The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > To baby or not to baby > Comments

To baby or not to baby : Comments

By Tania Andrusiak and Daniel Donahoo, published 14/5/2007

Half a century past the feminist revolution and we’re being sidetracked by quibbles over babies.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Sharkfin, you don't seem to have thought about your comments very much re people who chose not to have kids. Every choice is valid. While people who chose not to have kids may not be making the next generation of soldiers and nurses, they, like me, may be using their 'child-free' time in their lives to do volunteer work, to contribute to society in other ways they perceive to be more personally satisfying than parenthood. I know I make a better worker/volunteer/friend etc as a childfree woman than I would as an unhappy mother.
Posted by jeane, Sunday, 20 May 2007 5:28:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
At least women can have the choice of staying home with the children or having a career - men only have the option of career.

Last I heard 87% of professional men supported their partners 100% financially - perhaps professional women's reluctance to do the same is a factor? (I think it is something less than 10% for female professionals).
Posted by Rob513264, Monday, 21 May 2007 9:52:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So sharkfin, what about those of us who can't have children?

Are you saying that as a non breeding member of society that we don't have any value?

Who pays the pension for those like yourself who stay at home to look after the grandkiddies? Or pays the childcare subsidies for those who can't stay at home? Who pays for the baby bonus, travel and pharmaceutical benefits? Who pays for their schooling and their unemployment benefits when they need it? We as taxpayers do, and I will spend much more time working and paying tax (and not getting it back)than many women (yes I know not all) who choose to combine work and parenting do.

By not taking time out of the workforce and not being elligible for tax relief that families are elligible for, by giving back in voluntary work and assisting my friends and relatives to raise their kids, and being able to look after my parents better because I don't have kids, how dare you point to people like me and make us feel that we are not worthy of cleaning your boots. We all contribute to society which gives back (or supports in advance) when the time is due.
Posted by Nita, Monday, 21 May 2007 1:27:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rob, I had to ponder over your figures a bit to come to any conclusion. Why? because I have found many professional women who are the main income earner, and who share the responsibility for child-rearing with their husbands.

But thinking on it a bit, I would suggest that perhaps there are also more single professional women than professional men (although this is only a guesstimate). This would help to skew the odds in favour of men looking more supportive financially. Also by and large men earn more for doing the same job, so would generally make more financial sense for the man to go back to work.

Me, I dont get a choice. I earn significantly more, so I support my husband.

Men can have a choice, just as women have a choice. Much comes down to negotiation with your partner.
Posted by Country Gal, Wednesday, 23 May 2007 2:12:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Country Girl
'Main Income Earner' and '100% financially supported' are 2 quite different things to simply substitute them is highly misleading.

Bring on equal wages - I am fully in support of it however it must be equal wages for equal work. I notice that men still do all the really hard, dangerous and dirty work in the culture.

Research I did indicated that men have a 2560% higher chance of dying at work than women do - should men be paid nothing for the extra risks they take? And do they only take the extra risks because they have the pressure of supporting a family.

All women have to do to get equal wages is take on these jobs too. Research indicates that the reason why women's average income is still below men's is because women consistently prioritize life-style considerations over income and men consistently prioritize income over life-style considerations in choosing their career path. Since so many more men are supporting women than women are supporting men, men need more money to have the same standard of living do they not?

The existence of a small number of exceptions (of which you are one) does not refute any general rule. You will always have some individuals going against any trend.

This culture only recognizes a man staying at home as legitimate if that is 'what his wife wants'. If his wife wants him to be working and he stays at home he is regarded as a bludger. If a woman wants to stay home while her husband wants her to go to work she is regarded as a homemaker. In either case it is 'what his wife wants' that is regarded as legitimate.
Posted by Rob513264, Wednesday, 23 May 2007 3:13:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NITA-; Who pays for the baby bonus, travel, and pharmaceutical benefits?

My daughter who has a very well paid high positioned job does and her husband who has a part-time job does. Incidently their taxes go towards the pharmaceutical benefits for you too. I actually save the government and you money by doing childcare. The daughters could pay the grandmothers and save the country a fortune in taxes for child-care. But some of the Grandmothers who already owned homes have decided to upgrade to more luxurious homes and overseas trips and so they have big debts at a time of life when they shouldnt have any debts at all or they just want to be free so they wont do the child caring is the point I was making.

I sympathise with you not being able to have children but dont talk to me about all the extra work you will do in a life time until you've had to come home from full time work at night or on week-ends and holidays and spend hours looking after four young children one a two month old baby. She often says she would prefer being at work on week-ends because of the workload at home, You only ever hear mothers say that not people without children.

By the time she does retire she will have done double the time you put in every day.

I'm sure you like to see single women who you feel can understand your needs more, representing you in parliament and I am saying I prefer to see people who are married with children representing the interests of my children who do have children, in parliament. I make no apology for that.

When you can no longer work and provide taxes for your own pension it will be my children,s children who will be doing this unless you are selffunded but you will still get pharmeceutical benefits.Also people on pensions pay tax because of the GST.
Posted by sharkfin, Thursday, 24 May 2007 12:31:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy