I'll stay away from the feminist issues and agree with the main thrust...
Profits are currently allowed to be maximised without many limits, which is why there are huge profits in things that people cannot substitute: Health, childcare, banking, housing.
Manipulating government health and childcare policy in the name of profits is pretty low, yet in the modern economy the norm.
Economic theory actually reveals that high profits are a sign of inadequite competition. Utility is maximised when profits are lowest. Certain "industries" should never be privatised because competition is either undesirable (medicine: race to the bottom), or unachiveable (water, power, transport).
*Some* government industries are essential. (Though certainly not all!)
We have seen how the financial system is coping with rampant capitalism. Time to revisit some of the "economic rationalism" which should be called "profit worship" and revisit the social infrastructure destroyed in the last decade.

Part-time parent, your wife may have been unlucky because she could not breastfeed... but I am not going to give up breastfeeding my own child just because it is 'sexist' that men can't do it! Would you like the labour too?
Your comment that a woman sits at home 'playing' with the children while Dad does the work makes me glad that my husband is a real tryer in the workplace.
On the family front, my experience tends to reflect the studies which report that Dads overestimate their parenting and housework contribution, (doing all the 'fun stuff'), while Mum does the washing up forever...
Overall though, I wouldn't have it any other way. Life is a co-operative game when it comes to happy families.

This article is a bit of a rant

The fact is we are all “worth” what someone else is prepared to pay us.

That is the “Old capitalism” as well as the “New Capitalism”

Regarding “She quotes German social theorist Jurgen Habermas . . . . “

Quoting “theorists” and “theory” from anyone of any gender, nationality or political persuasion does not alter the “fact”, any more than ranting against something being wrong because it pulls those of us who would prefer to flit among the clouds back to earth.

Gravity remains the same, just as ‘economic reality’ remains the same, regardless of all those who rant against it.

The capitalist solution to issues is for everyone to be free to independently choose the life balance and choices which suit their particular aspirations, acknowledging that no one can ever expect to get everything which their hearts might desire.

We are ultimately, all individuals. We can choose to make the most of what life hands us or we can choose to whine about it and rant for changes to suit our particular agenda.

Under the “capitalist system” it is YOU who decides, not some government flunky, securely employed and paid by our taxes who dictates what is in our children’s best interests

Personally, I believe life is too short to worry about other folk, I have enough to do living and taking care of my own cherished children as they evolve into independent, thinking, feeling and determined adults, ready to breed another generation of capitalists.

And anyone who believes “20th century capitalism has exploited women and their babies and children.”

Should ask themselves

Under a capitalist system, who is responsible for doing their research into what is best for themselves and their children.
And
Who gets to decide whether to breast feed or choose which brand of manufactured formula or not (recognizing that some ladies do not have breast feeding as an option)?

Reading history it would appear “20th century capitalism” has prevailed over inferior “socialist” systems and despite the ‘roller-coaster’ of the market, will prevail into the future, regardless.

In my experience, I encountered far more pressure to GIVE UP breastfeeding.

Advice to put my twins on the bottle – always unasked for – was persistently offered to me as a panacea for everything imaginable during their first year – from ending sleep deprivation to ensuring the babies’ weight gain/loss to achieving a better post-natal sex life. I lost count of the number of times I was condescendingly told to get rid of all those ‘misguided notions’ about ‘doing everything the natural way’.

I often found myself wondering what drives all this hostility to breastfeeding, as well as the widespread tendency to overexaggerate the existence of a breastfeeding 'mafia'. All I can think of is that breastfeeding falls into that murky realm of natural feminine power – a huge threat in a society based on materialism and a mostly male-centric value structure.

Madeleine Love

Fully agree. Our twins slept with us until they were about 18 months old, and then intermittently until they were ready for their own beds full-time (at about 4 years). We took our cues from them.

Ozandy, floatinglili, ruthm

Well said.

Country Gal

Also some fantastic points. Until the work-life balance dramaticially changed with the Industrial Revolution, not only mothers, but also fathers had their children close by them at work.

Part-timeParent

I don't disagree with you re women and part-time work - but do disagree that this gives them a edge in work-life balance, especially if their PT status is not their first choice. Because of childcare commitments and difficulties, a high proportion still work casual or part-time - which means they languish at the menial and/or low-paid end of the work spectrum. Also, you cite statistics fron 1978. The big influx of women into the workforce really started about 1960.

Usual Suspect

‘(Yet, if you talk to feminists like SJF, it's those nasty chauvinist men enslaving them at home)’

Please DO NOT deliberately misquote or misrepresent people in this way. It is not only childish, it is unhelpful and confusing to the other posters.

SJF,

So you agree women stay at home because they want to. This is news to me. There's no deliberate misrepresentation, and obviously no quoting going on, since I didn't quote you. I likely got my impression of your thoughts from the constant rantings about 'the patriachy'.

Why are you complaining so much about women in part time work then? Obviously they are choosing to work part time as they are choosing to stay at home. You mention super, but I cant see the problem. When your husband will likely die well before you, you will get all his super, and the sole use of the family wealth. If you divorce before then, you will get the house, and some of his super even if you were never married since the changes in the de-facto laws. In these feminist arguments about 'inequality' the concept of family money is conveniently ignored.

Even if you take into account loss of career development, the woman still gets CSA payments, and possibly a new man's income, while still being able to work, and having a great relationship with her kids. Sounds much more attractive to me than a man in an unhappy marriage, staying because he knows if he gets divorced, he'll be renting a 1 bedroom flat, with half his income going to his kids that he only gets to see on weekends.

I often wonder what would make feminists happy. I suppose 3 day a week 9:30-2:30 CEO jobs would be a start. Maybe free child care, and 5 years paid maternity leave would be good. I'm sure even then there would still be something to complain about.

BTW:

'breastfeeding falls into that murky realm of natural feminine power – a huge threat in a society based on materialism and a mostly male-centric value structure.'
Thanks for that, I really did get a chuckle. I should save these kind of quotes up for next time you accuse me of deliberately misrepresenting you.

"breastfeeding falls into that murky realm of natural feminine power – a huge threat in a society based on materialism and a mostly male-centric value structure."

Have to wonder about this statement. It detracts from everything else in the post. Who was it giving unasked for advice re breastfeeding?