The traditional family

[Paidiske]

No if men were regarded as the best nurturers for early childhood then I would say that they should fulfill this role. I am saying that the family setup should be based on what is best for the child and family and not the individual wants or rights, for the few important years of child upbringing. The father can still do the housework and help with the child as well.

And I'm saying that this will be different for every family. Some dads are great nurturers in early childhood. Some aren't. Some mums are great nurturers in early childhood. Some aren't. Trying to shove every household into the same mould actually isn't "best" for everyone, including the child. Allowing each household to work out their own approach based on the needs, wants, gifts, strengths and personality of each member is best.

I agree that people can choose to compromise and dedicate more time with a child by perhaps giving up some material wants. But I am not sure if this will be the case. The pressure of modern life to earn money and buy things can force people to make work the priority.

My observation is that generally people will compromise on wants, but not on what they perceive as needs. How we shape that as a society is really interesting; for example, there's a lot of pressure to be "good parents" by providing children with every extra-curricular opportunity out there. Now who could argue with being a good parent? But the conversation I find myself having with people is, where in that narrative is the point of diminishing return, and what else are you losing?

But I am not pushing any model

steve, you're very clearly pushing a working dad and stay-at-home mum model.

It is about what is best for the child not whether one person is more oppressed than the other.

Both of those things are valid considerations.

My position just points out what the science says is best.

No. Your position is taking a very narrow slice of science, ignoring a lot of other science, mixing it up with a lot of ideology, and trying to make a one-size-fits-all social and ethical prescription.

That doesn't work.

We should be able to state what is best without people getting upset about rights.

When someone's version of best is
a) inaccurate and incomplete, and
b) contributing to social viewpoints which are harmful to people,

then it is totally reasonable to critique your position.

Ideally people can choose their career and work in what they like. But basically the idea of work is to make money as part of a system that uses materialism as its worth. If you look at collective societies that don't have our system and all the stress. The reality is it would be great to be able to do something you like for the love of it but most people work to live and not live to work. People are lucky to get a job period let alone one they love.

And where in this is there any consideration of the Christian idea of vocation? The idea that God uniquely creates, gifts and calls each of us to faithfully contribute to the good of our society?

We have to put out there what is best and try to create a situation where more people can achieve this.

But there is no one "best." What's best for you and your household, is not best for me and my household, is not best for anyone else's household.

Therefore rather than trying to impose one ideal, we need to create scope for flexibility and creativity so that each household can achieve what is best for them.

But is we don't make clear what is best then people don't know and are wandering in the dark.

We could work on equipping people to navigate life wisely, but trying to set up one ideal for everyone isn't going to be the answer to that.

The conflict with this particular topic is it clashes with secular societies ideologies around gender where men and women are not really men and women anymore.

Last time I checked our biology wasn't suddenly mutating.

What we have created is a society in which people are free to discern their vocations and use their gifts without being pigeonholed according to gender. This is a good thing.

What sort of family friendly policies would you support? Mandating workplace flexibility would be top of my list.

 

[stevevw]

stevevw, your overlong posts are not convincing me that you have a case, nor others I suspect.

Yeah they are getting long. I happen to like the conversation as it helps me to learn believe it or not. What about my case do you think is not convincing you.

 

[stevevw]

And I'm saying that this will be different for every family. Some dads are great nurturers in early childhood. Some aren't. Some mums are great nurturers in early childhood. Some aren't. Trying to shove every household into the same mould actually isn't "best" for everyone, including the child. Allowing each household to work out their own approach based on the needs, wants, gifts, strengths and personality of each member is best.

So should we let people know what is the best setup, what the research says or not.

My observation is that generally people will compromise on wants, but not on what they perceive as needs. How we shape that as a society is really interesting; for example, there's a lot of pressure to be "good parents" by providing children with every extra-curricular opportunity out there. Now who could argue with being a good parent? But the conversation I find myself having with people is, where in that narrative is the point of diminishing return, and what else are you losing?

I am not sure they do compromise on wants. The fact is a consumer society causes people to spend beyond their means. Australia's personal debt is the highest its been in history and the highest in the world. We spend twice as much as we earn and its not just on the necessities. We have a tendency to want to spend.

I always think at Christmas time how can people afford it when I hear of another record spend but most of it is credit and the bubble will burst at some point. In a consumer society people are pressured to by stuff all the time. Kids are always demanding stuff and its especially hard for young parents.

