March
31st
  7:20:09 AM

Maternity leave and the mummy wars

A brand new survey of what women really want concerning paid maternity leave is most revealing. Contrary to the usual line that basically all women want a paid career, with perhaps family thrown in on the side, this new Australian poll finds overwhelming support for the importance of stay-at-home mothering.

Commissioned by the Australian Family Association, the poll asked over 1000 people whether government paid parental leave plans should go to stay-at- home mothers, as well as those in the paid workplace. Some sixty-four per cent said that both groups should be equally funded.

The poll also asked whether government childcare funding arrangements should be provided equally to both groups of mums. A strong sixty-seven per cent replied that childcare rebates should go to both groups.

This survey simply confirms what Australian women have been saying about this issue for decades now. Earlier polls found quite similar results. For example, one survey of 4500 adults found that 69 per cent of respondents preferred that the mother stay home when she had pre-school children.

Australian National University research found that only 4 per cent of respondents felt that women with pre-school kids should work full time, while only 31 per cent thought they should be in the labour force part time. Another survey discovered that one-third of working women who put their infants in child care centres would prefer not to work if they had the choice.

A major Australian study conducted in 2001 discovered that while only two per cent of mothers thought mothers should work full time when their children are of pre-school age, a large majority (71 per cent) thought it best to stay at home.

A 1997 survey by the Australian Institute of Family Studies found that 83 per cent of women and 84 per cent of men believe that mothers should not work full-time, even when their youngest child is at school. Almost two-thirds of the respondents felt that families suffered if women work full-time.

The small percentage of Australians who actually use formal child care is testimony to this preference for home. Only 7.6 per cent of babies under one year are in formal care (centre or family day care), while 33.6 per cent use informal care (grandmothers, nannies). Most are cared for by their parents all the time.

Thus time and time again Australian women have spoken out about their preferences. Most really want to be with their small children in their first few years, and see motherhood as more important than getting straight back into the paid-workplace.

So why are political parties continuing to offer women only one choice here? Why are stay-at-home mums in effect penalised by governments, while non-stay-at-home mums are rewarded? Why should dual income families receive government subsidies for day care when single income families receive no or very little by way of subsidies?

Governments should not be in the business of showing partiality to one kind of mother over another. They should treat all mums fairly. This is not a call for special favours or rights for stay-at-home mums, simply equity and fairness.

It seems that there are some groups with vested interests, such as the feminist lobby, which are very eager to urge women into the paid work force. Indeed, these groups have made it clear what sort of agenda they are promoting here.

For example, in 1995 feminist Eva Cox rebuked women who chose to stay at home and said that all women should be in the market economy. Pamela Bone wrote back in 2001, “The idea that women want to stay home is being pushed by a few very privileged, conservative women writers. If the welfare of children really were their main concern they would be pushing for better parental leave and family-friendly workplaces.”

The various surveys and polls cited above of course give lie to such incredible claims. And just how exactly is being raised by strangers in the best interests of children? Talk about ideology trumping facts and evidence.

It is clearly time that politicians of all stripes start actually listening to women – and to all women, not just the radicals who are pushing their own anti-family and anti-child agendas. This latest survey needs to be flashed in front of the eyes of both Mr Rudd and Mr Abbott. They ignore such surveys at their own peril.

* Bill Muehlenberg is a lecturer in ethics and philosophy at several Melbourne theological colleges.



 
about this blog | Bookmark and Share

Search this blog

 Subscribe to FamilyEdge
rss RSS feed of posts

 Recent Posts
Housewife revival is not such a bad thing
23 May 2013
Declaration of 2013 World Congress of Families
21 May 2013
World Congress of Families 2013
19 May 2013
Rise of the stay-at-home dad
15 May 2013
Record proportion of new mothers are college educated
13 May 2013

 MercatorNet blogs
Style and culture: Tiger Print
US political scene: Sheila Liaugminas
News about bioethics: BioEdge
From the editors: Conniptions

 Archive
May 2013 | Apr 2013 | Mar 2013 | more >>

 From MercatorNet's home page

Necessary excuses
23 May 2013
“Comfort women”, carpet bombing, atom bombs, lethal drones and genocide can all be justified by appeals to necessity.

A boy’s life with unisex scouts
23 May 2013
The Boy Scouts of America will vote today on whether they will admit homosexual scouts. Will they become the Unisex…

Digital multitasking: scourge or blessing?
22 May 2013
How can we teach students to focus on what they ought to be doing?

Who or what is a “child”?
22 May 2013
Canada's Parliament lacks the courage to take a stand on defining when an unborn child will be protected by the…

We’re all mad here
21 May 2013
That's the message of the new edition of the bible for American psychiatrists, DSM-5. Diagnostic inflation is about to become…


 Tags
books, gender, commitment, texting, adolescence, youth, European Union, family values, family structure, fertility, HomeMakers Project, single motherhood, dating, friendship, same-sex marriage, fathers, obesity, character education, contraception, family, motherhood, celebrities, brain, one-child policy, child wellbeing, families, homeschooling, religion, unemployment, USA, children's health, Australia, same-sex parenting, work, modesty, young adult, media, family policy, Sweden, teen pregnancy, happiness, fashion, China, health, child behaviour, parents, women, gender equality, birth control, abortion, pregnancy, girls, United States, daycare, abstinence, marriage, video games, prostitution, sex education, pornography, economics, language, child safety, names, education, mental health, feminism, Hollywood, violence, parenthood, recession, Facebook, United Nations, child poverty, television, morality, fatherhood, polygamy, sleep, Barack Obama, South Africa, child development, divorce, media ethics, working mothers, family economics, boys, family relationships, cohabitation, Canada, ageing, education of children, HIVAIDS, sexualisation of children, work-life balance, character, emerging adults, internet, psychology, social media, ageing population, childcare, gendercide, child obesity, adolescents, teenagers, baby boomers, family breakdown, family meals, suicide, large families, internet safety, Africa, child abuse, research, Spain, poverty, homosexuality, men, National Marriage Project, parenting, parental rights, child welfare, trafficking, AIDS, immigration, New Zealand, UK, smacking, France, sexual behaviour, social networking, mothers, schools, demography, adoption, self-control, technology, teenage pregnancy, anger, children,