"Without the €800 she contributes to the family income of €2,400 every month, the Maiers could not run the two cars they depend on in the countryside"
Let me guess - they need two cars so that they both can get to work?
Later in the article a couple who hired a nanny is mentioned. I guess it all boils down to maths skills in the end...
I suspect much more often than "female liberation" it is sheer economic necessity if both parents go to work.
Still, I can not bear the thought of all day school. Possibly it would be different from "normal" school (more socialising with peers?), but still. Besides, wouldn't it be cheaper to just get decent game consoles for the kids?
I also resent that as a reaction to the literacy study, all they could think of was to make school longer. Seems likely to me that longer school would only make kids more stupid in the end (when does the brain have time to grow??). Being at school tends to be mind numbing, not mind enhancing.
> Being at school tends to be mind numbing, not mind enhancing.
> wouldn't it be cheaper to just get decent game consoles for the kids?
Is this satire?
If it isn't, this is what the article is about:
1. mothers want to work because it gives them meaning/satisfaction.
2. this is not possible if the kids get out of school at noon. Hence the necessity to lock the kids up for a few more hours.
3. this contradicts the German maxim of Kids/Cooking/Church, so a cultural shift is needed.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the expenses of having two cars. Whether day care is a good thing for kids is debatable, but it sure beats the cheaper game console "solution".
The article tried to make it about lifestyle choices, but it also mentioned the economic necessities. What I said is that I think the economic necessity is the bigger factor by far here. It is almost zynic to turn it into "women's liberation" when what it really shows is that people are struggling much harder economically than they used to.
Liberation would be to give people a choice. In fact, if the women's jobs were so great, they would probably be able to afford a nanny? Certainly the "academic women" should be able to afford it (the ones who are most likely to want to work according to the article)? If it wasn't about money, perhaps the women could volunteer in a part time job while kids are at school to get their fulfilment? Honestly, I think that is a bit of bullshit - how many people really want to work, in non-creative professions?
I don't know how much a nanny costs, but as long as the women's job pays more than a nanny earns, they should be OK? Certainly the academic ones should earn more than an nanny. Also, nannys can be pooled (they can take care of several kids at the same time) - granted, might as well send the kids to school, but why should the tax payer have to pay?
I have grown up in Germany and still live here. Maybe I come from an atypical family, but so far I have not had the impression that "Kids/Cooking/Church" is what determines our lives. That is just sensationalist writing for the newspaper.
As for the game console, it seems to me that from a certain age, kids can entertain themselves. Why should they have to stick around at school all day passively digesting input? Probably kids have even more ideas on how to spend their time than adults. Obviously I would consider the game console to only be a last resort - probably still better for the kid's imagination than school, though. But as you said, if it is all just about "locking up the kids", why shouldn't the game console be adequate?
As it happens, I went to the public library a lot as a kid, as I also grew up without parents permanently being available. Just saying. I found my way to the library and back all by myself, too.
It seems that the schooling aspect is not as important as the "daycare" aspect. I wonder if it will mean that the students in the longer classes will get better marks or be better educated? My guess, no.
Articles like this feel a lot like propaganda. Isn't America so enlightened, etc. Is this really newsworthy or interesting, except for the small self-congratulatory pat on the back it gives Americans reading it?
"... Add to that an economic crisis that has hurt traditional male jobs in manufacturing harder than female ones in services — in Germany, only 10,000 of the 230,000 who have lost jobs in the slump were women — and the female factor emerges as stark. ..."
Understanding what is going on in the world means you better understand potential markets.
"... Everywhere, women still earn less, are more likely to work part time and less likely to hold top jobs. But young female doctors, for instance, are rising in numbers, and women dominate middle management in major consumer companies. They could run the hospitals and corporations of tomorrow. Many will be family breadwinners; in Germany, every fifth household is already sustained by female income ..."
Understanding broad social changes means you can make things people want instead of potentially asking in "n" years time, "gee that's a big market, how come I missed that? Where did that come from?".
"... Is this really newsworthy or interesting ..."
If I told you I could actually hear the Earth rotate you wouldn't believe me. [0] But you can do this reading articles like this one on the changing proportions of male/female in a first world technological country. A lot of the time very specific, technical "now" posts are made but I've found you gain just as much by looking at how large societal changes shape adoption.
I take exception to American exceptionalism and American self-hatred.
On the other hand my world view is explicitly about "freedom under siege" from all part of society.
Things like freedom of speech and freedom of association being demolished by affirmative action programs and the phony right to broadband. Freedom are now back-seat to the all important goal of combating terrorism with brittle, expensive, and invasive security measure coupled with counter-productive foreign policies.
On one hand, my generation seem to be becoming more culturally libertarian. They evolve an attitude toward "freedom or die" rather than becoming "Generation Sloth".
You have a good point ... how is it that women having to work at outside jobs that keep them away from their kids certain to be a positive thing (a "rise")?
Starting at 8 years old I used to attend classes that starts at 7:15 am and ends at 4:15 pm. Both my parents are working full time.
Maybe in other parts of the world this is something horrible but in some countries this is our way of life. We don't complain instead we are very thankful that we CAN go to school unlike others that cannot.
Let me guess - they need two cars so that they both can get to work?
Later in the article a couple who hired a nanny is mentioned. I guess it all boils down to maths skills in the end...
I suspect much more often than "female liberation" it is sheer economic necessity if both parents go to work.
Still, I can not bear the thought of all day school. Possibly it would be different from "normal" school (more socialising with peers?), but still. Besides, wouldn't it be cheaper to just get decent game consoles for the kids?
I also resent that as a reaction to the literacy study, all they could think of was to make school longer. Seems likely to me that longer school would only make kids more stupid in the end (when does the brain have time to grow??). Being at school tends to be mind numbing, not mind enhancing.