|
Government Funded Daycare program (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
what arbiter and others are forgetting, is that subsidised daycare is also about gender equality. how can you ever expect a woman to maintain her position in the marketplace if you expect her to be out of work for 10 years every time she wishes to have a child? who is going to employ a woman if she's likely to be out of work for long periods of time to rear children?
subsidising daycare is a necessary step if you wish to allow as many people as possible to participate in the workforce.
i dont see a problem with it, as much as you try-hard laissez faire wannabes like to complain about big bad government :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
what arbiter and others are forgetting, is that subsidised daycare is also about gender equality. how can you ever expect a woman to maintain her position in the marketplace if you expect her to be out of work for 10 years every time she wishes to have a child? who is going to employ a woman if she's likely to be out of work for long periods of time to rear children?
subsidising daycare is a necessary step if you wish to allow as many people as possible to participate in the workforce.
i dont see a problem with it, as much as you try-hard laissez faire wannabes like to complain about big bad government :rolleyes: |
Who says it has to be a woman? If I were going to have kids I'd have exactly zero problem with being a stay-at-home dad if that's what it took. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Who says it has to be a woman? |
oh please, lets be serious shall we? :haha: |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
oh please, lets be serious shall we? :haha: |
I'm pretty sure he was being serious.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
what arbiter and others are forgetting, is that subsidised daycare is also about gender equality. how can you ever expect a woman to maintain her position in the marketplace if you expect her to be out of work for 10 years every time she wishes to have a child? |
Maybe you hardcore second wave feminists and sympathizers should grow up and realize that men and women are not the same and don't have the same priorities? Take some of your own advice for a change, which would be
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
oh please, lets be serious shall we? :haha: |
And don't twist anything I've said out of context or anything. I don't believe in male or female superiority, but I definetly don't think they're the same or have the exactly the same roles or expectations. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Maybe you hardcore second wave feminists and sympathizers should grow up and realize that men and women are not the same and don't have the same priorities? |
well duh. characterising males & females as having inherently different priorities isnt helpful either. there is, of course, massive amounts of evidence that women wish to have a career AND a family, and without suitable childcare this isnt a very successful combination.
IF a woman wants to succeed in her career, and IF she also wishes to have children, i dont think her choices should be any less available due to her biology.
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
And don't twist anything I've said out of context or anything. I don't believe in male or female superiority, but I definetly don't think they're the same or have the exactly the same roles or expectations. |
i doubt you'll be able to find any evidence to suggest male & female priorities are SO fundamentally different that daycare essentially functions as a means for making women like men, so i dont see your point. |
|
|
| venomX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
I can indeed compare it. If our society is unable to raise children properly because of our "standards" now, then the solution is to change our standards so that we can, not put a band-aid on a tumor by giving parents free daycare and pretending there's no problem with that.
It's very true that in parents in the past could abandon their children if that was what they chose to do. But the fact of the matter is that most of them chose not to. They chose to deal with the burdens that come with parenthood even if it wasn't convenient to their lifestyle. And in a very real sense, they had a more active involvement in their childrens lives than parents today do.
The problem is that today's parents aren't there. Daycare doesn't solve that problem, it covers it up. Not only is it not a solution to the problem, it's an insidious pretense of solution that allows us to put our heads in the sand and feel good about how we treat our children, even while we neglect them.
Maybe you think that is an acceptable mode of operation, but I think it's unacceptable. That means I don't accept it. And I certainly don't support it.
One parent works, the other doesn't. If it's a single parent situation it's going to be rough, but you do whatever it takes. If they can't find a way to work at or around their home, or somewhere that they can keep their child with them, then don't work. If they have to move in with friends or family, or live in a damn hole in a wall, so be it. If they're dependent on the goverment for their basic needs, so be it. I'd rather pay for them to do the right thing than pay for them to do the wrong thing.
Early education begins at home. At least it should. Any benefits that a child might glean from education at daycare would still be considerably less than the benefits of being educated at home by a parent and all the individual attention that goes with that.
I'm not brushing off the problem at all, and I find it ironic that someone who supports daycare as an alternative to parenting would even make such an absurd accusation. You do realize, I hope, that daycare is precisely "brushing off the problem." And I do emphasize the word, problem, because that's exactly how this program treats children. It treats them like a problem.
