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.

HOORAY.. US has finally 'found the truth' :)

yes girls.. back to the Kitchen it is for you.. with those bulging bellies full of arms and legs...

Or.. putting it much better.....

Females.. the bearers and primary nurturers of offspring..those beloved and cherished partners in the huge challenge of life, can find wonderful fulfilment as a complementary part of that process..in roles best suited for their physiology.

Why do most women want to be home with the children?

Perhaps it is the extremely fulfilling world of the ladies networks.. mutual help.. encouragement.. friendship and love that they find there, without the stress of 'boss approval' at work.. or.. striving to smash through that glass ceiling simply because some misguided marxist lesbian feminazi told them they should!

Now we just have to get the blokes to recognize that the gals side of things is not just 'for them'...but for the whole family, community and state.

Sharkfin “You and a lot like you bask in the benefits of having a huge supporting community”

Ya-de-ya-da-ya-da,

oooochi cooochi

who gives a rats.

“Doctors and nurses to care for you for example, when you have need of them.”

Who are paid to care, whilst they may enjoy their work, no doctor or nurse does it for FREE.

Add to that list plumbers who clear out the drains when they are backed up

Car assembly workers who build the cars I drive around in

Mechanics who fix my car when it is sick.

And they all get paid for their efforts

Me too, want to use my time, get in line and have a mortgage deed ready.

“We are an aging population Col”

So what, life goes on, Thelma and Louise had a better option than crawling into one of Gods waiting rooms and taking up bed space.

Country Gal my point is: a job is a job, not a right and not some ordained stepping stone for employees to take as an entitlement. A job is a negotiated arrangement in which both parties to the arrangement decide what is acceptable to them and if it is not, the employer as well as the employee has the right to say “No”.

Nah Boazy, I reckon poor old US is still working through his unresolved mother fixation.

What's your excuse? Mind you, it wouldn't surprise me if your own insecurity about gender roles had some kind of Oedipal etiology too.

You're talking here about first wave feminism. Second wave feminism argued that women should be able to either raise their kids at home without being penalised for it, or have access to quality childcare. Either way, the point is that women shouldn't have to make either/or decisions just because of their biology.

chainsmoker,

'the point is that women shouldn't have to make either/or decisions just because of their biology.'

That's rubbish. Choice is good, it's a bit much to attempt to turn around this positive into a negative.

In fact, women have a lot more choice than men. Men often earn more than their partners as women like to marry up, so economically the family will be better off if the man works full time. Since the woman carries the baby for nine months, and often breast feeds, the starting default position is the woman at home. Then the woman decides whether she will go bcak to work, and after that choice, if the family can afford it, the men might get an opportunity to stay home. Part time work is more accepted for mothers than fathers also.

A woman's biology is only a factor for the first six months to a year, and that's only if they're a religious breast feeder, and they have protection where their employer leaves a job open for them.

Lets face it, women have a hell of a lot of choices, more than men, yet we still hear the feminist bleating about women not being able to have their cake and eat it too, whilst claiming all the women who choose to stay home is somehow evidence of discrimination.

US, there is no doubt that some of those that advocate choice can and do use the mothers that CHOOSE to stay at home as evidence that choice is not available. And I agree with you that men should have the same choices open to them.

I also agree that the startng position is woman at home. This is not because she is pregnant, but because of recovery from childbirth (yes one flows from the other, but one is much more taxing than the other). HOwever, there you lose me. There are plenty of women who dont get the choice about staying home, at least not fulltime. The family economic situation simply dictates that both parents must work to support their offspring. In fact having women stay at home is a middle-class benefit anyway, that only became the norm in the last century - women of the working classes have often had to work to bring in enough income simply to survive, particularly before widespread welfare.

Of course most women would rather be at home with their new baby.
If there are two or more children working as well must be almost
impossible. I watch my daughter-in-law and just cannot see how she
could go to work as well.

However most of them *have* to go to work to make the mortgage payment.
Am I the only one who knows why this is so ?
I tell people why women with kids have to go to work and they simply
either do not believe me or don't understand.

Here it is again;
A simple lesson in markets:
If the buyers in a market suddenly get a large increase in the
available money, say doubled, the price of the product rises to meet
the amount of money available.

In the 1970s the feminists were pressuring the government to force
the lending authorities, banks etc, to take both incomes into account.
Being politicians they were too weak or dumb to see the trap that
was being set for the women.

The price of houses and land rose to meet the amount of money
available. The developers must have estatic !

If you borrow on two incomes you need two incomes to repay the loan.
So the women who thought they were doing themselves a favour and gaining
a right found they lost the right to stay at home with the children
and now find themselves paypacket slaves to child minding centres.

Simple isn't it !

US, perhaps if you gave us a reference for the "feminist bleating" we could better understand what you're arguing. I don't believe feminists have any problem with women wanting to stay home and look after the kids. On the contrary, I'm sure most feminists wish they could afford it! A lot of women manage to stay at home until their kids hit school. I really think this is pretty well accepted — comparisons between male and female wages, for example, will omit figures for women working part-time because they're children are not yet school-age. It's skews the comparison, so that you're no longer comparing like with like.

As chainsmoker points out, the argument has always been about removing restrictions based on gender.

Rather than arguing that women have more choices than men, I reckon you (and me, and all of us) should be happy with the amount of choices we all have when it comes to our working lives. Once men were largely restricted to going out and earning the bread while women largely restricted to tending the home fires. Not to say that we might not choose either of those things, but at least now we are not forced to choose. Now, with a little effort, and perhaps sacrifice, a family can work out what constellation of working/staying at home they want to create, and go about creating it.

This is not always easy, of course, but the pressure is financial rather than social.

What government incentives are you talking about specifically US?

Dear Veronika...

its not "restrictions placed because of gender" its..."Gender restricts choices" unless we want to play unfairly with offspring.

Gender in fact dictates so much.. one just sows a seed, the trigger event.. the other brings a new life (for both of them) into the world..

Females are designed.. built.. specified.. to be 'child producers' more than anything else... their whole anatomy is..about 'children'.
Yes..I did say that 'more than anything else' :) and guess what.. God made it that way.

That we have somehow departed (it seems) from this truth, based on a general gullibility to skillful propoganda and social engineering.. is a tragedy we are only beginning to see the sad results of.

Any 'person' can be a rocket scientist.. only a 'woman' can produce a new human being.. profound and wonderful in the highest order.

Country Gal,

How have I lost you? You agree then that probably an even higher proportion of women would exercise their choice to stay at home if they could afford to. That weakens the case even further that workforce participation rates are evidence of gender inequity and discrimination.

'There are plenty of women who dont get the choice about staying home, at least not fulltime'
Well, there is a large proportion of the people who say they have no choice, but really they do. They could move 20km further away from the city and drive an older car, utlilise public schools etc, but they choose to put their kids in child care, and have the nicer house and car. I don't agree with five days a week child care if it can be avoided, but that's the choice that some families make. Obviously some people genuinely cant downsize their standard of living any further, but a hell of a lot can.

Anyway, a lot more women have this choice to stay at home than do men. So why is it a victim feminist's example of gender inequity? If anyone needs equality in this area, it's men.

