Low fertility is not a financial problem for Australia. In November the Productivity Commission released a report entitled "Implications of the Future Ageing of Australia's Population." That report says we will be twice as rich in 40 years and tax and health systems are NOT likely to be overstretched.

Working out the reasons that men and women have more or less children is important for the individual happiness of the parents, but it is not vital for the economic prosperity of Australia.

I find it encouraging that Dr Leslie Cannold and others are hinting at the possibility that men could be an integral part of this declining fertility equation. It is unfortunate though, that only “absent, reluctant or sexist men” hold such influence.

These days it seems even blind Freddie can see the pitfalls of marriage and family. No fault divorce, and its impact on marriage and divorce, is by far the biggest factor influencing current family outcomes. When the wider legal and social framework is taken into account (let’s not even mention its various dysfunctional agencies), it is not difficult to see how men could feel extremely disadvantaged.

Current statistics reveal nearly half of marriages fail. At least 70% of those, are dissolved by women, and mostly after having children. These do not create an environment conducive to either gender, to start families and have (more) children. Other social policies also come together to discourage, not enhance, our fertility rate.

Men en masse, are voting with their cold feet. Women of course, continue to make their “choices” from all available options. Until we make more serious attempts to understand the complex dynamics of declining fertility, this situation is not likely to change. Men deserve equal rights (not just responsibility) when it comes to families and children.

Perhaps men could choose to improve themselves and become desirable and EQUAL partners in all aspects of family and childrearing life.
Let's see...why would a woman choose to be single, raising children?

Because she's tired of cleaning up after a man as well as the children.
Because she's fed up with being the sole carer of the children, while a man reluctantly 'babysits' his own children
Because even when she contributes economically via wages she still does the majority of the domestic work when she returns home
Because she may not have any sense of control with the families finances, her male partner expects to make the important decisiions,
Because women are physically, mentally and emotionally violated on mass scales in Australia, and statistically this is found to be exacted by the man she loves,
Because the murder rate of women in Australia shows she will be murdered by a partner, rather than a total stranger.

The question is not why men are discarded by women after marriage and childbearing, rather why would a woman put up with such social inequities.

Men are not being "put up" with anymore! The advice our mothers and grandmothers received no longer sit well with women who expect and demand that they be treated with respect and given the same sense of power in their own lives, that men have obviously taken for granted for so long.

Ocean Grrl,

Perhaps you have had a bad experience with a man not washing up or maybe worse some form of domestic violence. Violence is abhorrent and no-one, man, woman or child should have to put up with it.

Still though, there are many thousands of men out there who are actually kind, caring husbands and fathers.

I know it is hard to believe not all men are bastards but the stereotype, like all stereotypes, is misguided.

Returning to the main point of the article, fertility rates and marriage rates are not so intrinsically linked, certainly not any more.

Divorces happen both before and after children are involved, many couples choose to have children and not get married.

Why Ocean Grll chooses to turn an article about women's career and maternal choices into a rant about men doing the chores is drawing a long bow.

I got the point of the article to be that, in a society of falling or stable birthrate, women's choices to have more children are constrained for a number of reasons - one of which is, 'absent, reluctant or sexist men'. It is only one of many complex reasons but none the less the points that 'oceangrrl' makes are relevant to this and therefore relevant to the article. The fact that 'the usual suspect' chooses not to acknowledge the grinding daily slog that the majority of women suffer while trying to persuade their partners to take more responsibility for day to day tasks in the home and caring for children I feel adds weight to her point! And no, I haven't been a victim of domestic violence or been embittered by a man not doing the washing up!!!!

Here's just a thought. There are many women the age of my mother who I have heard say "don't get me wrong I love my kids, but if I had my time over I wouldn't have any". When I asked why they did have children they said "because that's what we were expected to do", "I didn't think I had a choice" etc.

Maybe, is this "fertility crisis" also stems from ability of women now feeling more able to say, I don't want the traditional motherhood thing, I am in no way maternal and kids are not part of my equation, either verbally or by finding "excuses" not to go down the motherhood track. It is somewhat more acceptable now then it was even 20 years ago, athough some people think women are subnormal who choose not to have children. I don't hear much about that.

Are we afraid as a society to admit not everyone likes or wants children and "maternal instinct" is not inherant in all women? Brings up some interesting questions like, if they aren't all meant to have babies, then what else are they meant to do? Run a multinational? Heaven forbid!!

By the way, I have a wonderful husband who does more than his share of the housework and treats me like a goddess. Not all men are ogres, but again I do know of quite a few who wouldn't know how to turn on the washing machine let alone know you need to separate the whites from the colours, and don't get me started on Bathroom scum!

It takes all sorts to make the world, and I think the reasons people are not having children is a very complex mix!

Nita is neat!

But those mothers who lack the commitment to do it all over again, cannot go unquestioned ;-)

We should do a nationwide survey … yes, that’s it! Ask all grandmothers, whether they have had a fulfilling life. Ask them why they had children, how much did hubby help, did hubby always connect, did he really share the workload, was raising a girl easy? Did he make enough money? What other regrets were there? Were other sexual liaisons impractical simply because he was always around? How would not having children, have made it all better?

Difficult questions – granted. But being knowledge Seeker is no plain sailing either.

Again 'the usual suspect' arguments are trotted out in response to women's frustrations at the gross gender inequities within our society, particularly in the private and public sphere's of life!!!! As Leslie Cannold argues in her article, its time to stop blaming women for our decreasing fertility rates as some sort of rebelious 'choice' against humanity. The thrust of Cannold's arguement as I understood it was the underpinning causes for our declining fertility rate was multifactorial ("antiquated or biased tax regimes, unachievable definitions of what it takes to be a "good" mother, family-unfriendly workplaces and absent, reluctant or sexist men all constrain women's freedom to choose motherhood") and it no longer cuts it to dismiss our fertility woes as a woman's 'choice' not to have children. Signed 'Birthworks' - Mother of 4 children

It seems that even with the 1.7 fertility rate, we won’t have an actual decline in the national population until about 40yrs time. However in the mean time we will have a population that is generally older than what it has been in the past.

The article by Leslie Cannold is quite unique because it actually mentions men, while every other article I have seen on Australia’s fertility rate has not. All other articles seem to consider men and fathers as being an irrelevance.

The often stated accusations that men don’t do enough housework etc seem to be based on anecdotal evidence, or evidence from highly suspect or biased research.

The wish by so many non-custodial fathers to spend more time with their children (IE. 75% according to the largest survey undertaken on the mater to date) indicates that fathers are more than willing to care for their children, and I am of the belief that many women are simply blaming men (as an easy excuse as not too many people would have questioned it in the past) for not wishing to be inconvenienced in any way by having children.

However what is life for an unmarried adult without children?

A job, with Friday afternoon drinks?

Hardly.

Could you give me references for this 'highly suspect or biased research' please Timithy? Your logic seems a bit off too - if women were 'not wishing to be inconvenienced in any way by having children' you would think they'd leap at the chance to off load them to their father. Regardless of individual battles between parents over child custody and access it has been taken for granted in popular commentary, by the exclusion of comments on men's role, that the decision to limit the number of children is solely the choice of the woman for 'selfish' reasons like wishing to have a career. Its very refreshing to read articles like this which question that assumption and take a broader view.

And in answer to your question, life for an unmarried adult without children is just lovely thanks, and we can have a drink on Friday afternoon or any other if we so wish!

Studies on housework!

Invariably these studies do not take into account how essential the housework tasks are and all the hours spent on each and every housework task are included in the study. So if someone spends 1 hour baking a cake, this 1 hour goes into the study as being essential housework. Someone else eats no cake but eats fruit instead, (which is probably more healthy), but so far as the housework study goes they are doing no housework when compared to the person who bakes cakes.

Similarly someone could spend hours ironing everything that comes off the clothesline including socks, jocks, tea-towles, sheets etc, and all those hours spent ironing will go into the study as being essential housework, although most of these items need not be ironed. This is why studies on hours spent on housework or unpaid work become very suspect or un-reliable.

Studies on hours spent on paid work are more reliable as industry is normally trying to reduce tasks down to essential only, or trying to automate tasks etc. I have seen US studies on paid and unpaid work where only essential unpaid tasks were recorded in the study. On average, men were working 20 hrs more per week than women when paid and unpaid work hours were combined, and unessential unpaid work was disregarded from the study.

I look after a child for weeks at a time and on average I would be spending 1 hr per day on housework and 1 hr per day on cooking. The child does a certain amount of housework, but we do mainly essential housework. In total 14 hrs per week to have a clean tidy house and eat healthy food. The child is rarely ill and I can't remember the last time when either of us went to the doctor.

