Why the change? Up to now, I've focused my answer on liberal autonomy theory. This theory holds that autonomy is the overriding good, that paid work is the key to autonomy and that women should therefore gain maternity leave through their labour force participation.
Does this really explain why we are shifting to a system of centralised, bureaucratic maternity leave? The strength of this analysis is that it is how maternity leave is argued for in the documents. If you read the reports on maternity leave, it is usually argued for on the grounds of female autonomy and labour force participation.
However, there's probably more to it. There was an article in the Melbourne Herald Sun yesterday which reported that certain mothers' groups want all women, including those at home, to be paid maternity leave by the Government:
MOTHERS' groups and women's organisations have called for paid maternity leave for all women, even those not in paid employment at the time of pregnancy.
The Women's Action Alliance, speaking yesterday at the Productivity Commission's inquiry into paid maternity and parental leave, said maternity leave should be inclusive and funded by government.
Lisa Brick, national secretary of the WAA, said current maternity leave schemes excluded many women, including mothers at home, casual and contracted workers, unemployed and recently employed women, and those who were self-employed.
She said some models for maternity leave were too tied to the workplace and meant women often felt compelled to return before they were ready.
"We often wonder why there is this focus on getting mothers back to work when the youth employment rate is still around 15 per cent," Ms Brick said ...
The WAA said maternity leave could be initially funded by combining the baby bonus and Family Tax Benefit B, which spread over the course of a year would work out to around $318 per fortnight.
Ms Brick said an early return to work hampered women's ability to breastfeed exclusively for the first six months -- a view backed by the Australian Breastfeeding Association, who spoke at the inquiry later in the day.
ABA president Margaret Grove said government-funded maternity leave for all women, not just those in paid work, would help the duration of breastfeeding.
"We would like six months' paid maternity leave, government-paid, for all women. It would be for everybody, as the baby bonus is currently for everybody," she said.
So even those organisations which don't tie motherhood to the workplace immediately assume that mothers should be provided for through a centralised, bureaucratic scheme run by the state. Even more noteworthy is the fact that the traditional means of supporting mothers, the one that has been around for millennia, is not even argued against - it simply doesn't seem to register as an option in people's minds. During the entire maternity leave debate in this country I'm not aware of a single public figure who has suggested that husbands might work to support their wives.
What might explain this? The American traditionalist Jim Kalb recently published an interesting document in which he explains the origins of a modern technological mindset. Kalb argues that the view of reason adopted by the West is too limited:
The modern understanding of reason is radically defective, because it takes a fragment of reason, scientific reason, and treats it as the whole.
The Western view of reason, scientism, is based on a sceptical view of what can be known, with the purpose of knowledge being limited to what in practice gives power to achieve an end:
On the scientistic view, we can know only the things that modern natural science knows: things that can be observed and measured by any trained observer who follows the appropriate procedures, and things that are connected to observations by a theory that makes predictions and so can be tested, and is as simple, mathematical, and consistent with other accepted theories as possible. Since those are the only things we know, those are the only things we can treat as real.
Anything beyond that is not knowledge at all. It’s opinion or feeling or taste or prejudice. It doesn’t relate to anything real. Knowledge of the good and beautiful is not knowledge. Contemplation is not knowledge. Knowledge is experimental and oriented toward control ...
The result of this scientistic view of reason is a technologically-ordered world, in which the methods of the modern natural sciences are applied to political, social and moral affairs. The aim is to supply the satisfaction of wants according to a clear, efficient, universal system administered by experts.
You can see how the traditional, family-based method of providing for a mother fails to fit into such an outlook. It is not an application of science or technology to a social question to generate an identifiable and testable "policy", but a decentralised, non-expert method of provision based on qualities difficult to measure, standardise or control, such as instincts and emotions.
The strength of Kalb's analysis is that explains why the traditional practice, as significant as it is, fails to register in terms of public debate. People don't feel comfortable defending it in policy terms because even the pro-family people think something else is expected when discussing social issues.
It's another case of conservatives being too compliant with the settings of a liberal society. If we agree to those settings we will always lose. The terms of policy debate might be rendered technocratic by the modern Western understanding of reason, but that doesn't mean that conservatives should fall in line and limit debate to what appears acceptably technocratic.
We distinguish ourselves best when we state: the family is not a technology. It is an intensely human institution, in its nature not reducible to technocratic control. We should allow the natural, interconnected forms of family relationships to flourish, and be willing to defend them even in the setting of a technologically-ordered world.
Traditionally, the husband worked to provide for his family. Now it is assumed that the mother should be provided for by a centralised system of maternity benefits.
ReplyDeleteWhy the change? Up to now, I've focused my answer on liberal autonomy theory.
Surely Occam's Razor could have been applied here, as financial imperative is by far the more proximate cause of this phenomena, rather than vague, abstract notions of 'autonomy', whicvh are themselves dependent on wage-slavery.
Surveys consistently show that, overwhelmingly, parents would prefer the option of staying home to raise the children. However, if you take the average wage, the average mortgage, and add children to the mix, it should become fairly obvious why stay-at-home parents are compelled to return to work.
You seem to be suggesting that welfare state measures are for some reason unable to address this issue (you deride it as 'bureaucratic', which it may well be) but you don't actually posit any alternative, other than a return to some mythical, pre-scientific state of affirs.
Finally, I fail to see how this phenomenon is in any way 'liberal'. Australia's former Federal Government (conservatives) made it policy to urge mothers back into the workforce. The diktats of the market have left Australians working more hours than every before, and any attempt to curb the deleterious effects of neoliberal economics on family and personal life (i.e. whether by Government policy, industrial action, etc) is staunchly opposed by every conservative in the land.
Once again, it's a case of reaping what you sow when the market is made king.
thr,
ReplyDelete"staunchly opposed by every conservative in the land"
Having read this site, you should know that it is not the case, though I am suspicious of government trying to fix anything.
"the average mortgage"
Bingo. But I suspect we would have very different ideas on how the situation could be improved.
Making us welfare slaves would not be my preferred solution.
1 Agitating for paid maternity leave reveals a terrifying lack of understanding economic issues. Where would all the cash come from? Governments cannot create wealth only redistribute it. Wealth can only be created in a marketplace by harding working individuals. Stealing more form the hard working citizens (often parents themselves) in the form of high taxes would not finance this mess.
ReplyDelete2 "The aim is to supply the satisfaction of wants according to a clear, efficient, universal system administered by experts." A government capable of satisfying your wants can also enact your worst nightmares. I'd rather struggle along to look after my kids with my husband, making my own mistakes than have
a bunch of self anointed "experts" interfering in my private matters. This is just plain social engineering.
3 An education that instead of teaching children a few, minimal critical thinking skills actually offers outright indoctrination which has eliminated the ability of many to use reason. In math for example, 1+1 = and no amount of words change that. Rigorous proof defends theorems instead of opinions and emotions and it creates within the individual an ability to to not be easily tricked. It becomes painfully obvious in the hard sciences when you are wrong. If you engineer a car that won't run you can't talk your way out of it. This translates into an ability to recognize logical arguments from fallacies. (i.e. I had to explain the other day the fact that all advanced societies are patriarchies does NOT mean that all patriarchies are advanced societies)
Frankly if all we taught kids was how to read, some civics, and how to do basic mathematics, society might be better off. Those so inclined would learn the rest on their own and innovate along the way.
"However, if you take the average wage, the average mortgage, and add children to the mix, it should become fairly obvious why stay-at-home parents are compelled to return to work."
thr:
Compelled is not the right word. If you look at the smallest mortgage/rent and the simplest items for raising children, in America it can be done on a lot less than what the mainstream media, dictated by advertising interests would lead one to believe.
Studies have shown( and been reported by the left wing CLinton admin) that in order to live above poverty in the US one only needs: 1. Finish High school. 2. Wait until you are married to have kids and wait until at least 20 to get married. 3. Stay out of jail. 4. Take any job offered. It is actually hard NOT to do these 4 things.