This applies to a lot of families that say they 'have' to have both parents working.

Veronika (Vanilla),

'I reckon you (and me, and all of us) should be happy '
I am happy, as I said we all have choices. My argument is a woman using her choice to defy the feminists gets wrapped up in a statistic about workplace participation and used as evidence of inequality.

'perhaps if you gave us a reference for the "feminist bleating" '
Just listen to whatever Anna McPhee, Elizabeth Broderick , Marie Coleman says.

i.e.
"I think it is certainly concerning that women are being discriminated against because of their family situation,"

"lower female wages force many families to assume the traditional roles of having a male breadwinner and female carer rather than equally sharing the burden of paid and unpaid work."

This is the attitude I am talking about. How DARE families not have an exact 50-50 share in paid work, and have one parent at home instead.

' time to re-engineer the workplace so senior jobs could be done part-time '
They're even wanting to somehow have the whole workplace re-designed for women to be part time CEOs. Why don't we re-engineer women's expectations and tell them they cant have everything?

'mothers were missing out on promotions because they were unable to be a senior manager and work part-time.
'
It's just so unfair when you cant have your cake and eat it too. No mention of the fact that mothers might not WANT to be promoted. Pretty likely when 70% don't even really want to be there, and are looking to rush off at three to get home to where they really want to be.

I can understand this. I have a new baby and I certainly don't want a promotion. If anything I would jump at a 4 day week, but I certainly don't expect the world to fit in with my lifestyle choices.

*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, I agree with many of your posts, but not this one :)

The last business that I owned, employed quite a few women,
doing relatively repetivive and boring work, at fairly average
pay. That was just the nature of the market and work involved,
so women needed an incentive to do it and turn up every day.

In the end, the answer was quite simple. Women are more social
creatures in general, then men. They also love to get together
with their girlfriends, discuss girl things and tell each other
how they feel. So I landed up hiring exclusively women, a bloke
in there would have stuffed things up. I let them decide their
own hours and let them decide who they wanted to work with, when
it came to hiring new staff. All I cared about what that the
job was done on time, according to our customer's schedules.

The experiment was a huge success! People came to work because
they enjoyed coming to work, to catch up with their friends.
There would be "girltalk" all day as they worked, which would
change instantly when a male walked into the place. They drew
up their own rosters, to fit in with their families, kids etc,
and I kept right out of it.

In the end it was a win-win all round. I was happy, I had all the
staff I wanted, the work was done on time. They were happy,
as they loved coming to work and since then a few of those women
have stopped me in the street and told me that it was the best
job that they ever had. Clearly people skills matter! So
I learnt something out of that.

It is quite thrilling to see the number of men who will have no problem whatsoever continuing to support the mother of their child financially with their important job of rearing their children in the event of a relationship breakdown.

Besides that. Personally, I think that it is a big ask nowadays to make the father of children primarily responsible for the financial burden of both children and their mothers.

We need to get away from the gender thing and focusing on the female of the parents. If we are to regard having children as a purely luxury 'item', then we obviously are looking at having a particular kind of society. Perhaps we should discuss that.

Often it is the mother who wants to stay with her children when they are young. Breast feeding as a reason comes to mind.

But surely the issue is that it is ideal if children are looked after by their own parents, not that 'women want to have it all'. It really is not an issue of orifices, but how we want to combine financial independence and security and the well being of our children.

So, who is primarily financially responsible for our children and their primary care giver? Men only? If yes, then men must take full and sole responsibility for each and every pregnancy that occurs. You expect and agree to take all financial responsibility of both child and mother.

Cut the female thing in this situation, but let's discuss how can we accomodate the primary caregiver of children and supporting continuing financial independence of the primary care giver. Make the primary care givers 'fathers' if it will assist some of you to let go of the feminist thing.

The loss of experience and skill by discarding and not supporting persons whose obligations have a wider focus than work alone is truly staggering. All persons should have a wider focus than work alone, we should never be defined only by our work, both men and women.

I agree with much of what Usual Suspect is putting forward but I am not sure if feminism is the most influential contributing factor - as someone said I don't think most feminists would attack another woman for choosing to be a stay-at-home mother. I think it is more the fervour for economic growth at all costs mentality that has let this situation creep in as it has.

On one hand we have governments pushing the line that we must get everyone back to work - retirees, single parents, the disabled, mothers etal. On the other hand we had Peter Costello telling us all to have an extra child for the country - for the same reason to build up our workforce. We have to ask who will be looking after all these extra children?

Our society pays a lot of lip service to the 'rights' of children but not much is really done to provide an economic system that allows more flexibility in child rearing to accommodate family desires to raise their children at home. It is almost a given that policy makers assume that child care is the number one priority for (dare I say it) 'working families'. The mantra of 'working families' was not coined without reason.

The ideal situation for families would be to allow for a sharing of parenting and work responsibilities (if that is what families would choose). But we all know that the reality is it is a fluke if two partners can end up sharing the responsibilities of both roles with the consent of their employers.

Smart bosses would allow flexibility if they wish to retain a competent and trained workforce but not all bosses are smart. I chose to stay at home for some time to raise my children and am thankful that we could afford it even if some weeks we were waiting for the next pay cheque.

I can truly say that my children benefited from having a parent at home and one that was able to spend time with them during their most formative years.

Yabby, very interesting experience. Goes to show that empowering employees is often a worthwhile exercise, and that happy workers are productive workers.

US, you lose me because you bleat about men not having choices then whine about the thought of engineering CEO jobs to enable them to be part-time. Dont you realise that this would give men the same choices. The issue is not whether women want to be promoted, but whether there is the opportunity. I am all for men having exactly the same choices. Men can make excellent care-givers (my dad raised 3 girls on his own, so I am speaking from experience), but they also need the opportunity to be able to undertake flexible arrangements if that is what they want. Ideally I would like my husband to be able to work a four day week while I did the same, so that both of us have a day with the kids and the weekend as a family.

Yvonne, good post. Breastfeeding though is not a reason alone to stay home (although it can depend on the job and location of childcare). I breastfed my babies excusively until they were six months old, working part-time once the first was 3 months old, and fulltime once the second was 3 months old. I still partially breastfeed the second at 8 months. It has cost me more for more flexible childcare, but is something that is important to me (but has also saved the cost of formula, the pill and contributed to weight loss).

Yvonne,

'who is primarily financially responsible for our children and their primary care giver? Men only? '. That's for families to decide for themselves, not the government and not feminists. Some will split it equally, some will choose father, some will choose mother.

'let's discuss how can we accomodate the primary caregiver of children and supporting continuing financial independence of the primary care giver.'
Easily. Treat families (married ones) as one tax entity while they are together. Super is pooled, tax free threshold is doubled. All families should have the advantage of pooling their resources for tax purposes. The current system is an attempt to make it more advantagous for dual income families.

'The loss of experience and skill by discarding and not supporting persons...'.
Just how are they discarded and not supported? If your worried about climbing the corporate ladder, don't have kids. Or marry someone who doesn't have the same career ambitions so you can have a partner stay at home. Or just dump your kids in child care or at the grand parents. There's plenty of choice here. Choices have consequences.

