Higher expectations of husbands than fathers

September 2, 2019

Jim Rose has a post at Utopia on research by Kathryn Edin showing women are choosier about their husbands than the fathers of their children:

Far from eschwing marriage as an institution, she found poor women idealised it to such an extent that it became unattainable. they didn’t believe that a marriage born in poverty could survive.

In a society that increasingly saw marriage as a choice, not a requirement, low-income women were embracing the same preconditions as middle-class women. They wanted to be ‘set’ before marrying, with economic independence to ensure a more equitable partnership and a fallback should things go bad. They also wanted men who were were mature, stable and who had mortgages and other signs of adulthood, no just jobs.

“People were embracing higher and higher standards for marriage,” edin explains. From a financial standpoint alone, “the men that would have been marriageable [in the 1950s] are no longer marriageable now. That’s a cultural change.” The low-income women in Edin’s study reported that decent, trustworthy, available men were in short supply in their communities, where there were often major sex imbalances thanks to high incarceration rates. This, Edin found, was why low-income women were willing to decouple childbearing from marriage: They believed if they waited until everything was perfect, they might never have children. And children, says Edin, “are the things in life you can’t live without.” As one subject explained, “I don’t wanna big trail of divorce, you know. I’d rather say, ‘Yes I had my kids out of wedlock’ than say ‘I married this idiot’. It’s like a pride thing.”

Marriage was so taboo among her subjects that Edin discovered two couples in her sample who claimed they were unmarried at the time of their babies’ birth but were actually not. One of the women had even been chewed out by her grandmother for marrying the father of one of her children.

The research centred on low-income women but this mindset can also be found among women with more means.

I can understand the strong desire to have children but how sad is it that the standards women set for fathers of their children are lower than those they expect in husbands; that men are acceptable as sperm donors but not to play the important parenting role in their children’s lives?

Women don’t want to marry ‘this idiot’ but they accept them to father their children.

Marriage used to be the institution that provided stability and security for families, for better for worse, for richer, for poorer . . .   now it’s an optional extra if an ideal man can be found and fathers don’t matter much.


Maya Muses

September 1, 2019


Unintentional balance

August 6, 2019

When I saw this on Twitter on Sunday I wondered how long it would be before someone took it down.

I took a screen shot and when I checked back shortly afterwards the tweet had gone. It was replaced by another with a photo of Justice Minister Andrew Little who is introducing legislation legalising abortions.

No doubt someone realised this photo was an inappropriate one to accompany such a story.

But it, unintentionally, gave a little balance to the debate by illustrating the intellectual inconsistency of one of the pro-abortion arguments – that it’s just a bunch of cells, a fetus, not a baby.

How can it be a baby when, as the photo shows, it’s wanted and loved but not a baby when it’s not; a baby if it is lost in a miscarriage and that is a reason for deep grief, but not a baby when it’s an abortion; or a painful experience when a baby dies in utero and a simple medical procedure getting rid of some cells when it’s aborted?

It can’t but we’re unlikely to see much if any discussion of this in the media, if coverage since the news broke is anything to go by. Everything I’ve read or heard so far accepts a woman’s right to choice with no consideration of a baby’s right to life.

There is an irony that Newshub’s exclusive breaking of the news showed some balance, albeit unintentionally, with that photo because as Karl du Fresne points out  anyone looking for it in coverage of the debate shouldn’t hold their breath :

. . . As the abortion debate heats up, we can expect to see many more examples of advocacy journalism for the pro-abortion case. Overwhelmingly, the default position in media coverage is that the abortion laws are repressive and archaic and that reform is not only overdue but urgent.

But at times like this the public more than ever look to the media for impartial coverage. Is it too much to expect that journalists set aside their personal views and concentrate instead on giving people the information they need to properly weigh the conflicting arguments and form their own conclusions?

That accidental photo could well be as close as much of the coverage  gets to impartiality and balance on this issue.


How old’s old enough?

August 1, 2019

Coroner Tim Scott said that a six year-old should not have been walking to and from school by herself:

Carla Neems was five weeks’ shy of her seventh birthday when she was fatally struck by a rubbish truck outside her Gisborne home on May 2, 2017.

In findings released on Wednesday, Coroner Tim Scott said it was “unacceptable” for Carla’s parents to allow her to walk to and from school with her older siblings, and children her age should be accompanied by an adult. . . 

Coroners have a job to do which includes making recommendations that might prevent future fatalities but there is no such thing as completely safe and blaming her parents for Carla’s death is heartless and wrong.

