Re: POLITICS subsidizing baby-making (was Gender)

[Guest guest]

Heidi wrote:

>I don't think a culture can be described as

> " sustainable " until a woman can have a baby and breastfeed it and

>nurture

> it without losing status or suffering economically ... i.e. she has

>to be

> able to be a woman AND be " equal " whatever that means.

Subsidized procreation is an awfully interesting proposal coming from

an overpopulation opponent.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>Subsidized procreation is an awfully interesting proposal coming from

>an overpopulation opponent.

>

>Chris

UMmm ... you are implying a lot more than I said, I think!

Look at it this way. Before this century, if you were a woman,

your job would be something like spinning, weaving, working the

garden, looking after children, cooking. You would do that work

from the time you were 7 or 8, working with your mother. You might

well do it with a baby on your hip, as babies were passed around.

Babies and young children were in the " women's part " of the camp

or village. Women usually worked in places where there were few sharp objects

or large animals, largely because of the dangers to young children.

OK, so you get married, or become pregnant and are not married ...

and now you do the same work, only now the baby on your hip is

yours and you stop and feed it every so often. Or maybe not even

stop, the baby can nurse while you work. Having a baby is no big

financial or social deal. Your body supplies what it needs.

Since the baby breastfeeds for 3 years or so, there is no overpopulation

problem.

Soooo ... we changed the paradigm. Now a woman gets preggers. She has

to quit her job, or take leave of absence, or farm out her kid to daycare.

In any case, it is a huge financial hit. Yeah, she can take birth control

and NOT have kids (if the birth control works, and if the sex act wasn't

accidental or date rape etc.). But the whole responsibility is on HER

and the financial hit is on her ... and the system basically ensures

that most kids will not be raised the way humans were traditionally

raised (by their Mom, and a Mom who is not under social or financial

stress).

You can say " well, she should do something different! " but I say, the

system is out of whack. The old system worked, for raising babies.

The new system works for making automobiles, but it doesn't make

great babies. The kids today are like the monkeys raised on wire

" mommies " ... very neurotic, not properly bonded.

And a breastfeeding Mom doesn't overpopulate .. breastfeeding tends

to ensure that babies are spaced further apart.

That you bring up " subsidizing " is the whole point: today's

paradigm is all about *economics* which is sort of a male

invention. When life was about cattle eating grass and

babies drinking Mommy milk, " economics " meant how much

work you put into the cattle and if the weather made the grass

grow right, and if Mommy made enough milk (and most women did,

it seems, in those days). Whole societies lived and thrived without

ever minting a coin or opening a bank. For millions of years.

Today a teenage Mom can't even nurse her baby, which is just

WIERD from an historical point of view.

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>

>and the system basically ensures

> that most kids will not be raised the way humans were traditionally

> raised (by their Mom, and a Mom who is not under social or financial

> stress).

>

> You can say " well, she should do something different! " but I say,

the

> system is out of whack. The old system worked, for raising babies.

> The new system works for making automobiles, but it doesn't make

> great babies. The kids today are like the monkeys raised on wire

> " mommies " ... very neurotic, not properly bonded.

>

I used to feel that stress every day, and this is something I

realized only after becoming a parent. When you have to make a

choice between losing your job and therefore your livelihood, and

staying home with a sick 8-week-old baby, you understand just how out

of wack the system is. Especially if your boss is telling you you

are being a bad employee if you stay home (what's more important

anyway? They actually try to make you make the choice between

someone's life and a job you could be replaced in in a heartbeat!).

I remember coworkers telling me I'd soon get used to my distress at

being seperated from my eldest. I'd as soon get used to being

separated from my heart. I thought if I can get that calloused, I

don't deserve him.

Then, if you make the choice to stay home, in many cases, you aren't

valued by anyone other than your kids (and your husband, if you have

a good one). And most likely have to make a lot of financial

sacrifices.

I'm glad I found a way to work from home. My long-term goal is to

make enough that I can by a small farm, like 10 acres or so, and grow

a lot of my own food. For now we are comfortable in the 'burbs,

right at the edge where we can see the fields! There is no such

thing as a non-working mom, is there? :-)

And there are also the implications of the Pottenger Cat Studies.

We're already seeing lots of both male and female infertility, and

only the better-off can afford treatment. Population all over Europe

is falling because the birth rate is so low; it would be true of the

U.S. as well except we take in so many immigrants (both legal and

not). Even China is thinking about reversing their one-child policy

as their population shifts towards the elderly with not enough people

to care for them. Given this, I'm much less concerned about

overpopulation than I used to be.

Tracey

Busy overpopulating the earth with intelligent, beautiful, moral,

properly-fed and well-schooled children (trying to offset the usual

variety)

[Guest guest]

tracey -

if you want some advice on doing this from someone who's made the

transition (namely, me!) holler you'd be shocked: you can do it for a

LOT less than you'd think!!

-katja

At 03:56 PM 6/25/2004, you wrote:

>I'm glad I found a way to work from home. My long-term goal is to

>make enough that I can by a small farm, like 10 acres or so, and grow

>a lot of my own food. For now we are comfortable in the 'burbs,

>right at the edge where we can see the fields! There is no such

>thing as a non-working mom, is there? :-)

[Guest guest]

>Then, if you make the choice to stay home, in many cases, you aren't

>valued by anyone other than your kids (and your husband, if you have

>a good one). And most likely have to make a lot of financial

>sacrifices.

>

>I'm glad I found a way to work from home. My long-term goal is to

>make enough that I can by a small farm, like 10 acres or so, and grow

>a lot of my own food. For now we are comfortable in the 'burbs,

>right at the edge where we can see the fields! There is no such

>thing as a non-working mom, is there? :-)

Yeah, that is a lot like our house! I really wouldn't trade it for

anything. It's a lot like the old farm life ... you grow some food,

buy some food, do some work for money, but the pace of life

is much, much different. I do work hard, but the added amount of

flexibility makes it ok.

I'd like to say " and I can stay home if a kid is sick " but they don't

seem to get sick.

>And there are also the implications of the Pottenger Cat Studies.

>We're already seeing lots of both male and female infertility, and

>only the better-off can afford treatment. Population all over Europe

>is falling because the birth rate is so low; it would be true of the

>U.S. as well except we take in so many immigrants (both legal and

>not).

It seems that if people have access to birth control and a decent

life, they don't overdo kids. The birth rate drop isn't all due to

infertility .... a lot of people just don't want kids. But there IS something

way out of whack. On NPR today they were talking about how ONE in FIVE

kids has identifiable mental illness of some type (ADD, bipolar, depression).

THAT is awful! My daughter was describing some of the kids in her class

and they are rather problematic ... most families seem to have major

problems with the kids (like autism, ADD, or the kid threatens to kill

the parent on a regular basis, and means it). Other families I know have

kids with cancer or T1 diabetes. Major stuff. I don't know any families

offhand who are just " normal " as I thought most families were when

I grew up.

-- Heidi Jean