I also know of many men who go home from work and take over looking after the kids until they go to sleep, but these men are overlooked because they do not meet the stereotypic image of a male who is only interested in beer, motorcars, football and sex. That stereotypic image is very handy to have to be able to “blame” men for anything and everything.

Enough of gender politics, but Australian industry will have to look more carefully at work hours. We are working the longest hours of any western country, and also the most hours of unpaid overtime (even more than Japan). I know in many companies it is an unwritten policy that employees work these hours or they don’t retain their job. This is interfering with family life, and I do know of some people who now regard their co-workers as being their family.

Perhaps putting a cap on work hours (eg 50hrs max / week) is becoming necessary in this country. In other places it has been shown that capping work hours does not reduce national productivity, and may actually increase it.

To make any difinitive statement on the the domestic division of labour its true you have to be comparing like with like, e.g. taking into account the respective hours worked outside the home and the choices of the individual families as to what is 'essential'. In an ideal study you would select families with both parents working equal hours, travel time equal, same size house, same number/age of children and same standards for housework and child care, and strict definitions of these. Of course this is impossible in real life but in a good study these things will be taken into account.

I must admit my 'research' into these matters is probably out of date so I had a little look around and came up with the following.
http://www.rouncefield.homestead.com/files/as_soc_family_9.htm This reference mentions many of the studies I was brought up on but doesn't really indicate any major changes.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/06/18/1023864427509.html?oneclick=true This one shows nothing has changed but is very small and anecdotal
http://www.newsroom.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/display.cgi?id=611 This one shows at least things are going in the right direction
http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/afrcpapers/baxter.html If you look at none of the others have a squizz at this one as its very informative and gives an idea of what was included as housework and childcare. The essential/non essential point I feel is interesting but rather a 'red herring' as if housework was shared equally then the essential and non essential tasks would also be shared equally.

The vast majority of the data I browsed showed that although things are improving as women's and men's roles are changing there remains the feeling that work within the home is still regarded as 'women's work' and, although men perceive they do their share, what they do is very selective and no where near half of the total work.

I know we have strayed off topic but as the comments seem to have dried up I hope no one minds.

PS My ironing board has been in the back shed for over a year!

So that I don't have to read all those web pages (cos being a man, I'm obviously too lazy), would someone please enlighten me as to whether those studies on "housework" include outdoor tasks ?

My mind goes around in circles on this one.... I really think the answer lies in recognising that not all women or men want to be parents. I am one woman who knows she doesn't - it's not a matter of finding an excuse not to.... can someone please give me a reason I would want to?

I really think it's only an issue at all because people fail to think laterally and are stuck with this archaic idea that we need to achieve a 'replacement rate'. As Eric said in the first post - a declining population doesn't necessary equal economic gloom....just perhaps a change in our thinking. Can someone explain why a smaller population is so abhorrent?

Just something to weigh into the debate - consider this - when you give women the unbiased choice to either eschew motherhood or limit their children, they do. This says to me that not a damn thing about womens' attitudes to motherhood have changed, only their opportunities and the availability of choices.

Contraception and abortion are not new things and not things confined to only human mammals. Rats and other animals re-absorb their young when conditions are not suitable for raising young. Controlling your population to conditions is the most basic of intelligent function and yet humans can't seem to manage it.

and just to add to the lazy debate....This is a true story and it happened today!

A man I work with who normally buys his lunch at work happened to have his sister in law staying with them yesterday so he asked her if she would mind making him some lunch. She said 'not at all' and made him an entire esky full of packed lunch.
When lunch time came my colleague asked me to buy him a pie down the shop...when I asked what about the lunch his s.i.l packed he said..."oh yeah...I had to heat it up and I couldn't be bothered".

!!

So....not only did this guy see fit to wake his s.i.l. up at 6am to pack him a lunch, indicating he didn't think that was too much trouble for her to go to, but only six hours later it was too much trouble for him to put it in the microwave.

I'm not willing to say that this is the rule for men, but it's certainly not rare. And I really prefer the company of men - I think a lot of women are placenta brained idiots.

Newsroo - On the smaller population question - I don't think its the smaller population that's the problem as its being discussed in the media - its the declining numbers of children maturing and moving into the workforce balanced with the fact we are living longer and not everyone wants to work until they drop dead so, if you don't have savings or a pension plan its forecast there won't be enough taxes to pay any social security. My answer to that is when the essential bills come in at home you cut back in another area to get them paid and, with the rising numbers of retirees and their rising numerical political power the money will be found/will need to be directed from elsewhere - schools perhaps if the number of children is reduced! lol!

On choosing/not choosing to have kids I think the article actually addresses the fact that the smaller size of families is not always a woman's choice, or if it is its not a straight 'I only want one child/no children' thing. It is pointing out that there are many constraints on a woman's choice to have more children with examples given.

On 'natural' population control - the animals that re absorb their young don't make a rational intellectual decisions to abort - it is a biological function. Humans have children for many reasons, very few of them would stand up to 'rational' debate! One thing I've found interesting, and was reminded of the other day when I read of the need for third world countries to limit their population growth, is the fact that people in poor countries have many children as they have to provide for support in their old age and many of their children will die under five years. (This is even with free contraception and culturally appropriate information provided). As the standard of living rises people limit their families by choice.

Neo - to save your delicate little fingers, (delicate but strong that is - to protect sensitive male ego!), the 4th link includes lawn mowing, gardening and house maintenance - enjoy!

Wow, that was tiring reading JoJo!! And I never would have guessed it was just going to be a bunch of generalisations which don't apply to my own personal circumstances.

But I did find it interesting to note an absence of references to financial planning, budgeting, banking etc as an important domestic task......

Hmmm.... yes but you could say as the standard of living rises, women are given more opportunities and options. While you say that contraception is available in those third world countries on paper, are women actually 'allowed' to access them? I doubt it, particularly not the poorer ones. Particularly the ones where they have many children to 'help in their old age'...this is a cultural choice, not one of the individual women per se, and if a cultural choice is being made in a patriarchal culture then that is a choice of the men, not the women. To add insult to injury Bush has implemented a policy of cutting financial aid to those countries which encourage birth control rather than abstinence.

On the biological funtion thing, I was just pointing out that it doesn't take a great deal of talent to get knocked up - rats do it...the main difference being, rats don't have children they can't feed. Humans wouldn't either if they really cared about children as so many advocates of population increase seem to be saying.

I know the article is pointing out the restraints on women having children but it ignores the fact that perhaps not all women need to have a child to be fulfilled. The author is crying for all these womens' lost reproductive opportunities without stopping to consider whether they would have been happier women if they HAD had those children.
It also comes from a point of view of saying women can and should 'have it all'...why should we want to? I think the pressure of society on women who want to be mothers to enter and then return to the workforce is ridiculous. It does women like me - who are at work to work, not fill in time between dropping off and picking up junior at childcare, a great injustice. Women prioritising work behind child caring duties are the reason the glass ceiling still exists.

And while any idiot can see that any two people are not alike, for some reason being born with a uterus seems to mean that you are just dying to use it.
I wouldn't mind most of this population stuff if it recognised that women have a choice to make - work or kids - you can't have both (well you can - but as we see currently, you'll do both badly)

Neo - I think you need to distinguish between 'generalisations', which can be anecdotal, general impressions/read in the media or research based, and your own personal circumstances. In the article I cited, the facts are in the research findings and the 'generalisations' are the summing up of the research to make it more accessible for people like me.

Your own personal circumstances are just that - they don't apply to me, Newsroo or Dr Leslie Cannold - and therefore, although meaningful to you, cannot be used to compare the lot of all men and women in the general population. What I am talking about is sociological research which can't be used to compare the lot of individuals, only groups - but this is what people talk about when they take phrases from research and 'generalise' them for all of us.

Missed your point on the financial planning/banking reference Neo but - sticking my neck out here as I have nothing to back up my thoughts - in my parent's generation, where generally speaking the man was the wage earner, the financial side, (apart from stretching the grocery budget), was in the male domain. These days, with more married women in the workforce, financial management seems to be more of a joint decision thing.

Newsroo - Oh that everything was black/white, one dimensional and simple! Don't get me wrong - I'm not referring to your points as that - in fact I agree with everything you say.......but then I immediately see the gray area and counter my own arguments! For example - women having their reproductive choices made by their culture. I agree, but be we women from the west or the 3rd world none of us live in a vacuum. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the situation we are all constrained by our own cultures so all and every life decision is made in that context - even if we are working to change it. I don't think the article was so much 'ignoring' this point as addressing another one - you could write a book on all the influences on reproduction, in fact many people have!

That was an interesting titbit about Bush and birth control - where did it come from? If only he would learn to 'just say no'! lol!

