It happened, it finally happened; Early's first tantrum, a few weeks from turning two.
He decided to really really go for it. At St Lukes shopping mall, from when I tried to sit us down for lunch in a cafe to about thirty minutes later when he made a dash for the wine glass display (!!) outside Stevens, fell over and dropped his bread, lay there for a little while loudly contemplating the ongoing awfulness of his horrible life, and then deigned to allow me to wrestle him into his stroller with only faint resistance.
This may have been Early's first but ahah, little did he know, this was not mine.
I started out all wrong. I tried to placate him, thinking he was just hangry, impatient for the lunch that was coming. He'd eaten all his snacks sometime earlier, a miscalculation on my part.
He paraded his grievances with his awful mother to all the other tables around us, visiting each in turn and giving them a smile before refusing any overtures from me and moving on to the next lovely stranger. One of the lovely strangers was more delightful than the others, possessing a plate with hot chips on it. Early loves hot chips. I swear his eyes grew even larger.
The lovely stranger was not immune to Early's charms or his garbled message and a chip was offered, accepted and consumed. I craftily picked a long chip, knowing it would take him longer to eat so I might be able to capture him and return him to our table. Hangriness addressed, I thought. My normally happy chappy will return now, phew.
But no.
Early was not finished. Once the chip was gone there was the grieving process to go through, thus:
1. Denial - That cannot be the last chip! I see other chips! Take me to the chips!!
2. Anger - No more chips? This Shall Not Pass! (This bit took rather a long time, including rolling around on the floor; trying to hide from mummy under someone else's table then being unable to find the way out so I had to go and try to get him from one side so that he would escape out the other; pleas to many lovely strangers for rescue, assistance, chips; general grumbly crying noises; actual hot angry tears and a little snot; doing that breakdancing move that involves running around in a circle on your side on the ground; a sort of half downwards dog arrangement.)
3. Bargaining - Ok, I will consider your poor offer of bread that you ordered especially for me because I love bread, but there better be more. Not that bit though. And this bit was ok but now it is Not Ok in fact it is Awful, are you trying to poison me woman?! Oh that other bit will do I suppose, but actually no it won't.
4. Depression - Wailing, lots of wailing. I just want to lie here on the ground face down wailing, I'm going to drown in my own tears and it will be All Your Fault, and also don't even think about trying to get me in the stroller, I shall never ever move again.
5. Acceptance - Well alright then, why haven't you taken me home already?
And the irony was that we would have got home and the bottle would have been made and imbibed, the snuggly cot entered and embraced, much much earlier without the tantrum.
I'm hoping he hasn't started as he means to go on.
I don't do comments here now - you can @ me on Twitter @juliefairey or Facebook.
Showing posts with label Parenting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Parenting. Show all posts
Tuesday, 16 May 2017
Sunday, 26 March 2017
Feminist Parenting Forum - AKL, Tues 28th Mar
What: Feminist Parenting Forum
Who: Put on by the Auckland Women's Centre, featuring a stellar panel of Emily Writes, Tania Pouwhare and Sisilia Eteuati, all welcome
When: Tuesday 28th March, doors open at 6.30pm for 7pm start
Where: Mt Eden War Memorial Hall, 487 Dominion Rd, Balmoral, easy to get to on the 267 or 258 bus routes from the city or the southern isthmus, also the Outer (Orange) Link and cross-town services along Balmoral Rd. Some parking behind the building too.
How: Tickets are on a sliding scale from $0 to $20 based on what you can afford. Payments can be made in advance to the AWC bank account "Auckland Women’s Centre Incorporated" 12 3012 0782605 00 Reference: your name, forum. Cash accepted on the night too, sorry no eftpos. Email info@womenz.org.nz to register.
Facebook event here.
Who: Put on by the Auckland Women's Centre, featuring a stellar panel of Emily Writes, Tania Pouwhare and Sisilia Eteuati, all welcome
When: Tuesday 28th March, doors open at 6.30pm for 7pm start
Where: Mt Eden War Memorial Hall, 487 Dominion Rd, Balmoral, easy to get to on the 267 or 258 bus routes from the city or the southern isthmus, also the Outer (Orange) Link and cross-town services along Balmoral Rd. Some parking behind the building too.
How: Tickets are on a sliding scale from $0 to $20 based on what you can afford. Payments can be made in advance to the AWC bank account "Auckland Women’s Centre Incorporated" 12 3012 0782605 00 Reference: your name, forum. Cash accepted on the night too, sorry no eftpos. Email info@womenz.org.nz to register.
Facebook event here.
Saturday, 21 January 2017
A crack in the wall
I've been on a lot of marches, organised a few too. I used to get very affected by the crowd feeling, overwhelmed, which isn't a problem when it's happy but was harder when it was angry or even negative. I've built a wall (yes, a wall) now that I'm a parent that means I don't react as once I did, especially when my children are around. I push it all away behind the wall, muttering "later, later", but Later rarely comes.
Today Later came a little for me, after the Auckland Women's March, when I came across a sexist arse in Aotea Square. It was the Mansplainiest of Mansplaining. A man with a megaphone yelling at those leaving the march, mostly women, about how good women have it, and how wrong we all are.
Because the problem isn't the disproportionate impact of poverty on women and other marginalised groups, or the over the odds rate of incarceration for indigenous people in colonised countries world-wide, or the economic inequality and injustice that in our own city manifests in people begging on the streets and children (usually with their mothers) living in cars. The problem isn't the greed of some, the complicity of others, the oppression that is sexism, racism, discrimination on the basis of sexual identity, body parts at birth, income level, skin colour,religion, and the downright meanness of many. No the problem is that women are stupid.
The problem is not that women are stupid.
At first I felt not much, as I had on the march - intellectually pleased by the turnout and seeing friends and family, proud of my kids with the signs they made, assessing in the back of my mind how this was playing out as a protest given my own experiences. I was ok to walk on by, and to then feel bad about doing that because I knew I probably shouldn't.
But then this chap was just so earnest, and so misrepresented feminism and the issues and the arguments, and maybe I've been listening to the soundtrack of That Bloody Women too much lately but I yelled at him. And then I went closer to him and yelled at him some more.*
I was shaking with anger and knew I needed to walk away. A few bystanders clapped as I went back to the stroller and someone else yelled at him too. He kept going, certain in his righteousness, with his red capped mates no doubt pleased he'd got a reaction.
I've seen this before, this supreme arrogance, and it has always got under my skin. I'm reasonably articulate, it's been a large part of my jobs for years, but I can never find the words to move people like this one. Not in the moment anyway. Maybe he'll read this and maybe it'll have an impact but I sincerely doubt it.
Because whenever I've seen this before I've also seen in their eyes the dismissal of whatever I say. Which, when you've lived a bit longer and had a few things happen to you and people you love, becomes what we used to call on the feminist blogs a few years back "denial of lived experience".
It's a dismissal, a denial, a calling untrue, of what has actually happened to you in your life, what you have actually seen and experienced. So callous, so ruthless, a simple "no, that's not possible". Or, more often the more sly refutation of "then why didn't you...". All of it, all of it, saying what you know is true must not be.
That gets to me, down in my bones, in my very gut. I can remember starkly a few other times; the argument in a politics tutorial where someone ended up telling me that a child of my acquaintance was choosing to be poor; the pleas to those who would observe a social justice march, walk alongside rather than join in, to come on board, met with sneers that told me I was dirt and my hopes ridiculous; the shutters coming down on the eyes and the turning away when I was hurting and a peer didn't want to see it; the constituent who insisted on the unimpeachable veracity of information I knew intimately was completely untrue.
And when I got back to the stroller, and the two kids I had with me, my wall had a big crack in it. Bits were leaking out. And I couldn't do that right then, couldn't leak everywhere. One of my children was oblivious, but the other was a bit confused and upset: "I don't like it when you yell at people Mummy." "It doesn't happen very often though, does it?" "No, but I don't like it."
A quick fix job on the wall then, rushing to squeegee up all the leaked rage and frustration, squeezing it back over the top to deal with Later. Mortar of forgetfulness, brick of fake cheerfulness for the kinders. I've done it before, I imagine most parents do, I'll do it again no doubt. The wall was solid again.
