Forums » Netherlands » Discuss Dutch Culture

• peony

  

  • 790 posts
   

  March 11, 2011 11:41:41 AM CET

  Just a quick thing - out of 5 wives from my partner's friends, 4 have children and out of those 4, 3 have a full time job and one part time.
• pepec

  

  • 2359 posts
   

  March 11, 2011 11:44:49 AM CET

  
  

  peony (Mar 11 2011, 10:39 AM) said: > original post
  Kinderbijslag (probably miss-spelled)

  
  
  Nee hoor, perfect zo.
• peony

  

  • 790 posts
   

  March 11, 2011 11:51:33 AM CET

  oh
  All those taal classes must be paying off!!
• emmarazali

  

  • 23 posts
   

  March 11, 2011 3:36:03 PM CET

  Dont get me wrong. I think it is great that the system of support here is solid for a parent. It is the cultural difference that I am referring to here.
  
  It's just that for a while, I get the impression that to work while having young children is somewhat culturally unacceptable here. You just cant help feeling like you are being judged while trying to fit in in a new place. I, for one, have to really prove myself that I am not here because life is hard back where I come from in Asia, and that no-I will not be bringing my entire village into this country. On top of that, I have this to deal with.
  
  What do you say when people ask you why arent you working less days to stay home and mind your kids yourself?
  
  And no.. Just because there are less women in the workforce, it doesnt mean the opportunities are better. In fact it is the other way around (based on personal experience that is). It's hard to be taken seriously when the men in your office already have this perception about you as a woman/mother.
  
  Anyway.. That's what a forum is for, isnt it? To discuss things.. And of course to know the experience/thoughts of others do help one understands better.
  
• peony

  

  • 790 posts
   

  March 11, 2011 5:54:48 PM CET

  
  

  emmarazali (Mar 11 2011, 02:36 PM) said: > original post
  Anyway.. That's what a forum is for, isnt it? To discuss things.. And of course to know the experience/thoughts of others do help one understands better.

  
  
  
  Yeah, the forum is for discussion - I just gave my opinion.
• irishangel

  

  • 670 posts
   

  March 11, 2011 5:58:48 PM CET

  There is no doubt about it, the best thing for young developing children (18mths-4yrs) is for a parent to be at home with them. Whether that is the mother or father makes no difference. And as men here earn substanitally more than women, it make sense that it is the women who stay at home
  
  And if you look at any western culture, they are all doing as much as they can to ensure that mothers and to a lesser extent fathers, get to stay at home with their kids when they are young. In the UK you can now take 9months paid maternity leave. But only 2 weeks paternity leave.Granted its a staged payments with 90% for the first 6 weeks rapidly declining down to just the statutory maternity pay, but even o, the government has recognised the need to young babies to be with their parents. Flexible working hours are to be allowed by law, with employers unable to refuse a mothers request to go part time. Everything is stacked toward the woman being the primary care giver. Whilst this is not something I personally believe ( I would be more than happy to have Dutchie be a stay at home dad), society in western culture has always held to the fact that woman are mothers and men are earners.
  
  All in all, it is not specifically Dutch culture to have mummy stay at home with the kids. It is western culture. It is just easier here to do so than other countries. Personally, if i have kids, I would like to be in the position where I dont have to work for the first few years of its life. Or, as I doubt financially that is an option, I would like to work part time. What is the point of having children so they can spend 90% of their early years in daycare? My neice has been in full time daycare since she was 6months old. she is now 7. If daycare closes she goes into a panic. Her day is so rigidly structured that she cannot cope with the unexpectedl her mother and father both work full time and even if they have a day off during the week, she cannot cope without going to daycare. they finish at 6, pick her up she eats does her homework and goes to bed She spends maybe an hour at the most with her mum and dad who themselves are stressed and tired after a long day at work.
  Is that really a life you would choose for your child? I know i wouldnt. It is fair to say a balance must be struck between giving it all up for your kid, and retaining your identity as a woman and not just a mother, but I do think that western social pressure to have it all, has a lot to answer for.
• peony

  

  • 790 posts
   

  March 11, 2011 6:01:40 PM CET

  
  

  niatrue (Mar 11 2011, 12:21 AM) said: > original post
  I'm just dumbfounded by some of the Dutch women I know who waste college educations to stay at home and make sandwiches. Children deserve college-educated mothers, but they also deserve well-rounded mothers who know something about the world because they've been in it and don't spend all their days mopping and cooking. The women I'm reffering to pretend to be happy (and maybe they're blissfulyy ignorant), but they can't hold a knowledgable conversation about anything except children. They operate largely on stereotypes about everything because they live in very small, very white bubbles. Sad.

