Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Paying women to stay at home

[Expletive deleted][Expletive deleted] The mediocre doctorNorwayRegistered User regular
edited September 10 in Debate and/or Discourse
Edit: The thread title describes the de facto (and unwanted) effect of a policy that is de jure paying whichever parent (if any) chooses to be at home with their young children.

This is a spin-off from the Dem primary thread.

Watching children his hard and time-consuming. Everybody who has tried agree on this. It is also an undeniable fact that women do the bulk of this work, even in the developed world.

Not everybody can or want to use daycare, and watch their kids at home instead. Again, staying at home with the kids is mostly done by the mothers, and is unpaid labor.

Should this labor be compensated or subsidized by the government?

Here in Norway, we've done that since 1998. Parents of children not enrolled in government-subsidized daycare between the age of 1 and 2 years (until 2012 1–3 yrs) can get a cash subsidy (konstantstøtte, lit. "cash support"). Children below the age of 1 are not covered by kontantstøtte, as they are covered by other programs (specifically, parental leave).

The program was instituted by Kristlig Folkeparti, the religious-conservative party when they held the PM.

The program was and is highly controversial. The OECD has recommended kontantstøtta is removed. Two key issues with kontanstøtte:
  1. It is a subsidy of traditional gender roles. Fathers are equally eligible as mothers, but it's almost always mothers who end up staying at home.
  2. It hampers integration of immigrants. Immigrant mothers stay at home (even more so than natives) supported by kontanstøtta, and their kids never go to day care and socialize with natives (or immigrants from other cultures) or learn Norwegian.
Both these effects are well documented.

The alternative, which we have, is government-subsidized daycare. This allows women to enter the workforce, helps immigrants integrate into society (and natives to be used to living around and with immigrants), and is better for all children. But all this is undermined by kontantstøtte.

I am personally strongly against kontantstøtte, but I know others ( @spool32 ) is in favor. In any case, it is a policy whose merits (and lack thereof) should be both discussed and understood.

Edit: Clarifying the thread topic:

Paying parents for the (otherwise) unpaid labor of watching pre-school kids sounds good on paper. However, it comes with significant downsides and de facto entrenches traditional gender roles. I think this is bad.

Is paying for the labor that is child-rearing worth those costs? How should we do things?

My suggestion: Paid parental leave, part of which is earmarked for the father. Then highly subsidised (or free) daycare. No payment to parents who keep their kids out of daycare. (If we remove the kontantstøtte, Norway would in fact broadly have my preferred solution; we have all the other stuff already.)

Edit: Current system in Norway:
Parental leave: 49 weeks divided in 3: 19 weeks reserved for the mother, 19 weeks reserved for the father, 11 weeks to split as the parents see fit. (This can be increased to 59 weeks total by getting less money.) Some of the mother's weeks are taken prior to birth. In almost all cases, the de facto split is mother 30 weeks, father 19 weeks. Because gender roles.

From 1 year old, the child can be enrolled in government-subsidized daycare. Or, the parents can receive cash support instead (i.e., paying to support regressive gender roles and worse integration of immigrants).

From 6 years old, the child must start in school.

Sic transit gloria mundi.
[Expletive deleted] on
«13456713

Posts

  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    I mean as a dude who's plan potentially includes being the stay at home parent I'd super appreciate getting paid for it

    bowenEncAlexandierShadowfireGennenalyse RuebenNobodyIncenjucarjungleroomxRear Admiral ChocoDuke 2.0ArchDevlin_DragonusAridholGnizmoMoridin889Hahnsoo1spool32RickRudeHacksawiTunesIsEvilLord_AsmodeussanstodoNobeardTNTrooperCambiataHappylilElfSummaryJudgmentDirtmuncherLegacy
  • Linespider5Linespider5 ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGER Registered User regular
    Uncertain where this discussion will go but...I will say that this is an interesting idea worth examining. Issues of integration and gender preferences definitely undermine the benefits of this program’s idea, and yet exactly how these issues could be dealt with are unclear when I attempt to think of specifics.

    At the same time I definitely prefer a program like this over not having it. There’s a big discussion to be had over what takes priority in terms of government funding but this would be one of those things I think I’d be okay with.

