![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
OK, Somewhat Childfree Rant
MoveOn has spawned "Moms Rising", and it is truly gag worthy, and embodies the entitlement culture that the baby-boom generation is bringing into politics both on the left and the right. Great, just what we needed, another "pro-family" campaign. Let's dance to the right wing tune and make it our own.
Why do only "moms" count? Why are they the only females that should have a voice as they follow the standard life script of reproducing? What about those of us who chose not to be parents, what about those of us who are done raising kids, and don't want to give up the lives that have been (re)gained just so mommies can have more entitlements?
Having kids is a choice, and a significant responsibility, both emotionally and financially. Those who make this choice have no call to demand that those of us who haven't should surrender the fruits of our judgement to "help" them get a bigger piece of the pie. When will these mommies realize that no, you can't have it all - it's a myth - being a parent means less discretionary income, less free time, and slower advancement at work because of needing to divide focus.
When these Motherhood Manifesto idiots realize that feminism is about equality between the genders, including the equal responsibility in raising kids, not about special rights "for mothers only".
See momsrising.org - see what they "demand":
1) Maternity/Paternity leave (have kid, get extra paid time off, screw everyone else)
2) Open flexible work (let the parents skive out early for those ball games, while the rest of us stay and work)
3) TV and after school programs (because "somebody" must entertain the kids when parents don't want to)
4) Healthcare for All Kids (but when they turn 18, tough luck. adults don't count except if they're active parents)
5) Excellent childcare (because unstructured, latchkey kids turn out too damned independent)
6) Realistic and fair wages (parents need more money, because kids are expensive, so pay them better in spite of increased absences)
Ugh. Let's take this one at a time:
M: Maternity/Paternity Leave: Paid family leave for parents after a new child comes into the family.
What about people who have their own illnesses, or a spouse, or domestic partner, or and aging parent, or a disabled sibling?? Do only kids count in their world? This is wrong, and favors parents over others who have similar needs.
O: Open, Flexible Work: Work that allows for both work and family needs. Give parents the ability to structure their work hours and careers in a way that allows them to meet both business and family needs.
Uh, huh. The rest of us can't possibly have non-work needs that count. Only parents need the ability to balance work and family, the rest of us are just here to take up the slack, our lives on hold until we have the sacred children. Never mind we might need to take parents, spouses, partners to the doctor or even pets to the vet. It all must be sacrificed for the children.
T: TV We Choose & Other After-School Programs: Clear and independent universal television rating system that allows for choice in the home. Safe, educational opportunities for children after the school doors close.
Because parents these days can't be bothered to monitor or teach their own get, we have to rate it for them. The children must have "programs" for every single waking moment, lest they be forced to use their creativity and come up with their own entertainment. We must make everything safe and sanitized for the most innocent of children, lest they become corrupted by reality.
H: Healthcare for All Kids: Healthcare for all kids. Provide quality, universal healthcare to all children--and ultimately to all citizens.
Take care of the kids first, and the rest of us as an afterthought. In reality, the most time I've spent uninsured has been as an adult, not as kid. If the kid isn't insured, the parent isn't either, and a medical catastrophe to the parent actually screws them both. Yet another backward priority.
E: Excellent Childcare: Childcare for all kids. Provide quality, affordable childcare to all parents who need it.
Out of whose pocket?? Why, those who don't have kids of course, or have already raised their kids without huge handouts from the government. What happened to the vaunted "extended family"? Are they only good for their tax paying ability? Also, what about government funded elder care, and disability care? Don't adults count, or is it just another boon to those who have *chosen* to reproduce? Why do only parents deserve help?
R: Realistic & Fair Wages: Living wages for mothers and equal pay for equal work.
Another backwards priority. "Living wages" for mothers (only?), but equal pay for equal work? Hey, how about living wages for everyone, and equal pay for equal work? Now, most mothers with their dual responsibilities will still get paid less, because they do paying work less, but that's only fair. Raising children involves sacrifice *by the parents* who chose to have them, not by every Tom, Dick and Harriet that has the misfortune to work with them.
If I work 9 hours a day, 5 days a week, plus come in on weekends and on-call hours, and "mommy" works only 7.5 hours a day and "doesn't do" weekends, then I better get a fatter raise than she does, or I will be looking for another job. Seriously, equal pay for equal work is just that.
Yeah, I get ticked if some guy is doing the same thing I do, and has the same experience level, but gets more money, but that isn't because I'm a mommy, it's because I'm a woman, and there is a difference.
So there we have it, the entire backwards, kid-centered steaming pile of BS. These idiots want me to support this shit, because I know and have a "mother".
Sorry, you just leave too much out, too many out, and demand that everyone else dance to the mommy tune.
no subject
Can't deal with the anger or frustration of disagreeing with you and not being able to word the arguments correctly.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
Okay, I chose to procreate. I'm aware and accept the obligations and responsibilities coming with that. And it wasn't because I wouldn't have found other rewards and/or fulfillment -- when I set out to get pregnant, I had no idea whether I could conceive, if I'd have a healthy child etc. I did, and now have to deal with my situation.
#1: P/maternity leave is essential for the development of a child -- if for no other reason than form bonds, socialization as well as the mental and physical wellbeing of that new life who hasn't asked to be brought into the world and who is not only physically and psychologically unable to see to their own needs and can't even communicate those needs. Finances aside (that's a whole 'nother can o' worms), an adult in need of constant care is often not quite as dependent as a newborn/small child.
Someone who has trained long and hard and up until the birth of their child was working, being a productive member of society and then chooses to nurture for a period of time is giving up career advancement, salary increases and whatnot, so why not keep at least their job open for them and compensate them to a degree for the time and care (one can hope!) they're spending on looking after their children? Especially if my earnings aren't big enough to pay someone else to do my job for me? (More worms ...)
