So it's been revealed that the women have been hardest hit by the recent downturn in unemployment.

Why do you think this has happened?

Are you also aware that the definition of employed is, wait for it; '1 hour per week'!

Now this method has been used by consecutive governments for many years and it's a joke. You can't even employ someone for just 1 hour per week.

No government can change this as the opp would have a field day.

Bussiness leaders are suggesting that real unemployment is more like 16% and, that many people in work are struggling as thier hours continue to be cut.

So, what now?

Are the new IR laws going to make it all better, or worse?

rehctub:"So it's been revealed that the women have been hardest hit by the recent downturn in unemployment."

No, it hasn't. A "study" funded by the National Foundation for Australian Women found that some women are making lifestyle choices which preclude them from working.

As an example, look at this extract from the ABC,s report on The World Today http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/24/2665345.htm?section=australia

"Tasmanian woman Kate Routley recently moved to the small coastal town of Swansea with her partner and two young children.

Ms Routley used to run her own business but now she is staying home to care for her children.

"I would love to go back to work at some stage for lots of reasons - for my own peace of mind and my own ability to be able to get out there and talk to adults," she said.

"But at this stage I have chosen not to go back to work. My children are really young and I realise that they are only this little once and I guess, also living in Swansea I am limited to the work opportunities that are down here.

"It would all be based on minimum wages and once I start paying out childcare and then what I would actually earn, it makes it very unenticing to go back to work." "

In other words, she isn't "hidden unemployed" she's being paid for by her husband (and no doubt the taxpayer) to stay home.

The whole thing is a beat-up designed to justify more money to "women's groups" for political activism. Nothing to see here...

Antiseptic
"In other words, she isn't "hidden unemployed" she's being paid for by her husband (and no doubt the taxpayer) to stay home."

One assumes her husband also wishes his children to be cared for by their mother and the decision was a joint one. Particularly if after taking childcare costs into account, makes the potential wages earned hardly worthwhile.

Children (should) come first in a relationship. Families are a team and the team discusses what they desire in their particular group which might be different to what you would want for your family. My husband's salary is our salary just as my salary is our salary. We are a team not adversaries.

rehctub
The new IR laws have nothing to do with it, it will be the same as it was always even under the Libs. Hidden unemployment is where figures are not kept on the actual number of people seeking work because they are not listed ie. not receiving Newstart or other benefits. A woman who has been at home raising her children and is now seeking work but not receiving Newstart will not be counted in the unemployment figures. This is just one example as is the case where someone who is working one hour a week will not be counted despite seeking longer hours. Howard thought up that little nugget to support his claim that WorkChoices would increase employment which it did not except in the mining sector which would have occurred anyway given the boom.

Both sides of politics play games with unemployment figures - it is naive to think otherwise.

How unsurprising that Antiwomen neglected to include this bit from the article to which he's linked:

<< The report is not about mothers who want to stay at home to care for their children, because those women are not classified as unemployed. >>

He also managed to miss this article, which is on rehctub's topic:

<< Australian women 'underpaid, underemployed'

A new national report has found Australian women are chronically underpaid and underemployed.

The Impact of the Recession on Women report, released by the ACTU, shows women in some sectors earn 31 per cent less than men.

The report also finds more women are opting out of the labour market because of child care and other caring responsibilities. >>

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/24/2664199.htm?site=news

rehctub, I understand that the 1 hour a week nonsense was introduced by the Howard government in order to disguise both unemployment and underemployment. The casualisation of the workforce in recent years has impacted more upon women than men, which results in them working less hours due to inequitable child care and housework arrangements if they have a partner. Less hours worked = less pay = less promotion = less superannuation = underemployment.

Pelican:"One assumes her husband also wishes his children to be cared for by their mother "

Presumably, or he'd not agree to the arrangement. We don't hear anything about him other than that he exists. He certainly isn't given any credit for supporting her while she is not working, presuming he has work himself. Regardless, it doesn't alter my point. She and her young family have moved to a small town, presumably for lifestyle reasons and she has fewer opportunities as well as having family responsibilities.

CJMorgan:"The Impact of the Recession on Women report, released by the ACTU, shows women in some sectors earn 31 per cent less than men. "

Well, hit me with a flower! What a shock! Checkout chicks aren't paid as much as store managers. Who'd a thunk it, eh?

CJMorgan:"neglected to include this bit from the article to which he's linked:"

Which bit, little fella? This one: "The report also finds more women are opting out of the labour market because of child care and other caring responsibilities."?

As I said, they're making lifestyle choices or choosing to prioritise work less highly than other responsibilities. Thanks for pointing that out, little fella. It's always nice when we achieve consensus on something.

CJMorgan:"Less hours worked = less pay = less promotion = less superannuation = underemployment."

Thay have a choice. If work and career are sufficiently important to an individual she will give them priority. Childcare costs affect both members of a couple, not just the woman. If they both work, they have to pay for someone to look after the kids. If one of them doesn't, they have to be supported by the other partner. Each couple will work out a calculation to suit themselves as to which they choose and which partner takes on the carinhg role if they choose to go that way.

The bottom line is that kids cost money. Blaming gender bias for that is simply stupid.

In order to question some of the issues I need to provide a pre-amble, so would ask that it acceptable to provide such in this forum.
As a community Advocate it disturbs me to see a “them and us” trend shown by some who are more fortunate than others.
One issue is the fact of industry lobbying governments towards cheaper labour, using arguments about global economy and level playing fields. We need to be careful going down this path because the result so far has not meant an improvement of living standards for many other countries but a lowering of Australian standards and an ever increasing shortage of employment that ensures the future of Australian workers.
Allowing Australian businesses to move “off-shore” or to be sold off to multi-national corporations, asset stripped and closed has meant the loss of jobs in Australia. The next step has been to lobby governments to allow almost unrestricted importation of goods and services from third world countries at almost slave labour wages. These citizens of these countries have not benefited from an improvement of the market for them. It has only benefited the rich, e.g. shareholders living in other richer countries.
Meanwhile, changes to Industrial Relation laws in Australia has seen a major change from permanent employment to temporary positions created and paid at minimum wage levels. Certainly I would agree that they have been aimed at the female worker but not exclusively.
This new system has created wage and social injustice with an increase in the numbers of some workers being employed as contractors, wearing their own costs of holidays, sick leave, superannuation, etc., resulting in a further reduction of income, frequently below the minimum wage level.
continued:
professori_au

Government policy has interfered with the family unit by forcing both parents to register for work, while unemployed, once the youngest child reaches six years of age. It does not differ between disabled or able-bodied children.
The exception; parents who are financially independent. Those on a pension/benefit, particularly, are vulnerable to potentially losing their social security payments if they were to choose to stay at home and look after the children. The most vulnerable, is the sole/single parent.
There is no disagreement with the concept that social security is a safety blanket for people becoming unemployed until they gain employment. However, I do disagree that both parents must register for work. It is cost-effective and in the interest of society to allow one parent to remain at home to look after the children. Whether it is the father or mother is immaterial. The circumstances will govern that.
Many parents started families when young. One parent, and often it is likely to be the mother, may not have gained professional/ trade skills. These skills may be out of date by the time the wish to seek employment.
Financially independent families choosing that one member stays at home to look after the children are fortunate, but not everyone is in that position. Child care/minding costs is increasing rapidly.
This means that one or both parents need to receive a substantial salary to be able to afford child care or minding. The majority of jobs do not pay that sort of money. Then to say that a mother choosing to stay at home should be grateful she has a husband who supports this is a paternalistic view. “Parenting” is a joint responsibility, each parent sharing different but responsible tasks, therefore both share the responsibility of child rearing.
Forcing both parents to seek employment is to put the Health and Well-being of the family and Society at risk.
Government policy has forced parents into a competitive position for employment unless the single wage is sufficient to ignore this government directive that you must register for work or lose your social security entitlements.
Professori_au
Continued:

What are the options? Without affordable service the children become “latch-key” kids, left to roam the street, becoming self centred and demanding rather than learning to integrate and live with the community.
I would rather the government recognise that the most important job in the world is looking after the health and well being of our children and hand back the parenting role to the parents. Other employment falls behind that.
It concerns me that the trend has been to commercialise child care and pre-school services. This service should be part of the tax payer system where every child and parent should be entitled to appropriate support during those years.
A “user pay” system of education only means that you are financially able to pay for and education, not that your child has the ability to gain from or contribute to the future of Australia. Australia is losing the benefits of our children’s abilities, minds and skills that would have been developed with the appropriate support mechanisms.
People opting to study rather continue to seek these wages that are unreasonably below standard are not included in the unemployment levels.
Australia appears to be behind Britain and many other countries in its approach to social justice issues.
My area of interest is the disabled children and their parents. The parents of these children whether sole or both means that these parents are on duty 24/7 hours per day, yet the government does little to provide adequate support. Even they, lose benefits once the child turns six year old and enters mainstream education. Disabilities do not cure themselves once a child turns six year old and they will frequently need care and support through adulthood.

