In my younger days I must admit that I owned a yacht that was named after a character from “Brave New World”.

Such naivety in youth.

I think this article lays out the situation quite clearly, and unfortunately there is no bright spot on the horizon.

The more both men and women work, the higher prices become.

The more both men and women divorce, the more demand for housing, and the higher the mortgage becomes.

The more both men and women work and divorce, the less children will ever see both parents.

So the children are now raised by the state, and ultimately they are owned by the state.

Very well written.
Yep, a singe working parent used to be able to raise 5 kids. Now even rasinig kids is an "industry".
Typical of our modern economy: we manufacture less and less, we export all our best ideas overseas, and we destroy families in the name of Profit and ideology.

Western civilisation...it would be a nice change.

It is fairly unusual for a piece on OLO to be so perceptive about a problem, and have no answer at the end to comfort us.

But as a description of the problem, it is right on the money.

The basic economics of the money merry-go-round, with more cash chasing more goods in a never-ending upward spiral. Spot on.

The tendency of governments to ensure a problem lasts forever by creating a department whose continued livelihood depends upon their inability to solve it. Painfully accurate.

Sadly, the only permanent cure would be for us to endure - not just a recession, but a full-blown depression. Complete with soup kitchens, dole queues, patching clothes, and thirtyfive percent unemployment.

Because it is the most difficult thing in the world to take stuff away, once it has been given. It is not as if we could wean ourselves off our addiction to goods that we have become accustomed to. It is an addiction, pure and simple, because we have been used to injecting our homes with stuff that makes us feel good, but that strictly speaking, we do not need.

I am a prime offender, by the way. This is not an exercise in finger-pointing. My life and lifestyle have followed exactly this pattern, so I am really speaking from personal experience. But I also know that if I were to suddenly turn my home life into an exercise in pure subsistence, with no excess food, no wide-screen tv, no theatre or cinema etc., I would be as miserable as sin.

As it is extremely unlikely that we will experience depression (unless of course we donate our GNP to the rest of the world via carbon trading - but that's another story), we have to manufacture for ourselves what economists call a "soft landing".

But how? Beats me.

My own experience following a family break-up in infancy is that a close and loving relationship with one's mother (which I lacked) is a vital aspect of becoming a well-rounded adult.

Nobel-prize winning economist James Heckman found that gains in early childhood intervention come predominantly from focusing on families in which children had a high risk of incarceration and a low chance of sustained (if any) employment. There is no evidence to support the widespread intervention favoured by the Rudd government.

As I recently wrote to The Australian,

"If the left wishes to compete on ideas, those ideas must be evidence-based rather than simplistic wishful thinking. The “huge increase in public and private education” sought by Dennis Glover (Opinion, 25/9) is no guarantee of economic success – the relationship between education and economic growth is very complex, and the success of growth-oriented policies in one area is dependent on complementary and supporting policies in other areas. A comprehensive understanding of how policies interact is required.

For example, there is no evidence that forcing those who prefer to leave school early to complete Year 12 will lead them to more skilled jobs and higher wages and will boost productivity and growth. The driving force here is business opportunities for profitable investment and growth, and extra schooling for students at the lower end of the spectrum will not significantly change this. Similarly, learning is a dynamic process which needs to be inculcated in early childhood - training schemes for poorly-educated older workers are inferior in gaining them employment to lower minimum wages, wage subsidies and flexible industrial relations regulation.

As for increased education spending boosting innovation and high-tech exports, the problems lie elsewhere. Some factors we cannot control, e.g. the need to be close to major markets, others we can, e.g. with light-handed government regulation which fosters entrepreneurial spirits and a tax system which fosters wealth generation and retention. In addition, Heckman has found that reforms in the administrative structure of education and infusion of incentives and competition are far more likely to be effective than additional spending on public schools."

As my Boss used to say I don't want to hear your problems, I want to hear your solutions...
PS. The dig at the end was a bit sad, are you saying that they are less then you because they haven't had kids. I would make the point that half the pop don't physically have kids are you saying they would unable to help or understand these problems as well. Or were you just having a poke, trying to score some cheap points.

Excellent piece. The description of the mechanism by which an issue becomes an industry is very accurate.

This piece could only have been written by a woman, as a man would have been immediately howled down as "patriarchal" or one of the other meaningless epithets designed to avoid examination of critical flaws in the outcomes achieved by the feminist movement, few of which were predicted by the theorists.

Increasingly, those "uber-feminists" at the top of our society are disconnected from the aspirations of "ordinary" women and their partners and children. Extremists have dominated the discussion for so long that we have almost lost sight of how skewed it has become.

The sex discrimination commissioner released her own press release a couple of days ago, calling for investigation of ways in which men who wish to participate in rearing their children may be allowed flexible working arrangements. She went so far as to suggest a separate "Families Commissioner" (presumably so as not to undermine her own feminist role) to administer breaches of such a scheme. That suggestion has been met with stony silence from all around. I wonder why?

human society generates the customs it needs to survive. when we were arguing with lions and leopards for supremacy, we lived in large families or clans and all children were visibly clan assets entitled to protection.

industrial society atomized the family, to extract the maximum of work for the minimum expense. nowadays, capitalist society doesn't pay it's workers enough to make family life possible, and population would collapse without immigration.

immigration works ok as long as africa and asia, in particular, generate enough hungry people to provide service to the west. but looting other countries of educated people or even just labor is anti-social behavior from the viewpoint of those who raise the 'disappearing' people. friction will arise.

perhaps the west had better confront the problem directly: create new styles of social contracts. one would be a simple money bonus to women who produce a healthy child. a second would be a partnership contract for women who want to raise children in concert with others. a third would be for men who want to participate in these parenting groups at various levels, from recreational sex, to insemination, to active parenting.

it is clear that monogamy is obsolete, new ways are needed, and let's hope leadership in this area gets immediate support.

overstereotyped....overcritical...overdramatic.... over it!

Whilst there is much about this that I agree with I think it oversimplified issues.

The changes in society have been driven by a lot more than just increased female participation in the paid workforce.

- The changed role of the banks is a factor especially changed lending criteria and an increased range of products. Has anybody else noticed the proliferation of buy now pay later advertising or all the advertising run a while back to use the equity in your home to fund other purchases. Attitudes to borrowing have changed.
- Social attitudes about marriage and divorce have changed.
- Social attitudes about gender roles in the home are changing. To fast for some, not fast enough for others.
- Improved communications mean that we are more aware of whats out there increasing the temptation to aquire.
- The lowered real costs of many items (cost of the item as a component of income) has made many mid range items seem less significant increasing the temptation to get things which in the past were out of reach. If we do that on enough items we spend more.

There are probably plenty more factors that could be added to the list of things which increase financial pressure on families (still our own choices for the most part though). Views about what drives what will often come down to our world view rather than clear fact.

R0bert

I forgot to point out in an earlier post that unless there are a lot more transgender people out there than I'm aware of that it's not just "current holy trinity of Julia Gillard, Penny Wong and Maxine McKew" who have not actually born a child.

I suspect that Rudd and Swan have not either.
Nor have Howard, Abbot or Costello.
Nor have Hawke or Keating.

Many of them have been parents to children but I get the impression that doing what it takes to get to senior levels in the government involves a lot of time away from the day to day issues of being a parent. It also involves the kind of salary which provides some isolation from the issues faced by many other families.

R0bert

I fully agree with R0bert and, to some extent, Pericles.

Pardon the history lesson, but the perfect storm of factors that created the Western social revolution circa 1960 was the post-industrial economy which found that it needed to create its own internal markets as well as its own products. This required a seemingly contradictory supply of cheap labour and a cashed up workforce.

The Eisenhower administration of the 50s was one of the first to realize that the encouragement of women into the workforce would kill both these post-industrial birds with one stone. Unfortunately, it also killed the traditional family. Feminism, which is a philosophy not a movement, has been around for many centuries in one form or another. It did not create this situation – but it did give the wave its momentum.

And please … give me a break! Not all that many people cried over the trad fam’s demise. At its worst, it was an oppressive, exploitive, authoritarian institution that stunted the sexuality and independence of women, made children the chattels and workhorses of their parents and turned men into emotionally stunted financial providers for perpetually pregnant wives.

Love it or loathe it, the revolution in the traditional family over recent decades is a toothpaste and tube issue – you can’t go back. Regardless of how we feel about kids and childcare, the fact is that the relatively new childcare profession – as with any other profession – needs regulation and accountability … oh, and MUCH BETTER pay

Demos
This does sound very much like a “brave new world”.

