One slight problem for Barbie to become a CEO. Barbie would have to first put in at least 20 yrs at junior and then senior management level in a number of companies, possibly have a MBA, and be willing to work 60 – 100 hr weeks.

As well as that, Barbie would have to be prepared to be dismissed from the CEO position at the next shareholders meeting, if the shareholders thought the company wasn’t making sufficient profits.

The above would constitute some of the less glamorous and hidden side of being a CEO.

Neither Barbie or Ken have genitalia AND what are their views on the war in Iraq?

CAREER BARBIE

One inescapable fact of life is: “females have the babies”. The subsequent reliance of a young child on loving nurture and breast feeding, has the inevitable consequence that there will be periods of time, at least 5 yrs for a responsible mother, (in my opinion) where her focus should be on that role.

Obviously, this would impact on ‘CEO Barbie’s’ career path.

Perhaps it is well past the time, when we as a community should reject the ‘equality’ lie that has been propounded by the left, and re-discover the ‘fulfillment/discovery’ truth, that a women will be most happy in the role for which she was designed. The birthing and nurturing of children.

To say the above, in no way suggests that females cannot enjoy and pursue a vigorous and creative career, but it should be tailored to fit in with the nurturing realities she also faces.

I maintain that there are untold educational and commercial opportunities just waiting to be taken up by work from home, educate from home women. This does not mean they are ‘locked in’ the home. It would in fact mean they have the freedom and flexibility to determine their own schedule and make appointments, which don’t conflict with their other responsibilities.

I suggest that the Biblical pattern of marriage and women allows for this.

The idea of ‘power girls’ is just that, an idea and more importantly a myth, if it were true, then women would be raping males and domestic violence would show them as the perpetrators far more than males.

If a woman wishes to have a business career, I agree, there is... a cost, and I wonder if the cost is worth it when at the end all she has is a bank balance, but no offspring. Have we forgotten that each of us must (not should... but MUST) be replaced, plus a bit more for those who die of sickness etc ? When a view of ‘femaleness’ which excludes reproduction as a major aspect of life emerges, we are truly dying out... really.

BD - I will assume you're not even open to a debate about what a "female that has the babies" would actually want, so consider this instead: what about 1) women who can't have children? 2) women who don't want children? 3) women who want to be independant of a partner? 4) single mothers?

Heh. Spinster Barbie for President.

In case anyone gets Barbie confused with Britney - here's how you remember:

One is a plastic, fabricated, made up toy marketing ploy designed for and aimed at impressionable young girls, available in a variety of different costumes and personalities. Then there's Barbie.

Yeah, I know, you all saw it comin.

Have a good weekend everyone!

LISAMARIE
I think its important to respond to you directly. Thanx for raising those issues. I totally agree that there will be a significant number of women who are in the categories u stated, and if they are comfortable like that, its cool. Motherhood and family is not for everyone for sure.
But let me say, that for each woman who forgoes child bearing, it does place a degree of added need on others to make up for lost 'incoming' to our population. I mean, realistically speaking unless we actually do replace ourselves, we are not just dying individually, but also as a nation and a people.

So, with that in mind, I would seriously advocate a re-capturing of a values framework which a) does not prevent women from persueing the lifestyle you mentioned, but b) Tries to encourage them into the motherhood/child rearing roles with appriate gender role re-inforcement in education. I don't think we will ever have a perfect world where each category will never ever have some longing for the domestic bliss, or glorious independance or the other.

We should avoid a 'one size fits all' approach for sure, yet I am of the firm and convinced view that our main emphasis should be on the main task at hand, which is our replacement and growth as a people.
The women you mentioned should never be made to feel 'marginalized' by any means.
The bible speaks of 'one body, many parts' Not all can be a nose, and if they were, how would the body function ?

Anyway, u have a lovely weekend too ok :) and hope to see more of your heartfelt posts in the new week.

Ditto for you Spendo and others.

Well that's very gracious of you BD. "Women shouldn't be made to feel marginalised" for not wanting to, or not being able to, have children. And yet funnily enough if we listened to you, we'd all think these childless women were "placing a degree of added need onto others".

Gender role re-inforcement eh? well I'm orf to the pub mate. Cheers.