Employment issues, Social Justice and Social equity are complex and difficult and I would not presume to have the answers. However, I hope I have raised some of the issues that can be addressed.
Regards.
professori_au

CJ,

'The casualisation of the workforce in recent years has impacted more upon women than men, which results in them working less hours due to inequitable child care and housework arrangements if they have a partner. Less hours worked = less pay = less promotion = less superannuation = underemployment.

You could look at that another way. A lot of women are quite happy their jobs are casualised, as it gives them flexibility to be the primary carer which in a lot of cases is what they want. A lot of men would like the opportunity to stay at home, but don't have that flexibility to work part time.

'inequitable child care and housework arrangements if they have a partner'

Inequiatable for who? I'm with pelican on this. Couples decide what is best for them. All factors come into play, including who earns more, how willing the woman is to give up being primary carer, how willing the man is to be primary carer, and how flexible both their employers are among other things.

I agree something must be done about super for primary carers though.

Antiseptics point is really that quoting statistics that ignore the fact that couples pool their resources is deliberately misleading. As I said, the only disadvantage for the primary carer is superannuation IF the couple doesn't stay together. If they do, the woman will likely outlast the man and get all the extra super for herself once he's dead.

For mine, working 2 days a week and spending the rest with the kids is a much more balanced lifestyle, and I'd jump at the chance if my partners and my circumstances were different.

Proff are you saying that a parent should be in the home caring for their own little children and not shipping them off to pre-schools and that a parent of a disabled child should be entitled to benefits for as long as it takes not until the age of 6?

Are you suggesting we equalize the school system and get rid of private vs public schooling and segregating children as we know it?
Do you want families to become more important than unemployment statistics?

Am I hearing that you would like to see wages raised so that a parent can remain in the home and actually parent which would enable their children to become better and more integrated members of society and not become latchkey kids just so the parents can live slightly over par?

All seems okay until you look around. Department of Community Services fund big time to get the children out of the home and into to pre-schools, they insist on pre-schools and counseling services. I’d say a rather large chunk of the economy goes into the expectation that no one can cope with their own kids and they must go to every type of service and counseling available. Daycare and early intervention workers trucking off each day after shoving their own kids in to a playcentre that can care for them while they care for other peoples. Disabled kids leave the home at about 7:30am?

Proff even when I offer, government departments insist children must be rushed out of the house early each morning and not bought back until later. The government apparently wants the children “socialized” because god forbid a child “attaches” to its caregiver. Even if I state I can handle something I am told No we need 27 adults involved and 300 man hours a week spent with this child alone.

IT IS IMPORTANT CASEWORK PLANNING AND ALL OUR EXPERIENCE AND PROFFESIONAL EXPERTISE HAS GONE IN TO THIS CASE PLAN.

Fact that it hasn’t worked makes no difference. One foster child in the course of being a state ward can make NGO’s rich.

Pelican
The new IR laws have nothing to do with it, it will be the same as it was always even under the Libs.
That's a bold statement, considering the new laws are just that, 'New'!

So do you think the same way about the maternity laws as well when they are introduced?

Howard thought up that little nugget to support his claim that WorkChoices would increase employment which it did not except in the mining sector which would have occurred anyway given the boom.

Crap! This system has been in place for years. You can't blame everything on workchoices you know.

Now as for women earning less, well, as always, it depends on the circumstances of the job. You can't expect to 'do less' and 'be paid the same'.

I doubt a telle marketer's pay would differ between women and men. Happy to be proven wrong though!

Realestate agents base rate is the same. Same job, same pay. What is the problem?

Now in my industry women get paid less than men simply because they can't perform the same tasks, and nor are they expected to.

Problem is, they are paid 94% of a butchers wage, yet they can't use the saw, the mincer, a knife, they can't lift as much, so, this is why there are far less women in our industry than men. They are simply not value for money.

One can't expect to perform 75% of the tasks and receive 94% of the rate. The sums just don't add up.

Houellebecq:"I agree something must be done about super for primary carers though."

This might tie in nicely with my suggestion to get rid of the current CS arrangements and apply a child-support levy to all workers, whether parents or not. Part of that levy could be earmarked for future super/pension for primary carers, perhaps?

rehctub:"This system has been in place for years"

As I recall it was introduced under Hawke/Keating back in the mid-80s. I can't recall the justification used though.

Professor_au, nice summation of the issues. As you said, the child care industry has now become a "sector", with lobbyists and huge sums of taxpayer money being thrown at it. Once that happens, the interests of the "sector" become confused with the interests of the people it was set up to serve and unless the clients of the industry have some way of influencing govt as much as the industry itself can, they can be forgotten.

Houellebecq: << ...working 2 days a week and spending the rest with the kids is a much more balanced lifestyle, and I'd jump at the chance if my partners and my circumstances were different. >>

No doubt, but it's no coincidence that your circumstances, like those of most couples, just seem to work out that you work full-time and accrue the benefits thereof, while the mother 'chooses' to sacrifice career, promotion, superannuation and salary in order to care for the kids, cook and clean for them and you.

Have you wondered why 'stay-at-home dads' are so relatively uncommon?

As discussed in yesterday's Crikey, women's incomes and employment conditions have declined relative to those of men in recent years. Anybody who fails to recognise this fact is either misinformed, obtuse, or lying.

Certainly, this latest report exposes the falsehood of those who disingenuously claim that women have achieved equality in Australian society.

rehctub
The IR laws are not new in terms of never been done before. They have all been done before, most of them are a wind back to what we had prior to WorkChoices. There is very little that is NEW in government policy that has not been tried or re-manufactured even if packaged in a different form. I admit WorkChoices was a pretty creative idea and might be considered NEW but only in a modern world. Power so overwhelmingly given to the employers was not so new in the dark ages.

Antiseptic
I am sure the woman involved gives her husband credit for his role and that is all that matters. I can assure you as a woman who stayed home with young children, there is very little credit bestowed given the push to get us all in the workforce and kids into childcare as soon as the birth papers are finalised.

The credit is not important but how we wish to raise our own children. The opinion of the wider media or society should count very little in those decisions.

CJ,

'but it's no coincidence that your circumstances'

No it is no coincidence. The reason is I went to university and got qualifications, my partner didn't finish university. When we met, I had about 100k, she was 20k in debt. So I earn more, and it makes financial sense for us, and it has nothing to do with a gender wage gap, just our respective attitudes with money and education.

'and accrue the benefits thereof'
We both accrue the benefits of my wage, and we both accrue the benefits of her running the house.

', while the mother 'chooses' to sacrifice career...'

You know what my partner said to me the other day? She said...

'I really thought I'd miss working and would want to work full time after having kids. But now, I love it so much, and I really don't want to go to work at all. I'd be happy to stay at home full time.'

I have previously suggested she work 3 days, and me 4, but she really wasn't impressed with that idea. In reality, I don't think my boss would go for it anyway, but her boss wants her to work more days. I'm not saying boo hoo, there are other compromises like her living in my home country, my point is we have made the decision together.

'Have you wondered why 'stay-at-home dads' are so relatively uncommon?'

Some guys don't seem to want to stay home like I do, and some guys wives take first dibs at staying home, and it's kinda hard to argue when the starting point is the woman at home breastfeeding, and the couple often has the man earning more so they would sacrifice family money for that lifestyle. Note that women do tend to marry up, sometimes for that very reason; They know they will get to stay at home with the kids.

Not saying all guys want to stay at home, just that your assumptions are simplistic. While a lot of guys wouldn't want to stay at home, a lot of women wouldn't want them to anyway.

CJ Morgan,

Re equality for men and women.

Men go out to work, while women do the housework and look after the kids.
Men relax and unwind and go to the pub while women sit in front of the TV watching 'Days of our lives' or 'The Bold and the Beautiful'.
Men like to relax with a beer; women like to relax by finding a secret spot and munching on dairy, bikkies or chocolate.

Sounds to me like equality is alive and well. It's just that what they both do to achieve it is different.

I believe that forcing women to look after the kids and home AND expecting them to do paid work is actually where the unfairness lies. I agree with Houellebecq when he says it's hard to argue with a traditional woman's role when the starting point is her breast-feeding her baby. My view - and I am conservative here - is that women are the natural nurturers and men are the physical pioneers. Let them come to their equality within these natural life parameters.

Pelican:"I am sure the woman involved gives her husband credit for his role and that is all that matters. "

Not if her situation is to be regarded in isolation from his when formulating social policy. The major reason she is able to do as she wishes is his support, yet this report makes no mention of this very significant factor.

