As posted from CYFSWATCH
In the event of CYFSWATCH being shut down by the Ministry of Social Development or CYFS, CYFSWATCH encourages anyone who shares our cause to copy the CYFS website material in total, and then email CYFSWATCH at cyfswatch@hotmail.com to advise that you have the copy. CYFSWATCH will then set up another blogsite, collect the material, and relaunch the site. CYFSWATCH is also copying all material as it is posted, however if our systems are seized by the police, we will need to have people out there who have the hard copy material for re-launch purposes.
CYFSWATCH.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Thursday, January 25, 2007
CYFS, you can't beat the Net - another tragic story.
Posted from www.aardvark.co.nz & CYFSWATCH
CYF, you can't beat the Net
24 January 2007
The website currently highlighting concerns over the culture of arrogance that seems pervasive within the government's CYF agency is now the focus of intense legal pressure.
According to NZ Herald reports, the Ministry of Social Development CEO Peter Hughes has told taxpayer-funded lawyers to "do whatever is necessary to get rid of this website" and claims "we will be working 24/7 until that is done.
Well I've got bad news for Peter, this kind of stormtrooper tactic simply is not going to work when it comes to suppressing material on the Net.
Clearly Mr Hughes lacks even the most basic understanding of how the technology, and more importantly -- the culture of the Net actually work.s
The concept of a government (or agency thereof) suppressing fact, opinion or open discussion through the rule of law has long since disappeared in the 21st century -- it just can't be done.
And today, I'm telling my story of the way CYF wastes taxpayer's money while indulging in bullying, blocking and decidedly unprofessional tactics.
As I mentioned yesterday, my teenage daughter found herself unexpectedly pregnant last year and decided that it would be in the best interests of the child, herself and some childless couple that an adoption be organised.
Now I have to say that this was a very brave and selfless decision on her part, in an era when adoptions have fallen to an all-time low and there's almost a stigma surrounding anyone who'd give up their child in this way.
However, there's just no way that a 19-year-old, in the middle of her education and without any job or other independent means of support could really give a child the opportunities and quality parenting that such kids need to grow up as positive members of society -- and she knew this.
My partner and I were in no position to contribute to the upbringing of such a child but towards the end of the pregnancy, we became aware (through friends) of a couple who would make ideal adoptive parents.
Now this would seem to be a win-win-win situation for the baby, my daughter and the otherwise childless couple involved.
This couple came highly recommended by friends and after examining their own situation and establishing that they were good people who'd simply been dealt a tough hand by mother nature, everyone appeared happy.
What's more, this couple had already applied to adopt children and had thus been carefully vetted by the relevant authorities -- what could go wrong?
Well the answer to that was (of course) CYF.
We figured that the best way to handle the whole matter was for the adoptive parents to roll up to the hospital during the delivery and take the child home with them as soon as it was declared fit and healthy.
This would avoid the situation where the mother's hormones kick in and subsequently create a strong bonding emotion with the child.
But CYF said no.
Their "policy", we were told, was that the birth mother should look after the child for a period of almost two weeks before it could be handed over to the adoptive parents.
Now this seemed utterly stupid to all concerned. Why force a birth mother into the situation where she will inevitably form a strong bond with the child before they are separated? Why make the adoptive parents wait such an interminable length of time with the threat that the birth-mother will be overwhelmed by hormones and bonding to the point where she changes her mind.
It should be mentioned right now that there is no law that forbids the adoptive parents from collecting the child from the delivery room, none at all. It's quite legal for them to do so -- but it's CYF "policy" that this must never happen.
When I asked CYF what would happen if we allowed the adoptive parents to do this the threats started rolling out.
If my daughter handed over the child in this way, CYF would oppose the adoption and a placement order would be denied. The child would be taken from the adoptive parents and placed into a home of CYF's selection.
This was made extremely clear -- if you don't adhere to our "policy" (which is *not* the law) then the child, your daughter and the adoptive parents will pay the price.
At this stage I asked why this was CYF policy.
We were told that it was because the mother needed a reasonable period of time in which to change her mind after the birth.
I pointed out that right now (before the birth) my daughter was thinking rationally, reasonably and logically. Whether that frame of mind would persist after many hours of labour and a flood of hormones was unpredictable - and that being made to care for that child over a two-week period would almost certainly confuse and complicate issues to the point where her decision-making abilities may well be compromised.
Was this in the best interests of the child?
Indeed, I asked just that question -- and got this rather stunning response:
"The United Nations has declared that the best place for a child is with its parents and if that's not possible, with family. If that's not possible then it's with someone of their own race in their own country and if that's not possible, it's adoption to a foreign country".
What the hell?
I asked why the CYF person was telling me what the UN was deciding was best for my daughter and her soon to be born child.
She repeated this little bit of canned prose "The United Nations has declared...
" Yes, it was brick-wall time!
So I asked to speak to her supervisor.
Exactly the same "I'm sorry but this is our policy and you have no choice" attitude was encountered.
