James,

Hiya and I believe that you're right on that one re: recent decades in Australia (though I would have to check the literature). We should be seeing some sort of parity by now anyway after a few decades of advocacy re: gender issues. Anyway, of recent times I think that the number of teachers has been in decline all round. Recent government policies, reductions in funding, rationalization of services, idiotic standardization, job insecurity and so on has I think driven many teachers into other fields. You're right of course - its' a very complex matter.

However, I was speaking more historically. For a few ideas on how this phenomenon has been noted throughout Western society, look for some work done by ORAM, who has written on the topic re: Britain (if I recall correctly). However, there are many other writers who have observed the same patterns of employability, status and wages - often supported by legislation too; where, for example, married women are expelled from the teaching profession when there is a surplus of male teachers, and when there is a shortage, rules about employing married women change again.

http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0111/Green.php

A little film just because it's interesting:

http://australianscreen.com.au/titles/love-or-money/clip2/

When I get time, if this thread stays open, I'll find some of the research for you if you like. Might be a few days until I can get back to this. The basic argument is that men are better at bargaining for higher wages; they have more power and influence at an institutional level. Therefore when they enter a field of work, the status of it increases as does the market value.

Pynchme,

One doesn't need to read the document when you advertise it in such sexist terms.

' more consciously aware than men are of the needs of the children. '
Oh yes, women always think of the children, but those selfish men don't.

'women are seeking more flexible work arrangements, including shrter hours (as one option) to accommodate family needs. '
Agreed. But what is wrong with that? Why is it a troubling finding? Women choosing to do what they want. So terrible.

'remains undervalued and under recognized.'
Not by anyone I know. I can hear the faint sound of violins.

'enables men to exercise choice and mobility in the workplace.'
As does mens wages allow women to exercise choice in decorations and furnishings. I'd say that is very 'undervalued and under recognized' by most feminists, that women do most of the household purchasing. If you listen to the sub-text of the victim feminists, men earn 15% more than women, and go on to spend it on themselves.

Anyway, since as you say men don't really care about children, who says men would have any less choice or mobility in the workforce if women weren't doing these caring roles. Most men in this case would just neglect them until they die.

Regardless of your ideology, a lot of women will continue to want to nurture their children and find it more rewarding than the 9-5 grind. A lot of men will continue to feel responsible financially for their children, and many women will seek men out who can provide for them to exercise their preference of caring for children.

This leads to a lot of couples deciding that due to both partners life goals, and the fact that the man earns more (due to the women seeking out such a partner) makes it financially sensible, they will live happily with these 'troubling' preferences.

But it wont stop the feminists despairing that couples have dared to exercise a choice that feminism proports to encourage while constantly whining when that choice is exercised in a way they don't like.

Usual Suspect,

Couple of points for you.

1. Women take shorter hours or manage on part-time work because they are accommodating the needs of the family, but women have families and aged relatives and what-have-you to support financially too.

2. When you see a whole bunch of men discussing the pros and cons of how they'll manage a fulltime job and kiddies and possibly aged relatives or household tasks, do point me in their direction. I'd love to see it and I would applaud them.

3. I recently read that men in the US get higher wages, not only
during the time they are supporting a family, but at all times - young unmarried men; older men - at every age and stage they earn more. It was also pointed out that, while women make whatever decisions they must during the times they have to tend to family, that men also have stages where they do not prioritize work. The difference is that the times where men do not prioritize career goals and work; are times when they are socializing.

4.

http://www.womensmedia.com/new/Lips-Hilary-blaming-gender-pay-gap.shtml

5. The Mrs. Cleaver of your imagination doesn't exist, and hardly ever existed at all.

6. When you say that women get to enjoy doing the decorating etc; do you realize that there may be some men who would love to do that; and some who would love to spend some of their time at home with their children. You deny them that choice.

7. The word is choice; how much of traditional roles are chosen and how much is inescapable. There are many subtle ways for people like yourself to try and maintain the status quo.

Pynchme you seem to be an American so I have an article here for you to read.

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=2682

Your post here is rambling nonsense by the way, that is irrelevant and/or half-true at best. I can't make sense of it's relevance to anything said here.

Ah yes I thought so.

You've steeped your thinking gear with the uninformed ravings of Glen Sacks and the woman-haters-posing-as-concerned-fathers-or-something-mob.

I notice there are a few of you here who have soaked up the idiocy of
those sites.

For goodness sakes read something for the astute instead of lapping up anything anti-woman that you can find.

Point out articles in this blog which amount to "ravings" please.

All of them are based on FACTS. If you pay attention to facts, rather than dismissing them as "ravings", then you will understand why feminism is destructive to society, and men and women in general.

Facts, Pynchme. Your credibility is instantly diminished by ignoring facts when they present themselves, as no one can rely on anything you've said prior to your comments on OLO, as they are all called into question by your bias.

Thank God a man like Glenn Sacks is around to document these abuses ;)