It is obvious that you don't understand the importance of breastfeeding or the demands of time it makes on the mother. Please read "The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding" by La Leche League.
Many women can work (in paid employment) during the last few months or pregnancy but during breastfeeding (up to 2 years if possible per child) they should not be separated from their babies. So if a woman has 2 children, that is four years, not counting any time off during pregnancy. Breastfeeding is important to prevent allergies, obesity, gastro and respiratory tract infections in babies and uterus problems and breast cancer in mothers.
With computers many women can now do paid work from home without leaving their babies. These are the lucky ones, but those working in factories or shops are not so lucky. You are just looking at the world of employment/family from a middle class perspective, forgetting the real working class, the single mothers etc. who don't have the luxury of debating sex roles but have to "do it all", often by themselves. It is for these women we stress the importance of marriage, of fidelity, of supportive husbands.
While you talk in theory of a working day of 2 - 4 hours, the reality is that career women are rushed from morn till midnight. Technology has made our lives (both men and women) faster and more harried - we are never free from the mobile phone, the laptop, the blackberry.
Perhaps if nuclear fusion works out and we get free clean energy, your utopia of short working hours may arrive - in the meantime nothing is so good for happiness as a supportive protective husband or a loving motherly wife.
Hello again, Babette,
It does not follow that since breastfeeding is healthy that women should be confined to the care and nurture of their young. This obligation can be fulfilled following the rule that: "they should not be separated from their babies." After all, there are many mothers who are actually only surrogate mothers, carrying a child to birth with the genetic material of two other people. In this case, a law stating that a mother should be with their child would be questionably interpreted, as who is the mother?
Even though this is an unusual case, it shows the extremes of relationships that can develop in the raising of youth in society. Nor is it impossible for a genetic mother of a surrogate-carried child to induce breastfeeding. Or, even beyond that, it's possible for a mother to be provide breastfeeding and proper mothering, without being "unseparated" from their baby during this entire period. That is the issue: the family structure does not absolutely fix roles of nurturing in favor of men or in favor of women. A child ought to have as many positive, community influences as possible. If the laws you suggest aren't for everyone, and just one gender, they're going to be assumed to be Sexist; not just because they discriminate, but because they are growingly incompatible with the way people are living today.
About the economy, and the possibility of a two to four hour day, perhaps you misunderstood me. The problem is not the technology, the lack of capital, or the profitability of employment. Everywhere, there are decaying factories, mines, and buildings, as well as fields left unploughed, universities left underfunded, and hospitals left understaffed. You are right that the single, working-class mothers suffer most miserably under this system. That is, they suffer under the Capitalist system. The solution is not "of marriage, of fidelity, of supportive husbands." The solution is to completely abolish our social organization in favor of a world where everyone has everything they need for their full social, intellectual, and emotional development.
That is to say, nothing short of revolutionary collectivism. After all, if a single family in 1870 could grow enough to feed one hundred families, with minimal technology, then why is it impossible today, for someone to work 1/100th that amount of time, and to feed themselves? That would amount to a 15 or 20 minute workday, but this is even without massive improvements in machinery, fertilizer innovation, and crop rotation. If there is a reason why people are hurried at their jobs, why they must accept eight hours a day with another two four transit, it is because it is beneficial to the Capitalist class.
Margaret Sanger and the working class mother's movement fought the use of child labor in American factories and mines, because it deformed children, taught them vice, and discouraged them from being honest and hard-working. The reason why child laborers were used is the same reason why conditions today at work are incompatible with those who want to be mothers: because it is profitable. The problem is that profit directs our social organization, instead of something like the common interest of all. Likewise, something like "legally enforced supportive husbands" is just a Band-Aid on the entire problem. After all, imagine that you get your reforms you want.
Is it going to mean that single mothers have a greater selection of inexpensive juices that don't contain toxic elements, like high-fructose corn syrup? Is it going to mean that the children will be exposed to all opportunities of educational and cultural development? Is it going to mean that the family can afford media that isn't dumbed down and filled with subtle messages to encourage spending and corporate loyalty? No. All of these problems still exist, because of the profit of the very few. After all, if one family can grow enough to feed 100 families, why has the situation reversed itself, once all of the property and land came into the hands of a very few? Clearly, the problem is not "finding supportive husbands." It is a system of exploitation that drives people between poverty and desperation.
You clearly don't understand that we don't suggest laws compelling women to be with their babies and breastfeed them. We just women to have the choice and not to be economically coerced into going back into the paid workforce before they want to. WHO recommends breastfeeding for 2 years or more, but few mothers breastfeed fully after six months. Why?