Steve, you're very clearly pushing a working dad and stay-at-home mum model.

I am pushing what is best for the child that's all during the important period of development. If you knew that the best setup for health wouldn't you advocate for this. I am happy and in fact believe that at all other times it is healthy for women to be out finding themselves and working if they choose. It is good for people to have a meaningful life by having an occupation or even doing voluntary work as otherwise this can have a negative effect on their self worth.

Apart from before we had children my wife worked as a nurse and I was a chef so I practice this in my own life. I have pushed my daughter to get a career and work as I realize she needs to be independent to have something to fall back on.

 

[Paidiske]

There is no one "best." We should drop any discourse which suggests there is.

 

[zippy2006]

There is no one "best." We should drop any discourse which suggests there is.

I take this to be not only false, but dangerous. When the idea of the best is undermined, the idea of the better is also lost. What you are espousing is a very deep form of moral relativism.

 

[pleinmont]

There is no one "best." We should drop any discourse which suggests there is.

I agree.

 

[stevevw]

There is no one "best." We should drop any discourse which suggests there is.

Here is an example of why it is important to acknowledge there is a best/better situations for parents than anything goes.

The scientific PROOF that sending mothers out to work harms children - so why is the Budget penalizing those who stay at home?
Yet in the first three years of life, a baby's developing brain doubles in size. Every tickle, every warm chuckle, every waggle of a toy is a mini explosion of brainpower, joy and love that impacts on what happens in later years.
Make no mistake: mothers and fathers are (in the words of the experts) 'growing their babies' brains'.
Children under three have to be spoken for since they can't speak for themselves.
Scientific proof that stay-at-home mothers benefit children: So why coalition Budget tax break for working mothers? | Daily Mail Online

Baby-Mother Bonds Affect Future Adult Relationships, Study Finds
A mother lode of bonding – or a lack thereof – between moms and young children can predict kids' behavior in romantic relationships decades later, a new study suggests.

Adding to evidence that even preverbal memories are firmly imprinted on young psyches, researchers found that children who had been more securely attached to their mothers, now grown, did better at resolving relationship conflicts, recovering from those conflicts and enjoying stable, satisfying ties with their romantic partners in early adulthood.
Baby-Mother Bonds Affect Future Adult Relationships, Study Finds | Live Science

Researchers Find Brain Receptors Linked to Mother-Infant Bonding
Researchers Find Brain Receptors Linked to Mother-Infant Bonding
How Mother-Child Separation Causes Neurobiological Vulnerability Into Adulthood
How Mother-Child Separation Causes Neurobiological Vulnerability Into Adulthood

So literally the quality of nurturing and bonding with a caregiver especially the mother can mean the difference between a child's brain developing and growing or having brain damage. It also contributes to emotional and psychological development. I think that is one good reason why it is important to support the idea that there is a better and best setup for the family and child development.

That doesn't mean the father can also be a caregiver or another relative such as grandparents but the mother is best when possible. That doesn't mean we have to force that position on people. It just means like any health research where it tells people what has been found to be a better situation we need to know. It informs policy and the public and that is what research is all about.

 

[mama2one]

.

 

[mama2one]

.

 

[Paidiske]

I take this to be not only false, but dangerous. When the idea of the best is undermined, the idea of the better is also lost. What you are espousing is a very deep form of moral relativism.

I'm not refuting the idea of "best" as a concept, but simply that it applies in the very narrow context of this discussion (ie. I am refuting the idea that there is one "best" way for households to divide labour which is equally "best" for every household).

That doesn't mean that there isn't room for "better" in each household. It doesn't mean there is no ethical dimension to this discussion. What it means is that "better" and "best" are context-dependent for this discussion.

@stevew, your following post again fails to engage with a range of different possible approaches. It assumes an all-or-nothing; either the mother is on hand at all times, or she is not there at all. It does not ask the question, "How much time/attention from a primary caregiver is enough?" It doesn't consider the benefits of other caregivers being involved. It doesn't consider part time or casual work, or study, or working from home, or any of the myriad of possible ways things might be different from a mother as a constant presence or an absence.

 

[stevevw]

[/QUOTE] redone post

 

[stevevw]

your following post again fails to engage with a range of different possible approaches. It assumes an all-or-nothing; either the mother is on hand at all times, or she is not there at all. It does not ask the question, "How much time/attention from a primary caregiver is enough?" It doesn't consider the benefits of other caregivers being involved. It doesn't consider part time or casual work, or study, or working from home, or any of the myriad of possible ways things might be different from a mother as a constant presence or an absence.

