"Now fast forward another 60 years to our own, allegedly more enlightened, times and what do we see? Fifty-five per cent of women in Australia experience some sort of violence during their lifetime. There is still a gender pay gap. And the just released EOWA 2008 Australian Census of Women in Leadership reveals that the number of women on boards and in executive management positions has actually declined since 2006. "

Fact is, men are far more likely to experience violence than women, even if it is usually at the hands of other men. And the extent to which woman commit domestic violenece is commonly under-reported, and almost invariably overlooked by feminists.

In terms of pay gap, many women are less career focussed, prefering instead to spend more time with their children. Men also have higher expectations and pressures placed upon them, which also explains why more sit on company boards. Finally, the pay of most men primarily benefits their female spouses. So this whole male vs female pay is quite irrelevant and misleading.

"Do women even realise that they would have an unstoppable majority if they marshalled their electoral power and allocated their votes according to their interests? Why should women not demand their entitlements and take them rather than wait meekly to be given them?"

Maybe women share more interests together with men and therefore don't see the need for gender warfare. After-all most women are far more worries about the state of the economy than whether enough women sit on company boards.

Like most feminists, the author overlooks the fact that most males and females are not autonomous individuals, but instead belong to families where couples are working together in order to serve their best interests, as well as those of their children.

Kellie

Now you've let the cat get out of the bag, if women become a political solidarity? There's no telling where that would end.

Of course men would be reduced to being sperm dispensers and tampons would be tax deductable.

OK I've had a bit of fun enter now the B & T's.

'What would happen if they demanded that the government not abandon half of the electorate on this issue?'

This is pure arrogance/naivety. A hell of a lot of women don't agree with paid maternity leave. And a hell of a lot of men would benefit financially by their partner earning money for the family in this way, yet still don't believe in it.

The Maternity leave arguments really bemuse me. It seems to me that certain feminists see this solely as a symbolic importance. It seems as if you could give women double the money in FTB and Baby Bonus, but because it's not called maternity leave it's not good enough.

Possibly the reduced child care rebate etc and taking away the baby bonus could fund PML, and if that's the case it's probably preferrable for most families to have kids at home being looked after by either parent rather than subsidizing child care. But I sense this isn't really why so many feminists are so desparate for maternity leave, as articles like the above illustrate.

'Is that not the way society makes "non-working" women feel?'

No. Nobody can make you feel anything. Most non-working women I know are pretty proud of the child rearing work they do, and feel lucky their family have chosen/can afford this lifestyle choice for them. I even know some blokes a bit envious that it's their partner who gets to do that job.

Nothing new here. It's the fault of men, of course. Now can we move on?

But before we do, there are a couple of inconvenient facts that might need some explaining away.

Ms Tranter says, bluntly and without a skerrick of hesitation or doubt:

>>There is still a gender pay gap<<

But there are other views on this in 2009.

"Women who choose to stay single are likely to earn more than single men throughout their lives"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1145973/How-paid-men-Stay-single.html

The last time I looked, getting married and opting out of the workforce in order to have children was not compulsory.

OK, so it is totally unfair that bearing children is restricted to females. But is that the fault of men?

As for the perennial proposition that the taxpayer at large should bear the cost of raising other people's children, when personal choice and a regard for individual rights, responsibilities and circumstances have been the prevailing drivers since Moses played full forward for Collingwood, what is there to say?

Apart perhaps from, "why?"

The argument used here is as fallacious as mine was when I used to ask "why can't I play in the street, Billy next door can?"

>>...why should Australian women sit around and wait to be “given” paid maternity leave when according to most countries around the world they have a right to it?<<

The answer may well be contained in the article itself:

>>...notwithstanding the proven economic and social benefits that flow from the provision of paid maternity leave<<

Here's a thought, Ms Tranter.

Could you please take a moment to point out the economic benefits that have accrued to countries who have implemented paid maternity leave, compared to those who have not?

Well said Kellie Tranter. For the past 12 years women have been progressively marginalised by officially promoted hairy chested values
of a fearful male dominated political and business elite.
Jingoism was just one of the by-products. Whatever it takes in cricket and rugby,making excuses for predatory male behaviour, including binge drinking and molestation of women.
This same hairy chested ethos of whatever it takes has now brought us the Depression that none of us want or need, including the dutiful stay at home Mums.
Hovellebecq and AJFA what drivell, best ignored were it not for the undercurrent of menace and bullying.
Your brand of controll freakery would get nowhere with the women in this household. They would make mincemeat of you and rightly so.
Your lack of self confidence and self esteem is manifest.
Bruce Haigh

"best ignored were it not for the undercurrent of menace and bullying"

"They would make mincemeat of you and rightly so. Your lack of self confidence and self esteem is manifest."

So we have two posts which disagree with the author but which don't appear to threaten anybody, which don't appear to use any threatening language, which don't appear to be putting anybody down (apart from possibly the author and even then the comments appear to directed at her approach rather than her personal characteristics).

Bruce accuses the authors of those posts of an undercurrent of menace and bullying whilst himself using violent terms and making personal reflections on the emotional health of the posters.

Now what was that about an undercurrent of "menace and bullying"?

R0bert