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.