"Now fast forward another 60 years to our own, allegedly more enlightened, times and what do we see? Fifty-five per cent of women in Australia experience some sort of violence during their lifetime. There is still a gender pay gap. And the just released EOWA 2008 Australian Census of Women in Leadership reveals that the number of women on boards and in executive management positions has actually declined since 2006. "

Fact is, men are far more likely to experience violence than women, even if it is usually at the hands of other men. And the extent to which woman commit domestic violenece is commonly under-reported, and almost invariably overlooked by feminists.

In terms of pay gap, many women are less career focussed, prefering instead to spend more time with their children. Men also have higher expectations and pressures placed upon them, which also explains why more sit on company boards. Finally, the pay of most men primarily benefits their female spouses. So this whole male vs female pay is quite irrelevant and misleading.

"Do women even realise that they would have an unstoppable majority if they marshalled their electoral power and allocated their votes according to their interests? Why should women not demand their entitlements and take them rather than wait meekly to be given them?"

Maybe women share more interests together with men and therefore don't see the need for gender warfare. After-all most women are far more worries about the state of the economy than whether enough women sit on company boards.

Like most feminists, the author overlooks the fact that most males and females are not autonomous individuals, but instead belong to families where couples are working together in order to serve their best interests, as well as those of their children.

Kellie

Now you've let the cat get out of the bag, if women become a political solidarity? There's no telling where that would end.

Of course men would be reduced to being sperm dispensers and tampons would be tax deductable.

OK I've had a bit of fun enter now the B & T's.

'What would happen if they demanded that the government not abandon half of the electorate on this issue?'

This is pure arrogance/naivety. A hell of a lot of women don't agree with paid maternity leave. And a hell of a lot of men would benefit financially by their partner earning money for the family in this way, yet still don't believe in it.

The Maternity leave arguments really bemuse me. It seems to me that certain feminists see this solely as a symbolic importance. It seems as if you could give women double the money in FTB and Baby Bonus, but because it's not called maternity leave it's not good enough.

Possibly the reduced child care rebate etc and taking away the baby bonus could fund PML, and if that's the case it's probably preferrable for most families to have kids at home being looked after by either parent rather than subsidizing child care. But I sense this isn't really why so many feminists are so desparate for maternity leave, as articles like the above illustrate.

'Is that not the way society makes "non-working" women feel?'

No. Nobody can make you feel anything. Most non-working women I know are pretty proud of the child rearing work they do, and feel lucky their family have chosen/can afford this lifestyle choice for them. I even know some blokes a bit envious that it's their partner who gets to do that job.

Nothing new here. It's the fault of men, of course. Now can we move on?

But before we do, there are a couple of inconvenient facts that might need some explaining away.

Ms Tranter says, bluntly and without a skerrick of hesitation or doubt:

>>There is still a gender pay gap<<

But there are other views on this in 2009.

"Women who choose to stay single are likely to earn more than single men throughout their lives"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1145973/How-paid-men-Stay-single.html

The last time I looked, getting married and opting out of the workforce in order to have children was not compulsory.

OK, so it is totally unfair that bearing children is restricted to females. But is that the fault of men?

As for the perennial proposition that the taxpayer at large should bear the cost of raising other people's children, when personal choice and a regard for individual rights, responsibilities and circumstances have been the prevailing drivers since Moses played full forward for Collingwood, what is there to say?

Apart perhaps from, "why?"

The argument used here is as fallacious as mine was when I used to ask "why can't I play in the street, Billy next door can?"

>>...why should Australian women sit around and wait to be “given” paid maternity leave when according to most countries around the world they have a right to it?<<

The answer may well be contained in the article itself:

>>...notwithstanding the proven economic and social benefits that flow from the provision of paid maternity leave<<

Here's a thought, Ms Tranter.

Could you please take a moment to point out the economic benefits that have accrued to countries who have implemented paid maternity leave, compared to those who have not?

Well said Kellie Tranter. For the past 12 years women have been progressively marginalised by officially promoted hairy chested values
of a fearful male dominated political and business elite.
Jingoism was just one of the by-products. Whatever it takes in cricket and rugby,making excuses for predatory male behaviour, including binge drinking and molestation of women.
This same hairy chested ethos of whatever it takes has now brought us the Depression that none of us want or need, including the dutiful stay at home Mums.
Hovellebecq and AJFA what drivell, best ignored were it not for the undercurrent of menace and bullying.
Your brand of controll freakery would get nowhere with the women in this household. They would make mincemeat of you and rightly so.
Your lack of self confidence and self esteem is manifest.
Bruce Haigh

"best ignored were it not for the undercurrent of menace and bullying"

"They would make mincemeat of you and rightly so. Your lack of self confidence and self esteem is manifest."

