Excellent article from Babette as it identifies some core issues for families, but in terms of the birth rate, the population of Australia will not start to decline until about 30 yrs time. This does provide some leeway to begin programs to enable a more sustainable way of life for women, men and their children.

It depends on what statistics are sourced, but the average amount of paid and unpaid work carried out by women and men in Australia is not that different, being 64 hrs /wk for women and 63 hrs / wk for men. http://www.livinginaustralia.org/Results_Employment.htm#Who

The amount of paid work by men is significantly higher, but it seems that women prefer that men are the main breadwinners, (even in couples that have no dependant children).see “Family Structure, Usual and Preferred Working Hours, and Egalitarianism” http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:yhyHNxKHSc4J:www.melbourneinstitute.com/hilda/conf/conf2003/pdffiles/RDrago.pdf+egalitarian+%2B+%22HILDA+survey%22&hl=en

So if women expect men to be the main breadwinners, then women cannot be expecting men to do half the unpaid work and half the child caring also.

I might add that with modern equipment such as electric stoves, microwaves, dishwashers ,automatic washing machines etc, then housework requires very little effort and should not take more than a couple of hours per day. Child caring is different, particularly if there are young toddlers who have to be watched every second of their awake hours.

So for a couple with children, issues such as housework can be almost eliminated from the problem, and the real issues become :-

- who is going to be the main breadwinner
- what family income is necessary
- who is going to carry out child caring for young children when they are not in school.

If women expect men to be the main breadwinner, then feminism of course will have to be redefined, as men are quite capable of staying at home and looking after young children.

Any programs to help mothers back into the workforce as suggested by Babette, should also be for fathers.

The child care funding is a great idea, as is the 'mother's wage'. The problem, though, is getting quality part-time work in terms of pay and conditions. ie. it pays enough to justify the time away from children and provides personal satisfaction (depending on the goal of working for the person concerned); and, conditions that enable parents to work flexibly in order to manage family emergencies, without losing their job as a result.

There are few of these jobs around at the moment. Perhaps what we need is a redefinition of 'working arrangements' rather than of 'feminism'.

As an employer myself, I am committed to my employees' well being. Why? Because then my employees are more productive and the work place environment is a pleasant one in which to work. Its not rocket science.
I have implemented a number of strategies to assist my workers with their family life. No time to detail right now. Just want to say that I see my business as a part of our society not APART from it. I must admit I cannot fathom Babette Francis's logic at all.

Babette seems to me if you were in a Muslim country you would be telling the women should wear the veil!
Your right in only one issue work life balance is not a employer issue it is a issue for all of us. feminism greatest foe is not men, it’s women like yourself who place chains round your own neck. I had a look at your website and I must say I wasn’t surprised. This article is a thinly disguised Christian fundamentalist attack on modern society with all the usual hallmark as such i.e. loosely connected stats and incorrect conclusions. The nuclear family is gone just like the fifties. Immigration is the best solution to our coming demographic solution and the most feasible. Then again maybe that’s another aspect of the fifties that groups like Babette want to bring back what was it called again…

Babbette is a leader among women having had several children and been a consistent representative on womens issues in the UN forum. The evidence of her work is seen in the energy of her own life and of her sucessful children. It would appear some have pigeon holed her, evaluating the value of her work from some antiquated disfunctional feminist world-view. In case you hadn't noticed the functional families of the new generation are returning to the functional values of their grandparents. Babbette is a leader in her field, and deserves respect. I have heard her speak at several conferences on family issues. Good work Babette!

Kenny,your views are too simplistic.To rely solely on immigration is a recipe for disaster.Our society will become even more divided.How can our society evolve with a common thread with the ebb add flow of a transient populations with no history or affinity for this country?We have to address the falling birth rates.

When will population stabilise? Never? That is impossible. Next generation? Why should we leave it to our kids to sort out the new arrangements necessary with an ageing population. An ageing population hardly seems like a problem? It means we are all living longer. I am all for that.

Do we say to our children "Oh sure we knew that fossil fuels and farmland were being exhausted, but we thought you could fix it all up."

I'm all for family friendly work places, but not to increase the birth rate. The best society is one where everybody can have exactly the number of children they want. If they want ten, no environmentalist will say you are using too many resources and if they don't want any, Babette and the Treasurer won't say you have let the country down, we need more babies to boost the economy. Start producing those little taxpayers. Having children is too important to let anybody else tell you how many to have.

Babette highlights for us another example of another noisy minority (radical feminists) wailing for other people's money (from taxpayers) to implement their own flawed and foolish ideas (that men and women are functionally equal). Look at the reality: women are physically and psychologically designed for childbearing and child-nurturing. Men and women will never have equal roles because we will never have the same biological characteristics. I for one rejoice that God made us different and complementary. Trying to legislate against the order of nature is like King Canute trying to stop the tide coming in. Only those with a pathological dose of arrogance would try it.

Australia is a land of immigrants. From the first fleet to huge immigration of the 50s, 60s and 70s, it is the backbone of this country. l guess that the indigenous would agree that immigration is divisive. And so too would the folks how moved out of the newly garlic odour infested streets inhabited by Southern Europeans back in the day. l guess they just got sick of watching another day go by, without the social engineers addressing that scurge.

Declining birth rates arent the 'problem' in this world. Unsustainable population growth in a world of dwindling finite resources is the 'problem.'

l would prefer to shuffle deckchairs on the Titanic rather than add more to the already full decks. While lm at it l might go see the captain and let him know that there are safer waters to travel. One's that arent full of icebergs.

From the fatalistic and depressed attitudes expressed here it is obvoious the workplace has affected the mental health and made the homelife an unsuitable emotional environment to give children an emotionally secure and happy childhood.

Philo "From the fatalistic and depressed attitudes expressed here it is obvoious the workplace has affected the mental health and made the homelife an unsuitable emotional environment to give children an emotionally secure and happy childhood."

9 posters - ten posts - hardly a representative sample to presume "it is obvious the workplace has affected the mental health.... blah blah"

Hardly a basis to assert that the "roll on effects" of "the workplace" is to produce "an unsuitable emotional environment to give children an emotionally secure and happy childhood".

we are all individually responsible for developing our incomes from which we can finance the lifestyle we expect. If you aint working in the workplace which will give you the right mental attiude to enable you to bring up your children effectively - I suggest - Change your job - I did.

Of course the employer is not responsible for providing a balanced lifestyle for their employees - It has taken generations for individual to develop to the point where such paternalistic attitudes are archaic and redundant. The last thing we need is some woolly, nostalgic and sentimental thinking that "the Employer" will take care of all our bodily and family needs - any more than we should presume the state should "take care of all our bodily and family needs" -

Leave my decisions with me - I will make mistakes but the impact of those mistakes will be far less damaging to me than the mistakes that some paternal bureaucrat might make.

Col,
I have observed the life of many young highly successful women in my close friends and find the emotional stress of tired parents, after a days work, is sublimated as stress upon young children. These young women are very successful and driven in their employment and expect their young children to achieve the same performance. Their children express signs of depression or anxiety. Young children do not respond to performance goals but to reassurance and love of a happy Mum. A happy and observant mother makes for happy and secure children.