Staying at Home "On Welfare" - Page 23 - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#661 of 1188 Old 07-16-2007, 06:21 PM
 
thismama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Nursing the revolution
Posts: 14,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Wow, that link looks fabulous. Thank you!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by lolalola View Post
oh, sorry. "guaranteed liveable income"
Yeah! I'm so down with that. And a stipend for contributions to the community, for work that could/would be paid. Fewer work hours, honourable work that contributes instead of destroys. Paring it down, we don't need half this sh!t. Good food, housing that we dont spend our lives paying for, for ourselves or someone else (landlord). Art, music, childcare, teaching, community. That is what we need.

Not all this plastic pre-processed crap made by people in other parts of the world at slave wages, and sold here by people who don't make enough to get by. We don't need it.
thismama is offline  
#662 of 1188 Old 07-16-2007, 06:31 PM
 
lolalola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,006
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by thismama View Post
Wow, that link looks fabulous. Thank you!!



Yeah! I'm so down with that. And a stipend for contributions to the community, for work that could/would be paid. Fewer work hours, honourable work that contributes instead of destroys. Paring it down, we don't need half this sh!t. Good food, housing that we dont spend our lives paying for, for ourselves or someone else (landlord). Art, music, childcare, teaching, community. That is what we need.

Not all this plastic pre-processed crap made by people in other parts of the world at slave wages, and sold here by people who don't make enough to get by. We don't need it.


And, yk...we could soooo make this happen.
lolalola is offline  
#663 of 1188 Old 07-16-2007, 06:37 PM
 
thismama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Nursing the revolution
Posts: 14,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm in. I just have no idea how.

For now I consider myself to be doing my bit via the welfare mama thing. Mother my kiddies while draining just a tiny bit of blood from the capitalist armour.

As of September I'm gonna be a uni student, live on the loans for as long as humanly possible, study interesting stuff and raise a family.

It's the best I've got for now.
thismama is offline  
#664 of 1188 Old 07-16-2007, 06:58 PM
 
lolalola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,006
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by thismama View Post
I'm in. I just have no idea how.

For now I consider myself to be doing my bit via the welfare mama thing. Mother my kiddies while draining just a tiny bit of blood from the capitalist armour.

As of September I'm gonna be a uni student, live on the loans for as long as humanly possible, study interesting stuff and raise a family.

It's the best I've got for now.
Yeah, the "how" is always the tough part I think you are doing a great job! And, I was a uni student while I was a single Mama, living off student loans, and in some ways, life was a lot more relaxed then, even though we were TOTALLY poor, than it is now (married, house....etc). We do our best now to participate in the "underground" economy, as a way of resisting capitalism...we use services like freecycle and KIJIJI. I honestly can't remember the last thing I purchased that was "new".

I dunno, I just hear a lot of folks IRL who pay lip service to notion that radical change is necessary if we want to eradicate poverty, live sustainably...etc, but, who aren't willing to really "think outside the box" with respect to finding solutions, yk?

I guess we just need some actual political leadership And visions of the future that include different ways of being, and a lot more respect for the work of mothering.

oops, I kinda got on a soapbox there.....
climbing down now.

Anyhoo, you ladies are great. Thanks for this discussion!
lolalola is offline  
#665 of 1188 Old 07-16-2007, 08:46 PM
 
bczmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 522
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
"So then, why is paid employment considered the more ethical path? Regardless of what the person is paid to do? Kwim?"

Being able to support your own children is considered the more ethical path. Feeding, clothing, sheltering are all part of the basic definition of parenting. Parenting isn't just hugs and emotional support. I have no problem helping out those who are incapable of meeting their obligations, or have temporary troubles in doing so. However, I don't think that I should be responsible for those who *could* meet their obligations, but *choose* not to.

I find those who deliberately choose to "bleed the beast", as a PP says she is doing to be unethical.
bczmama is offline  
#666 of 1188 Old 07-16-2007, 08:53 PM
 
thismama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Nursing the revolution
Posts: 14,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bczmama View Post
"So then, why is paid employment considered the more ethical path? Regardless of what the person is paid to do? Kwim?"