So we have two posts which disagree with the author but which don't appear to threaten anybody, which don't appear to use any threatening language, which don't appear to be putting anybody down (apart from possibly the author and even then the comments appear to directed at her approach rather than her personal characteristics).

Bruce accuses the authors of those posts of an undercurrent of menace and bullying whilst himself using violent terms and making personal reflections on the emotional health of the posters.

Now what was that about an undercurrent of "menace and bullying"?

R0bert

"Where are Julia Gillard, Jenny Macklin, Nicola Roxon, Penny Wong, Tanya Plibersek, Justine Elliot, Kate Ellis, Maxine McKew, Ursula Stevens and Jan McLucas on this issue?"

Now, let's just re-read the list and see why the author was ill-informed to even write it.

How many of these women are in a married (yes, married, no de facto etc) relationship that has a husband of similar age and with children?

I make no judgement as to these women's current relationships, however, I would point out the majority of women in society have very little in the way of shared history and interests with these professional politicians.

Another OLO article on poly's salaries makes the point - parliament is not representative of 'real' society...

My only objection to this excellent essay is that Ms Tranter is still locked into the concept that mothers should be the recipients of parental pay.

If women expect men to challenge their own male conditioning, then women need to get beyond their entrenched female conditioning that they must be the primary carers of children. At the very least, the parameters of the ‘maternity’ leave debate must be widened to become ‘parental’ leave. Anything less will keep women trapped in their own biology, and further entrench the social paradigm that men remain outside the childcare loop.

Pericles

'Could you please take a moment to point out the economic benefits that have accrued to countries who have implemented paid maternity leave, compared to those who have not?’

In terms of the wider society, the benefits to be gained from parental leave are not particularly economic - more a symbolic statement of what we value as a society.

What you might well ask is: Why can the Rudd Government – GFC and all – afford to fork out between $20 billion and $35 billion between now and 2015 to upgrade its submarine fleet, yet can’t afford to fork out just under $600 million per year in parental pay? A submarine fleet will not stop a terrorist attack or a serious invasion by a determined foe. The cost outlay is purely symbolic - to cement Australia's standing in the international diplomatic and military community.

And why is it that there appears to be no widespread community objection to the current system of the Baby Bonus, estimated to cost the taxpayer $1.3 Billion annually?

As a society, we have compartmenalised parenthood as an economic 'extra', instead of being of fundamental economic importance. Unlike the Baby Bonus, which simply ‘rewards’ parents for their fertility, maternity (parental) pay acknowledges that the job of parenting makes a direct economic contribution to society.

SJF,

You've confirmed all my suspicions about the symbolism I discussed in my earlier post.

SJF "At the very least, the parameters of the ‘maternity’ leave debate must be widened to become ‘parental’ leave. Anything less will keep women trapped in their own biology, and further entrench the social paradigm that men remain outside the childcare loop."

Very well said.

I've often argued that materity leave should only be materity leave where gender is the overriding factor - before the birth and immediately following it. Beyond that it should be up to the parents to decide what arrangements best suit their families needs to provide care rather then it being determined by gender based leave provisions.

The options should include the possibility for both parents to work part time, it might include each doing a period of full time parenting leave or it may be one parent being the stay at home parent for the childs early years.

R0bert

Houellebecq

‘You've confirmed all my suspicions about the symbolism I discussed in my earlier post.’

Except that you appear to view this symbolism value as a trivial pettiness, whereas I don’t - quite the reverse.

We can afford parental pay – indeed we've been ‘doing’ it for decades. However, by changing the terminology and the processing to officially treat it as ‘pay’, rather than as a charitable ‘benefit’, ‘endowment’ or ‘bonus’, we place the parenting role WITHIN the economy where it belongs, instead of permanently on the outside.

the equitable solution is goverment by agreement between women's and men's legislatures.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCYlv6AUdMY

Thank you for a thought-provoking and well styled article. It was great to read the Wollstonecraft.

My only comment is that, in imagining the collective power of women were they to band together, it seems to presuppose that women are all of the same mind. It also seems to infer that men collude in some way to maintain the status quo.

I don't find men to be as heterogeneous a bunch as that. And I credit women with being equally diverse in their opinions and outlooks.

Rather, I suggest we live within a dynamic nexus of allegiances that for the most part puts aside gender.

In saying this, I don't want to diminish women's experiences or deny that problems exist. However, I find the oversimplification of what it is to be a man to be no help in redressing the issues you raised so astutely.

Tranter seems to gloss over and ignore some basics of evolutionary biology.

Women select the men who will be the father of her children, once a upon a time, the best hunter may have been seen as the best possible mate, or some other quality.

What is one women's knight in shining armour, is perhaps anothers sleaze bag. Such is fickleness.