I guess like anything it is telling us about what the research says, giving people information so they can use it to be better informed. Overall it is saying the more time as a caregiver you can spend with your child the better. But information assumes nothing it just informs. You keep injecting an intention into things that is not there. If you read the articles it does talk about other caregivers. They can be just as effective. The important thing is for a child to have that close bond with a caregiver. But it also talks about the importance of the mother as there is a special bond there.

I liken it to education. If the research says that spending an hour a day reading to your child helps them improve their brains and learning ability that is just what the research says based on the findings. It isn't telling people they have to do that. But it gives people a measure to use. Just because people are not in a position to do that doesn't mean the research is wrong. They may be only able to spend 15 minutes reading to their child but that is good as well. But if they didn't know from the research then they would miss out.

 

[Paidiske]

Overall it is saying the more time as a caregiver you can spend with your child the better.

I don't think you'll find that is really what it's saying. No research says a mother can never take a break without it having adverse outcomes.

The reason why I think its important is that it can make a difference and it informs governments and people so they can aim to implement policies and take measures to try and put themselves in a position that the research suggests. But it seems to me you are trying to defend a position that we cannot suggest to parents what is best for their child in this matter when we do it all the time. If we said we cannot inform people because we have to worry about all the reasons whey they might not be able to do something we would never improve things.

The problem I have is that you are taking some research findings which support your position, and turning them into an absolute. This is "the best" for every household, the position that everyone should strive for, that governments should support.

That's just not true. So policies should be shaped to enable a rich variety of households to flourish, not put in place policies which penalise people for not being in that mould.

 

[stevevw]

I don't think you'll find that is really what it's saying. No research says a mother can never take a break without it having adverse outcomes.

I was referring more to you saying that mothers/caregivers have various reasons why they may not be able to spend as much time as they should with their kids. So the more time they can fit in the better. That may be small amounts of time here and there. I guess its about quality as well and not just quantity. The research say even if a mum is constantly there is still needs to create that quality bond. So I would say small amounts of quality time is good as well.

The problem I have is that you are taking some research findings which support your position, and turning them into an absolute. This is "the best" for every household, the position that everyone should strive for, that governments should support.

First it is not just my position or a position with any agenda. Second what is wrong with making it something everyone should strive for and helping families to get there. Do you suggest we aim for second best or not have anything to aim for. Don't do research to find what is best to improve things. Its not an absolute as in making people conform to it. It is information on what is best that all.

That's just not true. So policies should be shaped to enable a rich variety of households to flourish, not put in place policies which penalize people for not being in that mould.

Actually the article was talking about penalizing mothers who want to stay at home. The minister was saying the governments policy to push mum's into the workforce and regard stay home mothering as something bad is wrong based on the research. The government uses the research for diets for example in what foods should be recommended and placed in public schools for example. They do it all the time. But it seems in some cases where it clashes with the leftist agenda the research is ignored.

 

[Paidiske]

I was referring more to you saying that mothers/caregivers have various reasons why they may not be able to spend as much time as they should with their kids.

No. I'm denying the "should" in that sentence altogether.

So the more time they can fit in the better. That may be small amounts of time here and there. I guess its about quality as well and not just quantity. The research say even if a mum is constantly there is still needs to create that quality bond. So I would say small amounts of quality time is good as well.

No, you missed my point. My point was that you have no data here to indicate whether - for example - a mother working one day a week outside the home has any adverse affects on her child/ren. Or two days. Or part days. Or from home as her other responsibilities allow. You have no data examining the different possible arrangements for the care of the children during those days and which might be better than others. You have no data indicating where - if at all - the tipping point in such a scenario might be.

And you have taken all of that and wrapped it up in a position which says "mothers should stay home and not work."

But nothing in what you've presented makes such an absolute statement defensible.

First it is not just my position or a position with any agenda.

I have misunderstood you? You are not arguing that mothers should stay home and not work?

Second what is wrong with making it something everyone should strive for and helping families to get there.

Because for some households that model will actually be harmful.

Actually the article was talking about penalizing mothers who want to stay at home. The minister was saying the governments policy to push mum's into the workforce and regard stay home mothering as something bad is wrong based on the research.

My argument stands. The government shouldn't be trying to push people into or out of the workplace, but enabling people to flourish in the circumstances which are best for them.