I then moved further up the chain...
You guessed it -- those I'd spoken to earlier were 100% correct, this is CYF policy. Even though you may be legally entitled to hand over the child at the delivery room, it's against our policy and we will take the child if you do.
I also asked whether it would be possible for someone else to look after the child for those first couple of weeks prior to hand-over.
That would be fine I was told, it's only the (already approved) adoptive parents who couldn't do this without breaching CYF policy.
"So *anyone* else can look after the child? Even someone we just picked at random off the street?"
"Yes, that's right -- although I wouldn't recommend that" was the reply.
Hang on a minute. According to CYF policy, I could haul some potential paedophile or murderer off the street, hand over my daughter's child for two weeks and leave them to care for it -- and that's okay with CYF.
It's no wonder so many of our most defenseless kids have been abused or slaughtered while in CYF's "care" if this is their attitude.
I should mention that all during this time, we had another CYF worker trying to convince my daughter to keep her child and go on the DPB, like so many other young solo mothers.
"Why not keep the child, the government will pay you a good benefit and you can bring it up yourself?" was the message being regularly delivered here.
I thought CYF was supposed to be non-judgmental and unbiased in respect to a parent's choices?
Maybe I'm old-school or just stupid, but isn't it better that a child be brought up in a loving, caring two-parent home where there it gets a good chance at life?
Doesn't it make sense that my daughter continue her education and become a positive contributor to society rather than a drain on the public purse for the next 16 years as a solo mother, struggling to provide a balanced upbringing to her child?
At this point my partner and I decided that we had no option but to care for this child during those first couple of weeks. Now you might think that this should have been our first option anyway -- but we are/were on the bones of our arse so having my missus take two weeks off work immediately before Christmas was a major problem.
I asked CYF "If this child were placed in a CYF home for those two weeks, would that home get some kind of financial support?"
"Yes" I was told.
"So if my partner and I have no option but to care for this child for two weeks, will we get any compensation for the costs and lost income involved?"
"No" I was informed, "you are family".
Me: "What if I dragged someone off the street?"
CYF: "They could apply for assistance during that period"
I then asked "if the child were taken into CYF care for those two weeks, could you guarantee me that it wouldn't end up becoming just another victim of that care in the way that too many others have?"
CYF: "What do you mean?"
Me: "I mean abused, or killed while in CYF care"
"Yes, I can guarantee that" I was assured.
Me: "How can you guarantee that, will you be looking after it yourself?"
CYF: "No, but our carers are all approved by the department"
Me: "Were the 'carers' of those other kids that were abused or killed approved?"
CYF: "Yes"
Me: "So what's changed? How can you possibly guarantee the safety of my grandkid then?"
At which point I was told that the conversation was going nowhere and that if I wasn't happy with the department's stance, attitude or policy I should take it up with the Commissioner for Children or the minister.
That's my rather unpleasant dealing with CYF.
They *do* bully people.
They *do* threaten people.
They are interested only in following policy and seemingly unconcerned with the best interests of anyone but themselves.
They *did* say my daughter could give her child to *anyone* (even a potential paedophile or murderer) to care for -- but refused to allow the already approved adoptive parents to do so during that first couple of weeks.
Escalating complaints and concerns within CYF gets you absolutely no where, the higher you go, the greater the obstruction.
I now know why there are so very few adoptions these days and why so many young women who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant are forced into becoming solo mothers or having abortions. The amount of pressure applied to such women to become a burden on the taxpayer is intense -- they are made to feel as if they are bad people if they don't keep their kid and go on the DPB.
It's no wonder we have such a problem with youth crime when so many young women are forced into the role of parent by this pressure, at a time when they are totally unprepared and often unwilling.
Is this what we pay our taxes for?
Is this what CYF is really about? It would appear so.
Fortunately, all has ended well -- in spite of CYF, certainly not because of them.
My partner and I looked after the kid for a couple of weeks although, because my daughter was living with us, it became an intensely difficult and emotional job to give up the child. I curse CYF and their "policy" enforced under threat of "confiscation" for causing such heartache and grief so unnecessarily.
Our family is still trying to recover from the financial burden that the loss of income and other factors have created in the wake of what should have been a very simple, straight-forward and happy event.
The adoption is an open one, my daughter is able to visit her son and will always be known to him as his birth mother. The adoptive parents are over-the-moon with their lives and the child is thriving with their care and attention. I wonder what the outcome would have been if he'd gone into CYF's "care" or my daughter had been brainwashed into dropping out of her education and living in a one-bedroomed flat while trying to bring him up herself?
So I am pleased that someone else has also had the guts to raise these issues but I remain pessimistic that anything will change as a result.
Rather than admit their wrongdoings and culture of arrogance, CYF seems more interested in using an army of lawyers to suppress the truth and the revelations provided by those who have been CYF victims.
Thank God we live in an age when technology is stronger than a bunch of bureaucrats who have utterly failed in their duty of responsibility.