If six, nearly seven is too young, how old id old enough for children to walk a few hundred metres without an adult in tow?

This was a tragic accident which Carla’s family, their friends and the truck driver will carry for the rest of their lives but it should not be used to further curtail children’s incidental exercise and freedom.

If children can’t walk safely to school, address what makes it dangerous, don’t blame parents and provide yet more reasons for children to be mollycoddled.


That’s not how not to be a dickhead parent

June 21, 2019

Kate Forster gives her guide on how to not be a dickhead parent:

  1. Don’t be a Tiger Parent. Don’t demand they practise until they hate the thing they’re learning. Just because you didn’t get to learn the violin doesn’t mean they want to. They will hate it and you in equal parts in the future and hold it against you. Start saving for therapy now if you continue this.
  2. Don’t push them at school. Get them to pass and teach work ethic. My kid just passed her final year but focussed on her passions. She is now going to graduate with a double degree and is starting her Masters in what she loved since she was small.
  3. Don’t go away on holidays and leave them behind. They remember. This will come up in therapy. It’s called abandonment and it’s gonna bite you in the bum one day, hard. Real hard. Keep adding to the therapy fund if you keep doing this too often.

I’m not so sure about number 3 – most parents were couples before they were parents and there’s nothing wrong with a little time away without children providing they are well looked after in your absence and you also have holidays with children.

4. Don’t lecture your kids about not drinking when you drink every night in front of them.

Children learn more from watching what you do than listening to what you say.

But it was #5 to which I said a vehement no:

5. Don’t tell your kids to not try drugs. They will. You can’t stop them. Educate them about safe choices instead.

Taking it for granted your children will do something that is illegal, harmful, even potentially life destroying; and that could restrict career and travel choices, isn’t how not to be a dickhead parent.

Not all young people will take drugs. The best way to ensure they don’t is by your own example and by ensuring they know the dangers and consequences of taking illegal drugs and that they have the skills and confidence to make the right choices before they need to.

There is no 100% safe choice when it comes to taking drugs and a parent who lets their children think there is, is letting them down.


Lumsden maternity crisis

May 29, 2019

Three day stay

May 13, 2019

National MP Louise Upston has a Member’s Bill to support new mothers:

The first few days after giving birth are some of the most important, but can also be the most challenging for new mums.

“National is proposing that new mums should be entitled to three days of care after giving birth, and that support should be available after each child.

“At the moment, new mothers have 48 hours of care funded by DHBs, but we know that they’re often encouraged to leave as soon as possible. This sort of pressure can cause additional stress in what is already a stressful time.

Many aren’t just encouraged to leave, they’re told they have to leave and often just an hour or so after their baby is delivered.

That’s not always optimal for those with support from husbands, wider family and/or friends at home and it can be difficult at best for those without support.

During the first few days after birth we know mothers can experience the baby blues, have difficulty breast feeding, can be exhausted and sometimes just need a bit of extra help while they build up confidence.

“We believe mums should have a choice in the kind of care that they opt for, whether that’s in a hospital or at a community or private facility. We would make community care available to all women, no matter where they choose to give birth.

“This policy will cost an additional $16-$20 million. It would also be ring-fenced, meaning if one mother only requires one day in care, her additional two days would be used for another mum who might need a five day stay and the money can’t be put into other areas by DHBs.

Not all mothers will need or choose to stay for three days, some will need more. Ring fencing will give birthing centres the funds to provide that extra care when it’s needed.

“National believes the first thousand days are the most important in a child’s life. We will do all that we can so kids get off to a good start and make sure their parents are supported.”

National went into the 2008 election with a promise to fund maternity services to allow mothers to stay in birthing centres until breast feeding was established should they choose to.

It came from a policy I’d pitched at the party’s Southern regional conference that was received so enthusiastically I was asked to present it to the national conference.

When I got down from the stage Nick Smith told me that sometimes good policy is bad politics and bad policy is good politics but this was good policy and good politics.

National did provide funding for the policy in its first Budget after the 2008 election but sometime between then and now the funding evaporated.

I’m delighted that this Bill will, if it’s passed, reinstate the funding.

The science is clear, breastfeeding is best for mothers and babies, if mothers are willing and able to do it.

The willingness and ability are much more likely in a birthing centre with professional help on-hand than at home with limited if any assistance.

An extra day or two of postnatal care could make a huge difference to the mental and physical health of the mother and consequently the wellbeing of the baby.


%d bloggers like this: