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.