On his show today, Roy Green had an interesting segment discussing Hilary Rosen’s recent tirade against Ann Romney and all other stay-at-home moms:
What’s interesting is that Ms. Rosen’s narrative was simply a coarser version of much that has been said here in Canada by proponents of the Liberal Party’s “Early Childhood Learning and Care” plan. Anyone who dared disagree with their plan to have as many young children as possible raised during the daytime by unionized childcare workers was roundly criticized by the Far Left as being “uncaring”.
Look no further than the Liberals’ platform on their website (PDF) to page 23 and you’ll read this:
Every child in Canada deserves the best possible start in life and a comprehensive approach to learning in Canada must begin with Early Childhood Learning.
A bit later on is this:
A Liberal government will establish a new Early Childhood Learning and Care Fund that will begin with $500 million in the first year, rising to an annual commitment of $1 billion by the fourth year.
. . .
The long-term goal is a high-quality, affordable early childhood learning and care space for every
Canadian family that wants one.
And the amount provided to families who wish to raise their children themselves? Zero. Social re-engineering at its socialist finest!
Isn’t one of the core problems in Western society lack of reproduction?
Wouldn’t this be something that could be addressed by encouraging, or at least putting on an even playing field, stay-at-home moms?
It would give me a great deal of schadenfreude to see a society populated by neo-feminist womyn (and their enabler husbands) breed itself out of existence.
I have 4 children , all grown up now. two grandchildren as well.
never did I hand them to the state. my wife was a stay at home mom. why there is such a classification should be a bigger mystery.
Just part of the overall effort to grow government in all directions at all times. There is nothing that couldn’t be done better by a unionized government employee.
You simply can’t brainwash the children properly unless you can start to mentor them while they are very young. For proper social engineering, the system must “co-parent”. Parental values have no place in the mind of a young child and unless said parents have a degree in the social sciences and/or gender studies , they simply have no business questioning the carefully laid out agenda by the experts. Never EVER question the “experts” as they have a Union.
The saddest part is this is part of a election platform that many parents demand. Pay now or pay later. Many will live to regret the demand for another “freebee”. When stay at home mothering comes under scrutiny we should know we are in trouble as a society. Maybe we need a counter Union, or some time to ponder where we are going in this nanny state.
Well, well, well, there just happens to be a group of common sense Canadian women, who have always recognized the value of motherhood and of women who stay home with their children (while understanding that many women have to make other choices). The founder, and still active leader of this group, is both a lawyer and was a stay-at-home mom of five—and she and her group have been treated just like Sarah Palin by the elites of this country for the past thirty years. Of course, I’m talking about REAL (Realistic, Equal, Active for Life) Women of Canada and the indomitable Gwen Landolt.
Here’s REAL Women’s equitable and “pro-choice” take on childcare:
“REAL Women of Canada is concerned about women and the care and well-being of the family. We believe the ideal situation, even in a changing world, is that every family, who so chooses, would be able to look after their children in their own home. This means that women should have a genuine choice, financially and socially, to remain at home as full-time mothers, if they so choose, especially when their children are young.
“In our policy on tax reform, we have proposed specific changes to the tax base to offer this choice to women. A full-time mother makes a magnificent contribution to society and this must be recognized and acknowledged by society, both socially and financially.
“We do not support the premise that women who stay at home to raise their children are not being fulfilled. . . .
“REAL Women of Canada recognizes that today, because of economic necessity and social pressures, paid child care is often an essential and invaluable service. . . .
“REAL WOMEN OF CANADA does not support the concept of universally available, government subsidized day care. . . .
“We believe, therefore, that child care funds should be paid directly to the parents to allow them to choose the kind of care of their children, whether home, private or institutional care. Equal child care tax credits should be paid to parents regardless of which type of care they choose — whether home care or substitute care.
“Child care funds should provide for a flexible system. A flexible plan should, however, reject a policy of so-called ‘national standards’ which would result in the elimination of private arrangements such as family members, church based or neighbourhood arrangements which may be preferable for some families. . . .”
Read the rest at:
http://www.realwomenca.com/page/statechildcare.html
Interesting, isn’t it: REAL Women is truly “pro-choice” when it comes to moms, their kids, and being home together. The feminists: “NO-choice”. Typical.
I have great respect for Ann Romney, what she does is more difficult than anyone gives credit for.
I mean, it must be really hard to be a stay at home mom when you have so many homes.
But seriously. This whole “controversy” is just a joke to me. If anything this is a “tirade” (like half a sentence, ffs) against the rich, not moms.
The whole thing is non-story turned manufactured political posturing, exactly as the left has done countless times (Zimmerman, anyone?) The sooner I have to stop hearing about this garbage, the better.
