Houlley and Anti
Feminists are not arguing that CEOs work 9-3 to fit in with school hours. This is ludicrous. Most rational thinking people (yes women are rational too) understand some jobs cannot support flexible working arrangements, or at least most of the time.

I hate to break it to you but for men and women to have more choices in regard to work/life/family balance there has to be a different culture in regard to workplace flexibility that match the needs of business. Otherwise it won't work for either gender.

There are many jobs that could be job shared, done part time, done out of normal working hours, done partly at home. There may not be a one-style fit all approach but many and varied style approaches.

I once had an arrangement with one employer to work Saturday on occasion to replace one of my weekdays to fit in with family needs. No problem and I did not ask nor expect penalty rates as it was instigated by me. In fact I got a lot more done because there were no constant phone interruptions.

You talk about a gravy train as though men have never benefitted or been advantaged by the boys club gravy train, and in some industries still are. If you cannot see that then you are only seeing what you wish to see.

We don't need positive discrimination for CEOs or boards, women can get there on their own merits but that was not always the case. Sometimes positive discrimination is necessary for a time to encourage employers to break free from the cultural mindset and take a 'chance' whether it be hiring a disabled person, a woman or any other disadvantaged group that lives under a generalised stigma. For women this is no longer the case - on that we are agreed. I cannot see the point in women arguing for more CEOs when there are less men able to stay at home with their kids for the same reasons.

Whistler

If every recently divorced person who had a negative view of the other gender lost custody, these kids would all be in foster care.

Most of the rest of us are trying to have a mature discussion about society. It is the sort of discussion that we rarely enjoy in the real world. If you want to allege that people are being sexist, quote them and explain why their comments are unfair. Vague unsubstantiated allegations against un-named people achieve nothing.

pelican,

'Feminists are not arguing that CEOs work 9-3 to fit in with school hours. This is ludicrous. Most rational thinking people (yes women are rational too) understand some jobs cannot support flexible working arrangements, or at least most of the time.'

So by that rationale, since women are more often the primary carer, we will never have equal numbers of women in the top jobs. I challenge you to find a prominent feminist that finds this acceptable.

We're a hell of a long way from men and women sharing the primary carer role equally, so until that time we have to put up with the bleating of feminists about statistics about CEOs and the gender wage gap? That's a long time, I don't think I can handle it. There should be some government department where I can arrange to take out my frustration on a feminist. Are we to endure another generation of women being taught they are oppressed even if their life long dream is a white picket fence and 3 kids running round the kitchen?

Can you really imagine a feminist saying, 'oh well, more women are interested in the primary carer role than men, so we have to just accept that more men will be CEOs' ?

Talk to any feminist and they will blindly state that 'societal expectations' 'burden' women with the responsibility of the primary carer role (Of course men aren't 'burdened' with the primary earner role the lucky things), which implies women's choices aren't real choices. Mens choices are real of course. In fact, I've never heard of a feminist even accept a lot of women just don't want to do paid work at all if their husband earned more, and would rather the traditional gender roles.

BTW: Never would have picked you as a fan of work choices. The unions would piss all over your arrangements.

'I cannot see the point in women arguing for more CEOs'

Thank god for that. This is my point. Try telling that to Elizabeth Broderick. Are you sure you're really a feminist. Cue broad church.

houellebecq,
Is it necessary to be so brittle when we are discussing our various perspectives in these posts
Lying isnt a something I usually do and I expressed a view which was mine and mine only..no attempt to deceive
Yes I do have very simple engagement ring and I paid for a beautiful bedroom suite for us...........my gift
I also have a wedding ring and he received the most magnificent fishing rod for our honeymoon......his choice of gift
My personal journey was not one of being chattel but I have and had witnessed other womens journeys which were not as easy as my own
I had to fight many conventions which were rampant in society at the time, in the church and in our parents generation about women's place in the scheme of things.

Antiseptic
The saddest part from the childrens point of view was their fathers attitudes about supporting them
The fathers lost their respect
As they grew older they became very aware of what was happening financially and understood the inequity and meanness
Perhpas your idea would be good but children become very aware very quickly of the lack of support from their fathers.

hi JamesH, i'm not flaming, i'm merely pointing out to an audience of damaged men who know me well the notion feminism has gone too far is a furphy, that, to quote from Dr West's thoroughly unconvincing article ("a wholesale gender war" indeed and i'm accused of flaming), "[o]ne unfortunate by-product of feminism has been the proliferation of negative attitudes towards men" is just plain preposterous. In the first place feminism is women's business, that's a no brainer, nothing at all to do with men and there are psychiatric wards full of men who tried to make it their business. Men support the empowerment of women because an imbalance of male power has brought life on Earth as we know it to the brink of extinction and it's perfectly obvious to anyone who can rub two sticks together the imbalance is self-correcting. Second up, men are responsible for attitudes women hold about men, has anyone here heard of personal responsibility? Attitudes towards men are not a by product of women's business. If some men need to be constantly reminded all men collectively brought the world to the brink of extinction with such obvious stuff as that anti-discrimination laws have completely failed to impact the power and control which drives sexual assault, along with the pearlers, irreparable harm to the environment, roller coaster economics and incessant warfare, then they should get off their backsides and do something about it, the re-balance that is. I've already explained on this thread how power is derived in Australia and how a referendum next Saturday can re-balance governance so none of you men who read this will ever again have an excuse to denigrate women. I could go on but sometimes i even bore myself.

GAJ, you haven't said why their fathers didn't pay.

The whole point of my suggeston is that CS very often creates major financial difficulties for men with low incomes. It can be so crippling, especially if they get behind, that men take their own lives because the CSA has taken all the money they have from their bank on a friday afternoon. How do you reckon that might feel, to have worked all week, go to the supermarket and be told "sorry, this account seems to be closed"?

Child support was intended as a means of "clawing back" the cost of state support of single mothers. I share care with my ex and I know that my kids, in their early teens, cost about $100 a week each in direct costs as a maximum. Most weeks I would not spend that much, but of course, some weeks it's much more. I don't include in that figure the cost of transport from school, since I pick them up each day and they could easily catch the bus. I just do it that way because I like to: it's a personal choice and therefore my problem. I suspect that many of the costs that people claim as essential fall into that category of personal choices. I've never claimed Family Tax Benefit, leaving that for my ex to claim. I've never claimed any kind of public support at all, in fact, not even a medicare rebate over the past 7 years. I'm not a high income earner, I have a business that I have created from scratch and in all probability I'd be financially better off if I was employed for wages, but it's another of those personal choices.

[cont]