Again on the individual circumstances vs group research theory - the comments on population increase/decline are to do with economic theory. They have nothing to do with the welfare of individual women/families or children. I think the article is just addressing something else and we have gone off on one of the many related tangents.

On the personal level I can state I have never felt the need to use my uterus - but I do have three dogs, a rooster, a galah, a cow and five sheep - feel free to jump in there anytime Neo! lol!

My wife is doing bloody well at both I can tell you and thank God for that too, so I can go lay on the couch and watch sport on TV.

Its a much better world when everybody can make choices without feeling they have to use their uterus or be a "good mother" etc. Pro-Growth people want everybody to believe that we will be impoverished if we don't have a constant supply of young workers. The Productivity Commission says it is just NOT true. Dr. Leslie Cannold either missed that report or doesn't believe it. Population growth has to stop some day. Hopefully it will be a soft landing not a crash.

It's a better world where couples can decide how many children they personally want in their own lives, without pressure from business people saying you must procreate or environmentalists saying one child only. The parents and the kids are more important than the economy or the environment and unless we have good kids, the economy and the environment will be screwed anyway.

Have you got a link for the Productivity Commission report please Ericc?

Jo Jo, I’ve read through some of the studies you referred to but I’m still not greatly satisfied that we live in a patriarchal type society where men purposely try and make women do housework etc, etc, etc as many of these studies purposely try and portray.

There are only a few organisations in Australia that I would regard as being reliable for studies on social issues. Some of the studies from the HILDA survey are interesting, and some studies from AIFS are worth considering, but there are also many papers that are obviously so biased that it becomes almost impossible to believe how they were approved for release. I know that in areas such as engineering, study papers are now heavily scrutinised before release, and if they are released at a conference they can be heavily slammed if someone finds any bias at all in that paper, but this does not seem to be the case with the School of Social Science, which could also be called the School of Social Conjecture.

In a practical sense there would need to be at least 3 things required to have children

1.The money. This would be somewhat controversial, as we live in a society where most people are wealthier than what they were in the past, but there are less children being born. I remember hearing someone say recently that Australians have become too materialistic, and not spiritualistic enough or concerned enough about human relations, and I am inclined to agree. It could be that some people are now choosing material things over say haeing children.

2.The time to raise children. Time is important as there are only 24 hrs in a day, 7 days a week etc. If we are being required to spend more time at work then the only option is to reduce time spent on family, time spent on R&R, or time spent on unpaid work such as housework. The last option is probably the best, and perhaps we need creditable research undertaken by people on how to reduce the time spent on housework. This is probably better than spending time arguing about who should do housework. In my case I can get housework down to 1 Hr per day, and another hr spent on cooking, and I think most families could easily do this without much trouble.

3.A mother and a father. Controversial again as I do see an attempt by certain sections in society to eliminate fathers. However most children have a natural wish or instinct for both a mother and a father, and it is a well founded instinct as both parents become necessary for raising children. Society does not last for too many generations if you take mothers or fathers out of families.

So, as far as “choice” goes in having children, the three criteria above would still have to be met as priorities.

The report is called Economic Implications of an Ageing Australia. The best link is the one below. It is a massive report (4 part download), but this page also has a link for a media release and another which has the key points in their opinion. If you download the whole thing it is pretty easy to skim because there is a summary at the start of each chapter.

Considering that it is a report that was paid for by a government that has come out and said that we should all "have one for Mum, one for Dad and one for Australia" it actually says we will be okay economically with 1.7 children per woman and the same net immigration we have now. In fact we will be about twice as rich in 40 years. I must admit I was surprised. Premier Steve Bracks and others imply that the economy will be ruined unless we get a bigger population. Its a common theme but not backed up by any data I have seen.

http://www.pc.gov.au/study/ageing/draftreport/index.html

It is undeniable that men and women have the right to choose not to have children. The concerns raised in the fertility debate, are that too many are choosing not to. Although there must be some economic consequences down the line for such trends, none of them appear serious enough to warrant urgent change. There are likely to be some social impacts also. As with with long term climatic change, people’s attitudes are likely to change over time to adopt models that work best. All part of evolution.

Declining population is good for the environment, right? Eco-feminism would most likely confirm this.

It is however unfortunate, that people best placed to have children, are having the least number. Intelligent, educated men and women, are opting out. Most successful young women are choosing not to pass on their genes. That may or may not be good for society, or the environment.

Timithy,

i agree with your arguments about essential and non-essential housework. There are a lot of things which do not need doing but are done none the less.
At the risk of trivialising the argument, comedian Paul Reiser gives the best explanation for the differences between men and women when it comes to housework.
Women do things because they are there to be done, men do things because they need to be done.
This is a generalisation but sometimes a joke tells the truth far better than a 500 page research document.
Back to something more serious, much of this debate is centred around women's choices in regard to having children.
What about men's choices.
The decision to have children should be a joint decision, taking into account what both potential parents want and need.
Marriage and long term relationships are about compromise and diplomacy and sacrifice.
Timithy is spot on when he says housework is probably the best thing to sacrifice to be good parents.

Yes - I guess that's the point - that this issue keeps coming up, regardless of whether it's 'blaming' men OR women for the low fertility, I'm baffled why it is an issue at all....It is obviously not about population or replacement level, I just wish someone would quantify what it really IS about. Personally, I think it is an issue of choice and recognising that women have one. As someone said in an earlier post - what would women do with their time if there are no kids to look after? What were they put here for if not that? It certainly is the tip of an ice berg of sticky questions.

Timothy - 1 Money: As you say yourself people have more money now than ever, they also have more crap they don't need than ever before. Raising a child and meeting it's NEEDS is not expensive...trying to meet all the crazy WANTS which are advertised as needs (SUVs, Xbox, mobile phones, designer clothes etc etc...Shit, in the 'olden days' you were lucky to have a pair of shoes before your 13th birthday when you stopped growing so quick!). I know you agree that Aussies have become over-materialistic...but I don't think it is stopping them having kids if they wanted kids for the sake of having them. When you have kids as a status symbol then yes, money is a problem.

2 Time - this problem is solved as soon as you stop being so materialistic. If needs were what you were striving to meet not wants then I doubt it would take two incomes. I do think you have a point with the housework though - eg: Dusting in my opinion is pointless and must take up a fair chunk of time... Ironing underwear, sheets etc... But if that's all you've got to fill your time besides baby-talk then I would be stretching it out too!

3 Both Parents. I agree... I'm not pissing on single parents because some of them do an outstanding job while some couples are really crap at being parents, nor do I think that all couples should 'stay together for the kids' (my parents did this and my sister and I were SO happy when they finally stopped pretending - they weren't fooling anyone but themselves!) but I do think that ideally every child needs to be wanted by two parents.

I think it is appalling the way that men are held accountable financially for children but have pretty much no say otherwise (over whether to abort or sometimes even conceive!). If you're a guy who knows they don't want kids and some evil woman 'oopses' you ("don't worry about the condom, I'm on the pill"...but she's not. she just wants a baby...)then I have some sympathy but not much. If you knew you didn't want kids, get a vasectomy. Doctors in Australia don't even bat an eyelid when a man asks to be sterilised (different story if you're a woman, but I shall tell that story another time!).

Feelings about guys who have no say in their baby being aborted is a little more confusing. On the one hand, he should have as much say. On the other hand, until it means the same sacrifices for men as women (which it never will - pregnancy itself being the biggest sacrifice!)then I don't see how it can be an equal decision.

This is a great debate - thanks for so much intelligent debate on this issue, it's a subject which is never far from my mind.

Oh - I forgot to say, I don't have a source off hand for Bushes foreign aid policy but a good deal of my US e-buddys make reference to it all the time. I shall ask for a link for you Jo-Jo!

In terms of having “fathers” incorporated into the fertility rate issue, (or in terms of determining what fathers want or how they perceive things), then it appears that Australian research institutions have very little information to provide. The following is from an Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) staff paper titled “Researching Fathers :- Back to Basics”

Quote
“Fathers are overlooked in many areas of research. In the divorce literature, for instance, much of what we know about fathers comes from talking with mothers. The same is true of fertility research, and of research about caring for children. Yet we know that men and women often have quite different views and experiences.”

“In recent years, increasing research attention is being paid to fathers. In Australia, small pockets of research exist but the gaps in our knowledge remain large and fundamental.”
End of Quote

From this it appears that the AIFS knows very little about fathers, although it is the largest institution researching families in Australia. It is funded by the tax-payer through the Department for Families and Community Services and it has been around since 1980.

However most of it’s research on families has been biased because it has left out fathers. This means that government cannot adequately make decisions or develop policies relating to social issues such as the fertility rate, because it can’t get any reliable, un-biased information from it’s own research institutions to base those decisions or policies on.