CYF, wake up! Put outcome *ahead* of policy and everyone will be better off.
Even if you were tempted to believe that the people on the CYFWatch blog site are simply whining unreasonably, I trust that regular Aardvark readers will consider my story to be an objective and honest representation of my own family's experiences with this "out of control" government agency.
I'm not publishing names, registration numbers, addresses or anything but that's only because I don't think it would make a single scrap of difference. Although each individual should be held accountable for their actions, the most important thing is (as with the IRD) to get rid of this culture of arrogance and abuse of public money and rights. CYF should remember -- it is not *you* who are important, it's the people you are supposed to serve!
And tomorrow we will return to our normal programme :-)
CYF, you can't beat the Net
24 January 2007
The website currently highlighting concerns over the culture of arrogance that seems pervasive within the government's CYF agency is now the focus of intense legal pressure.
According to NZ Herald reports, the Ministry of Social Development CEO Peter Hughes has told taxpayer-funded lawyers to "do whatever is necessary to get rid of this website" and claims "we will be working 24/7 until that is done.
Well I've got bad news for Peter, this kind of stormtrooper tactic simply is not going to work when it comes to suppressing material on the Net.
Clearly Mr Hughes lacks even the most basic understanding of how the technology, and more importantly -- the culture of the Net actually work.s
The concept of a government (or agency thereof) suppressing fact, opinion or open discussion through the rule of law has long since disappeared in the 21st century -- it just can't be done.
And today, I'm telling my story of the way CYF wastes taxpayer's money while indulging in bullying, blocking and decidedly unprofessional tactics.
As I mentioned yesterday, my teenage daughter found herself unexpectedly pregnant last year and decided that it would be in the best interests of the child, herself and some childless couple that an adoption be organised.
Now I have to say that this was a very brave and selfless decision on her part, in an era when adoptions have fallen to an all-time low and there's almost a stigma surrounding anyone who'd give up their child in this way.
However, there's just no way that a 19-year-old, in the middle of her education and without any job or other independent means of support could really give a child the opportunities and quality parenting that such kids need to grow up as positive members of society -- and she knew this.
My partner and I were in no position to contribute to the upbringing of such a child but towards the end of the pregnancy, we became aware (through friends) of a couple who would make ideal adoptive parents.
Now this would seem to be a win-win-win situation for the baby, my daughter and the otherwise childless couple involved.
This couple came highly recommended by friends and after examining their own situation and establishing that they were good people who'd simply been dealt a tough hand by mother nature, everyone appeared happy.
What's more, this couple had already applied to adopt children and had thus been carefully vetted by the relevant authorities -- what could go wrong?
Well the answer to that was (of course) CYF.
We figured that the best way to handle the whole matter was for the adoptive parents to roll up to the hospital during the delivery and take the child home with them as soon as it was declared fit and healthy.
This would avoid the situation where the mother's hormones kick in and subsequently create a strong bonding emotion with the child.
But CYF said no.
Their "policy", we were told, was that the birth mother should look after the child for a period of almost two weeks before it could be handed over to the adoptive parents.
Now this seemed utterly stupid to all concerned. Why force a birth mother into the situation where she will inevitably form a strong bond with the child before they are separated? Why make the adoptive parents wait such an interminable length of time with the threat that the birth-mother will be overwhelmed by hormones and bonding to the point where she changes her mind.
It should be mentioned right now that there is no law that forbids the adoptive parents from collecting the child from the delivery room, none at all. It's quite legal for them to do so -- but it's CYF "policy" that this must never happen.
When I asked CYF what would happen if we allowed the adoptive parents to do this the threats started rolling out.
If my daughter handed over the child in this way, CYF would oppose the adoption and a placement order would be denied. The child would be taken from the adoptive parents and placed into a home of CYF's selection.
This was made extremely clear -- if you don't adhere to our "policy" (which is *not* the law) then the child, your daughter and the adoptive parents will pay the price.
At this stage I asked why this was CYF policy.
We were told that it was because the mother needed a reasonable period of time in which to change her mind after the birth.
I pointed out that right now (before the birth) my daughter was thinking rationally, reasonably and logically. Whether that frame of mind would persist after many hours of labour and a flood of hormones was unpredictable - and that being made to care for that child over a two-week period would almost certainly confuse and complicate issues to the point where her decision-making abilities may well be compromised.
Was this in the best interests of the child?
Indeed, I asked just that question -- and got this rather stunning response:
"The United Nations has declared that the best place for a child is with its parents and if that's not possible, with family. If that's not possible then it's with someone of their own race in their own country and if that's not possible, it's adoption to a foreign country".
What the hell?
I asked why the CYF person was telling me what the UN was deciding was best for my daughter and her soon to be born child.
She repeated this little bit of canned prose "The United Nations has declared...
" Yes, it was brick-wall time!
So I asked to speak to her supervisor.
Exactly the same "I'm sorry but this is our policy and you have no choice" attitude was encountered.