Maybe it's more like a dam than a wall, maybe. I shall work on finding a turbine for that anger to power, a positive outlet that creates energy rather than flooding the whole valley. Maybe this is that.
* And mis-spoke and said I was paid worse, when I meant I was treated worse, as unlike most jobs in Aotearoa NZ, the pay for my role is transparent and set independently by the Remuneration Authority, that's the bit I'm kicking myself for most, damnit.
I'm not doing comments on my posts these days. I'm easy to find on social media if you desperately want to tell me what you think, under my name, Julie Fairey.
Today Later came a little for me, after the Auckland Women's March, when I came across a sexist arse in Aotea Square. It was the Mansplainiest of Mansplaining. A man with a megaphone yelling at those leaving the march, mostly women, about how good women have it, and how wrong we all are.
Because the problem isn't the disproportionate impact of poverty on women and other marginalised groups, or the over the odds rate of incarceration for indigenous people in colonised countries world-wide, or the economic inequality and injustice that in our own city manifests in people begging on the streets and children (usually with their mothers) living in cars. The problem isn't the greed of some, the complicity of others, the oppression that is sexism, racism, discrimination on the basis of sexual identity, body parts at birth, income level, skin colour,religion, and the downright meanness of many. No the problem is that women are stupid.
The problem is not that women are stupid.
At first I felt not much, as I had on the march - intellectually pleased by the turnout and seeing friends and family, proud of my kids with the signs they made, assessing in the back of my mind how this was playing out as a protest given my own experiences. I was ok to walk on by, and to then feel bad about doing that because I knew I probably shouldn't.
But then this chap was just so earnest, and so misrepresented feminism and the issues and the arguments, and maybe I've been listening to the soundtrack of That Bloody Women too much lately but I yelled at him. And then I went closer to him and yelled at him some more.*
I was shaking with anger and knew I needed to walk away. A few bystanders clapped as I went back to the stroller and someone else yelled at him too. He kept going, certain in his righteousness, with his red capped mates no doubt pleased he'd got a reaction.
I've seen this before, this supreme arrogance, and it has always got under my skin. I'm reasonably articulate, it's been a large part of my jobs for years, but I can never find the words to move people like this one. Not in the moment anyway. Maybe he'll read this and maybe it'll have an impact but I sincerely doubt it.
Because whenever I've seen this before I've also seen in their eyes the dismissal of whatever I say. Which, when you've lived a bit longer and had a few things happen to you and people you love, becomes what we used to call on the feminist blogs a few years back "denial of lived experience".
It's a dismissal, a denial, a calling untrue, of what has actually happened to you in your life, what you have actually seen and experienced. So callous, so ruthless, a simple "no, that's not possible". Or, more often the more sly refutation of "then why didn't you...". All of it, all of it, saying what you know is true must not be.
That gets to me, down in my bones, in my very gut. I can remember starkly a few other times; the argument in a politics tutorial where someone ended up telling me that a child of my acquaintance was choosing to be poor; the pleas to those who would observe a social justice march, walk alongside rather than join in, to come on board, met with sneers that told me I was dirt and my hopes ridiculous; the shutters coming down on the eyes and the turning away when I was hurting and a peer didn't want to see it; the constituent who insisted on the unimpeachable veracity of information I knew intimately was completely untrue.
And when I got back to the stroller, and the two kids I had with me, my wall had a big crack in it. Bits were leaking out. And I couldn't do that right then, couldn't leak everywhere. One of my children was oblivious, but the other was a bit confused and upset: "I don't like it when you yell at people Mummy." "It doesn't happen very often though, does it?" "No, but I don't like it."
A quick fix job on the wall then, rushing to squeegee up all the leaked rage and frustration, squeezing it back over the top to deal with Later. Mortar of forgetfulness, brick of fake cheerfulness for the kinders. I've done it before, I imagine most parents do, I'll do it again no doubt. The wall was solid again.
Maybe it's more like a dam than a wall, maybe. I shall work on finding a turbine for that anger to power, a positive outlet that creates energy rather than flooding the whole valley. Maybe this is that.
* And mis-spoke and said I was paid worse, when I meant I was treated worse, as unlike most jobs in Aotearoa NZ, the pay for my role is transparent and set independently by the Remuneration Authority, that's the bit I'm kicking myself for most, damnit.
I'm not doing comments on my posts these days. I'm easy to find on social media if you desperately want to tell me what you think, under my name, Julie Fairey.
Thursday, 25 July 2013
Off with their benefits
I have to admit to falling prey to despair in the face of the latest example of incredible idiocy from those in charge of what is ironically known as "welfare". This month a blanket regime for "jobless" beneficiaries (including the ones already working extremely hard looking after people who have to be looked after) came into force.
Now we're seeing exactly how stupid this regime is. Grandparents - especially grandmothers - who have stepped in to take care of children bereft of their parents' care through death, illness or dereliction are being hounded to enrol in jobseeker courses, work out their "long-term career goals" and hunt for non-existent jobs. NO job could be more important or useful not just to their grandkids but to the rest of us as well, or save taxpayers more money, than the job they're currently doing - and for which they have in many cases already sacrificed their own earnings and any prospect of retirement.
But none of that seems to mean anything to those running the new regime. Today's Dominion Post reported.on the case of Denise Herman of Dannevirke, who has "single-handedly raised three of her grandchildren, and another foster daughter, for more than a decade."
Now we're seeing exactly how stupid this regime is. Grandparents - especially grandmothers - who have stepped in to take care of children bereft of their parents' care through death, illness or dereliction are being hounded to enrol in jobseeker courses, work out their "long-term career goals" and hunt for non-existent jobs. NO job could be more important or useful not just to their grandkids but to the rest of us as well, or save taxpayers more money, than the job they're currently doing - and for which they have in many cases already sacrificed their own earnings and any prospect of retirement.
But none of that seems to mean anything to those running the new regime. Today's Dominion Post reported.on the case of Denise Herman of Dannevirke, who has "single-handedly raised three of her grandchildren, and another foster daughter, for more than a decade."
"Along the way, she has sacrificed her business, relationship and house to keep them out of foster care. She rescued her grandchildren from their parents after a Child, Youth and Family intervention. She said the parents struggled with drug addiction and spent time in prison. 'Without me, the kids would have been in foster care.'She has been able to care for them with the help of the domestic purposes and unsupported child benefits. She describes it as a fulltime occupation. On Monday, she will turn 64, and in a year she will be eligible for superannuation.But that has not stopped Work and Income telling her last month that she needed to look for a job or face having her support cut. She was enrolled in a six-month job-training course and asked to describe her skills, the last school she attended and her long-term career goals.'My long-term goal is to finally have some peace and rest,' she said. 'What a waste of money paying some training provider.'The Ministry of Social Development would not comment without a privacy waiver, which could not be obtained before publication."
This is pure lunacy, the work of a one-eyed concentration on just one thing: forcing down benefit numbers, regardless of the consequences. And because women are so much more likely than men to be on a benefit not because they are not working, but because they are doing vital unpaid work, it's likely to be women who get caught in this crazy catch-22 merry-go-round masquerading as social policy.
Grandparents are not the only victims, they're just the most obvious example of a never generous but once more-or-less effective system of support that has been deliberately broken, and then broken again. I wonder if they're already hounding widowed Pike River mothers out to work too.
Tuesday, 29 January 2013
Noise
There's been a lot of discussion lately on children being excluded from cafes because the noise they make disturbs other customers. I have to say my initial, personal, reaction was one of incredulity. I have a lot of trouble hearing over background noise. My sensory sensitivities mean the effect of background noise can be stress, meltdowns, vomiting, exhaustion for days, physical pain and more. Virtually every cafe plays music which causes these - and it is considered the norm. And yet people who ignore or defend this are suddenly making a massive drama about the noise of children.
Is it plausible that some people find the sounds of children harder than music to process, and that this comes back to their neurology or hearing levels? Absolutely. But whilst they may govern individual reactions, there are reasons the discussion moves in particular ways, why some types or causes of noise are paid attention to and others aren't.