Well said Timothy... and nice point!

All this debating means nothing if we're still coming from a base which considers childbirth/raising as an exclusively 'womens' issue.
(Of course, the biology of the whole thing is a sticking point....)

Would some of you lovely intelligent gents on this site like to lobby government for a study into mens attitudes, as described by men? I would be fascinated to read it and it just might bust a few more of the myths society bases it's arguments on regarding this issue.

BTW - I forgot to say before, why hasn't anyone challenged the dominant theory that declining population means economic ruin? Especially with the Governments own report to back it up...?

Even without a report to back it up, it just doesn't make any sense talking about lack of social security when we have been paying compulsory Superannuation for the last 10 years, presumeably so we can fund our own retirements...

Jo-Jo - Here's that link about the Bush administrations anti-woman policies overseas...

http://www.feminist.org/global/issue.asp?issue=global%20gag%20rule

Enjoy!

To Newsroo, Jo Jo and others interested in the Bush administration crazed policies (including anti-women policies), overseas and within the USA, a recent book by Esther Kaplan is recommended (with extensive referencing for further research on topics mentioned above). Esther's book is called "With God on Their Side: How Christian Fundamentalists trampled Science, Policy, and Democracy in George W Bush's White House" (The New Press 2004). Easy to order on Amazon. Here's a taste:

"Bush has appointed Christian activists, not researchers, to scientific advisory councils, while administration officials distorted science on government Web pages to avoid offending fundamentalist sensibilities. While Bush doled out millions to churches for abstinence and marriage promotion, secular agencies that provide abortions or sex education faced punishing federal audits. The president invited in a team of extreme social conservatives, including a leading anti-abortion activist and a former representative of the Vatican, to join US negotiating teams at every major UN conference touching on family values. And he gave them free reign to reverse US stances on reproductive health, abortion, condoms, marriage and parental rights - and used the force of the White House to bully other nations into offering their support. Bush Park Service officials have even approved the display of Christian symbols and Bible verses on public parkland, including a giant cross in the Mojave Desert." (p 7).

Newsroo - There are several reasons why nobody has challenged the dominant theory that declining population means economic ruin. Part of the answer is to understand why it is the dominant theory. I think it is because business people have money invested in increasing population. If you have invested in an office building and there are no new tenants to fill it up, you are going to lose money. If you have invested in property on the edge of the city and population growth slows, you may not get to develop it for 20 years instead of five. That might be a lot of interest payments to carry. For many business people promoting population growth is simply taking care of your investments.

For others it is easier just not to tackle population issues at all. I think the membership of Environmental groups don't challenge it because opposition to population increase sometimes means reducing levels of immigration, and that might mean you look like a racist. The type of people that support environmental groups feel just as strongly about refugees and racism as they do about dry land salinity and greenhouse, so it is easier to concentrate on the forests and urban planning (less controversial issues than population) than potentially touch the racist nerve.

Others don't challenge it because of the abortion connection - another tangled web that many choose to avoid. Others say the status quo is just fine, we have always grown so lets stay with it. Many don't think long term. We are not really programmed to think 40 years into the future. In Australia there is so much open space we think we are immune to population pressures. I'm sure there are several other reasons.

The government has incorporated the low fertility rate issue with a concern that there won’t be enough money to support elderly people in future years. However this may not be the case, and Australia’s overall economy may not be greatly affected by a older population.

It is possible that the government has simply been trying to get wage-earners to save more money, and put more money it into superannuation funds for example. By saving money, people are not buying so much and therefore increasing the trade deficit.

Difficult to tell, but for individual couples, the decision on whether to have children, when to have children, and how many children to have is a real issue. Gone are the days when children just came along almost at random, as nature seems to have intended.

However the belief that there is some type of conspiracy against women is drawing a rather long bow. Enormous amounts of money is being given to women, (as easily seen with the amount of pork-barrelling to women during the last election), no major political party has a policy for men but all have policies for women, numerous agencies are devoted entirely to women, there is much thought that the Family Court has become highly anti-male(or at least has an extreme PR problem), and as seen by the AIFS, almost no social science research carried out in the past has incorporated the viewpoints of men or fathers. (NB the comment by Leslie Cannold that men are “absent, reluctant or sexist” is not backed up by reliable research, and is a sexist remark made by someone whose wage is paid for by the tax-payer)

I’ve just reread all of this (including my own silly comments), and it is still all about women. I guess there is no way around that, as long as women legally retain control of their uterus. Housework, and domestic violence (just to name two), are red herrings.

This is just good old pinko dogma against us poor men without a uterus. Like hey, we’re on baby strike, how much do we get to change our mind?!

You inventor dudes reading this, please note what needs inventing… (yes, dudes - it's not like I'm talking to female scientists). Roll on science!

(this is Seeker attempting humor;-)

I've been busy for 2 days - so has everyone on this comments site apparently! Thank you Newsroo, Grace and Ericc for the links - I appreciate it. I haven't got time to respond/comment except to say I second Newsroos sentiments - what a great healthy respectful debate. Couldn't resist a word to Seeker, (without a uterus!) - you still control your own fertility though Seeker - you can always 'keep it in your pants'! lol!

It's funny you should say Seeker, I call it a 'fertility strike'... not for me really as I wouldn't have wanted to be a mum no matter what but for some other women I do believe this is true - they are striking until having children is a joint responsibility, and individual adults look after themselves. There is NO reason a father can't do his own washing...or clean the bathroom once a week, these things are not biological.

Although it is not fair to say that modern men are necessarily the chauvanistic 'master of the house' that their fathers were, I think this generations' women have a severe hangover - the duality of growing up in an increasingly equal rights society where they were told 'girls can do/be anything!' and watching their mothers subservience (washing clothes/cooking/cleaning etc etc) to their fathers creates a confusion to which the simplest answer is to avoid the whole thing.

So I guess despite my outrage initially, I do agree with the article. What I don't agree with is that current policy encourages perpetuation of gender roles.... money won't change that - it's education and attitude change. I truely believe that political correctness is *evil* and counterproductive.... I also believe that men are being discriminated against in terms of family courts and employers - mainly due to this stupid idea that women are 'more nurturing' than men. Bullshit - nurturing is a chemical balance in an individual - not connected to genitalia!

My 'terms of negotiation' if I WERE a woman who wanted kids would be something like - Equal Parental Leave, Equal Pay, Active Encouragement of Paternal Involvement by Employers.

Adults looking after themselves could be encouraged by making it a negative thing to be 'helpless', so men would WANT to learn how to use the washing machine to avoid being seen as useless...come to think of it - why isn't this a policy now? I would be embarrassed to admit I needed someone else to wash my clothes....

I think you have nailed it there seeker with “ownership of the uterus”. There is now so much legality involved with children. In the past men and women were encouraged to marry young and start producing. This was a necessity because there was a fairly low life expectancy rate, but neither the father nor the mother had any great “legal” ownership of the children, and it was rarely an issue because divorce was rare.

Now there is much more temporary de-facto relationships and much more divorce occurring. Relationships are much less permanent (almost throwaway), and it has become a belief that the mother owns the child because simplified thinking says it came from her uterus so she owns it.

So the father is left on the outer, he has almost no say in anything. He cannot stop an abortion, he cannot compel an abortion, he cannot initiate a pregnancy if she is on the pill, he cannot stop her from going off the pill and she needn’t tell him. Media portrays him as being an incompetent clown, and industry thinks of him as being a highly necessary resource to make more profits and wants him to work longer and longer hours. If he does have a child, then that child becomes dependant on the decisions of the mother and the Family Court. Feminists back up this system to the full because they are so concerned about equality and human rights, and social science is so biased it has nothing to offer to help solve any social issues involved.

Great evolution of society.

Newsroo, no reliable study has ever proven that males don’t know how to use a washing machine. I think males invented them, or at least they normally service them and fix them. Males may not want to wash every day, (or twice a day as with one relative), but I think males know how to put clothes in an automatic washing machine and press a button. Washing clothes can’t get much easier, and I think that there are 10001 ways to reduce the time spent on housework. Maybe a male will have to write a book on it. Any volunteers.

That’s it! I’m starting a business. I even have a name for it – Ute ‘R’ Us.

Rent-a-Ute, was also considered, but apart from the fact that it is already used, it carries some negative connotations - I would like to market this portable device to both genders. Why limit your market? Women like Jennifer Anistonapoulos, Angelina Jolie, and “our Nic” are sure to be clients.

Thanks to all for those kind words of encouragement. Venture capital anyone?

Off I go do more research.