  
  
  
  This is the post that actually ticked me and why I answered before. I disagree with just about everything written. This is probably the most generalistic, backwards and narrow-minded thing I've read here in a while.
  
• niatrue

  
   

  March 13, 2011 8:35:38 PM CET

  
  

  peony (Mar 11 2011, 05:01 PM) said: > original post
  This is the post that actually ticked me and why I answered before. I disagree with just about everything written. This is probably the most generalistic, backwards and narrow-minded thing I've read here in a while.

  
  
  
  I think you're being defensive because the comment rings true. It's not a generalization at all; I was, in fact, very specific: "SOME of the Dutch women I KNOW." How is that a generalization?
  
  And pointing out that women who restrict themselves to one and only one socially acceptable "job," whether it's motherhood or something else, is the opposite of feminism and the opposite of choice, particularly when doing so leaves you outside the power structure that determines the course of your culture. Pointing out that it's ignorant for women to be conversant only on the topic of children because they've failed to engage themselves in the wider world is just about the most progressive thing you can say about women valueing themselves and determining their own futures.
• emmarazali

  

  • 23 posts
   

  March 14, 2011 11:58:30 AM CET

  I dont think it is a western culture alone to have the women staying home. Things are changing rapidly that life in general is a lot more expensive compared to a few generations back. And that is why women are heading to work a lot more nowdays. Trust me. Once we become a mother, we would rather stay home and enjoy the new status than leave our kids with some strangers.
  
  The difference however is with the governments/businesses. Western governments/businesses recognise the struggle and therefore are more supportive. Whereas developing world has their politicians/employers busy making themselves richer than to think about the welfare of its own people. It will be a long journey before such flexibility/support exist in my country but it is catching up.
  
  Which brings me to my next question. How can a family live nicely in this country with one income? We tried with one kid and we barely have extra towards the end of the month. And when we found out there is another one on the way, I decided to just swallow it and get a job. We do not live excessively, altho it seems like taxes eat every bit that we earn here. *sigh*
  
• betsie

  
   

  March 14, 2011 12:11:15 PM CET

  
  

  
  Which brings me to my next question. How can a family live nicely in this country with one income? We tried with one kid and we barely have extra towards the end of the month. And when we found out there is another one on the way, I decided to just swallow it and get a job. We do not live excessively, altho it seems like taxes eat every bit that we earn here. *sigh*

  
  
  
  It depends on what you call "nicely". I know plenty of people who are doing so. If you live in social housing, your rent will be under 650 per month and you can apply for a "huursubsidie" of maximally 250 per month and partial rebate of your health insurance premium if your income is very low. Everyone with children gets "kinderbijslag," regardless of income.
  
  The taxes you pay provide for all these benefits and for the free education of your children. Single childless people pay more tax than you do and also pay for your children's health insurance.
• Deleted Member

  

  • 5427 posts
   

  March 14, 2011 1:47:47 PM CET

  
  

  emmarazali (Mar 14 2011, 10:58 AM) said: > original post
  Things are changing rapidly that life in general is a lot more expensive compared to a few generations back.

  
  
  
  I think life in general is more expensive cos there's more gadgets,cars,household appilances,cheap flights and holidays to spend money on.
  In the 1980's we spent a much larger % of our incomes on food for example.
  People complain about the price of food being high - I think it is still quite cheap - if it was cheap people would be more careful what they bought and above all,what they throw away.
• haagseboy

  

  • 180 posts
   

  March 14, 2011 3:21:59 PM CET

  Growing up in the UK and Australia in the 60s, we could only live 'nicely' because my Mum and Dad both worked. Unless the breadwinner is on a good salary, single income families will always do it tough. As mentioned though, there's quite a few benefits available. That's where the tax goes, but I'd rather my dough is spent on families, not armies.
  (single, chose not to breed)
• Deleted Member

  

  • 7373 posts
   

  March 14, 2011 3:51:16 PM CET

  Speaking as one of the first "latch-key kids" in my neighbourhood in the early 70s...who also did an essay on the subject of women in the workforce after WWII for one of my history classes many moons ago...
  