It is this constant minimisation of the male role that is at the heart of the Feminist ideal.

As I said at the start of this discussion, this is nothing but a beatup designed to allow a few women's groups to put in a claim for funding, just like much of the sociological "research" around Feminist subjects. It is self-serving, incomplete, poorly organised, ideologically-based rubbish.

Pelican:"he credit is not important but how we wish to raise our own children. The opinion of the wider media or society should count very little in those decisions."

I agree, but unfortunately, that "opinion" does matter when it is held by politically-active busybodies desperate to justify their own existence. If it didn't, I'd not bother posting on the subject.

Pelican; The IR laws are not new in terms of never been done before.

In my 20+ years as an employer, there are only two major changes that have rocked small business. Unfair dismissal in the early 90's, and now, once again, unfair dismissal. Both implimented by labor's puppets with the unions holding the stick.

Add to this the materinty leave laws, and you have just driven another wedge between women and the workforce. But hey, I don't really care as I have no intensions of having a sex change in the near future.

Now as for women choosing to stay home and not work, and consider themselves as 'not unemployed'.

Well that's fine, as long as hubby doesn't claim his spouse allowance, or there are no tax benefits in doing so, otherwise, you are tech unemployed, as you are a drain on the national purse.

Stay home by all means, but please don't expect someone else to pick up the tab! Otherwise, you are simply 'unemployed'!

“I believe that forcing women to look after the kids and home AND expecting them to do paid work is actually where the unfairness lies. I agree with Houellebecq when he says it's hard to argue with a traditional woman's role when the starting point is her breast-feeding her baby. My view - and I am conservative here - is that women are the natural nurturers and men are the physical pioneers. Let them come to their equality within these natural life parameters.”

Well said Rob, no I’m not going to stick around and fight the chicks off for you.

Anti:”As I said at the start of this discussion, this is nothing but a beatup designed to allow a few women's groups to put in a claim for funding, just like much of the sociological "research" around Feminist subjects. It is self-serving, incomplete, poorly organised, ideologically-based rubbish.”

But you say that every thread. Even I’m starting to believe it. And I just lost my train of thought and it had sounded good in my head… was about how any evil feminist group can want anything they like but that doesn’t mean they get any dosh without the government coming to the party so w’sup with the government cause it is mostly men isn’t it? Whistler says stuff about it all the time, male legislature etc.

Rehctub:”Well that's fine, as long as hubby doesn't claim his spouse allowance, or there are no tax benefits in doing so, otherwise, you are tech unemployed, as you are a drain on the national purse.
Stay home by all means, but please don't expect someone else to pick up the tab! Otherwise, you are simply 'unemployed'!”

Oh I’ve missed something, (stop rolling your eyes) – can I claim something being at home? What’s spouse allowance? Foster parents in NSW get a little letter from the Dir-Gen each year telling Centerlink we don’t have to look for work. Hubby does work so we get less FA for our foster kids through means testing – annoys me and strikes me as being penalized for working while fostering.

Some interesting responses.

Houellebecq - so my interpretation of the Australia Institute 'Impact of the Recession on Women' report is "simplistic", compared with yours that appears to be entirely based on your remarkably self-centred personal experience. You haven't actually read the report, have you?

As the report details, women are suffering on various levels from the current economic climate worse than men. Indeed, in terms of income the existing discrepancy has increased in recent years.

RobP: << My view - and I am conservative here - is that women are the natural nurturers and men are the physical pioneers. >>

You're not a conservative - you're a Neanderthal as far as contemporary gender relationships are concerned. Your post encapsulates perfectly why it is that feminism is still very relevant in contemporary society and why it is that women still aren't of equal status to men in Australia.

Antiwomen: << As I said at the start of this discussion, this is nothing but a beatup designed to allow a few women's groups to put in a claim for funding, just like much of the sociological "research" around Feminist subjects. >>

But you haven't read the actual report, have you? Here you go (and for the benefit of others who want to pontificate about it without having read it):

http://tinyurl.com/ljbell

<< It is self-serving, incomplete, poorly organised, ideologically-based rubbish. >>

I think that description is far more applicable to your posts on this subject than to the Australia Institute 'Impact of the Recession on Women' report.

"You're not a conservative - you're a Neanderthal as far as contemporary gender relationships are concerned."

CJ Morgan,

What do you call contemporary gender relationships exactly? Ones where the differences between men and women are zero? Because that's how things are trending. My point is that the differences between men and women will never go away and they shouldn't be made homogeneous. Sure things will progress and the way men and women react to each other will change, but the fundamental differences will always be there.

If you're saying feminism is really about getting a better deal for women, fair enough. If you're saying it's about making men and women the same, you're dead wrong.

Nice try CJ,

the report (which of course I haven't read) is irrelevant to my argument, as my argument is with YOU implying women don't make their own choices in a couple, and specifically that my partner didn't really choose to stay home.

I know my partner and my relationship much better than you. And that you assume you know better, and that you know how most couples work, shows you to be pretty simple minded.

'As the report details, women are suffering on various levels from the current economic climate worse than men. Indeed, in terms of income the existing discrepancy has increased in recent years.'

All of which I never disputed. My argument has been, as has antiseptics, that it is nonsense to talk about a discrepancy, when couples pool their resources. My partners loss is my loss and my gain is my partners gain, and vice versa. As I said, apart from super (if the couple breaks up), it doesn't matter.

Just how is my personal experience '*remarkably* self-centred', or is that a tautology, seeing that a *personal* experience would have to be self centred?

CJMorgan:"But you haven't actually read the report"

Nope, but I have now and it doesn't change my view as expressed earlier.

I quote:"Acknowledgements
Security4Women would like to acknowledge the assistance provided by
The WomenSpeak Alliance and The National Foundation for Australian
Women towards the production of this report."

As I said, it's nothing but a cash-for-report-of-choice self-promotional propaganda piece. Just the sort of thing you'd think was impressive, little fella. I guess you CAN fool some of the people all of the time.

Another gem: "The recession has not affected women’s unemployment as seriously as it has men’s"

Thanks for that link, little fella, there's lots of great stuff confirming what I've been saying all along. If only you'd read it before posting that link, eh, little fella?

Another beauty: "women’s longer life spans mean their financial needs tend to be higher than men’s in retirement."

Their financial "needs" tend to be higher than men's all their lives. Notwithstanding that, the report says that when hubby kicks the bucket, she gets the lot and has longer to spend it. Apparently that's a bad thing for her?

LOL, the more you read, the funnier it gets. Pure comedy gold.

Houellebecq: << ...my argument is with YOU implying women don't make their own choices in a couple... >>

No, my implication is that women's choices are constrained by parameters that seem to be shared by them as a gender - at least according to reputable research. Of course, there are all kinds of ways that individuals reach their own accommodations within those parameters, and many are very successful. However, when the sh!t hits the fan it's the women who predominantly end up disadvantaged. There are many published studies that support that fact.

<< Just how is my personal experience '*remarkably* self-centred', or is that a tautology, seeing that a *personal* experience would have to be self centred? >>

While personal experience is an unavoidable and often valuable basis for the formulation of generalised opinions about others, a wise person locates their own limited experience of humanity within a wider corpus of human knowledge about how people behave. To assert that you and your partner are somehow unique among the middle-class Gen-X masses is just a tad arrogant, not to mention dumb.

I expect that you'll work it out eventually, though.

Antiwomen: << Pure comedy gold. >>

What's "pure comedy gold" is that you said this:

<< As I said at the start of this discussion, this is nothing but a beatup designed to allow a few women's groups to put in a claim for funding, just like much of the sociological "research" around Feminist subjects. It is self-serving, incomplete, poorly organised, ideologically-based rubbish. >>

without having actually read the report.

Such blatant intellectual dishonesty is unsurprising, but it's good to see you own up to it for a change.

rehctub
I would not label a woman or man who stays at home to raise children as unemployed. Unemployed implies there is nothing to do. I would suspect you only become officially unemployed when you are ready to go back to work and are actively seeking work.

My generation did not receive any money for staying at home unless you qualified after means testing. Our family has rarely qualified for government handouts or bonuses but we haven't needed them thankfully.

Ideally we should foster an economy that allows one partner to stay at home with children if that is one's preference,or a combination of part-time work for both partners. Obviously some roles cannot accomodate that ideal but certainly many can.

*Power so overwhelmingly given to the employers was not so new in the dark ages.*

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/nsw-pd20090826-V9SZD?OpenDocument&src=sph

Pelican, I think you will find that the dark ages are in fact here
for employers in NSW. When power as mentioned above, is so openly
given to unions, that they are cashing in on court rulings, no
wonder NSW is falling behind and if it becomes national, you'll see
alot longer unemployment queues everywhere in Australia!

