My partner makes a mockery of the governmnet, of feminists, of any 'study' into workplace participation.

When we met, she was rather conscientious, and although these things are relative, I considered her quite the career woman relative to me. She seemed to thrive and enjoy performance reviews for a start, and I found it hard to relate to this attitude, being of the opinion such formalities existed purely for cynical mockery . She was a 'professional', even outside the bedroom.

But, along comes baby, and silly me suggests I may stay at home and we could both work part time. Utter shock ensues, and after she cleans the drink she violently spat over the table, she concedes this is logically fair, amicable and even 'progressive', but is a 'cute' idea that should be entertained only for entertainment purposes.

Next, strange career woman quotes such as 'I used to like working and wondered how I might adjust and cope with missing my career and the 'mental stimulation', but, I don't miss it at all.'

Followed soon after by, 'If we had the money, I'd really rather not go to work at all'.

Jewls,

'They are enough when all is said and done.'

No doubt.

99% though, well, I think it's less suffocating for a child and mother to have a break from each other once in a while (Poirot?!:-/).

Independence and all that. It also allows us to afford overseas travel to visit grandparents for wife and the kiddies, and crazy alcoholic bender bachelor weeks for me. Justification over:-)

I am of the belief one has children to actually enjoy watching them grow. Men, women, swings and roundabouts. Financial security in old age or divorce vs seeing the kids and not having a boss. Each can choose a role with relative trade-offs.

Feminists and MRAs should make a deal: No whinging about child support and custody, and no whinging about the gender pay gap or women's superannuation. Choices have consequences.

We zoomed off track eh Houel? We were supposed to be chatting about safety in child care or the government backing off or something to do with not fining them if they mess up, endanger our children (who should be at home in an unsuffocating and independence encouraging way when age appropriate) or how if child care workers are given too many rules they’ll focus on them and not the kids?

I didn’t understand the article or what it was trying to say to tell the truth but I have this masochistic obsession about attempting to understand Vanna... and where did Antiseptic go? Did he finally explode?

Yeah but it's all a mute point. Don't like how child care treats your kids...

a) Make a noise
b) Move to a new centre
c) Keep them at home (Sell the mansion and rent if it's that important.)

If you leave them in somebody's care it's up to them how they handle it when your kid bites the others.

It's the least of your worries anyway when most kids don't even get a drink all day and only get 'stimulating play' for a mere 95% of the time they're there. I've heard there isn't even any Gymberoo and they don't practise attachment parenting and some kids don't get a vegetarian, low GI nut free lactose free diet.

The kids are supposed to be learning to 'socialise' anyway. Sounds like a good thing really by the way parents are these days. More time spent away from that pressure cooker the better; Went to a 3 yr old's birthday party and one of the parents was super pissed off there was actually lollies in the lolly bag (Apparently lolly bags are mandatory) rather than thoughtful healthy eating options.

Ah kids, the high powered career woman's special science project. Cracks me up there's a 'let kids be kids' movement and it's all about what little girls wear. Their priorities are screwed. They should start at Gymbaroo and Baby Einstein DVDs and attachment parenting and hypochondria and that rubber stuff in the playgrounds before they worry about the length of the skirt on princess outfits.

I miss septic too. Vanna is a poor substitute. But he said something scarily accurate and profound and intelligent on a topic that even he couldn't relate back to feminism. Cant remember where sorry.

Poirit
You are extremely abusive, and I can fully understand why you are so attracted to feminism.

Disregarding normal feminist propaganda such as “women and their children”, the true face of modern motherhood would have to be: -

• Throw away babies in abortion clinics.
• Throw away infants in daycare centers.
• Throw away husbands in family law courts.

And currently, producing some of the unhealthiest children in the history of this country.

Houellebecq,
I congratulate you in your role as a stay at home dad, and I hope other men do similar as a part of save the children.

However, I could advise to stay away from the whisky bottle, stay away from the midday shows, stay away from clothes and shoe shops, and stay away from daycare centers.

vanna,

"Poirit
You are extremely abusive, and I can fully understand why you are attracted to feminism."

Why, thank you vanna - coming from you I'll take that as a compliment.

Btw - I referred to you as a "silly man"..... which could be the most abusive thing anyone has ever written on this forum...I'll try and pull my head in : )

Houel:”Yeah but it's all a mute point.”

I guess it is, or I don’t understand the fuss. These are private companies providing a service to private individuals? I sort of missed where the beef was.

“…there was actually lollies in the lolly bag (Apparently lolly bags are mandatory) rather than thoughtful healthy eating options.”

Well they’re just crazy, the one time you want your own kids on a sugar high is when they are in the person’s home that gave them the lollies.

I missed the kids be kids thing – what should we do to encourage this? Untie them?

“… he said something scarily accurate and profound and intelligent on a topic that even he couldn't relate back to feminism. Cant remember where sorry.”

Oh you bloody great tease.