Thanx Kay
Minuet... actually you have misunderstood me :) I fully accept that there are many women who don't want to stay at home, but prefer to work.

What I was drawing attention to, is the economic and cultural impact of this that I'm sure was not expected, such as the cost of the family home.

I don't for a minute think that those girls who wish to work should be paid less for the same work.

But I truly believe a lot of girls have become 'victims' of a very well orchestrated bit of social engineering, where they actually think they have the best deal by going out to fight their way on the monash etc to get to the office or whatever.. when its just possible, that if they had savored the delights of an alternative, they must just question their current state of mind.

One problem is that most seem to see only 2 stark alternatives.

1/ Work work work.
2/ Stay home, housework, bored, burdened and bludgeoned by all the hassles.

BUT WAIT.... there's more....

The woman at home approach actually has so many rich and fulfilling possibilities !

1/ SELF EMPLOYMENT. A girl can
a) further her education from home.
b) Start a home based business be her OWN boss.

2/ COMMUNITY INVOLVMENT (just use the imagination)

All this, with the added bonus of availability and flexibitlity if a child (if they have them) is sick or in need of travel here and there.

"I came, that they might have LIFE, and have it abundantly" Jesus

I note that most people posting reactionary comments on this thread have, on their own accounts, suffered a broken relationship with the mothers of their children (or have never had children). One therefore tends to regard their comments as being coloured by emotional loss: of partners, children, or even perhaps the potentiality of children. One empathises with them, but ultimately dismisses their comments as unuseful.

On the other hand, another poster exemplifies much that is wrong with the patriarchal Christian view of the family and society with biblical guff, and appears to attempt to deliberately inflame women by referring to them - offensively - as "girls". One tends to dismiss such comments as sanctimonious bullsh*t.

The toothpaste is out of the tube, chaps (mostly chaps, anyway). Women will no more resume the status of men's chattels and domestic servants because a few reactionary blokes are unhappy with their failed relationships, than rational Australians will accept reversion to religious dominance (whether it is Christian, Muslim or Raelian).

I've been reading these forums for a while now, so I know that my comments will fall on deaf ears here. Nonetheless, I look forward to some amusing replies.

BTW, for the record I'm a happily divorced father & grandfather, who maintains a close involvement with my kids - who are actually here now for school hols. I pay child support to my ex, but we negotiated it without any involvement of the CSA (although we did use their tables as a guide). This has been working very well for about 6 years now.

mahatma duck,
nicely said. Though some refuse to admit it, their past experience or ideology get in the way of some clear points, namely:

- personal (i.e. anecdotal) experience does not make the norm and does not equate to how the whole thing actually works for most people.

- patriarchal ideology is dead. Women are free and very unlikely to submit to what is not considered ‘democratic’ ideology anymore. They can’t have the democratic society without giving the freedoms to only 50% of the population.

Yes, there are some entertaining (if somewhat frustrating in their ignorance) views being proposed. I expect I may very well be one of them. Far be it for me to presume knowing all. I hope we both get a chuckle from the extremes that pop up around this site.

Cheers,

The fascinating aspect of Mahatma and Reasons responses are their patent lack of clear thinking, and actual constructive debate.

It is the unmitigated BIAS which suggests as you guys did, belies lack of actual argumentation of worth.

<<...is wrong with the patriarchal Christian view of the family and society with biblical guff, .... referring to them - offensively - as "girls". One tends to dismiss such comments as sanctimonious bullsh*t.>>

Mahatma, this is not yr 11 and the local schoolyard, please don't act like it is. Calling a woman a girl is a wondrous complement to those who are feeling the impact of age, wake up ok !

Now, most of my suggestions, were of a positive, embracing, exploring and enhancing nature, which one of those was 'wrong' ? (and by what ultimate standard ?)