    ShadowhopeGnome-Interruptus
  • honoverehonovere Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    I mean as a dude who's plan potentially includes being the stay at home parent I'd super appreciate getting paid for it

    One societal problem with this is that often men are getting paid more and this system encourages the person who earns less to stay home. It's the problem a lot of paid parental leave systems have, too.

    shrykeShadowhopeLinespider5Moridin889Gnome-InterruptusKristmas KthulhuLord_AsmodeusFencingsaxjakobaggerOrca
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    honovere wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    I mean as a dude who's plan potentially includes being the stay at home parent I'd super appreciate getting paid for it

    One societal problem with this is that often men are getting paid more and this system encourages the person who earns less to stay home. It's the problem a lot of paid parental leave systems have, too.

    Yes, but having paid parental leave is still much, much, much better than not having any because it plays into gender pay imbalance.

    sig.gif
    bowenstopgapArchLinespider5November FifthKristmas KthulhuThawmusmysticjuicer
  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    honovere wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    I mean as a dude who's plan potentially includes being the stay at home parent I'd super appreciate getting paid for it

    One societal problem with this is that often men are getting paid more and this system encourages the person who earns less to stay home. It's the problem a lot of paid parental leave systems have, too.

    That doesn't seem like a problem that can or should be addressed from a stay at home gets you pay type system.

    Not paying for daycare seems like the superior of the two options societally too. Parents are better than day care as a whole. I'd rather just give both parents a year off at their current pay based on their current projected income for the year.

    not a doctor, not a lawyer, don't @ me
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    I don't think there is a good argument for supporting this over supporting subsidized daycare.

    It also seems like one of those programs where the people it benefits most do not need the support. It's not generous enough to replace an entire income, so the people who need 2 incomes still need to work. So it basically serves as a sweetener for people who can afford to single income it, and is only critical for that narrow band where they need like 1.2 incomes to get by.

    How do you spell Justice?B D S Non-Violent Resistance to Israel Apartheid & Occupation.
    ShadowhopeThroGnome-Interruptus
  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    Would we not be better off paying for childcare? Perhaps even nationalising childcare?

    Linespider5Gnome-InterruptusHonk
  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    I don't think there is a good argument for supporting this over supporting subsidized daycare.

    It also seems like one of those programs where the people it benefits most do not need the support. It's not generous enough to replace an entire income, so the people who need 2 incomes still need to work. So it basically serves as a sweetener for people who can afford to single income it, and is only critical for that narrow band where they need like 1.2 incomes to get by.

    I'm not following the logic of "we'll pay your income to not show up for work while taking care of your child" is not immediately better in all situations here. Walk me through it.

    not a doctor, not a lawyer, don't @ me
    jungleroomxThawmusJaysonFour
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Being a stay-at-home parent is a full-time job. More than full-time, in fact, since you don't punch out on taking care of your kids at 5pm. I should know, my mom was a stay-at-home mother for my brother and I. It's work definitely worthy of recognition and pay.

    And if we're arguing social ills of the problem, not having stay-at-home pay means the stay-at-home partner (since they will exist anyway, and per the OP are mainly lower-income women and immigrants) will be financially 100% dependent on the bread-earning partner. It wasn't an issue for my mom since my parents have a healthy loving relationship, but we all know it can be (and is) a major problem for a lot of women.

    sig.gif
    shrykeKristmas KthulhuiTunesIsEvilJaysonFour
  • AthenorAthenor Battle Hardened Optimist The Skies of HiigaraRegistered User regular
    edited September 10
    My gut reaction upon seeing the thread title: "I'd be much more supportive if it was paying 'parents' to stay at home."

    I personally am a big believer in the bonds between parents and kids, that daycare just can't replace. My family was lucky in that mom had a very flexible job that she could bring me into the ice skating rink and have people watch me (and my bros when they came around), but others definitely aren't that lucky. I just want to see people be free to make their own choices and there being safety nets for those options.

    Athenor on
    Official member of the Grilling Gentry
    "Brevity is the soul of getting your shit read." - Tube
    Rarely-updated Collecting blog
    He/Him
    Heffling
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    Concur that it should say parent vice women.

    I'm still not even sure where I land on the concept but it shouldn't be limited to gender.

    KetarIncenjucarCelloLovelyiTunesIsEvilCambiataJaysonFour
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Concur that it should say parent vice women.

    I'm still not even sure where I land on the concept but it shouldn't be limited to gender.