Well there I have to agree with you Yabby - unions should not be the recipient of OH&S fines, this only sets up organisations for corruption.

I am not arguing for the opposite ie. unions to have carte blanche power because unions are just as corruptible and self-interested. That is why power should never be so totally or overwhelmingly tilted to one or the other.

Achieving the fairest possible balance is not easy but I think Gillard has been reasonably strong with the unions on many fronts despite the pressure. Stronger than Howard was with pressure from the business and employer groups.

Pelican, unions cashing in is only half of it.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/NSW-pd20090825-V8SS2?OpenDocument&src=srch

According to NSW law, an employer is considered guilty until
proven innocent, which is hardly how the law normally works in
Australia.

Yet its unions doing the pushing for this and getting away with it.

With this kind of backward situation, don't be amazed if employers
cut and run elsewhere, next they'll be crying for jobs!

Never forget that for every job out there, somebody has to put
their money on the table and risk it, in order to create one.

Yabby:"considered guilty until proven innocent, which is hardly how the law normally works in
Australia."

It's becoming more widespread. The Child support Acts are classics of the type, in which the burden of proof is shifted from the Government Department making a specific claim about moneys owed or owing to the person they make the claim about.

There's even a "get out of jail free" card in the Act that says
"failure to comply with any part of this Act does not invalidate the decision made".

IOW, "once we've decided, it's your problem, not ours, and even if we're wrong we're still going to enforce our decision. Take us to court if your disagree, but we'll fight you every step of the way and we won't fix it till you do".

The Howard years saw this sort of thing expanding into immigration law, the "terrorism" laws and no doubt other aspects of the legal system. It's quite simply authoritarianism, since it denies the responsibility for the more powerful (Government) party to a transaction to act accountably and responsibly, while holding the less powerful (individual) party liable for both their own actions and that of the stronger. The Rudd Government seems quite comfortable with leaving much of that law as is and even expanding the principle, as you've noted.

The attraction for would-be demagogues like Howard and Rudd is quite obvious, while in the example you gave, the Unions are simply interested in having a "Big Sister" - as long as she's on their side, of course...

PP; Oh I’ve missed something, (stop rolling your eyes) – can I claim something being at home? What’s spouse allowance?

It is essentially a 'tax break' if one partner works while the other does not. The 'tax free' threash hold is lifted.

Pelican; I would not label a woman or man who stays at home to raise children as unemployed.

Yes I agree, however, as long as they are draining from the national purse, how else can you classify them?

My generation did not receive any money for staying at home unless you qualified after means testing

I hear you loud and clear.

We received what was then the 'child endounment payment' for a period of two years when our daughter was born, almost 21 years ago. About $1900.00 in total, then, it was 'cut off' as we earned to much. A product of 80+ hours per week back then. We received zero for our son.

Now the tall poppies say we didn't need it. Fine, but did we not deserve it, or earn it, just like anyone else.

It is little wonder there are classes.

Ideally we should foster an economy that allows one partner to stay at home with children if that is one's preference

We already have that abillity, it's just that you can't stay at home, without financial support and have the flash gadgets around many have today

Yabby; As I have often said, many employers will addopt the policy of 'prevention is better than cure'..

CJ,

'To assert that you and your partner are somehow unique among the middle-class Gen-X masses is just a tad arrogant, not to mention dumb.'

Where did I say my partner and I were unique among middle-class Gen-X masses? Get your hand off it. If anything I expressed the opposite, claiming other couples may be like us. Actually I didn't even do that, I used my own relationship and those of people I know as an example to refute your claim, and said some people are like this, some are like that, covering most possibilities including the one you asserted.

You still haven't addressed my argument.

If 1 single woman, 1 single guy and one couple all get paid in cake. the two guys get 1 piece, the two chicks get .85 of a piece. But when the couple goes home they share their cake evenly. (Although that sounds pretty generous, in my house as my wife loves cake and would eat more than half)

Now the stats say women get 85% of what men get.

But, really, here women get 1.775 slices, men get 1.925 slices.

So that means women get paid 92%.

Obviously it varies on how many couples and how many singles, along with a multitude of other factors and how many paid and unpaid hours are done. I seem to remember a study that when all the work (paid and unpaid) was tallied up between men and women though, they ended up pretty even.

But regardless of hours worked, nobody ever accepts the pure cake argument. Those stats are distorted man.

My! So many ideas :( some of which have not been thought through thoroughly

Butchering and other comments.
Would you even employ the "seven stone” male weakling?
Or employ that male at a lower rate of pay?
Most trades categorise the work on ability, qualification, etc., so that the employer gets value for money.
I have seen women working the saw, knives, etc. Many are employed at the abattoirs. However this is an industry that exploits labour, male or female, so I will not comment further.
I was among the first to employ women in the brick and pottery manufacturing industry, when even the unions were against it.
On employing them I received a call from the union telling me that I could not employ them.
I said sorry, I have just done that. The answer was it is too dirty and heavy for woman.
I agreed that I had been reared to think that but argued it was not my right to deny them to do so if they wanted.
The women would be paid the same rate and conditions as the men. If it was heavy then ask for help. This applied for the “seven stone” weakling male.
As for dirt; washing facilities were provided. The union then said that they had to have separate toilets. No problem and so on, until I was told they had to have separate dining rooms. I balked at that, saying no employee was going to be sent to Coventry. The union organiser said but! The men swear. I laughed and pointed out to one lass and said she could put a bullock driver to shame.
When I was farming my neighbour had two daughters who could shear sheep with the best of them and no-one questioned their right to do it or treated them disrespectfully.
Common sense and experience tells me that women all over the country do many of the jobs that men do and do it just as well. Sometimes they might approach the job differently but that should not matter as long as it was done.
Continued:

I used to monitor and supervise the apprenticeship system and when asked to speak with apprentices I would tell the female apprentices to remember they were 100% females who were equal to males. Those males that complained that the women were not strong I would reply yes; but they also used their heads to solve a problem.
Sometimes they needed to use their heads when things were difficult instead of relying on brawn. Never try to be macho males, because that would fail. Enjoy the delights of being female; the chocolates, the flowers; the opening of doors, etc. This did not diminish them but rather put them in a special place.
To say that the male decided the woman was to stay at home is another insult because he earns more money. I would have thought that it would be a matter for joint discuss and a common agreement.
As far as I am concerned the role of raising children is the most important responsibility and that parent, whether male or female could not be paid enough by society for their contribution.
It is a very responsible task as the person who has the most access to the rearing of the children contributes very much to the personal and social development. Society also does influence this role and this is where we need to be careful by not becoming a self-centred, selfish society, caring little for others.
I enjoyed a 38year old marriage and there was never any consideration that my wife was less than I. When we married I made her my equal partner in the businesses. We reared a beautiful, close and considerate family.
We could talk together on any subject and although she was ill for most of our marriage, I believe she contributed equally to our success. Hence you may understand my argument that male and female should be treated equally. Different yes, but certainly equal.
Regards
Professori_au

CJ Morgan,

Re your earlier post, "Neanderthal" is such a lovely word dripping with connotations which I'm sure you are well aware of. On this occasion, you were a most ungracious tosser.

Houel:”So that means women get paid 92%.”

Well that’s crap – everybody knows we are better at everything.

Rehctub, I hope hubby is on to this spouse thing it took me two years to even hear that family assistance payments existed in this country.

Get this though:

“The Treasurer, The Hon Eric Roozendaal MLC, has received your recent email concerning Family Assistance.

As the matter you raised primarily concerned the administration of the Minister for Community Services, the Hon Linda Burney, your email was forwarded for the Minister’s attention.”

No it didn’t, not that I thought, I was asking why foster parents are means tested for caring for other peoples children. Why would Linda tell Eric who to means test?

I know what I'm going to get back - a letter from Jenny (Dir-Gen) saying "thanks for supporting us". I'll take the letter outside with a coffee, light a smoke and stare at it for awhile thinking (oh I have to quote Houel here) "WTF?"

Professor; Common sense and experience tells me that women all over the country do many of the jobs that men do and do it just as well. Sometimes they might approach the job differently but that should not matter as long as it was done.

I agree. Many women deserve the same pay as men, providing they perform the same task, or, like sheering, they get paid for the number of sheep sheered in a day, no the number of hours it takes to sheer the sheep.

My problem is when they expect to be paid the same pay, yet are exempted from several tasks, and or, they are given lieniency due to their gender. Example, when they are not allowed to lift the same as a guy. Same job, same pay. No problem!

Now as for meat workers, well there's a topic of 'self destruction' as a result of continued 'union intervention'.

