When reading the yearly assortment of wage-gap-whine columns for International Women's Day, it seems to me the objective is to have social policy that makes all work/life choices for all women (only) equally viable.

The aim (and this is the important bit) is that one choice doesn't affect any other choice with all choices equally encouraged.

Impossible!

Currently society is getting free volunteer labour and child rearing from women, and a lot of women are getting complete autonomy and a lot of personal satisfaction in these jobs, which is what feminists now want employers to provide. But lets face it, it's called work for a reason; the employer is paying hence calling the shots.

Men have known this for aeons. Yes they get a family as well as a job, but many men I've spoken to regret that they're not able to spend more time with their families, because they're working. They seem to accept that you cant have everything, and are not constantly told otherwise.

Time away from their families is a sacrifice that is almost never spoken about, because it's just expected. For some reason it's considered unfair to assume women would rather be at home with the kids (not real choice), but assuming men would rather be at work is ok.

The positive non-monetary advantages throughout life women attain through the primary carer path is also universally ignored by feminists. It's all 'show me the money!'.

I want to know what would make feminists happy, because I just don't think it's possible. Oh, if only employers would let you pick your own hours, bring your children or work from home, mind your children for you, train you and give you 100% security for no commitment and pay you whether you're working or not!

Back in the real world, women still have more choice in their work/life balance than men. The more choice they have, the more they use it to stay home or work part time, the more feminists complain about the sacrifices made by choosing one thing over another. I don't see this ever changing.

I couldn't agree more. Western Feminism is a cargo cult and like other cargo cults, is ultimately doomed to disappoint its adherents.

Meanwhile, as Paul Sheehan points out in his excellent column in the Fairfax press today http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/feminisms-failure-to-lend-a-hand-20100328-r51w.html, the situation for women in the Third World is becomeing ever more dire.

I'd go further than he does and say that Western Feminism requires women in the third world to be badly off to justify their own cosstted existence. Let's face it, Feminism derives its strength from a sense of outrage at the unfairness of life and in the West, any such outrage would tend to focus on the much worse outcomes for men.

In most aspects of quality of life Western men are worse off than Western women. Work/life balance; access to services; sexual discrimination; life expectancy; exposure to violence; exposure to workplace risk; education. The list just keeps growing, with some women even demanding that they be given preferential treatment when applying for jobs, even jobs that demand high-level skills, despite the fact that women are increasingly more likely to be given the job through having better education. that's mot good enough for our cargo-cultists; they want it all and they want it now, after all, they're entitled and look at how tough women do it in Afghanistan...

The subject of the dichotomy between Western Feminism and the plight of Third world women is occasionally brought up here on OLO, usually when some whiner wants to try to justify her claim to being "special". It's amusing to see how fat they shut up when it's suggested that perhaps the best way to help those in the Third World is to go there, instead of sitting here demanding more money as a "show of solidarity".

Oh goody, just what we need - another feminist-bashing thread.

Yawn.

Oh goody, just what we need, another non-comment from CJMorgan. Yawn.

Kepp trying to blow that whistle...

Dear Houellebecq,

I can only speak from my own experience.

I was raised in a household where my parents both
had full-time jobs, they shared child-care, and
other family responsibilities.

My husband and I have done the same. As have many
of our family members, colleagues, friends, and relatives.
None of us assign gender specific roles to each other.

As far as the workforce is concerned - I've achieved what
I have by negotiation - based on my education, experience,
and qualifications. As have most of the people I know.

I feel that in today's society there are many alternative
lifestyles and roles available that should be acceptable
for both men and women. Our society today is individualistic
and highly open to change and experimentation, and today
men and women tend to explore a wide variety of roles.
We no longer live in a system that constrains people, but
frees us to make choices.

Today a person's individual human qualities, rather than his
or her biological sex is the primary measure of that
person's worth and achievement

Well said Foxy.

Parents, irrespective of their sex, both wish to negotiate with their employers flexible hours and the understanding that the needs of their children are essential for an employee to remain loyal and productive workers.

Employers who do not respect the fact that people have lives beyond working hours are the ones who lose out on reliable productive staff when they treat people as little more than office equipment. Work/life balance is an issue for both women and men.