Hi Rebecca: check out "Damascus Journal" on Fulla, at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/22/international/middleeast/22doll.html?ex=1128139200&en=3b1e1e9efe3ee28d&ei=5070. best wishes, Helen Pringle

Interesting that in the “happiness” chart for women developed by Princeton University at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happiness it lists 16 Activities rated according to happiness levels.

It found “working” at no. 15 (ie. slightly below “housework”, and slightly above “commuting”.)

In terms of Interaction Partners, there are 8 catagories, with “being alone” at no. 8, working with “co-workers” is no 6, slightly above “the boss” at no 7.

Similar has been found in numerous other studies, and the situation becomes quite serious in some ways, as the number of single person household’s is expected to double in the next 20 yrs, from 2 million at present (or 30% of households) to 4 million by 2026.

Go to work, and then come home to an empty house will become the way of life for many women (or Barbies), and of course for many men (or Kens)

lisa....
in terms of sustainable population.. yes, childless women DO place an additional need on those who decide to have a family. Its not a 'bad' thing, its just a factual thing. The more females who opt out of 'family and kids' the more pressure (from a purely population angle) is on the rest to make up the difference. You could even put it like this 'Make up the diff or die' (out) Have fun at the pub.

Regarding Gender reinforcement and appropriate socialisation.. that is EXACTLY where I'm coming from. You might say 'your life depends' on it :)
I had a great chat in the sauna at my local gym this afternoon. It was kinda surreal. After my workout and shower, and into the sauna, just one other person there, a 30 something lady, reading a book.
Being the gentleman that I am, I bugged her :) "Mind if I chat" ?
The book was on 'The Brain' so we had a chat about that, then onto feminazi vs domestic female as a spectrum, and where did she place herself. A great chat.. better than here, uget the answers straight away :)

TIMKINS that Princeton research is valuable and supports my contentions. The value placed on interaction with 'co-workers' was 6th out of 8 with only being with the 'boss' and 'alone' less valued.
So, my suggestions of greater fulfillment in a work from home environment seem validated.

Looking at all the other happiness factors, 'socializing' was only beaten by sexual activity, and socializing is exactly what you get when you are self employed (which is why I love it so much)

"Working" was less valued than 'housework' ohhh shock horror.
I think in the interests of the feminist program we better censor that one :)

And this is what President Barbie looked like...kinda Hilary Clintonish..?
http://www.mydollscollectibles.com/26288.jpg

mmm..What would our own Barbie for Primeminister look like?

Boaz,
There would probably be advantages and disadvantages to most things.

In terms of work and family, someone could do the following:-
A/ accentuate the advantages of family life
B/ accentuate the disadvantages of family life
C/ accentuate the advantages of work life
D/ accentuate the disadvantages of work life

It would be true to say that ideologies such as Marxism, Communism, and Feminism have been largely involved in B and C. These ideologies have normally claimed that “work”, (or the “state”), is better than “family”, and in the case of Feminism, it has been heavily involved in demeaning males, fathers, children, marriage etc.

However what Marxism, Communism, Feminism etc have been trying to do, is somehow reverse the “Happiness” chart. That chart would be more of a natural chart, so trying to do the opposite to what is indicated on that chart, would be highly unlikely to bring about increased Happiness.

But with the growing number of people living in single person households, (ie people who spend so much of their life just commuting, working, and living by themselves) our society is becoming more Marxist, Communist, and Feminist than we realise, although it is highly unlikely to bring increased Happiness.

Also interesting is that “Pray/Worship/Meditate” was rated quite highly in the Happiness chart. I would have thought that going to the fridge, or turning on the TV would bring instant happiness.

Rainer,
There have been many despots, and it probably doesn’t matter if that despot is male or female. (See 100 things someone could do if they became an evil overlord. http://www.azzit.de/humor/123.html)

What would be more important than gender, are the policies and principles of that person. So that is why I don’t vote for someone just because they are male or female.

Tim
if people were really honest, specially the female population, I think many would admit that they had swallowed the 'line/lie' fed to them which made them think that happiness was found in all the areas that reaseach shows they wont, and that many, in those single person, single parent households probably cry themselves to sleep at night just wishing for someone to hold them, trying to come to terms with the contradictory reality they face and the lingering voices of Marxism/Feminism in their heads.

Prayer and meditation.
For me, prayer is about relationship. Meditation is when we focus on some idea or object for our edification. Prayer is to a 'person'.

