Feminist: Moms Should Be Legally Required to Work, Barred From Staying at Home

[BubbaJack]

An Australian journalist wants lawmakers to ban stay-home moms, and require women to return to work after having children.

Writing for the Daily Telegraph, Sarrah Le Marquand cites a recent Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development report that suggested stay-home moms caused “potentially large losses to the economy” in Australia by opting out of the workforce.

Le Marquand uses those potential economic losses to argue that depriving mothers of parenting choices is actually in the national interest. Moms who stay home are essentially mooching off the system, she argues, citing “the unfair tax concessions enjoyed by one-income households.”

“Rather than wail about the supposed liberation in a woman’s right to choose to shun paid employment, we should make it a legal requirement that all parents of school-age or older are gainfully employed,” Le Marquand writes.

Feminist: Moms Should Be Legally Required to Work, Barred From Staying at Home

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

An Australian journalist wants lawmakers to ban stay-home moms, and require women to return to work after having children.

That decision should be left up to the parents of the child. Child care is costly and not every mother stays home. Sometimes it's the dads or the child has a family member or day care, that watches them.

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

Nobody should be legally required to work.

 

[keith99]

Nobody should be legally required to work.

Absolutely!

Next thing you know some idiot will demand no one takes early retirement. If one has made enough money to pay their own way it should be their choice if they want to make more of if they want to enjoy what they already have.

 

[Tolworth John]

And of course the evidence that stay at home mums and having two biological parents present durring childhood, make for the well adjusted adualts is of course ignored.

 

[Armoured]

And of course the evidence that stay at home mums and having two biological parents present durring childhood, make for the well adjusted adualts is of course ignored.

What "evidence" would that be?

 

[Tolworth John]

Try:- Universal Preschool: Be Careful What You Wish For?
Getting attached: Parental attachment and child development | Brookings Institution
Children-who-spend-time-in-nurseries-more-likely-to-develop-behavioural-problems

These are just a few studies.

 

[Armoured]

Try:- Universal Preschool: Be Careful What You Wish For?
Getting attached: Parental attachment and child development | Brookings Institution
Children-who-spend-time-in-nurseries-more-likely-to-develop-behavioural-problems

These are just a few studies.

That article doesn't appear to say what you think it says.

 

[Zoii]

You seriously want me to treat this topic with any degree of intellectual value. Basing the whole thread on a website with such intellectual gems as "Many youtube toy channels videos for kids contain bizarre poop videos"...or "identity Parade increasing unease at intersex activity". Sigh...... feminism doesn't concern itself with choices of stay or not stay at home. This was one journalists reflection on an OECD financial report.

[Staff edit].

 

[Tull]

When you live long enough you see things that were once called crazy come to pass

 

[Tolworth John]

That article doesn't appear to say what you think it says.

It says:-NICHD Study’s findings on the effects of day care proved more consistent than inconsistent with my “developmental risk” claim. And they provided virtually no support for the idea that it was poor quality care that accounted for the negative effects of “early, extensive, and continuous” care (initiated very early in life, for long hours, and continuing for many years).2 Specifically, our many research reports revealed that the more time children spent in any kind of non-familial child care, and sometimes specifically in centers, the more aggressive and disobedient they proved to be at two (but not three) and 4.5 years of age, as well as across their elementary school years; and the more impulsive they proved to be at age 15, at which age they also engaged in more “risky” behavior than children who experienced far less non-familial care across their first five years of life. Critically, despite spending millions to carefully measure the quality of care, using methods and measures developed by the proponents of the “it’s quality, stupid” view, the study never found that the quality of care accounted for these quantity-of-care effects. In other words, the problem behavior associated with early, extensive, and continuous care emerged irrespective of whether quality of care was good or bad.

As the last sentance says continuous care caused behavioural problems.

