When I read this article I thought:- now here's a lot of things it would be interesting to discuss. An objectively-written discussion on current social problems one could get one's teeth into.

Hot on the heels of this thought came the realisation that, instead, here was yet another portal for the time-worm repetitions of the same ole same ole. Instead of a discussion what will ensue are the usual diversions to domestic violence, The Office of Women, the family courts and the feminisation of society and government to its eventual detriment. Plus, of course, the religous factor. And the chance to slag off entire genders because because of personal bad experiences which have absolutely nothing to do with the article. Coupled with, no doubt, some initial bad mouthing to put me in my place.

(Sigh). I wish articles like this could come with some sort of sticker saying "Only those who are genuinely interested in THIS article need apply". Then we might get some comment instead from people who have actually had experience and gained knowledge from the situations discussed. We might even (gasp!) reach some conclusions relative to the article.

Ah well...let the games commence.

Thank you for that. From a professional woman's point of view, one of the main issues is the lack of enthusiasm from employers to provide part time work to working mothers that is, often, the equivalent of what they were doing prior. And if they do, the jobs are regarded as having a lack of any real career growth - therefore you end up being sterotyped as not wishing to further enhance your career (otherwise you would be full time), being distracted - as you now have children and can not give your all to the well being of the corporation, and as one of the CEO's said - in a public forum - "you have to make a choice, the job or your family, you can't have both".

According to the ABS, Australian dads work 5hrs a day longer than mothers.

Very few women take the CHOICES that thay have to return to long-hours work once they become mothers... but tragically men INCREASE their hours when they become dads. Why do new dads work longer?

If a full-time job is 8hrs/day, and dads are doing some house-work...

Are we to believe that these families require over 5hrs a day of "house-WORK". I have a young daughter and I work a 4-day week so I can play with her... yes, that's what it is PLAYING.

Most mothers spend most of their days PLAYING with their kids, and feminists call this "house-WORK", meanwhile Dad's "work-WORK is belittled.. and so that when dad, after long years of long hours gets a promotion, it is somehow sexist discrimination? Women earn less because they work less hours for fewer years, and generally in clean safe and nearby locations (not mining, garbage, farm labour, or truck-driving).
"Why Men Earn More" http://www.amazon.com/Why-Men-Earn-More-Startling/dp/0814472109

Men, are now refusing to do such long hours... PLAYING with the kids is much more fun than PAYING for them.

The tragic result of this (and discriminatory practices in the divore court) is THE MARRIAGE STRIKE... where many men are simply saying "the system is unfair against dads... so I'm never going to marry"

This is leading to a generation of women who are going to miss out on the husband and family that they usually desperately want. The sins of the nasty-feminist mothers are being visited upon their daughters... because (by making fatherhood so un-attractive) they have cut the head off the goose that laid the golden egg.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_strike
www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2003/0812.html

While I agree with much of what this article states there are a few things to add.

Without wishing to generalise too much, men do not get the same choice that women do ie. to stay at home or work part-time to be able to balance work/life priorities. In general men are still perceived as the 'main' breadwinner and the women's income as the 'support' income. This is not applicable to every family but I would suspect most dual working families.

The truth is that people are working longer hours, our economic system is not very good at providing opportunities that allow for a better life-work-family balance for either gender.

Some jobs don't allow for part-time hours - that is just the reality but I would suspect that most could be adapted. I downshifted jobs because I knew my employer would not allow a job share situation at the level I worked previously because of the need for continuity. It could be done but it would be difficult so I didn't even ask because I knew my boss's aversion to part-timers in the past.

Speaking from personal experience, women in lower paid part-time jobs are often taken advantage of because employers know that part-time is preferable for working mothers and this fact is often exploited.

It is these industrial relations aspects that need to be addressed if we are to achieve true working equality. I don't know if men would be equally exploited in the pursuit of part-time work, I suspect not as much but there is probably not much data on part-time male employees so I would not like to make a broad statement on that one.

Sigh, just when I was thinking I was 'evolved' by choosing to reduce work responsibilities and hours worked in favour of spending more time with the children and having time to myself to smell the roses.

Many women are not willing to put career and material things ahead of their private lives. After all, you are only live once. I am sure that in the final hours of life any regrets will be about time not spent with family and friends, not about that BMW or clothes I could have bought through being a senior suit.

What women should do is become more astute in managing money and in investment.

As for men, they are affected by much the same work inflexibilities as women.

Pelican well put.

Romany I suspect that you are right about what this will become but to be fair the article invites much of it. It like it's predecessors uses limited statistics without looking at causes and the choices people make to create an impression of gender hardship.

Not that balanced although some of the issues are very important. There was little need for the article to be about gender, many of the issues are the same if you happen to have the role of prime care giver for a child or children.

As a single dad my opportunities for advancement are limited by my choice to put family responsibility ahead of career. I've routinely made decisions which put family ahead of income. My choices, my consequences.

Maybe some of us have got overly cynical about articles which try to portray disadvantage for women and then use a very selective view of the world to support it (eg its more than likely the reported income differences in WA have a lot to do with the types of work more men than women are choosing in a mining boom).

If there are genuine disadvantages then let these writers talk about them, otherwise talk about the issues as human issues. The problems anybody trying trying to find a life work balance faces. The problems we face when costs associated with necessities seem to be growing faster than income etc. The remaining social pressures for women to be prime carers and men not to be. The increasing pressure in some quarters for people to do unpaid overtime just to have a chance of advancement. That stuff is often not about gender, it's about the roles we choose to take on.

R0bert