Well all I can add to the housework debate is that I do not do enough, never have, and I have decided to blame my mother. No, I am serious, and I still see the problem germinating in today`s society. Young guys are feted and fawned upon by their mothers, constantly. Daughters however still get lined up to do all the girl type things. My mother to this day (I am 45) is still aghast if she is staying over and sees me get up in the morning and iron my clothes for work! She moved to live close to my sister, telling my wife and I that it was so my sister could look after her in her old age. I did not even crack a mention (thank god!)She is still wondering when my wife is going to stop persuing her various whims (you know running her seven day a week business etc)and settle down and look after me! We do not even have an ethnic background that might come preloaded with these traits.I had to do things around the house to earn my pocket money, moved put of home when I was 16 (moved back a couple of times too). Of course me and my mates only did the dishes once a week, my wife still does not understand the concept. And yet I am still crap at housework frequency but thorough when I do get around to it. So what chance do government think tanks have against the force of all those mothers out there?

Also Timkins,

Your comment, “Who says men need to be ‘moved along’. Some men maybe, but not men in general, and those types of generalised, negative statements made about men are the most typical from Daniel” is a little naïve. The comment that men need to be 'moved along’ refers to findings in the Sex Discrimination Commission discussion paper, Striking the Balance - not the author's own study.

The author’s quote, “The statistics showing women still do most of the housework, even when they work full time and have a male partner who is unemployed, should put men to shame” referred to the discussion paper findings.

Would a discussion paper written about men’s role in fathering, written by seven men, bear much weight to you? Or would you also claim that paper was biased to on the basis of its authors’ gender?

Additionally, you may like to read the discussion paper, or just hit the website if you don’t have the time (http://www.hreoc.gov.au/sex_discrimination/strikingbalance/). There you’ll find the description of the discussion paper includes the following statements:

“Women continue to bear the greater burden of unpaid work at the same time as more men are expressing the desire for greater involvement with their children. There is also growing community awareness of the importance for children of active fathering and a concern about the future burden of caring given Australia's ageing population.”

and

“However, we will not be successful unless we ensure men and women have the same opportunities to engage in paid work and unpaid caring work. While we have come a long way in opening up opportunities for women in paid work, we have not had the same success in allowing men and women to care equally for their families. It is this second half of the equality revolution that this project aims to accelerate.”

To me, that would indicate the authors are quite concerned about the caring role of the male in our society, not ‘male-maligning’, as you call it.

There have been a number of people who have tried to make a career by saying male = bad, female = good, and in their ongoing attempts to malign males as much as possible, (and to portray females as being perpetually victimised), professional feminists have said “All males are rapists” or “All males are liars” etc, and now they are saying that “Men earn more than women”.

What they ignore is that men earn more, because of the type of work they often do, and other factors such as men retire at an average age of 58, while women retire at an average age of 41. And men will normally hand over the money they earn to wives or ex-wives etc, which is why 70% of household expenditure is spent by women. Much easier to spend money than earn money, and I think women have had the better of the deal.

As a part of male = bad, female = good, feminists will also try to portray men as being slovenly, lazy, incapable with children etc. They overlook any women who are like this also, and overlook the number of cleaners, chefs, paediatricians etc who are often male.

As far as housework goes, it is extremely easy physically, and if housework cannot be reduced down to a couple of hrs per day, then there is something wrong in the design or organisation of that house.

There are also many, many jobs that are much more exhausting and tedious than housework (eg. no one has ever lived until they have done shiftwork in a factory and worked at 3 am in the morning), but paid work now involves such things as job descriptions, written task procedures, stringent safety requirements, training requirements, EBA’s, work reviews etc. None of these things are required for unpaid work such as housework, which means that paid work and unpaid work cannot be adequately compared.

The all female, pro-feminist Sex Discrimination Commission did not mention any of this in their paper that was written by the 7 female authors. Nor did Daniel in his article.

Timkins, you seem to make a habit of saying "female=bad, male=good"!

There are surely no such clear-cut divisions. Housework is difficult not through the complexity or physical difficulty of any specific tasks, but through the mind-numbing repetitiveness and frustration of doing the same task over and over and seeing that work undone in five minutes flat!

Is it really so terrible that "women spend 70% of the household budget"? Well, in a way, sure. Because they are clearly doing a disproportionate amount of the grocery shopping! But is this in any way a measure of power or influence or the state of a family's relationships with each other, who buys the fruit and veggies each week?!

Laurie,
Much of what feminism is currently about, is trying to get more money for females, even if they are not earning that money.

So in feminist philosophy, a female hairdresser should be paid the same as a male engineer, or a mother doing child minding should be paid by government (or some other person, as feminists seldom care where money comes from) the same amount as a male doctor.

Daniel mentions this type of feminist thinking when he says that housework should have a 6 figure salary, (ie. “Neat graphs demonstrate that stay-at-home mums should be earning six-figure salaries.”) This is complete crap, as there are minimal skills and training required to put clothes into a washing machine and press a button, or even hang those clothes on a clothes line.

Housework is not boring, as it should only take a couple of hours per day if properly organised, (and this comes from someone who does all housework, and has also been involved in a number of productivity groups within the paid workforce). Once housework chores are done, the person has the rest of the day free. People dream of this type of lifestyle for their retirement.

If I had more than 350 words, I could also highlight much of the feminist hypocrisy that is contained within the Sex Discrimination Commission’s paper, but the paper ultimately defines males as those who “have to improve their ways” (ie males presently bad, females presently good), but the Sex Discrimination Commission having 7 authors that are all female says enough (ie 7 female authors = good).

NB. If someone does not like standing in line at supermarkets, then go first thing when they open. Have a properly prepared shopping list, and do not browse. Just buy what is required, and they will be out of there in 30 minutes. It is this type of organisation that reduces housework to a couple of hours per day maximum

Tracy, perhaps the question you should be asking yourself is

"Would a discussion paper written about womens’s role in parenting, written by seven men, bear much weight to you? Or would you also claim that paper was biased to on the basis of its authors’ gender?"

Add to that one of the principles having a reputation for denigrating women and mothers. From your perspective you could assume that Timkins lead up the project (no personal reflection on Timkins here rather trying to set the scene). You might also add a history ofr studies which doctored the books so to speak, ignoring some categories of work and other techiques almost guaranteed to produce the required result.

Each household will be different, there are men who don't pull their weight. Likewise there are women who don't do a fair share.

Each case on it's merits and an equal opportunities commissioner who was conspicuous for caring about truth and we might move past some of this stuff.

R0bert