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.