    As the OP, multiple studies, and common sense show, while it can (and usually does) say "parents", in reality it is "women". So I'm ok with the thread title as it stands. Let's look at the reality of the situation head-on, rather than hide it behind PR and ideals that are not applied in practice.

    sig.gif
    shrykeShadowhopeKristmas KthulhuNobeardFANTOMASjakobaggerFrozenzen
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Concur that it should say parent vice women.

    I'm still not even sure where I land on the concept but it shouldn't be limited to gender.

    As the OP, multiple studies, and common sense show, while it can (and usually does) say "parents", in reality it is "women". So I'm ok with the thread title as it stands. Let's look at the reality of the situation head-on, rather than hide it behind PR and ideals that are not applied in practice.

    I'm aware it's primarily women. But if the proposal is to pay them and only them, then it will only further cement that concept.

    bowenIncenjucardispatch.o
  • SummaryJudgmentSummaryJudgment Today we will paint a mountain that owes us nothing. Registered User regular
    daycare providers are ratioed 4:1 children to caretakers, here, so we're not gaining that same amount of labor for every mom staying home with only 1 or 2 kids

    tERiPJd.jpg
    AntinumericGnome-Interruptustinwhiskers
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Concur that it should say parent vice women.

    I'm still not even sure where I land on the concept but it shouldn't be limited to gender.

    As the OP, multiple studies, and common sense show, while it can (and usually does) say "parents", in reality it is "women". So I'm ok with the thread title as it stands. Let's look at the reality of the situation head-on, rather than hide it behind PR and ideals that are not applied in practice.

    Same thing with parental leave or basically anything else I've ever seen studied on this. If you give people the option, they will usually stick with default gender roles.

    RichyShadowhope
  • honoverehonovere Registered User regular
    bowen wrote: »
    I don't think there is a good argument for supporting this over supporting subsidized daycare.

    It also seems like one of those programs where the people it benefits most do not need the support. It's not generous enough to replace an entire income, so the people who need 2 incomes still need to work. So it basically serves as a sweetener for people who can afford to single income it, and is only critical for that narrow band where they need like 1.2 incomes to get by.

    I'm not following the logic of "we'll pay your income to not show up for work while taking care of your child" is not immediately better in all situations here. Walk me through it.

    Generally these systems don't simply pay your income but a percentage of your net income or a lump sum. This generally benefits medium to high income households more than low income households.

    A side effect of getting paid tax exempt percentage of net income is (at least here in Germany) that you don't pay into retirement funds, so that screws over the parent that takes care of the child later in life.

    I'm not arguing against the idea of paid leave, but the implementation generally leads to a reinforcement of gender norms and does not benefit people that would need it the most enough.

  • ShadowfireShadowfire Vermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered User regular
    I'd honestly like to see both as options. Daycare is very competitive and can be very difficult to get your child into because there are limited slots, so just doing paid daycare is not quite good enough for a lot of people.

    WiiU: Windrunner ; Guild Wars 2: Shadowfire.3940 ; PSN: Bradcopter
    RichyHeir
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Concur that it should say parent vice women.

    I'm still not even sure where I land on the concept but it shouldn't be limited to gender.

    As the OP, multiple studies, and common sense show, while it can (and usually does) say "parents", in reality it is "women". So I'm ok with the thread title as it stands. Let's look at the reality of the situation head-on, rather than hide it behind PR and ideals that are not applied in practice.

    I'm aware it's primarily women. But if the proposal is to pay them and only them, then it will only further cement that concept.

    No one is proposing the abstract concept of paying only women.

    The real-world tangible impact of the proposal is that primarily women are paid.

    sig.gif
    ShadowhopeKristmas Kthulhu
  • [Expletive deleted][Expletive deleted] The mediocre doctor NorwayRegistered User regular
    The way the system works in Norway, the cash is simply given to parents of children between the age of 1 and 2 who are not enrolled in daycare. The parents can do whatever they want with it.

    And what they do with it is one of two things:
    1. The mother stays home.
    2. They use it to subsidize a nanny.

    Yes, the father could stay home. No, he does not.

    There's a reason I the thread title is paying women to stay at home.

    Sic transit gloria mundi.
    RichyshrykeShadowhope
  • HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Concur that it should say parent vice women.

    I'm still not even sure where I land on the concept but it shouldn't be limited to gender.

    As the OP, multiple studies, and common sense show, while it can (and usually does) say "parents", in reality it is "women". So I'm ok with the thread title as it stands. Let's look at the reality of the situation head-on, rather than hide it behind PR and ideals that are not applied in practice.

