Related article: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/946
Posted on 04/04/2006 4:57:48 PM PDT by wagglebee
AMSTERDAM, April 4, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – An MP of the Dutch Labour Party has suggested that stay-at-home mothers who used state subsidies for their education should pay the government back since their work at home is “wasted” on child rearing. Sharon Dijksma believes that punitive measures should be taken against women who choose to stay at home with children after graduating from university instead of entering the paid workforce.
“A highly educated woman who chooses to stay home and not to work: that is destruction of capital,” said Dijksma, deputy leader of the Labour Party (PvdA) in 'Forum', a magazine published by employers' group VNO-NCW. “If you receive the benefit of an expensive education at society’s expense, you should not be allowed to throw away that knowledge unpunished.”
Dijksma is reiterating one of the central tenets of socialism which says women can only have value when they are in the paid labour force and that motherhood and childrearing is a form of slavery.
This doctrine was laid out by one of the original Marxist philosophers, Frederick Engels, who asserted that the family was the original source of “oppression.” He said that only when all women entered the workforce and childrearing was institutionalized could the socialist paradise be ushered in. Engels recommended “open marriage,” divorce and sterilization.
Studies have shown that much social instability has been suffered in industrialized countries since the imposition of feminist principles that have broken up family life and left children to be raised in institutionalized day care. Since women have been forced into the labour market, marriage has been devalued and divorce rates and the number of the “permanently single” have skyrocketed in most western countries.
The online magazine, Brussels Journal, said that Dijksma wrote on her ‘blog on her proposal to penalize stay-at-home mothers saying that it is only natural that educated women should either work or pay the state back. “If someone chooses not to work, then there should be a substantial repayment,” she said.
The number of women in the Dutch workforce rose from slightly under 3 million in 2001 to nearly 3.2 million in 2005. Between 2001 and 2005, the number of Dutch women in the workforce between 15 and 65 who were in the workforce rose from 55.9 to 58.7 per cent.
Read Brussels Journal commentary:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/946
So are you saying a mom should not be educated or that the state should not pay for that education?
Related article: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/946
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.
“Let the fat cow repay her own scholarships first, because that was a real waste of public money,” one of the bloggers wrote.
LMAO!! My favorite quote of the article.
Basically it would convert an education grant into an education loan if the person doesn't actually make productive use of their taxpayer subsidized higher education. There are men too who will study, get a degree and never make use of that degree in that field. Perhaps any publicly funded grants they are awarded should also be converted to loans.
The same socialists that believe that big government can change the weather, also believe they can reengineer human nature. Their ultimate Utopian accomplishment will come when when they have, through a massive government effort, reached for the benifit of all mankind, that illusive pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
For a good look at socialism given free reign to take the burdon of raising children from the productive worker, check this out:
http://www.cnd.org/HYPLAN/yawei/orphan/index.html
I've been told that I'm wasting my education staying home with my children. When people say that, it tells me a lot about their values.
The Dutch are pathetic. I have relatives by marriage who are cutting and running from Holland. I hope they do not come here. We already have enough gutless weenies. I think Holland has about 10 years left as a non muslim country, 5 if Iran stays around with an A bomb. I espect the True Believers to stop paying or collecting taxes under laws passed by the dhimmis. Once it is realized that the weak government has neither the will nor the means to collect the money, the end will come fast.
There is nothing wrong with an educated population, in this case we're talking "highly educated" women. But when those women have their higher education paid for by tax dollars and don't move into the working world, what do the tax payers get out of the deal? Why should they pay for just a few select to be highly educated mothers and not all women? If they don't use the education, the grants should be converted to loans just like all those who couldn't get grants must carry loans as a burden of their becoming "highly educated."
This isn't about basic education which benefits all by (in theory) keeping you from turning to crime, off welfare and into a contributing member of society on some level.
If the socialists are going to provide free college education with no strings attached, then it's none of their business what the recipients do afterward.
While I am no fan of the socialist gravy train, I don't think a case can be made that women who don't use their education outside of the home are wasting it any more than women who enter the paid labor force. Actually, I'd argue that society benefits from having well educated stay-at-home mothers. Of course this education does not necessarily need to come from university, but I certainly do not believe that women who earn a degree and then become stay-at-home mothers are wasting their eduction.
If government is going to take money from its citizens, it better give a meaningful ROI. Grants should be very carefully managed and if you don't offer ROI on education grants than you should have to pay back what you've taken on the premise that the taxpayers may get a great new teacher, or chemist or microbiologist for their investment not an overeducated liberal-cause loving soccer mommy.
Fine. They can pay their own way like the rest of us and then elect to stay home. Just don't take free tax dollars to do it.
Ms. Dijksma apparently does not care if the Netherlands was overrun by the Islamofacists. Then again she probably views a two parent family as "child abuse" (a favorite line of feminists and Phil Donahue 15 years ago).
“A highly educated woman who chooses to stay home and not to work: that is destruction of capital”
Welcome to the future everyone. An entire generation of leftists have had their way to redistribute the earnings of hard working citizens to fulfill their dream of utopia. Now we are about to enter Phase 2...where leftists will make judgments on how everyone should spend "their" money.
Coming to a Congressional session near you...
Oh they understand it. That's why they're agin' it. They know that traditional values are antithetical to both the aims and means of socialism.
So homeschooling is *throwing away my education*? I don't think so. I was a much better teacher to my kids for it and they got a much better education for it. When I finished up my degree, I hadn't even heard of homeschooling so it was not a factor in getting my degree but it sure paid dividends I didn't expect. It gave me the opportunity to better prepare my kids to be successful, productive members of society.
ping
No,I am a highly-educated stay-at-home mom, ok? I also wonder if some of the noise about this is that the state pays full tuition/ as they do in Germany. Just gathering data, you know...
btt
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.