From the perspective of this "program," children's needs are in the way of how our lifestyle and our society wants people to allocate their time. Therefore the proposed solution is to sequester that problem away in day"care" where we can pretend the children are benefiting from all the great opportunities of an early education which obviously their parents could never provide because they're too busy with their own lives.
Maybe it's not how I word my posts that bothers you, maybe it's the truth that bothers you. The truth is, the point of daycare isn't to care for children, it is to appease the conscience of those people who don't want to face up to the real problem. But that's just an illusion. A self-deception conjured up so that people can feel good about themselves and feel like they're doing something positive when really all they're doing is sweeping the mess under the proverbial rug. I know that if I supported daycare that would really bother me.
The only negative effect of the program that I need to know in order to know that I don't support it, is that with this program in place, more children will be in daycare, more people's conscience will be appeased, and we will be that much further away from a genuine solution to the problems preventing children from getting the proper parenting that they need and deserve. |
I love the impracticalities of your posts :p. In any case, im not interested in debating what needs to be changed in societies so that children may have proper support from their parents because no solution will come from that. I've shown that the implementation of day care centers, which benefit mainly the children can in the long run attain the same results you advocate. You say, parents should do their job better. I say, installing a national day care system will provide current children with better education and in the future they themselves will be better parents, and there will be no need for day cares. Your arguments are about the lack of short term benefits, I'm not just advocating short terms effects, that would be silly. All the real benefits from this program are long term. There is no real reason to not implement a program of this nature, only ideological standings and lack of social will. On the practical side of this issue, there is no debate, it works, there are benefits, the benefits exceed the costs. The problem is people like yourself that would rather obviate the benefits in order to fix society all at the same time. Well, good luck with that happening. |
|
|
| Lilith |
As 'impractical' as it sounds, the simple fact remains that western society is heading in the wrong direction for raising children, we work harder and for longer than our grandparents did, cost of raising children aside from inflation in terms of equivalent wages is miles apart from what it was even 40 years ago.
Something needs to change eventually because at the going rate it's a case of economic pressure to work vs social and biological pressure to have a child. Daycare is just a stop-gap measure to alleviate some of the responsibility from both but I'm not convinced it's in the best interests of kids being raised by strangers. Back in the not-so-old days it was older relatives that helped raise children when a parent had to go back to work but we're at a point where they're either still in the workforce until their well into their 60's or in a not so small minority, non-existent option for a lot of people. If there's no other options then daycare should be the last resort.
As for the economic pressure, it really shouldn't be as large as it is considering there is things like unemployment around with people that don't have jobs, so it's not like it's going to really have that much of an impact. But we live to work in the west, everything and everyone else just seems to be marginally less important which is just a crazy ethic really.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
oh please, lets be serious shall we? :haha: |
[hypothetical]
lol, as if we'll survive on your peasants wages boy!
[/hypothetical]
:haha: |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
oh please, lets be serious shall we? :haha: |
So now when people want to be FREE to have a career and FREE to have children, but don't want the commensurate responsibilities that come along with those freedoms, it's an excuse for them to eschew those responsibilities because they might not be able to do everything they want?
Who's not being serious?
| quote: | Originally posted by venomx
In any case, im not interested in debating what needs to be changed in societies so that children may have proper support from their parents because no solution will come from that. |
Well that's a great attitude. I'm sure if we apply that to all difficult obstacles in science, engineering, etc we'll make great progress as well.
The important changes aren't always easy and they aren't always convenient. Maybe the important problems don't interest you, but they sure interest anyone who has a genuine interest in improving the situation.
| quote: | | I've shown that the implementation of day care centers, which benefit mainly the children can in the long run attain the same results you advocate. |
Excuse me? You've done nothing of the sort. Children raised in daycare situations are only going to be MORE likely to think it is an acceptable way to deal with the "problem" of their children's needs. The implementation of these day care centers compounds the problem, it certainly doesn't attain the results I advocate.
| quote: | | You say, parents should do their job better. I say, installing a national day care system will provide current children with better education and in the future they themselves will be better parents, and there will be no need for day cares. |
I don't know where you're getting the idea that children not experiencing being raised properly is going to make them better parents, but it's half-baked at best.
| quote: | | Your arguments are about the lack of short term benefits, I'm not just advocating short terms effects, that would be silly. All the real benefits from this program are long term. |
My arguments have nothing to do with the lack of short-term benefits, are you even reading my posts or are you just brain-dead? My argument is that it is a pretend-solution serves to impede genuine solution and genuine progress, and consequently is harmful especially in the long-term.