I then moved further up the chain...
You guessed it -- those I'd spoken to earlier were 100% correct, this is CYF policy. Even though you may be legally entitled to hand over the child at the delivery room, it's against our policy and we will take the child if you do.
I also asked whether it would be possible for someone else to look after the child for those first couple of weeks prior to hand-over.
That would be fine I was told, it's only the (already approved) adoptive parents who couldn't do this without breaching CYF policy.
"So *anyone* else can look after the child? Even someone we just picked at random off the street?"
"Yes, that's right -- although I wouldn't recommend that" was the reply.
Hang on a minute. According to CYF policy, I could haul some potential paedophile or murderer off the street, hand over my daughter's child for two weeks and leave them to care for it -- and that's okay with CYF.
It's no wonder so many of our most defenseless kids have been abused or slaughtered while in CYF's "care" if this is their attitude.
I should mention that all during this time, we had another CYF worker trying to convince my daughter to keep her child and go on the DPB, like so many other young solo mothers.
"Why not keep the child, the government will pay you a good benefit and you can bring it up yourself?" was the message being regularly delivered here.
I thought CYF was supposed to be non-judgmental and unbiased in respect to a parent's choices?
Maybe I'm old-school or just stupid, but isn't it better that a child be brought up in a loving, caring two-parent home where there it gets a good chance at life?
Doesn't it make sense that my daughter continue her education and become a positive contributor to society rather than a drain on the public purse for the next 16 years as a solo mother, struggling to provide a balanced upbringing to her child?
At this point my partner and I decided that we had no option but to care for this child during those first couple of weeks. Now you might think that this should have been our first option anyway -- but we are/were on the bones of our arse so having my missus take two weeks off work immediately before Christmas was a major problem.
I asked CYF "If this child were placed in a CYF home for those two weeks, would that home get some kind of financial support?"
"Yes" I was told.
"So if my partner and I have no option but to care for this child for two weeks, will we get any compensation for the costs and lost income involved?"
"No" I was informed, "you are family".
Me: "What if I dragged someone off the street?"
CYF: "They could apply for assistance during that period"
I then asked "if the child were taken into CYF care for those two weeks, could you guarantee me that it wouldn't end up becoming just another victim of that care in the way that too many others have?"
CYF: "What do you mean?"
Me: "I mean abused, or killed while in CYF care"
"Yes, I can guarantee that" I was assured.
Me: "How can you guarantee that, will you be looking after it yourself?"
CYF: "No, but our carers are all approved by the department"
Me: "Were the 'carers' of those other kids that were abused or killed approved?"
CYF: "Yes"
Me: "So what's changed? How can you possibly guarantee the safety of my grandkid then?"
At which point I was told that the conversation was going nowhere and that if I wasn't happy with the department's stance, attitude or policy I should take it up with the Commissioner for Children or the minister.
That's my rather unpleasant dealing with CYF.
They *do* bully people.
They *do* threaten people.
They are interested only in following policy and seemingly unconcerned with the best interests of anyone but themselves.
They *did* say my daughter could give her child to *anyone* (even a potential paedophile or murderer) to care for -- but refused to allow the already approved adoptive parents to do so during that first couple of weeks.
Escalating complaints and concerns within CYF gets you absolutely no where, the higher you go, the greater the obstruction.
I now know why there are so very few adoptions these days and why so many young women who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant are forced into becoming solo mothers or having abortions. The amount of pressure applied to such women to become a burden on the taxpayer is intense -- they are made to feel as if they are bad people if they don't keep their kid and go on the DPB.
It's no wonder we have such a problem with youth crime when so many young women are forced into the role of parent by this pressure, at a time when they are totally unprepared and often unwilling.
Is this what we pay our taxes for?
Is this what CYF is really about? It would appear so.
Fortunately, all has ended well -- in spite of CYF, certainly not because of them.
My partner and I looked after the kid for a couple of weeks although, because my daughter was living with us, it became an intensely difficult and emotional job to give up the child. I curse CYF and their "policy" enforced under threat of "confiscation" for causing such heartache and grief so unnecessarily.
Our family is still trying to recover from the financial burden that the loss of income and other factors have created in the wake of what should have been a very simple, straight-forward and happy event.
The adoption is an open one, my daughter is able to visit her son and will always be known to him as his birth mother. The adoptive parents are over-the-moon with their lives and the child is thriving with their care and attention. I wonder what the outcome would have been if he'd gone into CYF's "care" or my daughter had been brainwashed into dropping out of her education and living in a one-bedroomed flat while trying to bring him up herself?
So I am pleased that someone else has also had the guts to raise these issues but I remain pessimistic that anything will change as a result.
Rather than admit their wrongdoings and culture of arrogance, CYF seems more interested in using an army of lawyers to suppress the truth and the revelations provided by those who have been CYF victims.
Thank God we live in an age when technology is stronger than a bunch of bureaucrats who have utterly failed in their duty of responsibility.
