The title “why male power must be cut” does seem rather like “why males must be castrated”

But how times have changed.

In the past women had to have lots of babies, because of the high rate on infant mortality. They also had to start young, and the system of organizing all this was through marriage.

Now, while the author mentions the UK, it has the lowest rate of marriage in 200 yrs.

Women also want to work in the workforce and be paid by the state to have babies. Marriage is also considered passé, and a woman can have babies through different fathers, and still be paid by the state.

The father also has to pay the woman money, called child support.

It does seem that all the money is going in one direction.

The author also makes the assumption that while men earn more money, they get to keep that money.

HaHa. HaHa. HaHa

Most of it goes in taxes and child support (ie back to a woman somewhere) So I don’t think women do too badly.

What a disgusting article. This is what I've been saying. You can live under rocks with your eyes closed or open them and be stung by the white pain of the truth.

Article>"We need to catch up on some UK provisions"

I've always known they've been taking notes from even worse governments and applying them here. The worst of what you see overseas will come here. Where does that leave us? In a terrible situation.

This article was written under the guise of a mainstream organisation but which is inherently sexist. And "the chair" is compromised and pushing sexist policy into government. This will go through some revisions to make it appear palatable to the mainstream. What we see is a third draft of the extreme feminist agenda. Perhaps even the author doesn't know this, but I hazard she is well aware because of the absolutely sexist and unashamed title.

Where did that title come from. The article seemed to say little about cutting male power, rather it proposed some changes to allow equality of opportunity both in the workplace and as principle carer of children.

It did like many of these articles ignore the benefits of that time off work focussing only on the negatives as though it was a one sided equation. I find that frustrating.

Some people are very keen to reduce work hours regardless of the long term career consequences, they gain something that those in full time employment don't gain as the flip side to the career consequences.

The author is spot on though in suggesting that we can and should in many instances move away from the old paradimes of the workplace. As parents struggle to manage childrens time in childcare, as city office space is at a premium and as transport systems struggle to cope much could be gained by shifting office jobs closer to where people live (or right into their homes where it suits). We could look at different breakups to the working week and ensure that employment laws allow a maximum flexibility to facilitate this.

R0bert

The benefits to women are clearly huge if they can work part time and structure their lives as they wish, to take advantage of their education, if they have it or their physical labour if they don't. The benefits to an employer are not so great, and that's where this all falls apart - sure, the employer should do this or that to your well intentioned liking, but can't actually afford it.

Consider where the funding or investment comes from to start or run a business, the investors expect a return and reasonable growth, I can't imagine a company getting investment if they honestly tell their prospective investors it will be run as a charity-like family friendly enterprise where profits will not be maximised and all manner of socialogical experiments will be run with their money. Most folks invest to maximise their return - otherwise, why bother.

There are philanthropic organisations, they are few and rely on .. charity.

It's simplistic to blame it on society or corporations or men, it's clearly Commerce that is at fault, and needs its power cut.

The idea is that *other* people should raise *your* next baby with *their* wealth. And because women are choosing to be at home more, the author thinks it's an even greater idea. Mothers will suddenly get handed free money for raising a child, and their next child...and other people will pay for it. The only upshot is that Catholics would be less employable...however I'd wager they want to make discrimination illegal. This is another case where religions merge smoothly with the agenda of feminism and create destructive outcomes for minorities in the population, who have to fund the excesses of the majority.

Ms Cox is right on the money when identifying the current Australian (and global) workplace as an archaic leftover from the 19th and early 20th century.

Despite the fact that Europe and the UK work slightly shorter weeks than the US, Australia and the rest of the developed world, the average working week has remained more or less the same since the 1940s. Yet over that time, global productivity has more than doubled.

On current productivity levels, virtually every country in the world could comfortably absorb an average working week of 22-30 hours. The fact that we are still ludicrously and needlessly required to work 35-40 hour weeks is one of the main reasons why families are under so much time stress and why intractably high unemployment has become the economic norm, except during major booms.

And for those who argue that no economy could cope with any further reductions to the working week, think again. From the late 19th to the mid-20th century, the average working day in the world’s leading economies effectively halved; yet those same economies did not go to the wall. On the contrary, they all flourished and have remained strong.

I also agree with R0bert … That title is so at odds with Ms Cox’s essay, I wouldn’t be surprised if some sub-editor thought it up. Having worked in publishing, this pandering to adversarial consumption goes on all the time