How we create, manage, respond to, noise is a political issue. It's an issue of how we designate areas where people live, how times noise is considered to be acceptable play into typical and atypical working and sleeping times. It's about who decides the timeframe of noisy work on their house, and who has a landlord make those decisions for them. It's about noise being used to drive young people away from hanging out on the street or homeless people from public toilets. It's about who uses public transport and who drives cars. It's about disability and typical and atypical levels of noise tolerance and their impacts. And it's about children and parents - usually mothers - being excluded from social and other public space.
I want discussions about noise. The current way noise persists in our society is awful and disabling for me and many others. I think there are better ways space can be designed and organised. But those discussions need to come from a place of accommodation and inclusivity for multiple needs, not one of reinforcing the same old patterns of marginalisation and exclusion.
Is it plausible that some people find the sounds of children harder than music to process, and that this comes back to their neurology or hearing levels? Absolutely. But whilst they may govern individual reactions, there are reasons the discussion moves in particular ways, why some types or causes of noise are paid attention to and others aren't.
How we create, manage, respond to, noise is a political issue. It's an issue of how we designate areas where people live, how times noise is considered to be acceptable play into typical and atypical working and sleeping times. It's about who decides the timeframe of noisy work on their house, and who has a landlord make those decisions for them. It's about noise being used to drive young people away from hanging out on the street or homeless people from public toilets. It's about who uses public transport and who drives cars. It's about disability and typical and atypical levels of noise tolerance and their impacts. And it's about children and parents - usually mothers - being excluded from social and other public space.
I want discussions about noise. The current way noise persists in our society is awful and disabling for me and many others. I think there are better ways space can be designed and organised. But those discussions need to come from a place of accommodation and inclusivity for multiple needs, not one of reinforcing the same old patterns of marginalisation and exclusion.
Tuesday, 23 October 2012
Reminder: Paid Parental Leave meeting in Auckland tonight!
What: Public meeting as part of the 26 for Babies campaign, supporting Sue Moroney's bill to extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks.
When: Tuesday 23rd October, 7pm
Where: At the Fickling Centre, underneath the Mt Roskill Library, 546 Mt Albert Rd, Three Kings (best accessed from the lower carpark)
Who: You, your friends, your neighbours, your workmates, that person you say hi to at the bus stop, and...
- Michele A'Court in the chair
- Jacquie Brown - famous from such things as Keep Calm and Carry On
- Sue Moroney MP - Labour
- Jan Logie MP - Greens
- Marama Davidson - Te Wharepora Hou
- Professor Tim Hazeldine - Economist
Facebook event.
Tuesday, 9 October 2012
Auckland public meeting on Extending Paid Parental Leave - 23rd Oct
What: Public meeting as part of the 26 for Babies campaign, supporting Sue Moroney's bill to extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks.When: Tuesday 23rd October, 7pm
Where: At the Fickling Centre, underneath the Mt Roskill Library, 546 Mt Albert Rd, Three Kings (best accessed from the lower carpark)
Who: You, your friends, your neighbours, your workmates, that person you say hi to at the bus stop, and...
- Michele A'Court in the chair
- Jacquie Brown - famous from such things as Keep Calm and Carry On
- Sue Moroney MP - Labour
- Jan Logie MP - Greens
- Marama Davidson - Te Wharepora Hou
- Professor Tim Hazeldine - Economist
Facebook event.
Wednesday, 25 July 2012
Paid Parental leave extension passes second hurdle
Fantastic to hear the first reading of the Private Member's Bill to extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks pass tonight. Labour, Greens, NZ First, the Maori Party, Mana and United Future all voted in favour, and only National and Act opposed.The first hurdle was getting a Bill into the ballot and drawn - Sue Moroney undertook this and had some good luck to get it pop out relatively quickly, and now the second hurdle is dealt with we have a bit of distance to travel before the third, which will be submissions to the Select Committee process.
The 26 For Babies campaign is being launched tomorrow (Thursday) to support the Bill through to a hopefully successful third reading, and you can show your support by Liking their Facebook page (and no doubt participating in other forthcoming activities for those not into that kind of thing).
Please consider this an open thread to discuss the Bill, the concept of paid parental leave in general, and the political aspect of today's votes (another Opposition-sponsored Bill also passed its first reading, on Mondayising Waitangi and ANZAC Days).
Monday, 9 July 2012
Guest Post: Abortion & maternal mental health report
Many thanks to Family Planning NZ for allowing me to publish the below from their e-newsletter:
A report released in December 2011 by the United Kingdom National
Collaborating Centre for Mental Health was commissioned to review the
best available evidence on any association between induced abortion and
mental health outcomes, and draw conclusions where possible. The report
concluded that, on the best evidence available:
- The rates of mental health problems for women with an unwanted pregnancy were the same whether they had an abortion or gave birth.
- An unwanted pregnancy was associated with an increased risk of mental health problems.
- The most reliable predictor of post-abortion mental health problems for women was having a history of mental health problems before the abortion.
- The factors associated with increased rates of mental health problems for women in the general population and following abortion were similar.
- There were some additional factors associated with an increased risk of mental health problems specifically related to abortion, such as pressure from a partner to have an abortion and negative attitudes towards abortions in general and towards a woman’s personal experience of the abortion.
Wednesday, 11 April 2012
Paid parental leave another chance to bring down the patriarchy
 |
| Judy Horacek cartoon shows female employee asking "I'd like paid maternity..." and employer responding "leave". |
I'm going to focus instead on the other big benefit I see from effectively doubling the amount of paid parental leave parents can access (from 14 weeks currently to 26 weeks incrementally). And that is securing a clear role for the parent who wasn't pregnant, starting from the early days.
With the existing scheme partners can split the paid parental leave, as long as the pregnant one was eligible for it. However I imagine that only happens quite rarely, particularly when breastfeeding is the main source of sustenance for the new person. My personal experience has been that it would not have been practical to split paid parental leave in those first few months. It may well be different for others (I hope so!). But extend that period to 6 months and suddenly it becomes a lot more viable for many families to share the leave, and thus share the parenting, and probably the other domestic tasks too. It's also likely to raise the number of men accessing the non-paid parental leave which they've been entitled to take for years. Employers will need to become more open to considering supporting their workers who are parents, regardless of whether they are a mother or a father (or something else entirely).
So often I hear of relationships where the domestic work was pretty even until the couple had kids, and then patriachal archetypes slowly but surely overtake both parents, despite best intentions. If I have to read another article that tells me women do more of the housework and family caring work, on average, than men, even when both partners in a heterosexual relationship work outside the home, I think I may just scream in a non-ladylike fashion.
Just as the initial proposal of paid parental leave sparked some change in the attitude towards parents who work outside the home (and the value of parenting work in general) so this increase could push that conversation further down the line towards something that looks a little bit like equity.
Here's a chance, a real chance, to show actual structural support for more sharing of the caring.
the BSA on alisdair thompson
a quick post on the BSA decision regarding alisdair thompson's complaint against the campbell live interview last year. the BSA did not uphold the complaint, and one of the bits from their decision that i thought very appropriate was this:
"It is our firm view that if the item caused any harm to Mr Thompson's reputation and dignity, this was not a product of unfair editing on the part of the broadcaster but was the result of how Mr Thompson chose to conduct himself in the interview and was largely self-imposed,'' the BSA said.
their decision on the "off-the-record bit was also interesting:
The Thompsons had claimed his privacy had been breached because his request to speak off camera was ignored.