Being able to support your own children is considered the more ethical path. Feeding, clothing, sheltering are all part of the basic definition of parenting. Parenting isn't just hugs and emotional support. I have no problem helping out those who are incapable of meeting their obligations, or have temporary troubles in doing so. However, I don't think that I should be responsible for those who *could* meet their obligations, but *choose* not to.

I find those who deliberately choose to "bleed the beast", as a PP says she is doing to be unethical.
Well, obviously I disagree.

I am able to support my child. I just do it in a different way than you do.

I think bleeding the beast is better than feeding the beast. This beast needs to die, so something new can rise up.

So... who is supporting their children in a more ethical manner? You say you, I say... well, very possibly me.
thismama is offline  
#667 of 1188 Old 07-16-2007, 08:56 PM
 
thismama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Nursing the revolution
Posts: 14,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by thismama View Post
I just want to give the disclaimer here that most welfare recipients are not nearly as ungrateful as I.
Feeling compelled to quote myself.
thismama is offline  
#668 of 1188 Old 07-16-2007, 09:31 PM
 
lolalola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,006
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bczmama View Post
I find those who deliberately choose to "bleed the beast", as a PP says she is doing to be unethical.
How is it any less ethical than choosing to support your children by working for companies which pollute the environment, destroy natural resources, or contribute (directly or indirectly) to any number of our societal problems...?
lolalola is offline  
#669 of 1188 Old 07-16-2007, 09:51 PM
 
bczmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 522
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
"I think bleeding the beast is better than feeding the beast. This beast needs to die, so something new can rise up."

But its not really "the beast" is it? You're bleeding every taxpayer -- people like me and people like other families on MDC.
bczmama is offline  
#670 of 1188 Old 07-16-2007, 09:57 PM
 
bczmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 522
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
"How is it any less ethical than choosing to support your children by working for companies which pollute the environment, destroy natural resources, or contribute (directly or indirectly) to any number of our societal problems...?"

I didn't realize you were able to discern that the tax money that funds your welfare benefits only comes from what you determine to be "ethical" companies, and the income of people who work for "ethical" companies.
bczmama is offline  
#671 of 1188 Old 07-16-2007, 10:03 PM
 
lolalola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,006
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bczmama View Post
I didn't realize you were able to discern that the tax money that funds your welfare benefits only comes from what you determine to be "ethical" companies, and the income of people who work for "ethical" companies.


No, my question was challenging this statement:

"Being able to support your own children is considered the more ethical path. Feeding, clothing, sheltering are all part of the basic definition of parenting".
lolalola is offline  
#672 of 1188 Old 07-16-2007, 10:04 PM
 
thismama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Nursing the revolution
Posts: 14,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
What percentage of taxes goes toward welfare and social programming? Something like 1%? We've been over this already on this thread.

If you want to be pissed about where your taxes are going, I wouldn't worry about the money that is going to feed other people's children, but the money that is going to KILL other people's children.

What has this war cost to date? Billions and billions of dollars. Worry about that.
thismama is offline  
#673 of 1188 Old 07-16-2007, 10:10 PM
 
bczmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 522
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
That's like saying that because someone is stealing $100 dollars from me, I shouldn't care that someone else is stealing $1 from me. It all matters.
bczmama is offline  
#674 of 1188 Old 07-16-2007, 10:16 PM
 
thismama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Nursing the revolution
Posts: 14,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bczmama View Post
That's like saying that because someone is stealing $100 dollars from me, I shouldn't care that someone else is stealing $1 from me. It all matters.
Nobody is stealing anything from you, so no need to get bent out of shape.

We've been over this argument already. This is the problem when someone comes in late to a long thread without reading the whole thing. And I understand why you wouldn't read the whole thing, but then it gets kind of circular.
thismama is offline  
#675 of 1188 Old 07-16-2007, 10:35 PM
 
bczmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 522
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
No -- I've read the thread. To the extent you are able to support yourself and your family, and you instead choose to exist on welfare, you are stealing from taxpayers -- you yourself admit this (as a positive!) when you post about "bleeding the capitalist armor."