I spent 4 yrs seeking to build up and equip a white ant infested, recording studio for indigenous broadcasting, and by 4 yrs it was clear that unless something dramatic happened it would be the same after another 4 yrs. We analysed our situation, prayed, and committed it to the Lord. I went to Singapore to visit some supporting churches and found myself on a cold concrete floor, no bed, no company, just a slab. (in the house church) I was feeling pretty down and miserable, but had an assurance in my heart. Then the phone rang and the guy from that church told me 'Money is no object, just tell me what you need and we will fix it up'. He did, around $12,000 worth of studio stuff.. gratus. Never has a slab of concrete seemed more like a bed of roses :) There is more to that story, but bottom line, we had our answer 'filled and overflowing'.

We sent tapes up rivers in local languages to many many villages, who then tuned in to our radio broadcasts.(from Manila)

http://www.necf.org.my/berita/berita_nov_dec1999/prayerwave.htm

I know some of the people mentioned in this article. Dr Chew Weng Chee gave us $10,000 towards the work, after hearing a 10 yr old indigenous girl sing . (she moved me to tears when I first heard her too) Anyi Wan is an indigenous person. Note the last line of that article.

Boaz,
I would agree that “Pray/Worship/Meditate “ would be important for people’s happiness. It has been practised for so long throughout history, that it is most likely an essential part of the human psyche.

The Happiness Chart shows “Intimate relations” as bringing most happiness to women, and I did have to wonder at this article relating that women in the UK are turning to IVF because they did not have enough time for sex, and were including times in their diaries when they were available and could have sex
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/its-hard-to-conceive/2005/09/25/1127586746344.html

Of course if they didn't have enough time for sex, then they certainly wouldn't have enough time to raise children.

Another aspect of the Happiness Chart, is that if it is reversed, and work is put at the top and family at the bottom, then it becomes a "1984" scenario. It has been some time since I read the book "1984", but from memory, there was a Winston who went to work, then came home to a single person unit. His only form of entertainment was a flat TV screen that was bolted to the wall, and it had to be left permanently on. Through brainwashing and propaganda, he was being constantly told that his life was wonderful, but he still had a gnawing sense that something was wrong. He had a relationship with another woman, but Big Brother found out about this, so they were both sent away for reprogramming and mental reconditioning. Throughout no one was very happy, and the book is a rather grim tale.

Considering the projected figures for single person households in future years, then 1984 should have been called 2024, and instead of Big Brother, it becomes Big Sister. I can’t remember how children were born in the book 1984, but fewer children will be born in 2024, with an increasing number of childless women. So those children that are born, will probably be born to a much smaller % of women.

All work, no play, no religion, no children, no family, no sense of identity, and of course no sex.... Just great

Basically what you're saying is that any women who's had a successful career must be unhappy. I think if some men were honest, they'd admit they've swallowed their own codswallap which makes them feel they can preach to women from their high moral horse about what women want. It's absolutely laughable.

And yes I did enjoy the pub thank you very much.

Lisamaree,
-You say that any women who's had a successful career must be unhappy.
-You think women are dishonest.
-You admit you’ve swallowed your own codswallap.
-You feel you can preach to men from your high moral horse about what men want.
-You’re absolutely laughable.
-You enjoy the pub.

You have substantiated nothing in your post, so your words can be justifiably twisted around.

The Happiness Chart would mean that if someone is negating or opposing activities at the top end of the list , and instead encouraging women to be mostly involved in the activities at the lower end of the list, then they will be indirectly encouraging women to be generally less happy than what they could be

Timkins you are the twisting artist. If you read that into my post, then it's no wonder you think you know what's best for women from reading "studies" and "charts". Whilst "happiness" may be achieved with all those "values" you've mentioned, including, for some, to stay at home and have babies, I still maintain that freedom of choice is the most important "happiness" value of all.

LISA
I don't think any of us will dispute that some women find high fulfillment in careers.

Even in missions work, there are many single ladies. I've seen some who are comfortable with that calling, and others who struggle with the absence of a man. Probably the most relaxed and totally fulfilled single 'career' woman I know is Aileen Coleman, who has been running a medical mission she founded some 40 yrs ago in Jordon for Muslim Bedoins. Her fellow worker was murdered by Islamic extremists, yet she still shines like the sun :)

What we do take issue with is the 'line' that 'most' women would find this.