But the BSA said Mr Thompson was an "experienced public figure'' and would "know the care to be taken with `off-the-record' and the need to obtain agreement with the journalist prior to stopping and starting an interview''.
i don't know that i'm entirely comfortable with this finding. i was of the opinion, having watched the full 30-minute clip on the tv3 website twice (i know, glutton for punishment), that mr thompson had fully repeated everything he said "off-the-record" as soon as he asked for them to start recording again. therefore, the impact of airing the "off the record" bit was really nullified. his meltdown clearly happened after he said they could start recording again - that was the actual bit that caused damage to his reputation, and as the first quote stated, that was entirely his own fault.
the BSA finding on the "off-the-record" thing mirrors what i've been told in media training: that there is no such thing. we were quite clearly told to act as if everything is on record all the time, from the minute you say hello. after all, there was the guyon espiner bit with michael cullen, which dr cullen thought was not being recorded for airing, but which was aired by tv1 anyway. there were no BSA complaints about that.
however, there are implications for people who are engaging in whistleblowing type activities, or trying to get vital information across that they wouldn't otherwise be able to do because of their position or for some other reason. all of that tends to be "off-the-record", and i wonder how this ruling and the similar advice i was given impact on that.
in the meantime, the EMA continues to show it is no friend of women by opposing an extension to paid parental leave. i'm too lazy to check, but i'd expect they opposed the initial paid parental leave scheme too. yet somehow the world has not fallen apart by giving more parents the choice to be able to stay at home with their babies for the first three months of their lives. in fact the economy continued to do well.
as helen kelly points out, this relieves a burden on poor families, where childcare makes it expensive to go back to work and surviving on one income is difficult. there are plenty of arguments to show that the scheme won't end up costing so much - the reduction in childcare subsidies, the increase in tax take from people employed as replacement workers, and following from that the reduction in benefits as some of those workers get extra work.
but really, the economic argument is not any more important than the social and health ones. yet it seems we're not allowed to value anything beyond money, income and outlays. nor are we to try to quantify long-term gains, particularly for society as a whole. the grounds that the national party and business groups are using to argue against this show how clearly they devalue families and family time.
it seems that there have been no lessons learned by the EMA in any case, from the alisdair thompson episode.
"It is our firm view that if the item caused any harm to Mr Thompson's reputation and dignity, this was not a product of unfair editing on the part of the broadcaster but was the result of how Mr Thompson chose to conduct himself in the interview and was largely self-imposed,'' the BSA said.
their decision on the "off-the-record bit was also interesting:
The Thompsons had claimed his privacy had been breached because his request to speak off camera was ignored.
But the BSA said Mr Thompson was an "experienced public figure'' and would "know the care to be taken with `off-the-record' and the need to obtain agreement with the journalist prior to stopping and starting an interview''.
i don't know that i'm entirely comfortable with this finding. i was of the opinion, having watched the full 30-minute clip on the tv3 website twice (i know, glutton for punishment), that mr thompson had fully repeated everything he said "off-the-record" as soon as he asked for them to start recording again. therefore, the impact of airing the "off the record" bit was really nullified. his meltdown clearly happened after he said they could start recording again - that was the actual bit that caused damage to his reputation, and as the first quote stated, that was entirely his own fault.
the BSA finding on the "off-the-record" thing mirrors what i've been told in media training: that there is no such thing. we were quite clearly told to act as if everything is on record all the time, from the minute you say hello. after all, there was the guyon espiner bit with michael cullen, which dr cullen thought was not being recorded for airing, but which was aired by tv1 anyway. there were no BSA complaints about that.
however, there are implications for people who are engaging in whistleblowing type activities, or trying to get vital information across that they wouldn't otherwise be able to do because of their position or for some other reason. all of that tends to be "off-the-record", and i wonder how this ruling and the similar advice i was given impact on that.
in the meantime, the EMA continues to show it is no friend of women by opposing an extension to paid parental leave. i'm too lazy to check, but i'd expect they opposed the initial paid parental leave scheme too. yet somehow the world has not fallen apart by giving more parents the choice to be able to stay at home with their babies for the first three months of their lives. in fact the economy continued to do well.
as helen kelly points out, this relieves a burden on poor families, where childcare makes it expensive to go back to work and surviving on one income is difficult. there are plenty of arguments to show that the scheme won't end up costing so much - the reduction in childcare subsidies, the increase in tax take from people employed as replacement workers, and following from that the reduction in benefits as some of those workers get extra work.
but really, the economic argument is not any more important than the social and health ones. yet it seems we're not allowed to value anything beyond money, income and outlays. nor are we to try to quantify long-term gains, particularly for society as a whole. the grounds that the national party and business groups are using to argue against this show how clearly they devalue families and family time.
it seems that there have been no lessons learned by the EMA in any case, from the alisdair thompson episode.
Sunday, 8 January 2012
i have given you my soul; leave me my name!
[crossposted]
i've been inspired by annanonymous' post on naming to reflect on my own choices of names as a parent. she makes the point that:
The names which top the 2011 lists are indeed fairly middle class, and the trends in their popularity suggest that 'generic' is what parents are after: they're choosing names that don't stand out too much. There's actually a lot of comfort in conformity.
while this may be true of the western world, the opposite seems to be the case in the indian subcontinent (and particularly india & pakistan). of course i don't have research to back this up, only my own personal experience. but that experience strongly suggests that having a unique name is the over-riding factor for this group of parents. they will try to find a name that no-one has heard of.
i wonder if this is because families are generally so much larger there, so the likelihood of a name being used by cousins, nephews, neices, uncles, aunties, brothers and sisters for their own children are pretty high. since they don't want to have double-ups with relatively close relations, they try to find something unusual.
since there's such a variety of names anyway, based on the many languages and historical influences, no-one actually cares if a name is easy to spell. also, many naming traditions in the region don't include a "family" name - there isn't a common name that everyone in the same family has. so there isn't that sense of conformity that you might find in a western tradition.
which is not to say that there aren't rules. giving names is a very serious matter for muslims. there are quite a body of writing and thought around giving names to children. the name should be one that has historical significance - ie one that was held by a person of good quality who led an exemplary life. hence why the most popular boys name in the world is mohammad (in many spelling variations), though very few of them are actually called by that name. it just forms a part of their full name. as a side note, i've often wondered why christians in the english-speaking world don't use "jesus" as a name much more often. it seems to be used in the latino culture a lot more.
names should also have a good meaning and not be an embarassment to the child. in fact, it's seen as the right of a child that the parents should choose a decent and sensible name. so, even if names are chosen because they are unique or unusual, parents in the indian subcontinent do make an effort to ensure that it won't be a cause of ridicule. not that i believe anyone should be ridiculed because of their name, but i guess it's a protection of the diginity of the child.
a name is the most important part of a person's identity, but one that they initially don't get to choose. and while many do choose to change it in later life, most commonly married women in the west, that initial name does seem to form a part of who you are or how you are defined. there isn't really any other way to do it - children aren't able to make a decision about it until they are at least a few years old, and at that age are likely to make a decision they'll regret later in life. so one of the most important things about you is beyond your control, at least for quite a few years. and even then, changing a given name is likely to cause some hurt to the parents who took the time to choose it for you.
names are such a contentious issue - any post about changing names on marriage will often be attract the most comments on feminist websites. it's something that many of us intrinsically place a lot of value on. it's something about us that we want other people to get right. i think my name is pretty simple, being only 5 letters, but i keep a list of all the ways people manage to get my name wrong when i say it to them over the phone. it includes angie, angela, eugene, as well as some not so nice ones. and i make an effort to say it very slowly and carefully, because i know that as soon as people hear the first syllable, they stop listening and assume the rest. the fact that i have a very kiwi accent and they can't see i'm a woman of colour helps in their assumption that i have a traditional european name.
the pronunciation of such a simple name is also an issue. the average nz'er wants to say the first syllable with the same pronunciation as the word "an" as in "an apple", though the correct pronunciation is "un" as in "unforgettable". the second syllable comes out as "jim" even though it's quite clearly spelt "jum" and i take the trouble to say it that way. i certainly don't mind people who make a first attempt without having heard me say it getting it wrong. but it does bother me when i've said it for them, slowly and clearly, and they insist on saying it wrong. grrr.
as for my own children, i bucked the trend of unusual names to go for very traditional and common ones for my own children. in fact, i decided on the name for my first child when i was 15 years old, having read about the most famous historical figure to hold the name, and admiring her greatly.
it is apparently traditional in some cultures for the paternal grandparents to choose the name, or for the father to do it. i find this really difficult - my own position was that i was the one who had gone through all the pain and hardship of bearing and giving birth to this child, which should surely result in my having the right to choose the name. pretty one-sided i guess, but at the time, i felt really strongly about it and couldn't have borne the thought of someone else choosing a name for my babies.
i've been inspired by annanonymous' post on naming to reflect on my own choices of names as a parent. she makes the point that:
The names which top the 2011 lists are indeed fairly middle class, and the trends in their popularity suggest that 'generic' is what parents are after: they're choosing names that don't stand out too much. There's actually a lot of comfort in conformity.
while this may be true of the western world, the opposite seems to be the case in the indian subcontinent (and particularly india & pakistan). of course i don't have research to back this up, only my own personal experience. but that experience strongly suggests that having a unique name is the over-riding factor for this group of parents. they will try to find a name that no-one has heard of.
i wonder if this is because families are generally so much larger there, so the likelihood of a name being used by cousins, nephews, neices, uncles, aunties, brothers and sisters for their own children are pretty high. since they don't want to have double-ups with relatively close relations, they try to find something unusual.
since there's such a variety of names anyway, based on the many languages and historical influences, no-one actually cares if a name is easy to spell. also, many naming traditions in the region don't include a "family" name - there isn't a common name that everyone in the same family has. so there isn't that sense of conformity that you might find in a western tradition.
which is not to say that there aren't rules. giving names is a very serious matter for muslims. there are quite a body of writing and thought around giving names to children. the name should be one that has historical significance - ie one that was held by a person of good quality who led an exemplary life. hence why the most popular boys name in the world is mohammad (in many spelling variations), though very few of them are actually called by that name. it just forms a part of their full name. as a side note, i've often wondered why christians in the english-speaking world don't use "jesus" as a name much more often. it seems to be used in the latino culture a lot more.
names should also have a good meaning and not be an embarassment to the child. in fact, it's seen as the right of a child that the parents should choose a decent and sensible name. so, even if names are chosen because they are unique or unusual, parents in the indian subcontinent do make an effort to ensure that it won't be a cause of ridicule. not that i believe anyone should be ridiculed because of their name, but i guess it's a protection of the diginity of the child.
a name is the most important part of a person's identity, but one that they initially don't get to choose. and while many do choose to change it in later life, most commonly married women in the west, that initial name does seem to form a part of who you are or how you are defined. there isn't really any other way to do it - children aren't able to make a decision about it until they are at least a few years old, and at that age are likely to make a decision they'll regret later in life. so one of the most important things about you is beyond your control, at least for quite a few years. and even then, changing a given name is likely to cause some hurt to the parents who took the time to choose it for you.
names are such a contentious issue - any post about changing names on marriage will often be attract the most comments on feminist websites. it's something that many of us intrinsically place a lot of value on. it's something about us that we want other people to get right. i think my name is pretty simple, being only 5 letters, but i keep a list of all the ways people manage to get my name wrong when i say it to them over the phone. it includes angie, angela, eugene, as well as some not so nice ones. and i make an effort to say it very slowly and carefully, because i know that as soon as people hear the first syllable, they stop listening and assume the rest. the fact that i have a very kiwi accent and they can't see i'm a woman of colour helps in their assumption that i have a traditional european name.
the pronunciation of such a simple name is also an issue. the average nz'er wants to say the first syllable with the same pronunciation as the word "an" as in "an apple", though the correct pronunciation is "un" as in "unforgettable". the second syllable comes out as "jim" even though it's quite clearly spelt "jum" and i take the trouble to say it that way. i certainly don't mind people who make a first attempt without having heard me say it getting it wrong. but it does bother me when i've said it for them, slowly and clearly, and they insist on saying it wrong. grrr.
as for my own children, i bucked the trend of unusual names to go for very traditional and common ones for my own children. in fact, i decided on the name for my first child when i was 15 years old, having read about the most famous historical figure to hold the name, and admiring her greatly.
it is apparently traditional in some cultures for the paternal grandparents to choose the name, or for the father to do it. i find this really difficult - my own position was that i was the one who had gone through all the pain and hardship of bearing and giving birth to this child, which should surely result in my having the right to choose the name. pretty one-sided i guess, but at the time, i felt really strongly about it and couldn't have borne the thought of someone else choosing a name for my babies.
Wednesday, 30 November 2011
Thinking of the children (and the rest of us)
An acquaintance, someone I once knew well but have largely drifted apart from, posts about her son's screaming in response to various stimuli. She doesn't know why it happens, she says, but it's wearing her down and she doesn't know how to manage it. She's a parent in need of more support than she's getting, like many are. You'd have to be a parent to understand, she says.
My fingers hover over the comment box. I'm pretty sure I know exactly why her son is reacting why he does. I have some educated guesses on things that would make life easier for him - but they start from a different philosophical viewpoint to that she appears to hold. You'd have to be a parent to understand. I click away.
Another time - and really this isn't one time, it's hundreds - I look for advice online on how to do things in a way that accommodates my needs. How to learn to drive. How to arrange meals in a way that works for me. How to survive the commute when people insist on playing music audible over their headphones. I mostly get strategies for helping one's child through primary school. Once I try looking to see if tiredness is a probably cause for an increase in impairment I noticed at a particular time; instead I find posts from parents complaining how tired they are of their child's disability.
I get frustrated by it. The various frustrations subside into one. There's an unspoken assumption that it is the needs of our parents only that matter, and when we cease to be their problem those needs disappear also, or that our needs disappear at age 18* because people fail to acknowledge that just like anyone else we change and grow up and find better ways of interacting with the world, and thus see any changes as a cure. Where less autonomy was a horrible thing - and it was for me - being thought of as a child instills fear. And then there's a feeling of looking at children who are very like you were, and watching the same mistakes being made over again, and you know that it generally has little to do with individuals and far more to do with a society but you're really not sure how to express that to an already stressed out parent.
Then I start thinking elsewhere. And I think of what we do in the queer community. Queerness isn't generally equated to childhood - the opposite in fact, with may queer kids being told they are far too young to understand their identity. And whilst some people do feel the need to be wary of interacting with young people, there are more of us who can't see a kid in school uniform smiling in a queer friendly space without feeling teary.
So when we see marginalised kids in our community but aren't afraid of being considered children ourselves, what do we do? We send books to them or to their schools. We offer them sofas to sleep on. We lend them money or help them navigate hellish systems to claim entitlements. We educate them about safe sex because mostly their schools utterly fail at doing so. We engage in activism and let them yell through the megaphone and oh god they're too young to understand why we yell no blood for oil at every single demo how did this happen? We offer advice on talking to families or schools if needed. We do our level best, in whatever way we think we can - and we know only too well that it's not always enough - to make them feel welcome and accepted and safe.
And what works in one situation doesn't work in others. Queer kids tend to have supportive parents or are pushing away from their parents, sometimes living independently by necessity. Many neuroatypical kids are more dependent than average - whether by reason of their impairment or because there are no facilities set up to enable them to become more independent. It isn't a perfect parallel for many reasons. But as much as I wish that people would stop treating adults like children, or recognising the needs of neurotypical parents only, I also hope we can find a better solution than abandoning and ignoring kids who are like we were.
*well actually a bunch of them did. It's amazing what happens when you learn exercising =/= catching a ball and writing =/= to holding a pen, but that is neither universal, nor does it mean they weren't partially replaced by others.
My fingers hover over the comment box. I'm pretty sure I know exactly why her son is reacting why he does. I have some educated guesses on things that would make life easier for him - but they start from a different philosophical viewpoint to that she appears to hold. You'd have to be a parent to understand. I click away.
Another time - and really this isn't one time, it's hundreds - I look for advice online on how to do things in a way that accommodates my needs. How to learn to drive. How to arrange meals in a way that works for me. How to survive the commute when people insist on playing music audible over their headphones. I mostly get strategies for helping one's child through primary school. Once I try looking to see if tiredness is a probably cause for an increase in impairment I noticed at a particular time; instead I find posts from parents complaining how tired they are of their child's disability.