With the taxes I pay, I feel pretty all right about getting bent out of shape about abuse, waste and incomptence whether it is in regards to Iraq, Katrina or welfare.
bczmama is offline  
#676 of 1188 Old 07-16-2007, 11:23 PM
 
thismama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Nursing the revolution
Posts: 14,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I am a taxpayer too.
thismama is offline  
#677 of 1188 Old 07-16-2007, 11:39 PM
 
Periwinkle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,162
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bczmama View Post
No -- I've read the thread. To the extent you are able to support yourself and your family, and you instead choose to exist on welfare, you are stealing from taxpayers
I know this has been discussed ad nauseum but I just totally don't get this way of thinking and am having a hard time sitting on my hands and not responding.

Taxes pay for a lot of things that YOU use and benefit from every single day. MY taxes are supporting YOU, maybe even right now even as we speak. Why is it so problematic for taxes to be used to, you know, help people who need it? Furthermore, taxes are helping you... so why not help other people too?

What is the magic thing about welfare that is oh-so-different than benefitting from, let's see, just off the top of my head...

Government subsidies (choose pretty much any consumable product)
Public (and even private) education
Parks, museums, and national forests
National security
Research and scientific advancement
Safe roads
Other other OTHER
Periwinkle is offline  
#678 of 1188 Old 07-17-2007, 12:27 AM
 
sonrisaa29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: PA
Posts: 972
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Personally I think KW/HS expresses very well what I believe:

"Remuneration for work must be sufficient for establishing and maintaining a family with dignity, either through a suitable salary, called a "family wage," or through other social measures such as family allowances or the remuneration of the work in the home of one of the parents; it should be such that mothers will not be obliged to work outside the home to the detriment of family life and especially of the education of the children.

b) The work of the mother in the home must be recognized and respected because of its value for the family and for society"
sonrisaa29 is offline  
#679 of 1188 Old 07-17-2007, 12:48 AM
 
lolalola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,006
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
To the extent you are able to support yourself and your family, and you instead choose to exist on welfare, you are stealing from taxpayers
So, basically you are saying that anyone who accepts their meager welfare cheque, and isn't ashamed of it, is a thief?

Quote:
With the taxes I pay, I feel pretty all right about getting bent out of shape about abuse, waste and incomptence whether it is in regards to Iraq, Katrina or welfare.
So, who are you calling abusive, wasteful and incompetent?
lolalola is offline  
#680 of 1188 Old 07-17-2007, 01:33 AM
 
bczmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 522
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
"Why is it so problematic for taxes to be used to, you know, help people who need it?"

"So, basically you are saying that anyone who accepts their meager welfare cheque, and isn't ashamed of it, is a thief?"

I have no problem with helping those that "need" it. You'll note that I reference those who could support themselves and their families and choose not to (or do not take the additional steps of training/education which they are very capable of to put them in a situation where they could support their families). They are abdicating one of their primary responsibilities as parents. How is this any different than a parent who underemploys him/herself in order to limit their child support payments?

""Remuneration for work must be sufficient for establishing and maintaining a family with dignity, either through a suitable salary, called a "family wage," or through other social measures such as family allowances or the remuneration of the work in the home of one of the parents; it should be such that mothers will not be obliged to work outside the home to the detriment of family life and especially of the education of the children."

The problem is, that as has been shown ad nauseum on a number of these threads in the SAHM board, there are no reliable studies that show that the children of SAHM's are "better" than WAHM's such that subsidizing SAHMs would benefit society.

I feel that I benefit from museums, parks, good roads, a college educated work force, an effective military, etc., etc. I also feel that I benefit from ensuring the support of children whose parents are unable to support them, in order that those children become functioning adults.

I am not convinced that I benefit from parents who could support themselves and their children choosing not to do so.

Lolalola -- I didn't realize that the only jobs available to welfare parents were in the oil or defense industries...
bczmama is offline  
#681 of 1188 Old 07-17-2007, 02:20 AM
 
lyttlewon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,307
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bczmama View Post
"Why is it so problematic for taxes to be used to, you know, help people who need it?"

"So, basically you are saying that anyone who accepts their meager welfare cheque, and isn't ashamed of it, is a thief?"

