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)