CYF, wake up! Put outcome *ahead* of policy and everyone will be better off.
Even if you were tempted to believe that the people on the CYFWatch blog site are simply whining unreasonably, I trust that regular Aardvark readers will consider my story to be an objective and honest representation of my own family's experiences with this "out of control" government agency.
I'm not publishing names, registration numbers, addresses or anything but that's only because I don't think it would make a single scrap of difference. Although each individual should be held accountable for their actions, the most important thing is (as with the IRD) to get rid of this culture of arrogance and abuse of public money and rights. CYF should remember -- it is not *you* who are important, it's the people you are supposed to serve!
And tomorrow we will return to our normal programme :-)
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Family defends CYF criticism
Family defends CYF criticism
A west Auckland family is defending its decision to criticise Child Youth and Family on a website.
The website has posted personal information and criticisms of Child Youth and Family staff and is being condemned by Social Development Ministry bosses.
Craig Martin, whose son Patrick died while in CYF care four years ago, says writing on the website is a final attempt to get some kind of closure. He says no one has been held responsible for the death and the website has enabled his family to lay the blame at the feet of those he believes are responsible.
Mr Martin says his family never got a chance to fight for Patrick while he was alive and will continue to fight for justice.
A west Auckland family is defending its decision to criticise Child Youth and Family on a website.
The website has posted personal information and criticisms of Child Youth and Family staff and is being condemned by Social Development Ministry bosses.
Craig Martin, whose son Patrick died while in CYF care four years ago, says writing on the website is a final attempt to get some kind of closure. He says no one has been held responsible for the death and the website has enabled his family to lay the blame at the feet of those he believes are responsible.
Mr Martin says his family never got a chance to fight for Patrick while he was alive and will continue to fight for justice.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
CYF to Gag Name-and-Shame Site
As Posted on FreeSpeech.org.nz
Lindsay Mitchell is reporting (UPDATE: So is NZPA) that Ministry of Social Development CEO Peter Hughes has “instructed lawyers to work 24/7 doing whatever they have to, to shut down the CYFS Watch blogsite.”
CYFSWatch is a controversial new blog that is attempting to hold Child, Youth and Family staff accountable for their allegedly destructive actions by publishing ‘name-and-shame’ articles about the individuals involved in various cases.
CYF is likely to be under pressure from the PSA, its staff’s union, to do something about the site, which is threatening to publish the personal details of CYF staff including photographs and home addresses.
If the allegations made on the site are true then the authors have every right to publish them, however “robust” you might find their methods. If not, the answer is not for an arm of the government to shut down the site but to sue the authors for libel although, given their anonymity, that could prove difficult.
It will be interesting to see what CYF does here and, if it comes down to it, whether Google (Blogger’s owner) will do the government’s dirty work and censor the site. Given the nature of the Internet, any information that is censored will no doubt just pop up somewhere else.
Lindsay Mitchell is reporting (UPDATE: So is NZPA) that Ministry of Social Development CEO Peter Hughes has “instructed lawyers to work 24/7 doing whatever they have to, to shut down the CYFS Watch blogsite.”
CYFSWatch is a controversial new blog that is attempting to hold Child, Youth and Family staff accountable for their allegedly destructive actions by publishing ‘name-and-shame’ articles about the individuals involved in various cases.
CYF is likely to be under pressure from the PSA, its staff’s union, to do something about the site, which is threatening to publish the personal details of CYF staff including photographs and home addresses.
If the allegations made on the site are true then the authors have every right to publish them, however “robust” you might find their methods. If not, the answer is not for an arm of the government to shut down the site but to sue the authors for libel although, given their anonymity, that could prove difficult.
It will be interesting to see what CYF does here and, if it comes down to it, whether Google (Blogger’s owner) will do the government’s dirty work and censor the site. Given the nature of the Internet, any information that is censored will no doubt just pop up somewhere else.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Gold Diggers Are Alive and Well in 2006
Gold Diggers Are Alive and Well in 2006
By Marty Nemko
I so often see this syndrome in my female clients: She comes in ostensibly wanting a career but finds an objection to every option, except going back to school, which defers having to work. Or she's done as much school as she can possibly justify, agrees that a particular career goal is appropriate, but refuses to do the work necessary to land a job.
When I ask, “Do you really want to work?,” most say no. So often, they’ll admit that what they’d really love is a man to support them so they can stay home—even if no children are involved.
One of my clients, a 20-something project coordinator for Sun Microsystems said, “If I could, I’d stay home in a minute. And that’s true for all of my (female) friends.”I was amazed by one of my clients, a recent graduate of a prestigious college who fit that profile perfectly, saying she’d love to meet a husband who made enough money that she could be a full-time housewife. What amazed me was that she said her most deeply held value is that women are constantly oppressed.
I had thought the era of gold diggers ended in the ‘60s with the women’s movement. But I’m here to say that from where I sit, it’s still alive and well. Perhaps today’s women, seeing their mothers not so happy in the workplace makes them decide they’d rather stay home and have a man support them, if they can find one.