From what I can glean from bios of Hilary Rosen, is that the only children she had was adopted twins, so she has zero experience of the labours Ann Romney went through giving birth to 5 children.
So Hilary Rosen, I say to you, STFU!
As a stay at home mother from the 60’s we are very pleased and proud of our children.
The $6 a month family allowance we got at the time and now my $64 CPP (from later partime work) tells the story. My husband worked full and part time jobs to provide for us in lieu of me working. No food banks or entitlements in those days. We earned everything we have. I wonder down the road if we find out these govt. run daycares, etc. will have the same flaws that we have found out happened at the residential schools. We hope not. Full time parenting is stressful at times but very rewarding.
@Mary
If you want to know what the daycare generation will be like, just check in with the hippy commune spawns of the flower children. Not so good.
Great discussion on Adler.
As a SAHM thru the growing years, and a long time member of REAL Women, I can vouch for what lookout is saying. It was very encouraging to me to find REAL Women years ago… and to know we could actively influence policy to help parents choose to have one stay home. Now my daughter is making the choice to stay home with our grandchildren.
We are seeing some changes but we have a long way to go.
We are struggling against the nanny state mentality of cradle to grave interference.
Hillary Rosen’s comment was monumentally stupid…but I shouldn’t pile on as she is being abandoned by anyone with a functioning cerebellum.
Dang…those brick bats hurt…!
But then for a time, I was a stay at home DAD, so Hillary can put that in her pipe and smoke it too.
So ensuring that your child is a well grounded functioning individual isn’t in society’s overall interest? News to me…
And the state enthusiasts are going to come along and have the temerity to suggest that they can replace the parent saying to a child:
“I love you.”
is the height of arrogance.
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
I don’t begrudge anyone for putting their child into daycare if they have to. For example, I know many single moms without rich ex-husbands who HAVE TO work to support themselves and their kids. That’s a perfect role for daycare.
But with the Liberals’ plan there is no “means test”. Anyone can take advantage of low-cost daycare. That means a poorer family, say making $35,000 per year in total family income who decide that it’s best for the mother to stay at home while the children are young, would have their tax dollars subsidizing a couple making $300,000 a year who choose to have their children in daycare.
As for *who* is criticizing stay at home moms, I must say that in my experience, 99% of the time it’s women who work and have their children in daycare. The vile, nasty comments I’ve heard some of these women make towards SAHMs has been truly appalling.
No big shock, here’s what the Tommy Two-Step Mucliar’s NDP are proposing:
“•We will work with the provinces and territories to establish and fund a Canada-wide child care and early learning program, enshrined in law”
Merger? Why bother they already occupy the same ground.
@ peterj 9:31 PM
You simply can’t brainwash the children properly unless you can start to mentor them while they are very young.
The Leninists who have infiltrated the Public Schooling system are 360 degrees in sync with their messiah.
“Give us the child for 8 years and it will be a Bolshevik forever.”
Vladimir Lenin
I don’t think people are offended enough by useless toffy-nosed wanks like Hilary Rosen and the Liberal party. Some moron has declared you incompetent as a parent and you’re fine with that? Is that how you see yourself? If so, then the slurs and the proposed plans are no big deal. If not, tell them to cram it.
There must be a National Cram It Day for such purposes.
“The long-term goal is a high-quality, affordable early childhood learning and care space for every Canadian family that wants one.”
I’ve asked this before, and I’ll ask it again:
When does government ever provide “high-quality” anything?
Mary @ 10:22 p.m.: “I wonder down the road if we find out these govt. run daycares, etc. will have the same flaws that we have found out happened at the residential schools.”
This is the historical example of “high-quality” government schools. Why indeed should child-care turn out any different?
Yes Mary I’ve mentioned this before. Government and the RC Church did such a crackerjack job with the Aboriginal schools and now they have the expertise and experience to take all of the children into care and brainwash them completely so that when the kids grow up they wont blow the whistle on the perps. The more the Government promises to give you the more they will take away. Never surrender your family values no matter what they call you!!!
I worked in Russia. The first time I went there is was in 1994. I remember going to one of the local Magazines and there was a pile of meat in the middle of the store. It was Reindeer meat. I was there every two years or so until 2001 when I started a regular shift of five weeks on and five weeks off. I started my regular shift of 5 and 5 before Putin came to power. Even then women were given two years off for maternity and then they were expected to turn their children over to the state. When I say that it was expected they didn’t question it. For them it was a normal fact of life.
Many of the people I knew were happy when Putin came to power because they thought Yeltsin had given away the country. That may be true. The pendulum swings rather slow in Russia. I believe they have more freedom, such as freedom of mobility, but free speech has seriously has been compromised under Putin.
Let me get back to the issue of early childhood education. They get the children early so the could indoctrinate them. That’s the socialist plan. Get them early so the socialist agents can infuse their world vision on them. They continue to minimize the parents role in the child’s life.