So the bloke who had the assests or the potential to acquire assests, was seen a good catch.

Decades ago there was the married mans wage, which recognised the expense of being married. There was child endowerment, now called family tax benefit.

I find it an interesting paradox, that now more women than before are in the workforce, the push now is for paid parental leave and more child care places.

Here is a puzzle for you.

If women are paid less than men, how come companies aren't firing men and hiring the cheaper female labour?

Just think if it is true that women are paid less than men, Pacific brands only needed to sack all the men, and hire cheaper female labour.

Sorry Kellie, but the current majority of women won’t be supporting you. It’s in your dreams, baby, not in the real world. Maybe one day.

It is good to see that you agree with me, SJF. Although I'm not entirely sure that you intended to.

I asked the author of the piece to justify her point that there are "proven economic and social benefits that flow from the provision of paid maternity leave"

You responded with...

>>In terms of the wider society, the benefits to be gained from parental leave are not particularly economic - more a symbolic statement of what we value as a society.<<

Symbolic. Precisely. Le mot juste.

So we agree, then, that any introduction of paid parental leave would be symbolic only, since it has no demonstrable economic benefit.

But hold the phone. You then proceed to contradict yourself.

>>...maternity (parental) pay acknowledges that the job of parenting makes a direct economic contribution to society.<<

SJF, symbolism doesn't - cannot - acknowledge any such benefit. You were right the first time.

There is no "direct economic contribution to society". If there were, I'm sure you would have identified it.

You are obviously a little confused, though, because you revert later to your original position.

>>We can afford parental pay – indeed we've been ‘doing’ it for decades<<

That proves both the earlier points you made, before you tripped yourself over the direct economic benefit issue.

If we have been "doing it for decades", then any economic benefit should already be evident. While any proposed changes to terminology are - yep - mere sybolism.

Let's be real here. Paid maternity leave is feelgood symbolism on the one hand ("see, we're caring and sharing people"), and naked pork-barrelling on the other.

When women (rightly) started demanding equality there was a problem. They had come through an education system that taught inequality. It was always going to take a couple of generations for changes in education system to grow through. Not because women is inherently less intelligent it was that they where not educated for equality.

That is now changing rapidly. If I go into a meeting and a fifty something woman does not get here own way she spits the dummy and says it is because she is a women.
The thirty something women are totally different. They have been educated equally and they know they are equal, and behave as equals. That includes accepting if they don't get their opinion across the line it is not because they are women.

Just let these new women grow through the system and it will be as if there was never any inequality. Maternity leave and other issues are not equality issues. They are social issues and concern all of us. If we divide on sexual lines there will be real problems.

Why do women have a ‘right’ to paid maternity leave? Anyone who makes demands on the public purse must give very good reasons why taxpayers should support their cause. What exactly are the reasons why the government should support this cost and can the outlay be guaranteed to bring about positive results for anyone other than the recipient of the money. Governments waste lots of money on bad choices but they should always be striving to make certain that taxpayer dollars are well spent. This includes studying the way that money will be spent and weighing up the benefits for the common good and not just the good of the individual.

So what are the arguments put forth? Economic and social benefits for all. Well how guaranteed are we of these? You can equally argue that the global financial crisis, the drug problem, war and environmental destruction were all brought about by children of mothers who were given paid maternity leave. It is not very conclusive.

If women want paid maternity leave they should be forced to argue for it and not just claim it as their ‘right’. If they expect to not have to argue then they should give the same latitude to any other group who stands up and demands government support. I want a Ferrari and it is my right to expect taxpayers to provide it for me.

Thank you Pericles.

The oft-repeated refrain from those supporting taxpayer funded paid parental/maternal leave is that Australia is one of two OECD nations that do not support a scheme. The squirming and inconvenient truth is, currently, Australia has the SECOND HIGHEST cash handouts (as a proportion of GDP) to people with children among OECD nations (after Luxembourg).

Those who argue against the notion that children are a private good and insist they are social goods are, incongruously, supporters of private welfare, in the form of taxpayer-funded cash handouts, for parents. If children really are social goods, then why should it attract private cash handouts for parents? Parents should be able to access social services aimed at making them better parents or access better health and education for their children. I have no argument that sort of social wealth is of long term benefit to me and society. But no. These people seem to instead assert upholding the private wealth of (middle-class) parents is "deserved" and this best achieved through income redistribution and it is morally acceptable to penalise the childless to achieve this.

The childfree are no way responsible for the *arguable* financial adversity said to be experienced by the child-burdened, yet the entitlement-poisoned anti-childless lobbyists see no moral shame in exacting financial adversity upon the childfree because, in their twisted logic, punishing the childfree fiscally will address an invented or imagined inequity.

