"Look to Quebec on early childhood education, expert urges"

51 posts / 0 new
Last post
toddsschneider
"Look to Quebec on early childhood education, expert urges"

http://tinyurl.com/yet6aa6

 ... According to University of British Columbia psychology professor Adele Diamond, Quebec is way ahead of other provinces in its education of preschool children.  "It's not perfect. It could be improved but ... you can see that poor kids in Quebec are doing much better in reading at age 5 then [sic] poor kids in any other province."

Quebec's investment in early childhood development is equivalent to about 0.75 per cent of its gross domestic product. The rest of Canada spends approximately 0.15 per cent of GDP. In total, Canada spends about 0.25 per cent of GDP for early childhood development, less than any other advanced country in the world, far behind the leading country, Denmark, which spends 2 per cent of GDP ...

The more tools a young child is given to become intellectually stimulated and the more he learns how to play, interact with others and develop new learning skills, the better the chances of succeeding in school in later years, studies have shown ...



Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I find Quebec is more progressive in some things than some other provinces, and is a huge step forward since the days of Duplessis. Things I like about Quebec include financial assistance to low income people for home renovations, preservation of historical buildings (Quebec City is a great example), and really upgraded clinic services in isolated areas such as here on the Lower North Shore. There's more, but maybe that's for another thread (I'd love to see a thread discussing the conservative versus progressive sides of Jean Charest, a premier that I think is a hard core low c conservative, but nevetheless tries to do some progressive things)

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Unfortunately, we have a federal government that, by and large, views learning and education as a new area for profit-taking. In the conflict between market "values" OT1H and the well being of children OTOH, Harper and his cabal of neocon zealots idolize the former. I can't see much help coming from that direction on this issue.

The BC government has recently announced a large expansion of Kindergarten in the province. However, given the bloated spending on the upcoming Surveillance Games in 2010, together with the limb-severing cuts to health and education, I don't think a full expansion of Kindergarten is in the cards for BC.

Unionist

N.Beltov, I see no reason (including federal government indifference and purse-tightening) why BC or any province can't implement and maintain the $7 per day child care that Québec has maintained for the past decade, without waiting for a national child care program. Of course, such a national program is absolutely necessary and would bring vast improvements even to the stretched-to-the-limit Québec system, but since no one is even talking about it at the federal level, we may have a long wait. Provinces should act now. BC (and Manitoba and Ontario and the rest) should simply spend less money on other things. Sounds crude, but there you are.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

It not only sounds crude but the idea we can somehow reduce social services in BC in any area is a fallacy.  In BC the taxes have been reduced to a level where there is not enough money to fund existing critical services let alone pay for expanding services into critical areas. Simply spending less on other areas is a right wing mantra that is not the reality in BC.  We need more tax revenue to build a better society; not begger Pierette to pay for Paulette

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

yea, I presume it is mostly, if not exclusively, a provincial jurisdiction. Canada is one of the very few "developed" country that has no role for the federal government in education. (I'm assuming here, perhaps incorrectly, that since education is an exclusively provincial matter that, therefore, so too is child care.)Even the Yanquis have a Federal Department of Education.

The province of Alberta sat on billions of dollars in surpluses for many years. Child care? Not a f^%&ing chance. The current regime in BC is much the same. They would rather have the Games. There is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that the Games are hurting current programs, much less prospective NEW programs.

Unfortunately, security companies and police officers have much better lobbyists than children.

Unionist

kropotkin1951 wrote:

It not only sounds crude but the idea we can somehow reduce social services in BC in any area is a fallacy.

Gee, nice to know that all BC revenues are spent on "social services".

Quote:
Simply spending less on other areas is a right wing mantra that is not the reality in BC. 

Gee, I'm sorry to repeat right-wing mantras. Ok, then, raise taxes. But kindly respond to my suggestion that BC should implement affordable universal child care and early education NOW, rather than wait for someone in Ottawa to send them money. If Québec can do it, so can BC. And would you like a list of all the other social services Québec is paying for that BC isn't?

