http://kidsplea.org/child-care-and-mommy-letting-the-mom-in-you-care-for-the-kid%e2%80%a6/ Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:49:07 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 http://kidsplea.org/child-care-and-mommy-letting-the-mom-in-you-care-for-the-kid%e2%80%a6/comment-page-1/#comment-1 Beverley Smith Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:49:07 +0000 http://kidsplea.org/child-care-and-mommy-letting-the-mom-in-you-care-for-the-kid%e2%80%a6/#comment-1 In the traditional economy work was only recognized if money changed hands, if goods and services produced someone paying someone. This definition ignored traditional caregiving roles where nobody pays someone to tend the kids or the handicapped or elderly but just assumes this work is their 'job' and can be done free. Obviously over time we have noticed that if we push women out of the home to get them paid jobs, suddenly we have a lot of care roles back home someone else has to do. To now recognize care of children as 'work' but only if a paid stranger does it, is consistent with the old economy but as blind. It is a huge opportunity we have to recognize that all alone, care of the next generation is vital to any society going on. We must get government to value care roles themselves, wherever they happen. The oddity right now is that we have governments willing to help fund 'stranger'care' but not care by the one the child loves. Why not? If we want optimal care for kids and the widest range of recognition of women's roles, surely we must fund care of children done by family or not. Then the family can select the care style that meets their needs and everybody's happy. The article above excludes the care option of dad, mom, grandma, aunt. It only selects strangers to the child. We must widen that range and ask government to widen its funding. Fund the child, period. In the traditional economy work was only recognized if money changed hands, if goods and services produced someone paying someone. This definition ignored traditional caregiving roles where nobody pays someone to tend the kids or the handicapped or elderly but just assumes this work is their ‘job’ and can be done free. Obviously over time we have noticed that if we push women out of the home to get them paid jobs, suddenly we have a lot of care roles back home someone else has to do. To now recognize care of children as ‘work’ but only if a paid stranger does it, is consistent with the old economy but as blind. It is a huge opportunity we have to recognize that all alone, care of the next generation is vital to any society going on. We must get government to value care roles themselves, wherever they happen. The oddity right now is that we have governments willing to help fund ’stranger’care’ but not care by the one the child loves. Why not? If we want optimal care for kids and the widest range of recognition of women’s roles, surely we must fund care of children done by family or not. Then the family can select the care style that meets their needs and everybody’s happy. The article above excludes the care option of dad, mom, grandma, aunt. It only selects strangers to the child. We must widen that range and ask government to widen its funding. Fund the child, period.

]]>