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it is clear that monogamy is obsolete, new ways are needed, and let's hope leadership in this area gets immediate support.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