    Sure, the reality is that it's overwhelmingly women who stay at home to be parents. But let's say that the thread title were passed as law. Now you've enshrined the disparity that you recognize. By stating "Paying women to stay at home" You're normalizing that it is to be women who stay at home and supporting a status quo that you seem to agree needs to be changed.

    Personally, rather than pay for a parent to stay home, I would prefer we better subsidize and standardize day care so that all have access to adequate day care.

    If a movement doesn't have someone that can sit down opposite those in a position of power and strike a deal, how can that movement achieve success?
    SummaryJudgmentHeir
  • [Expletive deleted][Expletive deleted] The mediocre doctor NorwayRegistered User regular
    Furthermore, we have paid parental leave in Norway.

    49 weeks divided in 3: 19 weeks reserved for the mother, 19 weeks reserved for the father, 11 weeks to split as the parents see fit. (This can be increased to 59 weeks total by getting less money.) Some of the mother's weeks are taken prior to birth. In almost all cases, the de facto split is mother 30 weeks, father 19 weeks. Because gender roles.

    From 1 year old, the child can be enrolled in government-subsidized daycare. Or, the parents can receive a cash support instead (i.e., paying to support regressive gender roles and worse integration of immigrants).

    From 6 years old, the child must start in school.

    Sic transit gloria mundi.
    HefflingGnome-InterruptusJuliusCambiata
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Heffling wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Concur that it should say parent vice women.

    I'm still not even sure where I land on the concept but it shouldn't be limited to gender.

    As the OP, multiple studies, and common sense show, while it can (and usually does) say "parents", in reality it is "women". So I'm ok with the thread title as it stands. Let's look at the reality of the situation head-on, rather than hide it behind PR and ideals that are not applied in practice.

    Sure, the reality is that it's overwhelmingly women who stay at home to be parents. But let's say that the thread title were passed as law. Now you've enshrined the disparity that you recognize. By stating "Paying women to stay at home" You're normalizing that it is to be women who stay at home and supporting a status quo that you seem to agree needs to be changed.

    Personally, rather than pay for a parent to stay home, I would prefer we better subsidize and standardize day care so that all have access to adequate day care.

    Jesus Christ, the thread title is not a law nor a proposal for one, it's an observation of reality brought forward as a topic for debate on an internet gaming discussion forum.

    And I'm done replying to this pointless tangent.

    sig.gif
    Kristmas KthulhuFANTOMAS
  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion The Land of Flowers (and Dragons)Registered User regular
    So is this thread about focusing just on the sexism of that issue, or on discussing the merits of parental stipends idea as a whole? Is this just about Norway's system, or investigating the concept on a broader lens?

    A thread on the inherent sexism within Norway's specific instance of this is a pretty niche topic.

    SleepbowenHefflingNobodyThawmus
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    I think the main issue here is that you can't solve any of these problems with a simple disconnected program. You can't just pay stay-at-home parents or subsidize daycare and not get adverse effects because there's a ton of things connected directly to these ideas. You reinforce gender roles, you cost people career progress and other associated benefits in ways that do not fall equally on both genders, you deny parents time with their children during the most critical years of development and on and on and on.

    What you need is a more widespread reshaping of how we view raising children and it's role in society. To not have raising children be a thing that permanently retards your lifetime career progress or a side-project people are just expected to pay for out of pocket in both time and money.

    HefflinghonovereShadowhopeAntinumericGnome-InterruptusKristmas KthulhuMoridin889
  • [Expletive deleted][Expletive deleted] The mediocre doctor NorwayRegistered User regular
    A lot of research has been done on the effect of parental leave here in Norway. The father staying at home with his child, alone, is good for the child, good for the father, and good for the family.

    But, and this has been tested on a national scale, the father must be "forced" to take it. The father's part has to be reserved for him and him alone, or he will not take it.

    Sic transit gloria mundi.
    shrykeShadowhopeAntinumericGnome-InterruptusKristmas Kthulhujakobagger
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Concur that it should say parent vice women.

    I'm still not even sure where I land on the concept but it shouldn't be limited to gender.

    As the OP, multiple studies, and common sense show, while it can (and usually does) say "parents", in reality it is "women". So I'm ok with the thread title as it stands. Let's look at the reality of the situation head-on, rather than hide it behind PR and ideals that are not applied in practice.

    I'm aware it's primarily women. But if the proposal is to pay them and only them, then it will only further cement that concept.