Same argument, more or less, for #2: An adult needing to see a doctor can at least communicate that need; a small child can't. An adult can also understand why a paid companion can see to their needs; a child who has formed healthy, necessary bonds with mother or father is often inconsolable (and unmanageable!) when the person they've bonded with is absent in times of physical and/or emotional need. (I'm deliberately leaving out pets; quite honestly, I like animals, but to me human needs will ALWAYS supersede an animal's. Sorry.)
Society wants us to have children; why shouldn't society give us at least some encouragement and the possibility to do so? I don't think that's entitlement.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
1. the right wing does not have a monopoly on parenting
2. healthcare for children sounds like a great pilot program for universal health care
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
And health care.... gods, everyone should have at least some kind of access. Day care can be a real nightmare, as well as care for seriously dependent adults. My cousin took off work for 2 months to care for my gran as she was the only one with no dependants at the time. Cost her her job. Just not right. And why the hel not flex time for everyone? My friend works splits so she can spend the afternoon caring for her sick sister's farm animals 'cause it's too dark after work for her to do so. And face it, shit happens to all of us and we need time off to deal.
(no subject)
no subject
All this _movement_ is doing is trying to shunt their responsibility for raising their kids onto others. Childcare, healthcare, afterschool programmes, screening what they are exposed to on TV becomes the responsibility of "society".
Far from being concerned about their kids, I suspect these moos are only concerned about themselves.
(no subject)
no subject
Guess I'm a case in point on that one.
Raised my 3 younger siblings, essentially, until I had to leave and made it clear to dear ol' Dad that if he ever did to them what he did to me, I'd hear about it and he would end up in the ground.
Children are great; I've worked as a nanny before, actually. But preferential treatment for parents when 37 million people live in poverty in this country? Naw. Not even an option.
Personal responsibility? Great concept. But when it's metered out according to who is or is not providing more future labour and soldiers... not so cool.
Responding way late as usual . . . and kinda hoping not to revive the bad blood
I would hate to be a social engineer. I want everybody to have their own family life behind closed doors, free to let their kids drink and to raise them in a less than germ-free environment with the religion and the level of acceptance of violence and sex that they personally prefer.
But it's both criminal and horribly destructive of the economy for people not to earn a living wage (and I do mean a living wage: I am not crying for Bay Area teachers who make $60K) for full-time work, and for people not to be able to access healthcare. This country pays far more sustaining the whole apparatus of health insurance paper-pushers and big pharma bloodsuckers than it would providing a Medicare level of service to everyone, and as results with further massive spcial and financial costs, slowly but surely the number of working poor/lower middle-class people making it to 65 without serious impairment is falling, and AIDS and TB are claiming hugely disproportionate--and expensive--numbers of victims (and just wait for the flu pandemic).
Anyway . . . yes, there are real differences between kids and impaired adults, but they include messy things like prognoses for the future and whether people are willing to help. FWIW my position in next comment (darn that length limit . . .
specifics
Childcare--yes. As a source of jobs, as well as support for parents! Let's make it a whole lot easier for people to work looking after others' kids (and provide it for longer hours and in a wider variety of settings and in every neighborhood), and subsidize it enough so they can live, too. There are several jobs like this that barely pay but for which there is a huge market. Surely this is the kind of 2-ended problem policymakers are supposed to fix?
Parental leave--yes. But for a limited time and at part pay. Otherwise it becomes a gravy train, and the US does not have an interest in raising the birthrate. (Actually I think the European countries are being myopic on this--fix other problems and most people will quite willingly have kids, and it won't be mostly those who like the smell of the money.) It's hard to decide whether to go back to work after having a kid--often the parents find their attitudes change when the kid arrives. Push them to make a decision after a certain time. It's not as if opting out of the workforce to raise a kid is permanent; this country already vdoes better than most at facilitating older people returning to the workforce, and policy should emphasize that. But it is blatant discrimination to jerk around the other workers.
Change the "All jobs require overtime and filling in for absent colleagues and you had better not take your vacation or sick days" culture in the workplace in the US. Those who want to work overtime should be the ones to do it. People with excessive absences should not get raises, and should be laid off first, rather than going by seniority. The actual pay should be adequate so that overtime is not an economic necessity. Paid time should be devoted to work--not to personal business and not to team-building exercises, meetings that should have been a memo, and sensitivity training. If there aren't enough workers to do the job, someone should be hired, rather than running the existing workers into the ground.
Healthcare for all, regardless of age and employment status, from our taxes. At a minimal level--Viagra, breast augmentation, facelifts, and gender reassignment surgery at the patient's cost; the alcoholics and smokers at the end of the queue for transplants unless they pay. But mental health on the same basis as physical, and preventive measures available to all. If the adults in the family get the flu, who's going to care for the kids or the disabled adults? Neither Grandma nor little Tommy should be able to elbow you or me out of line--the government should want us all to get poked. And to get AIDS tests. And PAP smears. And antidepressants if we need them to study or work. That alone would give the economy a tremendous boost--and give employers enough leeway to pay adequate and fair wages and quit essentially working everybody to death.
The marketplace should deal with the flexible hours issue. There are undoubtedly people who would like to split a job between them; there's definitely an untapped market for late-night and weekend services. The US has been going backwards in providing services when customers need them. So many people are scared to death of losing their health insurance, however, that the entire labor market is warped. One would have to see what would emerge with that load removed and with the culture of "Do as much of your personal stuff at the employer's expense as you can because you can't afford and may not even get time off" changed to "Here's an adequate wage, now do the work efficiently or we'll hire someone else." I suspect we'd see more niche businesses and more people changing jobs to work as they would prefer. I think it would even out.
M