03 February 2006
Increased state provision of free childcare could reduce the choice available to parents, employers say.
Blah blah, some stuff about childcare, etc.
What is most infuriating about this article is the revelation that:
State funding for childcare will have risen from £1.1bn in 1996-97 to around £5.5bn by 2007-08.
Bloody hell! Over five-and-a-half billion pounds of taxpayers money to pay people to look after other people’s children. God forbid any women have to care for their own children eh? No, us taxpayers will cover it, no worries.
Bear in mind the NHS is going down the drain because of a £620m shortage. Yet we’re spending many times more than that so that women can dump their babies with strangers and clear off to work. I wouldn’t mind it so much but the jobs women dominate these days are largely pointless clerical ones, and when they do invade “male territory” like I.T. it’s usually in a half-arsed unproductive, “oh, but I can’t work weekends or evenings, or during school holidays” kind of way.
Also, note the major double-standard of feminism when it comes to childcare. They insist that (at the expense of taxpayers) women should not have to be lumbered with looking after their own children, and indeed children are somehow better off being raised in crappy daycare centres by young childcare workers whose only qualification is “Well, I looked after me little bruvver once, the one who fell into a pan of chip-fat, like, innit?” instead of by their mothers. This despite studies showing young children bought up in childcare are generally more miserable and/or aggressive than those raised by their own parents or close relatives.
But then, after insisting children are perhaps better off without their mothers, feminists demand that women should have automatic custody in divorce cases because children “belong with their mothers.”
Feminists would prefer children to be raised by the state. If not, by mothers.
Anyone but fathers.
posted by Duncan Idaho @ 6:54 PM