Pericles, it it more than naked pork-barrelling. Taxpayer funded maternity leave is social engineering. To their rare credit, at least the neo-cons and the New Right overtly support cash handouts to families as it supports their ideological position and they make no pretence in hiding their glee at the prospect of penalising childless gays and the deliberately barren jezebels who dare to have sex for recreation and not procreation. But the lefty-feminists dress it up as a wymyn's issue. Leon Bertrand notes " If feminism is really about gender equality, it shouldn’t treat women who have children as a special class that is automatically entitled to income from others, regardless of need."

Anyone who wants to be familiar with the strong arguments against paid maternity leave need only read this article:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7535

In short, paid maternity leave is sexist, regressive, inefficient and fundamentally unjust.

Well I will also be unpopular - and stone the crows, but I am actually in agreement with Houllebecq on something. Martin_C and Pericles also make some good points.

Frankly I don't think we can afford paid maternity leave (PML) in the current climate.

Firstly, unless it is a universal government scheme it will increase pressure on small business and if it is a taxpayer funded scheme it will mean reductions in other infrastructure to support it. I don't think PML is more important than improving the health system or the public transport system or innovative alternative energy initiatives just to name three.

It also ignores women/men/families who choose to stay at home and raise their children who are not currently in the system ie.the 'paid' workforce.

And it is a policy that is borne of, and perpetuatues the economic myth of consumption and expansionism - in other words the push to get everyone in the workforce contributing to the economy while the issues of raising children are conveniently ignored.

While maternity leave enables working women to stay at home with their babies for a short time, what about those who do not want to use institutionalised child care? Is the value of a woman/man who wishes to raise their children at home any less from an economic or social perspective than those who return to the workforce?

One of the failures of feminism was to devalue the role of parenting and while trying to be equal to men in the workforce, we forgot about the importance of family. As a society we have become indoctrinated with the idea of 'career' as being of value and conversely the role of caregiver as less valuable. Sacrifice has become a dirty word.

The emphasis is on 'working families' while ignoring other choices such as child raising, single by choice or childless by choice. Why are child care workers paid at one of the lowest rates in the country? Because the true cost of child care would make it impossible and we have to ask does middle class welfare come at a cost?

Phanto-: I want a Ferrari and it is my right to expect taxpayers to provide it for me.

A future generation of children is going to provide society with a heap more benefits than a ferrari. In fact tomorrows children are our only future. They will be the future consumers to provide the lovely profits and the future workers to help make those profits and carry society forward.
Maybe women should just give up and stop having children. Because of the attitude of people like yourself and others I have read on this site who think they can survive without a society around them.

As for funding, stop putting other countries and their children before the welfare of our own children and spend some of those foreign aid billions at home here. The people in those countries hate us anyway. Look after your own first. I'm always suspicious of do gooders who are out helping everyone else while their own children suffer. Charity begins at home.

Pelican- One of the failures of feminism was to devalue the role of parenting, while maternity leave enables working women to stay at home with their babies for a short time, what about those who do not wish to use institutionalised daycare.

Spot on Pelican, what I said to Phanto about overseas foreign aid being redirected to our own mothers and babies here I said not so much in defence of paid maternity leave as in defence of motherhood and fatherhood (parenthood) in general and I don't see why it couldn't be paid as a wage to whichever parent elects to stay home for a few years to care for an infant. Why do we give money to some societies to the north of us who make no secret of their hatred of us. Why are their families more important than the welfare of our own.

"...while their own children suffer."

Too right Pelican. A report released in October 2008 by the Australian Law Reform Commission showed that the number of children requiring protection from their OWN parents has trebled in the last decade.
http://www.bigpond.com/news/national/content/20081003/2381395.asp

I would much rather my tax money is spent addressing this matter than being redirected to yuppie-breeders because they want their baby and eat out too.

The bottom line is that despite all of the endless hand-wringing and angst about the state of the nation's children, assistance isn't being directed toward kids at the greatest risk. It's a charade designed by and for yupppie-breeders who aren't thrilled with the consequences of their own choices, who either feel guilty that they don't spend enough time with their children or are irate at the financial impact that children have on them after having lived as DINKS. Who, after decades of funding welfare for the poor, no matter how parsimonious, are now demanding theirs.

In less than a generation family size has fallen by about one child, but the number of rooms required in a typical family home has increased. A typical house was 3 bedrooms, a bathroom, a combined living/dining room. Most families had one car and, if they had 2, the second was a generation old. There was no cable internet, weekly trips to cafes,air-con. Status requires both parents to work so that the family has 2 4WDs, an air-conditioned four bedroom house, with 2 or 3 bathrooms, study and family room that occupies the entire block of land together with the lastest mod-cons. The trend in the latest whizz-bang and fashionable gadgetry sees the "must-have" household items superseded on an almost exponential level.

