When I read this article I thought:- now here's a lot of things it would be interesting to discuss. An objectively-written discussion on current social problems one could get one's teeth into.

Hot on the heels of this thought came the realisation that, instead, here was yet another portal for the time-worm repetitions of the same ole same ole. Instead of a discussion what will ensue are the usual diversions to domestic violence, The Office of Women, the family courts and the feminisation of society and government to its eventual detriment. Plus, of course, the religous factor. And the chance to slag off entire genders because because of personal bad experiences which have absolutely nothing to do with the article. Coupled with, no doubt, some initial bad mouthing to put me in my place.

(Sigh). I wish articles like this could come with some sort of sticker saying "Only those who are genuinely interested in THIS article need apply". Then we might get some comment instead from people who have actually had experience and gained knowledge from the situations discussed. We might even (gasp!) reach some conclusions relative to the article.

Ah well...let the games commence.

Thank you for that. From a professional woman's point of view, one of the main issues is the lack of enthusiasm from employers to provide part time work to working mothers that is, often, the equivalent of what they were doing prior. And if they do, the jobs are regarded as having a lack of any real career growth - therefore you end up being sterotyped as not wishing to further enhance your career (otherwise you would be full time), being distracted - as you now have children and can not give your all to the well being of the corporation, and as one of the CEO's said - in a public forum - "you have to make a choice, the job or your family, you can't have both".

According to the ABS, Australian dads work 5hrs a day longer than mothers.

Very few women take the CHOICES that thay have to return to long-hours work once they become mothers... but tragically men INCREASE their hours when they become dads. Why do new dads work longer?

If a full-time job is 8hrs/day, and dads are doing some house-work...

Are we to believe that these families require over 5hrs a day of "house-WORK". I have a young daughter and I work a 4-day week so I can play with her... yes, that's what it is PLAYING.

Most mothers spend most of their days PLAYING with their kids, and feminists call this "house-WORK", meanwhile Dad's "work-WORK is belittled.. and so that when dad, after long years of long hours gets a promotion, it is somehow sexist discrimination? Women earn less because they work less hours for fewer years, and generally in clean safe and nearby locations (not mining, garbage, farm labour, or truck-driving).
"Why Men Earn More" http://www.amazon.com/Why-Men-Earn-More-Startling/dp/0814472109

Men, are now refusing to do such long hours... PLAYING with the kids is much more fun than PAYING for them.

The tragic result of this (and discriminatory practices in the divore court) is THE MARRIAGE STRIKE... where many men are simply saying "the system is unfair against dads... so I'm never going to marry"

This is leading to a generation of women who are going to miss out on the husband and family that they usually desperately want. The sins of the nasty-feminist mothers are being visited upon their daughters... because (by making fatherhood so un-attractive) they have cut the head off the goose that laid the golden egg.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_strike
www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2003/0812.html

While I agree with much of what this article states there are a few things to add.

Without wishing to generalise too much, men do not get the same choice that women do ie. to stay at home or work part-time to be able to balance work/life priorities. In general men are still perceived as the 'main' breadwinner and the women's income as the 'support' income. This is not applicable to every family but I would suspect most dual working families.

The truth is that people are working longer hours, our economic system is not very good at providing opportunities that allow for a better life-work-family balance for either gender.

Some jobs don't allow for part-time hours - that is just the reality but I would suspect that most could be adapted. I downshifted jobs because I knew my employer would not allow a job share situation at the level I worked previously because of the need for continuity. It could be done but it would be difficult so I didn't even ask because I knew my boss's aversion to part-timers in the past.

Speaking from personal experience, women in lower paid part-time jobs are often taken advantage of because employers know that part-time is preferable for working mothers and this fact is often exploited.

It is these industrial relations aspects that need to be addressed if we are to achieve true working equality. I don't know if men would be equally exploited in the pursuit of part-time work, I suspect not as much but there is probably not much data on part-time male employees so I would not like to make a broad statement on that one.

Sigh, just when I was thinking I was 'evolved' by choosing to reduce work responsibilities and hours worked in favour of spending more time with the children and having time to myself to smell the roses.

Many women are not willing to put career and material things ahead of their private lives. After all, you are only live once. I am sure that in the final hours of life any regrets will be about time not spent with family and friends, not about that BMW or clothes I could have bought through being a senior suit.