My anecdotal experience is supported by others. For example, Time, 60 Minutes, and the New York Times Sunday Magazine all did major features on today’s women not wanting to work. Often cited, for example, was a study of Stanford MBAs. 95 % of the men were working full time while only 38% of the women were. In their book What Women Really Want, pollsters Celinda Lake, a Democrat, and Kellyanne Conway, a Republican, found that seven in 10 women say they would stay home with their kids if they could afford it.
I’m surprised that so many guys don’t mind being the sole breadwinner. Many of them, however, change their minds when I say this to them:
Today, it typically requires two incomes for a family to own a home and support a solid middle class lifestyle. If the wife refuses to work and especially if she pushes hard to own a home, have children, and spend heavily on clothes, jewelry, spas, going back to college, vacations, etc., it means that the man must try to find a very high-income job. Those jobs are very difficult to land and, once obtained, typically demand long, stress-filled, often unrewarding hours, for example as corporate lawyers, bond traders, insurance salesmen, or executives in which pressure to generate profit is high and the power to implement change is low.
Meanwhile, the wife gets a far more pleasurable existence, even when she has children to raise. Evidence it’s more pleasurable: In studies in which men who work outside the home offer to switch roles with their stay-at-home wives, most women refuse.
Finally, remember that men die much younger than women, with stress being a major killer. Do you really want to be a beast of burden so your wife can live a cushy life, and then after you die, inherit the money you’ve earned so she can continue her lifestyle?
Even after my lecturette, some men say they’re happy to be the sole breadwinner, but more say the lecturette opened their eyes—they agree that they would have more rewarding, less stressful career options and, overall, better lives if their wives contributed significantly to the family income. Most of the men say they will talk with their wives about it, but when they return for their next session, they usually report that their wife pulled out all the stops to avoid having to work: they cried, yelled, guilt-tripped, or avoided talking about it—anything but look for work.
These women use various excuses to avoid working, most commonly:
It’s better for the children. In fact, the data is equivocal about that. And anecdotally, I’ve seen many examples in which a stay-at-home mom overprotects a child, resulting in a less self-confident child than if the child were in a high-quality child-care program.
I don’t have earning potential. The definitive book on the subject, Why Men Earn More by Dr. Warren Farrell (Amacom, 2005) finds that for the same work, in many fields, women earn more than $1 for each dollar men earn. Even low-skill-required jobs such as waitressing can yield $50,000-$100,000 a year.
Men, I urge you to be more conscious about whether you are allowing yourself to be turned into being a beast of burden to pay for the expensive house, kids, and all the material “stuff” that you might well be willing to trade away for a more pleasant life.
And if you’re single, consider whether your life will be better if you hold out for a woman who will share responsibility for the family income. Besides, by requiring that, you’ll know that the woman wants to be with you because she loves you, not because—as a surprising number of my female clients have admitted in the privacy of my office--that she considers you a cash cow.
By Marty Nemko
I so often see this syndrome in my female clients: She comes in ostensibly wanting a career but finds an objection to every option, except going back to school, which defers having to work. Or she's done as much school as she can possibly justify, agrees that a particular career goal is appropriate, but refuses to do the work necessary to land a job.
When I ask, “Do you really want to work?,” most say no. So often, they’ll admit that what they’d really love is a man to support them so they can stay home—even if no children are involved.
One of my clients, a 20-something project coordinator for Sun Microsystems said, “If I could, I’d stay home in a minute. And that’s true for all of my (female) friends.”I was amazed by one of my clients, a recent graduate of a prestigious college who fit that profile perfectly, saying she’d love to meet a husband who made enough money that she could be a full-time housewife. What amazed me was that she said her most deeply held value is that women are constantly oppressed.
I had thought the era of gold diggers ended in the ‘60s with the women’s movement. But I’m here to say that from where I sit, it’s still alive and well. Perhaps today’s women, seeing their mothers not so happy in the workplace makes them decide they’d rather stay home and have a man support them, if they can find one.
My anecdotal experience is supported by others. For example, Time, 60 Minutes, and the New York Times Sunday Magazine all did major features on today’s women not wanting to work. Often cited, for example, was a study of Stanford MBAs. 95 % of the men were working full time while only 38% of the women were. In their book What Women Really Want, pollsters Celinda Lake, a Democrat, and Kellyanne Conway, a Republican, found that seven in 10 women say they would stay home with their kids if they could afford it.
I’m surprised that so many guys don’t mind being the sole breadwinner. Many of them, however, change their minds when I say this to them:
Today, it typically requires two incomes for a family to own a home and support a solid middle class lifestyle. If the wife refuses to work and especially if she pushes hard to own a home, have children, and spend heavily on clothes, jewelry, spas, going back to college, vacations, etc., it means that the man must try to find a very high-income job. Those jobs are very difficult to land and, once obtained, typically demand long, stress-filled, often unrewarding hours, for example as corporate lawyers, bond traders, insurance salesmen, or executives in which pressure to generate profit is high and the power to implement change is low.