I think you make a good point there about men and their lack of 'ownership' of a uterus and then resulting child...and about the courts and feminists being on the side for children being a 'womens' issue. Yet she can 'oops' you quite legally and there's not a god-damn thing you can do about it...actually - in that case there is - get the snip. It's free in Australia and doctors won't even bat an eyelid at sterilising a male. I did manage to get the same protection for myself, but it was a hard road as a woman to try and convince the doc that 1. I don't want kids and 2. that i wouldn't sue him if I changed my mind.

One of the main things I find disturbing about a lot of females and particularly those who call themselves 'feminists' is that they seem not to really want a solution, just a platform to whine from.
EG: Washing needn't be done every day - once a week would do. And it doesn't *really* require that much separating (i do only 'light' and 'dark')...but a lot of women while they whine about doing the washing, practically castrate their man if he tries to."You're not doing it right!" Sound familiar? Or how about so-called 'feminists' lobbying for designated parking for preggos. Way to send us back to the kitchen, lovey...
I know, I know, I know...women are women's worst enemy!

Tim - I can't help having a dig - if men know HOW to use the washing machine, how come they don't?
This is actually not true in my case as I have always lived with guys and they have always done the same share as me (except this one Maltese boyfriend I had once who thought it was fair game for me to do everything domestic AND support his arse.. that didn't last long as you can guess!). The two experiences living with females has shown me that domestic laziness is not the exclusive domain of the male.

Timity wrote

I think you have nailed it there seeker with “ownership of the uterus”. There is now so much legality involved with children. In the past men and women were encouraged to marry young and start producing. This was a necessity because there was a fairly low life expectancy rate, but neither the father nor the mother had any great “legal” ownership of the children, and it was rarely an issue because divorce was rare.

Not sure if its your memory or your knowledge of history that you've lost here Timithy but I feel a 'feminist diatribe' coming on! (Quickly, bring my medication!)

This statement is wrong on so many levels that books have been written about it! I am referring to British society here and this can presumably be extrapolated to some degree to Australia as a British colony. I don't know what era you are referring to when you say, 'in the past' - 50 years ago it was rare for couples to marry in their teens - but besides that small thing your statement that, 'neither the father or the mother had any legal ownership of the children', even if we go back only another 50 years, is just poppycock! As recently as 100 years ago men were the unchallenged head of the family - they owned the property, they owned the children and they 'owned' their wives! Divorce was rare because women had to jump through hoops to obtain a divorce and once they did they walked away with nothing. As most of them had been 'prevented', (by social and medical norms), from ever earning their own living they had little chance of supporting themselves and even less of ever seeing their children again. All professionals were men, all politicians were men, all laws and social conventions were defined by men except within the domestic environment.

This is probably very inflammatory in a civilised discussion like this but I just can't resist......don't you think the reason there is so little research into 'men's rights' may be due to the fact that until roughly the last 100 years men were in charge of all the research and never had to question their rights? They had it all, all the 'rights' belonged to them, political, economic, social, medical, etc. Gradually women have achieved political rights, (the vote), property rights, (their contribution to the home has been recognised), education rights, (initially to basic education and then tertary education), medical rights, (their right to decide what happens to their own body, as well as their uterus),labour rights, (they are 'allowed' to work now - but not at the same pay rate as men!). These rights were not only gained by the work of women of course, men recognized this inequality and fought along side women, and social factors were involved, e.g. the need to use female labour in both World Wars when men were away being slaughtered 'proved' finally that gentlewomen wouldn't 'go mad' by having to work, (as lower class women had for centuries - work that is, not go mad!), but still they were pushed back into the homes when the men came back for the jobs.

So in the last 100ish years we have gone from a society where men controlled everything to where there is some semblance of equality. Some would say this has gone too far, for example a man who desires custody of his children and is denied it for reasons only the courts are privy to. But my feelings are, in any area we feel that has swung too far in favour of women, things will balance out eventually, with men and women gaining more eqaul rights.

The inequality in the distribution of housework, and the ineaquality in parental rights, are things that will swing backwards and forwards depending on social factors but when push comes to shove it is the woman that has the uterus, carries the baby, gives birth, and in many cases is left to bring up the child with no emotional or financial assistance from the biological father. The few women that lie about their contraceptive status to concieve, for whatever reason, are far outweighed by the number of fathers avoiding their paternal responsibilities, for many and complex reasons maybe, and the 'single parent family' consisting of a man and children is still relatively rare.

Rambling now - just my 2c worth!

Jo,Jo - I think you have been reading something out of a particular type of handbook. It has only been in recent times that there have been enough breakthroughs in areas such as medical science, food production, hygiene etc to get a comparatively high life expectancy rate. Prior to that life was very much a matter of day-to-day survival against many odds.

In some tribes living in the bush, a woman had to be pregnant many times in her short life for there to be enough children surviving to continue on the human species, due to high rates of miscarriage, death during childbirth, infant mortality, disease, starvation etc. That is life in the natural world and much of our sexual and reproduction systems are still geared for this.

The belief that men had lots of “money” and lots of “rights” but purposely kept them from women is feminist bunk. The vast majority of people had almost no money, minimal material possessions and minimal rights. The only time my mother ate chicken was occasionally at Christmas time, and most of the time her family lived on ox-tail, liver, kidneys, pigs trotters or fish my grandfather caught from the local river. They didn’t own a car, only my grandfather owned a bike which he rode many miles to get to work each day. They had a wood stove and my grandmother had a large pot to boil up clothes to wash them in the back yard. They were a normal family.

There were almost no “rights”. You did what you were told, men and women. At work if the boss said jump, you had to or you didn’t have a job, and most of the work was very physically demanding. Do you think men would send their wives out to work in a factory where most of the work was heavy manual work carried out in very harsh conditions, (and I once worked in a factory for 20 yrs and heard what conditions were like before my time) or send their women to work in a coal mine, or into a field to walk behind a draught horse all day (and yes I remember sitting on fences watching farmers plough fields with such a horse and my father’s original trade was to make the bridal gear and harnesses for these horses). The “vote” was almost unheard of, remembering that Australia was the first country to use a ballot paper. If someone had a vote they often couldn’t read anyway, and this is still the case in many countries.

This is not included in the handbooks of course but none of the above is that long ago, and I have seen some of it, and also tasted my grandmother's pressed tongue and ox-tail soup. She once used to cook dugong.

But now we have a society where women journalists are allowed to write articles encouraging other women to “get rid of their man” as I read recently in a major Australian newspaper.

Nature does find a balance, and many of the people who like to try and indoctrinate other men and women with false notions and men-hating attitudes will not find a mate and pass on their genes. That is nature’s way of ultimately finding a balance.

OK, here are my initial thoughts on the Ute "R" Us device (Copyright, Worldwide Patent Pending, all rights reserved by Seeker Corporation - incorporation pending).

Backpack model in your favourite colours and styles.
This model will be favoured by those expectant perents wishing to be close to their Ute "R" Us device at all times. Extremely mobile and practical unit that is fully shock proof and allows unrestricted movement while shopping, commuting to and from work, for general office or light housework duties. This unit offers the best of both worlds - feel the weight and the kicking, but save your body and lifestyle.

Capsule/Cradle model - perfect for the home or car.
This model is for active fathers who don't feel the need to be with their Ute "R" Us device, don't need social welfare, seats on buses etc., but who may want to take their fetus on weekends away. The capsule/cradle model is a wireless network device with its own IP address anabling remote monitoring over the internet. The device can also sent SMS messages to 3 different numbers, if any of its enviromental variables reach predefined limits. Comes with rechargable 36 hour battery and car charger.

Both units guarantee you will never again have to compromise your reproductive rights, or debate cynical feminists over the internet. Just pick up your Ute "R" Us device and visit your nearest IVF clinic. Easy instructions allow anyone to implant test tube material, then perform the weekly bio topups. The capsule/cradle model will even make your Doctors appointments automatically. Guilt-free and painless birth guaranteed.

Seeker, you can put my name down for one of those devices. I don’t mind doing a bit of housework and I quite like looking after children, and I wouldn’t mind having another child.

However, will there be any restrictions on the use of this device, or can some people start mass-producing themselves.

Glad to register your interest Timithy!

To answer your question, I don’t see any possibility of the Ute “R” Us device being abused any more (or less) than happens with the real thing, and as with the real thing, you’ll always know the child is yours!

Normal constraints and medical ethics apply. You would be emotionally and financially responsible for your child, without the risk of assessable child support, ever. You are guaranteed resident parent status as much as is possible within our legal framework (e.g. I read recently that a divorced father in Italy was forced to separately maintain the family dog, so therefore, within legal constraints).

The cost of the Ute “R” Us device may also be prohibitive to those unable to financially support their children. Ownership of the device will be limited to one per client. Clients like Michael Jackson would also be filtered out by the interview and psych test.