Quote:
We need more tax revenue to build a better society; not begger Pierette to pay for Paulette

You need political leadership that says, "here's what services our society needs" - and then you figure out how to pay for it. It may mean higher taxes - it may mean less handouts to the wealthy - but is there a party in that province which says, "child care and early education now - it can't wait"? If so, I applaud them. If not - get one.

N.Beltov wrote:
The province of Alberta sat on billions of dollars in surpluses for many years. Child care? Not a f^%&ing chance. The current regime in BC is much the same.

Thanks, N.Beltov, you said it more succinctly and eloquently than I was able to. If BC can make excuses, what about some real have-not provinces?

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Unionist I am not Gordon Campbell.  So please do not address my arguments like I was.  Just because you use a right wing mantra doesn't make it any wiser as public policy.  But I know you will not back down and will continue to attack because you are always right about everything you post.  I almost didn't post anything because it is impossible to have a discourse with you that doesn't involve a full out assault.

So please Most Exalted ONE of Babble use your bully boy pulpit on the fucking BC Liberals not on people who are supposed to be your allies.  

I will repeat the fucking BC Liberals have given away so much potential tax revenue that there is no money in the cupboard and your idea to take money from somewhere else is absurd. Unlike Quebec in BC our government has been engaging in cost cutting measures since the 1980's. The neo-cons have decimated our government and its ability to respond to the needs of its citizens.  But no we don't need to raise taxes merely shuffle the chairs around.

Unionist

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Unionist I am not Gordon Campbell.  So please do not address my arguments like I was.

I said BC should implement public child care and early education. I wasn't addressing you. You weren't even in the thread. I was addressing the government and people of BC if you like.

You appeared in the thread, called my proposal a "fallacy", and accused me of repeating a "right-wing mantra".

So either relax, or don't. I don't care. But if you continue arguing that BC "can't afford" child care without getting "more money", I really think you ought to invest in a mirror before you accuse allies of "right-wing mantras".

kropotkin wrote:
Unlike Quebec in BC our government has been engaging in cost cutting measures since the 1980's.

By my count, you've had three (3) different parties in power since the 1980s. Time to get your collective asses in gear and tell your government what you want - or else join hands and whine that "Ottawa" isn't sending you enough money.

 

Lord Palmerston

kropotkin1951 wrote:
We need more tax revenue to build a better society

And precisely for that reason, the NDP's stoking of anti-tax populism is shameful.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Unionist wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Unionist I am not Gordon Campbell.  So please do not address my arguments like I was.

I said BC should implement public child care and early education. I wasn't addressing you. You weren't even in the thread. I was addressing the government and people of BC if you like.

You appeared in the thread, called my proposal a "fallacy", and accused me of repeating a "right-wing mantra".

So either relax, or don't. I don't care. But if you continue arguing that BC "can't afford" child care without getting "more money", I really think you ought to invest in a mirror before you accuse allies of "right-wing mantras".

kropotkin wrote:
Unlike Quebec in BC our government has been engaging in cost cutting measures since the 1980's.

By my count, you've had three (3) different parties in power since the 1980s. Time to get your collective asses in gear and tell your government what you want - or else join hands and whine that "Ottawa" isn't sending you enough money.

 

Thank you for your great wisdom oh Exalted One of Babble.  Of course you must be right because you are in fact the smartest and most brilliant progressive voice I have ever encountered on ALL political subjects.  My bad for pointing out that we need tax revenue when obviously we just need to defeat the neo-cons and the money will magically appear.  

Your counting the Bill Bennett Socreds and the Campbell Liberals as two different parties says everything about your in depth grasp of BC politics.  Thank you for explaining that to me since I was under the delusion they were the same party with a different name.  Thank you again and again for your insight into politics in my back yard because I am sure from your vantage point on the heights of knowledge you are so much better positioned than I to understand that the Howe street parties are different and it is all the left wings fault for not demanding cuts in some areas to pay for other services.  I'll start a petition tomorrow to remove the funding from _______.  Please fill in the blank to give me a clue as to what we need to cut to provide a day care program and I'll start that campaign because it is the progressive thing to do. 