Also, you are blaming the market for the actions of individuals. The market does not force anyone to buy what they do not need.
thr,
ReplyDeleteWhilst it's true that the high cost of housing is an important factor in mothers going out to paid work, it doesn't explain why no-one is willing to publicly defend the traditional husband-as-provider role - it doesn't explain why the traditional male role isn't even raised as a theoretical option by "pro-family" people.
thr, I don't understand why you should label a man providing for his family as "some mythical, pre-scientific state of affairs". It was the norm when I was growing up.
Yes, you're right that there is a contradiction in the politics of "mainstream conservatives" such as those in the Liberal Party. Some of these "establicons" consider themselves pro-family but also want society to be organised through a deregulated market. I agree with you that the two aims aren't always in harmony.
However, there is a contradiction within Marxist politics too. You speak of "wage slavery" and yet it was precisely wage slavery which the Marxists of the 1900s held up to women as an ideal.
Here is the Bolshevik spokeswoman, Alexandra Kollontai, declaring that work is more important than love:
"It is certainly true that we ... were able to understand that love was not the main goal of our life and that we knew how to place work at its center..."
Nor was the ideal of autonomy a vague, abstract notion for Kollontai. It was at the centre of her politics, as explained here.
Perhaps the reason why the traditional male provider role isn't brought into this discussion is because, in our postmodern society, non traditional families are on the rise. These can include single mums (or dads), gay couples, parents breaking up soon after a child is born etc. If we discuss a maternity scheme just for the non traditional families, all traditional families would make a fuss. A man's role as provider is still important within the traditional family- but perhaps the women would like to maintain their independence and the assurety that their jobs are kept for them. A national maternity system that penalises married women may encourage even more women to have children on their own or to not even bother getting married.
ReplyDeleteA 6 month paid maternity scheme is perhaps more for women who wish to return to the workforce after having their child. If the mother decides to stay at home, that still includes years where she will have to rely on the man as the money earner.
Anonymous
ReplyDeleteCritical thinking skills are neither few or minimal. It is easier to memorise a list of facts than it is to stimulate critical thinking in a child.
Advocating a basic education is one thing. Expecting a basic education to develop critical thinking skill is something else entirely.
Manish Ghosh
Ellie, I don't see why non-traditional couples can't also designate someone to work to earn money for the family. As for single mothers, they are already covered by welfare.
ReplyDeleteNor do you need a paid maternity scheme to reserve a woman's job whilst she's on maternity leave.
Regarding independence, there's nothing to stop a woman keeping money for herself to have a small income stream of her own, whilst she's raising children. My own wife has some shares and also receives money from the Government under the Family Tax Benefit B. She doesn't have to use any of this money to pay the bills as I'm responsible for them. So she still has spending money of her own.
So I don't think there's any persuasive practical reason for a paid maternity scheme - rather it comes down to ideology - to what kind of family arrangement is preferred.
Moderns are aiming at a genderless family, in which there are no distinct paternal or maternal roles, but rather a single parental role which is shared equally by men and women.
In the modern view, the paid work role is superior to the care at home role. So moderns think equality requires getting women out of the home and into the workforce, and men out of the workforce and into the home.
That's why moderns are often caught in a contradiction: they argue to women that a stay at home motherhood role is a terrible, inhuman oppression but they argue to men that stay at home fatherhood is a wonderfully rewarding, liberating experience of benefit to all.
Ellie, you are not going to end up with choice in this matter. Moderns will sooner or later close off the stay at home motherhood role, as they have already done in Scandinavia. You will be expected to go to work, except for the 12 to 18 months of paid parental leave - but you will be compelled to share this equally with your husband (so you will effectively get only 6 to 9 months).
It's another case of conservatives being too compliant with the settings of a liberal society. If we agree to those settings we will always lose.
ReplyDeleteI think you're right on both counts, here.
