Some interesting observations Killarney.
There are more women In Australia now then men. And as such, and the majority, elect governments!? No?

As the longer living gender, they now own more property, have more money in the bank and hold the majority of shares?
As majority shareholders, they ought to be able to influence board and CEO appointments! So why aren't they?

The biggest road block in the path of female progress are women.
Various surveys have most women preferring to work under men, rather than an entirely and eternally unreasonable butch females, capable of holding a catty grudge, and acting out on it!

Examples of women at the top include, (off with her head) Queen Elizabeth 1.
Iron Lady Margret thatcher, and our own Julia Gillard, who aroused hate; and from other females in particular, who found the quality of her voice grated to the point of madness, on their nerves.

Nor was the most vicious attacks coming from motor mouth shock jocks; but across the isle, in the person of Julie Bishop!
Who made many a cat claw gesture, to underline her willingness to fight!

I would have thought a more conciliatory, less attack dog attitude, would have advanced the cause of women; instead, as seems the usual case; putting them back years, and to the detriment of my daughters!
Rhrosty.

Killarney, it's not a Left/Right divide.
You're right about the progressives but wrong about the traditionalists, traditionalism is "the other Feminism",traditionalists put women on pedestals and seem to view them as morally superior to men.
I wonder if you've met many real patriarchs, the guys who work twelve hours a day so that their wife can play tennis, socialise with her friends and shop to her heart's content, I meet them all the time.
I've never met a man who expressed the view that women are inferior to men, it's usually expressed in terms of good women and bad women,virtue is a masculine quality, a virtuous woman is someone who is the equal of men and I hardly think the term needs any explanation.
There's also a difference between "respected" and "respectable", a woman might be a promiscuous criminal but still be respected by men because she's resourceful,loyal and reliable.

Women get great lives in Australia.

They go to university more often than men, study longer and get better qualified than men. They work for less years and take more sick leave, work closer to home in safe jobs that don't require much physical discomfort. They get to decide if they want 'their' children's father in their lives all the while comfortable in the knowledge that if they decide to 'move on' the state will coerce money from the father plus add additional tax payer money (the majority of which comes from males) to it. When women get older usually well before 50, they get to decide that they are 'tired' and opt out of full time work and often just retire anyway. Of course women actually live 6 years longer than men anyway.

Then to top it all off they get all the professional whiners carrying on constantly about how hard it is to be a woman.

I never though I'd say this but.... I.agree.with.Latham. Left-wing feminism is a terrible, corrosive form of mental illness. It has done untold damage to our society.

I think I could sum up my last post with:

Women have endless choices; while men are expected to work until they drop.

If feminists were really interested in equality they would ask that the retirement age for women be raised to 70 or even 72.

Women live longer, healthier lives than men but work less. Men retired 5 years later than women for many decades. Surely, it is time for men to receive some social justice.

This article seems to suggest that women who have children are victims because they have to juggle two choices and are not being helped by society, governments and employers to do so.

Why should they be helped any more than women who want to juggle work with some other activity? The choice to have a child is a purely selfish choice and there is nothing wrong with making purely selfish choices but that does not mean that some selfish choices are more deserving of assistance than others. If I want to juggle work with improving my golf game then should I also not be given help from my employer, the government and society?

Women have been crying foul about this ever since they obtained the freedom to ‘have it all’. There is nothing wrong with having the freedom to juggle two options but that does not entitle you to help so you can have more of your two options than anyone else. Everyone who makes a choice by definition eliminates other options. If you make a choice to juggle two things then you eliminate the possibility of being able to enjoy them both to the extent you would if you chose only one. It is very unfair to your fellow citizens and colleagues to expect them to carry the burden for you of the consequences of your choice to juggle two things. It is also very arrogant to suggest your particular juggle is more important to you than anyone else’s juggle is to them.

Seems to be some bitterness out there.

It sounds like you don't have children phanto - is that right? I don't think it is controversial to say that people who don't have kids - don't get these kind of responsibilities. I'm guessing your parents aren't elderly yet, or have you been responsible to care for someone who needs serious attention?

Sure, people can chose to attend to the requirements for care, but that's the thing - these people are seriously disadvantaged.

What do we as a society value - golf - or people?

But more than values - children become doctors, teachers, managers, CEOs - whatever - children invent new futures - a lot more than can be said for golf (or whatever other hobby you might chose).