 

[Armoured]

It says:-NICHD Study’s findings on the effects of day care proved more consistent than inconsistent with my “developmental risk” claim. And they provided virtually no support for the idea that it was poor quality care that accounted for the negative effects of “early, extensive, and continuous” care (initiated very early in life, for long hours, and continuing for many years).2 Specifically, our many research reports revealed that the more time children spent in any kind of non-familial child care, and sometimes specifically in centers, the more aggressive and disobedient they proved to be at two (but not three) and 4.5 years of age, as well as across their elementary school years; and the more impulsive they proved to be at age 15, at which age they also engaged in more “risky” behavior than children who experienced far less non-familial care across their first five years of life. Critically, despite spending millions to carefully measure the quality of care, using methods and measures developed by the proponents of the “it’s quality, stupid” view, the study never found that the quality of care accounted for these quantity-of-care effects. In other words, the problem behavior associated with early, extensive, and continuous care emerged irrespective of whether quality of care was good or bad.

As the last sentance says continuous care caused behavioural problems.

Yes. It doesn't say anything about stay home mothers, or having two biological parents. It says children do better when looked after by family as infants. [Staff edit].

 

[Tolworth John]

" The research also uncovered trends relating to children who were in formal child care — away from their parents." from
Children who spend time in nurseries 'more likely to develop behavioural problems'

Most people understand that when talking about family with regard to childrten they are talking about their parents.

 

[Armoured]

" The research also uncovered trends relating to children who were in formal child care — away from their parents." from
Children who spend time in nurseries 'more likely to develop behavioural problems'

Most people understand that when talking about family with regard to childrten they are talking about their parents.

And that's why "most people" aren't scientific authors. Family carers may be extended family members or siblings. Nor do they mean "stay at home mother" nor "biological parents" necessarily.

 

[com7fy8]

Proverbs 31:10-31 > this talks about a virtuous woman. If you don't think this is working . . .

And I would say staying with children to home-school them and to bring them up to know how to love is certainly work. And if you don't believe it is worthwhile to support parents to have time with their children as good role models, consider how much money society will later need to spend, including on maybe paying for law enforcement and judicial procedure and imprisoning a number of children who were not brought up to know how to love.

I know one woman who could have been a world-sought-after singer. But she understood she needed to take care of her family. And, by the way, how much value would there have been to using singing to make selfish people feel good, anyway?

"Why would caring people want to hire her so she would be away from properly caring for her family????"

Would that be real work? Possibly, some number of people are deeply unhappy and so they depend on music and other pleasure to make them try to feel better. But they need deep change of God to make them strong in His love. A lot of work is merely for helping selfish people feel good, and a lot of money is being made by getting selfish people to pay for what does not really help them.

 

[com7fy8]

And, by the way, look at the ruin there is of whole countries because politicians and other rulers were not brought up to know how to love. But they can work, they can know how to make things happen.

It can be like how Martha was so busy with working, while Mary stayed "at Jesus' feet and heard His word" (in Luke 10:39) Who was the smart one ?

 

[BubbaJack]

You seriously want me to treat this topic with any degree of intellectual value. Basing the whole thread on a website with such intellectual gems as "Many youtube toy channels videos for kids contain bizarre poop videos"...or "identity Parade increasing unease at intersex activity". Sigh...... feminism doesn't concern itself with choices of stay or not stay at home. This was one journalists reflection on an OECD financial report.

What difference does it make what website the story was on? Here, if you don't like Heat Street, read about her in the Daily Telegraph: No Cookies | Daily Telegraph

Glad to help.

 

[Zoii]

What difference does it make what website the story was on? Here, if you don't like Heat Street, read about her in the Daily Telegraph: No Cookies | Daily Telegraph

Glad to help.

I did read the original article and just groaned. Why the need for a sensationalist title such as Feminists banning stay at home mothers... Im going to say no more because I just think its an insult to a thinking person's intelligence.

 

[BubbaJack]

I did read the original article and just groaned. Why the need for a sensationalist title such as Feminists banning stay at home mothers... Im going to say no more because I just think its an insult to a thinking person's intelligence.

That's not what the title says.

 

[BubbaJack]

[Staff edit].

Anyway, let's get back to the topic, the Australian feminist (who reminds me of the crazy woman from Alexandra's Project) and her groundbreaking ideas about women, work, and the future.