I'm not so sure Antiseptic or should that read anti-sceptic?

I'll admit my generalisation if you admit yours about working women.

Surely we're not going to go back and revisit brain size and the kind of rubbish the socio-biologists pumped out in the 30s and 40s about the genetic preconditions of men and women and their ability to drive CARS!

This article is a classic example of Single Lens Theory. If you look at the world through one diagnostic/prognostic lens, you see what you want to see. In this case it's men as clever apes thinking technology will save the world. It's a gender theory.

If I look through the Single Lens Population telescope, I see millions of people teeming across the earth, fornicating like rabbits, eating us out of house and home.

No Single Lens will give you a correct or more correct answer. We must look at numerous factors and see how they interconnect. One shouldn't dismiss population or gender but you shouldn't make it the Taj Mahal of your analysis either.

Cheryl, my statement was based on data from the ABS

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features20Jun+2011

Have a look at the chart titled "Work related injuries by occupation group" and you'll see what I'm referring to.

Further, since 2006 men's injury rate at work has fallen, thanks to improved OH&S training and better work practises, from about 71/1000 to 55/1000. women's has remained constant at 51/1000, despite the fact that women barely appear in any of the dangerous industrial categories. this means that women doing office work are claiming to have been injured as frequently as all men, including those doing dangerous physical work.

Why would I hire a woman?

Cheryl, have a look at this as well

http://www.eowa.gov.au/Pay_Equity/Files/Australias_hidden_resource.pdf

Basically, it advocates a series of measures to both"encourage" women into traditionally male roles and to "punish" women who choose traditional roles.

They say this is necessary because women generally don't choose productive work if they ar left to their own devices.

As I said, it's not universal, but it's the way to bet.

Sorry Antiseptic,

I'm missing something. You initially said:

"It seems to me that when women are given a choice of working less they nearly always take it and when they are given the opportunity not to work at all they grab it with relish."

The ABS make no qualitative interpretation on days off by gender.

Are you suggesting that women will take a day off (rather than men) because there are sales on or because they're bone lazy?

You also inferred that 'given a choice' but in most cases illness is not a choice but rather a fact.

The cost of solar and wind may be expensive, The cost of oil or gas is not set in concrete either. At least solar has a determined lifespan.
All men need a shed, that is where all those mechanical devices we all use come from.
Easy on our females, they were sent to us for a purpose, and they can do things no male has ever done.

Like Senior Victorian , I also have no interest in Men's Sheds . I also have an aversion for Top Gear , football , fishing and most other activities that are supposed to be a source of fascination to men . Surprisingly , perhaps , I enjoy watching , but not participating in , boxing .

Every so often ,some media personality decides that it would be profitable to tell men or women , or people collectively that they all want or love something and then the media regurgitates this assertion as a fact, until many of those who hear the assertion really believe it . It is a bit like the Emperor 's New Clothes . It helps to sell coffee table books and provides material for radio and TV programs , because allegedly this is what people want .