 

[stevevw]

No. I'm denying the "should" in that sentence altogether.

Ok well the “should” is not implying that anyone has to do anything, and I think I have stated this several times.

No, you missed my point. My point was that you have no data here to indicate whether - for example - a mother working one day a week outside the home has any adverse affects on her child/ren. Or two days. Or part days. Or from home as her other responsibilities allow. You have no data examining the different possible arrangements for the care of the children during those days and which might be better than others. You have no data indicating where - if at all - the tipping point in such a scenario might be.

And you have taken all of that and wrapped it up in a position which says "mothers should stay home and not work."

But nothing in what you've presented makes such an absolute statement defensible.

I was speaking more of full time work as opposed to stay at home mum's. The minister was quoting the research that was showing how children need their mum's in the early years. As the research says every interaction is growing the baby’s brain. Every tickle, every warm chuckle, every waggle of a toy is a mini explosion of brainpower, joy and love that impacts on what happens in later years.

The first 3 years are most important but research says quality time is important up to around 5 or 6 where a child may be confident to detached for longer periods. But you are right that there will be some variation as some kids may develop faster and parent’s quality care time will be different. There is some research out there that goes into more detail but the common theme is consistency and availability as it is about being there when the child needs the caregiver.

So I think working full time would have a negative effect. As for part time work I guess people can find ways to work around this but there is the risk of being inconsistent. It is the inconsistency that causes the insecurity as the child doesn’t have any confidence and trust of an available caregiver. I guess if parents can work together they can create a secure bond between them and the child and share the load.

The more time a bond is developed the more the caregiver can begin to spend time apart as the child trusts that the caregiver will always be there and come back. This can be individual as some may take longer to develop due to individual quality of care and time spent but the first 3 years is especially important. Generally speaking it is about consistent quality time as opposed to inconsistent and poor-quality time.

I have misunderstood you? You are not arguing that mothers should stay home and not work?

No only that there may be more crucial times where it is best for them to be with their child if and when possible. This is not about an agenda to keep women in the home. Overall women should and can do what they need to do to get a career and job and choose whatever else they need to have a fulfilled life. I am all for equality in marriage as it forms the basis of a healthy relationship or mutual respect.

But my argument for the family is not just limited to the women's role. It is also about the father being available and having a mother and father as the research says that they make a difference to child's development. It is about the importance of biological parents as they have a unique connection to children and valuing marriage as this provides stable long term families for children. All of which I have provide evidence for.

Because for some households that model will actually be harmful.

Harmful in what way. We are talking about a child's welfare, the difference between quality development of the brain as well as psychologically, emotionally and physically.

My argument stands. The government shouldn't be trying to push people into or out of the workplace, but enabling people to flourish in the circumstances which are best for them.

I agree but governments have been doing that for years and we have all accepted that and voted them in or out based on their policies. So what about the Job Active obligations that make unemployed people do certain things like look for work to get a job so they can be entitled to get the dole. Isn't that a policy that pushes people into the work place and is well accepted as a fair policy.

What about how the feminist movement petition governments and business to change policies about getting more women into work. We see for example where quotas for certain % of women's positions have to be met by employers to ensure equality. Or how policy changes to pay and women's entitlements was forced upon employers by governments. Isn't this about policies that force people to do things and adhere to a certain ideal.

And if we are talking about human flourishing what about the right for a child to flourish. What if the research says that a child flourishes more with more consistent and quality parenting. Should we heed that research and try to make policies that support that just like we do for health such as dieting recommendations. Isn't there a duty of care.

 

[Paidiske]

I was speaking more of full time work as opposed to stay at home mum's.

But life is just not that binary. If you'd made an argument that, say, during the first three years of a child's life, if possible the mother ought not work so much that she basically never sees the child, I think almost no one would take issue with that. But your argument came across as a much more blanket, "Women shouldn't work but should spend every minute of their days with their children."

This is not about an agenda to keep women in the home. Overall women should and can do what they need to do to get a career and job and choose whatever else they need to have a fulfilled life. I am all for equality in marriage as it forms the basis of a healthy relationship or mutual respect.

Unfortunately, it's taken fourteen pages of this thread before you stated this clearly, and that is not how most of your posts have come across.

But my argument for the family is not just limited to the women's role. It is also about the father being available and having a mother and father as the research says that they make a difference to child's development. It is about the importance of biological parents as they have a unique connection to children and valuing marriage as this provides stable long term families for children. All of which I have provide evidence for.

This gets much more tricky. (And - side note - howcome fathers have to be "available," but it's not a problem for them to work full time? Their availability looks a lot less demanding. But I digress). Children need loving caregivers, but the argument that it must be their biological mum and dad in a marriage... the evidence for that is not so robust. And there are many, many households which simply can't meet that ideal, and I don't think we ought to be making out that those children are automatically worse off.

Harmful in what way. We are talking about a child's welfare, the difference between quality development of the brain as well as psychologically, emotionally and physically.

Setting up an ideal to strive for, which many people, no matter how sincere and well-intentioned, cannot reach, undermines those people. It contributes to shame, stigma, and poor mental health outcomes. And if you have parents struggling with that burden, it's not as easy for them to parent well. It's harmful to create that shame and stigma.

So what about the Job Active obligations that make unemployed people do certain things like look for work to get a job so they can be entitled to get the dole. Isn't that a policy that pushes people into the work place and is well accepted as a fair policy.

The dole is specifically for people who - if they weren't on the dole - would be working. It is income support for out-of-work workers. Policies around that don't penalise people who have set up their lives to not have to work.

For stay at home parents who need income support there are other payments which are not subject to the same obligations.

What about how the feminist movement petition governments and business to change policies about getting more women into work. We see for example where quotas for certain % of women's positions have to be met by employers to ensure equality. Or how policy changes to pay and women's entitlements was forced upon employers by governments. Isn't this about policies that force people to do things and adhere to a certain ideal.

There is a difference between

a) policies which make it possible for women to work, or work in particular industries or positions,
b) policies which require employers to treat the women in their employ fairly, and
c) "Forcing" women to work.

You are describing a) and b) but not c).

And if we are talking about human flourishing what about the right for a child to flourish. What if the research says that a child flourishes more with more consistent and quality parenting. Should we heed that research and try to make policies that support that just like we do for health such as dieting recommendations. Isn't there a duty of care.

We have policies which support children experiencing neglect and so forth. For what you're suggesting, you would have to show that the negative impact on children of full time working mothers is so significant that we should penalise households with working mothers. The evidence for that position just isn't there. In fact, if anything, the evidence is that in struggling households - those suffering economic disadvantage, new migrants who haven't yet learned English, that sort of thing - access to quality childcare can reduce the negative impacts of the disadvantages at home, which is why the government has worked so hard to make sure that all children have access to quality early learning opportunities.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The "traditional family" is whatever the societal norms are of the time and place.

There is no universal objective ideal of the family here. Many who use the term "traditional family" have the western nuclear family of the 1950s in mind when they say this.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[zippy2006]

No, I don't think so. "Traditional family" basically means mother, father, and children. It does not exclude relatives, and in many cultures includes them.

A single parent household isn't a traditional family; a household with homosexual parentage isn't a traditional family; an orphanage isn't a traditional family, etc. It's not "whatever the societal norms are of the time and place." Indeed the fact that you need a mother and a father to conceive a child ensures that this is a universal model.

 

[stevevw]

But life is just not that binary. If you'd made an argument that, say, during the first three years of a child's life, if possible the mother ought not work so much that she basically never sees the child, I think almost no one would take issue with that. But your argument came across as a much more blanket, "Women shouldn't work but should spend every minute of their days with their children."

I basically did say this several times, that a child needs a caregiver (preferably the mother) especially the early years (first 3 years). But this is about being informed like any health awareness to give people something to measure what is best by. It doesn't imply that people must do it or force them to do it. We use the same logic for health such as parents who read to their child have better education results, children who do physical activities rather than sit at a computer have better health results.

Unfortunately, it's taken fourteen pages of this thread before you stated this clearly, and that is not how most of your posts have come across.

Not really. How do you have presumed my position because of your perception that everything I have said is associated with a patriarchy. Part of this may be that you have assumed the traditional family is a patriarchal one. We didn't start talking about stay home mum,s as with feminism until you brought it up around post 121 page 6. Before that I was debating with others on other topics like how society has impacted families generally.

But I had stated that this was not about keeping women at home very early here #68 and here #71.
In fact I stated at post #131 “A traditional family structure can work just as well with the women being the worker and the man staying at home”. Even at post #224 where you said See, I read this as, "If only women would go back to being pliant doormats life would be so much easier." I clarified that I was not saying this and that there needed to be a balance in other words equality in the marriage.