In regards to Timithy's comment

"Nature does find a balance, and many of the people who like to try and indoctrinate other men and women with false notions and men-hating attitudes will not find a mate and pass on their genes. That is nature’s way of ultimately finding a balance."

Unfortunately, nature has nothing to do with what is happening with IVF legislation in this country, especially in Victoria.

It is now perfectly legal and becoming increasingly socially acceptable for these men-hating women to pop down to the clinic and arrange to be artificially inseminated with the full knowledge that the child will grow up without a father.

So the men hating genes, and I'm sure a good dose of men-hating propaganda, are passed on to another generation by circumventing any natural balance which could occur.

And of course this type of situation will skew any future studies about housework - women will be doing it all in these households!!!!

Had a good laugh over the blokes arguing about washing machines. The fact is women do more housework because they approach it differently, and men are unable to recognise the difference. This is nothing to do with fair or unfair, its hardwired.

Try the "pick-up test". Take a busy working family with children, where socks, toys and other domestic clutter will normally be still all over the floor when the family walks in the door at the end of a hard day at work and school. Women will automatically pick up whatever is in front of them on the floor, and be sorting, ordering and replacing, at the same time as they are making the dinner, talking to kids, tidying up the bedrooms, and so on. Men will walk over the top of anything on the floor (watch them), but if they are so inclined, will go out and mow the lawn, make the dinner, take out the bins, or go down the shops and buy the milk, etc.

Men will then say they are doing the same amount of housework as women because it took them a similar period of time. They are wrong. As a generalisation, men usually do one big thing at a time, whereas women do multiple tasks which are very hard to distinguish and count statistically. Women know this instinctively, but are rarely able to explain it successfully to men. The argument is unending.....

What to do? Two income families could perhaps forgo the SUV and the laser TV, and help solve the unemployment problem by hiring domestic help once or twice a week. When the big jobs (vacuuming, washing, kitchen, bathroom and toilet cleaning, lawns mowing, pruning and hedging etc) are taken care of by the domestic help, only the daily "picking up" remains....then watch who does it....

The usual suspect-
Perhaps the issue of IVF has not been discussed in this forum, but as can be seen in a recent article at
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,11907794%255E23289,00.html there are a whole range of physical and mental health problems, as well as economic and moral issues attached to IVF. Personally I believe that IVF is being driven by monetary reasons as a business or an industry, rather than for health or moral reasons.

One of the moral issues mentioned in the Australian newspaper article is whether a woman with a genetic disorder,(which means that she cannot have children naturally), should have IVF as she could pass that genetic disorder on. In this case it could be best for the child if the couple adopted instead.

This also raises the moral issue of whether or not a woman with man-hating attitudes should have IVF, because she is likely to pass those attitudes on to a child that does not have an immediate father. My guess is that these moral issues are not discussed in men-hating organisations that rely heavily on indoctrination, data from highly biased research, generalisations etc.

Grace –
You made a lot of generalisations there – Not many facts from any reliable research I have seen.

A considerable amount of research has been done on improving worker productivity in the work place, together with research on computerisation, CAD/CAM systems, SCADA systems etc to automate factory processes. To my knowledge almost no formal research has been done on improving housework productivity.

To solve the “perceived” problem of excessive housework, then perhaps it best that people should stop generalising or trying to malign men (as I thought this was sexist and something not to be encouraged by the feminist movement) and instead be calling for research on how to improve housework productivity (government subsidised of course)

I have developed a variety of methods to reduce the time spent on housework, and as I have mentioned earlier in this forum, I do 1hr housework and 1hr cooking per day. I think I could reduce this down even further if I wanted to.

The present house I live in is rented and is regularly inspected by an agency representative, who has never found the house untidy or dirty. I have told the representative that if they can't contact me before hand to arrange an inspection, then just let themselves in and carry out an inspection as the house is nearly always the same.

I have done an enormous number of different tasks in my life (from building a house to programming SCADA systems) but I don't complain about hosework because there is nothing to complain about.

Myself and my child are rarely ill, to the extent where I have been considering why I pay nearly top rate private medical insurance when neither of us have hardly used it.

Grace pettigrew is sure to find soe comfort in research that shows that her picking up and gathering skills are appreciated and sought after.

According to an article published in The Age yesterdy, written by Maureen Dowd, a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist with The New York Times, men prefer to marry those below them in the pecking order. Dowd observes trends showing “famous and powerful men took up with the young women whose job it was to tend to them and care for them in some way: their secretaries, assistants, nannies, caterers, flight attendants, researchers and fact-checkers.” She backs up her arguments with a recent study by psychology researchers at the University of Michigan.

She also refers to a second study by researchers at four British universities that found “a high IQ hampers a woman's chance to get married, while it is a plus for men. The prospect for marriage increased by 35 per cent for guys for each 16-point increase in IQ; for women, there is a 40 per cent drop for each 16-point rise.”

I always thought that it was women who sought to marry up in order to ensure the best chance of survival and security for themselves and their offspring. This would make some sense in the context of evolution. But regardless of whether women prefer to marry up, or men, down, the result is the same. Mismatches all the way down the line, with no matches for the top women (at least according to Dowd), and no matches for the males at the bottom. Presumably the males at the bottom, are also threatened by those women above.

Wouldn’t gender equality be easier to achieve if we married our equals in the first place? Wouldn’t it invalidate half the power/oppression arguments?

Here’s the link for those interested - http://theage.com.au/news/Opinion/Its-fans-men-want-not-partners/2005/01/14/1105582711465.html

Men are from Planet Earth, Women are from Planet Earth.

Seeker, sorry I hit the button before copying this across.

Perhaps some lines from the book by Brash in the other forum on dateing gives some perspective on this

-The New Wife has a husband who supports her. “These men prefer to make more money so their wives can stay at home”.
-“Potentially a good provider” is on her shopping list when looking for a husband. “It is a very calculated conscious decision on the part of these women” says Brash.

Now what if the husband has similar attitudes.
-The New Husband has a wife who supports him. “These wives prefer to make more money so their husbands can stay at home”.
-“Potentially a good provider” is on his shopping list when looking for a wife. “It is a very calculated conscious decision on the part of these men” says Brash.

If the husband and the wife had similar attitudes, then they would be non-compatible. The marriage simply could not operate.

So the husband becomes the provider, and the woman wants to choose the best provider. Feminists have said that this is patriachy or men oppressing women etc,etc,etc, but if you study it then it is simply realism.

It has been noticed that men who are not employed or have good qualifications are less likely to get married, which also goes against feminist principles that women are only interested in emotions, love and respect and not money.

Sad, sad planet earth.

Let’s bring back some individual responsibility, consistency and rationality. Having it all does not mean having it both ways.

I agree seeker, it is a very sad state of affairs for both men and women and more so for children.

Women have been told that men are bad and women don't need them. They have been told that women can have money (either by working or from the government), and have children also, but they don't need a man. So many women have tried to remove the man, keep his money and keep the children as well.

Doesn't work, and I think that there are now a lot of very mixed up women, mixed up men and also mixed up children as well.

It has also dropped the fertility rate, but I think there are better forms of contraception than what has been occurring,

... not to mention abortion. Shhh.

Seeker, my "pick-up test" was a contribution to your conversation with Timithy on how men and women approach housework differently, it was not a comment on marriage, or feminism, or abortion. Nor was it a contribution based on personal experience through marriage, as you appear to have assumed, but from observation. The research you mention, which can be found earlier published in the New York Times, is indeed interesting. It suggests that many women who marry must have rocks in their heads. My children and grand-children definitely think so, but then that's probably because they are so smart.

Just a point grace, to my knowledge there have been very few studies into housework in Australia, and most that have been carried out have been biased or non-reliable. No “pick-up-test” has ever been included into any representative, reliable study to my knowledge, and any observations you personally have made are anecdotal only and cannot be inferred as being typical of all men.

I have found that sexist generalisations are one of the most prominent characteristics of feminists, and another prominent characteristic is their continuous attempts to indoctrinate the young using such things as sexist generalisations. (eg men are "absent,reluctant or sexist")

Grace
I disagree with your comment that women who marry must have rocks in their head, or are in some way mentally deficient. I am smart and I have been married for six years, totally happily and on a real equal partnership with my husband. My guess is that I would be in the same age bracket as your grand children.

House tasks are divided evenly due to likes and dislikes and things like children and how we would go about actually living in the same space were discussed at length before we tied the knot or even lived together. Not formally (tonight we are going to thrash out the bank account issue) but we did talk a lot about our relationship and what we wanted out of it. More importantly we also listened.