'we should never be defined only by our work, both men and women.'
Who says they are? I'm not.

pelican,

'I don't think most feminists would attack another woman for choosing to be a stay-at-home mother'
No. As I said, they just use the fact that mothers want to stay home as evidence of gender inequity to further women's victim status.

'We have to ask who will be looking after all these extra children?'

Eddie Groves. As I said, there are a hell of a lot of people who CHOOSE the mortgage in an expensive suburb, private schools etc over time with their kids. Sacrifice and priorities are dirty words these days. Everyone wants a handout and for the employer to fit in around their lifestyle.

Country Gal,

'Dont you realise that this would give men the same choices'
I don't believe men should have the choice either. If you want to be CEO, it's a job that happens to require long hours. Get over it. If you want a family, accept you'll never see your children, or get an easier job. Pretty simple really. I used men as an example not to whinge or 'bleat', just to show women are being unreasonable in their expectations, and mock the idea that whenever the world wont give them everyting they want it's evidence of inequality. Most men seem to be able to accept they cant have it all. Life is full of trade offs.

'The issue is not whether women want to be promoted, but whether there is the opportunity.'
There is opportunity. Marry a guy who earns less than you. Then it will make financial sense for him to stay home while you persue your career. But no, in reality, women want to marry a guy who earns enough for them to stay at home with the kids. Why do you think there is a plague of SLIMs (Single Low Income Males) and a 'Man Drought'. Because educated high earning chicks, who aren't stunners, cant grab that rich man who has the world at his feet.

' Ideally I would like my husband to be able to work a four day week while I did the same, so that both of us have a day with the kids and the weekend as a family.
'
Fine, so would I. I aim to attempt exactly that early next year. But I know employers aren't there to fit in with my whims. Work for yourself if you want that flexibility, or be very good at your job, and convince your employer that bending over to your whims is a good idea.

Yabby "So I landed up hiring exclusively women, a bloke
in there would have stuffed things up. I let them decide their
own hours and let them decide who they wanted to work with, when
it came to hiring new staff. All I cared about what that the
job was done on time, according to our customer's schedules."

Horses for courses Yabby.

You, as the employer, were happy with that arrangement.

The point is

"job was done on time, according to our customer's schedules"

that is the test.

Not the convenience and happiness of the employees, exclusive of all other things

Col, I dont think that convenience to employees has been put forward as being exclusive of all other things. It all forms part of management of your workforce. Generally the less flexible or understanding you are, the harder it will be to attract employees and retain them. For most employers attracting new staff and training them is an expensive exercise. There needs to be give and take on both sides. I see your point, but you appear to have flipped over to the other extreme.

US, I married a man that earns less than me and he still wont stay at home (even though we could afford for him to but not me), because he thinks its beneath him. He couldnt handle doing "nothing" all day. Dont get me started.

As I said to Col above, there needs to be give and take on both sides of the fence. When you are at work you need to be "at work". By the same token even those that dont have children have personal needs to attend to that sometimes require work flexibility (doctors appointments, bank appointments, haircuts). Most dont have stay-at-home wives to do all the running around anymore, so everyone needs given and take. Perhaps if CEO jobs were more flexible and realistic we would have more local applicants for the job and not have to pay exhorbitant amounts to foreign exec's that dont properly understand the local economic environment.

BTW, I am offended at the reference to "dumping" children at childcare. A lot of effort goes into finding care that is suitable to the child. My kids dont attend centres (and I will quit work and live in a tent on the riverbank before sending them to ABC), and love their carers. My daughter has several friends and is a more confident and outgoing child than she would be if clinging to mummy's apron strings until she was 6. If you dont pay any attention to what happens to your kids that's your problem, dont assume everyone else is the same.

Country Girl,

Apologies for my insensitive choice of words. I agree with the social benefits of child care, though I wouldn't be happy myself with any more than a couple of days a week for our child.

How can staying at home be 'beneath him'. Are you sure he really thinks that? I can understand someone not being able to handle the lack of adult company, but there's pleanty of mothers groups, and.. actually all the community services are pretty female orientated come to think of it. More men need to get involved and that will change though.

If he thinks it's nothing, let him try it for a few days:-)

BTW: ' there is no doubt that some of those that advocate choice can and do use the mothers that CHOOSE to stay at home as evidence that choice is not available.' Thankyou. You're the only women on OLO who would concede this.

Yvonne,

'If we are to regard having children as a purely luxury 'item', then we obviously are looking at having a particular kind of society. Perhaps we should discuss that.
'
What kind of society? Don't tell me you one of the 'people have children for the good of the community' crowd. Regardless of how people justify other people paying for them, they have kids because they want kids. Pure and simple.

The issue usually isn't to do with the kids being a luxury, it's to do with people wanting to live in luxury on a modest wage and have kids. That wont change. The child isn't the luxury in the common dual income, 5 day child care, 4WD, McMansion, $20k a year private school fee brigade.

I think that Usual Suspect should demonstrate the sincerity of his frequent pronouncements on this subject by negotiating conditions in his own employment such that he can stay at home with his child/ren until they reach school age, while his family subsists on his partner's income.

Then, he can resume his career and reflect on his choices.

My very best male friend has been the principal carer for his two daughters for their entire lives. He has made the kinds of choices that US professes that women make, and is now a single man who lives in a small duplex with his kids while his (now) ex-wife saves the world as a social worker who has her kids on weekends. During which my mate drives trucks, in order to make ends meet.

When I visited him recently, he showed me a wardrobe full of ballet costumes that he had sewn for his girls. With respect, US - you don't have much of a clue yet about parenting, partnerships and the choices that all of us make.

Your obsession with gender roles and feminism is telling. To me, it denotes deep insecurity. You have much to learn, young fella.

U Sus,
Your claim that there's not another woman on OLO who would agree with Country Gal perfectly illustrate what CJ's post said about you having a lot to learn - and your gender politics.

C'mon...hands up those women on OLO who believe that all women are perfect, there has never been a woman with an agenda, there is no such thing as a mean, misguided, stupid or calculating woman?...Any takers? Now, hands up all those women who think that all men are mean, misguided, stupid or calcultating?........ Any agreement there?

After all this time, you still don't understand, do you? Despite all your sweeping generalisations about what women think, or feminists think etc. you are still seeing those of the opposite sex to you as a solid block of Other; and framing your arguments and opinions through the very narrow lens of your own (as yet rather limited) experiences.

Can you wonder you meet so much frustration and opposition when you insist on treating us all as though we are not individuals, not sentient, not every bit as varied through the whole spectrum of good and bad as are the other half of the population. Niether Country gal nor Yvonne, nor Bronwyn nor any of us here you consistently denigrate through your branding of us, represents Everywoman.

And, btw: my husband also refused to stay at home with the kids...even if I wanted to go to the bloody supermarket. As did the husband of a girlfriend who earned triple (yep. triple) his salary.