As you are a prime example of, we already have an uphill battle when it comes to getting real change done when people who pretend to be interested in positive change say things like:
"im not interested in debating what needs to be changed in societies so that children may have proper support from their parents"
The absolute LAST thing we need is programs which cover up or otherwise obscure the deficiencies of modern parenting to then make it even harder to get it through people's thick skulls that real, fundamental, substantial change is needed, not a superficial band-aid of a program.
| quote: | | There is no real reason to not implement a program of this nature, only ideological standings and lack of social will. On the practical side of this issue, there is no debate, it works, there are benefits, the benefits exceed the costs. |
You are being incredibly dense. I might as well say, "well there's no reason not to nuke Iran, only ideological standings." Ideology ing matters. A lot.
| quote: | | The problem is people like yourself that would rather obviate the benefits in order to fix society all at the same time. Well, good luck with that happening. |
Well we'll need all the luck we can get thanks mainly to people who resist substantial change in favor of illusory solutions, like you - so congratulations on being part of the problem. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
So now when people want to be FREE to have a career and FREE to have children, but don't want the commensurate responsibilities that come along with those freedoms, it's an excuse for them to eschew those responsibilities because they might not be able to do everything they want? |
the point being that women and men possess a different level of freedom in this regard, daycare centres help address this imbalance.
commensurate responsibilities? the entire western system of employment was designed around a male breadwinner & a female baby raiser. society no longer accepts this paradigm and as such changes are being made. you cant possibly argue for some kind of status quo, with women footing the bill. commensurate my arse. the man can have a family and a career, why you think its acceptable not to allow women the same opportunity is beyond me.
it has nothing to do with "eschewing responsibilities" -its about single-income families not possessing quite the same ability to survive as they did previously. a fact that isnt related to their ability to "choose" anything. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
So now when people want to be FREE to have a career and FREE to have children, but don't want the commensurate responsibilities that come along with those freedoms, it's an excuse for them to eschew those responsibilities because they might not be able to do everything they want?
Who's not being serious?
Well that's a great attitude. I'm sure if we apply that to all difficult obstacles in science, engineering, etc we'll make great progress as well.
The important changes aren't always easy and they aren't always convenient. Maybe the important problems don't interest you, but they sure interest anyone who has a genuine interest in improving the situation.
Excuse me? You've done nothing of the sort. Children raised in daycare situations are only going to be MORE likely to think it is an acceptable way to deal with the "problem" of their children's needs. The implementation of these day care centers compounds the problem, it certainly doesn't attain the results I advocate.
I don't know where you're getting the idea that children not experiencing being raised properly is going to make them better parents, but it's half-baked at best.
My arguments have nothing to do with the lack of short-term benefits, are you even reading my posts or are you just brain-dead? My argument is that it is a pretend-solution serves to impede genuine solution and genuine progress, and consequently is harmful especially in the long-term.
As you are a prime example of, we already have an uphill battle when it comes to getting real change done when people who pretend to be interested in positive change say things like:
"im not interested in debating what needs to be changed in societies so that children may have proper support from their parents"
The absolute LAST thing we need is programs which cover up or otherwise obscure the deficiencies of modern parenting to then make it even harder to get it through people's thick skulls that real, fundamental, substantial change is needed, not a superficial band-aid of a program.
You are being incredibly dense. I might as well say, "well there's no reason not to nuke Iran, only ideological standings." Ideology ing matters. A lot.
Well we'll need all the luck we can get thanks mainly to people who resist substantial change in favor of illusory solutions, like you - so congratulations on being part of the problem. |
Right on. Excellent post Arbiter. :) |
|
|
| EvilTree |
Being a parent is first and foremost a leadership thing.
If you cannot devote sufficient time to properly parent a child, you shouldn't have one because it's not the society's responsibility to rear your child; it is yours. (well, until they reach age of majority)
Having a kid is not a right, and bringing a kid to the world without being able to properly prepared to support and rear a child IMO is negligent. (extenuating circumstances not withstanding)
If I cannot devote time to a child so that the kid cannot distinguish who's the real parent, I'd rather not have a kid at all.
This day care scheme is a cop out for people who wants to live a luxurious living and want to keep making money for it, but failing to live up to family responsibilities. The govt should not be helping people to dodge out of their responsibilities either.
And yes, ideology matters. |
|
|
|
|
