Both sides act as if home duties are still an 16 hour a day occupation when most homemakers spend a maximum of four hours a day on chores, there's no way home duties can be compared to a full time job these days, if it is wearing you out you're doing it wrong.
This is why we have "helicopter parents" and "social justice warriors", the middle class stay at home/work from home mums and dads don't have anything better to do with their time but attach themselves to stupid causes,interfere in the orderly running of society and bother other people who have real jobs like school principals, for example.

Jay,

I couldn't agree more.

If I manage to get a day off work for some reason and make it down to the local mall on a work day, the first thing I notice is that it is full of working age women and retired men. The women often have gym clothes on, are sitting down chatting over coffee, or standing around talking after bumping into a friend.

Women get such good lives yet all we ever hear are complaints. Since this article there have been another two articles published on OLO alone. One about Afghan women (as if Australia women have anything in common with Afghan women) and another on women's superannuation. I haven't read it yet but it's probably claiming that women should get more money for less work again, all in the name of equality.

Orwell couldn't have made this up. Feminism really is a mental illness.

Dane, if feminism is an illness it's obviously caused by attitudes like yours. Can't fathom you believe the tripe you spout. Do some real research. See who holds most of the money and power in our society. Not women.

Jay and Dane,

Here's a little joke for you ...

A husband came home one night and found the house looking like the aftermath of a battle zone or hurricane - furniture upturned, food all over the floors and walls, broken crockery and ornaments everywhere, clothes all over the place, curtains torn and pulled down ...

Fearing the worst, he went running through the house calling out to his wife and children - only to find them happily sitting on the bed reading a story.

'Oh, thank God!' he said. 'I didn't know what had happened. I thought you had all been murdered or kidnapped!'

'Oh, no. We're fine,' she said.

'What happened then,' the husband asked, shocked and puzzled. 'Why does the house look like it's been completely ransacked?'

His wife sweetly smiled. ‘Well, darling,’ she said. ‘You know how you come home every night and ask me what did I do all day?’

‘Yes,’ said the husband.

‘Well, today I didn’t do it.’

Linden,
Men don't hold any power, the state and it's institutions and to a lesser extent large corporations constitute the power structure in Australia.
Because of the way society is ordered men who seek individual power or to set up autonomous power structures are automatically classed as troublemakers and outlaws then demonised and suppressed.
The idea of the constitutional monarchy or "English Republic" is to keep power in state hands and not to allow individuals or even the monarch to exert influence or create a following or cult of personality.
Feminism isn't a mental illness but it's a pretentious affectation and amounts to little more than status signalling for social climbers. In an age when everything from playing computer games to transvestism and religious fanaticism is now named an "identity" it's no wonder that Feminism has become just another line in the "about me" section of blogs and social media pages owned by freaks, shut ins and lonely cat ladies.
There probably are liberal Feminists still about but their voices are drowned in the surf of pop culture and the idolatry of weirdness and dysfunction pervading social media,meet Chanty Binx, like it or not she's the face of Feminism on the internet and the internet is where most people live now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVuK44kWgxk

Having watched these online struggles over gender issues and other contentious topics (AGW and atheism being the most obvious, but there are some others)with some interest and having participated myself with some vigour in the past, I'd like to offer some of my observations below.

1. It is indisputable that these types of topics are of passionate interest to some people. On every online discussion venue in which discussion of contentious topics is allowed, they attract a consistently large relative number of comments, many of which are obviously the product of a fair degree of preparation.
2. The people who participate in these discussions are usually a small subset of the subscriber base of the site and each topic has its 'usual suspects'.
3. The comments, notwithstanding the obvious work that may go into them, are usually rehearsing well-trodden paths and it is quite common for new commentators or unfamiliar comments to be ignored.
4. The topics share a common presentation as some form of dichotomous moral/ethical problem, so they rapidly revolve to in group/out group displays with no chance of any meeting of minds. If my argument is that your view is inherently immoral and yours is the converse, the discussion has nowhere to go.
5. The topics share the feature of having some genuine significance within the broader community, but little widespread interest.

So, having regard to the above, I'd really appreciate it if some of the participants here and possibly the author, if she is monitoring the site, would mind taking the trouble to think about and respond to a question.

Why do you do it?

This is not a question about your case, whichever side you might argue, it's about you. What motivates you? Is it just a game, perhaps a display for friends or colleagues offline? Or is there more to it? Have you considered different approaches, such as a cooperative effort to come up with mutually satisfactory solutions that might actually work? Do you have any ideas about how to break the endless deadlock?

I would be really interested in your answers.