That is what the surveys are about.. to determine the truthfulness or falsehood of such assertions.

To me its a 'dogmatic/doctrinal/revealed truth' thing, for Tim its a 'research' thing, but both (because the dogma is correct :) are pointing in the same direction.

So, we are not 'preaching from high moral ground' to women concerning 'our' ideas for them. I'm laying out what I understand to be 'Gods order' in issues of male female relationships, and Timkins is laying out 'research related to females,work, and happiness' etc.

I don't think anyone expects you to 'obey' us because its not about that, its about interacting, and discovering. You will always make your own mind up as to how you will conduct your life.

My hope and prayer is that you and many others will benefit somehow from what is shared here, and God willing, arrive at a degree of happiness and fulfillment that is 'life indeed'.

cheers

Lisamaree,
-You are a “twisting artist”.
-You don’t know what's “best for women from reading "studies" and "charts"”

If you make maligning statements or carry out name-calling of other posters, then they can return the same to you, and they need not prove or verify anything, because you haven’t.

The term “choice” seems to be used a lot by women and feminists, like the term “a woman and her children”.

But there would be provisos attached to “choices”:-
a) Someone has sufficient information to be able to make informed and reliable “choices”.
b) Their “choices” do not adversely affect someone else.

In the case of this article, it does not give sufficient information. It talks about women in general, but it seems to be advocating that women pursue a career (I think, as the article is somewhat confusing, as it incorporates everything from Barbie dolls to The Onion to Millicent Garrett Fawcett)

There can be rewards in pursuing a career, but this article does not mention any rewards or life satisfaction that can be found in family and motherhood, even though various studies have found that women generally gain more satisfaction and happiness in family and motherhood than they do in work.

Therefore the article is not a reliable article on which to make informed “choices”. It is a half-truth type article only, and such articles can easily mislead someone into making the wrong decisions or “choices”.

Thanks Timkins for your explanation..(although the attempt at mirroring other's statements to prove a point doesn't help but I understand what you're getting at re the article) - but I am frustrated! (as are many women) of men thinking they know what's best for us. I have been in such a relationship and it's not sustainable. Eventually, a person's individuality must win out over the gender-specific role (both men and women), or they become a non-person, going through the motions of being what they think society expects of them and are unable to fulfil their needs. This, I imagine, is one of the reasons that divorce is so high. I also have no doubt that many women find staying at home having children as very fulfilling and rewarding - if that's what defines them as a person. I personally have never been asked to be involved in any of these studies on women's satisfaction and happiness. If I had, I would say a partner that is supportive of a person's individuality - if people understood this, there could be many more women happily having children (and possibly a career as well).

LISA

"I'm frustrated by men who think they know best what women need"

your comments lead beautifully into a quote I recently shared from the Old Testament, and I'll repeat it here.

1 Samuel:23

23 "Do what seems best to you," Elkanah her husband told her. "Stay here until you have weaned him; only may the LORD make good his [d] word." So the woman (Hannah)stayed at home and nursed her son until she had weaned him.

Isn't that beautiful ? :) Patriarchal ? yes,.... Dominating ? Hardly.

I've known men like you speak about Lisa, and they are sad cases !

Even though I advocate a 'Christ the head of man, Man the head of woman' authority structure, it is intended to be a caring, sacrificial, arrangment and certainly does not mean a licence to 'boss' her around. Elkanah certainly worked with Hannah and is a good example.

Lissamaree,
I’ve been called lots of things by other posters, and until very recently, I haven’t said the same back to them. Some of them seem to object if they are called the same.

People are very easily swayed by propaganda and the media, and quite often people will form their own personality (or individuality) by what they see in the popular media. Shopping habits would verify that.

Things such as marriage and parenthood are presently being given much bad press in the media, as it seems fashionable to do so, but what rarely gets mentioned is that the rate of separation in de facto relationships is about 10 times greater than in marriage, de facto relationships have much higher rates of poverty, child abuse, welfare, and much lower rates of child birth than marriage, and even married women report more satisfying sex lives than single or unmarried women (just ask Bridget Jones). But such things rarely get mentioned in the media, and a lot of the media, (and almost all of feminism) is also very negative about males, fathers, husbands, and even children.

