Re: [Fwd: Re: AUT: Re: child custody]

[Montyneill <Montyneill@xxxxxxx>]

I should have held my fingers in check, because we will just be reopening a
discussion we have had. Katha has her reading of wages for housework which I
believe is far more narrow than is deserved, but my arguements have not
persuaded her. Still, a couple of things:

1) Getting child support only (e.g., day care) then presumes most likely the
full-time job (now often more than 40 hours), perpetuating regimes of massive
overwork. Enough child care support so women might work half-time (e.g. 20
hours) if they chose might make more sense. But this should happen with a
general effort to reduce work time.

2) Katha offers no proposal to ease the overwork burden except male
voluntarism -- which should happen, but structured social support is
important.

3) Wages for day care workers, not for women who take care of their own kids?
(Again, K presumes women who gain such income will just stay in their homes,
which is not a necessary conclusion).

4) If we view having children as simultaneously a social and personal act, the
social involves social support -- a share of social income devoted to enabling
good care for the child. This involves in home (wherever the child lives) and
outside the home (including day care).  But I think reducing this only to day
care is, as I said, too stringent, and forces women into waged work who may
not want it but want more time to care for their kids.

Monty


     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---