Article written by

WildlyParenthetical is a cultural theorist, a feminist and queer, with a tendency towards fierce indignation, amusement and random (and not so random!) caring. Also to longwindedness, which kind people occasionally suggest is Extremely Useful.

17 Responses

Page 1 of 1
  1. FMark
    FMark at |

    Just wanted to say thanks for the great post!

  2. lilacsigil
    lilacsigil at |

    Well said! I’d love to see “education bonuses” for young parents going back to school to cover the extra costs, and organising child care and school support for them. But no, that’s not making them be “responsible”. Being the primary carer for a young child in a society that considers you scum for doing so (or for not doing so to their exact and changing specifications!) is pretty much the definition of responsible!

  3. Beppie
    Beppie at |

    I can’t really add much to what you’re saying here, but I agree completely.

    Teen motherhood would cease to be a “problem” if teen mothers were treated with respect — which includes ensuring that they have the resources that they need to parent.

  4. SunlessNick
    SunlessNick at |

    Seconding what FMark said. In Britain, young single mothers rapidly become the bane of society whenever the Conservatives get in (along with anyone with an illness or disability that’s not visually obvious).

  5. Freya
    Freya at |

    My immediate thought with regards to this scheme is that it’s hardly consistent with encouraging participants to continue breastfeeding (as per WHO guidelines). What vulnerable person is going to argue when told they “can’t do that in here” by someone who is perceived as being in control of their access to support?

  6. Rebekka
    Rebekka at |

    I disagree with much of this – although not your points on the reporting and the comments on the reporting – but I have already made my points on the otterday thread.

    I just wanted to add one thing

    This version of course, is part of the ‘tough love’ strategy being used by the Goverment, allegedly to get us back to surplus

    Nowhere has this been presented as part of the “to get us back to surplus” package. It is being presented as a *cost* to the budget, not a way to try to save money, and as one of the programs that needs to happen *despite* the tough fiscal position, not because of it.

  7. Alien Tea
    Alien Tea at |

    I wonder what would happen if we encouraged the young fathers to participate in child care?

    I am stating the obvious, but I think it is hugely unfair that fathers aren’t even mentioned in these conversations, and the whole burden of responsibility is always on women. It takes two people to make a baby.

    Also – if we’re going to force people to put their children in child care, there really needs to be better child care options available.

  8. WildlyParenthetical
    WildlyParenthetical at |

    It has been presented that way, Rebekka, and quite a bit, but the government’s press releases and blog posts etc, you’re right, really don’t characterise it that way; it’s mostly a media thing. Which is important to ask questions about, I think. I have to say, though, I haven’t really seen it characterised as a cost. The focus seems to be on ‘discipline’ and ‘everyone who can work should work’ etc, which may not explicitly be about getting back to surplus, but is not exactly situating young mothers as contributing… but you may have sources I haven’t encountered, of course!

  9. WildlyParenthetical
    WildlyParenthetical at |

    @Alien Tea It’s one of the more frustrating parts of this whole thing, I think! I was tempted to make the whole post about that, actually ;-P

  10. fuckpoliteness
    fuckpoliteness at |

    I don’t particularly want to come to verbal blows over this Rebekka, but I’m not sure what exactly the ‘much’ is that you disagree with since WP was getting a conversation started on the ‘responsibilisation stuff’ which seems to me, as a formerly teenaged single mum a pretty important (and unusually respectful) discussion around the way teenaged mums and other vulnerable people in society are treated, both dismissing what they do as ‘nothing’ and making them ‘responsible’ for their own suffering and oppression.

    On the other thread you posited a choice between this plan and teen parents staying on welfare, being poor and not getting an education:

    “Surely this is a better plan than leaving them on welfare and having their kids grow up in poverty, with a parent who hasn’t had the opportunity for an education or to get a decent job?”

    That to me is a false dichotomy and quite an insulting one as someone who has fought extremely hard to raise a child to believe he can do anything he wants, to show him that where you are in life doesn’t have to determine where you end up, who has fought for an education and a good life. Basically though no matter how hard I fight it’s not good enough (I’m not suggesting for a second it’s not good enough for you – you’ve never been disrespectful to me about this stuff). What I mean is that others will be, and have been very contemptuous: How DARE you take your time to get a double degree? How DARE you continue to receive a small subsidy in parenting payment while you work? And it’s that damned if you do, damned if you don’t stuff: if I dropped out and worked at KMart again (all that was open to me at the beginning) I’d be an example of the ‘teenaged mum, look at what happens, kids in poverty’ stuff. If I refuse to and I fight for an education I’m ‘taking the system for a ride’. Again, not putting this stuff on to you. Just saying that I find the ‘either/or’ choice you presented pretty insulting given the odds that I had to fight to refuse those choices. So in many senses I think we are on the same page: help to increase the odds of success in education for people in a tough spot is good. Except that I think that I get to object to the false dichotomies (which I’ll go into below) or waiving away the threats to cut off payments as a ‘hoop’.