    No one is proposing the abstract concept of paying only women.

    The real-world tangible impact of the proposal is that primarily women are paid.

    That's not what the title proposes.

    And as it stands in America, quite a few policies provide parental leave for women specifically. The Navy's policy specifies the mother for receiving four months of leave with the "secondary caregiver" receiving only two weeks unless they're willing to jump through hoops to get some of that time off transferred. This only adds barriers to changing the norm.

    Again, I understand that it's primarily women that currently stay at home. One of the ways to change that is to stop specifying just them.

    HefflingCello
  • SummaryJudgmentSummaryJudgment Today we will paint a mountain that owes us nothing. Registered User regular
    Heffling wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Concur that it should say parent vice women.

    I'm still not even sure where I land on the concept but it shouldn't be limited to gender.

    As the OP, multiple studies, and common sense show, while it can (and usually does) say "parents", in reality it is "women". So I'm ok with the thread title as it stands. Let's look at the reality of the situation head-on, rather than hide it behind PR and ideals that are not applied in practice.

    Sure, the reality is that it's overwhelmingly women who stay at home to be parents. But let's say that the thread title were passed as law. Now you've enshrined the disparity that you recognize. By stating "Paying women to stay at home" You're normalizing that it is to be women who stay at home and supporting a status quo that you seem to agree needs to be changed.

    Personally, rather than pay for a parent to stay home, I would prefer we better subsidize and standardize day care so that all have access to adequate day care.

    I don't know why that's so objectionable for OP and a few others here

    yes, if you're going to enshrine this into law, make it gender neutral so if mom happens to have a better paying job then dad can stay home

    I work in public service and I'm nearing the end of a term of years; my wife works a good corporate job

    tERiPJd.jpg
    DeebaserTehSpectreJulius
  • SummaryJudgmentSummaryJudgment Today we will paint a mountain that owes us nothing. Registered User regular
    edited September 10
    Richy wrote: »
    Heffling wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Concur that it should say parent vice women.

    I'm still not even sure where I land on the concept but it shouldn't be limited to gender.

    As the OP, multiple studies, and common sense show, while it can (and usually does) say "parents", in reality it is "women". So I'm ok with the thread title as it stands. Let's look at the reality of the situation head-on, rather than hide it behind PR and ideals that are not applied in practice.

    Sure, the reality is that it's overwhelmingly women who stay at home to be parents. But let's say that the thread title were passed as law. Now you've enshrined the disparity that you recognize. By stating "Paying women to stay at home" You're normalizing that it is to be women who stay at home and supporting a status quo that you seem to agree needs to be changed.

    Personally, rather than pay for a parent to stay home, I would prefer we better subsidize and standardize day care so that all have access to adequate day care.

    Jesus Christ, the thread title is not a law nor a proposal for one, it's an observation of reality brought forward as a topic for debate on an internet gaming discussion forum.

    And I'm done replying to this pointless tangent.

    The title should be changed. Nobody wants to deal with this poor articulation of the policy poisoning the well

    not only is it women only, it's "paying women to stay home [re: childcare]" as if they're staying home to do nothing

    SummaryJudgment on
    tERiPJd.jpg
    AthenorbowenQuidEncNobodyCelloTehSpectreLinespider5BloodsheediTunesIsEvilWhiteZinfandel
  • [Expletive deleted][Expletive deleted] The mediocre doctor NorwayRegistered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Heffling wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Concur that it should say parent vice women.

    I'm still not even sure where I land on the concept but it shouldn't be limited to gender.

    As the OP, multiple studies, and common sense show, while it can (and usually does) say "parents", in reality it is "women". So I'm ok with the thread title as it stands. Let's look at the reality of the situation head-on, rather than hide it behind PR and ideals that are not applied in practice.

    Sure, the reality is that it's overwhelmingly women who stay at home to be parents. But let's say that the thread title were passed as law. Now you've enshrined the disparity that you recognize. By stating "Paying women to stay at home" You're normalizing that it is to be women who stay at home and supporting a status quo that you seem to agree needs to be changed.

    Personally, rather than pay for a parent to stay home, I would prefer we better subsidize and standardize day care so that all have access to adequate day care.

    Jesus Christ, the thread title is not a law nor a proposal for one, it's an observation of reality brought forward as a topic for debate on an internet gaming discussion forum.

    And I'm done replying to this pointless tangent.