I tend to think the shoe of slavery is on the other foot, it sounds like 'some' posters would enslave women in a work force to get extra dollars ? or perhaps you insult women by suggesting they would be less fulfilled persuing THEIR dreams as opposed to the dreams of some 'glass ceiling boss' ? Perhaps you feel women are incapable of organizing themselves in productive ways without some 'boss' telling them what to do ?

I'm sorry, the one who is insulting the women is you.

I'd also like to know how my suggestions can be construed as the 'bad old partiarchal' ways ? For your information, Patriarchy is no less valid than Matriarchy, both are valid cultural expressions of human existence. The point is, they are a response to reality. Only 'bad'if the situation is deliberately used to hurt or harm others. The Christian view of patriarchy is not as described by you guys.

It appears your starting point/presuppositions about life are that God 'isn't'? If correct, then your argument about 'good/bad/right/wrong' is invalid.- culture is dynamic, and will take the form of those opinion leaders (with vested interests) who shape it.

Some exposure to cross cultural living experiences might help you guys a bit.

In response to KAY:
"People do not need brand new homes, furniture or appliances. Second bathrooms and toilets are a luxury - not a necessity. Throw-away nappies are not necessary, and are very expensive. Home cooking of hamburgers is very healthy and lots of fun."

I don't think it's about staus at all. I think it's about consumerism. Children are big business and mothers/ fathers/families and children themselves are victims of advertising. You'd have to stop watching tv, stop reading the papers or any magazines, stop listening to the radio, and stop looking at all the billboards, fliers, junk mail, stickers,etc etc you name it to avoid being one.

No, all the luxuries are not a necessity, but have you noticed how many ADS on tv there are devoted to disposable nappies? We are all being brainwashed every day of our lives, from the day we are born to want the latest, the newest, the most convenient, the most aesthically appealing, the most exciting, fun, everything!

There's a local FREE chldrens magazine which is chocabloc full of tasty ADS for all kinds of fun things to buy and do with kids: baby massage courses, music classes, dance classes, kids clothing sales, toy sales, beautiful illustrated kids books, trampolines, backyard swings, early age learning workshops, swim classes, natural fibre clothing, baby einstein videos, travel nappy bags, post baby exercise classes,,,...

I don't know how anyone in this society can avoid not wanting to buy new things? It's nothing to do with keeping up with the Jones, it's called a contantly whetted apetite courtesy of billions, zillions of dollars in advertising. And even if you rebelled, and went to live in the bush, somewhere along the line, you'd end up not knowing about all the latest technology until you'd have to do a course just so you could learn how to access your bank account statements.

The belief that there is wide spread “patriarchy” in families appears to be a myth. After a study of 660 couples in NSW, a Dr Sotirios Sarantakos concluded :-

The findings confirm evidence from relevant national and international studies, which fails to support the presence of patriarchy in Australian families, and demonstrates that domestic power is diverse, and independent of gender. Women share domestic power with men almost equally: in about three quarters of the families they control the relationship, either alone (matriarchal families) or together with their husband (democratic families). Following this, as well as research evidence of the last fifty years, it is concluded that the notion of Australian families being patriarchal is empirically unfounded, not only with regard to contemporary families but also with respect to post-WWII families.

http://www.nuancejournal.com.au/documents/4/sar.pdf

So widespread patriarchy in families is a myth, but divorced women, or women in single parent families are generally less wealthy, less happy, and less healthy than women in marriage.

I would also agree with some posters that money by itself does not necessarily bring happiness, or guarantee happiness. The more you earn, the more you tend to spend, so once a household income gets above a certain level, (ie above subsistence or welfare level), then any more income does not necessarily bring increased happiness.

Also the term “best interests of the child” is widely misused I believe. About the only way for organisations such as the Family Court to determine if something is going to be in the “best interests of the child” is to carry out a Risk Assessment, and the Family Court does not carry out proper Risk Assessments, which also means that the Family Court is in breach of government legislation regarding Risk Assessments, and has been in breach of that legislation ever since it was developed.