I just can't agree with this. I really don't think that Timebandit used the word "humaness" in the same way you are reading it. Many things can make us feel more human, without it meaning that others are necessarily less human for not having a similar experience or feeling.

Why can't Timebandit have a positive experience of motherhood, without being questioned on her Feminist credentials? Most people find parenthood a transformative experience.

I really cannot believe how much needless conflict there is on Babble. The threads that get closed for length are almost always because people are going back and forth attacking each other ad nauseum. Not directed at you Remind, but just in general, and not excluding myself.

Thu, 2009-07-23 15:57

martin dufresne

I agree about the "needless conflict" judgment, but I think remind had her finger on a real problem here: women do get told time and again that they are or will be missing an essential element of human experience if they don't give birth, preferably a number of times. (No such pressure on us guyz, BTW: should we claim discrimination?)

Thu, 2009-07-23 17:20

remind

remind's picture

Where did I question her feminist credentials in this thread?

here is someone who agrees with designation quotients of "humaness"

Quote:
A few years back when a bum called ‘Lord’ Black was around, he (or maybe his wife) said that sane Canadians should do with Quebec like Israel is doing with the Palestinians. ‘Give them a little piece of land between Trois-Rivières and Chicoutimi. Let’s liberate ourselves from these semi humans’ since ‘there is nothing we can to civilize them really’. If the small guy does not agree, he needs to be punished. First, the empire will try to teach them a lesson or two. If it does not work, we can always confine, isolate, make them pay. Because for sure, ‘they are not going to be able to rule themselves’.

http://election.rabble.ca/post/54282207/speak-white

Thu, 2009-07-23 17:23

Jabberwock

Perhaps you didn't, and I apologize. I guess I just felt it was implicit in the suggestion that she was drawing a contrast between mothers as fully human and childless women as less than fully human, which is obviously not a feminist approach.

Martin, you are right- I just don't feel that that happened here.

Thu, 2009-07-23 17:28

remind

remind's picture

martin dufresne wrote:
.. but I think remind had her finger on a real problem here: women do get told time and again that they are or will be missing an essential element of human experience if they don't give birth, preferably a number of times. (No such pressure on us guyz, BTW: should we claim discrimination?)

It goes beyond that too martin, into a internalized belief that others are just not as "human" as oneself. This false belief in levels of humaness can afford all sorts of oppressions, or negligences that allow exploitation and oppression to occur, or worse yet.

Thu, 2009-07-23 17:30

Unionist

Jabberwock wrote:

I really cannot believe how much needless conflict there is on Babble. The threads that get closed for length are almost always because people are going back and forth attacking each other ad nauseum. Not directed at you Remind, but just in general, and not excluding myself.

Agreed. And I do think Timebandit has already paid her debt to society. Time for a pardon.

Let's go back to the topic. Bonuses for having children, no matter what the pretext, are offensive and anti-woman, without needing to engage in idle speculation as to whether they are "racist" in some circumstances. Women need support in childrearing, both from the family and the society, and they need emancipation from the household as much as ever before so that they can be equal members of the workforce, of the community, of the political society, etc. Hence, they need free universal childcare, easily accessible and affordable skills training, elimination of discrimination and cultural barriers to access every kind of employment, free and unquestioned access to birth control and abortion services... not incentives to be childbearers.

Pages

Topic locked