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'!