Posted on 04/11/2006 9:22:06 AM PDT by robowombat
Dutch Feminazis Want to Punish Educated Mothers
From the desk of Alexandra Colen on Fri, 2006-03-31 11:49
Sharon DijksmaSharon Dijksma, a leading parliamentarian of the Dutch Labour Party (PvdA) wants to penalise educated stay-at-home women. “A highly-educated woman who chooses to stay at home and not to work – that is destruction of capital,” she said in an interview last week. “If you receive the benefit of an expensive education at society’s expense, you should not be allowed to throw away that knowledge unpunished.”
Hence her proposal to recover part of the cost of their education from highly-educated women who decide not to seek paid work. Between 2001 and 2005 the number of Dutch women aged between 15 and 65 who were out on the labour market rose from 55.9 to 58.7 per cent. Dijksma says she wants to stimulate more women to join the work force. In the municipal elections earlier this month the PvdA became the biggest party in the Netherlands thanks to the Muslim vote. The PvdA is generally expected to win the general elections next year, when the 35 year old Dijksma, who has been an MP since she was 23 and is a leading figure in the party, might become a government minister.
On her weblog Dijksma explains that her proposal is a logical consequence of the Dutch system of subsidizing students. Society finances their studies with government scholarships, hence it is only normal that they pursue a professional career or repay. “If someone chooses not to work, then there should be a substantial repayment,” she said.
Most Dutch women who decide not to seek paid jobs do so in order to care for their children. Consequently the Dutch media refer to Dijksma’s proposal as “the PvdA Mother Plan.” The proposal elicited fierce criticism, some of which was aimed at Dijksma’s person. Twice the politician started a college course, and twice she failed to complete the course: her grades were poor, and anyway, at the age of 23 she was already a well-paid MP. Angry Dutch bloggers demanded that Dijksma pay back the costs of her unfinished studies before going after the mothers. “Let the fat cow repay her own scholarships first, because that was a real waste of public money,” one of the bloggers wrote.
The PvdA website has come to the rescue of the beleaguered politician, repeating the stance that those who study at the taxpayers’ expense and do not join the workforce are guilty of “destruction of capital.” Edith Snoey, the leader of the biggest Dutch trade union, who has made a similar proposal to Dijksma’s, wrote on her weblog that Dijksma had expressed herself somewhat unfortunately by giving the impression that she was only focusing on women, while the sanction should also apply to educated men who do not want to join the workforce. However, Snoey said, Dijksma’s mistake was unintentional. The union leader added that the politician should continue the fight: “Cheer up, Sharon. Let us proceed, because we aim for the same goal: more women in the labour force.”
Since the sixties, socialist feminists like Dijksma and Snoey have refused to accept that women also contribute to the wellbeing of society by investing in children. The time, energy, money, talent, and indeed education invested in the upbringing of children produces greater benefits for society as a whole than the pursuit of individual wealth and satisfaction. Apparently Dijksma’s ideal world is one where educated people spend their lives partying and spending, while the future of society is left to depend on a generation of children raised by poor and uneducated mothers. If all children come from disadvantaged families, the state can step in to “take care” of them.
If Dijksma and Snoey were honest in their materialistic logic they ought at least to deduct a sum equivalent to what the government spends on the average disadvantaged child throughout its education (and possibly its entire life) from the amount that they are demanding back from educated mothers. Perhaps when all is added up they might decide that it would make more sense to penalise women who choose not to have children in order to pursue their careers.
Indeed, as a vital resource of any civilisation is its future generation, refusing to have children is a “destruction of capital.” What use is a market when there is no-one to participate in it? Society should allow educated mothers to raise their own children, rather than punish them.
"“A highly-educated woman who chooses to stay at home and not to work – that is destruction of capital,”"
Wow, that is shocking. I guess humans are just a cog in the socialist machine over there. What a horrible thing to say.
"A destruction of capital". Marx would be proud.
Completely logical. If the people are forced to pay for someone's eduction, they deserve to get something in return.
Take the King's coin, do the King's bidding.
You don't know much about Marx, do you?
What she says is true. It is a form of capital destruction. A real capitalist would understand this.
Besides, no one forced them to use the government subsidy. If they refuse and go to a private school, then there are no strings attached.
From each, according to their ability (Where have I heard that before?)
Just wanting the next generation of Dutch children being raised by the worst and dimmest.
The only thing this lot knows about 'capital' is that it is something to be confiscated as convenient.
What these wannabee tyrants are insisting on is quite different, to wit, changing the rules of the game after the fact.
Any real capitalist would understand this.
[blah, blah, blah]
What does any of that have to do with the claim there is or is not a destruction of capital when women don't apply their education?
Your complaints that there is no contract, etc, etc, make no difference. Money was spent to build an educated person with the expectation that that person would later give back something to society. Intellectual capital is involved here.
And even if the idea of contracts were somehow relevant, it could be argued that the expectation that the knowledge would be applied was there all along, even if only implicitly.
How many people argue for education subsidies based on the idea that it should be done as an act of simple charity? Very few people argue this. Many of the calls for public education are made with the argument that it will somehow help the economy, or produce more productive workers, etc.
“Let the fat cow repay her own scholarships first, because that was a real waste of public money,” one of the bloggers wrote.
HA! Owned!
LOL, to tell you the truth, I think even Karl Marx would shake his head over that one. :P
This is a short-sighted proposal, as it ignores the fact that many women raise children and then go back into the workforce when their kids are grown.
