Hi leoj

My comment was more about evolutionary sexism, which dictates that women are evolutionarily programmed to want to have (lots of) babies, to ensure the continuation of the species. The equivalent sexist dictate is that men need to plant their seed all over the place, to ensure the continuation of the species.

Realistically, both women and men make their reproductive choices based on their own needs and the social pressures they face.

To address some of the points you made:

The ageing population is pretty much a political stance. There is virtually nothing to validate the premise that the young are overly burdened by an ageing population – other than constant repetition. The first twenty years of life burden the taxpayer much more than the last twenty. As the long-term effect of compulsory superannuation kicks in, increasingly fewer people will need the aged pension. Intensive medical care only applies to the last 2-3 years of life and does not constitute a massive drain on the public purse.

In fact, the ageing population allows more opportunity for the young to benefit from a diminished labour pool – in terms of less competition for jobs. This is really what the ‘grey tsunami’ advocates are most afraid of. And it’s why immigration is constantly portrayed as our economic saviour.

In terms of women making their reproductive choices based on our governments shedding their responsibility for the aged, women are likely to go either way: don’t have children (or have fewer children) and look after your own financial security, OR have lots of children so that they will look after you in your old age. In non-Western countries, and in Western countries before the modern era, the latter was the preferred route. But in Western countries of the modern era, few women have any other choice than the former

Killarney,

I generally agree. Thank you for your considered reply in detail.

Well said too: "There is virtually nothing to validate the premise that the young are overly burdened by an ageing population – other than constant repetition". However the only politician I am aware of who volunteered that was Bronwyn Bishop. I think that was when she was Minister for Aged in Howard times. But she was drowned out at the time and there was no media taste for correcting a stereotype of 'Boomers'.

As you realise and these are recurring themes of mine, I am concerned about governments refusing to adequately address the needs of women both in:

- mundane, ordinary aspects of life (care facilities in shopping centres and the like) who are most usually the carers and arguably the glue that holds the families and community together. By performing the unvalued (by government) and unpaid roles (not necessary to list the examples); and,

- their senior years. There are solutions for superannuation. But government and one suspects the feminist lobby, the vocal element anyhow, avoid those by focussing on what is the ideal for careerists, usually educated middle class anyhow (and with plenty of options).