I get frustrated by it. The various frustrations subside into one. There's an unspoken assumption that it is the needs of our parents only that matter, and when we cease to be their problem those needs disappear also, or that our needs disappear at age 18* because people fail to acknowledge that just like anyone else we change and grow up and find better ways of interacting with the world, and thus see any changes as a cure. Where less autonomy was a horrible thing - and it was for me - being thought of as a child instills fear. And then there's a feeling of looking at children who are very like you were, and watching the same mistakes being made over again, and you know that it generally has little to do with individuals and far more to do with a society but you're really not sure how to express that to an already stressed out parent.
Then I start thinking elsewhere. And I think of what we do in the queer community. Queerness isn't generally equated to childhood - the opposite in fact, with may queer kids being told they are far too young to understand their identity. And whilst some people do feel the need to be wary of interacting with young people, there are more of us who can't see a kid in school uniform smiling in a queer friendly space without feeling teary.
So when we see marginalised kids in our community but aren't afraid of being considered children ourselves, what do we do? We send books to them or to their schools. We offer them sofas to sleep on. We lend them money or help them navigate hellish systems to claim entitlements. We educate them about safe sex because mostly their schools utterly fail at doing so. We engage in activism and let them yell through the megaphone and oh god they're too young to understand why we yell no blood for oil at every single demo how did this happen? We offer advice on talking to families or schools if needed. We do our level best, in whatever way we think we can - and we know only too well that it's not always enough - to make them feel welcome and accepted and safe.
And what works in one situation doesn't work in others. Queer kids tend to have supportive parents or are pushing away from their parents, sometimes living independently by necessity. Many neuroatypical kids are more dependent than average - whether by reason of their impairment or because there are no facilities set up to enable them to become more independent. It isn't a perfect parallel for many reasons. But as much as I wish that people would stop treating adults like children, or recognising the needs of neurotypical parents only, I also hope we can find a better solution than abandoning and ignoring kids who are like we were.
*well actually a bunch of them did. It's amazing what happens when you learn exercising =/= catching a ball and writing =/= to holding a pen, but that is neither universal, nor does it mean they weren't partially replaced by others.
Tuesday, 8 November 2011
Guest post: Government child support proposals would further impoverish single mums and their children
By Leonie Morris, Centre Manager, Auckland Women's Centre - from their Spring 2011 newsletter
The Government has signalled its intent to change Child Support calculations so that “receiving
parents” (usually mothers) lose up to two-thirds of their support payments. The current legislation,
which is already woefully inadequate, will be altered so that the threshold for reductions in Child Support payments for “paying parents” (usually fathers), due to them having shared care of their child, kicks in at a much lower rate. Currently fathers must have the child/ren 40% of the nights in a year to qualify for a
lowering in the amount of support they must pay. With the new law, that will drop to just 28%.
This means a father with two children who currently contributes $7,400 a year to their mother’s expenses, and has his children for an average of two nights a week, would only have to pay $2,600 a year – a reduction of 64%.
Whose best interests are served by this legislation? Not children’s!
There is a major problem with the legislation: it should have as its primary objective the best interests of the child. Yet while the Act references the child’s right to be maintained, the welfare and best interests of the child are notably and regrettably absent. This is a breach of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which New Zealand is a party.
The Government’s discussion paper identified the parts of the Act that they believe need changing.
Unfortunately, these changes are in the interest of fathers, not children or mothers. For instance, a major problem of the legislation is that the formula used to determine how much Child Support a father will pay automatically assumes that if the father has a new partner, that person is a dependent, and consequently the Child Support amount is reduced!
Most of the submissions to the discussion paper supported the proposed changes. It is likely that
these were made by fathers. Fathers have always been very vocal about Child Support, complaining
that they are expected to pay too much. By comparison, mothers are seldom heard on this topic, partly because they are too busy childrearing and struggling to make ends meet and partly because mothers are often reluctant to go on record saying anything that might be construed by their children, now or later, as a
criticism of their father.
The Government’s plan will make it even easier for fathers to avoid financially supporting their children
This change to how Child Support is calculated provides a financial incentive for fathers to increase the amount of nights they spend with their children to at least two per week. At first glance, this might seem like a great result. Yet when the incentive to do so is the avoidance of paying Child Support, is this a quality outcome for children? (As at 30 June 2011, the Child Support debt, excluding penalties, is $605 million).
The Government’s discussion paper fails to address this issue. However, New Zealand research on this topic highlights that:
• The two most important things for children’s psychological wellbeing after parents separate are: 1) to maintain and strengthen their relationship with their mother; and 2) to minimise exposure to inter-parental conflict.
• The studies do not consistently demonstrate that a high level of contact with the father is always in the best interests of children.
• The benefit of contact with fathers after separation depends on the style and quality of the father’s parenting, as opposed to the amount of contact.
• The one thing that has been shown to be associated unquestionably with good outcomes for children is the father paying Child Support.
• With very young children, particular care is needed to preserve their relationship with the mother because of their need to have at least one secure attachment (New Zealand Universities Law Review, Vol 24, No 1, June, 2010, Julia Tolmie, Vivienne Elizabeth and Nicola Gavey).
The Government announced in August that the legislation will be passed before the election. Hopefully this won’t happen, because it would not allow enough time for the legislation to go to a Parliamentary Select Committee to receive and discuss submissions from the public - an essential step in our democratic process.
The Government has signalled its intent to change Child Support calculations so that “receiving
parents” (usually mothers) lose up to two-thirds of their support payments. The current legislation,
which is already woefully inadequate, will be altered so that the threshold for reductions in Child Support payments for “paying parents” (usually fathers), due to them having shared care of their child, kicks in at a much lower rate. Currently fathers must have the child/ren 40% of the nights in a year to qualify for a
lowering in the amount of support they must pay. With the new law, that will drop to just 28%.
This means a father with two children who currently contributes $7,400 a year to their mother’s expenses, and has his children for an average of two nights a week, would only have to pay $2,600 a year – a reduction of 64%.
Whose best interests are served by this legislation? Not children’s!
There is a major problem with the legislation: it should have as its primary objective the best interests of the child. Yet while the Act references the child’s right to be maintained, the welfare and best interests of the child are notably and regrettably absent. This is a breach of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which New Zealand is a party.
The Government’s discussion paper identified the parts of the Act that they believe need changing.
Unfortunately, these changes are in the interest of fathers, not children or mothers. For instance, a major problem of the legislation is that the formula used to determine how much Child Support a father will pay automatically assumes that if the father has a new partner, that person is a dependent, and consequently the Child Support amount is reduced!
Most of the submissions to the discussion paper supported the proposed changes. It is likely that
these were made by fathers. Fathers have always been very vocal about Child Support, complaining
that they are expected to pay too much. By comparison, mothers are seldom heard on this topic, partly because they are too busy childrearing and struggling to make ends meet and partly because mothers are often reluctant to go on record saying anything that might be construed by their children, now or later, as a
criticism of their father.
The Government’s plan will make it even easier for fathers to avoid financially supporting their children
This change to how Child Support is calculated provides a financial incentive for fathers to increase the amount of nights they spend with their children to at least two per week. At first glance, this might seem like a great result. Yet when the incentive to do so is the avoidance of paying Child Support, is this a quality outcome for children? (As at 30 June 2011, the Child Support debt, excluding penalties, is $605 million).
The Government’s discussion paper fails to address this issue. However, New Zealand research on this topic highlights that:
• The two most important things for children’s psychological wellbeing after parents separate are: 1) to maintain and strengthen their relationship with their mother; and 2) to minimise exposure to inter-parental conflict.
• The studies do not consistently demonstrate that a high level of contact with the father is always in the best interests of children.
• The benefit of contact with fathers after separation depends on the style and quality of the father’s parenting, as opposed to the amount of contact.
• The one thing that has been shown to be associated unquestionably with good outcomes for children is the father paying Child Support.
• With very young children, particular care is needed to preserve their relationship with the mother because of their need to have at least one secure attachment (New Zealand Universities Law Review, Vol 24, No 1, June, 2010, Julia Tolmie, Vivienne Elizabeth and Nicola Gavey).
The Government announced in August that the legislation will be passed before the election. Hopefully this won’t happen, because it would not allow enough time for the legislation to go to a Parliamentary Select Committee to receive and discuss submissions from the public - an essential step in our democratic process.
