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).