You see meat workers 20 years ago enjoyed better working conditions and received higher wages (in relative terms) than most enjoy today.

It's just that they, driven by the unions were 'never satisfied'! They just kept on pushing, more pay, less hours, better working condition. They would even strike if the boss brought the wrong brand of coffee!

So this is truely a story of 'self distruction' at its worst.

As far as I am concerned the role of raising children is the most important responsibility and that parent, whether male or female could not be paid enough by society for their contribution.

Wow! if only we lived in a 'perfect world'.

You see, instead of providing an assett to society, many of todays parents actually rid themselves of their responsibilities of parenting and leave society to clean up the mess they leave behind.

I hope this is not what you call 'their contribution' to society!

Boy I wish parents could be held accountable for the actions of their children.

Decent parents, and there are many, have to watch their kids every waking moment just incase one (or many) of these 'prescious thugs' get ahold of them.

RobP: << Re your earlier post, "Neanderthal" is such a lovely word dripping with connotations which I'm sure you are well aware of. On this occasion, you were a most ungracious tosser. >>

Glad you got my point, at least as far as gender is concerned.

As I said, my usage of the term was restricted to your expressed attitude to gender roles. To be even clearer - your idea of woman as 'nurturer' and man as 'pioneer' is maladaptive, archaic and doomed to the dustbin of cultural evolution.

Sorry you don't like to hear that, but it's attitudes like yours that gave rise to feminism, and their persistence in today's society is why feminism is still relevant - to both women and men.

If you're going to express such flagrantly regressive ideas perhaps you should be a little less sensitive?

With respect, CJ, I think you're being a little harsh on RobP here. You've honed in on his "natural nurturers" and "physical pioneers" statement and extracted it entirely from the paragraph in which it is framed, which in my view is a very reasonable one.

The first sentence - "that forcing women to look after the kids and home AND expecting them to do paid work is actually where the unfairness lies" is spot-on as far as I'm concerned. The last sentence - "Let them come to their equality within these natural life parameters" - places the preceding nurturers/pioneers statement in perfect context and again in my view is completely reasonable. Rob's not arguing that these "natural life parameters" are immutable, but rather that they provide the basis on which individual couples can arrive at their own arrangements regarding the mix of nurturing and providing within the partnership.

You yourself asked the question - "Have you wondered why 'stay-at-home dads' are so relatively uncommon?". I put it to you that our "natural nurturing/pioneering" preferences are very much part of the reason.

rehctub

<< .. as long as they are draining from the national purse .. >>

Stay-at-home mothers are no more "draining from the national purse" than mothers who place their children in government subsidised childcare. Raising the nation's children is an invaluable service and mothers who forego their own career advancement to provide this service should not have to put up with being branded a "drain" on society.

Bronwyn,
Yes, good point. Only thing is, mothers who work pay extra for CC than mothers who don't. Figure that one out.

A little birdie told me that CJ is Mr Unpopular on this thread and that even Bronwyn is bucketing him!! Well, I just had to drop what I was doing and race to OLO to read this wonderful stuff!

Got to agree with Bronwyn this time.

That’s all I’ve got to say. Now I’ll go back to my unpaid work around the house ( :>/

I am 2 busy to work, fishing, playing in my houseboat, touring au, chasing women, drinking beer, and of corse sorting out what i am going to invest in next.

Bronwyn,

Normally, I'd say thanks for the helping hand, but it's truer to say thanks for the helping scaffold.

CJ,

I think you've been hanging around in the same cultural crowd too long when you see a politically incorrect word that is dripping with what you see as prejudice, where it is actually the word that best describes what I was trying to say. Despite what the political trend is at the current time, men will always be more rooted in doing the heavier physical work even as times and standards change in a period of increasing enlightenment. This is so purely because physical realities demand it. OK, 'physical pioneer' is a little bit 1800s, but the underlying difference in the sexes, which was the important point I was trying to make, is eternal.

Re sensitivities, this wouldn't be a problem if people in general said exactly what they meant and didn't hijack the language and park their nasty propensities behind it. I try to say what I mean.

rehctub

<< .. mothers who work pay extra for CC than mothers who don't. >>

Keeping abreast of child care rates is something I've never done, so I'm not really in a position to comment. On the surface though, it would appear reasonable that a mother with an income should pay more than a mother without. Though, to be completely fair, joint income should be taken into account. The flipside is of course that I guess the children of mothers who do paid work get preference for limited childcare places over those of mothers who don't.

Ludwig

<< That’s all I’ve got to say. Now I’ll go back to my unpaid work around the house ( :>/ >>

That's a bit weak, Ludwig! Surely you can come up with something more than that to say while you're busy wielding that mop or vacuum cleaner or whatever. Or, as is more likely, sitting in a horizontal position with your feet up!! :)

Perhaps you'll be able to help me out if and when CJ cuts me down to size which he's quite likely to do! :)

Desmond

<< I am 2 busy to work, fishing, playing in my houseboat, touring au, chasing women, drinking beer, and of corse sorting out what i am going to invest in next. >>

My guess, Desmond, is that no-one will take much notice of that statement. I doubt very much you'll be labelled a bludger.

If however your name was Desley and you'd written - "I am 2 busy to work, housecleaning, playing with my children, driving to and from school and after-school activities, shopping, cooking, and of course sorting out what bills need to be paid." - you'd no doubt have copped a bucketing.

*To be even clearer - your idea of woman as 'nurturer' and man as 'pioneer' is maladaptive, archaic and doomed to the dustbin of cultural evolution.*

Not so CJ. You are so busy trying to be "hip" and "with it", that
you forget, human instinct matters.

Get used to it, some women actually enjoy being the nurturers,
business men enjoy going out to "make a killing" so to speak.

Ignore dear old mother nature at your peril, fashion or no fashion.

It seems to me that we are all missing the Muttaburrasaurus (ae?) in the (BIG) room while obsessed with the pursuit of a unicorn.
Muttaburrasaurus is a bloody big Uniquely Aussie Dinosaur.

Muttaburrasaurus one (M1) = Culture: a human emotional concoction.

Muttaburrasaurus two (M2) = Capitalism: an exploitive system based on the nonsense notion of equilibrium not equality.

Muttaburrasaurus three (M3)= Bureaucratic expedience: by that I mean we have a system of structural solutions (governments) by using statistical analysis ( sophisticated mathematical generalising) to deal with individuals a system of “creating one size fits no one”. Or a system that obliterates individuals creating “case files” (numbers). Central to this is the concept of 'the rules” (law, regulations etc.).
In PP situation “the system's” primary purpose becomes “gatekeepers” rather than suppliers of “assistance”.
Keep in mind that the laws are created to cope with the lowest common denominator (see stats) .

The unicorn (U1)= The concept of equality : everyone getting equal assistance.

To me the only possible conclusion of M1+ M2+M3 does not = U1
i.e. What you have is a inherently Dysfunctional system.
I would as I have suggested we should tailor a system that delivers Equity to all. By that
I mean give the assistance to each their NEED to maintain a suitable standard of life.. Basic statistics declares that natural distribution will act as the balance. The sad thing is we're told this is the only way it can be done....Bollocks. We need to rethink all three.

NB I did not say WANT or LIFESTYLE.

On one hand we rightly bemoan a run away population , Pollution ,AGW, exploitation et al.
But M1-3 actively encourages all . Spot the contradiction? (the new board game by Parker Bros? :-)

. On the surface though, it would appear reasonable that a mother with an income should pay more than a mother without. Though, to be completely fair, joint income should be taken into account.

And it is!

Boy, doesn't this sound familiar of todays work ethics. Trouble is though, the modern way of thinking, like, 'you don't really have to work if you don't want to', because you will be supported if you don't (often better), means that the dreams of one day owning a house, or even, planning and saving for your retirement are simply dreams of the past.

While ever we allow people to be supported to stay home, this country will never prosper again.

Life is full of 'personal choices'. Having kids is just but one of those.

Expecting others to support you while you have them, well, I'm not sure that that's going to work for us long term as there are simply to few that contribute today, in a positive term, and that number is sure to become smaller.

Remember, we are less than two years out of 'a huge boom', and we are BROKE!

Bronwyn - yes, you're quite right, On reflection, I was a bit rough on RobP.

RobP - please accept my apology. I just get a bit frustrated at times when biolological determinism rears its ugly head. As a nurturing kind of guy, I think that the old man:hunter:warrior::woman:gatherer:nurturer canard is counterproductive to achieving real equality between women and men in the 21st century.

As a former anthropologist, I used to be somewhat more biologically inclined than most of my Australian peers - but nonetheless the critical difference between humans and other animals is that we've developed elaborate sociocultural means to transcend our base biological imperatives.