Wednesday, 2 November 2011
Guest post: Why minors deserve a choice as well
As many of you may remember, there was a heated debate earlier in the year about supposed ‘secret’ abortions which were being performed on teenagers without their parents knowledge or consent. There was a public outcry about how schools and heath-care facilities (or in a broader view, the state) were taking the place of parents in helping the minor make the decision of if they should or should not carry the pregnancy to term. Many suggested that the school (or health professional) should have to inform the parents when a minor is considering an abortion.
I don’t understand how these people came to this conclusion. I agree that people should be encouraged to talk to trusted friends and family about their situation - especially if they are finding it overwhelming. A strong support network is important for any teen; but this is where many people missed the point. In suggesting that parents/guardians should be informed when their minor is pregnant and considering an abortion, they also suggest that these parents/guardians are part of a trusted support network for the teen. This is by no means always true. Parents are humans and therefore they can be abusive, coercive or even be the cause of the pregnancy. There is often a reason why a teenager will come to a guidance counsellor, nurse, or doctor in confidence. If the woman trusted her parents and considered them supportive, she would most probably have gone to them for support.
It also suggests that the parents know what is best for the teen and her uterus; and this is where the argument really fails. Some people suggest that it is important to inform the parents because they will also be affected by the pregnancy. No doubt, the parents can choose to help look after the child, they can choose to help fund its upbringing. So why should they not have a say, if THEY want a grandchild? Simply put; their role as grandparents can be abandoned. The fact that the young woman needs to carry the foetus in her uterus; needs to endure pregnancy; needs to make the decision of what to do after it is born: this cannot be abandoned if she is denied the individual choice of abortion. Someone who is not directly, and undeniably affected by the pregnancy cannot claim to know what is best for the woman who is pregnant, becuase they therefore put their preference and morals infront of the health; wellbeing; and autonomy of the woman as a human being.
This post is not about the ‘state raising our children’, it is about considering pregnant teens as self-possessing human beings, who are able to make a decision about their own bodies. If it was required for parents to be allowed to make a decision about their daughter’s foetus, the daughter should also have the choice to pass the obligation of pregnancy onto those who want to keep it.
***
This is part of a week of Pro-Choice Postings hosted here at The Hand Mirror starting on Friday 28th October 2011. For an index of all the posts, being updated as they go up, please check the Pro-Choice Postings index. And if you'd like to submit a post for cross-posting, guest posting or linking to please email thehandmirror@gmail.com.
Tuesday, 1 November 2011
Quickie: National's welfare policy
Many thanks to GG for the link to the speech notes from John Key's launch of National election welfare policy earlier this afternoon.
The only thing I've heard so far (and haven't had time to read the speech yet) is that there is a 50% cut to benefits for people who don't find a job within a specified time. And that those who have an additional child while already on the DPB will only have the obligation to find work waived until that additional child is 1 year old.
Please consider this an open thread for discussion of it.
UPDATE: Further to Deborah's comment below, here is a quote from the current Work & Income policy on sanctions:
The only thing I've heard so far (and haven't had time to read the speech yet) is that there is a 50% cut to benefits for people who don't find a job within a specified time. And that those who have an additional child while already on the DPB will only have the obligation to find work waived until that additional child is 1 year old.
Please consider this an open thread for discussion of it.
UPDATE: Further to Deborah's comment below, here is a quote from the current Work & Income policy on sanctions:
Sole parents on Domestic Purposes Benefit may face part-time work obligations depending on the age of their children. This means, if they don’t meet the requirements to be actively looking, or preparing, for part-time work of at least 15 hours or more, their benefit may be reduced or stopped.What appears to be changing in National's policy is that there will now be three benefits,divided on different lines from previously, and with increased work expectations:
Partners of beneficiaries face full-time or part-time work obligations depending on the ages of any children they have in their care.
People on Unemployment Benefit face full-time work obligations. This means, if they don’t meet the requirements to be actively looking, or preparing, for full-time work, their benefit may be reduced or stopped.
People receiving Sickness Benefit who have been assessed as able to work at least 15 hours a week may also face part-time work obligations.
Invalid's Beneficiaries, Widow's Beneficiaries, and people receiving Domestic Purposes Benefit - Care of Sick and Infirm and Domestic Purposes Benefit - Women Alone, don’t face work obligations.
If you have work obligations, you’ll face the following sanctions:
Sole parents and couples with dependent children face a maximum 50% reduction, suspension, or cancellation of their main benefit.
- a 50% reduction in your benefit payment the first time you don’t meet your obligations (currently people face a 100% suspension)
- a 100% suspension the second time you don’t meet your obligations, as is currently the case, and
- a 100% cancellation for the third time, as is currently the case.
- Jobseeker (current UB, Sickness, DPB Women Alone, DPB & Widows with children over 14) - full time work expectation as default, part time or temporary exemption if you make a case for it
- Sole Parent Support (current DPB & Widows children aged 0-13) - part time work expectation
- Supported Living Payment (current DPB Care of Sick & Infirm, Invalids') - no work expectation
Friday, 7 October 2011
Raise your daughters well
 |
| 50s style black & white photo of a mother and daughter in aprons with various cooking-related implements. Mother: Dreams and goals are Satan's way of distracting you from making dinner. |
Friday, 2 September 2011
Expanding and contracting and expanding again
I was so sure it would be the Tuesday. No particular reason, just a hunch. Due date was the first or second of September; the midwife seemed to waggle back and forth between them. I was full and heavy, the most pregnant I'd ever been before. Maybe I thought Tuesday because I wanted the pregnant part to be over. I was very apprehensive about the labour part though, so I just kept pushing it away in my mind.
Magically this process was going to be:
- Pregnant
- ????
- Baby and mother healthy and well
By 10.30pm I'd given up waiting to feel my first ever contraction and I headed to bed.
Monday, 20 June 2011
Moments from the Wrigglyverse
Wriggly: Stop the rain!
Me: I can't stop the rain.
Wriggly: RAIN STOP!!!!!!
Me: Did that work?
Wriggly: No
---
Wriggly: I'm going to buy a new TV, oh yeah.
Me: Why are you going to buy a new TV?
Wriggly: Because the old TV is old. And I like LG because I like LG.
Me: Why do you like LG?
Wriggly: Because I like it.
Me: What will you use to buy the new TV?
Wriggly: I'll go to the TV shop and I'll buy it.
Me: What will you buy it with?
Wriggly: Oh I'll get some money, oh yeah.
Me: How will you get some money?
Wriggly:
Me: How do Mummy and Daddy get money?
Wriggly:
Me: When Daddy goes to the shops with you, how does he buy things?
Wriggly: He gets some money.
Me: Where does he get the money from?
Wriggly: The tramspectrer.
Me: Can you say that again?
Wriggly: The tramspectrer.
Me: Tramspectrer?
Wriggly: Oh yeah.
Me: What colour is a tramspectrer?
Wriggly: Green, yes, because green is my favourite colour.
Me: Whereabouts have you seen a tramspectrer?
Wriggly: At the shops, with Daddy.
Me: Which shop?
Wriggly: Oh it was only a pretend shop.
Me: (Silent ARGH!)
---
Wriggly: I haven't got any broccoli!
Me: Would you like some broccoli?
Wriggly: That's not broccoli! It's not!
Me: You're right, it's cauliflower. Here's some broccoli, would you like some broccoli?
Wriggly: No, not really.
---
Wriggly is almost three and a half years old. I've just spent most of four days away from him, for the first time in a very long time. I missed him, and Snuffly, and I really enjoyed the time away for my partner and I to just be ourselves, not wearing any hats for a couple of days. He welcomed me back with big smiles, they both did, and a bit of anxiety that he wasn't coming home which was easily soothed. The three incidents above all happened today, since we met him at his Nana's at lunchtime. I feel v lucky, every day.
Me: I can't stop the rain.
Wriggly: RAIN STOP!!!!!!
Me: Did that work?
Wriggly: No
---
Wriggly: I'm going to buy a new TV, oh yeah.
Me: Why are you going to buy a new TV?
