The sting in the tail of Monica's article is that women who have preferences other than the prevailing 'approved' one of job and career will have to put their needs on the (feminist rhetoric) backburner for longer. However their issues/needs have already been on the backburner for decades which hardly seems fair. Some of them can be expected to become more than a little impatient with paying taxes, directly or indirectly through their spouse, for services that they either cannot or will not use (through choice). Examples could be paid parental leave and subsidised child care.

The argument that we all have to pay taxes for some services we do not use is becoming less convincing when 'community benefit' was dismissed long ago as any justification for providing government services. Likewise, user pays affects even the age or disability pensioner and has done for decades.

Feminist rhetoric concentrates on work-centered women and although there is a sizeable rump of such women, there are others who are home-centered (whole or part) or are seeking a transition. Feminist rhetoric and government policy affecting women have to be flexible enough to cater for diverse interests, preferences and expectations.

While it is tempting to have a knee jerk reaction to new ideas and that will happen to Megan Basham, it is a fact that she has surfaced the preferences of a number of women. These women do exist and they will not simply go away.

Work-lifestyle Choices in the 21st Century, a book by Dr Catherine Hakim from the London School of Economics is also relevant and very thought provoking.
http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2001/08/09/a-review-of-work-lifestyle-choices-in-the-21st-century-by-catherine-hakim/

Any mother who wants to follow her natural instincts rather than feminist propaganda would want to be home when little Johnny or Sue takes their first steps or utters their first words. At the end of the day a mother's selflessness does more for society than any number of professional woman who dump their kids into day care (often at tax payer expense). Really it seems Monica is full of rhetoric. My own wife put her 'career' on hold in order to mother our kids. The blessings far outweighed the disadvantages and we are now reaping the benefits. Stay at home mums are doing far more for society than Green Senators who abuse their kids by dragging them from pillar to post (including the Parliamentary floor). God gave woman the ability to feed and nuture children. Get over it.

Surprising that a Greens senator would front up with a child, aren't they supposed to abort all kids as part of the (keyboard) environmental religion they have when they are not having god religion? Y'know, population control and all that?

It would be hard being a feminist and Green as well. 'Green' says population control is No1, yet feminism says it is compulsory to donate part of your hard-earned as taxes to support people who have chosen to breed (and pursue a career of course).

Decisions, decisions.

Yet another "grrls can do anything, but don't mention babies" piece from dear Monica, ever0eager to bolster her claims be entitled to special treatment because she's a "feminist".

Here's a piece of news for Monica: everyone makes choices, whether they're men or women. The adult response is to say "this is my choice and I take responsibility for the outcome". The feminist version, as argued by Monica and a few of the other lesser lights of the entitlement movement is "this is my choice, now you have to make sure the outcome isn't bad, even if my choice was poorly considered".

It's not adult, it's not respectable and it's not going to fly for much longer.

The world and this nation are no longer overflowing with spare money that can be used to support the frivolous choices made by people who think the world owes them a living. If women cannot adapt to a world in which they are treated as adults rather than pampered children, they are going to find the going tough.

It can't happen soon enough.

'Society' is not a decision-making entity. The reason that child care and workplaces do not reflect your values, is because all the people who together make up society don't agree with you. It is the values of the people who buy these services that feeds through to those supplying them. You can have child care to whatever standard you want, if you are willing to pay for it. But why should other people work for nothing, just so you can have child care to a standard you want but aren't willing to pay for? And the same with workplaces.

You are not talking about equal opportunity, you are talking about equal *outcomes*. But you have not shown any reason why anything you have discussed is a matter of public concern at all.

Why don't you raise the capital, and set up and run a business that makes workplaces more child-friendly? You could grant generous maternity leave, and have flexible hours so that employees could work around the need to pick up their children, and all at the same salary of people without these benefits. Any losses you could simply pay from your own pocket.

And similarly with child-care, you could run child care services that provide the high and consistent standard you want, but cheap, so no-one would have to pay the market price for these things - except you. You would pay for all the losses.

But you don't want to do that, do you? Well guess what? Other people don't want to either - idiot.

Stop squalling for the teat like an unweaned child, wake up - and grow up. There is not the slightest reason why other people should be taxed to pay for your greed and selfishness.

One of the reasons I married my wife was because she is smart and talented. Working even a couple of days a week enables her to keep current and active. While kids are a large part of our life, we can talk about more worldly things too.

There is a medium between stay at home and full time work, and more reasons to work than money and career.

Shadow Minister

I agree with you.

You might find Dr Catherine Hakim's book more to your taste. You could be familiar with her work but in the off-chance that you or others are not, I have Googled and found this article from The Age newspaper dated February 7, 2003:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/02/06/1044498913134.html

My impression is that the Rudd government's advisors on women's issues are wedded to the narrow view (of women and work) of Anne Summers and Monica Dux.