And while your experiences may make you an expert on the McMansion and 4WD brigade, mine have led me down many different paths where there are good mums and bad mums, good dads and bad dads but where the majority of people were just putting their own prejudices and unresolved issues on the back burner and doing the best they could for their kids. Whether divorced, married, single, seperated, gay or straight, victims or otherwise

CountryGal and CJ, great posts.

The most frustrating aspect in discussions on the subject of juggling child rearing and working is the insistence of some that it is all just a question of choosing between a McMansion with a $20K private school education and being modest by living 20kms from the CBD with a state school education.

Talk about living in a bubble! Don't some of you have ordinary friends who live in modest houses with state school educated kids?

You may be surpised to know that there are very many not on a $50,000/yr income who can say to a spouse: honey you stay at home with the kiddies, we'll not purchase that plasma TV and 4WD this year, I'll mow the grass-we just have to make a few sacrifices.

And Col and US, when you are old and decrepit, you may find that your kids will need to be able to take some care of you into consideration and request some flexibility from their employer. Don't get too smug with the idea that you will be wholly independent until the day you die. Hopefully, more likely than not their employer will be aware that their workforce exists out of workers who are also parents, sons and daugthers and spouses.

Excellent subject, Usual suspect. The uber-feminists who infest the halls of power are very quick to claim victimhood for their "sisters", whether their "sisters" see it that way or not. They know that claiming to represent a "victim" class is a virtually risk-free role to play in the power politics they want to be involved in. It's much "nicer" to claim to be acting on behalf of the oppressed than to simply say "I want lots of money and power", which is the real agenda.

Few of the respondents have addressed the original post though, which raises the fact that 70% of those "victims" say they'd rather not have the obligation to work and that the uber-feminists therefore don't actually represent their wishes as they would claim to do. If the "victim" is reluctant to be "saved" where does that leave the rhetoric spouted by the "saviours" who have ridden their "hero" status to the top?

Many of the women here, who are almost universally well-educated, highly-accomplished people are affronted by this subject and I'm not quite sure why. The feminist movement has been all about giving women one particular kind of choice - to do things that have been traditionally male - while it has paid mere lip-service (and sometimes been quite disparaging) to the choices of some women to do things that are traditionally female. I can't see why any woman would accept this as a desirable situation, yet it seems some do, according to the responses.

Bazz, you are sot on in your comment about the cost of housing. Keating's high interest rates and Howard's housing bubble were both aimed at doing the same thing - making the cost of owning a home so high that it requires 2 incomes to do so, leaving little excess for spending on imported luxuries. Howard's way will have a long-lasting deleterious impact on this nation, since it removes people's ability to make a choice not to work. Fancy having to pay people to have babies!

Thankyou US. My respect for you has increased significantly.

As for my personal situation, yes, my husband has been given the option of staying home several times. He really does think that there is nothing to do all day except watch tv. Trying to get him to watch the kids so I can have a stress-free trip to the supermarket, even after they are in bed asleep is usually a battle. And his disparaging remarks about the "kept" men that stay home and sponge off their wives gives a pretty good indication of what value he places on the work involved.

I agree that much of the support network around kids is female-based and would like to see this changed. However the best way for that change to occur is for men to jump in feet first and get involved. My dad was one of perhaps 5 men in 1000 people at the local netball courts on Saturday mornings, but he still went, would chat to anyone there, and gave us all a critique of our performance in the car on the way home. Whether there was a support network there for him or not, he still did his best to make sure that we got involved with sports and other activities - thats what good parents (male or female) do.

Antiseptic, you appear to have missed some of the points discussed already. The option to do 'male' things was first wave feminism. The choice aspect (no matter what that choice is) is what is advocated now. There are still some women out there that see that equality will only be achieved when there is equal representation in all walks of life, but most would be happy if there is equal consideration given to a man and woman applying for the same position (or choosing to stay with young kids etc). Dont judge all women by a few loudmouths that bang on just to get attention.

You are all pontificating about the roles of men and women instead
of realising that from the time you started borrowing on two incomes the die was set and there was nothing to do but get on with it.

So stop worrying about it and blaming each other. Either live with it or borrow on one income.

CG:"The option to do 'male' things was first wave feminism. "

In that case, why do we have a dozen or so Govt departments, both State and Federal, devoted to "women's rights" under various guises? Why will the Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner, with her $400k PA salary, not hear matters relating to discrimination against men on gender grounds? Why do we hear all sorts of misinformation being promoted about the disparity between male and female wages?

My point was that "average" women such as the ones in the survey that formed the basis of the original post may well see things the way you do, but the women who make the rules for the rest of us are interested only in the self-serving perpetuation of the "woman as victim" mythology. That mythology is increasingly at odds with the constituency they claim to represent.

On the subject of men's involvement in kids' activities, I have some experiences of my own. I am a father of two kids who spend half their time with me and half with their mother. Their mother chooses to work on Saturdays (she teaches art classes to other women) and so Saturday activities for the kids are generally my responsibility. I'm one of very few men at such events. While I've not felt unwelcome, I have felt very definitely excluded. I used to make an effort to join in the various groups that form among the spectators, but the women so obviously felt intruded upon that I gave up. In 3 years of attending one child's sporting events, I've not once been asked to take a carload of kids to a game, and when I've offered, it's always met with "Oh, no, it's OK, [one of the women] should be fine to do that".

Their mother, OTOH, has been rung at home and asked if she could take a carload to several events. Men, it seems, are not really to be trusted without a watchful woman to keep them under control.

Antiseptic, your involvement is to be applauded. I wonder though whether any of the seemng suspicion stems from you being a divorcee ("not to be trusted")?? My dad I think was given lots of opportunity given his situation - widower at a young age with 3 small children. Maybe some of the difference is due to perceptions of trustworthiness??

I agree with you about the policy-forming beaurocrats, but point out that its not isolated to women's advocacy - that's government all over for you! I think perhaps thats where sometimes this forum gets so heated - some male posters mouth-off about women's rights based on some public statement that most of us ignore, and the female posters take umbrage at what's seen as an attack on all women. The joys of miscommunication! Its not isolated to gender issues, but they do seem to get a fair share of debate.

CG:"I wonder though whether any of the seemng suspicion stems from you being a divorcee ("not to be trusted")?? My dad I think was given lots of opportunity given his situation - widower at a young age with 3 small children. Maybe some of the difference is due to perceptions of trustworthiness??"

My suspicion is that it's more to do with the "poisoning of the well" with regard to men that has taken place over the past few years. Given the enormous amount of publicity given to "violence against women and children", it's hardly surprising that a vigilant mother might be reluctant to trust a man, especially one who isn't married.

One of my major complaints about the feminist movement is that gender relations are treated as a zero sum game, in which advances for women's rights can only be achieved by concomitant reduction in men's rights. While that may be true for the uber-feminists who want to be in charge of things, it's not the case for the rest of us and yet we're being forced to play that way by the rules that are madeon our behalf. Barely a day goes by without one or another of the bandwagon-riders and coattail-jumpers telling us how badly off women are because of men. I don't see any miscommunication in that at all, in fact the statements are carefully chosen to cause maximum impact and often to minimise the real gains that have been made toward equality.