Wriggly: Because the old TV is old. And I like LG because I like LG.
Me: Why do you like LG?
Wriggly: Because I like it.
Me: What will you use to buy the new TV?
Wriggly: I'll go to the TV shop and I'll buy it.
Me: What will you buy it with?
Wriggly: Oh I'll get some money, oh yeah.
Me: How will you get some money?
Wriggly:
Me: How do Mummy and Daddy get money?
Wriggly:
Me: When Daddy goes to the shops with you, how does he buy things?
Wriggly: He gets some money.
Me: Where does he get the money from?
Wriggly: The tramspectrer.
Me: Can you say that again?
Wriggly: The tramspectrer.
Me: Tramspectrer?
Wriggly: Oh yeah.
Me: What colour is a tramspectrer?
Wriggly: Green, yes, because green is my favourite colour.
Me: Whereabouts have you seen a tramspectrer?
Wriggly: At the shops, with Daddy.
Me: Which shop?
Wriggly: Oh it was only a pretend shop.
Me: (Silent ARGH!)
---
Wriggly: I haven't got any broccoli!
Me: Would you like some broccoli?
Wriggly: That's not broccoli! It's not!
Me: You're right, it's cauliflower. Here's some broccoli, would you like some broccoli?
Wriggly: No, not really.
---
Wriggly is almost three and a half years old. I've just spent most of four days away from him, for the first time in a very long time. I missed him, and Snuffly, and I really enjoyed the time away for my partner and I to just be ourselves, not wearing any hats for a couple of days. He welcomed me back with big smiles, they both did, and a bit of anxiety that he wasn't coming home which was easily soothed. The three incidents above all happened today, since we met him at his Nana's at lunchtime. I feel v lucky, every day.
Tuesday, 24 May 2011
in favour of relaxed parenting
there was an article included in fairfax papers over the weekend called "why parents should just learn to relax". unfortunately i can't find an online version, though did find this similar piece at the guardian (via here).
basically, it's an alternate view to the tiger mother, all very scientific and based on research done on twins separated at birth and children who have been adopted. and of course bryan caplan has a book he's wanting to promote - which doesn't negate what he's trying to say. in fact, if what he says is true, i find it very comforting to know that there's very little that i do as a parent that will have an impact on my child's future.
here's a quote:
This new branch of science is called behavioural genetics, which uses mathematical models to compare the similarity of identical and non-identical twins, and the fate of adopted children. Behavioural geneticists don't just believe that your hair colour or your susceptibillity to breast cancer come trhough bloodlines. They test for a wide range of other things, such as happiness and income, that no-one had thought were genetic. Some of these are indirect effects - so, for example, when they say that genes matter for income, there doesn't have to be an "income gene", it's simply that other inherited traits (such as intelligence, or work ethic) matter for income. The age at which you start drinking or having sex relies somewhat on whether you are by nature a shy and cautious person.
[...] It could be good genes that produce good citizens.
Caplan is the first to admit that this can seem "too counterintuitive to believe... as the father of identical twins I readily accept the power of nurture but still struggle to deny the power of nurture." The answer is that parents can make a big impact, but this is mostly restricted to the early years. You can give a child a boost at nursery age, but by the time he or she has left school it has gone. As one twin study concluded: "Adopted children resemble their adoptive parents slightly in early childhood but not at all in the middle childhood or adolescence."
"If you think you're giving your kid a headstart, you're probably correct," says Caplan. Your mistake is to assume that the head start lasts a lifetime. By the time your child grows up, the impact of your encouragement and nagging will largely have faded away."
there's heaps more of this, quoting from studies and so on but i don't have the energy to type it out. i did like this bit though:
"By the time you're an adult, your parents' past mistakes are not the reason for your present unhappiness" says Caplan.
of course he clarifies earlier in the piece that the studies he's using don't "address neglect or abuse, which of course can damage a child". so, the good news is that i don't have to feel any guilt that my parenting style will cause any lasting impact on my kids. the bad news is that i can't blame my parents for my own misery. hmmm. the good news is that it doesn't matter whether you're a working parent or a stay-at-home parent (although i notice that the article stays well clear of that question, but surely one can extrapolate?). the bad news is that all the hard work we put into our children and the money we spend on them will have little impact on their future success.
mr caplan does spend a bit of time baggin amy chua and her parenting style, saying that the success of her children is more due to genetics ("Her girls are the daughters of two Yale Law School professors, and people are amazed that they succeed at the things they try at?") than parenting. he does fail to mention that ms chua's book was a family history rather than a parenting guide but there is no doubt that his message is the more comforting one, one that makes (some of) us feel less inadequate, less able to measure up to the very high standards of parenting that society seems to increasingly expect.
i'll finish off where the article finishes off:
Isn't all this a bit depressing? At least Chua offered us a parental work ethic as a way onward and upward. Genetic determinism smacks of eugenics.
Caplan counters that it is a happy message. He quotes from Mary Poppins. Stop thinking that children, as Mr Banks does, "must be moulded, shaped and taught, that life's a looming battle to be faced and fought!" And, well, just enjoy.
basically, it's an alternate view to the tiger mother, all very scientific and based on research done on twins separated at birth and children who have been adopted. and of course bryan caplan has a book he's wanting to promote - which doesn't negate what he's trying to say. in fact, if what he says is true, i find it very comforting to know that there's very little that i do as a parent that will have an impact on my child's future.
here's a quote:
This new branch of science is called behavioural genetics, which uses mathematical models to compare the similarity of identical and non-identical twins, and the fate of adopted children. Behavioural geneticists don't just believe that your hair colour or your susceptibillity to breast cancer come trhough bloodlines. They test for a wide range of other things, such as happiness and income, that no-one had thought were genetic. Some of these are indirect effects - so, for example, when they say that genes matter for income, there doesn't have to be an "income gene", it's simply that other inherited traits (such as intelligence, or work ethic) matter for income. The age at which you start drinking or having sex relies somewhat on whether you are by nature a shy and cautious person.
[...] It could be good genes that produce good citizens.
Caplan is the first to admit that this can seem "too counterintuitive to believe... as the father of identical twins I readily accept the power of nurture but still struggle to deny the power of nurture." The answer is that parents can make a big impact, but this is mostly restricted to the early years. You can give a child a boost at nursery age, but by the time he or she has left school it has gone. As one twin study concluded: "Adopted children resemble their adoptive parents slightly in early childhood but not at all in the middle childhood or adolescence."
"If you think you're giving your kid a headstart, you're probably correct," says Caplan. Your mistake is to assume that the head start lasts a lifetime. By the time your child grows up, the impact of your encouragement and nagging will largely have faded away."
there's heaps more of this, quoting from studies and so on but i don't have the energy to type it out. i did like this bit though:
"By the time you're an adult, your parents' past mistakes are not the reason for your present unhappiness" says Caplan.
of course he clarifies earlier in the piece that the studies he's using don't "address neglect or abuse, which of course can damage a child". so, the good news is that i don't have to feel any guilt that my parenting style will cause any lasting impact on my kids. the bad news is that i can't blame my parents for my own misery. hmmm. the good news is that it doesn't matter whether you're a working parent or a stay-at-home parent (although i notice that the article stays well clear of that question, but surely one can extrapolate?). the bad news is that all the hard work we put into our children and the money we spend on them will have little impact on their future success.
mr caplan does spend a bit of time baggin amy chua and her parenting style, saying that the success of her children is more due to genetics ("Her girls are the daughters of two Yale Law School professors, and people are amazed that they succeed at the things they try at?") than parenting. he does fail to mention that ms chua's book was a family history rather than a parenting guide but there is no doubt that his message is the more comforting one, one that makes (some of) us feel less inadequate, less able to measure up to the very high standards of parenting that society seems to increasingly expect.
i'll finish off where the article finishes off:
Isn't all this a bit depressing? At least Chua offered us a parental work ethic as a way onward and upward. Genetic determinism smacks of eugenics.
Caplan counters that it is a happy message. He quotes from Mary Poppins. Stop thinking that children, as Mr Banks does, "must be moulded, shaped and taught, that life's a looming battle to be faced and fought!" And, well, just enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)