Most people these days keep themselves dissatisfied with their income by always comparing themselves with people who have more and never with people who have less who they rarely see up close. The yupppie-breeders seem to expect to have a zero-sum impact after they have whelped; they want to continue living like the DINKs next door and they expect the childless and working poor to pay for it.

Anyone who says they are having children for anything other than selfish reasons is completely deluded. There is nothing wrong with having children for selfish reasons but trying to ennoble the choice above other selfish choices by claiming to care about society and the future of the human race is a desperate attempt to come to terms with selfishness.People who do not feel comfortable making choices that are selfish try and ‘rationalize’ them by placing values upon them which cannot be sustained. For example many parents who do not feel comfortable about being parents for its own sake deal with their lack of integrity by making out that they are sacrificing themselves for the good of others. Others try to convince themselves, more than convince others, that their children will make a worthwhile contribution to society. They deny the reality that insofar as such things can be measured there is equal likelihood that their children will destroy society.

The people who think they are entitled to paid maternity leave at taxpayers’ expense are infused with this sense of righteousness and that is why they cannot fathom any opposition towards it. They are not trying to make a better society based on justice and freedom of choice – they are trying to appease the guilt they feel for choosing to do something for no other reason than it is an enjoyable thing to do. Taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for someone else’s neurotic sense of guilt.

I'll put my thoughts in dot points here:

When feminism is about genuine equal rights then I'm in favour. When it isn't, it generally comes across as inciting gender wars which I've very little time for. 'Maternity' leave as a concept, can't be about equal rights, as has been pointed out. It needs to be 'parental' leave.
Once we break it down to that gender neutral concept, we need to look at it purely from an economic point of view. Frankly, I'm not sure whether it stacks up, but I do like the idea of parental leave. I guess we've got to stack it up against other priorities.

I like it more than submarines, sure. But I like lots of policies more than buying more submarines. When can we buy back Telstra's infrastructure and pour real resources into anti-salinity measures and repairing the Murray Darling?

However, this piece partially insulates itself from criticism with the commentary regarding men reacting in a hostile manner when women step outside the 'accepted' behavioural patterns. In response to this, I can only concur with posters who reject the notion of each gender as a homogenous group.
Of course, everybody has different opinions regarding bloody well everything.

All that being said, the author is right that women still have a long way to go before achieving equality, and the glass ceilings and boys clubs still exist.
The haste with which she glosses over the advancements in women's rights however and the cavalier manner with which recent progress is dismissed concerns me a little.

'cough' 'cough' 'splatter' 'splatter'; I agree with (cough) SJF. (cough)

"If women expect men to challenge their own male conditioning, then women need to get beyond their entrenched female conditioning"

Good post SJF.

Well knock me down with a feather, some excellent points have been raised here. Good to see.

Points I agree with:

Raising children is a social issue - neither male or female.

We could afford parental leave if baby bonus was scrapped.

Neither men nor women are a single homogenous group, for which I am grateful - life would be soooooo boring.

Younger women have been brought up to expect equality, but still have a long way to go.

Most men do respect and adore women (and vice versa) however, there will always be chronics who believe they are simultaneously victims and superior to the other sex.

Woman are still learning to be responsible for themselves and men are still learning that women are able to do this.

My question is this:

Did Kellie select the title for this article, or was it another deliberately provocative edit from the OLO team?

absent provision for women's legislatures, discussion of maternity leave lacks the critical analysis of life experience.

policy assembled from guesswork, speculation and inequitable governance is preposterous.

Daviy

‘If I go into a meeting and a fifty something woman does not get here own way she spits the dummy and says it is because she is a women. The thirty something women are totally different.’

Wow! If the 50-something women at the meetings you attend are having to put up with such an insufferably condescending attitude, then no wonder they are spitting dummies and questioning whether it’s because they are women. And if the 30-something women are just sitting there and taking it, then I certainly wouldn’t call it progress.

Besides, in the old days, when fifty something women spat the dummy, we were told it had something to do with menopause. And when thirty something women spat the dummy, it was because of PMT. Were we misinformed then, or are we being misinformed now?

Phanto

‘One of the failures of feminism was to devalue the role of parenting…’

Fighting for the right of women to equal pay and equal employment opportunity does not equate with devaluing the role of parenting. If feminists devalued the role of parenting, why would they be advocating for paid parental leave?

What really devalues the role of parenting is our society's woefully inadequate remuneration of parents for their time and labour.

TRTL

‘I can only concur with posters who reject the notion of each gender as a homogenous group.’

