buter's BABY blog

Yeah, so you all know by now that I'm hanging around on FaceBook for no good reason that I can think of. I've had fun trawling the lists of groups though, like If You Can't Differentiate Between "Your" and "You're" You Deserve To Die and if 9039230293 people join this group it will still be lame.

But now I can relax, because according to an article in today's SMH,

"Facebook is becoming increasingly trendy ... It's where more of the thought leaders and influentials go."

So that's sorted then. It's good to be reminded that I'm an influential thought leader ... :)

Now, all those other thought leaders out there on Facebook, it's time to unite and take over the world, or something. One lame interest group at a time ...

You may have heard that the Australian Government in all its wisdom, provides a non-means-tested baby bonus payment of about $4000 for a newborn. They even go so far as to ensure 16-year-old mothers get the payment in a form of pension rather than a lump sum to make sure it's spent on the baby and not on booze or drugs or stolen by non-well-meaning relatives. Personally, I think it's a way for the Government to assuage its guilt over not creating better industrial relations provisions for parental leave.

It's a very sad thing that Australia's population growth from birth is so low. A sociologist I heard on the radio once said you can directly correlate the declining population growth with the rise in female education. It makes sense too, as potential mums are spending more time getting educated and starting careers, than starting families. But what's not being acknowledged by the Government is that those potential mothers are sticking to their careers for longer before having children because they need to save up money to be able to raise said kids, because once they leave to have the baby they are suddenly bereft of income. Then the Government wails about cost of childcare, and how they can't provide enough subsidised places for all the kids we're having, but mums have little choice but to go back to work so they can pay for the mortgage and all the bills as well as paying for childcare. It's rotten.

Some more enlightened nations have legislated parental benefits. Like, up to 2 years' paid leave from work - you can have your children, and still cover your mortgage repayments, and what's more you can choose when to go back to work, with the benefit that your child has had the chance to grow up a bit with at least one parent at home all the time, you're not entirely broke, and you can still go back to the same job you had before. Don't get me wrong, some employers here do offer a period of paid parental leave, in fact there are some very good places in that regard, but most only offer the minimum required by law. Which is, 12 months' leave. Unpaid. 12 months in total, that is, so if you happen to have some annual leave available and you choose to take that instead of unpaid leave, you still can't have more than 12 months away from your job. So in our case, I've had 1 month annual leave - before Peanut arrived - and I get 11 months with her before I lose my entitlement to go back to the same job. 11 months with no income, that is. Just to be clear, I wouldn't give up Peanut for anything, and I definitely wouldn't want to be back at work right now with her only 11 weeks old.

Oh, and the baby bonus? That went towards our private medical bills - we avoided the public hospital system for a reason.

I think it's time to face facts and realise that buter's blog has to refocus. Since the arrival of the peanut (above) I realise I've spent very little time surfing the net for "fun geekery stuff" and loads of time surfing for "fun geeky baby stuff" ... so let this serve as the announcement of buter's baby blog.

The first post should of course set the tone for future stuff, and so you know I'm still the same person, albeit with a slightly different set of priorities now, we'll begin with some social commentary.

Since becoming parents, D™ and I have talked about all the new things we have to worry about. Schooling. Immunisations. Stranger Danger. Childhood Obesity. And not to forget, OMGWTFBBQ!!!1!!1!! ... that is, Netiquette.

We have found ourselves agreeing that DVDs aren't good babysitters, that the ABC is the only TV station that the peanut will need, and that computers don't belong in bedrooms. And we really really don't want to go down the path of censoring the internet. Instead, we agree it's better to educate our offspring in how to think for oneself: make decisions about what to see and what not to look for, based on reasoned decision making rather than because it's been removed from sight for you.

Actually this ties in with our perspective on alcohol as well. We don't think it works to ban all alcohol. Rather, educate the child, if they want to drink, then at home under parental supervision is much better than a Southern Comfort experience at 16.

So hopefully the peanut will grow up to be a healthy well-adjusted technosavvy moderate drinker who finds the internet as amusing as we do !

Ok, more, and probably cooler, baby posts to follow ...

It's been raining a lot lately. So I've been watching Weeds. No, not the garden kind (though that happens too after rain) but the TV kind - a cute little show from the US about a housewife in one of those suburban communities where all the houses are rammed up next to one another and are all built according to the same set of plans. You know the ones. The theme song has been running through my head for *days* now and it's driving not just me but D™ insane. As he puts it, it's bad enough getting a song stuck in your head. It's so much worse when the song stuck is not the actual song but someone else's (i.e. mine) poor reproduction of it.

Little boxes on the hillside, little boxes made of ticky-tacky,
Little boxes, little boxes, little boxes, all the same.

There's a green one and a pink one and a blue one and a yellow one
And they're all made out of ticky-tacky, and they all look just the same.

Of course the song was written about American suburban development but as in all things cheap and nasty we Australians have to follow suit. Think fast food - until the American franchises started here we had our own excellent burgers at all the local takeaway shops. Burgers should have salad on them. With beetroot. And fresh minced steak. Not plastic cheese in a sweet bun with a frozen semi-meat patty slapped on.

So I'm (still) really glad that we were able to move somewhere that isn't made of ticky tacky but is all bricky bricky. Even though we haven't got a lot of heating yet and as I write this I can see my breath. Indoors. At 9am. I have lots of warm clothes!