Where the misunderstandings arise is the attempt by ordinary people to fit these statements into their own lives, which are often nothing at all like the stereotypes preferred by the power-hungry. Let's hope some kind of balance can be struck soon, because my son is going to have a tough road ahead of him if it can't be.

CJ,

'With respect, US'
Don't make me laugh, I cant believe anything you say to me involves respect, especially after your first post, and knowing my 'hyper-sensitivity' (as you put it) about the recent death of my mother. You have no idea about my personal life, yet you arrogantly decide you are some sort of amateur psychologist. You usually haven't even the strength of character to address people other than in the third person.

Romany,
'claim that there's not another woman on OLO who would agree'
Nobody else did agree. Sheesh.

'hands up those women on OLO who believe that all women are perfect '
That's just dumb. You just go on making up your own arguments and arguing against them Romany. Is it fun?

' consistently denigrate through your branding of us'
Ha. So anything I say against feminists is somehow denigrating you. Which is it? All feminist believe the same thing, or you have no right to feel denigrated when I address the politics of feminists in government positions.

'And while your experiences may make you an expert on the McMansion ...'
I am making a simple point that people will have kids if they want to, and that many who say they cant afford children really just have different priorities. If you want to turn that into a competition of who is more worldly and tolerant than I will salute you on your high horse.

yvonne,
I'm not against employers being flexible. I'm against the attitude that when employers decide not to promote people who would really rather be at home with their kids over single people who can do whatever is necessary to get the job done it's evidence of gender discrimination.

antiseptic,
'while it has paid mere lip-service (and sometimes been quite disparaging) to the choices of some women to do things that are traditionally female'
Exactly. But apparently, this means I have a mother fixation, and I am denigrating anyone who identifies as being feminist.

Country Girl,
'Thankyou US. My respect for you has increased significantly.'
Thank you. Join the lonely club of one.

COL ROUGE: "NO DOCTOR OR NURSE DOES IT FOR FREE"

The point I was making is there will not be any Doctors or Nurses fit enough to pay. Personally I'd prefer not to have some doddery 80year old operating on me or 70year old for that matter.
If there are a not enough Doctors or nurses available you may not be able to afford them anyway, because they will be commandeered by the very wealthy as in a market economy they will be able to sell their skills to the highest bidder.

Nobody wants you when you're old, it is only your children who will have any real love for you and may take the time to come and visit you. Your money won't buy that. Not true caring anyway.

However the total burden shouldnt rest on individual employers it is a matter for the whole community and as such should be nutted out at government level and a plan that all are able to live with arrived at.

The co-operation of employers like you will be needed; so the sooner this attitude of failing to support women who are prepared to have the children this community will depend on in years to come the sooner it can be sorted.

There is already a lack of skilled labour and workers, from this lack of foresight by business and government leaders in the past.

I can't remember how Thelma and Louise ended but if they committed suicide; You may not have that option,because as happens every day, a little blood vessel could just go pop in your head,an artery could close off, cancer could be found; we all like to think that it won't happen to us, but it can and does.

COL: I really enjoyed your reaction to my comment. I usually get that kind of reaction when there's a truth in what I say that can't be refuted.

Country Gal

"The option to do 'male' things was first wave feminism."

This is a slight over-simplification. 'First wave feminism' was never the solid block of uniformity that you imply here. Yes, the majority of early feminists were focused on being able to do 'male' things. But, an equally committed if smaller group, were more interested in changing the nature of society - from an androcentric model to that of one more equally representative of female as well as male values. For them, purely fighting for equal rights within an unchanged world would never be enough.

The former group of course is the group that has made the progress. As frequently pointed out by the likes of US and Antiseptic, women today are largely able to do most of what men do if they so choose. It is the second group that has had little success in popularising their goals, partly because they were always more ambitious and more difficult to achieve, but largely because of the power of vested interests determined to marginalise their views and maintain the status quo.

If this latter group had had more success in moderating the competitiveness and individualism in western society as they had set out to do, it would have been far easier for the 'choice aspect' you refer to as the goal of today's feminists to become reality.

Instead, we still have a world where competition, individualism and aggression reign supreme. Women are competing with men, and in many cases holding their own with great aplomb, but they are competing nonetheless and in a man's world and on men's terms. They haven't managed to change the prevailing ethos one iota.

The collective and co-operative model of society, necessary if men and women are to truly share the burden of paid employment and domestic work and child-raising, is as far away today as it ever was. And many men are very happy for it to remain that way. And quite possibly many women are too!

Yabby has it in one.

The present work environment is designed around those who have work as their first priority. Changes to make it more mother friendly will benefit both the mother and the employer.

However, as many functions place a high reliance on the individual, this makes them inherently not mother friendly. Thus a mother is essentially faced with a choice to either take the lower paying mother friendly position or allow others to raise her child.

Sharkfin “The point I was making is there will not be any Doctors or Nurses fit enough to pay.”

Somehow that is so implausible, it sounds just plain silly.

“You may not have that option,because as happens every day, a little blood vessel could just go pop in your head,an artery could close off, ….. we all like to think that it won't happen to us, but it can and does.”

Been there, done that.

“However the total burden shouldnt rest on individual employers it is a matter for the whole community and as such should be nutted out at government level and a plan that all are able to live with arrived at.”

And St Kevin said “the buck stops with me”… and if you look at the way government continues to “fork it up”, he is lying through his teeth.

Relying on government to do anything is really about risking your life in their hands politicians are liars, “government” is run my lying politicians… and self-serving bureaucrats.

“COL: I really enjoyed your reaction to my comment. I usually get that kind of reaction when there's a truth in what I say that can't be refuted.”

Go ahead, delude yourself, if that helps.

Back to facts, contracts of employment are and should remain the simple documents they present.

They are not the basis of an alternative lifestyle.

When an employer engages an employee he is not doing it to help that employee, of either gender, to enhance their family and spiritual existence. The employer is engaging the employee to undertake some task for which the added value to the employer is more than the cost of that employee.

Cut it what way you want, force employers to supply child-minding services or any other form of remuneration, monetary or non-monetary and all you do is keep increasing the cost and reducing the net added value to the employer and eventually the employer will say

“no point, the risks outweigh the return, business is now closed”

Or

India / China, here we come….

Women are fools to themselves, wanting to work full time. It has upset the balance of what was normal society. Because of this so called liberation of women, it has forced the cost of everything up and up. Now it is compolsary to have two incomes to pay for a house. Now we have women having kids after their useby date has expired. This will lead to a drongo society. The best breeding age for women is between 18 and 26. I am sure we are leading into a time that will be very hard to reverse, thus it will be a hastening of the destruction of human society all because of female [live for the moment] greed.

Jason, what will lead to a drongo society is letting only drongo's breed. You're a bit daft yourself if you are trying to blame inflation on women.

Bronwyn, yes its a simplification, but a reasonable one. What you appear to be pushing is a communist society, and I have only come across 1 woman in my life that thinks this is a good thing. Mind you, I dont believe in unabated and unregulated capitalism either - there needs to be balance. Hmm, balance seems to be what most of the discussion here is about, albeit that we all have different versions of where the balance should sit.

