Enaj
Please don't imagine that by staying at home or reducing hours for a while to look after children constitutes leaving the workforce. Who do you think provides all the unpaid labour such as regularly listening to kindergarten children reading or playing games, running the school canteen, fundraising and volunteer work for charity organisations, not to mention running other people's (ie. those who get paid) children to and from school and after school activities? It certainly isn't full-time career mums or dads. All this would cost taxpayers a lot of money if they had to pay.

Anyhow my opinion is that of an average working career of about forty years surely it is worth dedicating a few of those years to one's offspring. Ideally both parents should have the opportunity to pitch in. I appreciate some just could not afford it but many don't want to make the sacrifices.

I am the last person to advocate women stay at home always - a rewarding career is immensely important. It is possible to have it all - just not all at the same time and maybe some positions are just not achievable while the children are young. It seems from the article that younger women are realising this. I wish them well.

By the way not many of us have children old enough to look after the little ones - and I would hope they had a life of their own by then. Grandparents are not always available either and strangely enough most want to enjoy their well- earned retirement.

"In summary, we cannot claim to be a democracy while we do not have full representation (50%) of women in the public sphere. Leslie Cannold is correct in that we STILL require positive discrimination for all marginalised people. When we have achieved balance then we will have the luxury of ‘merit’."

So get the job (whether qualified or not) and then get the experience. Too bad about the potential damage that can be done during this period of achieving "balance", until the experience is gained.

Whilst there's a definite place for women in the workforce (in any role), positive discrimination is like a band-aid approach. All it results in is people who may be not be ideal in positions of power which is no good for anybody.

Achieving a balance of male/female ratio in the High Court would need to be tackled from the ground up. Women have to want it badly enough (from a young age) to do the groundwork and work their way up. There'd be no point in appointing a woman to the High Court if she'll have no respect from anybody because she was appointed through positive discrimination (especially since it's perceived by some as prejudice.)

Whilst I don't agree with the "women need guidance" piffle, I would agree that a woman in a supporting role to a partner in a position of power can probably achieve a lot more (and be more satisfied) than insisting on a "balance" through +ve discrimination.

Has it been ignored or is it possible that the man can stay at home and mind the children? Who decides who gets to continue their career?

Now don’t give me any nonsense about a man needing to feel like he’s contributing for his self-esteem either. Isn’t that what a woman wants and is told that raising the kids and keeping the house can provide this? What’s good for the gander is good for the goose…

And no foolishness about the mothers milk issue. Sometimes a mother doesn’t produce enough milk and has to use supplements (as my mother did). Add that the modern age has seen the introduction of breast pumps if you want to keep a store and there is no issue with providing for the child.

So, what other lame excuse is there for men not to share in the raising of children and bringing financial security to the household with women?

As to women being ‘guided’. Not even worthy of consideration…

Reason
"Has it been ignored or is it possible that the man can stay at home and mind the children? Who decides who gets to continue their career?"

The reality of the situation is that the majority of women want the husband to be the main breadwinner, and this often occurs even if there are no dependant children. Any belief that the majority of husbands force the mothers to stay at home, (or chain them to the kitchen sink etc ) is only a feminist type myth. Survey data consistently shows that the majority of women prefer to be at home, or prefer to work part time only, with their husbands out working full time.

So the husbands do what their wives want, then all these feminists complain that men fill the workforce and the women are in the homes.

Is it time to mention the work of Dr Elspeth Probyn who studies that the design of work. BOAZ_David would be pleased to learn that staffordshire pottery in the early 1900s was a cottage industry where women threw and decorated the pottery and their husbands tended the kiln in the back yard, the children were cared for in the home. Great efficiencies and greater profits were made when the pottery was made in factories.

Discrimination in favour of men is so ingrained in Australian society that we are blind to it. In England in the 1890's women couldn't own property. In the 1920's Australian women didn't work. My grandmother worked in a professional capacity - there is only so much painting and embrodiery you can do but she wasn't paid - her father kept her. In the 1940s some women who had served in the armed forces took the opportunity to go to university and get degrees so they could earn a living.

Professional women immigrating to Australia are often dismayed to discover that there are no women engineers. There is a high proportion of women engineers in India, Russia and pre 1975 Iran.

Professional women in Australia are often faced with the choice of work full time or quit. Why should women who want children be forced to give up well paid jobs and forced to retrain into different areas once their children no longer need full time care?

In summary we need to design work so that we place value on child rearing. Not all women can find a partner who earns more than them. While women are forced to chose between child rearing and career you will find that intelligent career women have lower fertility rates than their less able sisters. There will also be fewer qualified women candidates for seats on the high court.

Its a bit of a circular argument though Timkins- do women prefer to work part-time and have their partners work full time because they prefer to have a 'male bread-winner', or do they prefer to work part-time because various surveys have shown that even when both partners are working full-time that women end up doing more of the child-rearing and domestic chores? Perhaps they are just acknoweledging a way of trying to balance their timesheets and family finances?

If people, like Boaz-David for example, are arguing that through being a bit thrifty couples can afford for one partner to take a year or five away from the workforce after childbirth, then I see no reason why the workforce, and people's expectations of the workforce, cannot be altered so that BOTH men and women take those few years part-time.

I see little reason why I should be expected to give up my career for several years, which has cost me a fortune in HECS fees, time and effort, while my partner, who is similarly qualified and employed, should suffer no set backs.

Perhaps Leslie should have argued not that we should be educating girls to have lower expectations of their ability to fully participate in the workforce, as we should be educating boys and girls both to expect, and demand, that they be given fair time for family.