We went in to marriage with most of the ground rules worked out. Yes we probably look like a business partnership, but for us it has worked. He is not hen pecked, he is more fussy about how he does the washing than I am (and even my mother is, heaven forbid!) and I am not the house bound working slave woman. He will pick up things off the floor when he comes across them, as I will. I accept that he will do things differently to me because he is another individual. He doesn't multi-task well, I can live with that, IT'S NOT IMPORTANT!

I have heard people say I'll change him, he'll change for me or I'll soon put a stop to that and then wonder why the man they married (or moved in with) is still the person they had 5 years down the track. You can not change what makes someone an individual and perfection in another person does not exist.

The puffy gown and the piece of paper don't change anything in a relationship. Being married is just a way of showing a commitment, and if people choose to show it another way, so be it.

Some people have an unrealistic notion of what marriage or living with someone in a committed partnership and having a family is all about. They have a soap-fueled Hollywood-hyped idea of what a relationship between two people is like. It's darn hard work and would make the boring bits of big brother look like award winning entertainment.

I'm afraid that I see the Disney fairytale fantasy ending is still alive and well in many peoples minds.

Maybe instead of deciding who does the dishes, we should be discussing how to instill relationship building skills in the children that we do have.

Just a couple of rambling thoughts.

Nita, hope you don't me mind butting in, but it is probable that if someone has a positive attitude towards marriage then it will probalby last longer.

An interesting look is at the following web-site http://www.heritage.org/research/features/marriage/index.cfm

This shows a long list of charts (graphs) that have come from longitudinal studies into different types of family arrangements in the US. While the traditional married couple arrangement may not be paradise every day of the week, it is obviously the most optimum compared to every other type of family arrangement in general terms (particularly if there are children).

I have seen those Timithy, there are also Australian studies on families and resilience you can find through AIFS that I find more sound. You have to watch some of those studies, they can be culturally biased and push certain ideaologies or political agendas.

The Heritage Foundations (your link) own blurb says;

Our Mission
Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institute - a think tank - whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

You need to look deeply in those studies and their methodology as to who they asked their questions to why and how subjects were chosen. Statements they make like "Single mothers are much more likely to be victims of domestic violence." can be decieving when for example, a lot of the studies single mothers who participated were married and are now single mothers because they left their marriages.

They also compare seperate studies taken over different time periods and different groups of people. You have to read the methodology of 20 differnt studies by different organisations/ government deopartments to see if they really are comparable. The authors are a little quiet on this it appears.

I do agree with you however, that an equitable, stable and happy relationship between parents is the optimal way to bring up your children. I know of de facto relationships that have lasted 20 or more years and a marriage that lasted 8 days, and one that lasted two years. Actually, come to think of it, most of the long term relationships of the people in my circle are not marriages.

It is also fair to say that a positive attitude in most things we would undertake in life would lead to a more positive outcome. What I am saying is that we spend so much time looking for perfection and the happily ever after story that the meaning of what a relationship is be it formally through marriage or informally through a committed long term relationship is lost. I'm not sure that a lot of people have much past the basic skills needed to form healthy strong resilient partnerships.

Oh, and feel free to but in, don't mind at all that's what I like about these on line forum things!

Nita, I agree fully that studies can be deceiving and often biased. The Heritage Foundation is also a conservative type foundation, but I thought that this list was interesting because of the general scope of the list, which incorporates many things. If you want a list of what can be considered important criteria to determine if a relationship is successful, or if children are being successfully raised then such a list might act as a starting point.

This may become an issue with an increased emphasis on educational courses in schools on relationship building. What should those courses contain. What relationships are best or to be encouraged etc.

However on the fertility issue, I think that most children are still being born to married mothers (70%). Perhaps the decline in marriage has also brought about the drop in the birth rate. Whether the nation needs an actually increase in the birth rate is another matter (possibly doesn't for many years yet). But generally speaking, if someone wants children, then it seems that their best option is to get married.

Individual situations may vary, but that would be the general rule.

Just a general comment about the weight of responses to Leslie's opinion piece.

With almost 60 comments and counting, the response to the column would suggest a lot of people care about the family debate in Australia.

While the debate has been between a select few people, it is certainly the longest set of posts i have seen on this site since the comments section started.

More than any environmental, legal, political issue that has been published.

I wonder if it has anything to do with the priorties of people in this country (as a general rule of course).

Certainly family is extremely important to a lot of people - it is just the structure of the family unit and the reasons for relationships that differ.

Are the politicians following this sentiment?

Good question Suspect.

I don't think the politicians are yet paying any serious attention to the the plight of the family. Labor thinks that all women want, is to work, recognising gay marriage is a way to streangthen it, and bedtime reading to children (by fathers I think), rounds off the policy. Liberals think we need a baby bonus. That's about it I think - they seem to have no idea really about the tectonic type pressures building up at the core.

True seeker,

Australians are generally pretty apethetic towards politics, but maybe that is just because what is being said is not that relevant to a lot of Australian families.

Old growth forests and free health care do nothing for most people in the electorate - especially if they are juggling jobs, a couple of kids and trying to pick up all those toys on the floor.

In this way, maybe the interest rate debate was pretty important in the last election.

With pressures involved in modern living the threat of rising interest rates might have been an added pressure most people didn't want - not so much financially but the extra pressure on the household.

Still low interest rates are not making it easy for families, just easier than it could possibly be.

More needs to be done from both parties. I think it would resonate well with the masses.

Thanks Suspect. Can I interest you in my Ute "R' Us device as described above? Have you any contacts for venture capital investment? Remember how we used to take our pictures to Kodak for development? And then we went digital, and printed our own?

Well, that's nothing compared to Ute "R' Us. We're gonna be bigger than Bill Gates.

Fair-dinkum apathy, that's exactly what it is. Let's draw up a list of demands and stomp the streets!

and....so... the zealots continue to try to hold the high ground in the Temple.. and the 'priestly party' continued to try to dislodge them.. back and forth the fighting went.. blood flowing everywhere.. the Edomites were called to help, but felt insulted, and went home....
the Zealots were desperate to wrend control of the Temple..

then suddenly.. they all heard the thundering sound of the Roman battering rams on the gates of the city.
(Josephus. Fall of Jerusalem, 70 ad)

I'll get back to you all on this. I kinda feel you will not exactly see where I'm going with it, nor how it relates to the thread about mens and womens work.. or about lazy men.. etc :)
so, until the next exciting episode....
BOAZ

Its a little disappointing to see an article about fertility rates being used as a euphemism for tired old gender debate. Sure men and women do things differently, see things differently, measure things differently... blah, blah. However we are not that different in essence, being that we are all human beings. We argue over peripherals like who does the housework, what is house work, how its approached, who changes the oil, who brings home the pay check, how often baby's bum was wiped and by whom and so on. In my mind they're all just distractions. l am yet to meet anyone who actually enjoys doing chores and who doesn't look for ways to minimise them.

Choices are good. The tendency to ride on the back of another to enable those choices... well that's just the way of the world. Robinhood lives, except he doesn't need to rob us anymore, we just send off our penance with each pay cheque.

Declining fertility is a function of a, b, c, x, y and z. They're all irrelevant and the whole thing strikes me as a storm in a teacup. Population growth will likely be the world's achilles heel rather than its saviour. Declining fertility rates with regards to population growth is innanely easy to solve... IMMIGRATION. It worked in the 50s and 60s. Just invite the Chinese and the Indians over... problem solved.

Trade215,

I agree with you in some respects. I have heard that in some ethnic families, the family can be quite large in number, with a smaller family income than average. If parents are at work, children are looked after by other family members at little or no cost. There is little likelihood of divorce and the splitting up of the family, which means there is more wealth and stability, particularly for the children.

Unfortunately the children, or their children gradually become absorbed into our present culture, and we are back to small families or no families at all.

Unfortunately the issue of gender in families will not go away, until the various propaganda machines stop trying to brainwash people into forming distorted perceptions. For example:- instead of the title of this article being “ In 2005, women’s reproductive choices will prove fertile ground “, it should have been "In 2005, women’s and men’s reproductive choices will prove fertile ground “.

If and when the next generation absorbs our present familial social trends, then, increase immigration. Its such a simple solution. Australia has a long history of absorbing different ethnicities since the first fleet arrived.

Regarding media brainwashing, the responsibility is upon each individual to think for themselves and to take responsibility for what we allow to influence us in thought and action. Apparently a major trend has been identified in that something like one-third of those under 35 yrs of age, identify the internet as their primary source of information. They have grown very cynical of mainstream media editorialised and opinionated 'news' and views. Conversely, around 80% of those over 60, rely on traditional media sources.