Antiseptic, your lack of socialising and networking success at your childrens' events could be not because you're a 'man' as you suggest, but because you lack the necessary communication skills. This can sometimes be hard to admit, and it's easy to 'blame' others when it's too hard to work on one's own communication skills.

I'm divorced, and my ex takes the 2 children to many varied events during weekends and Friday evenings. He's welcomed by the women at these activities, and contributes substantially, because he has the personal skills to do that. I've seen many men working well with women in similar circumstances.

It's not the gender that's important, it's the socialisation and communication skills that's important. Are you prepared to work on those skills for the benefit of the children, or are you already a magnificent communicator and skilled networker and it's simply all the 'womens' fault as you suggest via your sad 'uber-feminist' post?

COL- What you say is true about businesses taking their companies to India and China. That is what would happen. Humans have to make a buck to survive and they'll do it any way they can and I don't exclude myself from that either if I really needed to eat and survive.

Maybe the United Nations could put some criteria on these companies that they pay their Chinese and Indian workers a half way decent wage and not use them as slave labour by paying them a pittance. They like to pay wages at poor country rates and then come back to countries that have high wages and sell their products at rich country rates.

I do not believe in the communist, socialist systems I think a democratic, capitalist society is the best way, but governments need the foresight to make the appropriate demands on businesses for the good of the whole community when necessary. Like the compulsory training of apprentices by businesses that are making excessive profits. Also the setting up of agencies that train, provide and pay
temporary assistants to cover Maternity leave for women.

Pull some of the billions spent on aid out of some of these foreign ountries and spend some of it here for the long term good of our own communities.

Jason,

The normal society of a few centuries ago involved women having kids 18-25, dying at 35 and the kids being raised by others, as only a select few could afford not to work.

The world has changed and people are not completely ruled by their biology.

Sharkfin, you say you aren't a socialist, but your proposals are very socialist. The UN has not even the power to emancipate women in Islamic countries from their chattel like existence, so I think universal maternity leave is a long way off.

Life is like Ghandi's left leg, neither fair nor right. The choices for women or companies are likewise.

SallyG:"you lack the necessary communication skills."

Perhaps, but I don't think so. I'm a very social person, with lots of friends of both genders. I rarely feel excluded from anything, but I certainly do in that environment. Why should I be forced to go out of my way to "win" these women, rather than simply expect acceptance? As you say, this is about the children, not the parents.

As an aside, I don't and didn't blame anyone for that situation, unlike you seem to be determined to do. Are you one of those dreadful wives who think that everything is the man's fault? Your poor husband must be desperate to find some friends.

Antiseptic

Is it possible to join a different group? We don't always click with absolutely everyone all of the time. Some women's groups are very clichy and are impossible to fit in with. I know.

However, I note that you do react very quickly to real or perceived criticism, for example your response to SallyG, you are very quick to cast aspersions about someone you don't know.

I am not saying this is the case but if you have been this prickly towards any of the women in your group, maybe they feel they cannot be open with you and this makes it difficult to be relaxed if people feel they have to walk on egg-shells in order not to upset you.

Just because a woman is critical of a particular man's behaviour, doesn't make her a 'man-hater' as I have observed some women have been labeled on OLO.

I know from your posts that you care passionately and deeply about your children, but perhaps being a little less hasty to judge would enable us all to communicate more freely.

Overall I am really heartened by the increasing involvement by men in their children's lives. That wasn't the case only a generation ago. I guess we are all learning about our responsibilities as parents, employees and treating one another with respect in difficult situations.

Good Luck

Fractelle:"your response to SallyG, you are very quick to cast aspersions about someone you don't know."

I was simply returning Sally G's comment in kind. I took her genuinely thoughtful comment and also tried to respond in kind. If she had left it there, so would I. I am very strongly opposed to double standards.

Fractelle: "if you have been this prickly towards any of the women in your group, maybe they feel they cannot be open with you and this makes it difficult to be relaxed if people feel they have to walk on egg-shells in order not to upset you."

I haven't had any opportunity to discuss anything but banalities with any of them. A couple of them know the ex, who I suspect has "poisoned the well" WRT myself. As you say, some groups of women can be very cliquey. It's difficult to initiate conversations with people who simply don't acknowledge you exist. Several times I've responded to a "g'day", to be completely ignored, discovering that the person was greeting someone a few metres behind me.

Fractelle: "Overall I am really heartened by the increasing involvement by men in their children's lives."

From my own observations it is actually declining. I am under a great deal of pressure from the Scouts to become a leader because the particular troop has NO male leaders and is consequently finding it hard to retain boys as members, not to mention that many of the traditional Scouting activities are quite physically demanding, which is difficult for some smaller women to cope with.

The usual reasons given by men are:
"not enough time" to help out
"worried about being accused of doing something wrong"
"too difficult and complex" to become approved to assist

Some of those reasons apply to me, but I will give it a go, I think.

Antiseptic

Thank you for your reply.

Sounds to me like you have an uphill battle winning over the women in your group.

I'm not so sure that there is less male participation like you said. The issues facing men are the same as those facing women; too little free time available, long work days, inflexible (for employee) work hours. The heart and soul of the human world is the family, yet our entire economy is structured around the impossible ideal of ever increasing profit. We need sustainable work practices as much as we need sustainable energy.

It is a shame, also, that we are so fear driven. We fear letting our children take themselves to school, fear rocking the boat at work for wanting to spend time with our children as well. Wanting to be a good parent does not mean we aren't interested in our careers, but there is no balance.

Nor does there appear to be any incentive to create a balance between employment and our private lives. We are neither corporate robots or total domestic slaves isolated with only children for company.

It is not 'gender wars' either. Seems to me time is way overdue for men and women to combine forces and create a society that places the well-being of all as the basis for our economy.

Some employers have realised that happy employees are far more productive than stressed ones, but we have a long way to go before our well being is given more importance than the almighty dollar.

Sending kids to daycare before the age of 4yo is no less than child abuse. In years to come this will emerge and will be seen to be a mistake. Women see day care as an easy way out, they would rather pay their wages in child care, and not have the responsability of rearing their own kids. Doesn,t it make you wonder when females put a 3 month old child into daycare. Why bother having kids.

I can see why Antiseptic has problems fitting in. When you read his posts on other topics, as soon as anyone personally criticises him he immediately responds in kind. He won't like hearing this, but that shows weakness and a real character flaw. I could imagine him amongst the women, eying each of them suspiciously and just waiting for the evil eye from one of them, and then thinking "hey, why can't they accept me"? He comes across here as a very defensive type of individual, and this may be what those women are seeing, and why he's not popular with the women at those child activities he claims to be involved with.

Jason60, those children in childcare, every one of them, has a father. You might carry more weight if you addressed your remarks to the mothers AND fathers. If the mothers are so bad, then how about the FATHERS taking responsibility by caring for the children! Don't just blame mothers, as you show your bias clearly that way, and it's difficult to take you seriously.

' I could imagine him amongst the women, eying each of them suspiciously and just waiting for the evil eye from one of them, and then thinking "hey, why can't they accept me"?'