    Richy is right. This is not law, nor am I proposing that it should be (quite the opposite).

    The law (in Norway) is that parents can choose to receive money in lieu of enrolling their kid in daycare.

    De facto, for parents who choose to receive it, the mother stays home.

    Sic transit gloria mundi.
    ShadowhopeKristmas Kthulhu
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Concur that it should say parent vice women.

    I'm still not even sure where I land on the concept but it shouldn't be limited to gender.

    As the OP, multiple studies, and common sense show, while it can (and usually does) say "parents", in reality it is "women". So I'm ok with the thread title as it stands. Let's look at the reality of the situation head-on, rather than hide it behind PR and ideals that are not applied in practice.

    I'm aware it's primarily women. But if the proposal is to pay them and only them, then it will only further cement that concept.

    No one is proposing the abstract concept of paying only women.

    The real-world tangible impact of the proposal is that primarily women are paid.

    That's not what the title proposes.

    And as it stands in America, quite a few policies provide parental leave for women specifically. The Navy's policy specifies the mother for receiving four months of leave with the "secondary caregiver" receiving only two weeks unless they're willing to jump through hoops to get some of that time off transferred. This only adds barriers to changing the norm.

    Again, I understand that it's primarily women that currently stay at home. One of the ways to change that is to stop specifying just them.

    The point is that this doesn't actually change anything. You can stop saying it's just women who stay at home but it's still gonna be mostly just women who stay at home.

    And I'm not trying to be repetitive here, but to point out that the difference is not there in practice. Making child-care benefits non-gendered is conceptually a step-forward but functionally an essentially irrelevant change. And that fact is a huge fulcrum on which these issues turn.

    honovereRichyGnome-InterruptusKristmas Kthulhu
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    I'm a big believer in daycare. It teaches the child to socialize with other children and to be separated from their parents, and it builds their immune systems by sharing in the host of diseases the other kids are carrying. The activities for older kids are also formative and educational. And since they're businesses, the government can regulate them and force a level of quality for child-care in a way that simply cannot be done for kids at home with their parents.

    That said, there are limitations to the system. Even with subsidies it's still expense (I'm looking at 25$/day or so in my case), and for families with a lot of kids (and let's face it, families with a lot of kids are usually low-income and immigrant families) it can become a major household expense. Spaces are limited and finding one is difficult, never mind finding one that is geographically convenient and won't require you to drive a detour in traffic halfway across town twice a way. Daycare schedules may not fit with your actual work schedule if you don't have a traditional 9-to-5 job (and even if you do, once you take into account driving to and from daycare). And there's just no substitute for parental love and bonding in the yearly years of life.

    So no, while I'm happy my child is in daycare, I can't fault parents who choose not to go that route.

    sig.gif
    honovereXaquinShadowhopeAimGnome-InterruptusMoridin889HeirColanutJaysonFour
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Concur that it should say parent vice women.

    I'm still not even sure where I land on the concept but it shouldn't be limited to gender.

    As the OP, multiple studies, and common sense show, while it can (and usually does) say "parents", in reality it is "women". So I'm ok with the thread title as it stands. Let's look at the reality of the situation head-on, rather than hide it behind PR and ideals that are not applied in practice.

    I'm aware it's primarily women. But if the proposal is to pay them and only them, then it will only further cement that concept.

    No one is proposing the abstract concept of paying only women.

    The real-world tangible impact of the proposal is that primarily women are paid.

    That's not what the title proposes.

    And as it stands in America, quite a few policies provide parental leave for women specifically. The Navy's policy specifies the mother for receiving four months of leave with the "secondary caregiver" receiving only two weeks unless they're willing to jump through hoops to get some of that time off transferred. This only adds barriers to changing the norm.

    Again, I understand that it's primarily women that currently stay at home. One of the ways to change that is to stop specifying just them.

    The point is that this doesn't actually change anything. You can stop saying it's just women who stay at home but it's still gonna be mostly just women who stay at home.

    And I'm not trying to be repetitive here, but to point out that the difference is not there in practice. Making child-care benefits non-gendered is conceptually a step-forward but functionally an essentially irrelevant change. And that fact is a huge fulcrum on which these issues turn.

    I don't agree that the language we use to describe ideas doesn't change anything. But I ain't the OP so *shrug*

    SummaryJudgmentCelloiTunesIsEvil
  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Heffling wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Concur that it should say parent vice women.