___________________________________________

Soothsayers had a better record of prediction than economists

Unionist

kropotkin1951 wrote:
Your counting the Bill Bennett Socreds and the Campbell Liberals as two different parties says everything about your in depth grasp of BC politics.

I even counted Carole James's NDP as a different party. Was that wrong also?

 

Fidel

And with just a few tweaks, Quebec's daycare program could work on a national scale.

[url=http://www.breadnroses.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?t=246]Equity and Quebec's daycare program[/url] Stephen Gordon 

We need a strong federal commitment for child care funding and regulation.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Unionist wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:
Your counting the Bill Bennett Socreds and the Campbell Liberals as two different parties says everything about your in depth grasp of BC politics.

I even counted Carole James's NDP as a different party. Was that wrong also?

 

Carole James has never led a government. The NDP was in power during the 90's and refused to talk about taxes and instead spent their time balancing the budget on the backs of BC Benefits and services for the disabled.  That is my fucking point that without tax revenue you get nothing only rhetoric. I can say I want day care and work to elect a government that is committed to it but if they are committed to it they need to figure out how to pay for it and saying "just steal the money from another service" is in fact claiming that our government is fat and bloated and we have lots of money if it was spent differently.  That is not true in BC. I suspect that Quebec has not lowered taxes as far or for as long as the assholes in BC. 

I will note that when faced with the fact that the Liberals and Socreds are the same mover and shakers you don't say that might be right you merely attack again.  You are so tiresomely predictable.  Strangely enough my little rant has me being praised by PM because other people besides me see you as one of the negative forces who never discuss but always attack attack attack.  I note as well your response that basically says that since you posted in this thread first I should not comment.  

Oh Exalted ONE of Babble you are truly the best and brightest of us all.

___________________________________________

Soothsayers had a better record of prediction than economists

Lord Palmerston

kropotkin1951 wrote:
The NDP was in power during the 90's and refused to talk about taxes and instead spent their time balancing the budget on the backs of BC Benefits and services for the disabled.  That is my fucking point that without tax revenue you get nothing only rhetoric. I can say I want day care and work to elect a government that is committed to it but if they are committed to it they need to figure out how to pay for it and saying "just steal the money from another service" is in fact claiming that our government is fat and bloated and we have lots of money if it was spent differently.  That is not true in BC. I suspect that Quebec has not lowered taxes as far or for as long as the assholes in BC.

I think you make a great point here.  I too am sick of intellectually dishonest politicians who promise all these social services and also say "no new taxes."  This mindset is all too prevalent in the NDP, and I'm sure the big win in the BC byelection means the federal NDP is going to double up their idiotic anti-HST campaign.

I really don't see the point in harping over whether the BC Liberals are the same party as the old Socreds or not.  It's a distraction from real issues.

Unionist

kropotkin1951 wrote:

 I note as well your response that basically says that since you posted in this thread first I should not comment. 

I advised you to relax, but you seem to be able to maintain a head of steam indefinitely. I merely pointed out that I was here first, then you waltzed in and attacked me. Perhaps an apology might be in order? Or never mind an apology - how about just stop attacking me for a moment?

 

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Brownies are always a good treat.

 

http://allrecipes.com/Recipe/best-brownies/Detail.aspx

Fidel

kropotkin1951 wrote:
Carole James has never led a government. The NDP was in power during the 90's and refused to talk about taxes and instead spent their time balancing the budget on the backs of BC Benefits and services for the disabled.  That is my fucking point that without tax revenue you get nothing only rhetoric. I can say I want day care and work to elect a government that is committed to it but if they are committed to it they need to figure out how to pay for it and saying "just steal the money from another service" is in fact claiming that our government is fat and bloated and we have lots of money if it was spent differently.  That is not true in BC. I suspect that Quebec has not lowered taxes as far or for as long as the assholes in BC.

Yet Another Canadian who thinks the top-down decentralization and neoliberalorama for downloading costs onto the provinces while starving the social transfer since 1995 hasn't worked worth a damn in our Northern bananada.  

Where oh where is the free market miracle that Brian Baloney and Shawinigan strangler promised?  It's busted, Jim.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

In BC the Liberals and their media allies are still repeating the mantra that if we only stop taxing multi national corporations we will have prosperity for ever. 

