To: Hon. Bev Oda, P.C., MP
In reference to Part one of the Child Tax benefit Application that refers to whom is considered “primarily responsible” for our children.
I am completely floored by the fact that I would be required to have a letter from my wife stating that I could be considered a primary care giver for my 3 children. I do recall that when I was married that we agreed to equally share the responsibilities of the family and our children. I am as much a part of the care of my children and the way that they are raised as my wife. I contest that this requirement is an insult to fathers and the role that they play in the family today. That this is just another attempt to feminize the male population and destroy family as we know it. Our government needs to bring the father back into the equation when the matter of the family is being address. Not this continual destruction and demonizing that is currently the agenda. It is not acceptable. I firmly believe that this way of thinking is what is leading the trend of lazy misguided youth that feel that the world owes them something. Strengthen the father and you strengthen the family.
Husband and wife are equal partners in the role of parenting our children. Your documents should reflect this.
“For Canada Child Tax Benefit (CCTB) purposes, it is presumed
that when both a male and a female parent live in the
same home as the child, the female parent is considered to be
primarily responsible (see the definition on page 2 of this
information sheet) for the child(ren) and should apply. However,
if the male parent is primarily responsible, he can apply if he
attaches a signed note from the female parent to his application,
which states that the male parent is primarily responsible for the
child(ren).”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The likely reason the government makes this assumption is because statistically women are still the primary caregivers, if you count up the hours women spend raising the kids, whether they are working mothers or stay-at-home mothers. See Stats Can, for example: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-010-x/00806/9290-eng.htm.
ReplyDeleteYou suggest that husbands and wives are equal partners in parenting, but hour for hour women remain the primary caregivers. The stats above show that there has been a gradual increase in male participation in household chores and childcare. There is no equality for women yet, on this or on many other issues.
I'll start worrying about the feminization of men (and good Christ, would that really be a bad thing? Most violence is committed by men--there's lots of stats to back up this as well--so if men become more like women, maybe we'd see less violence) when women actually achieve equality.
A couple of points to compare here.
ReplyDelete1. Define "caregiver"? Just because statistically a woman spends more time in the home does not make her the primary caregiver.
Here are the two main definitions of Caregiver.
1) Health professional: a person who helps in identifying or preventing or treating illness or disability.
2) A person who is responsible for attending to the needs of a child or dependent adult.
I think it is fair to say that, although important, that just because you stay home with the person needing care, this by itself does not make you a "Primary" caregiver. The person that goes out and works or "earns a living" everyday is just as vital to the giving of care to who ever requires it. In other words, the child is co-dependant. One cannot function without the other. Which clearly shows an equally shared responsibility. What good is a quarter back on a football team if he has no one to throw the ball too? One person works so the other can buy food, shelter, and clothes. There is no difference in principle. You are clearly approaching this from a feminist point of view and not from an equality point of view which constitutes bias.
2. There is a HUGE issue socially if men where to become feminized. Whether it is a man or a woman in charge, sooner or later there will be a fight. All you need do is go back through history and look at any number of societies and social structures that where dominated by women or female value systems, and you will very quickly see that they where just as prone to war and violence. As a matter of fact there are many instances where you can see that these groups where even more brutal than a traditionally "male based" social structure. As to the comment that "most violence is committed by men". This also has a flaw. There are several independent studies that have proven that the level of violent attacks (male and female) are very close in number. However there are a few things that you obviously fail to see. One of the reasons that it would appear to be a male dominated stat is that most men that are assaulted by a female will not report it. SO you are seeing a mostly female on female stat. Have a good look at the details and you will see my point. There have been many studies on this very topic and I encourage you to do your homework on it. Also, media has a huge role in our society. I personally did a research paper on this many years ago and found through it that media tends to only put what they deem to be "newsworthy" stories on the air. (Over simplified info I know, just take the time and do some real research and you will see what I mean. That means look at other books besides "feminist weekly") Therefore the over all social perception is that men commit most of the crime. When in fact the numbers are a lot closer than you think, it’s just that a woman attacking her boyfriend is not as socially enraging and news worthy as a man attacking his girlfriend..... Get it?
I'll throw it at you another way. And you should get it then... It would be like saying “do not get a big dog because they attack your children and hurt them. Get a little dog they hardly ever attack.” Well, in actual fact that is completely false. Statistically your child is far more likely to be attacked by a small dog than a big dog. The difference is that when a little dog attacks you get a scratch, a puncture and maybe some stitches, and no media coverage. When a big dog attacks you get ripping, tearing and major wounds. NEWS!!! And everyone hears about it and suddenly all big dogs are killers and should never be around kids. PURE PERCEPTION and not fact. Just like your belief that women are far less likely to be violent than men. Not true. They are..... It’s just not good news!
My advice to you before you start commenting next time is to understand your stats and your definitions. You need to look at more than one stat. It would be akin to a police officer only getting one statement from a fight. His story would be incomplete without asking more people the same questions. Also read something else besides feminist weekly. It will turn your brain to mush with its lies. Remember without "men" there is no "women".
Genesis 2, 20-24
But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman,
for she was taken out of man."
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
Amen
To "Equally Concerned Citizen"
ReplyDeleteAlthough I am not going to amend my comment above I am going to say sorry for my harshness. Bad info upsets me. And I got a bit carried away with the feminist comments. I appretiate your comments and encourage them. Thank you and hope to see your comments again soon.
C9gunner