  In reality, at least in Canada, women never really left the workforce after they replaced the men during the 2nd World War. Lord knows the government and business tried so they could make room for the returning vets...and employers replaced women with men and had policies that would fire them as soon as they got married or pregnant (IBM for one; my aunt was fired after they "discovered" she was married). But that was only because they wouldn't voluntarily leave! Many sadly couldn't...having been made widowed or the family breadwinner after the death of a fighting male head of the family. Others just didn't want to...and the push by government and industry to get the economy moving again by replacing the manufacture of war-time products with consumer goods only encouraged women to remain in order to afford it all. Consuming was our post-war patriotic duty!!
  
  As a result, trying to promote the whole "men work while women stay home and drool over her new fridge" utopia kind of backfired in an ironic way!
  
  Not that many women didn't try at first to make a go of it, since, in so many cases, it was forced upon them...but by the 60s, the baby boomers were more independent teens and women wanted more...whether it was stuff or just to use their brains.
  
  More stuff isn't necessarily better of course...we've become too materialistically competitive as a result. But a rigid enforcement of one ideal lifestyle isn't the way to go either; too many cannot conform to that. And nobody should have to.
  
  What's best for the kids? A contented family I think. And how they manage to get there depends on the individual family...we tend to point fingers a bit too much...I think we all just need to ensure that our choices don't make us a burden to society if the worst-case scenario occurs.
• betsie

  
   

  March 14, 2011 3:52:47 PM CET

  Good post, CW.
• Deleted Member

  

  • 5427 posts
   

  March 14, 2011 3:59:41 PM CET

  
  

  haagseboy (Mar 14 2011, 02:21 PM) said: > original post
  but I'd rather my dough is spent on families, not armies.
  (single, chose not to breed)

  
  
  
  Absolutely - we should be building hospitals and schools not closing them down
  ( or blowing them up in foreign lands)
• peony

  

  • 790 posts
   

  March 15, 2011 12:24:54 PM CET

  
  Sorry Niatrue, I should have read better. You did refer to "some woman you know" and off course there are always going to be woman who will only talk about their children or only about their job. Or even about their dog/cat. But I don't believe that not holding a job means that a person can not be out there in the world or to be able to talk about different subjects. Or that only thing they do is moping and cleaning and making sandwiches. College education in my opinion is great and everyone who can should try to get it, but childern don't care either way wheter their mother/father is college educated or not.
  I know plenty of people who stay at home and are happy and some that are not happy. Also I know a lot of people who are happy and not happy at their job.
  
  I guess what I am trying to say is that I think it is a choice of a person to have a job or stay at home. ANd some people will not be happy whatever choice they make. But it is great that here in the Netherlands families have the opportunity to concentrate on their children and still live comfortably. There are plenty of countries where that is not economically possible.
• valentijn

  

  • 1 posts
   

  March 15, 2011 1:59:42 PM CET

  Can you imagine what would happen to rush hour traffic in the Netherlands if everyone started working full time? It would take the whole weekend just to get home!
• niatrue

  
   

  March 22, 2011 7:56:08 PM CET

  Here's a great piece in The New York Times that mentions that in most European countries "class equality is protected at the cost of gender inequality. ... But these labor protections have the unintended side effect of giving employers a disincentive to hire or promote women whose greater likelihood of interrupting their careers for childrearing and other family work make females a poorer long-term human-capital investment for a company. However illegal, firms in Europe have ways of engaging in “statistical discrimination” to avoid investing in workers who, actuarially speaking, are less likely to stick around in the job long enough to reach top productivity."
• gretasmom

  

  • 14 posts
   

  March 22, 2011 9:34:39 PM CET

  The only way things will change for women, is if men become and demand to be equal partners at home (meaning, they want to participate 50/50 with raising children). This means that men would demand paternity leave, men would demand better and more available childcare and they would 50/50 split taking "sick days" off with kids, they would wake up in the middle of the night to feed a baby, they would research and find doctors and dentists for their kids and split taking them to appointments with their wives or partners, etc. But before any equality happens, men will have to step up to the plate and demand these things of their employers and of society.
• niatrue

  
   

  March 22, 2011 11:37:14 PM CET

  
  

  gretasmom (Mar 22 2011, 08:34 PM) said: > original post
  The only way things will change for women, is if men become and demand to be equal partners at home (meaning, they want to participate 50/50 with raising children). This means that men would demand paternity leave, men would demand better and more available childcare and they would 50/50 split taking "sick days" off with kids, they would wake up in the middle of the night to feed a baby, they would research and find doctors and dentists for their kids and split taking them to appointments with their wives or partners, etc. But before any equality happens, men will have to step up to the plate and demand these things of their employers and of society.