It's not just there, these are the socialist/communist/Marxist beliefs everywhere. To them, we're all human capital to be used and disposed of how THEY see fit.
Moreover, a smart capitalist or even a socialist would understand that there is an economic benefit to the raising of happy, well-adjusted children.
Changing a contract post facto is a classic instance of this in your case, as is -- effectively -- decreeing a non-existent condition applicable post facto, in the case of Dutch women.
There is one substantive difference between your and the Dutch womens' situation, though. In your case, a previously agreed-to benefit was changed to your disadvantage; you might or might not have had other recourse. In their case, they are threatened with confiscation of property, without any recourse (should this nonsense be enacted).
Indeed. These radical femmies need to spend a good deal of time with Captain Obvious.
Let's see...more women in the workplace means less children and eventually...less women in the workplace. Either way, it's a loser for the feminazis. Or more honestly, feminazis are losers.
To which I will append, as regarding intellectual capital:
''I want you to think! ''
''How will your gun make me do that, Mr. Thompson?''
======
Ho hum. Just another tiresome, run-of-the-mill totalitarian attempting an incognito.
From each, according to their ability (Where have I heard that before?)
From each according to their need. To each according to their ability. When you reverse the phrase, it will work.
What are they giving back to society? Children, my friend, their nation's future.
Mrs VS
Let's say that the mother learns, for example, calculus in college.
After finishing college, she becomes a stay-at-home mother and has three children.
Because she has some background in mathematics, she is better able to help her children with their math homework, meaning fewer tax dollars are spent towards those children's public education (i.e. they will not require special tutoring, coaching, etc. because they recieve it from their educated mother).
If these children decide that they, too, would like to learn calculus, they can pick it up at home, relieving the taxpayers of the burden of financing three educations - because they already paid for one.
This basic concept is applicable, so far as I can see, to all forms of knowledge - not just mathematics, but history, science, etc.
Don't misunderstand me - I'm not a big fan of taxpayer-funded education. However, education is not "consumed" in the traditional sense; once someone becomes educated, that person may pass that knowledge onto another - the knowledge is not destroyed in the process of its consumption. Thus, I don't believe that educated stay-at-home mothers are an example of destruction of capital, if they perpetuate the knowledge they gained via their education to their offspring.
Now, a person who recieves an education, and neither utilizes that education through employment, nor perpetuates their knowledge to offspring - an argument can be made that THAT would be an example of destruction of capital - but such a situation does not apply to stay-at-home mothers.
Arbecht Macht Frei. The feminazis at NOW would love to foist this on American women.
Wouldn't doubt it for a New York City taxicab minute. I **think** the tide is turning against these vermin, though, at least in parts of the country.
She'd rather leave the women in her country pregnant and barefoot than allow them to be educated.
As more and more women either join the workforce or decide to stay home and raise the kids, they eventually see through the feminist's illusion. My sister voted for X42 in 1992, partly on the appeal of Her Heinousness. By '96, she was voting for Bob Dole. She called me on election night in 2000 in a panic because the nutworks were projecting Algore to win Florida. It took 15 minutes for me to calm her down and make her look at the TV and realize that Dubya was leading.
Is that quote from "Atlas Shrugged?"
Nicely done!
Sad that they don't think an educated person is a plus for society even if they don't "work". I guess this idiot thinks that taking care of home and family isn't real "work", but a job for a mindless serf.
Mrs VS
Right. And they could just as well have done that without accepting the education subsidy.
There's no reason why it can't be used at a later date...ie, mother that goes back to work after her children are raised.
I agree. Eliminating the subsidy is the correct thing to do.
That said, most educated European women no doubt fall on the left side of the political spectrum and buy into the whole socialist philosophy. Well, now it's their turn to give back to society and they are suddenly upset. You can't have it both ways.
I think these women are getting what they deserve.
My wife is a stay-at-home Mom, and she gets plenty of static from her (liberal, feminist) friends about it. Fortunately, she's independent enough to tell them where to go.
My theory is that they're feeling jealous and/or guilty and want to drag her down in the swamp, too.
The idiot in question should speak to Mrs. Wbill. She works harder at home than I do at work.
It may be a good thing when that society finishes itself off with its child-hating, demographic suicide.
You miss the point. Of course these women are productive. The problem is that education dollars are wasted on them if they don't turn the education in something productive. That's a waste of money.
Truly education is wasted on leftwingnuts.
But they do. As an earlier poster so rightly pointed out, education is not destroyed as it is consumed like food or batteries, for instance. It remains in place and can be passed on to others (such as children) in many ways. Homeschooling is only one example of this in action.
Do they, or don't they, OVER THEIR LIFETIME, pay back, whether monetarily, or via volunteer work, community involvement, or otherwise, the "investment" of the state?
Is EVERYTHING measurable only in Euros?
Don't these same feminazis always point to charts and graphs that show 'how valuable' the work performed by a wife & mother is? Last time I looked, they were claiming in the $100-200K range. Going to let them have it both ways?
And, again, HOW much are they expected to work, at doing what, to 'pay back'?
What?!
You mean Socialism doesn't work?
/s
Having done both (stay-at-home mom & working), I can say the "home work" is decidedly more "work" because it never ends- but in another way it is "easier" because it is so rewarding. I work full time and my kids are in their late teens and do alot of housework and cooking- but I'd trade it all in tomorrow to be at home with little kids again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.