So much more balanced and accurate information becomes necessary for people to make better choices. If the trends in single person households, de facto relationships, divorce, child birth rates etc keep occurring, then either society runs out of children, or society runs out of money to keep paying for those people who keep making the wrong choices.

Thanks for a light hearted and amusing piece,
sorry the other boys didnt seem to get it.
i adore smart women who can say it how it is without going into a hairy legged rant (I dont mind hairy legs per se).
Besides, I have hairy legs myself, but thats not my point.
I cant see Barbie going back on her word, making silly promises,
invading oil producing countries, or running those mind numbingly boring election campaigns.
She wouldn't be the first un-articulated leader I'm sure, bit of a problem that she cant stand up but Boris Yeltsin did O.K. for a while.
Recently I ordered a divorce Barbie for my daughter and when it came there was this huge box...when I opened it, there was Kens car, Kens boat, Kens caravan, Kens motorbike, and Kens house.....sorry if you already heard that one.

p.s. to save the happyclappers some time I'll throw in a few
Matthew 17;21, John 11;42, Luke 15;22 Mark 17;2 Paul 7;11.

The all seeing omnipotent voice of reason,
I don’t think the situation is all that humorous. ABS estimates are that by about 2026, the number of people in single person households will increase by 2 million. But to meet this demand, almost 2,000 new houses will need to be built each and every week for the next 20yrs, (but for minimal increase in population). Also by about 2050, it is estimated that almost all adults in Australia will be living in single person households.

So people will go to work, then go home to live by themselves in a little box. This will satisfy a need for people to live a free and independent life, and be able to concentrate fully on their jobs, free from yucky husbands, yucky wives, and yucky children.

well, O.K. , I admit I find humour in the strangest of things...
keeps me sane but drives everyone else nuts.
The concept that a population trend or social trend is static is only any use if you want to manipulate the statistics.
For example, after a war there is a constricted population where theres not the numbers of fighting age men.
similarly, theres "baby booms". One could take either of these population anomalies and say pretty well whatever you want.
Also theres social bahavioural trends, where children rebel against their parents. We all know about kids doing this and that,
but if the parents do this and that, the kids rebel by going to uni or church etc. anything to have an identity different to the parents.
I wouldnt suggest that this is always so.
I do live the life you talk about...alone, scurrying back to my little hidey hole each day and avoiding people. It has its ups and downs, but ultimately its a free world.
I guess the other reason I cant take it that seriously is that I've been a single parent to my two sons in the past, and all the talk is only focussed on how tough MOTHERHOOD versus career is.
Surely the question should be quality parenting.
If you have kids younger than about five, a parent needs to be there for them...and in the majority of cases I'm sure a parent would choose to be.
On an unrelated note, do you see that being the biggest issue we will have in 20 years time?

"Also by about 2050, it is estimated that almost all adults in Australia will be living in single person households."

What nonsense! Where did this ridiculous statistic come from - surely not the ABS?

And in any case, what does it have to do with the article?

The all seeing omnipotent voice of reason,
Statistics become very important. A considerable range of government legislation and even taxation is based on statistics. Even statistics relating to household type become important, for town planning purposes alone.

However you say that you were a single parent, and now you live in a single person household. That is very common.

Also the article talks about parenting, but leaves out the father. That is very common too.

There have been quite a few articles in OLO on motherhood, with very few articles on fatherhood. Maybe the editors should suggest to writers that they include fathers when writing articles about parenting, and if they want to malign fathers, then they should malign mothers too. That would be fair, and help to create balance.

The author seems to be suggesting that a woman can’t be a mother and have a job at the same time. Well, if the mother was a single parent, then it would be difficult. If there were 2 parents, then the task of earning family income and raising children would become much less difficult, and further more, it might even lessen the number of single person households, and lessen the need to for 2,000 new houses to be built each week for the next 20 yrs.

Mahatma Duck,
You have called other posters many names in the past, and in fact, you have devoted entire posts to maligning other posters.

You are “nonsense”
You are “ridiculous”
Your post has nothing “to do with the article”

Yup - I thought that "statistic" was a fabrication.

Further, I didn't call anybody any names - my comment was clearly directed towards a spurious and irrelevant argument that relied on a fictitious statistic.

But don't let the facts get in the way of a tedious misogynist rant.

mahatma duck,
You are a “fabrication.”
You call other posters “names”
You are “spurious”
You are “irrelevant”
You are “fictitious”
You are “tedious”
You are “misogynist”
You “rant.”

