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 ( :>)