|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, one hour isn't really much, that's true. But often these little things are an indicator of trends. In political terms, these kind of things usually serve as either a means of "testing the waters" for what is sure to be future expansion upon the prospective project, or a mere olive branch intended to placate an interested party. In the case of smaller constituencies (racial, sexual orientation, etc.), the latter option is more likely to be the case than the former. But when your consitituency is half th population, the former is more likely to result, whatever the original intent.
In short, it's a very positive sign, not to be dismissed. The UK is very schizophrenic on these issues, being in some ways more PC than the U.S., but on the other hand more likely to change quickly in response to new challenges (let's face it, all of America's attempts to help the people by frustrating the political machinery have not really helped us as much as the founders had hoped).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Schizophrenic is a great description of the UK's attitude to these things.
For example, on the one hand we have this initiative, and on the other, the Scottish Parliament has set up a "Cross Party Group on Men's Violence Against Women and Children". No Kidding - that is the exact title and you can read about it here.
As if ignoring every study on Women's DV rates (especially against children) wasn't bad enough, the MSP I complained to had his Party Researcher (a female) write to me to tell me that they had it "made it clear from the outset that the study would not exclude anyone"!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The term "double-think" comes readily to mind. The same exact sort of thing went on here with the Violence Against Women Act (I and II). After being ordered to include equal studies on male victimization years ago (after it was brought to eveyone's attention that American women are, as a group, safer from violence than any other segment of the population), almost none of that money actually lands where it should. My wife is working on a grant through VAWA, and can attest to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's a good idea, but I actually think it would be politically safer to give parents of both sexes the option - while playing up the idea that fathers in particular would benefit. What makes me queasy about the policy as it stands is that it makes for a perfect feminist punchline - that, (huh!) parenting suddenly becomes a paid profession when a man does it for just one hour, meanwhile women will continue having to do it 24/7 for free.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Women are always grousing about how they should be paid for doing housework. However, most every man I've met knows that all the rhetoric about the value of housekeeping is nothing more than over rated, radical feminist tripe. Certainly, any bachelor can tell you it's largely irrelevant to living comfortably at home.
One thing this hour off from work proves is that the worth of a father to his child is so valuable that it's actually worth it to pay him for his time.
Cheers, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
