We're at a difficult but interesting juncture in the childcare debate. Can't go back to a time when women were disadvantaged by 'biology as destiny'. The 'burden' of child rearing kept most out of careers, though many had lower status, lower paid jobs or truncated careers. Women weren't treated with enough respect - they often didn't have rights over their own bodies, finances, lives. Now women have proved they're capable of the jobs they were once locked out of, & have choices, money, and rights. But they still want the best for their children, and many suspect fulltime daycare isn't best for all children. It does work for some, but having conducted daycare experiments on my own children, I know it isn't where all children thrive.

I'm annoyed about having pretty crappy self-esteem while being a stay at home mum. It is partly due to comments made, e.g. in the media, that brings it on. I used to dread meeting suits/career people at gatherings and the inevitable interrogation . I'm getting over it a bit now - interestingly, people are starting to realise why some of us, not 'white picket fencers', let the career/family combo slide. Still feminist, still want to achieve, but (quoting Ann Manne?) 'love gets in the way'.

We're trying to run new social software on an old economic operating system. We need to design a new OS allowing women opportunity & status, less fraught childrearing, and men to be part of families, not visitors. It won't come from social engineering, but social evolution via practices of a bold few catching on, assisted by helpful govt policies. A start would be 1) incentives for employers to offer 'school hours' jobs & 2) 're-traineeships' after parenting career breaks. In Brisbane, we now have daycare centres with no outside space at all - in office blocks. Our increasingly mad traffic is frightening urban planners. I reckon we could encourage 1) & 2) above, ditch sunshine-free childcare & let some mums leave work early, alleviating traffic and having arvo tea with their kids.