Meanwhile, the wife gets a far more pleasurable existence, even when she has children to raise. Evidence it’s more pleasurable: In studies in which men who work outside the home offer to switch roles with their stay-at-home wives, most women refuse.
Finally, remember that men die much younger than women, with stress being a major killer. Do you really want to be a beast of burden so your wife can live a cushy life, and then after you die, inherit the money you’ve earned so she can continue her lifestyle?
Even after my lecturette, some men say they’re happy to be the sole breadwinner, but more say the lecturette opened their eyes—they agree that they would have more rewarding, less stressful career options and, overall, better lives if their wives contributed significantly to the family income. Most of the men say they will talk with their wives about it, but when they return for their next session, they usually report that their wife pulled out all the stops to avoid having to work: they cried, yelled, guilt-tripped, or avoided talking about it—anything but look for work.
These women use various excuses to avoid working, most commonly:
It’s better for the children. In fact, the data is equivocal about that. And anecdotally, I’ve seen many examples in which a stay-at-home mom overprotects a child, resulting in a less self-confident child than if the child were in a high-quality child-care program.
I don’t have earning potential. The definitive book on the subject, Why Men Earn More by Dr. Warren Farrell (Amacom, 2005) finds that for the same work, in many fields, women earn more than $1 for each dollar men earn. Even low-skill-required jobs such as waitressing can yield $50,000-$100,000 a year.
Men, I urge you to be more conscious about whether you are allowing yourself to be turned into being a beast of burden to pay for the expensive house, kids, and all the material “stuff” that you might well be willing to trade away for a more pleasant life.
And if you’re single, consider whether your life will be better if you hold out for a woman who will share responsibility for the family income. Besides, by requiring that, you’ll know that the woman wants to be with you because she loves you, not because—as a surprising number of my female clients have admitted in the privacy of my office--that she considers you a cash cow.
© Copyright, Marty Nemko, 2006 (martynemko.com.) All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
A Woman Can Do Anything a Man Can Do (Well, Almost)
A Woman Can Do Anything a Man Can Do (Well, Almost)
August 21, 2006Vox Populi
By Carey Roberts
Fact and feminism keep tripping over each other.For decades, radical feminists have prostrated themselves upon the altar of androgeny, flatly declaring that all differences between the sexes are socially constructed. So when men earn more money than women, they say that’s proof of sex discrimination.
But men have the Y chromosome, while women don’t. And it turns out that one chromosome contains 78 very important genes. Those genes contain programming instructions that control a man’s brain structure, sex hormones, and a host of other functions.
These critical genetic differences play out in thousands of ways that influence risk-taking, sex relationships, and social roles. Steven Rhoads’ book, Taking Sex Differences Seriously, is an information-packed, must-read on this topic.
Women conceive babies, men can’t. Women are better at decoding facial expressions, hearing a baby’s whimper in the night, and simultaneously talking and listening. Fine.
But what happens when we insist that men and women are social equivalents, twisting like neutered cogs in a giant gender nirvana?
Last year I was talking with a woman who insisted female athletes are just as skilled as the men. A few months later, the US female Olympic hockey team played a boys’ high school team from Warroad, Minnesota. The small town boys prevailed 2-1 over the elite Olympians – and that was a non-checking game.
Then there are the women-in-combat zealots. They parade girls like PFC Jessica Lynch as living proof that women can handle the fierce demands of front line combat. You may recall that war heroine Lynch later admitted about her Iraqi mishap, “I did not shoot, not a round, nothing. I went down praying to my knees. And that’s the last I remember.”
What about women in the media? Remember, they were going to bring us a more balanced and empathic perspective on the world.
Well, that was before Oprah Winfrey predicted one in five heterosexual Americans would die from AIDS by 1990 and Meryl Streep duped the EPA to ban alar.
Let’s not forget Connie Chung’s scientific discovery that breast implants make women sick. Even though researchers could never prove the link between implants and connective tissue disease, the ensuing hysteria-driven lawsuits eventually forced Dow Corning into bankruptcy.
Of course there’s the ever-apoplectic Maureen Dowd, left to wonder why the New York Times circulation numbers tumble ever-downward. And rumor has it that once Katie Couric debuts at CBS News, she’s planning to sign up Cindy Sheehan as a political analyst for the upcoming November elections.
And women, it is said, will make the political arena more ethical and fair: “Research shows the presence of women raises the standards of ethical behavior and lowers corruption.” That quote comes to us by way of senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, which practically makes the claim self-refuting.
We were promised that women in academia would bring important new insights. But soon the ladies came to the sobering realization that Beethoven composed Ode to Joy to induce men into a sexual frenzy, and Newton’s Principia Mathematica is actually a rape manual.
We should all feel especially sorry for MIT professor Nancy Hopkins.