I think the concept of being paid by the guvvermint to have a baby is appalling. I'm not even really in favour of the baby bonus - I'd rather see families benefitted from lowering of taxes or at least an increase in the tax-free threshold that actually reflects the monetary needs of each family.
Most of WAAs policies are pretty good, but I'm disappointed to see them going down this road.
The tension is between wanting to see the guvvermint supporting families, yet not wanting to see it usurping the role of families.
It's all well and good, too, to be thinking of the many different forms of family these days, including the single-mother household, but using this reality as a way of usurping the role of families seems to ignore the fact that most women are *from* families in the first place. If a woman has an unexpected pregnancy or is deserted by her husband, surely her family of origin ought to be the first port of call for assistance? This kind of thing ought to be encouraged more.
it should become fairly obvious why stay-at-home parents are compelled to return to work
ReplyDeleteThis has been said by people for years, but it has only been really true for about the last 4 or 5 years, since the housing prices sky-rocketed (although it has probably been true in Sydney for much longer.
People "needed" two incomes a decade ago, because of the choices they made: had to pay off the mortgage before having babies; had to have the best stuff; had to have a 4 bedroom, 2 bathroom home instead of starting out smaller etc.
Now they really do need two incomes, because of the two-income families that have been pushing up house prices steadily.
What the guvvermint does need to do is make some basic housing more affordable for the folks who want to get into the housing market. Though I'm not sure people will be prepared to lower their expectations of what is a reasonable first home.
I am "lucky" to "be able to afford" to stay at home with my kids, because of some of the choices we've made.
OTOH, we certainly *were* lucky to get into the housing market before it went completely crazy. Any later and we would have missed out, for sure.
Lyl, two top-notch comments, thanks.
ReplyDeleteIn the modern view, the paid work role is superior to the care at home role. So moderns think equality requires getting women out of the home and into the workforce, and men out of the workforce and into the home.
ReplyDeleteIn the latest Quarterly Essay, Anne Manne shows that the reverse is true.
In any case, why shouldn't fathers be entitled to play the role of primary caregiver?
Thr, it's true that not all moderns have embraced the autonomy via work ideal. The Clive Hamilton downshifter types are an example of this. Still, the tide is definitely running with those who believe that "the paid work role is superior to the care at home role". Just look at the recent budget measures.
ReplyDeleteHere are some quotes from the Bolsheviks (Courtesy of Doug Philips at Vision forum) :
ReplyDeletehere, here,here, and here
MCB, thanks for the links. The Trotsky one is especially good - good enough for a short article I think.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, why shouldn't fathers be entitled to play the role of primary caregiver?
ReplyDeleteYeah, it's the word, "entitled" that causes some of us to twitch!
Look, if my husband wanted to be the full-time parent and if I was happy to accommodate him, by becoming the main bread-winner, then that would be no big problem, provided I could get a job. (I know families who do this).
OTOH, since we are not particularly limiting our family size, the biological reality is that I have the uterus and the boobs (that's for breastfeeding, you know), so in fact it's much more practical for me to be "at home" and Nick to be the Wage Slave.
Other families can do what they like in this respect, I just don't see why we all have to sit around waiting for The Guvvermint to look after us. Let each family work it all out for themselves as best as they can and let The Guvvermint support them in that, by not taking too much from them in the first place. For those who really are in dire straights and really have no support from family, the best forms of assistance come from the charitable giving of the community and - if we had a sensible economy - from the "guild" which the father of the family (Lord, there's an archaic concept!) belongs to. we don't have guilds, of course, because we do not have a sensible economy. At any rate, guvvermint assistance by way of hand-outs really ought to be a last resort thing. Any charitable organisation which gets any funding from the guvvermint is immediately compromised in its mission, as I well know from my involvement in church-based charities and institutions.
The Guvvermint must protect its citizens and promote families, for the common good. It refuses to do this at the peril of the whole nation.
