"I'm looking more at how badly women,especially mothers have been treated by male dominated societies"

That would explain terms like "women and children first" I guess.

Seriously CHERFUL so much of what you are writing is based on feminist interpretations of history which often is a gross misrepresentation of the reality of life.

They have cherry picked examples which suit the portrayal of interactions between the genders that they want to push regardless of how little relation it has to the realities of most of our lives.

I'd suggest a read of a book called "The Myth of Male Power", not perfect but worth reading because it provides a worthwhile counterpoint to much of what you might currently think about men and their lives.

Both genders have had their up's and down's. Sometimes great, sometimes horrible and often somewhere in the middle. The continual attacks on men and how good we have had it has got very old.

R0bert

Antiseptic,

Your description of your Nan and her attitude is eerily similar to the one my mum gives of her own mother - except I never got to meet my Nan as she died before I was born....she was also "the wife of a plumber who had been badly gassed during WWI"....and from what my mum tells me about her childhood, her parents shared a wonderful devoted life together.

"It would be great if we could go back to the "good old days" when women stayed home and looked after the little tykes and let hubby be the bread winner."

Who is saying that. Most contributors to OLO have talked in endless threads about more sharing of work/home roles even if at one time or another the mother/father is doing the lion's share of work/home. Unless one is a pedant, nothing can ever be absolutely equal.

I personally think our children are disadvantged by full-time child care from an early age but I don't expect everyone to share my views nor would I expect to 'force' people to raise their children solely in the home just because I did. However, as a SAHM I watched as we lived frugally on one income while working parents got a greater share of the welfare pie. There is something not quite right there - it is like the government paying parents to work for some greater economic agenda while those who stay at home are being punished for failing to live up to the standard 'working family'.

Don't get me wrong, as a SAHM myself I did not want nor ask for money from the government only that we all bear the brunt of our personal choices (there was a stage from memory where SAHPs got a $30/week parenting allowance).

Welfare is about supporting or giving a hand up for those in need. It is not about IMO, tax-payers funding for populist policies for an electoral agenda. We have to ask where the priorities are for government spending and policies that target disadvantage like housing affordability and increase in personal debt. That would go a lot farther and give more choices to men and women, than paid paternity leave.

Times do change but not always for the better. Sometimes change brings about improvements sometimes not - and can create more problems in our youth.

Whoops, that last line should have read "for our youth" not "in".

Absolutely agree, Pelican,

This subject could probably do with a thread of its own.
In 2009 the Federal Government rolled out an $18.7 million mental health initiative under the banner "Kidsmatter"...an extended version of one already in place, but this time aimed at early childhood settings to address, amongst other things, depression in very young children.
Remember this:
http://www.theage.com.au/national/depression-program-to-focus-on-preschoolers-20091005-giv4.html

Seems a sad indictment of a society that puts consumer participation way above the psychological well-being of its very young.

"Put simply IQ as measured by IQ tests are the 'best' way of predicting a persons' financial success. The best, not perfect, obviously with exceptions etc.. "

PTP, can you cite your source for this assertion? Or can we assume that the members of Mensa are predominantly billionaires?

"Because children cost money. In an urban society unless there are incentives, people stop having enough children to replace themselves."

PTP, just because something "costs money" does not mean that it automatically attracts a subsidy.

"The worst aspect is that the higher your IQ, the higher your income, the more affluent postcode you live in, the higher your education, the more professsional your career... the fewer children you have. We are breeding a shrinking society of imbeciles!"

Hang on; so the wealthy are having less children, the poor have more. Can you run that bit past me again, yanno, the bit where you say "children cost money"?

"The people who serve you every day, the teachers who teach you, the fit young soldiers that are there to defend you, the fit nurses who have the stamina to handle gruelling hospital shift and emergency work... Having breeders around you is about survival."

Oh Cherful, not that old chestnut! Spare the faux altruism. You did not have children for the benefit of me or the nation. Indeed, the argument that parents ought to be incentivised with cash to breed ameliorates any spurious claim to some act of benevolence. By all means have kids, but do not expect me to embrace your fecundity as some kind of service for which I should be grateful.