6 ms·

That's actually one of the not-so-great facets of this program. It demands a minimum of 80% participation, meaning that if you wanted to stay at home to take c

That's actually one of the not-so-great facets of this program. It demands a minimum of 80% participation, meaning that if you wanted to stay at home to take care of your children but use subsidized daycare 1-2 days a week to give yourself a break, it's currently not possible. If a child is absent for more than 20% of the "regular" schedule, then the daycare loses that subsidy spot due to it being under-utilized. There's a movement to help correct this, but it's not simple due to how funds and resources are allocated and planned for.

xamuel 7y ago
It's as if they read in "Brave New World" about the abolition of the family unit and they took that as an instruction guide.
- bdamm 7y ago
  That happened some time ago. In fact, one of the issues with so many women in the workforce is that in the 50's that same class of women were providing community networking functions, allowing for local problem solving and support that is somewhat extinct now. Frankly I am unsold on the benefit to society of women in the workforce. Did we gain women's freedom at the cost of strong and good families? It's a taboo, now. I'm not saying we should go back, but as a society we appear generally unwilling to discuss this reality and loss to family. As if nannies are an entirely sufficient replacement for mothers, but I don't think they are.
  - blaser-waffle 7y ago
    That's a hot take you've got there, and probably going to get downvoted to oblivion, but I'm curious about some of these points: > community networking functions, allowing for local problem solving and support that is somewhat extinct now What are you referring to in particular? Community booster orgs? The PTA? > Did we gain women's freedom at the cost of strong and good families? Were families really that better off? I think back to the 50's and all I see is things like alcoholism, racism, parochialism, and insularity. I also see a world in the aftermath of WW2, where all other global-scale economies were devastated, save for the US, and could afford to pay husbands fantastic wages while mom stayed home and ran the house; those salaries aren't a reality now.
    - bdamm 7y ago
      > Community booster orgs? The PTA? Yes, yes, and.. social networks. You know, the kind where people call each other and make plans like play dates and canning sessions. These days that seems to be only available to the upper middle class. All of it is still here, but weaker, less pervasive, and unavailable to many. > Were families really that better off? You're absolutely correct, and to answer that requires better and more data than I even know how to look at. The 50's is maybe not even the best time to evaluate since the suburban boom was creating some of these problems for the first time, too. How many families were really doing well, vs how many families were struggling? Perhaps the data would show that in fact it's better for families that women can choose either (or even in exceptional cases, both) paths. The good news is that this subject is not as taboo as I'd feared, the comment is not being obliterated. > alcoholism There is no evidence I can find that shows we are any better off now than we were in the 50's with regards to alcoholism. In fact, according to [1] and [2], we appear to be in a low point of per-capital consumption, similar to a low that occurred in the late 1950's. [1] https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh27-1/30-38.htm https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh27-1/30-38.htm [2] https://vinepair.com/articles/americas-consumption-beer-wine-spirits-since/ https://vinepair.com/articles/americas-consumption-beer-wine...
    - jimbokun 7y ago
      > I think back to the 50's and all I see is things like alcoholism, racism, parochialism, and insularity. Good thing none of those exist any more!
  - chongli 7y ago
    Yes, exactly. We traded away strong families and neighbourhoods for women's freedom. And then most of the benefits of that freedom were captured by employers through stagnating wages and landlords through skyrocketing rent and real estate prices. We should be aiming to have fewer people in the workforce, not more. The economy is for the people, not people for the economy.
    - jbboehr 7y ago
      > And then most of the benefits of that freedom were captured by employers through stagnating wages and landlords through skyrocketing rent and real estate prices. Don't forget the gub'ment gets its cut too!
  - aidenn0 7y ago
    If you go further back, it's easy to argue that the dissolution of the extended family in favor of the nuclear family as part of the western industrial revolution caused even more problems that were hidden by the high rate of economic growth during this time.
  - satyrnein 7y ago
    The benefit is that the other half of the population also deserved life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Likewise, we didn't abolish slavery because it would be good for cotton prices.
    - HBKXNCUO 7y ago
      Do you have reason to believe that most women throughout history were not happy being homemakers and mothers? Do you believe women are happier now that they are having few or no children and are instead working to support a corporation that will kick them to the curb when they are no longer of use to it, rather than giving love and care to the most cherished people in their lives? Some women will prefer that sort of corporate lifestyle, for sure, and I don't think anyone is advocating for making it illegal for women to work. But you don't get a successful and happy society by catering to small minorities at the expense of the success and happiness of the overwhelming majority.
      - satyrnein 7y ago
        Some women are happy being homemakers today, and some are happy in the workforce. (Same with men.) I'm not sure how we are currently catering to women in the workforce. If anything, it seems quite the opposite.
        HBKXNCUO 7y ago
        >Some women are happy being homemakers today, and some are happy in the workforce. Far more were happy being homemakers in the past. >I'm not sure how we are currently catering to women in the workforce. Affirmative action, equal opportunity laws, corporate funded programs to instruct men how to behave around women in the workplace, pervasive media praising women with jobs, praising the child-free husband-free life, on and on and on. You have to not be looking in order to not know about it.
        satyrnein 7y ago
        Oh, I didn't think reducing discrimination counted as catering. You're not really saying increasing discrimination to previous levels would make women happier, are you?
  - frandroid 7y ago
    Canadian parental leave policy is now granting an amount of parental leave for the mother who carried the pregnancy, an amount of parental leave to be shared between the two parents, and an amount of parental leave for the second parent. So basically the second parent is strongly encouraged to take time off to spend time with the child, so that they too, not just the carrying mother, partake in early parenting...
giarc 7y ago
The issue is likely matching up these spaces. What if parent A wants care on Monday and Tuesday but not Wed-Fri. The daycare then needs to find parent B that wants Wed-Fri. That might be easy in large cities, but in small towns that might only have a handful of daycares that becomes much more difficult. Additionally, since there are mandatory staff to kid ratios, part time parents make scheduling really difficult.