I have no problem with helping those that "need" it. You'll note that I reference those who could support themselves and their families and choose not to (or do not take the additional steps of training/education which they are very capable of to put them in a situation where they could support their families). They are abdicating one of their primary responsibilities as parents. How is this any different than a parent who underemploys him/herself in order to limit their child support payments?

..
So who actually needs welfare by your definition? For many low income workers they cannot afford daycare on their own so they need subsidation in order to pay for daycare. Daycare assistance is a form of welfare. This additional steps of training you refer to does not support a family. Going to a university for a high paying job requires money and it doesn't pay the bills. Do you also consider government educational grants for low income individuals to be "welfare"? There are a lot of people in this country trying to support a family on $8.00 an hour and sometimes having a job isn't going to cut the expense that is required to live in our society. It is possible to have a full time job and still not make enough money to feed and house your children.

How about the women who spend several years in the work force, quit their jobs while their children are young, and return to the work force at a later time? Are they still not entitled to collect money they have and will continue to put into the tax system? Why is it a matter of someone taking something from YOU when they are simply taking from themselves?
lyttlewon is offline  
#682 of 1188 Old 07-17-2007, 11:48 AM
 
lolalola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,006
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
The problem is, that as has been shown ad nauseum on a number of these threads in the SAHM board, there are no reliable studies that show that the children of SAHM's are "better" than WAHM's such that subsidizing SAHMs would benefit society.
There is no reliable evidence to support that children of WOHM's turn out any "better" either. There are many studies however, that prove that children are better off when mothers have an income of their own (independant of someone else). We need a new method of ensuring that mothers, and motherwork is supported.



Quote:
I am not convinced that I benefit from parents who could support themselves and their children choosing not to do so.
The issue is much more complicated than this. How do you discern between those who can, and cannot support themselves?


Quote:
Lolalola -- I didn't realize that the only jobs available to welfare parents were in the oil or defense industries
You continue to misread me. I simply question your premise that "Being able to support your own children is considered the more ethical path".
lolalola is offline  
#683 of 1188 Old 07-17-2007, 11:53 AM - Thread Starter
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,772
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bczmama View Post
I feel that I benefit from museums, parks, good roads, a college educated work force, an effective military, etc., etc. I also feel that I benefit from ensuring the support of children whose parents are unable to support them, in order that those children become functioning adults.
Aaaaah, there's my answer! Several posts back you said there was an important distinction between benefits that are available to everyone, and benefits that are only available to people below a certain income. I asked what you felt the "important distinction" was, and it looks like you're finally answering my question.

I guess you just feel very sure you'll never need assistance with things like food or medical care. And you may never need this kind of help. But how do you really KNOW for sure? How can anyone know?

I think it's highly unlikely I'll ever utilize public schools for my children -- but I don't mind that a small portion of dh's paycheck goes to support our schools.

I guess you'd say I benefit from all my neighbors' kids being sent to school. That's debatable: many parents find their children start having all kinds of behavioral problems after starting ps, and these problems can radiate out to affect neighborhoods.

It's my personal opinion that some (I'm not saying ALL) would be better off homeschooled, and not have to take Ritalin, etc. -- that's really a subject for another thread.

But whether homeschooling is "better" or not -- I'm still not going to fault anyone for using the service of public school. I'm not going to say they're "stealing" a penny of mine (and dh's) just because they're using a service we're not likely to need.

They're choosing what they feel is best for their children, and vice-versa.

In response to your statement about the lack of reliable studies to support SAHMing --

We parents can't wait 'til all the studies are out: we have to be bold and follow our instincts regarding our own children and their needs NOW. I feel absolutely sure (with absolutely no statistical proof to back me up) that my children will have more to give to society because of my choice to stay home and homeschool them.

And I don't dispute the fact that many working mamas ALSO instinctively feel what they're doing will increase their children's resources for giving back to the world. It doesn't have to be either/or.

There will probably be some research findings that support BOTH our choices, but they may not come out 'til after our kids are grown. We just have to trust ourselves.

Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).
mammal_mama is offline  
#684 of 1188 Old 07-17-2007, 12:03 PM
 
thismama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Nursing the revolution
Posts: 14,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bczmama View Post
How is this any different than a parent who underemploys him/herself in order to limit their child support payments?
Well, a big difference would be that mamas on welfare are, you know, taking care of the kids.

It's a bit of a false discussion even, because in the US which it seems most here are referring to, staying home to be with your kids on welfare is not a real decision, by my understanding.

So the thing some of us fear/resent with such vehemence is an impossibility.

As for me and my situation, I was laid off from my full time job when I was 3 months pregnant. I looked frantically for work during my pregnancy but couldn't find it.

My EI/mat leave therefore ran out when my daughter was 5 months old. I went on welfare. I had a tiny child who nursed 45 minutes out of every hour and whose need to be with me all the time was clear to the point of overwhelming.

There was no way I was leaving her to get a crap job, if any other possibility existed. So... wellie it was.

In Canada they give you actual money. Crazy, eh? I mean, not enough money. Things have been tight to desperate at times. I got a roommate which made my rent more affordable.

I could have gotten a job at any point, but until my daughter was 2.5 I really felt she needed me at home with her. Not like, "Oh I *feel* it's best," but more like she would scream inconsolably if I left her with anyone else. She was a mama kid in a real, urgent way. She nursed lots and just was not in any way ready for me to leave her.

It really did not feel like the thing to do for me would be to leave her screaming and grabbing for me with another underpaid woman, so I could go be underpaid at some crappy job. Plus I would have required subsidized daycare to do that anyway, so really how much less would we have been taxing the 'system?' And, at what emotional cost for myself and my child? Yk?

As Chris Rock says, "On the count of three everyone take care of your own damn kids!"

So I became one of those welfare queens your mother warned you about. : I could have worked, but I chose not to.

When she was 2.5 I did a training program thru HRDC here. I took a paralegal diploma. They paid a $10,000 tuition at a private college. And it sucked, really pathetically bad program. Some of my classmates are suing.

HRDC funding for education set up so poorly, because they will pay exhorbitant tuitions, but the diploma has to take only a year. Which precludes public colleges, with much more reasonable tuition rates (like $2000-3000) but whose programs take two years. And all this government money is going to private colleges, which IME offer seriously sub-par education.

Wanna be mad about taxes? Get mad about that! Public colleges in Canada are closing entire diploma programs while students get funnelled into the private system via government programs like HRDC and WSIB, to the tune of $10,000 a pop.

So my paralegal diploma was not the break I thought it would be.

"Lucky" for me my Grandfather died this past December, leaving me exactly enough inheritance to pay the interest on the student loan I defaulted on at age 19 (I was basically having a breakdown). I never could repay it, so was ineligible for loans to get to university, and was pretty trapped in the low wage, or high danger/overnight hours, job cycle.

Thankfully welfare did not cut me off when I received the inheritance, provided i used it to pay down debt. Which I did and as of September I will be a university student. Woohoo!!

So that's my personal wellie story. I don't think I'm a bad mother for being 'unable to support' my child. In fact I think given the options I had, I have taken the most ethical road for myself and my child. I could have taken a joe job, and the care of my miserable child could have been someone else's joe job. I chose not to do that, and I stand by my decisions.
thismama is offline  
#685 of 1188 Old 07-17-2007, 12:28 PM
 
ShadowMom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,416
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bczmama View Post
The problem is, that as has been shown ad nauseum on a number of these threads in the SAHM board, there are no reliable studies that show that the children of SAHM's are "better" than WAHM's such that subsidizing SAHMs would benefit society.
There are no reliable studies showing that children who CIO are any worse off than those whose parents respond to their cries. There are no reliable studies showing that using an AP parenting style will result in children who are more emotionally secure and well balanced. And yet we continue to do those things and advocate for them on this board.

There are some things which you cannot prove with studies. Period. And there are things that we don't need studies for, clearly.

Quote:
I am not convinced that I benefit from parents who could support themselves and their children choosing not to do so.
Why would anyone care whether you personally would benefit from helping another family? I mean wow... that is so completely irrelevant to the discussion. Helping others is rarely about personal benefit.


