GAJ, no one has is seriously disputing that women have had it tough in the past. It is often forgotten that men have also had it tough in the past - often a great deal tougher than the women did. Not a lot of women have ever gone off to fight in the wars, for example.

I've made suggestions about how to address the issue of child support and avoid the problems associated with forcing parents into conflict over money. Do you think that may have assisted your daughters? Do you have any suggestions of your own?

I coined the term Fabian Feminism and I think I've described it reasonably well. It isn't the same as the feminism you profess due to your own experioences and observations, I suspect. It doesn't have much to do with the problems you spoke of, anyway, except as a means of establishing a political support base to enable the creation of an easier ride to the top for ambitious career-minded women.

Jefferson, the responsibility is not to the mother, but to the children. I say that the benefit to the children of having a guaranteed basic level of support if they need it is sufficient reason to call its provision a responsibility. It then becomes a discussion about who should bear that responsibility and in what proportions

GAJ,

'Marrying at a time when one was expected to stay at home and eventually care for the children while the man went to work
Things needed to change and we gradually fought for a more realistic view of women in society'

This really bugs me. The constant message from feminist women is that it was 'unfair' for the women to get paid less than a man. Never is it mentioned it was 'unfair' that men were expected to pay for drinks, dinners, flowers, jewellery, cars, houses, groceries and the expenses of children.

This was the 'realistic' view of society, and men and women both supported and participated in this model in free will. If it was 'unfair' or 'unrealistic' it was both to women AND MEN.

So, some middle to upper class women wanted more out of life, and they were prevented from expanding their gender roles. They fought for change and good for them. But why do we need to have the demonisation of men as 'chattel' owners and abusers and somehow dominating the organisation of society in 'favour' of men.

I wonder if before some women became bored with their gender role, per chance some men decided to fight to be stay at home carer, we'd now have the demonising of women for ordering society for their own benefit, 'unfairly' keeping men as financial slaves and preventing them from participating in the home.

I'm sure if at that time a lot of men decided they were going to refuse to work but rather bring up the kids, burn their briefcases and suits, and rely on their wives to earn the money there would have been very solid resistance from many women.

Even now, if men decided they should have some affirmative action policies for men to be allowed equal representation in child rearing at home, regardless of the wishes of women, I'm sure there would be a lot of resistance.

Imagine legislating that if any man wanted to stay home, his wife should be forced to support him in an effort to create equality in the homeplace!

Anti and Hollie have both mentioned that old conventions about marriage were unfair on both genders. I would like to add that I do-not accept that women were ever as powerless as some people claim. ISTM that there is too much emphasis on the formal power that men generally have more of and not enough emphasis on the less formal power that goes along way to equalising things. Previous generations of women may have been denied alot of rights, but anyone who knows older women will tell you that they were no pushovers.

[Deleted for abuse.]

I wondered where you had got on this debate Houlley. My position is simply we should all be absolutely equal under the law in all spheres including child custody/support etc and take equal responsibility.

My beef is with men who want their cake and eat it too (Jefferson's transfer of responsibility to women in all things sex and children) and women who want all the perks of equality and none of the responsibility.

It really comes down to couples working out what works for them. What suits one of us won't suit all, humans are many and varied and the legislature and social norms should reflect that to make a number of work/life/family choices available instead of being a slave some economic or social engineering agenda. Adults are still responsible for children regardless of how 'equal' we become and children have a right to be raised without conflict and with some measure of security.

I can't disagree that men still have the biggest burden and responsibility for providing for their family especially where the wife stays at home to care for children. But that is usually a mutual decision and caring of children is still an important role despite being demeaned to some extent in the pursuit of wealth and 'equality'.

Much of what men and women want in terms of equality has been achieved. Don't marry someone that wants a career if you prefer she stay at home for a time, or don't marry someone who just loves being a mum and housewife if you want her to contribute financially all the time. It is about finding the right partner that meets your needs and hers where there is some sharing of values and goals.

whistler

If I was a judge and saw your nutty ravings, I would take your kids off you too.