What women should do is become more astute in managing money and in investment.

As for men, they are affected by much the same work inflexibilities as women.

Pelican well put.

Romany I suspect that you are right about what this will become but to be fair the article invites much of it. It like it's predecessors uses limited statistics without looking at causes and the choices people make to create an impression of gender hardship.

Not that balanced although some of the issues are very important. There was little need for the article to be about gender, many of the issues are the same if you happen to have the role of prime care giver for a child or children.

As a single dad my opportunities for advancement are limited by my choice to put family responsibility ahead of career. I've routinely made decisions which put family ahead of income. My choices, my consequences.

Maybe some of us have got overly cynical about articles which try to portray disadvantage for women and then use a very selective view of the world to support it (eg its more than likely the reported income differences in WA have a lot to do with the types of work more men than women are choosing in a mining boom).

If there are genuine disadvantages then let these writers talk about them, otherwise talk about the issues as human issues. The problems anybody trying trying to find a life work balance faces. The problems we face when costs associated with necessities seem to be growing faster than income etc. The remaining social pressures for women to be prime carers and men not to be. The increasing pressure in some quarters for people to do unpaid overtime just to have a chance of advancement. That stuff is often not about gender, it's about the roles we choose to take on.

R0bert

Feminist propensity to overvalue female economic contribution and undermine male roles to “boys club” participation and longer “attendance” is not just a tired old cliché, but a disingenuous expose of the underlying causes for such “gaps”.

Men’s economic exploitation may have been documented over the millennia, but it’s still men who predominantly contribute to state coffers and household budgets. I doubt women will ever freely choose to commandeer this role - not even in their wildest Marxist fantasy.

I can recall several years of financial hardship as a young family with a mortgage, with me as sole breadwinner, my ex as full-time mother and part time student. When she returned to work after our youngest child entered preschool, her income was essentially her money. After a couple of years of unsuccessful negotiation, I unilaterally reduced the household budget to construct an opportunity for proportional contribution. Needless to say, CSA was collecting her entitlements within a year or so.

The dumbest feminist arguments I see on these threads are those that do not take into account any preceding choice, effort, priority, or responsibility. I admit breaking out into uncontrollable laughter when I hear about unpaid work – who directs such work, who benefits from it, and if someone (even indirectly) pays for it, what protection do they have against over servicing?

What do women want? To do as they please, and be paid for it “equally”.

I wasn't going to respond to this thread because the article is such an amateurish hodge-podge I couldn't believe it was intended to be serious. Is this the best that a "Dr" and a "Professor" can collectively produce? How embarrassing for Curtin Uni.

An example:"While orthodox economists and neo-liberals consistently point to women’s “choices” as the primary reason for the gender wage gap, a closer analysis shows that the dominance of normative gender discourses in policy making and research, particularly in relation to care-giving responsibilities, plays a significant role in shaping women’s and men’s choices."

There is no "normative gender discourse". Women have a womb and many of them have functional breasts that dispense milk and not vinegar, therefore it is "normative" for them to bear children and having done so, they generally choose to spend their time caring for them whilst young. This is not only "normative", it is "biological". Men, meanwhile, continue working throughout the process. This is "pragmatic".

What is becoming "normative" however, is the profession of a "pro-feminist" viewpoint, which of course is what this article is all about.

The article is riddled with jargon-laden, puerile straw-clutching examples of "inequality" like: "The benefits of affirmative action policies and feminist strategies of this era are now distant memories for many women, including Aboriginal women, women who identify as lesbian and women living with a disability remain marginalised within the labour market."

All those groups ARE marginal, just as their male counterparts are. It's not a gender issue, nor should it be.

Then there's this beauty: "In some sectors (for example, in hospitality) a growing trend towards offering shorter shifts can be identified as a way of minimising costs (i.e. saving on payments for breaks). Part-time work is particularly favoured by women in the key child-rearing years (35-44)."

erm...if women "favour" part-time work and employers are prepared to offer it, what's the problem? According to our brilliant doc and prof, it seems to be somehow bad that employers might be benefitting from this congruence of interests.

I didn't get any further. It's drivel.

I’d like to know what the authors believe is a “masculine culture”, although this would have to be explained in a completely non-sexist way of course.

The authors seem to have an argument regards what women want. In all the studies I have seen regards this, women prefer to work less work hours than men, or they prefer men to be the primary breadwinner.