Of course each gender is not an homogenous group. However, men as a group have a different gender-political history to that of women as a group. Attempts by feminist and other women’s advocates to highlight this difference – as a basis for discussion and reform – is often misconstrued as homogenisation.

Pericles

You took issue with a number of my points in order to ‘show’ that I contradicted myself. I did not.

Re-read my post. When I wrote that 'In terms of the wider society, the benefits to be gained from parental leave are not particularly economic - more a symbolic statement of what we value as a society’, I was weighing the symbolic value over the economic value. I was not saying that there was no economic value to be had at all.

‘But hold the phone. You then proceed to contradict yourself [by saying] >>...maternity (parental) pay acknowledges that the job of parenting makes a direct economic contribution to society.<<’

I can't contradict myself over something I didn't say in the first place. The ‘economic contribution’ I write of here refers to the fact that the ‘job’ of parenting is officially unpaid. Yet the labour and time invested by the full- or part-time parent directly – but invisibly – contributes to the economy. Studies have estimated that the economic contribution of unpaid work – the vast majority of which is performed by women in the home – is equal to approximately 60% of Australia’s Gross Domestic Product.

To put it bluntly – and controversially – unpaid parenting is the last bastion of officially sanctioned slave labour. Rather than asking whether or not the economy would ‘benefit’ from the introduction of paid parental leave, my question is this:

How much has the economy already benefited for centuries by not paying parents for the work they do?

It’s time to give something back.

SJF,

I'm afraid I cannot escape the conclusion that you have contradicted yourself on parental leave.

On the one hand you argue that "benefits to be gained from parental leave are not particularly economic", and on the other you claim that "the economic contribution of unpaid work – the vast majority of which is performed by women in the home – is equal to approximately 60% of Australia’s Gross Domestic Product".

Furthermore, you argue that "unpaid parenting is the last bastion of officially sanctioned slave labour", even though parents are free whilst slaves are by definition unfree. That's a quite a notable difference which your analysis overlooks.

What you also overlook is the fact that most stay at home mothers have husbands working and earning for their families, and this undoubtedly includes the stay at home spouse. Families are not slave-like relationships. The reality is that they work as a team, often with one earning money and the other doing most of the home duties.

Yet in spite of that, you want taxpayers to also foot the bill. What you don't realise is that this will not have the effect of helping women who stay at home for their male spouses. Rather, it will result in ordinary families being taxed more in order to fund their own parental leave. So the biggest effect is the state taking away choices for parents when it comes to staying at home or returning to the workforce sooner to make more money.

The only income distribution effects will be from singles - who by definition don't benefit from unpaid work by stay at home spouses - to families who do. So what you are proposing is therefore fundamentally unjust.

SJF, your argument is that the parents contribute to the state by raising children, but you fail to factor in the benefit to the parents of having raised children and therefore having adult, productive children to assist in their old age. while the pension and aged-care facilities are useful for those without children, many aged people are able to remain in their own homes and survive far better because they have children to assist them. IOW, you would have us give parents an extra benefit for doing what is already in their own enlightened self-interest. Furthermore, since women live longer than men (it's about 8 years, I think), on average, they will be the ones to benefit most from having that assistance in their dotage.

IOW, asking for paid maternity leave is like asking to be paid to go for medical check-ups.

Antiseptic wrote: IOW, asking for paid maternity leave is like asking to be paid to go for medical check-ups.

Dear Antiseptic,

Being paid to go for medical check-ups might make very good sense financially. Medical conditions could be caught earlier when it is easier and cheaper to treat them.

Many more Women live longer than men so who is on the winning side? Women learn to survive this greedy world while men battle on in wars that men created. It is the same in the corporate world as any women who has been there will tell you - it is a war. Who needs it?
Wise women get out and start their own business, one that is user friendly that has time to stop and smell the flowers.
Who needs to get sucked up into the world of men? Not me

"unpaid parenting is the last bastion of officially sanctioned slave labour."

What are you for real?

What a ridiculous statement.

If one really wants to avoid being an officially sanctioned slave labourer, then don't become a parent.

Firstly once upon a time certain jobs had a married mans wages which were higher than a single mans wage. (Must have been because of patriarchial oppression that married men were paid more than single men)

Secondly governments have had child endowerment, now the family tax benefit.( another patriarchial construct)

Thirdly following divorce or separation a womans standard of living falls? WHY? (Must be a patriarchial conspiracy)

Because she loose her partners source of income, which was used to finance her lifestyle.

Families recieve various tax benefits for dependant children. So how can this be slave labour?

The slave labourer as SJF puts it, controls at least 80% of the families finances.

If only men could vote, the Liberal Party would be the far-left party in Australia. So be happy, at the moment Western countries are very good for women, but if you keep pushing it could all fall apart.

