hi R0bert, at risk of repeating myself, with complementary state legislation a majority of Australia's parliament can rescind the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 with the effect of removing all women members, including a woman Prime Minister, and prohibiting all women the vote. The same cannot be said for men. Men rule Australia, that's the law, it's as simple as that. It beggars belief there are men in Australia who genuinely consider women disadvantage men.

whistler if true that's something that should be tidied up. At the same time I can't picture any situation where that power would be used. Eg if it's as you say it's a relic that should be gone from our laws but unlikely to have a direct impact on anybodies life unlike the kind of issues being discussed here.

Your obsession with that one point and your advocacy for idea of separate legislatures seem's to make you oblivious to a lot of other issues with very real impacts.

It beggars belief that their are people in Australia unable to recognise that both genders are at times disadvantaged.

I don't much buy into the idea that either gender is disadvantaged specifically by the other gender, rather by societal attitudes (and the laws derived from those attitudes). Men and women have shared in advantage and disadvantage, both have at times worked to support and reinforce those societal attitudes and norms even when others of their own gender might consider the doing so oppressive and restrictive to their gender.

R0bert

Jefferson
Women are also obligated to pay child custody if they are not the primary carer. It is rarer granted but the law still applies. Women who have primary care also pay, as it would be impossible to live only on what the non-custoidal parent pays. It is not a bonus but an assistance in providing a secure home for children. In real life nothing is ever absolutely perfect and there could probably be some review of how child custody is worked out that does not force hardship and disadvantage for men, particularly on lower incomes. Some sort of taxation benefit could apply.

I tend to agree with RObert that we are all only as disadvantaged and as advantaged as we choose to be given there are areas we could find disdvantage for either gender if we go and seek it but given the options available to all of us - it is really up to us. In RL you take the good with the bad.

Houlley
You assume feminism is about forcing women to be CEOs against their will and that feminism means giving up any sort of home based role. It does not to most women regardless of what a small minority of militant feminists might argue (I suspect few and far between).

Some feminists might think women are letting the sisterhood down by choosing to be SAHMs but who gives a toss - most ordinary people, feminist or otherwise, still believe it to be an individual choice.

Cont/....

When I went to playgroup there were more men after my 2nd child than with my first, especially where their wives earned more. My children and their friends talk about sharing the transitions between work and childcare between the two over the course of a lifetime. People's mindsets are changing and this gives men more opportunities to work part-time and share in the care of the kids if that suits.

Whenever someone asks me if I am a feminist the best response is always to ask the questioner how they define 'feminist'. If the answer is female domination of the species I answer No. If the answer is equal rights (as much as they can be) for men and women then I answer yes.

Jefferson talks about casual sex as though this is the litmus test for equality. He assumes on behalf of other men that what he wants is what all men want. Do men really want a world where both men and women, single or married, can wander about having sex freely with anyone at anytime without any ill-effects. Personally I don't think men and women can cope with this and fidelity is still valued. Maybe that is conditioning but we are not the only species that (attempts) to mate for life and sexually transmitted disease suggests that it is not something we should aspire to as a general rule.

OMG I get a bit lost in the arguments
I laughed out loud when it was suggeted the men/a man provided me with jewelry and other stereotypical stuff as an adjunct to my remaining at home.........so far from the truth I just about pissed myself
We were "poor" and both brought to the union equal amounts of money
............we worked together to achieve financial security.......doing what was best at the time for our mutual benefit
Over time we adjusted our input and by mutual agreement did what was in our best interest to achieve our aims
My husband was able to find a position which he enjoyed because we werent caught in role playing...we managed together to earn enough to support ourselves.
I find it difficult to remember the posts and reply succinctly to each issue
Re my duaghters ....they were good money earners and the legal system assisted their spouses in avoiding some sort of equity in financing their progeny
Because the women were good money earners they received minimal support and as soon as the children reached a certain age the support ended.....no effort to assist in education these children through university or high school
In the end we as a family pulled together and accoomodated the financial and emotional needs of these children.....it was a pleasure for each of us and we now reap the benefit of our love.
Mean-spiritedness has its rewards and these are obvious when a parent is unable to contribute love and support for children
What a magnificent set of posts on this issue and I am enjoying a red while I read and read

GAJ, it can be very entertaining at times.

Child support is an extremely contentious issue, where nobody really wins except for the government.

It is in the Governments best interest, ask your self why does the family tax benefit reduce by 50cents for every dollar paid in child support.

Why if child support is so important, why is it not a tax deduction?

One only need to look at how much our ex Prime Ministers and Governer Generals are costing, to see why the government is so interesting in shaving as much money off of the taxpayer.

I think the tax free politican pension is exempt from being included in the income deemed to be included in the child support calculation.

If an intact family has an income of roughly $50-60k and have children they are eligible for the maximum amount of the family tax benefit, but the minute they separate, the income earner becomes liable and as a result the amount of family tax benefit paid decreases.

So the payer ends up paying twice.