This is even for women who have no dependant children.

http://www.melbourneinstitute.com/wp/wp2004n01.pdf

Women work less work hours than men, and are paid less than men.

Women also pay less tax than men, and also spend more money than men.

So I think women have the better of the deal, although I have never heard any academic mention this.

HRS: "I think women have the better of the deal, although I have never heard any academic mention this."

You won't. To do so would invite immediate expulsion from the "grrrls club". Far better to write drivel in the knowledge that your Professor both approves and is incapable of doing any better and thereby keep your foot firmly on the treads of the stairway to academic heaven - tenure.

The income difference in WA is interesting. Talking to my sister last night (a shift supervisor and trainer in a large mine in WA), she mentioned a job-offer that required a fly-in-fly-out arrangement for a remote mine. I assumed that this type of work would be very male-dominated. According to her, not so. Around 43% of such work is performed by women. Much of the accommodation at remote sites are couple accomodation (this is what she was looking at as she is married). If the mining industry has close to 50% female representation, why are there such high pay discrepancies?

The comment about playing with children not being work is interesting. If this is the case, why then do we have to pay for childcare if we have to return to work. Surely if playing with children has no value, then there is no place for childcare centres. The fact is that rather than simply seeing it as playing, it should be viewed as child development, and it is quite valuable, no matter who performs it.

I think a lot of the restricting factors on the roles that men and women both choose to play and are sometimes forced to play are very dependant on attitudes taught at home whilst growing up. We are still "feeling the pinch" from older generations that had more traditionalist approachs. Women may seek lower paid jobs in administration (for example) if they are taught overtly or covertly that they are not smart enough to do anything else. If they are taught by their mothers that any money they earn is their own, then chances are that they will carry this attitude the rest of their lives. Those that come from families where a joint approach was taken to income-earning and budget spending will likewise generally carry a fairer approach the rest of their lives. The problem is that changes in attitudes on such things take longer than 1 generation, and often will take several before it filters through society in general.

Hi country Gal,
Perhaps in the "specific" area and min that your sister is working in, there are similar numbers of women, but this certainly is not the case in mining in general...

Men tend to do the dirty, dangerous and remote work... how many garbos, pub bouncers (security), long-distance truckies or farm labourers do you think are women?

Not surprisingly these horrible and anti-social jobs have to be paid more... so men's average wage goes up because of those men willing to do these jobs.

Another important factor is the fact that men REMAIN working long hours once they become fathers... in fact they INCREASE their hours, because they still have a mortgage to pay, and the wife is no longer contributing... somebody has to take up the shortfall.

This is tragic, because it leads to men being marginalised in the home, and virtual strangers to their children... :-(

"playing with children not being work"
I wasn't saying it has no value, I was pointing out that for most people, this type of work, "House-work" is much more satisfying and rewarding and plesant than "Work-work"

I wasn't de-valuing it, quite the contrary, I was saying that it is "Great work if you can get it!" My point is that this lovely, enjoyable and important work tends to be grabbed by women, leaving their husbands to do the less enjoyable hard-slog of "work-work".

Women playing with the kids are their own boss, manage their own time, set their own goals (for child development, play, cleanliness etc). What do women want, to be do as they please? Or to be paid equally for it?

www.Fathers4Equality-Australi.org
PartTimeParent@pobox.com

partTimeParent, I mostly agreed with the points in your last post but do want to comment on "My point is that this lovely, enjoyable and important work tends to be grabbed by women"

I think it's much more complex that that. Women often do grab the reduced work hours and part time paid work to spend those first few years with the kids but men often also fail to take it up. I've met enough women with ex's who just don't bother to try to be parents (and been close enough to see that it's not always spin or maternal gatekeeping).

Men and women have both got a way to go on that. We need to be pushing unions and legislators to ensure that the provisions of parenting leave are not based on gender so that men have genuine opportunities to do more of this stuff. We need to be working for more family friendly workplaces and support services which allows parents of either gender to do parenting and still earn an income.

R0bert

Hi Robert,
Yes, it happens.

Neither sex has a monopoly on being bad. There are b@stards and b!tches.

Divorced dads often end up not having any time with their kids, and (as you pointed out) some is maternal gatekeeping or the "winner-takes-all" result of the Divorce Court.

Some is also the pain and anger that built up during our "winner-takes-all" divorce process... so the parents can't face each other again - even years later.

And, I agree, some men do not want to see their kids again. THink, however about how this family worked before the divorce? Perhaps if the man actually had a chance to bond and love his kids, would he feel the same? Perhaps if both parents had worked THE SAME hours, and he had the joy of part time work (a long weekend every week!). Perhaps he would think differently?

At the end of the day, the wife did the gatekeeping long before the divorce... keeping control of the house (and when he did some stuff with their kids, perhaps she kept complaining and telling him to "do it this way, you idiot") So he realy never has experienced being a parent, and lived his married life simply as a wallet? Poor bloke!

But hey, women put their kids up for adoption, and never see their kids again, and they don't pay C$A either

Country Gal,

'Surely if playing with children has no value, then there is no place for childcare centres.'

That's not really a valid argument. Playing with your own children is infinitely more enjoyable than supervising other people's children.

partTimeParent,
'I wasn't de-valuing it, quite the contrary, I was saying that it is "Great work if you can get it!" My point is that this lovely, enjoyable and important work tends to be grabbed by women, leaving their husbands to do the less enjoyable hard-slog of "work-work". '

Exactly!

'hey, women put their kids up for adoption, and never see their kids again, and they don't pay C$A either'

Ha, I wonder if the adopting parents can apply for CSA from the bilogical father? Surely in America they can.

Thanks for the article. I agree wholeheartedly.

Might I point out that the in 1950s computers were women maths graduates involved in doing intricate mathmatics calculations over a 3 week period. How would you know where you had got up to before your lunch break? Consequently more than half the early computer programmers were women. Women have left the IT field because of unfamily friendly work practices so that now less than 20% of IT professionals are women.

Part-time parent, nothing too specific about truck-driving, and its the largest mine in the state. Anyway just wanted to demonstrate that the figures dont always stack up to people's prejudices.

I tend to get particularly prickly about digs at women not earning their keep thanks to personal experience. I'm about sick of supporting my husband while he spends every cent he earns on himself, whilst I also do 90% of the child-raising (he contributes just enough to disrupt every routine that starts to work), 95% of the house-work and 100% of the household financial management. We'd be financially better off if he stayed home from work and raised the kids, but he thinks its beneath him.

Personal experience aside though, I dont think any discussion is going to get anywhere while-ever one side maintains that women are money-grabbing and lazy, and the other maintains that men are holding them down. And that is what this discussion is spiralling into once again. I havent been on OLO for well over a quarter of a year, given time constraints, but looks like nothing much has changed. Cheers to R0bert who continues to seek equality without letting prejudice get in the way. Keep up the good work.

partTimeParent: "But hey, women put their kids up for adoption, and never see their kids again, and they don't pay C$A either"
Usual Suspect: "Ha, I wonder if the adopting parents can apply for CSA from the bilogical father? Surely in America they can."

As part of the latest round of changes, Australian grandparents can now apply to CSA for child support from both parents. And no, you definitely don’t have to be a biological father to be liable.

Country Gal: "I'm about sick of supporting my husband while he spends every cent he earns on himself, whilst I also do 90% of the child-raising (he contributes just enough to disrupt every routine that starts to work), 95% of the house-work and 100% of the household financial management."

Good to see you take a day off and post again on OLO. Divorce him. I'm a bit over the daily grind at the office, so would be happy to look after children (ahem, design and implement child development programmes).

billie: "Might I point out that the in 1950s computers were women maths graduates involved in doing intricate mathmatics calculations over a 3 week period. How would you know where you had got up to before your lunch break? Consequently more than half the early computer programmers were women. Women have left the IT field because of unfamily friendly work practices so that now less than 20% of IT professionals are women."

Not sure about your 50% figure, but I can be sure that women were needed to restack the punch cards in their correct sequence after the real programmers arrive back from long lunches and drop them ;-)

And this decline seems to be worsening:

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=nerdy+CIT+computer+girls&btnG=Search&meta

Seeker your lack of knowledge should be no basis to contest other people's statements. Do a search on Grace Hopper or Cheltenham.

billie,

' Women have left the IT field because of unfamily friendly work practices '

Are you sure? I'm in IT and I don't see any unfamily friendly work practices. Definately more family friendly than say nursing with it's late shifts. Do you have any figures on this? Is it just possible that IT work doesn't appeal to as many women as men, as suggested by seekers link?

Glad to hear your workplace isn't insisting on 50+ hours per week, all year long.

Ambitious young IT professionals assume long hours at work will be noted and the employer will reciprocate with good pay and steady employment. Not like Westpac who announced it is going to outsource 3000 jobs to India.

from The Age Letters - 2 May

I AM writing this because I am bored — twiddling my thumbs in a mind-numbing role at one of Australia's largest financial institutions. Despite my combined arts/law degree, 13 years experience in the financial services sector and a string of successes behind me, I am excluded, consistently overlooked and working way below my capabilities. Why? Because I am a mother of three young children and choose to work part-time.

I find myself in the very position I was so determined to avoid when I started my family. I am left asking — why did I bother to continue working at all? Why did I lug that damned breast pump with me into the city in those early days? Why did I pay those astronomical amounts to have my kids cared for? And why did I put myself, my husband and my children through the sheer hell of getting out of bed, fed, dressed and out the door by 7.45am three days a week? It certainly wasn't worth it and I am tired of the battle.

Billie,

I feel for the woman, but we only have her word for it that she is 'excluded, consistently overlooked and working way below my capabilities'. Perhaps she is, or perhaps she over-estimates her capabilities. Perhaps she is, but it's nothing to do with working part time or having family responsibilities, and she should just find another employer like most people in this position. Even if she is, by her own admition, she chooses to work part time, as I'm sure she chose to have children.

As I said, I feel for her, but it does no good to play the victim, or believe the world should arange itself around your wants and needs so you don't have to make any sacrifices. I do think women in particular are silly to believe it when they are told they can have everything, and I don't see the crime in employers promoting people who can at least work 5 days a week to positions of seniority.

You may say that means women are discriminated against, but really it's about choices. If you're a woman and want to further your career, either you have to find a partner who earns less and is happy to stay at home if you have children, pay for the child care, or don't have children if career is that important to you, or work for yourself, or be so amazing at your job that you can dictate terms to your employer.

I know I would love to stay at home while my wife goes to work, that it's my and my partners choice that I work, because I earn more, and that's the sacrifice I have to make to afford a better lifestyle.

Usual suspect "I know I would love to stay at home while my wife goes to work, that it's my and my partners choice that I work, because I earn more, and that's the sacrifice I have to make to afford a better lifestyle."

Mate, don't play that game. I am a father, have a young daughter and another on the way. I work a 4-day week as does her mother.

Do the maths... that is an 8-day working week! We earn MORE by sharing the "work-work' and neither of us have all the priviledges of doing the so-called "house-work".

THink about it, do you earn so-much-more than her? That yo end up with more $ working full-time, instead of each of you working equally, adding up to an 8-day week?

I long ago decided I was NOT going to be the parent who PAYS for my kids, while my wife PLAYS with them.

The argument "that my husband earns more than I do" is disingeneous for two reasons. Firstly because it doesn't add up (due to the 8-day-week scenario)

Secondly because women nearly always marry men who earn more then they do... It is the nature of female attraction... So she has set-up the situation so that she can stop working from the day you met...

(Note: I said "nearly always" there are exceptions, but this is clearly the typical scenario)

THis also has an unfortunate consequence for women and fertility... with two-thirds of graduates being female now (due to anti-male discrimination in school) there simply are not enough male earners to provide husbands for all these professional women... Added to this is the "Marriage Strike" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_strike where middle-class men are simply saying "no" to marriage.

Fix up your life, share the work and share the fun... work the SAME hours.

partTimeParent,

For a start, who the hell are you to tell me how to organise my family life!

When my wife goes back to work, our choice is me 4 days, her 3, or me 5 days her 2. We don't really want our child in child care more than 2 days a week. We have decided we would rather keep living in our home that saves us both an hour a day in travel, and to spend more money on trips to NZ for my child and wife to see her family. I would love to be a full time parent actually, but we cant afford that with these other priorities we have. I earn about 50% more than her, and I have done the math.

Sorry Usual Suspect.

I didn't mean to tell you how to organise my family life. I only wanted to point out that we have choices

The common result that the mother "Plays" with the kids, while the father "Pays" for them needs to be questioned.

Especially since we have nearly 50% divorce rates. Since the Divorce Court almost certainly forces the payer to remain an outsider in his children's lives, post divorce