xamuel 7y ago

It's as if they read in "Brave New World" about the abolition of the family unit and they took that as an instruction guide.

bdamm 7y ago
That happened some time ago. In fact, one of the issues with so many women in the workforce is that in the 50's that same class of women were providing community networking functions, allowing for local problem solving and support that is somewhat extinct now. Frankly I am unsold on the benefit to society of women in the workforce. Did we gain women's freedom at the cost of strong and good families? It's a taboo, now. I'm not saying we should go back, but as a society we appear generally unwilling to discuss this reality and loss to family. As if nannies are an entirely sufficient replacement for mothers, but I don't think they are.
- blaser-waffle 7y ago
  That's a hot take you've got there, and probably going to get downvoted to oblivion, but I'm curious about some of these points: > community networking functions, allowing for local problem solving and support that is somewhat extinct now What are you referring to in particular? Community booster orgs? The PTA? > Did we gain women's freedom at the cost of strong and good families? Were families really that better off? I think back to the 50's and all I see is things like alcoholism, racism, parochialism, and insularity. I also see a world in the aftermath of WW2, where all other global-scale economies were devastated, save for the US, and could afford to pay husbands fantastic wages while mom stayed home and ran the house; those salaries aren't a reality now.
  - bdamm 7y ago
    > Community booster orgs? The PTA? Yes, yes, and.. social networks. You know, the kind where people call each other and make plans like play dates and canning sessions. These days that seems to be only available to the upper middle class. All of it is still here, but weaker, less pervasive, and unavailable to many. > Were families really that better off? You're absolutely correct, and to answer that requires better and more data than I even know how to look at. The 50's is maybe not even the best time to evaluate since the suburban boom was creating some of these problems for the first time, too. How many families were really doing well, vs how many families were struggling? Perhaps the data would show that in fact it's better for families that women can choose either (or even in exceptional cases, both) paths. The good news is that this subject is not as taboo as I'd feared, the comment is not being obliterated. > alcoholism There is no evidence I can find that shows we are any better off now than we were in the 50's with regards to alcoholism. In fact, according to [1] and [2], we appear to be in a low point of per-capital consumption, similar to a low that occurred in the late 1950's. [1] https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh27-1/30-38.htm https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh27-1/30-38.htm [2] https://vinepair.com/articles/americas-consumption-beer-wine-spirits-since/ https://vinepair.com/articles/americas-consumption-beer-wine...
  - jimbokun 7y ago
    > I think back to the 50's and all I see is things like alcoholism, racism, parochialism, and insularity. Good thing none of those exist any more!
- chongli 7y ago
  Yes, exactly. We traded away strong families and neighbourhoods for women's freedom. And then most of the benefits of that freedom were captured by employers through stagnating wages and landlords through skyrocketing rent and real estate prices. We should be aiming to have fewer people in the workforce, not more. The economy is for the people, not people for the economy.
  - jbboehr 7y ago
    > And then most of the benefits of that freedom were captured by employers through stagnating wages and landlords through skyrocketing rent and real estate prices. Don't forget the gub'ment gets its cut too!
- aidenn0 7y ago
  If you go further back, it's easy to argue that the dissolution of the extended family in favor of the nuclear family as part of the western industrial revolution caused even more problems that were hidden by the high rate of economic growth during this time.
- satyrnein 7y ago
  The benefit is that the other half of the population also deserved life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Likewise, we didn't abolish slavery because it would be good for cotton prices.
  - HBKXNCUO 7y ago
    Do you have reason to believe that most women throughout history were not happy being homemakers and mothers? Do you believe women are happier now that they are having few or no children and are instead working to support a corporation that will kick them to the curb when they are no longer of use to it, rather than giving love and care to the most cherished people in their lives? Some women will prefer that sort of corporate lifestyle, for sure, and I don't think anyone is advocating for making it illegal for women to work. But you don't get a successful and happy society by catering to small minorities at the expense of the success and happiness of the overwhelming majority.
    - satyrnein 7y ago
      Some women are happy being homemakers today, and some are happy in the workforce. (Same with men.) I'm not sure how we are currently catering to women in the workforce. If anything, it seems quite the opposite.
      - HBKXNCUO 7y ago
        >Some women are happy being homemakers today, and some are happy in the workforce. Far more were happy being homemakers in the past. >I'm not sure how we are currently catering to women in the workforce. Affirmative action, equal opportunity laws, corporate funded programs to instruct men how to behave around women in the workplace, pervasive media praising women with jobs, praising the child-free husband-free life, on and on and on. You have to not be looking in order to not know about it.
        satyrnein 7y ago
        Oh, I didn't think reducing discrimination counted as catering. You're not really saying increasing discrimination to previous levels would make women happier, are you?
- frandroid 7y ago
  Canadian parental leave policy is now granting an amount of parental leave for the mother who carried the pregnancy, an amount of parental leave to be shared between the two parents, and an amount of parental leave for the second parent. So basically the second parent is strongly encouraged to take time off to spend time with the child, so that they too, not just the carrying mother, partake in early parenting...

giarc 7y ago

The issue is likely matching up these spaces. What if parent A wants care on Monday and Tuesday but not Wed-Fri. The daycare then needs to find parent B that wants Wed-Fri. That might be easy in large cities, but in small towns that might only have a handful of daycares that becomes much more difficult. Additionally, since there are mandatory staff to kid ratios, part time parents make scheduling really difficult.