Come now, SJF, just accept that you went a little overboard, and we can move on.

As AJFA points out, in the same post you wrote:

>>...the benefits to be gained from parental leave are not particularly economic<<

followed by:

>>...maternity (parental) pay acknowledges that the job of parenting makes a direct economic contribution to society<<

Surely, in most languages, these statements are in contradiction.

But if you do in fact believe that there are economic benefits, my challenge remains. Provide some factual evidence.

>>Studies have estimated that the economic contribution of unpaid work – the vast majority of which is performed by women in the home – is equal to approximately 60% of Australia’s Gross Domestic Product.<<

I'd be interested to see how these "studies" came to this conclusion. I would suspect that the only way it could be achieved would be to place a commercial value on the outsourcing of everything from burping the baby through washing its nappies and going shopping, and then attributing the same figure to the accumulation of household duties.

This is of course spurious pseudo-economic claptrap, useful only to fill the pages of tabloids on a slow news day

>>How much has the economy already benefited for centuries by not paying parents for the work they do?<<

The complete absence of logic behind this question makes it impossible to answer. Can you honestly contemplate the average nineteenth century household outsourcing home management?

What planet do you believe we inhabit? Seriously.

the Constitution of Australia mandates the male supervision of women.

the entire thrust of the opposition to parental leave on this thread has been concerned with the quality of male supervision of women.

not a single respondent has considered the responsibility the state exercises over the welfare of the child.

absent provision for women's legislatures, discussion of parental leave is profoundly incompetent.

how much longer much the nation's children suffer this insidious incompetence issuing from a blatantly sexist constitution?

david f:"Being paid to go for medical check-ups might make very good sense financially. Medical conditions could be caught earlier when it is easier and cheaper to treat them."

Undoubtedly, but that presupposes that the main beneficiary of such treatment is the State, whereas, it is the individual who has the greatest benefit ISTM. After all, the State merely gains financially, where the individual may well gain additional years of life, ot at the least increased quality of life for the years they have.

There is also the question of setting the level of payment. If that is too high, the net financial benefit to the State may be nil or negative, whilst if it is too low, it may not provide the incentive that a lazy populace requires to act in their own interest and hence the State may not gain the full financial benefit.

Meanwhile, the entitlement junkies are still determined to have their cake and eat it, as long as someone else buys the ingredients, makes it (to the entitlement junkies specifications), serves it and cleans up afterwards.

absent provision for women's legislatures....um, I think I've heard that somewhere before.

I'd hate to be one of SJF's kids. Maybe it's a slave labour of love?

I only get as far as "absent" these days Houellebecq, before I switch off completely.

whistler, have you tried submitting an article outlining what seperate legislatures would entail. I don't see how such an idea could possibly work outside the framework of strict enforcement of "traditional" roles. I may have completely misunderstood your meaning but if that's the case it's likely I'm not alone.

Continuing to make confusing references to seperate legislatures on any thread with a gender content without a clear understanding of what you mean being shared is unlikely to help your cause.

In the case of this piece, who should be deciding about paid parental leave, a woman's legislature or a men's one. Say we assume that full time parenting is womens business (not something which I accept) then which who gets taxed to pay for it? Would you expect the men's legislature to decide to tax men to pay for a maternity leave provision legislated by the womens legislature?

As for "the entire thrust of the opposition to parental leave on this thread has been concerned with the quality of male supervision of women." - can you justify that claim? As I see it the core of the debate is over responsibility for the cost of raising children and very little to do with male supervision of women.

R0bert

As child rearing is not compulsory, and a reasonably sought after and rewarding activity, Slave labour is somewhat erroneous.

We were perfectly aware of the financial cost and the cost to my wife's career on having children when we decided to, and neither of us have any regrets.

Many, if not most couples realise this, and thus the average pay of women goes down.

As stated above, women who dedicate themselves to their careers generally do as well or better, and thus I can see little sign of discrimination in the work place.

SJF, if "unpaid parenting is the last bastion of officially sanctioned slave labour."

Perhaps you could direct me to the offical bureacratic slave website. I have a recalitant slave to report.

Do they have a slave market, where slaves can be traded? ;)))

"unpaid parenting is the last bastion of officially sanctioned slave labour."

Oh dear! Not the whine of the reluctant parent yoked to the child machine. So much for the bundle of joy that many child-burdened – with a touch of envy and spite in their voice – tell me I am "missing out on". Apparently it is all drudgery and hard work – especially when it is benchmarked against the so-called free time of the childfree/less.

