Wow, what amazingly stark contrasts we have here.

On another page, on OLO today, we have Dr Noel Preston, pleading for world equity and justice - "As if the world matters" - and on this page we have sister Jane pleading to be saved from the shocking debacle of choice that Western wealth has created for her. Whatever one's views might be on either article, the glaring difference illustrates clearly the vast chasm that exists globally between those-who-have and those-who-have-not.

"20,000 people die each day because of extreme poverty," writes Preston. Meanwhile, in salubrious uptown Sydney, Caro perplexes over her kinder's affluence, "What about the piano lessons they hate?" - she writes.

The poor woman.

If she was starving, she'd complain. But here, given lashings of wealth and dripping with choice - what happens? She still complains. Will women like Caro ever be happy?

'Struth. Save us from this creeping evil that is Western bourgeois female privilege.

Maximus, read the article through to the end, you stopped too early (or read and ignored the closing paragraph) - I think Jane is pointing out how little real difference all those choices make.

I've read the article as a somewhat satirical comment on obsession with "the extra's" and how little real difference they make. (Am I right Jane?)

The choices Jane lists as having made at the end of the article don't read like the choices someone obsessed with their western female privilege would make.

R0bert

Yo! Nice try RObert. And of course I did read the bottom line mate. And I also did comprehend the attempt at whimsy.

But despite this attempt to ho-ho-ho it all away, the fact remains that Jane has herself considered all these matters as revealed in the last paragraph, where the political has become personal (first person) - "it seems to me that all that angst was for nothing", she writes.

In my assessment, Jane's "angst" was concern about her choices of privilege. Not something to ho-ho-ho about with 20,000 people dying everyday. In fact I see it very much as an abuse of privilege.

Come on, the article is basically saying that really, disposable nappies, recyclable or even plain old cloth isn't going to make a difference in the long run.

Sure, kids will grow up a certain way dependent upon what discipline, education and social interaction they have, but outside those pretty broad categories it's really not going to be all that different.

I know quite a few parents who came to this conclusion after their first born, and were much more relaxed in bringing up their second. I haven't seen any reason to assume they're somehow disadvantaged.

Jane asks
"Will you give birth"..No, I won't.

"Will you breastfeed"..No, God didn't give me anything to breastfeed with.

And will I send my children to "the private school you hated when you were a girl"..
No, I won't. Because I'm not a woman, and I was never a girl.
Jane Caro has a lot of cheek to presume to write for all parents. Especially because she can't know very much about what it means to be a man.
Heaven preserve us from these people who assume they know all of human nature!! There are millions of parents out there of a hundred different nationalities and 2 sexes, speaking different languages. Why, Jane, do you imagine you speak for all of them?
Where are men's voices in these debates? Why don't they speak up? Are they worried that someone is going to jump down their throat?
Guys, women can't hear what you don't say. So let's hear what you have to say. I doubt that you have the same world-view as any woman, really. And there are a million experiences, a million opinions, on being a dad, being a son, being a man.

Whimsy? Satire? Meaningless drivel?