  
  
  
  Why the heck would men demand to spend more time researching doctors, making appointments, shuttling sick kids to appointments, cleaning up vomit, spending hours on the phone with customer service, and spending more time cleaning the house?
  
  Don't hold your breath for that.
  
  What's more likely to make a permanent difference for a larger number of men and women is if women demand to not be shackled to the house and to be leaders outside the home.
• gretasmom

  

  • 14 posts
   

  March 23, 2011 12:06:16 AM CET

  
  

  niatrue (Mar 22 2011, 10:37 PM) said: > original post
  Why the heck would men demand to spend more time researching doctors, making appointments, shuttling sick kids to appointments, cleaning up vomit, spending hours on the phone with customer service, and spending more time cleaning the house?
  
  Don't hold your breath for that.
  
  What's more likely to make a permanent difference for a larger number of men and women is if women demand to not be shackled to the house and to be leaders outside the home.

  
  
  
  Why should men demand to spend more time with their children and equally share in the work at home -- well, because children don't make themselves and they are just as much "their children" as their wives/girlfriends/partner's children.
  
  Women are already demanding these things, but also suffer at the hands of a paternalistic society that doesn't support them. A paternalistic society that discriminates against them when they try to find a job and the employer asks them if they are planning on having children or if they have care lined up for their existing children. Why aren't men asked these same questions? Men have children too. But.. until men say they want equal paternity leave and take it and until men feel responsible for 50% of the care of their children and all the duties around children that women usually take on, then things won't change.
• peony

  

  • 790 posts
   

  March 23, 2011 11:50:25 AM CET

  
  

  niatrue (Mar 22 2011, 10:37 PM) said: > original post
  Why the heck would men demand to spend more time researching doctors, making appointments, shuttling sick kids to appointments, cleaning up vomit, spending hours on the phone with customer service, and spending more time cleaning the house?
  
  Don't hold your breath for that.
  
  What's more likely to make a permanent difference for a larger number of men and women is if women demand to not be shackled to the house and to be leaders outside the home.

  
  
  
  What gretasmom is suggesting actually takes place on individual level in individual family. If in a family a man does nothing in the house/with children it is decision of a woman/man to change how things are done in their house. Once that is changed that man will go out in the world with usually better understading and that just might infuence his work environment. It is a small start, but can be done and is usually easier done than just expecting/demanding that the whole society changes how they do things.
  
  
  
• monkeynuts

  

  • 1415 posts
   

  March 23, 2011 1:53:17 PM CET

  Of course most successful men have a wife at home who organises everything - shopping, cooking, children, the schools, doctor appointments, making stuff for school plays, the list is endless. A man just couldn't do the job he does without this support - which is why equality is very difficult. What man is willing to stay at home and take care of everything whilst his wife goes to work? Which is why there are so many more male chefs, CEOs etc. Or if a woman is successful she usually has no children. That's the reality I'm afraid.
• Deleted Member

  

  • 5427 posts
   

  March 23, 2011 4:26:36 PM CET

  
  

  monkeynuts (Mar 23 2011, 12:53 PM) said: > original post
  Of course most successful men have a wife at home who organises everything - shopping, cooking, children, the schools, doctor appointments, making stuff for school plays, the list is endless.

  
  
  
  And a lot of lazy idle men also have a wife at home....
• Deleted Member

  

  • 7373 posts
   

  March 23, 2011 4:43:13 PM CET

  
  

  mrfook (Mar 23 2011, 04:26 PM) said: > original post
  And a lot of lazy idle men also have a wife at home....

  
  
  
  NOT her point, smartiepants, lol, but I do question this only because my brother is an IT manager and his wife is a judge. They both have been very driven always (she went back to uni to become a lawyer when their daughter was a baby) and have always shared all responsiblilities. Actually, I personally think they do too much and don't give themselves a chance to breathe (they always seem to be coming down with colds or flus when I've visited, just because they never rest), but it's not my life and by all the evidence I've seen, they're happy and the kids (one's in law school and the daughter is planning to go to med school), both of whom were in daycare from the get-go are normal. Meh.
  
  That being said, if we're talking expats, this lifestyle just wouldn't work. You just don't have the extended family and friends nearby for support, so the roles have to be divided more traditionally -- one spouse does the job outside the home; the other inside. I think the fact that my SIL has a large extended family nearby helps tremendously.