The assignation of gender roles is cultural, rather than biological. I think that in 21st century it's somewhat anachronistic to be arguing that because it's women who carry, give birth and suckle infants that they should simply accept relative subordination in an economy that now demands their paid participation.

However, that's just my opinion.

Yabby - refer to the above. Biology's a very powerful influence on how he we behave, but has far less to do with how we think. What distinguishes us humans from your farm animals is that we've evolved intellects that have created the complex sociocultural systems without which very few of us could survive - including red-blooded macho farmers.

Ludwig - sometimes you're very puerile. I guess you missed the earlier point in the discussion where I showed up Antiwomen as the intellectual charlatan that he is? (After which, he changed the subject, of course)

Congrats Bronwyn, you actually got Ceej to concede!

.
Ah, it’s fun to be puerile sometimes ( :>)

*The assignation of gender roles is cultural, rather than biological*

Not so CJ, or the women would have evolved to have the muscles and
the blokes the maternal instincts. That so called "intuition" when
it comes to raising babies etc, matters.


*Biology's a very powerful influence on how he we behave, but has far less to do with how we think.*

Every thought is coloured by emotional input, although mostly at
the subconcious level. Instincts matter. Note how some people are
"driven". Note how people will feel something, then think of a reason
to justify it.

You need to brush up on your neuroscience CJ :)

Now chaps, this is getting a bit silly.

Ludwig - I didn't concede anything. Rather, I apologised for being ill-mannered. It's not the same thing.

Yabby - You seem to be unaware that there's a difference between sex and gender. I don't deny neuroscience, rather it's one of the critical distinctions between humans and animals that we've evolved cultural means to transcend mere physicality. Indeed, the extent to which we collectively do so is what we consider to be 'cultured' and 'civilised' - that's what those words mean.

Yes, we all feel emotions, along with various other basic impulses - but the measure of how cultured and civilised we are is in the extent to which we control them, or at least are obliged to by the rules and norms of the society in which we live.

*rather it's one of the critical distinctions between humans and animals that we've evolved cultural means to transcend mere physicality*

CJ stop kidding yourself. Chimps have been shown to invent tools,
then teach their young how to use them. There is actually a book
called "Chimpanzee Cultures".

We might think a bit more then they do, but we certainly don't
transcend mere physicality.

In fact people are often happiest, following their feelings.

I have a good friend who is maternal by nature, that is just how
she is. She recently said that if the kids did not hurry up and
make some grandkids, she would have to buy some :) All your
transcending mere physicallity means bulldust to her, for she is
happy being just as she is, maternal as she is. It is part of her
nature, it drives her and gives her purpose in life.

Now yes, you can force people to be something with which they are
not happy, or themselves. You can force them to be miserable.

If you call that civilisation, well its got nobs on it.

Emotions and thoughts are intertwined. People are not robots, more
like feeling beings who think a bit.

CJ Morgan:"I guess you missed the earlier point in the discussion where I showed up Antiwomen as the intellectual charlatan that he is?"

Aw, how sweet, OLO's intellectual pomeranian has gone and chewed the "head" off his old sock-puppet again. Doesn't he look proud of himself, the little scamp?

Now, how did that report (http://tinyurl.com/ljbell) go again - ""The recession has not affected women’s unemployment as seriously as it has men’s". Strange that the news media and the ACTU reported exactly the opposite conclusion, don't you think?

Thanks for reminding us of that, little fella, you're doing a great job.

Yabby:"Chimps have been shown to invent tools,
then teach their young how to use them."

So have crows. The "smartest" corvids have now been shown to be able to use up to 3 different tools in succession to achieve their aims, thus proving that some birds aren't birdbrains. Sadly, CJMorgan, OLO's resident birdbrain, manages to prove daily that some people are just tools...

An illuminating take on the subject from the Courier-Mail of all places http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26002528-23272,00.html

From the article:"Kate was feeling the strain of being a stay-at-home mum trying to juggle the demands of three boisterous boys and a limited budget.

I made what I thought was a caring suggestion: "Why don't you find a job and I'll quit and be a stay-at-home-dad?" I meant it.

She looked at me with the sort of hostility you would expect if I had just revealed I was having an affair.

"Are you insane?" she snorted. "Why would I want to do that?"

Welcome to the reality of the supposed glass ceiling, the alleged invisible conspiracy by the male-dominated economy to keep women out of senior roles in the workforce.

Every time I see one of the regular reports by the union movement or women's groups about how women get a rough deal in the workplace, I think of that conversation with my wife."

I had a similar experience with my own wife, when she became pregnant. Despite the fact that she had been building a good photography business and had multiple degrees, there was never any question in her mind that when the baby arrived, she'd be giving it all up for the foreseeable future.

If I had suggested that I might take over the caring role, I would have been lucky to get away with my skin intact.

The fact that some women don't feel that way, or have prioritised work to the exclusion of a family is no reason for the majority who do to be pushed aside, or their experience to be minimised.

The "me-first" feminists have a lot to answer for.

CJ:”The assignation of gender roles is cultural, rather than biological. I think that in 21st century it's somewhat anachronistic to be arguing that because it's women who carry, give birth and suckle infants that they should simply accept relative subordination in an economy that now demands their paid participation.”

I have a boy and a girl, both old enough to be parents, both parenting since they were little. Boy actually has faster reflexes and if a child is about to fall he’ll always get there first. Girl will spot an accident and stop it five minutes before it occurs.

Culture can assign gender roles, males and females can learn different roles. This is more talking “adequate” care rather than instinctive nurturing…?

Yabby there are real physical things aren’t there? Women have better peripheral vision, better at recognizing facial expressions – stuff that gives us advantages in childcare.

Ant:”If I had suggested that I might take over the caring role, I would have been lucky to get away with my skin intact. The fact that some women don't feel that way, or have prioritised work to the exclusion of a family is no reason for the majority who do to be pushed aside, or their experience to be minimised.”

When someone says to a mum who wants to stay at home “why don’t you go get a job” it feels like “why don’t we just rip you screaming away from your children and destroy all bonds”. Serious Anti, feels a full frontal assault. We don’t know how to say we don’t want to work and just want to stay home with the kids, be here for them etc – it sounds lazy. "Full time parent" is not an acknowledged or important role in this culture.

'We don’t know how to say we don’t want to work and just want to stay home with the kids, be here for them etc – it sounds lazy. '

It doesn't sound lazy to any guy who knows women Piper. Just like it doesn't sound selfish or cold hearted to any women who knows men if he says 'something came up and I just cant come home early from work'.

CJ might want to ignore my cake mathematics, but sensible people here argue at a level above CJ's picture of all women really just wanting to be in the boardroom, and those nasty men oppressing them into a subservient home-maker by refusing to look after the kids. He can bandy about his Neanderthal tags, but in doing so he's labelling any woman who forms a close bond with her kiddies like you just as much as he labels a guy who is a proud provider for his family (unlike me).

'"Full time parent" is not an acknowledged or important role in this culture.''

Na of course it's not. You are what you do. Be grateful, at least it's a little bit more socially acceptable role for chicks than guys.

BTW: The glass ceiling is well known, but a little known phenomena is the glass floor. No matter how clean a man mops the floor, there will always be a woman who decides it isn't clean!

Women will never be equally represented in the boardrooms of Australia until men are accepted for their legitimate floor cleaning abilities!

One cannot happen without the other, something CJ is yet to learn!

The naturally nurturing instinct which exists within most females shouldn't be regarded solely in regards to mothering, vitally important though that role is.

The female capacity to nurture and empathise is something that should also be given greater emphasis and recognition within the workplace and within public policy formulation more broadly. This has always been the feminist position I've argued. Feminine values are needed to counterbalance the current dominance of individualism, competition and aggression, or if you like the hunter/warrior traits.

I once hoped that feminism would achieve this counter-balancing effect, but sadly I don't see much evidence of it.

CJ,
An anthropologist, I'm fascinated. I've read a quite a few but actually conversed only two and years ago. You must have conniptions at my very amateurish assessments at times.. You should comment more on what I write I'd appreciate the guidance/feedback.

I've had the discussion with Yabby several times about the place of neuroscience in the mix but he seems to display the myopic zealotry of an amateur's obsession. I don't think he understands how electo-chemically deterministic his stance is.
As I Keep raving about everything has a 'context'.
Objectively the LEVEL of almost absolute influence he claims hasn't/can't been scientifically substantiated because of the inseparable nature of the mix context.

Having the knowledge is one thing but the key is knowing HOW/When to apply it. Yes I agree, this too is my failing all too often.

CJ:”BTW: The glass ceiling is well known, but a little known phenomena is the glass floor. No matter how clean a man mops the floor, there will always be a woman who decides it isn't clean!”