As a biologist, she no doubt learned how primates engage in sex-specific courtship rituals and hunting patterns. But then ex-Harvard president Larry Summers suggested that innate differences in the human species also might exist, causing the ever-delicate Dr. Hopkins to lapse into a swoon.
Smelling salts, anyone?
Those examples are mostly amusing. But there’s one variation on the woman-can-do-anything-a-man-can-do theme that’s downright dangerous. It’s the “mothers and fathers are interchangeable” mantra.
The reason is simple: little boys don’t identify with their moms the same way they bond with their dads. And girls learn different lessons from dads than from moms.
Want proof?
Look at inner city ghettos ravaged by Great Society programs that required dad to vacate the home before mom was entitled to collect her welfare check. Bereft of their loving fathers, boys looked to the media and gangs for their male role models.
Is anyone surprised when all manner of social pathologies take root and flourish?
It’s one of the conundrums of our time that while demanding fealty to the dogma of androgeny, feminists condemn the expression of masculine qualities by men and then turn around and demand that “liberated” women exemplify exactly those same attributes.
As my mother used to say, Who said women had to be logical?
August 21, 2006Vox Populi
By Carey Roberts
Fact and feminism keep tripping over each other.For decades, radical feminists have prostrated themselves upon the altar of androgeny, flatly declaring that all differences between the sexes are socially constructed. So when men earn more money than women, they say that’s proof of sex discrimination.
But men have the Y chromosome, while women don’t. And it turns out that one chromosome contains 78 very important genes. Those genes contain programming instructions that control a man’s brain structure, sex hormones, and a host of other functions.
These critical genetic differences play out in thousands of ways that influence risk-taking, sex relationships, and social roles. Steven Rhoads’ book, Taking Sex Differences Seriously, is an information-packed, must-read on this topic.
Women conceive babies, men can’t. Women are better at decoding facial expressions, hearing a baby’s whimper in the night, and simultaneously talking and listening. Fine.
But what happens when we insist that men and women are social equivalents, twisting like neutered cogs in a giant gender nirvana?
Last year I was talking with a woman who insisted female athletes are just as skilled as the men. A few months later, the US female Olympic hockey team played a boys’ high school team from Warroad, Minnesota. The small town boys prevailed 2-1 over the elite Olympians – and that was a non-checking game.
Then there are the women-in-combat zealots. They parade girls like PFC Jessica Lynch as living proof that women can handle the fierce demands of front line combat. You may recall that war heroine Lynch later admitted about her Iraqi mishap, “I did not shoot, not a round, nothing. I went down praying to my knees. And that’s the last I remember.”
What about women in the media? Remember, they were going to bring us a more balanced and empathic perspective on the world.
Well, that was before Oprah Winfrey predicted one in five heterosexual Americans would die from AIDS by 1990 and Meryl Streep duped the EPA to ban alar.
Let’s not forget Connie Chung’s scientific discovery that breast implants make women sick. Even though researchers could never prove the link between implants and connective tissue disease, the ensuing hysteria-driven lawsuits eventually forced Dow Corning into bankruptcy.
Of course there’s the ever-apoplectic Maureen Dowd, left to wonder why the New York Times circulation numbers tumble ever-downward. And rumor has it that once Katie Couric debuts at CBS News, she’s planning to sign up Cindy Sheehan as a political analyst for the upcoming November elections.
And women, it is said, will make the political arena more ethical and fair: “Research shows the presence of women raises the standards of ethical behavior and lowers corruption.” That quote comes to us by way of senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, which practically makes the claim self-refuting.
We were promised that women in academia would bring important new insights. But soon the ladies came to the sobering realization that Beethoven composed Ode to Joy to induce men into a sexual frenzy, and Newton’s Principia Mathematica is actually a rape manual.
We should all feel especially sorry for MIT professor Nancy Hopkins.
As a biologist, she no doubt learned how primates engage in sex-specific courtship rituals and hunting patterns. But then ex-Harvard president Larry Summers suggested that innate differences in the human species also might exist, causing the ever-delicate Dr. Hopkins to lapse into a swoon.
Smelling salts, anyone?
Those examples are mostly amusing. But there’s one variation on the woman-can-do-anything-a-man-can-do theme that’s downright dangerous. It’s the “mothers and fathers are interchangeable” mantra.
The reason is simple: little boys don’t identify with their moms the same way they bond with their dads. And girls learn different lessons from dads than from moms.
Want proof?
Look at inner city ghettos ravaged by Great Society programs that required dad to vacate the home before mom was entitled to collect her welfare check. Bereft of their loving fathers, boys looked to the media and gangs for their male role models.
Is anyone surprised when all manner of social pathologies take root and flourish?
It’s one of the conundrums of our time that while demanding fealty to the dogma of androgeny, feminists condemn the expression of masculine qualities by men and then turn around and demand that “liberated” women exemplify exactly those same attributes.
As my mother used to say, Who said women had to be logical?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)