I've just come back here after an absence of a few days, only to find some of the most petty, inane drivel I've ever read on OLO - and that's really saying something.

You dudes here can't get your minds out of your overblown sense of entitlement that the carer role is all about picking up after people who can't be bothered picking up after themselves. This is NEITHER the social nor economic role of the carer. And if you think it is, you can join sad old Dane in the growy-uppy sin bin.

The carer role in any society has a specific, but grossly undervalued, social and economic function. It's a role that is defined by full-time or substantial part-time carer duties associated either with the raising of children or looking after the frail and disabled. It's a role that, if not undertaken by an associated relative, has to be contracted out to one or more skilled or unskilled workers for a fee. It's a role that also carries the opportunity cost of several years of paid employment forfeited.

Historically, this role has been largely undertaken by women, not for altruistic reasons but because they have been conditioned from birth to believe it is critical to their social, economic and individual worth. Their work is unpaid, which in any other industrial relations context is totally unacceptable. However, judging by the crap written in the last few posts, a lot of supercilious dudes here can't distinguish between the essential economic role of the carer and just having a squabble about who does the washing up.

miacat

A quick disclaimer that none of my above post applied to you. I had a quick scan of your site and intend to read it in more depth. Your Cape York adventure brought back some of my own treasured memories of working on a Cape York Indigenous reserve many years ago. All the best.

SJF,so, you did not lead your sista's into the brave new matriarchy after all. When will you femanazis quit the propaganda? Every thing you do destroys femanazism daily

Miacat:"Women's value in society as a whole is under-valued"

Bald statements based on nothintg more than your own desire to ride the "feminist" bandwagon aren't convincing, dear.

At present in Australia women outnumber men in the professions; there are 3 Australian women at uni for every 2 men; spending on women's health care is prioritised over men's by an order of magnitude or more leading to women expecting to live 5 years longer than men at birth; work-related injury and death affects men almost exclusively; women control the finances in most households, whether they were the income-earner or not; there is a Minister for Women in every State and also Federally - there is not a single Minister for Men; the anti-discrimination Commission cannot act on discrimination aganist men except in very limited and specifc circumstances;when men and women have children and divorce, she will end up with custody of those children in about 80% of cases and she'll be given State assistance to fight him for them if he doesn't agree.

How much more "value" do you think you have? Based on what?

SJF:"they have been conditioned from birth to believe it is critical to their social, economic and individual worth. "

Or perhaps it's because they become very attached to their babies through the process of gestation and birth and they prioritise their time accordingly, or parhaps it's because they entered the relationship with a rational plan ofr their own support during their childbearing/child-rearing years?

Most people who enter a marriage do so with every intent of having children. Part of the compact with each other is that the man, who is not in any way incapacitated by a pregnancy, will carry the financial provider burden while the woman does her bit and brings forth the bundle of joy.

All the ranting in the world won't change the fact that babies have to come from somewhere.

Further to SJF's claim: "they have been conditioned from birth to believe it is critical to their social, economic and individual worth. "

this story in the SMH today
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/lifematters/economy-key-reason-why-women-are-delaying-having-kids-20090907-fd08.html

It cites a survey run by Relationships Australia called Contraception, Relationships and Sexuality.

It contradicts SJF's claim emphatically.

I quote:"Economic concerns were raised by more than 60 per cent of women who took part in a survey that sought the factors involved in their decision to delay having children.

Next came a woman's career being "too important to me right now" (40 per cent), not having found the right partner (37 per cent) and concerns about baby delivering a "loss of freedom" (31 per cent).

An equal number of women - 14 per cent apiece - said they didn't like what childbirth would do to their body, and that their partner was not ready for kids."

This contrasts with the following quote :"Four per cent of women said they were concerned they could not raise kids as they didn't have sufficient support from their partner, while just one per cent said their partner "doesn't want kids"."

IOW, women are deciding for themselves and economic factors, not social conditioning by a patriarchy, inform the choice primarily.

Time for the 70s feministas like SJF to get their irrelvant selves out of the way and let real people get on with it, methinks.

Esther Villar author of the Manipulated Man wrote;

<The main idea behind the book is that women are not oppressed by men, but rather control men in a relationship that is to their advantage but which most men are not aware of.

Praise is never given to a man when he accomplishes something that does not cater to a woman's needs. Praise is only given to a man when a woman's needs are met in some way. Otherwise, any activity that does not cater to her needs is not praiseworthy.

Men have been trained and conditioned by women, not unlike the way Pavlov conditioned his dogs, into becoming their slaves. As compensation for their labours men are given periodic use of a>

Now research has been published that supports Esthers view.

"Why women have sex"
<But most have selfish motives, with financial or material rewards a major factor behind many sexual encounters.

In one survey of students carried out by the researchers, nearly one in 10 women admitted to "having sex for presents".>
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26039391-952,00.html