If we subtract from SJF's post her personal arguments, and her expectation that the outcomes of unequal actions will be equal, there is nothing left.

"Society" is not a decision-making entity.

If one sex has babies, and the other doesn't, there is not the slightest reason to think that the outcomes will be equal.

The author, and SFJ, and everyone crying for handouts paid for by someone else, want to be able to have more money for less work because they attach a negative value to working over a certain amount. This negative value is the disutility of labour. You value your own work a) positively because it can produce income to go to satisfy a desire you have, and b) negatively because of the disutility of labour.

But when you go to buy a bottle of milk, or some shoes, or any good or service, you only value the satisfaction they can give you. You don't attach any greater value to it on account of the disutility of the labour of the women who worked to produce it, considering that they also had troubles of their own.

It is this social fact that society - equally both men and women - do not value women's caring for their own children, as highly as those women do themselves, that causes the end result that the author and SJF are protesting against. Yet it is their own actions and values that are causing it!

It is not legitimate to say that women are producing children for "the nation". What national socialist fantasy is this? Those children are people in their own right. They are not chattels or assets in the balance sheet of the state.

Stop blaming "society" for what women have chosen to do. Women have no more responsibility to look after children than men do. If you don't want to do it - don't do it! You do not have a right to live at others' expense. It is you who are in favour of slavery, not those arguing against involuntary labour, which is what funds *all* governmental handouts.

Some of your best work SJF. Slaves huh?

Ah women, the sole victims of 'societal expectations'. Are there no women in 'society' forming these expectations for themselves?

Men have choices, they could stay home and raise the kids, but they're too selfish, hoarding all that super for themselves. Women on the other hand, have 'societal expectations', so they don't have any choice. They have to wait until he dies, as in the normal relationship, men normally ration women's food you know. All the man's earnings go to himself, and when he dies, the woman is never in his will. The woman is his slave after all.

This arrangement is freely entered into by the woman. It's a slave labour of love perhaps.

Try this on for size...

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26002528-23272,00.html

Dane & Peter,well put and great insight from different points of view and all done without spiteful personal attacks.
SJF and Houelleberq....omg

Quoting SJF: “In Australia, women working full-time today earn 16 per cent less than men."
There are good reasons for this disparity…too many to enumerate here. Society is just going to have to put up with this incessant whinge.

JSF, carries on about women having less in super etc. If HREOC was an impartial organisation it would explain to the community that women get to benefit from superannuation income ( yes their husbands) just as much or more (from surviving their partners) than men. You would find that most expenditure from personal income (including superannuation) is made by women. My father had a good pension because of his war service.

My mother benefited greatly from that over the 14years she outlasted her husband. That is not recognised in HREOC arguments because it is flat out advocating, for only one gender, by using taxpayer money to misrepresent the complete picture. It is hardly distinguishable from the Office of Status of Women.

So in reality single superannuants are paying for payments made to widows of superannuants. That is certainly the case in the Commonwealth Public Service and I am sure the situation is the same in respect to other schemes.

By hidden unemployed I am assuming the author means women who are at home but who are seeking work. ie not counted in ABS statistics as unemployed because they don't receive benefits.

There has to be some perspective here. Women in general are the primary carers for children to a certain age so there is less continuity of work. There are changes afoot and some men are now choosing to stay at home. I know a couple where the wife earns more as an anaethetist so hubby stays at home and enjoys it. You hear of this more and more as time goes by.

Many women choose to work part time for various reasons - like not buying into the superwoman myth of being able to have and do everything well but it is each to his/her own.

There is a difference between the implications of casualisation of the workforce - where job security makes an impact on healthy economies - and choosing to work part-time.

Women will earn less statistically while it is mainly women who stay at home and break careers and return to work part-time. These statistics only have meaning if women can only get part-time because there is nothing else on offer. In my experience it is much easier to get full-time work than part-time and I had to work full-time first to prove my worth and now benefit from part-time hours.

Gawd, what a lot of gobbledegook!!