Penalizing SAHMs

April 1, 2006 @ 3:39 am | Filed under: Clippings

Should women educated on the government’s dime be punished for later choosing to stay home with their kids? A Dutch politician thinks so.

“A highly-educated woman who chooses to stay at home and not to work – that is destruction of capital,” Dijksma said. “If you receive the benefit of an expensive education at the cost of society, you should not be allowed to throw away that knowledge unpunished.”

Toddler on lap, so commentary to come later. Really, though, this one speaks for itself.


Tags: , , , ,


    Related Posts

  • Is a National Curriculum on the Horizon?
    Is a National Curriculum on the Horizon?
  • Feast Your Eyes and Ears
    Feast Your Eyes and Ears
  • Taking Care of Blogness
    Taking Care of Blogness
  • Cracks. Me. Up.
    Cracks. Me. Up.
  • Lunchtime Link
    Lunchtime Link

Comments

5 Responses | | Comments Feed

  1. Melissa,

    Reading this story reminds me of the saying “Educate a man and you educate an individual. Educate a woman and you educate a family.” Too often we value education as a means of economic production, as the Dutch politician clearly believes. I believe that when education is used to improve the lives of children and develop them into healthy and productive citizens, society’s investment in education is clearly a benefit to society.

  2. As an “Ivy League” grad, I see no more noble purpose than to raise up these four future “Men of God” to do His purpose.

  3. My family lived in Holland in the early sixties. The country had such a focus on children and families in those days. It is such a different place now.

  4. In other words, training future adults is not a worthwhile use on an education. That makes sense.

  5. Isn’t this a part of the Eu. where the birth rate is thought to be declining so quickly that the population is actually shrinking? Wasn’t there recently a study showing that women from Japan and varioius parts of the Eu. no longer want to have children because they felt that their society had little respect for motherhood and there were few services and outlets for mothers? If this is true, this politician makes me scratch my head. Lower birth rates have a much greater economic impact on a society than stay-at-home-mothers.