From
the desk of Alexandra Colen on Fri, 2006-03-31 11:49
Sharon Dijksma, a leading
parliamentarian of the Dutch Labour Party (PvdA) wants to penalise
educated stay-at-home women. “A highly-educated woman who chooses to stay
at home and not to work – that is destruction of capital,” she said in an
interview last week. “If you receive the benefit of an expensive education at
society’s expense, you should not be allowed to throw away that knowledge
unpunished.”
Hence her
proposal to recover part of the cost of their education from highly-educated
women who decide not to seek paid work. Between 2001 and 2005 the number of
Dutch women aged between 15 and 65 who were out on the labour market rose from
55.9 to 58.7 per cent. Dijksma says she wants to stimulate more women to join
the work force. In the municipal elections
earlier this month the PvdA became the biggest party in the Netherlands thanks
to the Muslim vote.
THIS IS THE
NATIONAL VOTE THE FIRST IN EUROPE THAT WAS THROWN BY VOTING MUSLIMS REPORTED IN
AN ARTICLE ON THIS WEBSITE
The PvdA is
generally expected to win the general elections next year, when the 35 year old
Dijksma, who has been an MP since she was 23 and is a leading figure in the
party, might become a government minister.
On
her weblog Dijksma explains that her proposal is a logical consequence of
the Dutch system of subsidizing students. Society finances their studies with
government scholarships, hence it is only normal that they pursue a
professional career or repay. “If someone chooses not to work, then there
should be a substantial repayment,” she said.
Most Dutch
women who decide not to seek paid jobs do so in order to care for their
children. Consequently the Dutch media refer to Dijksma’s proposal as “the
PvdA Mother Plan.” The proposal elicited fierce criticism, some of which
was aimed at Dijksma’s person. Twice the politician started a college course,
and twice she failed to complete the course: her grades were poor, and anyway,
at the age of 23 she was already a well-paid MP. Angry Dutch bloggers
demanded that Dijksma pay back the costs of her unfinished studies before going
after the mothers. “Let the fat cow repay her own scholarships first, because
that was a real waste of public money,” one of the bloggers wrote.
The PvdA
website has come to the rescue of the beleaguered politician, repeating the
stance that those who study at the taxpayers’ expense and do not join the
workforce are guilty of “destruction of capital.” Edith Snoey, the leader of
the biggest Dutch trade union, who has made a similar proposal to Dijksma’s,
wrote on
her weblog that Dijksma had expressed herself somewhat unfortunately by
giving the impression that she was only focusing on women, while the sanction
should also apply to educated men who do not want to join the workforce.
However, Snoey said, Dijksma’s mistake was unintentional. The union leader
added that the politician should continue the fight: “Cheer up, Sharon. Let us
proceed, because we aim for the same goal: more women in the labour force.”
Since the
sixties, socialist feminists like Dijksma and Snoey have refused to accept that
women also contribute to the wellbeing of society by investing in children. The
time, energy, money, talent, and indeed education invested in the upbringing of
children produces greater benefits for society as a whole than the pursuit of
individual wealth and satisfaction. Apparently Dijksma’s ideal world is one
where educated people spend their lives partying and spending, while the future
of society is left to depend on a generation of children raised by poor and
uneducated mothers. If all children come from disadvantaged families, the state
can step in to “take care” of them.
If Dijksma
and Snoey were honest in their materialistic logic they ought at least to
deduct a sum equivalent to what the government spends on the average
disadvantaged child throughout its education (and possibly its entire life)
from the amount that they are demanding back from educated mothers. Perhaps
when all is added up they might decide that it would make more sense to
penalise women who choose not to have children in order to pursue their
careers.
Indeed, as a vital resource of any
civilisation is its future generation, refusing to have children is a
“destruction of capital.” What use is a market when there is no-one to
participate in it? Society should allow educated mothers to raise their own
children, rather than punish them.
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/