All moms work - Poppycock!
Well, this is interesting; Ian Capstick, the press secretary to Jack Layton, leader of the NDP believes that the idea that stay-at-home moms are also working moms is poppycock.
So let me get this straight. If I am a washing lady, and am paid to do nothing more than wash other people's clothes, that is a job.
If I am a child care giver, and am paid to do nothing more than care for other people's children, that is a job.
If I am a chef, and am paid to do nothing more than cook other people's meals, that is a job.
If I am an accountant, and am paid to do nothing more than keep track of other people's finances, that is a job.
If I am a personal chauffeur, bus-driver or taxi-driver, and am paid to do nothing more than drive other people places, that is a job.
If I am a tutor, and am paid to do nothing more than help students with their homework, that is a job.
If I am a teacher, and am paid to do nothing more than teach other people's children, that is a job.
If I am a maid and am paid to do nothing more than clean other people's homes, that is a job.
If I am doing all of the above and more, it is not a job, because it is for my own family and I am not being paid for it.
Let's take this a little further. The NDP will gladly pay for someone else to take care of my children while I get a "real job". This caregiver will be considered as having a "real job" because she is being paid to care for someone else's children. As long as you are being paid and they are not yours, it's a real job. She will not be washing their clothes or making their beds or preparing their meals. She won't really care about their accomplishments or their troubles, not like I would, she won't be driving them all over to their various activities. But her job is a "real job" and the NDP has no qualms paying for it. However, if I want to take care of my own children, that is poppycock?
I could go further and say that the best care for a child is, of course, state care. Because we wouldn't want the parents to have too much influence on their children would we? We don't want children growing up like their parents. We want to indoctrinate them in the thinking of the state at as early an age possible. But then you might think I'm exaggerating. And had anyone else said something like this 5 years ago, I might have scoffed at the notion and said they were exaggerating. I don't think the idea is such an exaggeration anymore.
The conservatives on the other hand will give all parents a minimum amount for each child admissible for child care. Therefore, all child care is subsidized, whether that care comes from a parent or someone else. So a family subsisting on one salary has as much help as the one subsisiting on two salaries, and the choice to stay at home and care for the future of humankind is considered a valuable and honorable option.
So let me get this straight. If I am a washing lady, and am paid to do nothing more than wash other people's clothes, that is a job.
If I am a child care giver, and am paid to do nothing more than care for other people's children, that is a job.
If I am a chef, and am paid to do nothing more than cook other people's meals, that is a job.
If I am an accountant, and am paid to do nothing more than keep track of other people's finances, that is a job.
If I am a personal chauffeur, bus-driver or taxi-driver, and am paid to do nothing more than drive other people places, that is a job.
If I am a tutor, and am paid to do nothing more than help students with their homework, that is a job.
If I am a teacher, and am paid to do nothing more than teach other people's children, that is a job.
If I am a maid and am paid to do nothing more than clean other people's homes, that is a job.
If I am doing all of the above and more, it is not a job, because it is for my own family and I am not being paid for it.
Let's take this a little further. The NDP will gladly pay for someone else to take care of my children while I get a "real job". This caregiver will be considered as having a "real job" because she is being paid to care for someone else's children. As long as you are being paid and they are not yours, it's a real job. She will not be washing their clothes or making their beds or preparing their meals. She won't really care about their accomplishments or their troubles, not like I would, she won't be driving them all over to their various activities. But her job is a "real job" and the NDP has no qualms paying for it. However, if I want to take care of my own children, that is poppycock?
I could go further and say that the best care for a child is, of course, state care. Because we wouldn't want the parents to have too much influence on their children would we? We don't want children growing up like their parents. We want to indoctrinate them in the thinking of the state at as early an age possible. But then you might think I'm exaggerating. And had anyone else said something like this 5 years ago, I might have scoffed at the notion and said they were exaggerating. I don't think the idea is such an exaggeration anymore.
The conservatives on the other hand will give all parents a minimum amount for each child admissible for child care. Therefore, all child care is subsidized, whether that care comes from a parent or someone else. So a family subsisting on one salary has as much help as the one subsisiting on two salaries, and the choice to stay at home and care for the future of humankind is considered a valuable and honorable option.
Comments
Post a Comment