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.