Its a fools game to think we can cut taxes any further or reshuffle the chairs on the deck as the ship of state sinks.  We don't have enough tax revenue to run a socialist or social democratic government.  The only free lunch is the one we are giving to our corporations.

Lord Palmerston

kropotkin1951 wrote:
Its a fools game to think we can cut taxes any further or reshuffle the chairs on the deck as the ship of state sinks.  We don't have enough tax revenue to run a socialist or social democratic government.  The only free lunch is the one we are giving to our corporations.

Excellent point.  It's time for an [url=http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/715565]adult conversation about taxes[/url].

Fidel

[url=http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16122]Andrew Jackson said:[/url]

Quote:
I entirely take on board Hugh Mackenzie’s important argument that we need an adult discussion about taxes which recognizes that decent levels of public services and social programs have to be paid for from a broad tax base, including consumption taxes. If we want Scandinavian type welfare states, we will have to pay Scandinavian level taxes. That said, as I have argued elsewhere, we could and should gain useful amounts of revenue, to the tune of several billions of dollars, by levying higher rates of income tax on the very, very affluent.

True, the very rich are few in number, but they do have a high and rising share of all personal income. Corporations could also pay more – though I incline to the argument that we should redirect higher corporate tax revenues into more effective ways of supporting private investment rather than into general revenues. In short, there is no fiscal crisis. To the extent that we have a fiscal problem, it can be squarely addressed on the tax front.

Lord Palmerston

Jackson is stating much more articulately what I've been trying to say all along - he is expresssing agreement with Mackenzie on the question of consumption taxes.  How do you think your beloved Nordic social democracies fund things?  The NDP continues to promise a social democratic utopia with low taxes.  It is an intellectually dishonest position.

Unionist is indeed wrong to suggest spending cutbacks elsewhere to get childcare going.  Raising taxes is essential for improving and expanding public services.  By running "Axe the Tax" and "Unfair Tax Grab" campaigns the NDP is fomenting anti-tax sentiment that undermines the fight for better public services.

Fidel

Lord Palmerston wrote:

Jackson is stating much more articulately what I've been trying to say all along - he is expresssing agreement with Mackenzie on the question of consumption taxes.  How do you think your beloved Nordic social democracies fund things?  The NDP continues to promise a social democratic utopia with no taxes.  It is an intellectually dishonest position.

But Norway taxes marauding transnational fossil fuel companies to the hilt.

Here in Canada our stooges slash taxes and even pay them to steal our stuff. There is a real difference in the neoliberal shell game with taxes here in the Northern Puerto Rico and over there in the Nordic social democracies with the most efficient tax systems in the world.

There is nothing efficient about neoliberal voodoo. You can't cherry pick one policy for lower corporate taxes and not accept the rest of the social democrat prescription for globally competitive economies and world class social democracy. It doesn't work that way. But that wouldnt stop our corporate stooges in Ottawa from trying to fool us on lower corporate tax rates and how there is no proof that this policy by itself affects positive economic growth. Would they?

It's why Norway is a net creditor nation while Canada is mired in fiscal Frankenstein-ish policies now like we were when dinging up ridiculous levels of national debt in the glorious neoliberalized 1980's and 90's.

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

I think the other provinces could get ahead by looking to Quebec for an example of how to do things, not just in terms of the immediate issue at hand (early childhood education) but on a plethora of issues... not least of which would be lease law and anti-scab legislation. I am frequently disappointed in the provincial sections of the NDP who seem unwilling or unable to look to Quebec when trying to form policy... just because there is not a provincial section there should not prevent everyone else from looking for good examples of progressive legislation.

Lord Palmerston

 

Fidel wrote:
But Norway taxes marauding transnational fossil fuel companies to the hilt.

Good for them.  They also have higher consumption taxes than Canada.

Fidel

Lord Palmerston wrote:
 

Fidel wrote:
But Norway taxes marauding transnational fossil fuel companies to the hilt.

Good for them.  They also have higher consumption taxes than Canada.