This gets much more tricky. (And - side note - how come fathers have to be "available," but it's not a problem for them to work full time? Their availability looks a lot less demanding. But I digress).

That's because just as I am using the research to say that fathers need to be available I use the research to say that mothers are the best in the early years for nurturing a bond with a child. Therefor it is logical if anyone has to work during that time it will be the father. But that doesn't mean if circumstances demand that the mother has works and the father does more child care.

Children need loving caregivers, but the argument that it must be their biological mum and dad in a marriage... the evidence for that is not so robust. And there are many, many households which simply can't meet that ideal, and I don't think we ought to be making out that those children are automatically worse off.

I agree we shouldn't make out that children in different family setups are worse off as there may be no choice and even a caring and loving non traditional setup is better than a traditional one that is not caring. But that does not mean we should not refer to the research which is strong that shows biological parents show better outcomes for children.

Marriage and Child Wellbeing Revisited: Introducing the Issue
Most scholars now agree that children raised by two biological parents in a stable marriage do better than children in other family forms across a wide range of outcomes.”
ERIC - EJ1079423 - Marriage and Child Wellbeing Revisited: Introducing the Issue, Future of Children, 2015
The puzzle of monogamous marriage
Much empirical work in monogamous societies indicates that higher degrees of relatedness among household members are associated with lower rates of abuse, neglect and homicide. Living in the same household with genetically unrelated adults is the single biggest risk factor for abuse, neglect and homicide of children.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.2011.0290
Biology Matters
First, research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage.
Biology Matters

Setting up an ideal to strive for, which many people, no matter how sincere and well-intentioned, cannot reach, undermines those people. It contributes to shame, stigma, and poor mental health outcomes. And if you have parents struggling with that burden, it's not as easy for them to parent well. It's harmful to create that shame and stigma.

As opposed to being aware so that we can minimize the harm done to children who are the innocent ones. I think that is the aim of research information to help people like children and not to make people feel guilty. I agree that people who are struggling need support not judgment and I don’t think information itself has any connotation like that. If we don't do research then we would never know what is a better way to do things and how to avoid harm.

The dole is specifically for people who - if they weren't on the dole - would be working. It is income support for out-of-work workers. Policies around that don't penalise people who have set up their lives to not have to work.

They penalize people who find it hard to work and have no choice but rely on unemployment benefits. Many people especially older ones not yet eligible for old age pension are stuck on unemployment benefits. It does not discriminate about those with mental health or substance abuse issues who cannot meet the obligations yet cannot get Disability Support Pensions. So, they are forced into activities to get work which is beyond them and when they fail, they are penalized.

For stay at home parents who need income support there are other payments which are not subject to the same obligations.

Yes but they are forced into work through the “Parent Next” program which requires them to get work. If they don’t meet the obligations, they too are penalized. When their child turns 8, they lose parenting payment and go onto Newstart unemployment allowance and are subject to the same obligations as the unemployed despite still having more or less the same childcare obligations.

There is a difference between

a) policies which make it possible for women to work, or work in particular industries or positions,
b) policies which require employers to treat the women in their employ fairly, and
c) "Forcing" women to work.

You are describing a) and b) but not c).

The above scenario with Parent Next which takes a mother off parenting payment while their child is still young and forces them onto Newstart describes option (c). Especially when they are single mum's who have no help with kids.

We have policies which support children experiencing neglect and so forth. For what you're suggesting, you would have to show that the negative impact on children of full time working mothers is so significant that we should penalise households with working mothers. The evidence for that position just isn't there. In fact, if anything, the evidence is that in struggling households - those suffering economic disadvantage, new migrants who haven't yet learned English, that sort of thing - access to quality childcare can reduce the negative impacts of the disadvantages at home, which is why the government has worked so hard to make sure that all children have access to quality early learning opportunities.

Yes, I agree and that is the best thing to do in the circumstance. But it isn’t the best thing to do overall and in the long run. The government never takes the long term or preventative view. The fact is the research is strong that shows children in families with two parents is best for their welfare. So, there should be an effort to begin to have policies that support this setup. It doesn't mean forcing people into any situation. It means that if there is a better way to avoid society producing problems for families and their children based on the research then we should base our policies on that like we do for other health issues.

Its more about encouraging what is best. But I do agree that in a society that morally will allow various forms of lifestyles that we then cannot expect to bring in certain policies based on certain values even if the research shows it is best. That is the problem I see with a plural and relativist society where we have to allow for varying moral positions.