"That's why moderns are often caught in a contradiction: they argue to women that a stay at home motherhood role is a terrible, inhuman oppression but they argue to men that stay at home fatherhood is a wonderfully rewarding, liberating experience of benefit to all."
ReplyDeleteYes this is a bit of a contradiction - in a way though, its good for men and women to have different experiences, thereby liberating themselves from what they may co0nsider as mundane gender roles. Its sortof like cooking - a lot of men enjoy it, they see it as a 'hobby' almost, whereas to a lot of women, its just another job that we've been doing for a long time.
Honestly, I would love it if any future husband wants to take time off to be with our kids. Not enough men do. This would give them the opportunity to get to know them more and allows them a relationship as close as a mother has with their children. Yes, women have the anatomy for kids and therefore there may always be a time where they need to be home, but the fathers can have a go a little later.
Mark, regarding paid maternity leave scheme- even if there's no 'specific' reason that women should have this scheme- the government need the kids even more now because of our aging population. If this helps solve this problem and allows women to be paid for a small time to acknowledge this role in society though mainly unpaid is needed and appreciated by all (because having kids is tough and proven to be a longer workday than other 'ordinary' jobs)- then why not?
the government need the kids even more now because of our aging population. If this helps solve this problem and allows women to be paid for a small time to acknowledge this role in society though mainly unpaid is needed and appreciated by all (because having kids is tough and proven to be a longer workday than other 'ordinary' jobs)- then why not?
ReplyDeleteThat's one of the better arguments for the scheme and is probably why WAA are keen on it.
From that point of view it mightn't be such a bad thing, but there may be better policies which achieve the same end without the same implied message that "the Nanny State needs to look after women and their children, because husbands can't."
The gay-marraige lobby argues that since not all married straights have kids, therefore gays should not be excluded merely on the basis that marriage is about the reproduction of genetically-related children In a way this point has superficial attraction. They then go onto argue something along the lines of 'marriage is about two people who love each other who want to commit to each other for life, and this can just as viably be two people of the same sex and the opposite sex.'
ReplyDeleteBut marriage has never ever been just about 'two people who love each other.' In all societies right throughout history marriage's purpose has been to ensure genetic lineage and property transfer inheritance.
Thus Marriage is a SOCIAL institution. Hullo? It has always been so.
It is true - at least in the West -that notions of firstly, courtly love, and more recently, romantic love have come to dominate "discourse" on marriage, but at a slightly deeper level the old structural/political streams still flow healthily.
I would like to see the move from 'loving relationship' to 'marriage' subject to a lot more consideration than it has been over the past 40 years. The idiocy with which many people I know have married and divorced would make your head spin. I know people (yes, more than one) who are under 40, on their third marraige and still have not had any children!
Unlike "the olden days" reproductive technology advances (ie contraception, abortion, etc.) and the total freedom of women to be financially independent means that for the first time in history both men AND women actually do get married "of their own free will." So it's not like in the past when women (and men to a lesser extent) were basically forced to marry somebody, anybody, or face a very uncertain and somewhat marginalised life who then became stuck in hideous marriages because they had no money, no skills, and an unjust family law system against them.
I propose that any people who marry and then divorce should be punished financially and perhaps even publicly shamed. This would stop all these twits who get maried and divorced at the drop of the hat. Also I think we should start a movement of sneering at those who get married who insist they will never have children.
Now I am an extremely liberal, tolerant, broad-minded person on a local level. My various life experiences have exposed me to transgendered peope who marry, turkey-basting lesbians, blah, blah, blah. But when I think on a social level, I am not happy with collapsing the complexties and necessities of institutions that reinforce genetic obligations with a free-for-all wishy-washy notion of 'monogamous couple love.'
As Paul Keating said, "two blokes and a cocker spaniel do not a family make."
If most gays are anything like the ones I know, these financial penalties would completely silence demands from gay men to get married, as most of them know they can't stay with the same bloke for more than two weeks!
Oops. Sorry, wrong thread.
ReplyDeleteWrong thread or not, I like the "sneering campaign" idea!
ReplyDelete