But oil is all they have to export in the way of valuable fossil fuels. Canada is the second largest country in the world exporting more oil and gas to the States than any other country including Saudi Arabia. And we're a net exporter of cheap to produce hydroelectric power to corporate America. Massive amounts! The Yanks are not going to be turning their noses up at our oil and gas siphoned south through pipelines paid 90% for by Canadian suckers, I mean taxpayers. Iow's, we have options the Nordic countries do not have, and we have massive, simply massive amounts of elbow room for creating a made in Canada natural resource tax regime - the most efficient and greenest natural resource tax regime the world has ever known. And not only that, it would be good for the environment to replace the neoliberal stooges in Ottawa and own up to our Kyoto obligations to the rest of the world with helping curb corporate America of its voracious appetite for cheap Canadian fossile fuels. Sometimes it requires a made in Canada, thought out by Canadians policy and entirely unique to Canada's situation.

I agree with Andrew Jackson when he says there is no fiscal crisis in Canada. It's all in their heads. Puerto Rico du Nord - that's the plan.

hsfreethinkers hsfreethinkers's picture

I think this push for institutional daycare / ECE is misguided. Consider this article: [URL=http://www.stratletter.com/dec10speech.html]Secure Children – Secure Parents – The Role of Family in the 21st century[/URL].

 

Introduction wrote:

1) Sweden’s family policy exclusively supports the dual earner household with children in day care. Today 85% of all 1–5 year olds in Sweden are in day care. The policy is possible through tax laws making it hard to support a family on one salary, and by high subsidies to day care with no national support to home parents after parental leave. The official reasoning is that adults are happiest at work and children happiest in day care, to put it bluntly. ...

Swedish family policies during the last 30 years have resulted in insecure children and youth, stressed adults and lower quality parenthood. As security in children is a strong social legacy, it is a negative spiral.

Our children need more time with their parents – most parents also need more time with their children. This calls for a new view on family in Sweden. This calls for political action.

hsfreethinkers hsfreethinkers's picture

Quebec is mentioned in that article as well:

Quote:
A miniature Sweden was created when Quebec in Canada introduced collective day care according to the Swedish model. The effects were researched and the three researchers wrote the following:
Finally, we uncover striking evidence that children are worse off in a variety of behavioral and health dimensions, ranging from aggression to motor-social skills to illness. Our analysis also suggests that the new childcare program led to more hostile, less consistent parenting, worse parental health, and lower-quality parental relationships.
This is uncomfortably similar to the situation in Sweden.

Fidel

I think it's an apples and oranges comparison between the provincial setup in Quebec and top-down social democracy in Sweden.

Sweden is a competitive social democracy that has near fully realized the principle of universality.  Quebec daycare fails both the vertical and horizontal equity tests according to Canada's Stephen Gordon, professor of economics.

Unionist

Yeah, that socialist ECE in Quebec really screws kids up. They belong at home with their stay-at-home moms. Thanks for the timely warning hs.

Fidel

And it's not really the Quebec government's fault that they are looking at raising tuition fees for PSE and jacking up everyone's light bills. They have to make up for the money they've been short-changed by their neoliberal friends ruling in Ottawa.

hsfreethinkers hsfreethinkers's picture

Unionist wrote:
Yeah, that socialist ECE in Quebec really screws kids up. They belong at home with their stay-at-home moms. Thanks for the timely warning hs.

That sounds a little sexist. Yes, I do think young kids belong "at home" (vs institutionalised with ~30 same-age kids) with their father or mother. That's why I'm a stay-at-home Dad and I'm homeschooling my kids.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

hsfreethinkers wrote:

Unionist wrote:
Yeah, that socialist ECE in Quebec really screws kids up. They belong at home with their stay-at-home moms. Thanks for the timely warning hs.

That sounds a little sexist. Yes, I do think young kids belong "at home" (vs institutionalised with ~30 same-age kids) with their father or mother. That's why I'm a stay-at-home Dad and I'm homeschooling my kids.