I am appalled you quote Margaret Sanger - she was the most atrocious racist and eugenist and wanted to eliminate the poor and "coloured" races (of which I am one, Indian by birth).
Your collectivism is just pie in the sky - tried in the Soviet Union with dreadful mass killings and oppression. It is Capitalism which has enabled a few farmers to grow enough food for the country. In the USSR they had appalling famines which killed the kulaks and Ukrainians. I am not for unbridled capitalism. Read some of the papal encyclicals before you next email me, and then you might understand where I am coming from.
Hello again, Babette,
Yes, I understand this. But, when you make laws that apply only to women, then you create a social situation where women become coerced. The law facilitates and encourages particular behavior roles for specific genders.
Yes, she was such a racist that she was honored by Martin Luther King for her achievements and accomplishments to humanity. After all, she was one of the first to open up health services to those who had been neglected and hated by the system. Her eugenics, too, she has said was not meant to be implemented by law, but by the decisions of the mother. She did not fight to "eliminate the poor and 'coloured' races." This is the stated position, actually, of the US government's Drug Enforcement Agency, which stated in 1938 that the poor and ethnic minorities are responsible for bringing drug use into this nation.
If you're so offended by those who are racist and want to genocide the people, don't spend your breath on the first free healthcare provider to the poor and black. Fight to abolish the United States government (which, in fact, seems to have done more against minorities than Margaret Sanger).
That's funny. "Pie in the sky." That phrase comes from Joe Hill's song, "You'll get pie in the sky when you die -- THAT'S A LIE!" It's funny, because you're quoting someone who said that your religion is a joke, and, instead, you're using it to describe the system that Joe Hill believed in: revolutionary Communism. Ironic. Anyhow, the Soviet Union definitely was not Communist. It was Capitalism, organized by the state, instead of organized by the aristocracy or private investors. The Levellers in the 1600's were a Communist movement. The Spanish Syndicalists, the "Free Territory" Makhnovitsi, union struggles, and cooperative movements -- these, too, are Socialist movements. But, you believe that the Soviet Union was Communist, because it described itself as so. It also called itself Democratic. Would you believe that, too?
As far as the papal encyclicals go, the Catholic Church's position on Capitalism is more than well-known. The church has been the world's greatest owner of slaves, the world's greatest supporter of Fascism and Bolshevism. Its priests fought for Lenin, when Lenin promised them special aristocratic privileges. (See "Seven Years in Russia and Siberia," by Roman Dyboski.) And the Spanish Fascists gained most of their power from the landed elite. The biggest landowner in Fascist Spain was, of course, the Catholic Church. (See "The Spanish Civil War," edited by Gabriel Jackson.) Even recently, in Mexico in 2006, employees of Catholic-owned businesses went on strike, and the military was opening fire on crowds of women and children. When they banged on the church doors for refuge, the priests denied them entry. (See "Teaching Rebellion," by CASA Collective.)
As far as Catholicism goes, there is no other system in this world that is as much pro-Capitalist and pro-class collaboration. I can see why you want there to be splitting of income between men and women now. It's because the Capitalists always pay women less, and they'll do whatever they can to minimize the income of the workers altogether. Or, as Adam Smith put it, "Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate. To violate this combination is everywhere a most unpopular action, and a sort of reproach to a master among his neighbours and equals." ("Wealth of Nations," Book 1, Chapter 8.)
So, of course it makes sense to pass legislative for husbands to split their income: because workers are earning so few crumbs that families would starve if income-splitting wasn't mandated. You could have hoped for something better, though, for everyone and for eternal generations, if you could have abandoned faith in private mastery of the economy. Or, if you disagree, which papal encyclical would correct my interpretation?
You are talking more rubbish than usual. I have never suggested laws to coerce women to breastfeed or have any other "stereotyped" role. I recommend they breastfeed and suggest economic policies to enable them to do so, it is in their own interests (as well as the babies') as it reduces the risk of breast cancer, the biggest killer of pre-menopausal women.
You clearly have not read the sayings of Margaret Sanger - she started clinics for birth control of blacks - so there would be fewer of them. The Catholic Church does not recommend birth control for anyone, black or white. If Martin Luther King revered Sanger, it must have been in one of his plagiarist moods.
And that's nonsense about the USSR not being communist. Don't waste my time by using terminology that no one else uses. Go tell Putin and Gorbachev that the USSR was not communist/marxist - or tell their former colonies, the Baltic States etc.
As for the Catholic Church owning slaves, don't insult my religion and I won't insult yours whatever it is.