“one would be a simple money bonus to women who produce a healthy child. a second would be a partnership contract for women who want to raise children in concert with others. a third would be for men who want to participate in these parenting groups at various levels, from recreational sex, to insemination, to active parenting.”

I wonder if someone has to apply to the state before any of that is granted, and who acts as God when approving an application.

Sofisu
“Get over it” does seem to be a favorite term said by certain individuals.

Next such individual will start to say there should be equality and everyone should have a voice (although the term “get over it” is used to silence any dissent).

Demos

I should have said in my previous post that I agreed with you in addition to the other posters I acknowledged. I had scanned the previous commentary a bit too quickly to realise you made some good points.

My only criticism is that the selection of solutions you suggest are too top-down. The changing face of marriage is being driven from the bottom up, as more and more people challenge the prevailing system, e.g. like my cousin who married her girlfriend recently in a proper almost-traditional wedding ceremony. As with so many social revolutions of the past, governments will finally (and hopefully) realise they have little choice but to rubber stamp what the people are already doing.

HRS "although the term “get over it” is used to silence any dissent"

Well it apparently is not very effective.

It's more often used to suggest to people with massive chips on their shoulders that it's time to move on.

Like it or not the world has changed, peoples expectations have changed. Your obsessive hatred of feminism harms the causes you seem to support, it makes all criticism of feminsm seem suspect.

If I was to say "Get over it" it's a call to personal growth rather than a wish for you to continue to stew in your hatred of all things feminist. It's a call for your to recognise that like most things it has strengths and failings. It's a call for you to move on from something that harms you.

Get over it.

R0bert

Robert,
So what are your thoughts about a “brave new world”.

My thoughts are that the future will belong to societies that produce enough children, and don’t abort themselves and divorce themselves into non-existence.

For example: - Russia is about to become Muslim, France is about to become Muslim, Holland is about to become Muslim, and the UK is about to become a mixture of Indian, Pakistani and Muslim.

HRS, I'm of the view that the answer does not lie in numbers but in being the type of society that most want to be a part of. That the extremists of any faith who want to live by the worst interpretaions of their faith are a minority and that most want something better.

That our society will be stronger when all adults can take part in it fully, not just the half who happen to have a penis.

I think that we are going through a transition in our understanding of relationships and the way that we deal with sexuality and that high abortion rates and high divorce rates have more to do with remnants of the tired old past than with the brave new world which concerns you.

I'm of the belief that the main threat to our society lies not with muslims but with the fundamentalists who want to drag us into their turf war against an alternative theology. Those who want to make us more like what they oppose rather than less like it.

I'm of the view that religion loses it's bite when people know they have a choice about it rather than when it's directly opposed. Those who seek a head on war with Islam strengthen it.

R0bert

SJF, great comments by the way. Sorry I'd not responded to your comments earlier but I had an itch to scratch.

R0bert

How many children does the deputy leader of the opposition, Julie Bishop, have? None. But then, she is of course is not a left wing uber-feminist like any of the 'holy trinity' in government.

If only a good man had swept that frustrated envious thing of her feet and impregnated her she could have been rearing some rational, calm little liberals while Papa, like in the good old days when men were men and women were women,was single handedly bringing home the bacon, saving the world and buying the house.

SJF, Robert and Demos. Great posts. Thanks for some sane voices in response to the hysterical drivel waffling about 'biological mothers abandoning their children'.

Glynne Sutcliffe has got her facts right on this .

The question is what are the long-time consequences for our society?

Will it have really far-reaching serious consequences, or will things evolve OK?

Only time will tell I guess. Reminds me of another song I know.

“IT'S A LESSON TOO LATE FOR THE LEARNING,
MADE OF SAND, MADE OF SAND"

I think the consequences may be felt within a few decades.

Make merry!! have orgies!!you deserve it, fiddle while Rome burns.

Oh what glorious, devouring, flames,FLICKER like the burnt out ashes of a once great civilization. The flames flicker higher reflecting in eyes wide with terror and bewilderment,especially bewilderment. Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!HA!
Sorry sometimes I become a bit dramatic. Must be because I am a theatrical, flamboyant, LEO.

Robert,
Sounds idealistic, but the bottom line is, if a society doesn’t produce enough children, then that society has no long term future.

The new ideology of producing children through IVF won’t work, unless it becomes compulsory