    It is not a choice between this plan or poverty for the kids. I’d like to see the stats on teen parents and what they do after their pregnancy: to my mind if they aren’t looking for opportunities for education and jobs, then either they are wholly focussed on parenting for a few years, or there’s something more systemic going on. Are there jobs in the area? How high is the general unemployment rate? Are they being supported properly? Where’s the money for mental health counseling (voluntary and with a counselor of their choice) for teen (and other) single parents? That focuses on what that particular persons strengths and weaknesses are, how they can be supported to dream a better future for themselves and their child? Why isn’t that a solution rather than ‘This is what you will do and if you don’t you will have no payments which will result in you *having* to leave your child in childcare to go work some shitty job’.

    I agree that increased chances are good, and I’m not against the plan per se and neither does WP seem to be. But we should be able to talk about it and all of the issues around it without concerns being shut down as extraneous.

    It isn’t a choice between one (the pilot program) or the other (kids growing up in poverty) because there already were measures to assist with eduction: the Pensioner Education Supplement, the Education Entry Payment and I now forget the name, but a scheme to reduce the amount of childcare payment payable when it was for study or work; and there are other solutions, other ways of formatting solutions. I’m not going to be backed into a corner of saying those things on offer now are *sufficient* and nothing more is necessary but I do think it’s interesting that *not* all welfare in fact has hoops, or at least not hoops that threaten your livelihood. And since I’m the one who’s raised a child on welfare, though the amount has decreased as time has gone on, I’m the one who knows the unholy terror of “Do it or we cut your payments”and I think me raising the fact that that ‘hoop’ is particularly punitive maybe ought to be heard properly rather than it being dismissed as overplayed by the media, or it being presented as a necessary evil since what’s the alternative? Poverty and no education? Because unless you’ve done it yourself I really don’t think you can have any idea of the terror of it all.

  11. FMark
    FMark at |

    Slightly on topic, regarding the value of caring work:

    Women paid less, tribunal finds

    A historic decision on equal pay for tens of thousands of workers in the non-government community sector has ruled that gender has played an “important” role in the low wages that the mostly female workforce receives.

    But the 121-page decision by the full bench of Fair Work Australia, handed down at midday, has called for further submissions on how much extra pay the 150,000 strong workforce should receive.

    In a victory for the Australian Services Union, the workplace tribunal ruled that for employees in the sector, “there is not equal remuneration for men and women workers for work of equal or comparable value by comparison with workers in state and local government employment”.

    “We consider gender has been important in creating the gap between pay in the SACS (social and community services) industry and pay in comparable state and local government employment.”

    The case is regarded as the most important equal pay push for almost four decades and the Fair Work laws have made it easier for unions to make claims.

    Instead of having to prove discrimination, as had been the case, the laws allow cases to be made around the principle of “comparable value”.

    Before the decision had been made Prime Minister Julia Gillard said earlier today that the case was only possible as the Government had got rid of WorkChoices. “There was no effective way under Work Choices for people whose occupations had been historically undervalued, dismissed as women’s work, to get anything that looked like pay equity,” she said.

  12. WildlyParenthetical
    WildlyParenthetical at |

    FMark, that was all over my facebook wall this morning :-) Great news, I have to say! I’m trying to track down who precisely counts under the SACS classification, especially in terms of child care. But even if child care work is not included under the category of SACS, this is a really great precedent to take advantage of!

  13. Rebekka
    Rebekka at |

    fp, what I disagree with here – as I did elsewhere – is basically this:

    But in the end, what concerns me is that this is being spun as ‘tough love’, and it’s designed for less cost to the taxpayer, and a reduction in costs, and in this context, it’s not surprising that the government have targeted young mothers. It was about picking an already-hated group, so people could get busy slut-shaming and talking about the awful people that teen mothers supposedly are, instead of shaming a government that is supposed to be even vaguely left of Howard

    The government is *not* spinning this as tough love – that’s the media. The government – fortunately for democracy- can not control how the media report what they say. I don’t agree for a second that there was any deliberate attempt to target an already-hated group as WP suggests.

    The final para, too, I vehemently disagree with. Once again, the media reporting, the comments on websites and the government’s or the PM’s intent are not the same thing.

    I certainly do not dismiss your concerns about the do it or lose your payments aspects – and I’m interested in what you’d do instead. And I certainly don’t disagree with any of the points made – by you or by WP or by the rest of the commenters – about the shitty nature of the commentary.

  14. Mindy
    Mindy at |

    Childcare benefit depends on whether you meet the work/study test of so many hours per week. I’m not sure how many hours it is at the moment, but does allow for part time work. Not sure if it allows for disabilities making if difficult for you to work regular hours though.

    In order to get the 50% rebate on your childcare fees (childcare rebate) you need to meet the test to get Childcare benefit, even if your CCB % is zero due to household income (frozen at $150 000).

    It is likely that teenage parents would meet the criteria in most cases, assuming that they are able to attend school/TAFE/work in a fairly regular manner. I would hope that the system would be a bit flexible for them to take into account individual circumstances, but I’m not holding my breath.

  15. Lauredhel
    Lauredhel at | *

    “Not sure if it allows for disabilities making if difficult for you to work regular hours though.”

    It does.

    You will satisfy the work, training, study test if you are:[…]
    on sick or other paid leave[…]
    on self employment sick leave[…]

    You may be exempt if:
    you or your partner get Carer Allowance or Carer Payment from Centrelink for a child
    you or your partner have a disability (the other partner must still meet the work, training, study test)[…]

    There are other provisions for being on sick leave, parental leave, being a fulltime carer, etc.

Comments are closed.