I am sadly seeing a lot of people advocating in this thread for parents to work and make just enough to pay for childcare. That seems very sad on a board called "Mothering".
ShadowMom is offline  
#686 of 1188 Old 07-17-2007, 01:24 PM
 
mamazee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: US midwest
Posts: 7,500
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowMom View Post


I am sadly seeing a lot of people advocating in this thread for parents to work and make just enough to pay for childcare. That seems very sad on a board called "Mothering".
Yes, and the quality of childcare people who are wealthy get is very very very different than the quality of childcare people who are struggling get. People are looking at this through their own eyes - if they stayed home compared to if they put their kids in the daycare they could afford. Childcare options for people without money are often horrible. I think the choice between staying at home and collecting welfare and putting your child in substandard care, which is all struggling families can often afford, is CLEAR. Stay home every single time.
mamazee is offline  
#687 of 1188 Old 07-17-2007, 01:32 PM
 
GalateaDunkel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 757
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by thismama View Post
My EI/mat leave therefore ran out when my daughter was 5 months old. I went on welfare. I had a tiny child who nursed 45 minutes out of every hour and whose need to be with me all the time was clear to the point of overwhelming.

There was no way I was leaving her to get a crap job, if any other possibility existed. So... wellie it was.

In Canada they give you actual money. Crazy, eh? I mean, not enough money. Things have been tight to desperate at times. I got a roommate which made my rent more affordable.

I could have gotten a job at any point, but until my daughter was 2.5 I really felt she needed me at home with her. Not like, "Oh I *feel* it's best," but more like she would scream inconsolably if I left her with anyone else. She was a mama kid in a real, urgent way. She nursed lots and just was not in any way ready for me to leave her.

It really did not feel like the thing to do for me would be to leave her screaming and grabbing for me with another underpaid woman, so I could go be underpaid at some crappy job. Plus I would have required subsidized daycare to do that anyway, so really how much less would we have been taxing the 'system?' And, at what emotional cost for myself and my child? Yk?

As Chris Rock says, "On the count of three everyone take care of your own damn kids!"

So I became one of those welfare queens your mother warned you about. : I could have worked, but I chose not to.
GalateaDunkel is offline  
#688 of 1188 Old 07-17-2007, 01:51 PM
 
lyttlewon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,307
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lolalola View Post
Quote:
The problem is, that as has been shown ad nauseum on a number of these threads in the SAHM board, there are no reliable studies that show that the children of SAHM's are "better" than WAHM's such that subsidizing SAHMs would benefit society.
There is no reliable evidence to support that children of WOHM's turn out any "better" either. There are many studies however, that prove that children are better off when mothers have an income of their own (independant of someone else). We need a new method of ensuring that mothers, and motherwork is supported.
You know what else people don't consider is that the MOM could possibly be better if she stayed home with her children. I returned to the work force when DD was 12 weeks old and suffered severe depression. Everytime I had to leave my DD to go on a business trip I cried. Sometimes it isn't all about the kids. Moms come into the equation somewhere too.
lyttlewon is offline  
#689 of 1188 Old 07-17-2007, 02:02 PM
 
ShadowMom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,416
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lyttlewon View Post
You know what else people don't consider is that the MOM could possibly be better if she stayed home with her children. I returned to the work force when DD was 12 weeks old and suffered severe depression. Everytime I had to leave my DD to go on a business trip I cried. Sometimes it isn't all about the kids. Moms come into the equation somewhere too.
Yes, and you know I'm a little confused by really ANY situation that would involve advocating for mothers to leave small children to return to work.

I don't need any studies to tell me that isn't best for mothers and children.

I mean, have we gotten THAT off track in this country?
ShadowMom is offline  
#690 of 1188 Old 07-17-2007, 02:27 PM
 
lolalola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,006
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lyttlewon View Post
You know what else people don't consider is that the MOM could possibly be better if she stayed home with her children. I returned to the work force when DD was 12 weeks old and suffered severe depression. Everytime I had to leave my DD to go on a business trip I cried. Sometimes it isn't all about the kids. Moms come into the equation somewhere too.
Of course. I think we tend to downplay "moms" feelings/needs...etc, because our instincts tell us to always frame our discussions in terms of "what's in the best interest of children".

And, clearly we can all agree that it is not in the best interests of children to be raised by depressed mothers.
lolalola is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off