It is nice for you that your spouse earns enough to support your family. However your ideal situation is not achievable for many young Canadian families who need to work 3 to 5 jobs per couple to stay afloat. With child care expenses reduced they may be able to reduce that to 2 or 3 jobs but for the vast majority of families a single income job that can pay all the bills is merely a dream much like winning the lotto.

Unionist

Are we actually going to have a debate as to whether Canada needs universal public child care and decent schools, as opposed to leaving one parent (duhhhh, it'll be the mother 95% of the time) out of the workforce and institute home schooling?

Please.

 

hsfreethinkers hsfreethinkers's picture

Unionist wrote:

Are we actually going to have a debate as to whether Canada needs universal public child care and decent schools, as opposed to leaving one parent (duhhhh, it'll be the mother 95% of the time) out of the workforce and institute home schooling?

Please.

No, we are not. I'm saying our wealth should be shared more evenly, so that families have this option. I'm also saying I don't think it is healthy for kids or families to have young kids institutionalised for extended periods of time. That's my view, and I'm not alone in that view. I'm not saying everyone should homeschool or that we shouldn't have childcare options for those who need it. We ought to strive for an economic system that doesn't require two incomes for food and shelter.

Unionist

hsfreethinkers wrote:

We ought to strive for an economic system that doesn't require two incomes for food and shelter.

Lovely. Long before we get to nirvana, we are still busy eliminating barriers to women entering the workforce in decent, well-paying, and somewhat rewarding jobs. Universal child care and decent schools go hand in hand with that aim.

We used to have an economy where one income sufficed for food and shelter. It was called Father Knows Best. We're not going back.

 

hsfreethinkers hsfreethinkers's picture

Unionist wrote:

Lovely. Long before we get to nirvana, we are still busy eliminating barriers to women entering the workforce in decent, well-paying, and somewhat rewarding jobs. Universal child care and decent schools go hand in hand with that aim.

We used to have an economy where one income sufficed for food and shelter. It was called Father Knows Best. We're not going back.

 

Well, to quote Darth Vader, "I find your lack of faith disturbing." I'm aiming a little higher than a society where two parents *must* work for peanuts, and have someone else raise their kids, in order to support a financial elite / oligarchy. Is that the NDP vision?

Unionist

hsfreethinkers wrote:

Well, to quote Darth Vader, "I find your lack of faith disturbing." I'm aiming a little higher than a society where two parents *must* work for peanuts, and have someone else raise their kids, in order to support a financial elite / oligarchy. Is that the NDP vision?

I haven't got a clue of what the NDP vision is. My vision comes from my work and the movement I'm a militant within. It's about eliminating the inequality between men and women long before we are all rich - or at least, not taking second place to the struggle for the rights of all working people. I personally consider "home schooling" to be an abomination which institutionalizes children as the property and carbon copies of the parents whose bosom they were unlucky enough to be born into.

 

hsfreethinkers hsfreethinkers's picture

Unionist wrote:

I personally consider "home schooling" to be an abomination which institutionalizes children as the property and carbon copies of the parents whose bosom they were unlucky enough to be born into.

Wow! How many homeschooling families do you know personally? Homeschooled kids are very lucky indeed, but anyway I'll leave you to your opinion. It's clearly strongly held.

hsfreethinkers hsfreethinkers's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:
However your ideal situation is not achievable for many young Canadian families who need to work 3 to 5 jobs per couple to stay afloat.

Yes, that's why the author of the article says "this calls for political action". Obviously we need to redistribute wealth much more in our society so that families have this option.

EDIT: I should add that there are lots of folks in Canada with modest incomes who homeschool their kids, so it is possible. Obviously lifestyle choices are involved.

Unionist

hsfreethinkers wrote:

Wow! How many homeschooling families do you know personally?

What difference does that make? If I say that sick kids should be taken for medical consultation rather than just looked after by parents with home remedies, you think this has something to do with how many nice parents I know?? Kids should be sent to school, period, no exceptions.

Quote:
Homeschooled kids are very lucky indeed, but anyway I'll leave you to your opinion. It's clearly strongly held.

Correct.

 

hsfreethinkers hsfreethinkers's picture

Unionist wrote:
We used to have an economy where one income sufficed for food and shelter. It was called Father Knows Best. We're not going back.