I can imagine the reverse being true of many women who speak of a 'boys club' in the workplace...

The misogynist card has been played a hundred times with more frequency than the misandrist one. However, when you begin seeing it applied to balance the extreme feminist agenda in our society, it's more than justifiable.

My experience has some similarities and some differences to Antiseptic's. The activities I've taken my son to seem to generally have plenty of men along, occasionally I've been the novelty male but not often. I think Country Gal and I have had a similar discussion before and I do wonder if that experience is geographical, that some areas are very different to others.

I've not had a feeling of being on the outer except when I was going through the worst stage of the family law stuff and I doubt that I was very good company at that point.

The place I've noticed the issue is in my son having friends over, female carers rarely send their kids here to play making it clear that play will be at their place. There are a couple of exceptions in his circle of friends and it seems less obvious now than it used to. Maybe because my son and his friends are older or maybe because people are getting more used to the idea of men being single parents.

I do think that there has been a significant change in attitudes towards men caring for kids in the last few years.

R0bert

Jason60

What a poisonous and unfounded statement. while not being first prize, with the cost of daycare as it is it is an economic necessity. Throughout time the extended family has cared for children, the daycare, with its staff is filling that role.

I never needed that option, but I understand the need for it.

JW:"Copy comment URL to clipboard
I can see why Antiseptic has problems fitting in. When you read his posts on other topics, as soon as anyone personally criticises him he immediately responds in kind."

Which would be why I responded to SallyG's criticism of my interpersonal skills with a "perhaps". Are there any other aspects of my behaviour you'd like explained in simple terms?

JW:"that shows weakness and a real character flaw. "

Thank you Dr Freud. Nice of you to spend your valuable time instructing poor little old antisocial me. Good of you to address it to the third person so I don't feel personally offended. It has the potential to elicit further such valuable advice to me from others, too, so well done you.

JW:"He comes across here as a very defensive type of individual, and this may be what those women are seeing, and why he's not popular with the women at those child activities he claims to be involved with."

Nice. Not only have you managed to give me valuable insights into my personality, but you've shown how untrustworthy I am to be making any claim to be involved in my children's lives. Fantastic, thanks.

I don't know there's much I can add to such a learned analysis on such minimal inputs. I can see the error of my ways. Next time a woman goes out of her way to be as helpful in pointing out my flaws on such short acquaintance, I'll be appropriately grateful.

Prat.

It's a lifestyle thing. You make the decisions to work, rather than bring up your kids, with parental guidence. No blame at all rests with the male. You make the decision to have the kids. Without your blessing a pregnancy would not occur or succeed. It rests with you when govt: agencies make decisions for you. The male is a nomadic worker and cannot be immediately contacted. The woman makes the nest and rears the young.

Sharkfin –“COL- What you say is true about businesses taking their companies to India and China. “

the UN has no authority to intercede in a nations internal affairs

In fact, when you get right down to it, the UN is, as the Chinese would say “A Paper Tiger”

As for the rest, the reason a lot of those wages are lower in India and China is
the cost of taxes etc is a lot lower in those countries and
personal expectations are similarly a hell of a lot lower.

For myself, I know what I have to do to earn what I want in these difficult times and am doing it. That is my choice.

I also choose to support free trade, lower tariffs (but only when reciprocated), limits to pointless government and union interference in workplace relations and life in general, smaller government and greater emphasis on personal reliance and responsibility.

Anyone who pretends the competitive nature of business and trade is helped by an approach to universal equality is kidding themselves. In the end, those with the get up and go will more off shore when the tax and nannying get too much to tolerate and they will take their wealth, skills and energy with them, leaving the rest to sink into the mire.

And anyone who thinks the wealth of the nation is attributable, in anyway to government has the wrong idea all together.

“Like the compulsory training of apprentices by businesses that are making excessive profits.”

Not sure how anyone can define “Excessive Profits” and understanding the fluctuation in commercial cycles, the Excessive Profits in one year can turn into Excessive Losses based in the quality and foresight of the managers/owners who run the business, Enron (the smartest men in the room) comes to mind –

and if you think anyone is critical of what happened at Enron, you ain’t heard me yet.

That the auditors could be so corrupt and sign off on Enron’s bogus accounts, placed the entire accounting professions reputation in jeopardy

Jason, pull your head out of the sand. What about single parents (mothers/fathers)? I'd prefer that their kids saw them contribute at least something back to society, show that a living has to be made it is not a gift. What about invalid mothers or fathers? What about women who earn more than their husbands (in some cases significantly). Your rage at childcare is I think really directed at the middle-class women who have a uni degree, marry-up and really dont need to work, but either feel that they have to keep a career on track or just dont like kids. What you forget is that there is a whole range of people that really do need childcare for any number of reasons. In the past a closer circle of friends and family filled the gap. Given our wider geographical dispersement and the likelihood of grandparents working longer than in the past, we now need to often turn to third-party care. I think I mentioned in an earlier post I would sell everything I owned and live in a tent before I let my kids go to ABC centres, but the mix I have found for them of a family friend, grandmother and family daycare each week works well for them, they are happy to go and love playing with their friends. It creates confidence and independence if correctly chosen and managed, the two best things that you can give a child.

Antiseptic, I am happy to address you in the first person. The written word is fraught with more chances for miscommunication than face-to-face conversation, perhaps that it why you are overreacting or appear to be overreacting. But if you come across in real-life the way you do on-line, then I am not surprised that you are socially excluded particularly by women. There is no doubt that there are cliquey women's groups and also no doubt that there are boys clubs, but certainly not all men or women are like that. I dont expect that you'll believe me that you appear to be contributing to the problem (and it may well be because of experiences you have had in the past), but try looking back over a thread like this and see what reaction you elict from people as opposed to others that may hold similar views but have learned to express those views in ways that are not broadly insulting.

CG, thanks for the critique. I don't happen to agree with you, but you're welcome to your view.

I treat people on this forum the way they treat me. I do the same IRL. As I said, I intensely dislike double standards and I do my best not to practise them. As people are more prone to take offence IRL, I moderate the way I respond, but then, so do we all. On forums, I see no need to pull punches if someone chooses to hide behind their anonymity to have a little snipe. Frankly, the silly little twit that tried to tell me all about myself deserved no less than she got and if she'd had the temerity to try it IRL I'd have been just as scathing (the exception proves the rule, as always).

There are some posters on here whose views I respect enormously, including your own on many subjects. I may respond to you robustly, but I make an effort not to be disrespectful. I may not always succeed, but I don't claim sainthood. As for my views being expressed in a "broadly insulting" way, please point out where I have done so in this thread. I've been careful to make an effort to avoid just that. If some twit identifies with the uber-feminists who want to run the place, it's hardly my fault and she'd best harden up quick-smart.

If any of that contributes to the women at my child's sport not wanting my company, then they're shallow drips, not worth the effort. Thanks for pointing that out.