I am so guilty of that. It’s almost territorial, if someone else does do a better job at cleaning something in my house I feel slighted in some way. Probably happens in the workforce all the time too.

“It doesn't sound lazy to any guy who knows women Piper. Just like it doesn't sound selfish or cold hearted to any women who knows men if he says 'something came up and I just cant come home early from work'.”

He’s guilty of that – but more like “oh sorry I wont be back in the country for another 6 months”.

Yep you are right about it being a more “acceptable” role for women. Is that based in the fact we can do it better? I’m trying to be fair though, I would say a man could put his foot down in the workforce and get something done better than most women?

Women don’t like upsetting anyone? Men don’t take on another person’s feelings? I’m kinda digging a hole for myself there aye. Insert the word “some” all over the place.

Bronwyn the only professional women I deal with are DoCS caseworkers, some really lovely ones with genuine concern for the kids when they are at my house. Never stops them making decisions that are very bad for the children but if they aren’t around to witness it, mop up the tears, deal with the emotional fallout etc they go ahead and do the paperwork anyway.

I get much angrier at the females who I believe should know better and listen to a mum when talking about children that live in her home. They can live with me for years and my opinions and concerns equal zero.

Damn Anti - he's put in a right crappy mood.

*I've had the discussion with Yabby several times about the place of neuroscience in the mix but he seems to display the myopic zealotry of an amateur's obsession. *

ROFL Examinator! The real problem is that you don't know much about
neuroscience at all, but are trying to make out that you do :)

My information is not pulled out of thin air, it comes from great
neuroscience writers like Richard Restak, Susan Greenfield and others.

You are free to read the same stuff and educate yourself, if you
wish.

You are also seemingly unable to look at the big picture, but
immediately quibble about the details. We have 350 words at a time,
details take volumes. That does not mean that we cannot understand
the big picture, for it matters.

Yes, in all likelyhood there is far more determinism going on in
our minds, then we would like to admit.

Hi examinator - yes, I had to retire for health reasons about 10 years ago. I don't mention my former profession very much here except when it's relevant to bring a qualified perspective to something that's being discussed. In the case of Yabby's obsession with biological determinism, it's a classic example of an interested amateur selectively reading some valid literature without placing it in the context of the extensive and often controversial debates among professionals.

My area of specialisation was what they call the anthropology of the body, which meant that I used to teach all the biological stuff (including hominid evolution and medical anthropology), as well as contributing to various gender-related subjects. Most of my field research was conducted in the PNG highlands in the 1990s - and I have indeed noticed that you seem to have been reading some ethnography from that part of the world!

Yabby talks about the 'big picture' while myopically focusing on a very small part of it. While various animals have evolved very simple 'cultures', to try and use that as an argument against the primacy to humans of our complex and elaborate cultures and societies is to miss the point. Yes, we share any number of biological and neurological features with other members of the animal kingdom, but it is our cultures that critically distinguish us from other animal species.

In short, what has made humans so successful as a species is that we are able to develop cultural, social and technological means by which we are able to move beyond the constraints of our biological inheritance. Gender roles are a good example of that.

Ludwig - I didn't concede anything. Rather, I apologised for being ill-mannered. It's not the same thing.

Oh, I see Ceej. While conceding that you were ill-mannered, you didn’t concede anything! (:>|

“Sadly, CJMorgan, OLO's resident birdbrain, manages to prove daily that some people are just tools...”

Not nice Antiseptic….. but funny. Mmm mwa hahahaaa!

Alright, enough puerile CJ-bashing behaviour from me. Now to some serious stuff….

“In short, what has made humans so successful as a species…”

Not so sure we are all that successful as a species CJ. There are too many millions of people living miserable lives and we are just brazenly destroying our future wellbeing, to mention just a couple of points that sit at stark odds with any interpretation of success.

When we bring cultural and social practices in line with self-preservation, then we’ll become a little more successful. Similarly, when we start using our technological abilities to secure a healthy future, instead of basically to destroy it as we are now, we’ll become a tad more deserved of the successful species tag.

“…we are able to move beyond the constraints of our biological inheritance. Gender roles are a good example of that.”

Hmmm, it seems that the broadening of gender roles beyond our traditional ‘biological inheritance’ has not done us much good at all, in terms of our success as a species.

*Not so sure we are all that successful as a species CJ.*

Well exactly! The story ain't over yet and all that we have shown
so far is that our evolutionary niche is a slightly larger brain,
plus by becoming bipedal, to pronounce consonant sounds, not just vowel
sounds like our primate cousins. That means far better communication
possibilities, to share knowledge. More then likely we are far too
stupid to live sustainably, so in the end will wipe ourselves out,
in the process of being "successful".

CJ, anthropology is about culture, not about neuroscience. The
days of the tabula rasa theory are well and truly over.

Fact is that twin studies of identical twins separated at birth,
show just how much nature still matters. Next thing in the 90s
neuroscience flourished, because finally we had machines to see what
is going on inside brains, we are not just guessing anymore, as we
did for thousands of years.

My point all along has been that nature influences our decisions.
We all know that we have certain innate tendencies. If a Piper
is strongly nurturing by nature and loves kids, her so called
"free will" is clearly going to decide to have some or work with
some. All the culture in the world is not going to make her
happy, being CEO of a company, in an office 70 hours a week.

That is my point. Our innate tendencies are going to influence our
decisions, just like CJs hard ons influenced his decisions to
masturbate, when he was a youngster.

So in other words, our biological inheritance still matters every day
and in every decision that we make, even if at the level of the
subconscious. Neuroscience can show that.

Yabby: << CJ, anthropology is about culture, not about neuroscience. >>

Come on Yabby - that's equivalent to me saying that sheep farming is about shearing, not livestock management, meat production etc. Did you actually read what I wrote? Anthropology has many branches and specialities, and cultural anthropology is just one of them. I think you're confusing anthropology with that postmodern pseudo-discipline, 'cultural studies'.

I agree that our biology (including our brains and nervous systems) is fundamental to humanity, but I disagree with the primacy that you give it. You seem to be obtusely unaware that there is a huge and ongoing debate about these issues among experts in these fields. You rattle on about neuroscience - have you heard of sociobiology?

Ludwig: << it seems that the broadening of gender roles beyond our traditional ‘biological inheritance’ has not done us much good at all, in terms of our success as a species >>

Would you care to elaborate on that? I would have thought that freeing women from relegation to breeding and housekeeping duties would have many adaptive effects, not least among them the demographic transition that occurs when women are educated and able to participate equally in the workplace.

CJ, the broadening of gender roles especially where women have much more opportunity to fill previously strictly male roles, is a good thing for women and no doubt also a good thing for the functioning of our society and others like it… in the short term.

But it has arguably not been good for the provision of a healthy future. It hasn’t led us onto the path of sustainability. It has been pretty well neutral in that regard.

It could have put us on the right track. The demographic transition that resulted was a huge positive spinoff….or at least it should have been. The resultant major reduction in the birthrate could have steered us straight towards a stable population and a sustainable high-quality-of-life future. But it has been totally overridden by absurdly high immigration and the raising of the birthrate due to the bloody god-awful baby bonus bribe.

Having a few women in powerful political positions, such as Gillard, Wong, Bligh, etc and lots of women in influential roles throughout our society hasn’t helped in the slightest to counter our addiction to the never-ending high-population-growth future-destroying paradigm.

*Come on Yabby - that's equivalent to me saying that sheep farming is about shearing, not livestock management, meat production etc*

Rubbish.

CJ, you are in your 50s? So you studied anthropology in the 70s?

The focus of anthropology is on humans, no wonder many of them know
so little about other species. I once spent a year or two on an
email list with American anthropology lecturers, their knowledge
of primatology was dismal to say the least.

Sociobiology became in issue with Edward Wilsom in 1975. It
includes many disciplines, anthropology being one of many, but
neuroscience is not one of them.

Neuroscience really took off in the 90s, when equipment became
available to see what was going on in those brains. Before that,
it was largely guesswork, commonly wrong. Or they would rely
on people with bits of their brains damaged etc, to see what
personality changes occured.

Of course I'm aware of the many arguments going on, but I'm also
aware that many of them are going on for political reasons rather
then scientific ones. Many with a particular social agenda don't
really want science to interfere with it.

Science today is extremely specialised. Just because you passed
anthropology CJ, does not mean that you know anything about neuroscience.

You could always start by learning here :)

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/neurok.html

CJ.
Thanks for that.
I grew up there amongst the natives. Most of what I've written comes from there/then 50's- 60's. It was a wondrous place then.
The things I saw and absorbed were amazing. Much of it sadly, has been corrupted and passed into history. If only I had the skills and the knowledge to study them properly. As a liklik mongey to a youth it was simply all there, no biggy.
The time there meant I straddling two cultures and prone to reading all manner of information. The split mind set has stayed with me. I guess it helps explain the contradictions in me.
Any papers/books I can/should read?