It's a curious thing, that you'll be in a serious meeting or something, and then someone says something which triggers a quote from your childhood. I mean, how often do you say "Miss Jane" in response to someone saying "it's upside down"? Or maybe you say "by the rocket clock" when someone tells you the time .... all these things that just make their way into your subconscious.

So when smh published this story about map reading I couldn't stop thinking about Mr Squiggle. Could it be that the reason he could understand the upside-down squiggles but Miss Jane couldn't, was that Mr Squiggle, being a male, had a better ability to mentally rotate the image than Miss Jane? Was it in fact all a terrible reinforcement of a stereotype (which according to smh has now been discovered to be true)?

I must admit that it's taken me a while to be able to interpret maps without turning them around, but that I stopped doing it because if you turn it once, you have to keep turning it, and that just gets tedious - especially if you're driving! Eeek! But for the men who think it's illogical to turn the map around - I just want to say, you're turning it around in your head anyway, so what difference does it make (apart from less brain work) if you turn the map around physically?

Hey, don't satellite navigation systems turn around depending on your direction anyway? So does that mean they were designed for women or for men? Or does it indicate who they were designed by?

That could be a question for a later time folks.

Back to my rocket clock.

You ever have one of those days where it seems you didn't sleep right, and you end up all fuzzy through the day?

Yeah, I had one of those yesterday.

I've decided therefore, that 5 days weeks are bad, we should have 4 day weeks for the main part, with the bonus that public holidays mean that we get a 3 day week every now and again.

This would solve so many problems!! There's the problem of long weekend traffic on the not-so-common 3-day weekends - Friday night traffic out of the CBD is utterly crapola and so if there was a 3 day weekend every week it wouldn't be so bad, since you wouldn't have 250,000 extra people all driving up to the Central Coast on that one long weekend, instead some of those people would drive up next weekend. Because they can. Of course you could say instead that every weekend the traffic will be utterly crapola, but I think that wouldn't happen. After all, we don't all drive up the coast every weekend already, why would we do it when we have a 3-day weekend every week? I'm sure it's only the specialness of the 3-day weekend that makes the traffic crapola.

Another problem solved would be the midweek hump day, commonly known as Wednesday, when weekends seem so far away in either direction. If you only have a 4-day week, no hump day, since on Tuesday the weekend was only a day or so ago, and on Wednesday, the weekend is only a day or so away! No hump day makes for no boring Wednesday-itis where all your coworkers look depressed because the weekend is so far away in both directions.

And here's a thing - having a 4-day week would help out all those Soccer mums - instead of losing a quarter to half of the weekend ferrying kids to and from school sports on a Saturday morning, and thus having less time to do grocery shopping, household cleaning and all that boring stuff, there would be the option to carry out the sport thing more spread out (no more 7am starts in winter...) or get it over with all on the one day and then *still* have a whole 2 days to do all the family catch-up stuff.

As for economic sense - since it seems most salaried workers in Australia work at least 10 hours a day anyway, but only get paid for 8, why not keep pay rates the same (i.e. paid for 40 hours) even though we're only working 4 days - that way we actually get paid for the hours we work, rather than the hours we are nominally employed for. Doesn't that sound fair? And maybe it would make the workplace more efficient too.

Look, to be fair, I think it would even work if we didn't all take the same 3rd day - some people take Friday and some Monday - the Sat/Sun common days are enough for sport, social events and all that, and meanwhile we all get our extra day.

Hey. I heard the public service can sort-of do this already with flexi time. Why isn't that standard for the rest of us?

now watch me disappear in a puff of ill-humoured smoke ..... grummble rummble grumf ..

I've discovered something today.

Stories published in newspapers are quite likely to only present one side of any given story and in this age of internet debate, the fact that I can't add a comment to any news story that I want to (unlike on a blog, for example) is quite annoying.

Anyway what's got me hot-n-bothered now is the Shlock! Horror! idea that technology is taking kids' time away from their parents. You can go read the whole thing, but here's the key quote:

The research by telco AAPT has revealed that 16 to 20-year-olds spend an average of 3.2 hours a day using technology.

This compares with just two hours of face-to-face communication spent with parents.

Almost half of the 1000 parents surveyed believed two hours was not enough time and would prefer about seven hours of face-to-face time with their children throughout the day.

Ok. But "telco AAPT" didn't ask, or didn't report, whether parents have ever been able to get 7 hours of face-to-face time with their children.

Wouldn't kids be diverting their time to playing outside, hanging out with friends, watching TV, hiding in their rooms, or on the phone, anyway? This is just a new way that they are not spending time with their parents. I'd be surprised if there are many families out there that get 7 hours of face to face time together daily where there is a TV, DVD player, VCR or even separate rooms for goodness' sake.

Jeez, D™ and I don't even get that. Not on weekdays anyway - maybe we get 4 hours a day? Some of which we spend watching TV so make that 3. Some of which is spent separate because of personal hygiene reasons, so make that 2.5. Some of which is spent separate because (for example) one of us is cooking and one is watering the garden. So make that 2. Oh dear. Technology has a lot to answer for doesn't it.

Although it is funny that the other day he said to me, "I read your blog at work because you're not there and it's like having a conversation with you." While being an alarmingly cute thing to say, it does support AAPT's other finding:

Despite this, almost 80 per cent believe technology has dramatically helped their family to stay in contact.

So there you go.

Edit:
D™ and I just spent about 1/2 an hour playing with Cozi. In the same room. With our backs to each other. In order to become more connected. Life's like that.