Disturbingly, this "unpaid work" construct also hails from academia such as Lyn Craig.(see SPRC Discussion Paper No. 117, The Time Cost of Parenthood: An Analysis of Daily Workload, October 2002, http://www.sprc.unsw.edu.au/). Apparently just being with a kid, anywhere, anytime, anyplace is “unpaid work”. Craig argues:

"For example, taking children shopping is qualitatively different from shopping alone, and having to perform other tasks with child care makes the supervision of children more difficult.
Both activities may be more onerous when combined...Even leisure time spent in the company of children, although it may be pleasurable, requires vigilance and attention. A picnic, for example, in the company of a child is very different from one without the responsibility of supervision... counting only the main task conceals the ‘density’ of activity. Simultaneous performance is often of more than one work task at a time, not just for the sake of efficiency, but because some tasks, such as cooking dinner and comforting a crying child, cannot be rescheduled. If it were done in paid employment, this higher output would be regarded as improved productivity."

Even "leisure time with a child" is "unpaid work"? Puh-lease! Did Craig not consider comparing a fastidious person with a slob or a home gourmet chef with someone who cannot boil an egg. Arguably, the former in each example is also doing “unpaid work” that could also be fall to the same “although pleasurable requires vigilance and attention” descriptor. The "toil" is the result of a lifestyle or personal choice and preference and is not "unpaid work".

(continued)
If every moment spent with a child can be accurately described as “unpaid work” then of course, it may appear that the breeders do more “unpaid work” than a childfree couple. Talk about master of the bleeding obvious. The truth is, it is an inaccurate description, a flawed methodology that suits promotes Craig's ideological agenda. She finally uses a more appropriate appellation when she ‘fesses up that “it [parenthood] adds a significant amount to the **time commitment** of both men and women. [emphasis added]”

Clearly, to label any time spent with a child as “unpaid work” is ambiguous and a misnomer. Not surprisingly, What Craig is really saying is that the child-burdened breeders have no “me time" when compared to the childless/free. But that is really comparing apples and oranges.

If breeding is so bloody awful, then don't do it. No-one is forcing you. Do you get a dog and complain about the price of dog food? Do you buy an oversized people-mover and complain about the price of petrol? Perhaps you do. But then again, you're probably a breeder, not a parent.

If you're not a parent you can try harder to be obvious.

Well, well, well. So much for the entitlement junkies.

I imagine SJF is off "slaving" over a terribly burdensome bath for the baby or something equally onerous, no doubt chained to the change table by a bullying, yet carefree and completely self-fulfilled husband, who even as we speak is going through her wardrobe to ensure the dresses are appropriately baggy, having already done his daily sweep through her phone calls and giving her a casual beating on the way through.

So much for reality, 'n' all.

These catch-all labels just don't work. It seems that whenever they lump Women together as one bloc, it's to do with having children. The women who don't have children are instantly alienated by that.

It's like we're this faceless mob wearing dresses, dropping children, and that's all we are.

During the current paid mat leave debate, I've been disappointed to see all these prominent commentators and unionists etc claiming that it's vital "for women". Well all this woman will be doing for it is paying through the nose so some person who's bred can maintain her lifestyle. No thanks.

Kellie
Thanks for a thought provoking article.
Woman who have become leaders seem to assume male characteristics. When we look at the way Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir and Indira Gandhi behaved when they were in power they behaved no differently to the way that male leaders would have behaved. They ceased to display what men see as feminine characteristics, such as love, compassion etc.
I hope (as a male) that if and when women do rule the world that they will make a much better job of it than we males have done for the past two thousand years.
I hope that they will care for our fragile planet and all its lifeforms in a feminine way.

Peace "When we look at the way Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir and Indira Gandhi behaved when they were in power they behaved no differently to the way that male leaders would have behaved."

Rather than assume that the behaviour's you are thinking of are male behaviours you could consider that they are role based behaviour's. I think that men and women do generally have different characteristics in some ways however it's unwise to assume that behaviours which are a consequence of traditional gender roles are necessarily gender characteristics.

I don't see love or compassion as female trait's, rather human traits which can be expressed in a variety of way's and negated in a variety of ways. The broader the responsibility the greater the factors which have to be balanced along with love and compassion.

Putting your hope in a new gender imbalance of power saving us seems like a repeat of the old failings. Rather than hoping for the feminine way to fix things look for the best people to lead regardless of gender.

R0bert

Well said R0bert.
, Meir, Ghandi, their political careers was during a different era where rocking the boat would not have enabled them to claim political power.

Percentage wise there are more women involved in the top professions now, however, only gradually our business, culture and politics will reflect this. The rules are still the same as the ones in play when only men were involved in politics. We are in a economical crisis now because those old rules have failed at the expense of the powerless and to the gain of a few. Just as we need balance between the sexes in all aspects of human endeavour we need balance between government and private sectors. Both men and women together will bring on a new paradigm for an equitable society.