Commentary doesn't get much more despicable than a son begrudging
his mother the cost of rights to education, employment and opportunities
he has enjoyed with the view she was happy being a second-class citizen.

This article is further proof if ever it was needed that men are incompetent
to advocate for women such that the provision of a women's legislature
is an urgent national priority.

Does the author also advocate a return to slavery and the refusal to
pay Aborigines wages as a cost saving measure or the revival of
feudalism to contain real estate prices?

Does not really resemble my memory. I think more and more women were having to work. My mother always worked from 1948 until she was 55 in 1985. So more like, well if we are going to have to work we may as well do something a bit more interesting. I wanted to do architecture for eg..i was going to work whether I liked it or not, but was told that majority of those accepted are men and that few women are allowed entry. So off to secretarial school I went and failed!. So I had no choice as what work I was condemned to do anyway.

Perhaps being able to live on one wage was becoming more difficult. Chicken before egg eg.

Got to agree with TheMissus, many women worked from the Fifties through to the Eighties. Their experience was little different from that of men, most were shoved into the usual predictable jobs. It wasn't 'liberation' that changed things for women it was the coming of the all electric house, The Pill and new jobs that either hadn't been invented before or demand for them was previously in its infancy. Examples could be jobs created through changes in technology, the growth in (say) allied health and the thousands of jobs created by government forever extending its role.

What had a major effect on employment for at least thirty years post war was the very strong lobby of the RSL which ensured preference (often a requirement) for the recruitment and promotion of ex-servicemen. With all respect to these men and it is a thing that is rarely discussed, they were as a group responsible for the introduction and maintenance of practices that few modern employers and employees would accept these days.

This cohort was also responsible for among other things, the traditions of gambling and binge drinking that carries forward to today. It wasn't only women who were frustrated by the repressive, selfish traditions of this cohort, many men were similarly affected in a negative way, often being excluded socially and at work as a matter of course.

To be blunt, escaping the burden of the post WW2 traditions that held society back was really not possible until the loss of members reduced the influence of the RSL. It is not by coincidence that the glory days of the churches, especially the Catholic church and their repressive, controlling stranglehold on the nation, affecting both men and women, is tied in with the same period of history. It was all do as I say and never you mind.

Of course it can be expected that all of society and especially women would suffer some severe adjustment problems after decades of reactive, repressive government and traditions, but it is wrong to blame those adjustment problems on women's liberation.

'Of course it can be expected that all of society and especially women would suffer some severe adjustment problems after decades of reactive, repressive government and traditions, but it is wrong to blame those adjustment problems on women's liberation.'

So they added some more fuel to the fire and we all reap what they sowed, both genders equally punished in different ways at different times, for the sins of the 'parent' even until the third and fourth generations.

The ship was already running off course before the ladies took the helm, but now these waters are not so predictable for fair-weather sailing. Let us hope that these storms pass by and calm humanity prevails once again.

Goodnight my friends.
Sweet dreams and see you tomorrow.

The costs to our society of keeping women 'at home' in the style of the 1950s is not acceptable today.

These costs include the loss of skills and talents in the workplace (the Australian Public Service had a marriage bar - so that any woman who got married had to resign), the costs of domestic violence as practised almost openly until the 1970s and the trauma of 'rape within marriage' being acceptable.

My mother did not work once she got married. She kept home, played tennis and met the needs of her family. My father had to work two jobs instead of one, so that he was only a distant person in my life until my mother died when I was 11. So my mother, by being the person that she was, actually kept my father from being an active parent. But that was how it was, unfortunately.

However this society is still in flux, as it should be. Men and women are still adjusting to the changes that the 1960s, 70s, 80s and 90s have brought. I became convinced some time ago that with new medical technology (ie fusion cloning using two embryos) than the 'man' in mankind only has about 8 generations in 'the West' before the term is as extinct as the male of the species, after which men will be superflous to requirements and we will have a brave new world of females only.

A world where the aggression and violence characteristic in males is completely replaced by the feminine: ie a world without males.

But so be it.

scarey eh!
grant women equal rights and within eight generations men will become extinct.

one more reason for law to be enacted by agreement between women's and men's legislatures.