Profile

User Comments

SEB April 4, 2024

@mamamia-user-482898552 I disagree.

If a father took his child away from the mother on false pretences, and she flew halfway around the world to get her baby, I would absolutely think there would be praise. If you want to talk double standards, I think the father would be absolutely villainised for removing a child from a loving parent, but the same set of principles doesn’t seem to apply in reverse.

SEB April 4, 2024

@higgy just to clarify, I said the situation is ‘exceptional’, meaning out of the ordinary, unusual….and I stand by that.

The ‘deceit’ is born out of the fact that the mother flew back home to ‘visit’ and then decided to never return, taking her unborn child away from the father. Confusion or not, this was dishonest and unfair and really devalues the roles of fathers.

Quite condescending to Dan, and by extension all fathers, to call this a nice gesture and insinuate he doesn’t know what’s going to be involved in raising a child. On the one hand you don’t want him to receive any praise for flying to Texas to take custody of HIS baby, but when he actually does that, his actions are seemingly questioned and belittled.

SEB April 1, 2024

@mamamia-user-482898552 this isn’t just a dad turning up to the local hospital down the road. He has flown halfway around the world, preparing to be a single father and his baby’s sole custodian and navigating international borders with an infant. No one says he deserves a parade, but some recognition that this is a pretty exceptional situation and having to deal with a mother who has behaved so deceitfully and selfishly is warranted.

SEB February 8, 2024

Interesting read.

It sounds like some definite pros for employees, but as the article implies this will undoubtedly cripple flexible work hours. no longer would having the flexibility to collect the kids from school, or fit in daytime appointments (with the view to catch up on work later that evening) be an option. A shift would be a shift, no flexibility - no kids, no unapproved breaks. Employers would simply disallow this level of flexibility.

SEB December 30, 2023

I have not ever experienced this personally, however I would say that children don’t usually cut their parents out of their lives without reason.

Reading this piece, it seems the relationship was fraught already but the author choosing her partner’s job over her daughter’s needs ie moving interstate before her daughter had even finished school, speaks volumes!

I can only imagine how soul crushing it would be as a child, to realise your mum’s new partner was more important than you. Although the author says she did everything she could…reading between the lines it doesn’t seem like she did at all.

SEB December 17, 2023

@olga thanks for clarifying Olga. That explains Oprah’s terminology, but I continue to be frustrated by the mislabelling of this medication by Australian media outlets. It’s grossly incorrect and unethical.

SEB December 15, 2023

@champagne12 spot on!

SEB November 10, 2023

Can I plead with you to change the title of this article from ‘weight loss injections’ to ‘diabetes injections’?

This medication is NOT a weight loss injection and it is unethical and counter productive to misrepresent it. I appreciate that the article (to a small extent) clarifies this…but this is grossly misrepresenting this medication.

Please look up the ‘indications’ of use for this drug in MIMs if you need clarity - NOWHERE does it state overweight/obesity or weight loss as an indication of use, so it is incorrect to label this medication as such.

SEB November 10, 2023

@loulaloulie 100%. There is so much mean spirited commentary towards health professionals in these stories (be it the prescriber (doctor) or pharmacist) without much thought or care being given to what a tough position you are being placed in.

At the end of the day this is a diabetes med, being prescribed off label and in very short supply. It is your literal job to assess prescriptions and ensure safe and equitable medication usage.

Thank you for the work you are do - I see how hard it is to be your your often very thankless role and appreciate your invaluable role in the community!

SEB November 10, 2023

@gloried yes, there is so little thought given to those who actually need the drug for it’s intended purpose - Blood glucose management in type 2 diabetes.

It is not a ‘weight loss injection’ it is a ‘diabetes medication’. People are using it for its side effect (weight loss) at the expense of those needing it for its intended clinical purpose (blood glucose control). We can’t gloss over this very important fact - and I think people should care about how their actions and choices affect others!

SEB June 20, 2023

I love this! Thank you Amy for pulling back the curtain.

I admire that Amy walks the talk and is candid about what she has done herself.

Hollywood stars have gaslit women for decades, Ozempic is just the latest.