    I'm still not even sure where I land on the concept but it shouldn't be limited to gender.

    As the OP, multiple studies, and common sense show, while it can (and usually does) say "parents", in reality it is "women". So I'm ok with the thread title as it stands. Let's look at the reality of the situation head-on, rather than hide it behind PR and ideals that are not applied in practice.

    Sure, the reality is that it's overwhelmingly women who stay at home to be parents. But let's say that the thread title were passed as law. Now you've enshrined the disparity that you recognize. By stating "Paying women to stay at home" You're normalizing that it is to be women who stay at home and supporting a status quo that you seem to agree needs to be changed.

    Personally, rather than pay for a parent to stay home, I would prefer we better subsidize and standardize day care so that all have access to adequate day care.

    Jesus Christ, the thread title is not a law nor a proposal for one, it's an observation of reality brought forward as a topic for debate on an internet gaming discussion forum.

    And I'm done replying to this pointless tangent.

    You should change the thread title. Nobody wants to deal with this poor articulation of the policy poisoning the well out of the gate

    not only is it women only, it's "paying women to stay home [re: childcare]" as if they're staying home to do nothing

    My first thought was "this is dumb that's just encouraging gender norms even more" so right off the bat I was confused as to why, in 2019, we're still doing stupid shit like this.

    The issue is there are a lot of concessions men and women take in response to gender norms. Women are less likely to jump into STEM or become surgeons because they expect later in life to need a job that has a lot more leeway for parenting. That is why, often times, they're the ones who stay home. It's not 100%, of course, there are plenty of men who would be willing to stay at home too. Are we addressing all this or just talking about women staying at home and taking care of kids and how we can encourage them to get back to work?

    Perhaps we should make better OPs rather than be combative about it.

    not a doctor, not a lawyer, don't @ me
    EncSummaryJudgmentCelloHefflingBloodsheediTunesIsEvil
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    If we're going to regulate behavior, make it so each registered spouse must contribute 50% effort to childcare per work month. Have them clock in and out and report their hours vs. hours worked at their other job in an auditable document.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • SummaryJudgmentSummaryJudgment Today we will paint a mountain that owes us nothing. Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    If we're going to regulate behavior, make it so each registered spouse must contribute 50% effort to childcare per work month. Have them clock in and out and report their hours vs. hours worked at their other job in an auditable document.

    I set a stopwatch when I went out this weekend with my 12-month old and I won't lie it felt good knowing I had 2:05:00 banked when I get home

    tERiPJd.jpg
    bowenRichyShadowfireAridholShadowhopeJaysonFour
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Concur that it should say parent vice women.

    I'm still not even sure where I land on the concept but it shouldn't be limited to gender.

    As the OP, multiple studies, and common sense show, while it can (and usually does) say "parents", in reality it is "women". So I'm ok with the thread title as it stands. Let's look at the reality of the situation head-on, rather than hide it behind PR and ideals that are not applied in practice.

    I'm aware it's primarily women. But if the proposal is to pay them and only them, then it will only further cement that concept.

    No one is proposing the abstract concept of paying only women.

    The real-world tangible impact of the proposal is that primarily women are paid.

    That's not what the title proposes.

    And as it stands in America, quite a few policies provide parental leave for women specifically. The Navy's policy specifies the mother for receiving four months of leave with the "secondary caregiver" receiving only two weeks unless they're willing to jump through hoops to get some of that time off transferred. This only adds barriers to changing the norm.

    Again, I understand that it's primarily women that currently stay at home. One of the ways to change that is to stop specifying just them.

    The point is that this doesn't actually change anything. You can stop saying it's just women who stay at home but it's still gonna be mostly just women who stay at home.

    And I'm not trying to be repetitive here, but to point out that the difference is not there in practice. Making child-care benefits non-gendered is conceptually a step-forward but functionally an essentially irrelevant change. And that fact is a huge fulcrum on which these issues turn.

    I don't agree that the language we use to describe ideas doesn't change anything. But I ain't the OP so *shrug*

    It's a change that would have to be made but it's not sufficient to actually change anything functionally.

    And I'm pretty sure the point of the OP's title is to reflect this fact. That "parental leave" is just "maternity leave" unless you actively force it not to be.

    Kristmas KthulhuAegisBloodySloth
  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion The Land of Flowers (and Dragons)Registered User regular
    Aha, so the topic here is actually "ten thousand posts on interpreting a poorly made OP."

