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