Back on the topic. The two clear consequences of Anthropology et al is that the importance of concept of 'Context' has paramount importance in analysis. A bit like an archaeologist being handed an ancient vase as opposed to finding it in situ. Without context the vase at best an antique, an object...context makes it a means of useful learning. Sadly I find most enthusiasts/well read individuals tend to under value it

Yabby: << Science today is extremely specialised. Just because you passed anthropology CJ, does not mean that you know anything about neuroscience. >>

Science is indeed increasingly specialised, which is why holistic disciolines like anthropology are still as relevant as ever. Just because you know a bit about neuroscience and primatology doesn't mean that you know anything much about humans as a species - nor indeed about anthropology or the way that universities work.

Neuroscience has indeed gone ahead in leaps and bounds, but all it really tells us is the intricate detail of the biochemical mechanics of human behaviour that we already knew about, or at least suspected. It doesn't tell us anything much about the complexities of human thought, culture and society.

Further, you make far too many assumptions about me. I took my first degree in Science (double major in psychology and mathematics) in the 1980s as a mature age student at a university that was heavily oriented towards biological behaviourism. I later studied anthropology at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at another university, precisely because I was dissatisfied with the superficiality of human understanding afforded by biological psychology (i.e. 'neuroscience').

Your dogmatic assertion of biological determinism displays the classic weakness of the autodidact - i.e. a lack of theoretical, empirical and cross-disciplinary context.

Ludwig, what you don't acknowledge is that we are the only species that is capable of imagining our own demise and of planning collectively to avoid it. The only hope we have is to use our recorded experience and superior intelligence to devise ways of living collectively that are sustainable in the long term. The alternative is Yabby's nihilism or your ultimately unsustainable 'lifeboat' mentality.

I think the three main strands of debate on this topic are quite legitimate in their own right.

Overall, the upshot of CJ's view is that man has the cognitive ability to work out how to progress to a better future, Ludwig's is that society is on the wrong track and we need to permanently change direction for the better, and Yabby's is that what we do is influenced by our surroundings. Their views represent the future, present and past respectively.

Taken together, they perfectly complement each other whilst holding the door open for a potential solution but still recognising the current-day reality. Surely, there's enough hints in these arguments for society, as a collective, to take the next step and solve the problems raised?

RobP
Unfortunately they are all ultimately mutually exclusive.
The source of our problem i.e. AGW (more reasonably described as Anthropomorphic Climate Change) can only be realistically by the holistic multi discipline stance.

Most of the "climate skeptics" tend to be so because they argue in either the context of their own narrow discipline perspective or fixate on the wholey overly simplistic attack of "explain the mechanism in minute accurate detail" or it disproves the whole multidisciplinary conclusion.

Therefore it seems logical to me that any solution must be likewise multidisciplinary. In that context CJ is correct and the other two approaches will ultimately found to be inadequate/unsustainable.

In less eloquent/cogent prose, I have been advocating a similar view all along thanks CJ.

“…what you don't acknowledge is that we are the only species that is capable of imagining our own demise and of planning collectively to avoid it.”

CJ, there is no need to acknowledge the bleedingly obvious!

“The alternative is … your ultimately unsustainable 'lifeboat' mentality.”

You’ve lost me there!

So I take it then that you agree that the broadening of the role of women in our society since about the 50s has not helped at all when it comes to securing a healthy future, despite the large resultant reduction in the birthrate that it triggered?

“…the other two approaches will ultimately found to be inadequate/unsustainable.”

Examinator, could you please explain why you think this about my approach to sustainability issues.

* and Yabby's is that what we do is influenced by our surroundings*

RobP, my view is that we are the product of genes interacting with
environment, both matter and that we are not above the laws of nature.

Edward de Bono is correct, we've seen on OLO just how effective
so called "rational debate" is, in convincing Runner, Philo, and
others of anything at all! The human brain simply does not work,
as Examinator, CJ and others, think it does. Neuroscience shows that.

As CJ admits, when he did not like what his university was teaching,
he changed universities. In other words, he is simply following
his own political and social agenda and any information which might
clash with those views, is discarded.

*It doesn't tell us anything much about the complexities of human thought, culture and society.*

It tells us how the human brain functions and trying to understand
people, without understanding brains, is basically guessing, hoping
and peeing in the breeze!

Culture and society are but veneer thin. Note that it only took
one storm in New Orleans, for the laws of the jungle to move in.
That is only one example of many. Ignore nature at your peril.

It is exactly because people think that we are above the laws of
nature, that we are heading for disaster.

Agreed Yabby. Especially; “It is exactly because people think that we are above the laws of nature, that we are heading for disaster.”

Yabby,

You are basically talking about physical interactions in the world of "gross" matter. That we are not above the laws of nature is true.

OTOH, CJ is talking about thoughts, ideas, culture and the sorts of things that operate in the world of "finer" physical matter. The latter, being finer, is freer to move about much more quickly compared with those activities in the grosser world. In that context, he is right as well.

The way I would reconcile what you and CJ have said is that, at any point in time, what happens in the gross material world lags behind those in the world of thoughts and ideas. Not saying anything new there! His ideas will be good for the future while yours, based on experiences from the past, are useful in understanding the consequences of what's about to happen. It's lucky humans are so diverse so that we can cover all our bases.

What this debate shows is the different emphases of the debaters. IMV, it doesn't prove one idea/debater is intrinsically better or more right than the other but that the things they describe are all real and happening all the time.

As to which idea is the best one for the current times, only events will decide.

Yabby, I do wish you'd stop misrepresenting what I write. If you manage to misconstrue my simple comments, it's hardly surprising that you misunderstand complex texts.

<< As CJ admits, when he did not like what his university was teaching, he changed universities >>

I didn't say that at all. I studied for one degree, and then some years later enrolled in another because I was more interested in humanity than in 'rats and stats'. Unlike your amateur dabbling, my intellectual investigation involved a couple of decades of hard work, systematic study and years of field research.

At any rate, I've got no problem with what you've gleaned from your pop psychology and primatology books, if only you'd stick to your professed belief that human biology influences what people do, rather than doggedly and dogmatically claiming that how our brains are wired determines what we do and think.

Society and culture constitute a bit more than a thin veneer for humans - rather, they are all that distinguishes us from other animals.

Ludwig: << So I take it then that you agree that the broadening of the role of women in our society since about the 50s has not helped at all when it comes to securing a healthy future, despite the large resultant reduction in the birthrate that it triggered? >>

I take it that you agree that the broadened role of women in our society has been directly involved in reducing our birthrate. Now, if only we can encourage other societies where women remain uneducated and unemancipated to follow suit, then we might be getting somewhere near sustainability as a species.

* Unlike your amateur dabbling, my intellectual investigation involved a couple of decades of hard work, systematic study and years of field research.*

LOL CJ, you would not be the first person to spend years and years,
barking up the wrong tree, when it comes to understanding humanity.
Modern neuroscience is showing that tens of thousands of so called
academics, did exactly that!

But you are free to shoot the messenger. The thing is, what we know
so far is that you don't seem to have the foggiest about what people
like Restak and Greenfield are actually claiming. Its well out of
your field of expertise and your knowldege is frankly largely
outdated by modern neuroscience.

*Society and culture constitute a bit more than a thin veneer for humans - rather, they are all that distinguishes us from other animals.*

CJ, in that case you need to swat up on primatology, there is a fair
bit published out there these days, by people like de Waal etc.

The basic behaviour of a pack of chimps is frankly not that different
from a tribe of humans. They all get along just fine in times of
plenty, but see what happens when resources became scarce!

Cut off the power to any major city and what do you think would
happen, as water and food ran out?

The only way they got New Orleans back on track was by the power
of the gun.

Australia and the Western world thrive because we are like chimps
having a feast, with more then enough for all. Take that away
and it would go back to the laws of the jungle, as exists in so
much of the third world.

“I take it that you agree that the broadened role of women in our society has been directly involved in reducing our birthrate. Now, if only we can encourage other societies where women remain uneducated and unemancipated to follow suit, then we might be getting somewhere near sustainability as a species.”

Absolutely CJ.

I asked; ‘So I take it then that you agree that the broadening of the role of women in our society since about the 50s has not helped at all when it comes to securing a healthy future, despite the large resultant reduction in the birthrate that it triggered?’

I’ll take your response as a yes.

“Society and culture constitute a bit more than a thin veneer for humans - rather, they are all that distinguishes us from other animals.”

Not much more than a thin veneer. There is much more than this that distinguished us from other animals.