We should, except it should be "Parent(s) / Guardian(s) know best". It would be better for kids, families, society, and the environment. I really don't see why we need everyone working. Sure, government wants to maximize economic growth (environment be damned), but there is more to life. Also, it doesn't have to be one spouse working full-time or the other. For example, both could work half-time et cetera. We need to reduce the inequality in our society and change our attitudes about "work" if we are to have a healthy sustainable society.

Unionist

Yeah, I notice that freeing women from domestic bondage, or even the word "woman", didn't figure in your utopian post there. We need child care so that women have an option to get out of the house. We also need a sustained struggle for skills training, fighting against discrimination in hiring and the workplace, cultural/social/religious barriers to women playing a full role in society, pay equity, and so on. Once we have women's right and ability to work, then we fight for parents' ability to take leave to be with their kids. The labour movement and feminists are successfully waging that battle as well. But "parents/guardians know best?" No - they don't.

 

hsfreethinkers hsfreethinkers's picture

I find it difficult to see where you are coming from Unionist. I'm a very progressive person, and men and women are equal in my mind. What you describe is so far removed from my perception of reality. I don't know anyone in "domestic bondage", male or female. Haven't younger generations at least accepted equality of men and women? I understand there are workplace issues with pay equity and hiring and whatnot, but I'm not arguing against action there. It isn't one or the other. We can have equality between the sexes, less working hours, greater income/wealth equality, and a state that trusts parents to educate their children (and the state does, it's the law). It isn't utopian.

Unionist

hsfreethinkers wrote:
I don't know anyone in "domestic bondage", male or female. Haven't younger generations at least accepted equality of men and women? 

Sorry hs, I forgot to ask at the beginning of this discussion:

Which country are you posting from?

 

hsfreethinkers hsfreethinkers's picture

Utopia. Seriously, is that how you think of people who choose to stay home? They are in domestic bondage? Don't you think that is kind of offensive? That's not how I think of myself. While it isn't easy, I wouldn't call it domestic bondage. What a depressing outlook.

Fidel

In countries where social democrats have governed federally or been in strong political opposition for extended periods of time, men and women have the choice to do either.

Social democracy - it's all about having more choices.

Unionist

hsfreethinkers wrote:
Utopia. Seriously, is that how you think of people who choose to stay home? They are in domestic bondage? Don't you think that is kind of offensive? That's not how I think of myself. While it isn't easy, I wouldn't call it domestic bondage. What a depressing outlook.

I'm tired of you. The word "women" still hasn't crossed your lips. Go outside and look around.

 

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

hsfreethinkers you really need to get your head around the fact that the biggest contributor to women's equality over the past decades has been, (besides the struggles of women to improve their social status) the huge revolutionary increase in women's participation rates in the labour force. Period. What I mean is that you need to think through all the implications of that fact. The revolution isn't over.

Sweden is a very special country and simple comparisons may be misleading. For example, Sweden has successfully ended the social practice of the physical punshment of children ... in the whole society. It required a huge public education campaign, etc. Lots of naysayers denounced this as a disaster that would lead to all sorts of dire consequences. Of course, all the apocalyptic predictions came to nothing.

hsfreethinkers hsfreethinkers's picture

N.Beltov wrote:

hsfreethinkers you really need to get your head around the fact that the biggest contributor to women's equality over the past decades has been, (besides the struggles of women to improve their social status) the huge revolutionary increase in women's participation rates in the labour force. Period. What I mean is that you need to think through all the implications of that fact. The revolution isn't over.

Clearly it isn't over, as Unionist assumes it would be the woman staying home "95% of the time". We obviously have a long way to go in our perceptions of women.

Unionist wrote:

I'm tired of you. The word "women" still hasn't crossed your lips. Go outside and look around.

I'm sorry you are tired of me Unionist, but if you'd just stop misrepresenting my views and making straw-man arguments I wouldn't need to respond and we could end this thread. I'm tired of it too.

 

Unionist

Someone should move this to the feminism forum and really put paid to these libertarian twins of Stephen Harper.