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.