SEB June 15, 2023

@mamamia-user-10757870 I would never say there is no value in parent care. For context, I’ve been a SAHP or a part time worker for the entire decade I’ve been a mother - at a sacrifice to career progression, earnings and super.

The thing is, when we as family made each of these decisions, I never for one moment thought it’s someone else’s responsibility to fund this choice. Not a workplace. Not the government.

The thing is, whilst it might be the best decision for the microcosm of my family, my family’s choice doesn’t mean it is the best thing for society at large. I also think your statement insinuates that working parents don’t provide ‘parent care’ - which is a very dangerous claim to be making.

I can assure you as both a SAHP and a part time working parent, I am still very much a parent and still very much provide ‘parent care’!

Is my super savings moving at glacial speed compared to full time workers? Yes! Do I expect the finite public resources to pay for my choice? No!

There is a difference between what is evidence vs what can be realistically be put into practice. So honestly (and even as someone who may seek to benefit from a the proposed change) in good conscience I would never support this push without proper robust economical modelling in addition to research. And as I said previously, until this proposal can guarantee it would not majorly impact on the provision of basic health, education and support services, I would personally approach with great trepidation. Personally, I don’t think my super balance is of greater public importance than a well staffed emergency department or good quality educators teaching appropriately sized classes 😊

SEB June 15, 2023

@mamamia-user-10757870 part of my concern with the lack of economic modelling for this argument centres on the impact this will have on the workforce. Specifically the caring professions - teachers, health workers, aged care workers, support workers - which are disproportionately staffed by women. You don’t have to go very far to learn about the dire worker shortages in these industries.

Should we start paying parents to stay home, instead of working, where is the modelling to show it will not worsen the employment crises facing these industries?

Sounds lovely on paper to start using public funds to pay SAHPs - but I’m sure those same parents would not be thrilled when school class sizes swell to 40 kids or patient:nurse ratios skyrocket, because of even worse worker shortages.

Just love to see the financial modelling that shows this is a wholly good idea for society.

SEB June 14, 2023

@mamamia-user-10757870 is the benefit of being at home greater than for children in care? We would need a meta analysis reviewing many robust, long term studies to really be able to debate this and I don’t believe the evidence base (for or against) is strong enough yet.

And if the evidence shows it is superior, by all means factor that into the modelling. But as it stands at the moment, none of that work has been done, so I think it’s a bit pie in the sky to be just asking for money for a perceived sense of equity.

I honestly feel like we are just balancing the ledger. With the new childcare reforms due in July I feel like many women (many for the first time) are able to chose to work. Up until recently the childcare rebate framework has meant the cost was permissive to many women returning to work (even when they wanted to!). I worry that to disincentivise the option to work (by paying SAHMs) holds many women back.

Whilst the author may want to stay home and be financially rewarded for it, you will find another group of women who up until recently ‘had’ to stay home because childcare ate up almost all of their take home pay.

Honestly, I will always support the right to choose but that doesn’t mean remunerating everyone for said choice. Public money is not abundant - and remunerating middle income families for having a SAHP seems like a poor use of public funds.

Let’s take a holistic view, balancing the needs not just of individual families, but what is financially and socially best for all families (and the community at large). Until I can see well constructed (non emotive) and economically modelled argument, it’s hard to jump on board with something that I can see has many, many downsides.

SEB June 14, 2023

I dislike the tone of this piece.

On the one hand the author can freely acknowledge the decision to stay home was entirely her choice (and not one made under duress), but she simultaneously wants someone else to fund this said choice.

To insinuate the government is doing nothing, is frankly misleading. Paid parental leave is relatively new, which shows progress, and the new childcare reforms seek to better compensate families. Billions have been injected into families.

At the end of the day, the childcare rebate funds itself and then some. Economic modelling shows that the childcare rebates returns 150% to the economy. The same would not be said about boosting non working parents superannuation.

This ongoing argument is yet to ever show any real economic modelling. It seems naive to just stand with one’s hands out, while there are others much more in need - money is finite!

And super is actually part of one’s salary. One goes to work to earn this - it is not a hand out, it is not a charity. It is also technically a shared asset, that will always be divided should the relationship dissolve. And why is the author’s partner not contributing to hers, or dare I say is she not allocating some of her own earnings to super (I’m guessing this article was not written for free….?)