Unfortunately in Canada there are groups (NDP) that would drop to their knees and praise a Savior they don’t believe in to accomplish the same thing. Fortunately in a free society we debate these ideas.
once we’ve put these fools in their place, concerning SAHM, could we tackle the damage done by welfare.
As welfare is probaly the greatest enabling mechanism for “single parent” families. And SPF is the greatest provider for jail fodder!!!
While REAL Women were as welcome as cockroaches by successive “tolerant, equitable, and diversity-loving” Liberal and even Progressive Conservative governments, PM Harper’s Conservatives have implemented the core of RW’s child care policy: direct monthly payments to parents for each child under a certain age, which allows some freedom of choice re child care arrangements (most parents prefer at-home care—and kids do too!), and income splitting, which, at tax time, has stopped the serious inequities that one-income families used to bear.
Conservatives: 1. Progressives: a BIG, FAT 0!
This innocuous comment got caught in the filter: I think I may have figured out why. Let’s try it:
While REAL Women were as welcome as c*ckroaches by successive “tolerant, equitable, and diversity-loving” Liberal and even Progressive Conservative governments, PM Harper’s Conservatives have implemented the core of RW’s child care policy: direct monthly payments to parents for each child under a certain age, which allows some freedom of choice re child care arrangements (most parents would prefer at-home care—and kids do too!), and income splitting, which, at tax time, has stopped the serious inequities that one-income families used to bear.
Conservatives: 1. Progressives: a BIG FAT 0!
Look what just happened! My comment got released just as I was reposting it. Well, it’s an important bit of information . . .
And I like to be able to laud REAL Women: they’ve been on the ball for three decades, critiquing the progressives at every turn, via the Supreme Court (SCC), on their own dime: the feminists and other progressives who’ve socially engineered our country almost beyond recognition, were paid by the taxpayers (Court Challenges Program) to petition the SCC; via the media—when not being blacklisted by the CBC and other progressive networks; via countless briefs to Parliament and via presentations at countless Parliamentary committees . . .
Yup, REAL Women’s “stupid”, just like that idiot, Sarah Palin . . . and others like that reactionary redneck, Ted Byfield. Of course, when their reputations are scrubbed of the dirty, progressive filters, it turns out that these cretins have been just about 100% correct! Who’d ’a’ thunk it?
>once we’ve put these fools in their place, concerning SAHM, could we tackle the damage done by welfare.
Robert, you nailed it *squarely* on the head. I honestly could not agree more. Having kept our kids at home when they were young, my wife and I both thank you very much for this post.
I sometimes think that the left doesn’t really know how to raise children, and they resent the fact that conservatives can do it successfully. Therefore they want *all* kids to be subjected to government parenting as a way of trying to normalize the playing field.
What lookout has said.
REAL Women have been the watch(wo)men on the watchtower when it comes to the family and it’s place in “modern” (aka, dysfunctional) society. The Leftard, Nanny State likes nothing more than getting a hold of our children — the younger the better: “All the better to indoctrinate/propagandize/brainwash you, my dears.”
The Nanny State also likes the tax revenues from women who work outside the home — something they can’t collect from SAHMs.
I applaud REAL Women and the CPC for recognizing the invaluable contribution of SAHMs not only to their own families but to the community at large. SAHMs are often the only volunteer parents at school events (I know that was me) and do untold good in their larger communities.
The BIG LIE, foisted on Canadians by both the feminists and the Leftists in the government and the MSM, is that women (or men) who stay home to parent their own children, instead of putting them in substitute care, “don’t work,” in fact, according to Rosen, the “perfect” spokesperson for the “progressives,” “haven’t worked a day in their lives.”
They work harder than most — they just don’t get paid — or get the recognition they deserve, which is part of the socialist agenda.
Income splitting? The Cons have *not* unfortunately implemented income splitting.
TJ, thanks, and, regrettably, I think you’re quite correct about income splitting not being allowed, re families with a parent at home. In other circumstances—retired couples—I believe the Conservatives have allowed income splitting.
IMO, families with child care needs, who have a parent at home, should be allowed an income splitting option.
How can anyone in good conscience turn their children over to a group of unionized government employees.Most of them have taken a one year course at some community college immediately after leaving high school,that is the sum total of their child rearing experience.
This is your/their idea of anti-feminism? Squacking about the need for more laws to force employers to give more maternity leave? These women are just another special interest looking for a handout from the state.
Hillary Rosen would be proud.
Cross post from Reader Tips, April 16/12:
Check out this panel, via a Power Line link.
Go to the 4:30 time and see who the female panellist is. She said she “raised” step children. Really?
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/04/14/bill_maher_ann_romney_has_never_gotten_her_a_out_of_the_house_to_work