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.