I read an article today that confirms what I hear when talking to many new mothers.

‘MORE than two-thirds of working mums would rather be at home with their children.’

Now the government wants women (especially university educated women) to return to work as soon as possible, and is happy to heavily subsidise child-care to do it. I often wonder if the true cost of this policy has been considered.

The ideal of women having the choice to be tertiary educated and have a career is a good one. Having spent the money educating these women, the government is wanting a return on investment. But many women don’t actually want to work once they have these beautiful children to nurture, especially until the children go to school. This is to say nothing of the slim chance men have of staying home with the children, or the dubious solution of propping up an industry for strangers to bring up children rather than their parents.

Then we have all the feminists claiming discrimination whenever they see unequal workforce participation. It all asumes women are victims, and ignores the choices women are making. Surveys like this make a mockery of all this unequal representation equals discrimination brand of feminist victim speak.

From my experience most women would rather be at home with their young children. In couples where the man earns a lot, women rarely want to work full time. In couples where the women earns more than the man, the woman is still very reluctant to work full time and have her husband stay at home.

There seems to be a push for women to be ‘made’ to be more interested in career. All sorts of incentives are considered, and when they don’t work, discrimination is the cry from feminists. The aim is equal representation of women in the workforce, with zero regard to whether women actually want to be there. Why do we need this kind of social engineering based on overriding women’s choice, because their choices don’t fit into feminist doctrine and the government wants a return on investment?

US agree, it seems to me some sections of the female/union/feminist movement assume 'work' is simply something done for women to feel empowered, financially rewarded and worthy.

It seems to me many of those folk have forgotten the Australian community comprises a fair number of male employees and of course, last and usually least (as far as any consideration is given), employers.

The sooner people understand or maybe just remember, a contract of employment is that, a contract. It is where someone agrees to provide time for labour service. A contract of employment is not designed as a career-couch for those who think the world rotates around their fundamental orifice.

I heard Hinch yesterday evening and some woman who expected her boss to flex her hours to suit her new circumstances because when she returns off maternity leave, she needs more time for baby and wants to do fewer hours at the job she is doing now. She seemed to think the employer should automatically acquiese to her demands / expectations.

If she worked for me, she would not find me obliging at all, unless she was irreplacable (but I would never employ someone who even thought they could not be replaced).

COL ROUGE “A CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT IS NOT DESIGNED AS A CAREER-COUCH FOR THOSE WHO THINK THE WORLD ROTATES AROUND THEIR FUNDAMENTAL ORIFICE."

Without out that orifice Col, you wouldn’t have any customers, so you wouldn’t have a business to run in the first place. Without that orifice you wouldn’t be here to worry about the world rotating around orifices.

You and a lot like you bask in the benefits of having a huge supporting community around you provided by that orifice, Doctors and nurses to care for you for example,when you have need of them. Sons and daughters that you will expect to go and defend you in time of war. We are an aging population Col, who’s going to be manning the stations in a few decades when there are millions too doddery to do so.
Of course there is immigration but if there is non intregration then we will see the kind of ethnic conflict here that we see happening all around the world. As the tribes(ethnic groups) go head to head over control of this country, or a separatist state or something. Where will your business be then,maybe blown up by a terrorist bomb.

Without that orifice we are becoming a dying race because people don’t seem to understand that they need a supporting community around them, preferably one that is not racially (tribally) hostile towards them. It’s a matter of long term survival Col. The world, (your world too), actually does revolve around that orifice. Give it some support.

USUAL SUSPECT: "Why do we need this kind of social engineering based on overriding womens choice because their choices don't fit into feminist doctrine?

I agree totally with you about this. Women's liberation has never done anything but toss motherhood and the baby out with the idealogical bathwater.

Just goes to show you can deny, depress or even hide natural instincts. Many women however are honest enough to allow their natural desire to nurture and care for their children to drown out much of the feminist ideology they are brainwashed with through school and uni. What is the point in having kids and then hiring them out to child care centres and nurseries. The value of being with them when they first poo, walk, talk etc can't be measured. They grow up soon enough and most women won't regret the 'sacrifice'. I think more regrets come from those whose body clock ticks away because they are power hungry or have believed the feminist crap that you must wear the pants to be of value. Listen to your instincts ladies and don't believe the crap that will rob you of a few great years with your kids.

Col, whether the employer is expected to flex or not will depend largely on the type of job the lady in question is employed in, and the make-up of the staff in general. If 90% of the work-force are women, and its a job that requires a large investment in training, then the employer is the one that will have to flex (it may well cost more to replace the staff member). If in a job that is highly replaceable, then the lady in question is going to be disappointed. Its a simple matter of economics. I work in an industry where flexibility is the norm, and there are large numbers of women, including mothers.

The push for women to go back to work also comes from a position of protection and self-reliance. Those same women that stay at home to raise the kids, face increased bitterness in the case of marital breakdown, as they are seen as not "contributing" to the household. Those same women are protected from financial abuse if they have means of their own.