Antiseptic, I have re-read all your posts, and confess you are right! The main sweeping statement refers to the uber-feminists in the halls of power which on re-reading doesnt align them with the majority of women. This is what I mean about miscommunication though! Your posts are very prickly and very easy to take offence to. Still it would be a sad old day if we all thought and talked the same way. Its part of the reason why I love OLO - I can vent by taking on arguments on various topics, instead of picking fights with my husband.

Haha That's funny CG, you're a real gem. So lacking in arrogance and so genuine. I have encountered similar in all the country girls I have known.

Single parents do a good service to their kids by not working, before school age. Older people are more scarce these days by choice. They have had enough of your kids before the age of 2. They can see wat is going to happen if they make their self available. So they can be found somewhere around au; Instead of babysitting your kids while you are on a junket.

Antiseptic, don't worry too much about being given the cold shoulder by some women during some children's activities. I'm female and believe me I've been made to feel that I don't 'really belong'.

Don't know what it is. Maybe they're just boring and don't want to be found out or you don't come across as being competitive enough. Some mothers seem to live vicariously through their children and hope that their children's glory will somehow reflect a bit of glitter on their own boring lives.

At the ice-skating rink during figure skating I prefer to talk to the few dads who are there. They're not nearly as obsessed and their children consequently seem to enjoy their time on the ice more.

yvonne

"Some mothers seem to live vicariously through their children and hope that their children's glory will somehow reflect a bit of glitter on their own boring lives."

I know you prefaced this statement with the words "Some mothers", so I guess it could reasonably be argued that you were only referring to a small number of women.

For me though, statements like this tend to cast aspersions on women who choose to devote a large chunk of their time to raising their family, which surely is a legitimate choice and one which should be valued.

These lives might appear 'boring' to others who for whatever reason place more emphasis on their career, but many women believe this to be the right and best choice for them and I'm sure they find the day-to-day lives of their families anything but 'boring'.

CG, thanks for that. I do probably tend to phrase things here so as to provoke a response, especially among those who hold an opinion different to my own. I always try to be precise in what I say though, possibly to the point of being a bit verbose.

Yvonne, thank you too. I don't let it bother me really, but it does have an impact on the kids. The team in question is doing quite well, so perhaps you're right about the vicarious competition thing. There is so much pressure on everyone to perform these days, it does take something away from the joy of playing for the sake of it. To be honest, it may even be something as simple as them not feeling I'm "good enough", since I don't drive a flash car (either the old mazda or the truck) and I often turn up having just finished or preparing to start a job, so I'm not dressed to the nines. Whatever it is, it's their problem. I was probably a bit hasty blaming it on gender, but I'm one of the very few males at these games, so it seems likely that also plays a part.

Bronwyn, people's lives can be boring whether they work or choose to stay home with their kids. I know people of both genders who see their life's work as being nothing less than giving their kids a chance to shine, even if the rest of us know the only way it's going to happen is if they're painted with phosphorus. Personally, I'd rather give the kids the chance to have fun and worry about being a star later, if the fancy takes them. Life's too short. Having kids is a great way to remind yourself of that. Mine are nearly teenagers and they were only babies last week, I swear.

It's interesting though, that you automatically assumed Yvonne was talking about non-working mothers. It adds some strength to US's original argument, don't you think?

Bronwyn, I agree with Antiseptic here. There are plenty of working women who are boring or obsessed with work and men arent immune from that either. Such can be so guilt-ridden that they then do over-kill on the "quality time". Also I have found that men in groups at such sporting events have a tendency to tell stories and jokes, where as women's discussions will focus around fashion and Sex in the City (neither of which are particularly appealing conversational gems to me).

Antiseptic, you actually do sound a bit like my old dad - he'd turn up in work clothes (which was an extreme embarrassment at a particular point in our lives - if you have any daughters bear this in mind if they seem to not want to be seen with you through some of the teenage years), and drives a 25yo mazda car and 30yo mazda ute!

Jason, I take it that if you think work is a junket you are a dole-bludger.

Ouch Bronwyn! If I ever came across as critical of women who 'devote a large chunk of their time to raising their family' it must be because of poor expression on my part. It is by no means 'devoted-stay-at-home' mums I was referring to.

Though working, my husband and I devote a lot of time to raising our children. We can't afford others to do that job for us even if we wanted to. Besides, believe me when I tell you that not all non-working (paid work outside the home) mothers are 'devoting' a large chunk of their time to their children. Even when preening at events and/or competitions. At my eldest son's school I met a lot of them.

It does not assist any kind of discussion if women want to insist that there are only two kinds of women: Madonnas (not the singer!) or fearless independent women

Isn't it funny Antiseptic, how the car one drives can determine inclusion or not at some kids events? My son's take on this was that he could immediately see where I was parked, unlike the other poor kids who had to try and make out the number plates in the sea of Mercs and Range Rovers. Very amusing really.

Yvonne, Antiseptic and Country Gal

I knew Yvonne hadn't referred directly to stay-at-home mothers, and also that working mothers are just as likely to lead 'boring' lives as mothers not in the paid workforce. All that occurred to me as I posted, but I still felt the point needed to be made.

Women who aren't doing paid work are more likely to have the time to attend children's events, so I don't think the inference was that much of a stretch. I know I read between the lines, but there is a view out there that women who stay home don't have a life of their own and live it through their children, and it's one I will always challenge, even if it is a slightly tenuous implication, as in this case!

Equally, though, Yvonne, I don’t think it can be inferred from my statements that I 'insist' on there being 'only two kinds of women: Madonnas (not the singer!) or fearless independent women.'

So, on the charge of reading too much into what others have said, I guess we're about even!

Country Gal

"What you appear to be pushing is a communist society.."

No I'm not. But I realise I'm in the minority here in believing that a major structural economic shift is needed, before any more than a small percentage of women will ever achieve real choice in their working and family lives, so I won't pursue the issue here.

CG, not so much of the "old", thanks very much! Your dad sounds like a fine fellow, I must say. As for my daughter, she already cringes whenever I turn up in the truck. I receive regular grooming advice as well, but the poor thing's having an uphill battle training me.

Yvonne, I've owned two brand new vehicles and both were a financial millstone. Cars are simply a money pit, so I made a decision to keep the pit as small as possible. the old mazda is just about to get a new clutch, which I'll install myself, taking the total amount spent on it in the past 3 years, excluding rego, to $320. I was given the car by someone who'd bought another one rather than fix a very minor problem with the cooling system (out of ignorance; he assured me the engine was a write off). Still, people are quick to judge by appearance, I guess.

Bronwyn, I'm talking about Saturday sport. It seems likely that there are some stay-at-home mums in the group, but also some working ones.

On your point about structural change, it seems the Sex Discrimination Commissioner agrees.
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24289828-23272,00.html

A quote:"Ms Broderick said creating workplaces that supported both men and women to balance paid work and shared caring responsibilities was critical in achieving gender equality.

Under the current Sex Discrimination Act men can make a claim about discrimination only if they are sacked for asking for part-time work."

Her comments also highlight the discriminatory nature of "anti-discrimination" laws as they stand and strengthens the claim of those men who've been arguing that case for some time.

Working women make a point of being seen With their kids on the weekend, as it is the only time they have. It could be a guilt relief thing to.