The biggest problem, as l see it, is the minimal personal communication between people in general, and men and women in particular, regarding their expectations and life aspirations. Its as if people are afraid to broach this area of discourse. Would it be such a terrible thing for a couple to thoroughly discuss these things prior to 'partnering' or starting families. Sure its not very romantic in a Mills and Boon/Jane Austin sort of way, but so what. What l see is a lot of silence, inference and assumption. When the realities don't meet those preconceptions, then the dissatisfaction and problems arise. Maybe one day, schools will actually prepare people for life, rather than just churning out appropriately indoctrinated worker bees. Basic life skills like... how to communicate, how to align common interests, how to keep a budget, save money, look after the basic tediums of our day to day lives. Without all the scapegoating political invective.

The last couple of decades, in particular, has seen the emergence of an individualistic personal philosophy. The sort of individualism that chains us to empty careers and the short lived, highly addictive adrenaline rush of consumption. These are mere facsimiles of true Individualism. Its possible that once we get used to the glut of consumer driven individualism, we may learn to align common interests. Hopefully we will learn to be more respectful of one another and regard personal autonomy as a strength rather than the present view that it reflects some sort of infantile selfishness. Independance + Intradependance = Best of both worlds and a Better Place to Live.

Trade215 Have you read "The man from Snowy River" ? by AB Patterson ?

Immigration I think is one option, I have a better solution, have more babies among the increasingly selfish and 'me me me' of us and and alter our family structures to include more grandparents and extended families, which is what most migrant families do. Learn the meaning of family all over again.. back to prep I think

Jo
"patriarchal society" firstly there is nothing wrong with it, secondly it doesn't have to mean the stereotypical image trotted out by the feminist lobby. There definitely should be an emphasis on the female as nurturer, it goes with the territory of function follows form.

There is a matriarchal society in an area of China, which arose due to the men of the group being roaming mercinaries or soldiers who were away for long periods. Women control property and children, the men just drop in from time to time, father more kids, socialise etc then move on again. Many of the women have more than one 'husband' figure and societies/ and cultural forms are a response to the realities confronting them.

We seem to have a reasonable degree of peace at the moment..but for how long ? Conflict is more the norm with people, and it occurs at borders of territory or it can be within a society over resources as much as simple geography. In those conditions the patriarchal or 'male protector' role is the only workable one. (such as during wartime)

Why not seek to adjust our understanding of patriarchy or our practice of it in a more palatable way ? Cultures usually balance themselves so it is not correct or valid to criticize patriarchy without looking at the culture as a whole.

The Biblical patriarchy was also a response to the realities of the day. If u want a good example of not only romance but how society ran in those days, read the book of Ruth (Old Testament) and u will find my nick in there BOAZ. There are many insights of social and cultural value. Not to mention some pretty good revelations of human behavior compassion and even social welfare.

Haven't read Man from Snowy River.

Having more babies doesn't strike me a solution for those those don't want to have them (like me) or seemd to go against the prevailing trend. Just immigrate. Its a quick and easy solution.

Trade
we do need to have more babies :) I'd love to think I can persuade you to have some. Are u a guy or a girl by the way ? did u mean you dont want to have them 'literaly' as in being female ?

The man from snowy river is a classic. I would implement a social studies program which includes

"Australian Identity and Values" (poems like the above)

"Political awareness and the inherrant dangers in democracy"
(not to suggest an alternative by the way)

"Social Trends which endanger freedom in a multi cultural community"
"Battles which gave us our freedom"

(Yarmuk almost destroyed it, ( a terror group in Russia calls itself 'Yarmuk'.. see what its about.)
Poitiers is probably the single most pivotal battle on which the Western world is based today.. have u read about it ?? ) If that battle had been lost, none of the other major wars would have occurred, but at what a price !!!!
I think that every time we send a delegation to the French who thank us for our role in the wars to keep them free, we should also express our undying gratitude for one "Charles the Hammer" without whom we would all be speaking Arabic.

Hmmm.. Ive kinda digressed from the topic haven't I..... sorry :)

The chance of convincing me, at this point in time, to father achild, is about as good as convinving a lion to go vegitarian. ;)

The idea of teach national values and identity doesnt sit well with me. l think that identity (which l think changes every 10yrs or so for an individual) is something for the individual to determine. Similarly with values. lm not real amenable to the idea of nationalism nor patriotism... these things l believe to be the major causes of war.

In terms of freedom... l dont think we have freedom when we are ruled, notwithstanding which victors of a war become the leaders. The politocal philosophy to which l subscribe, which l think will never arise, is free market anarchism. Anarchism, not being the absence of rules, but rather the absence of political rule. Bit of a pipe dream in this day and age, but that's my political ideological position.

Cheerz

Trade
its nice to know others views. I'll make like a lion on a chiwawa in due course on them :))) Well.. at least try to flesh out what I was really on about. It will be off topic but I hope people can just put me on "ignore" if it gets up their nose.
Greetings
BOAZ

BOAZ

not much ticks me off... especially not discourse.

cheerz m8

TRADE.. good 4 u.

Teaching national identity/values .. "sound like nationalism, patriotism' etc..
Yes, it mus sound like that, and to a degree it is. But not the full monty.
Generally nationalism seeks to glorify 'US' as the greatest and bestest mob in the universe who are just waiting for the opportunity to fulfill our manifest destiny of ruling all the others.

American nationalism "God bless America' make me wanna puke. God is the God of the WORLD...not just the yanks.
National identity is a healthy concept. It should not be about defining how we are better than others, but different. We might regard our values as superior, but we should never teach them in a way which suggests we have to make the world share them.
The values we cherish, support for the underdog, rugged mountain man type, bronzed anzac, our cultural icons where human qualities worthy of emulation can be promoted.

Patriotism in defense of those values and legitimate territory is a good thing. But there isn't much legitimate territory these days. The status quo is only as it is through wars and fighting.

When it is called on to invade others with a view to enlarging our 'territory' for greed reasons, it would be in error. (Iraq to my mind is not like that) Breaking treaties with Indians is the same.

You prefer free market anarchy with rules.. some rules non political rules. Fair enough, but by your own admission it is a pipe dream.
Can you point to such a version of 'The State' or a nation or people where this has been the case ? I guess Tribal society may be close, the main rule is a sorting of pecking order based on intellect and skill, usually in the area of fighting.

I'll be interested in your comments.

l have a bit of a mental block when it comes to patriotism and nationalism. It seems to manifest itself in a fairly negative way that appears detrimental to the notion of individualism. l dont see it as necessary nor compatible with the idea of individualism. The individual determines their own identity and need not be taught who and what he is by an outsider. In the words of Al Dunlap... "if you need to bring in consultants to tell you how to run your business, then give it away as you dont know what you are doing and you are out of your depth."

Regarding the apparent pipe dream that is free market anarchy... l say that only because the civilians strike me as way to content pushing the blue lever to get a candy to ever embrace a model that relies so heavily on personal responsibility. To paraphrase Bob Dylan... 'you need to be honest to make anarchy work.' l just cannot see society shaking off its addiction to 'enforced unity' otherwise known as the social welfare state. Its too easy as it is.

My solution is the Atlas Shrugged solution. That is, shrug off the weighty burden of the world and its claims upon me. l do not recognise those claims. l will stick around as long as l can live more or less according to my convictions. When l am too deeply compromised, l'll just close my factory, blow it up, pack my gold into my backpack and head for greener pastures. The entitlement junkies can suck each other dry for their next fix until they eat each other into extinction.

TRADE
that sounded like a summary of a movie I once viewed called 'The Sensualist' It must have been in the 60s or 70s, but it pretty much conveyed that same view. It kind of didn't have a beginning, nor an end, the character was 'there'.. he did stuff, and he moved on... 'the end'. Everything was about him, and his sensual convictions. The classic scene was when this girl he had latched onto developed cancer. She was in the late stages of the illness and quite helpless, he mounted her in the hospital bed, 'did' her, got off, walked out and that was the end.
No questioning it being a philosophical movie, akin to 'a clockwork orange' showing an existential futility and meaninglessness of life, turning it into a series of intense experiences designed to validate ones individual existence.
Your convictions appear to be self made, which by your world view is quite ok. And your view of nationalism and patriotism is quite consistent with that view.
Personally, I think you rank as one of the most honest contributors for saying this, because without reference to revealed truth, yours is the only honest position to take, yet seldom are people brave enough to go down that path or even recognize that it exists.
They prefer to dwell in the promised land of culture and social welfare as you pointed out.
Realizing the futility of existence apart from existential personal fulfilment as u appear to do, places you in a good position to read "Ecclesiastes" in the bible, written by King Solomon, who had 'tried it all' in terms of existential experience. His conclusions are worth noting.

I feel you are not far from the Kingdom :)