    SleepbowenKetarCelloGnome-InterruptusBloodsheedLanlaornMoridin889HeirCalicaKetBraJaysonFour
  • honoverehonovere Registered User regular
    bowen wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Heffling wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Concur that it should say parent vice women.

    I'm still not even sure where I land on the concept but it shouldn't be limited to gender.

    As the OP, multiple studies, and common sense show, while it can (and usually does) say "parents", in reality it is "women". So I'm ok with the thread title as it stands. Let's look at the reality of the situation head-on, rather than hide it behind PR and ideals that are not applied in practice.

    Sure, the reality is that it's overwhelmingly women who stay at home to be parents. But let's say that the thread title were passed as law. Now you've enshrined the disparity that you recognize. By stating "Paying women to stay at home" You're normalizing that it is to be women who stay at home and supporting a status quo that you seem to agree needs to be changed.

    Personally, rather than pay for a parent to stay home, I would prefer we better subsidize and standardize day care so that all have access to adequate day care.

    Jesus Christ, the thread title is not a law nor a proposal for one, it's an observation of reality brought forward as a topic for debate on an internet gaming discussion forum.

    And I'm done replying to this pointless tangent.

    You should change the thread title. Nobody wants to deal with this poor articulation of the policy poisoning the well out of the gate

    not only is it women only, it's "paying women to stay home [re: childcare]" as if they're staying home to do nothing

    My first thought was "this is dumb that's just encouraging gender norms even more" so right off the bat I was confused as to why, in 2019, we're still doing stupid shit like this.

    The issue is there are a lot of concessions men and women take in response to gender norms. Women are less likely to jump into STEM or become surgeons because they expect later in life to need a job that has a lot more leeway for parenting. That is why, often times, they're the ones who stay home. It's not 100%, of course, there are plenty of men who would be willing to stay at home too. Are we addressing all this or just talking about women staying at home and taking care of kids and how we can encourage them to get back to work?

    Perhaps we should make better OPs rather than be combative about it.

    But the OP is explitly talking about how it a subsidy for parents and not just women but enforces the gender norm of the stay at home mom and that is where the title comes in?

    ShadowhopeAntinumericMrMisterKristmas KthulhuAegisSynthesis
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited September 10
    It hampers integration of immigrants. Immigrant mothers stay at home (even more so than natives) supported by kontanstøtta, and their kids never go to day care and socialize with natives (or immigrants from other cultures) or learn Norwegian.
    On this point, I think it would also apply to native mothers. Our first son is now 5 months old. My wife went back to work after 12 weeks (I went back after 6). She hates leaving our son even more than I do, but being a new parent is also very isolating. Most social interactions are very hard with a newborn or infant. Many babies can't handle restaurants or travel or movies or bars and thus a lot of normal social interaction is very limited. Becoming a parent is a huge shift in many/most people's lifestyles.

    Work, along with contributing to society more generally, is a social experience where you interact with other people (generally). Its a way to interface with people outside your household, often of different age, demographic and social situations.

    If someone wants to stay at home to take care of their offspring, great. It is definitely work. But so is gardening and I don't expect to get a farm subsidy for it. So is cleaning my home, but I don't think I should get a subsidy for it. If anything, we want to encourage the opposite. Food is more efficiently grown on farms. Paying someone to clean homes creates jobs. Labor specialization is central to how the economy works.

    Parenting works a little differently, granted. Family is very important to many people including myself. Some people will stay home even without an economic reason. But I don't think there's a reason to create incentives to encourage people to stay out of the workforce. If anything, subsidies should exist to provide child care to those who couldn't afford it otherwise so they can choose to participate in the workforce if they so choose.

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
    Gnome-InterruptusAtlas in Chains
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited September 10
    Or we could just actually discuss the topic of parental leave and compensation and how it interacts with the other parts of society instead of endless snarking.

    The results the OP is referencing are pretty well established and well known within the discussion on this kind of policy as far as I've ever seen. It's a big deal in terms of discussion of supporting and compensating parents for parenting because it really kinda slams the door shut on a lot of the conceptually simpler solutions to the issue.

    One of the few ways to get around these issues that immediately presents itself I think is to force men to stay home with their children. And even that might not solve the career-related issues or their gender imbalance.

    shryke on
    MegaMekShadowhopeGnome-InterruptusKristmas KthulhuAegisBloodySloth
Sign In or Register to comment.