In other forums you have called various people quite a variety of names, and in one particular forum, you were asked a number of questions, but you never answered those questions, but continued to call other people various names.

I see no great necessity to provide you with anything, because so far as I am concerned, you just like to call other people various names, (and with the most minimal level of explanation or substantiation given).

But you would be free to read through all the links I have previously provided in earlier forums, and you might gain some information.

BTW. In the future, could I call you Morganzola, who used to be another poster, who had a very similar style to yours (ie identical).

Timkins, will you please stop trying to hijack discussions by repeating everything back at people? It is most annoying. And yes, I'll save you the trouble:

- I am a 'hijacker'
- I am 'maligning'
- I am 'repeating'

hmm? what else? 'annoying' 'discussing' 'everything' 'trouble'. It is getting very old. Ooh dear, and now unsubstantiated accusations of Being Elderly.

Please address people's arguments. Which, yes, I am aware of the irony that I have not done so in this particular comment.

Laurie
You “hijack discussions”
You are “most annoying”.
You are “a hijacker
You are “maligning”
You are “repeating”
You say “hmm”?
You make “unsubstantiated accusations of Being Elderly”
You do not “address people's arguments” and “have not done so” in your last “comment.”

I have addressed the post from Mahatma Duck (or Morganzola)

You have also made many, many maligning remarks and comments about other posters,(i.e would you like them listed), and they can and will be returned to you. I have previously explained what will be occurring to the forum moderators. (see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=201#15525)

No, Timkins - you haven't at all addressed my challenge to your unsubstantiated claim that

"... by about 2050, it is estimated that almost all adults in Australia will be living in single person households."

Instead, all we've had is a barrage of puerile ad hominem bluster, which doesn't actually strengthen your position at all. It just looks silly.

Mahatma Duck,
You are a “barrage”
You are “puerile”
You are “ad hominem bluster”,
You don’t “strengthen your position at all”
You are “silly”

Considering the number of posts you have made under the name of “Mahatma Duck”, compared to the number of maligning remarks you have made of other posters, then you would definitely hold the record on OLO, and your maligning remarks can simply be returned to you.

I would have provided more links to information than any other poster in OLO, (and you can go back and count them all). I have provided those links to verify what I have written in posts, and if it was someone other than you, I would probably provide the link to the paper that the information about 2050 came from. But because you have carried out such an extensive amount of name-calling, made so many maligning remarks of other posters, and have rarely answered any questions asked by them, I see no necessity to do anything for you at all.

Take the matter up with the forum moderators.

Another profound and incisive comment!

I have to say that it's pretty hard to communicate with someone who equates disagreement with being personally maligned - or uses a pretence of that position as a way to try and shut down a debate that they no longer control.

Either way, I think we can take it as read that the preposterous assertion that "... by about 2050, it is estimated that almost all adults in Australia will be living in single person households" is unsupported by any real evidence, and that the inflammatory responses thus far from its author are an attempt to conceal its fabrication.

For the record, in another thread I described Timkins once as a "men's right's apologist". When it became clear that he did not like that description, I apologised and have not called him anything except Timkins since.

Best wishes to anybody who's still reading this thread :)

I personally can't wait for Yummy Mummy Barbie.

Mahatma Duck
Your comments are neither “profound” nor “incisive”
You find it “pretty hard to communicate with someone”
You “equate disagreement with being personally maligned”
You use “pretence”
You “try and shut down a debate”
You make “preposterous assertions”
You fail to search for “any real evidence”
You are “inflammatory”
You “attempt to conceal”
You describe other posters as "men's right's apologist".

Interesting that you have not questioned the estimate that single person households in Australia will increase by 2 million by 2026, but are questioning what will happen by 2050. That information can be found if searched for, or you can do the calculations yourself, if you are not lazy.

Nothing will be done for you.

Seeker,
I can’t wait for Barbie the Full Time Breadwinner, (but doubtful)

From the article “Women want full-time work ... for men”

"Australian women want their men in full-time jobs. They are least satisfied when they, themselves, have a job of more than 50 hours, and most satisfied when they are working part-time, or not at all."
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16756161%255e2702,00.html

It now appears universal, women generally don't like work, but don't mind having the father at work.