Ro, I quite agree about the relationship between war and the need for 'all hands on deck', in fact, the fact that women went into supportive roles, spilling their 'emotional' guts as the men spilled their real ones on the battle field, underlines the differences in gender and the appropriateness of 'his' and 'her' roles re work and war and in general. The most important factor in our cultural sorting out of roles is 'balance'.

We should never allow ourselves to reach a condition where it is one sided.

I observe that aside from the war, feminism as a doctrine now persuades females that they 'should' work (it appears to me anyway) and not to join the workforce is some kind of social sin.

So, most women now work. But do we have balance ? Has it brought is more happiness ? I don't know about you, but the thought of working 38hrs to benefit only from say 10 of them, (the rest going toward expensive child care) is to me repulsive.

I think if there was less family income, housing prices would have to crumble, in line with purchasing power. Women would have more time to enjoy the delights of Child nurturing (when young) social involvement, home management and best of all, any kind of work from home job they care to think up, including running a home based business.

Thanx for pulling me up on the War thing, thats the beauty of such a forum as this, we often don't include important and relevant information which has bearing on the topic. It all helps :)

Shorbe: Nobody is blaming private schools. I’m simply suggesting that we fund the parents rather than the schools. The parents will decide how to spend the money. Most would spend it on schooling. Under the present system, the government allocates the money to private schools using a procedure that is open to political manipulation. Fund the parents directly and give them the choice.

DLC: Tax cuts are good but they provide a greater benefit to high income earners. Those in greatest need are probably in the lowest tax bracket.

BOAZ_David, everyone should be encouraged to find their own level. I am now working part-time, while my wife works full-time, having been part-time for 8 years. My wife is earning more than I did and this has freed up some of my time to get involved in some interesting contract work. Unfortunately Australia's tax/super/award systems are really not set up to suit this kind of flexibility, particularly trying to work around school holidays. I suspect that if I did the sums I would probably be better not having a regular job at all, just doing contracts, but that's a BIG scary step and one I am not prepared to take. I can understand any working mother's reluctance to give up work altogether.

I wouldn't call us frugal, but we only run one car, don't go overseas every year, don't smoke at all or drink (much), aren't real good consumers and aside from a mortgage we don't have any debt. I feel that we have found a reasonable balance between work and home, expenditure and income. Consumption of goods is not satisfying in itself, it is what you do with them that is important. Sharing a meal and a bottle of wine with friends is different from eating and drinking alone.

Hey groovers,
Did I miss something or was there absolutely no mention of the idea that whats best for the tin lid should influence the decisions regarding childcare?
Surely in the early years a biological parent (either one) should have some role in the childs development. Plonk 'em into daycare and gripe about spending too much on daycare.Hmmm.
Yes there are economic factors to consider, but are they really being considered at all?
How many daycares could be created if we redirected funds from all the silly military shenanigans, and a significant proportion of the silly terrorism shenanigans? If more people throw in the towel and stay at home to enjoy time with their developing kids, the kids develop better. It would free up heaps of employment making it harder for the IR nonsense to gain hold.
One of the great whinges of the student union movement is that VSU will affect womens education by affecting childcare. It should not be a compulsory thing to have to subsidise daycare for others. Those determined to go to uni will make their own arrangements, and the minorities will cry foul.
Kind of like the real world, most will make their own arrangements and some will want the government to provide everything.

Social systems have ususally determined how childrens have been raised wheither they where fuedal, tribal, medieval or contemporary -whatever, the modes have always differed buit kids have been cared for.

There was a brief moment of time when just like in Leave it to Beaver and reflected in the womens magazines of the 50's and sixties, mum wore an apron, made the kids lunches and Hoovered the house while the old man worked.

But that was really an anomaly in the history of childrearing - more kids have been brought up by wet nurses, nannies, grandparents and other members of the extended family than by their birth parents -

the mother had to return to the fields or the factory or the sweat shop so childrearing was delegated; alternatively they could afford to farm the little buggers out - not that far removed from how it is today.

Feminism has had little to do with it and the role that economics plays in the equation is now much the same as it was then - it has always been a determinant on how where and by whom chilldren are raised.

What has changed is the degree of social interconnectedness that allowed for children to be supported - again under the influence of economics - so to offset that we need public policy to support the kids some other way; Saunders approach is sound and rational.

Some take child rearing as their complete focus and good on them - many would like to but cant - some have dual agendas in their lives but are no worse the parent for it.

I think Peter Saunders suggestion that the money be given directly to the parents in preference to paying the money as a rebate does seem to have merit, but it does raise the question of just how much others, who don't have children, should subisidise those who do.

I would suggest that the cost of child-care, as well as the difficulties parents face in trying to access these services is yet another example of what has not been properly factored in when economists make their claims, as cited Peter Saunders in "Australia's Welfare Habit" that Australian living standards have more than doubled since the 1960's. (I have had more to say on this in another post in response to another article by Peter Saunders at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3737#12173).

The costly shambles that is the Australian child care industry precisely illustrates why some necessary services should not be left to the private sector.

How is it that obtaining and using child care services has become such a nightmare for many working parents in Australia, whilst a much less affluent country such as Cuba has been able to provide free 24-hours-per-day child care to all of its citizens for decades?