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.

OK the Severin, what is enough? When has an employer provided enough support for families? How many years paid maternity leave? How many years of paid child care is enough?

What level of 'support' from the government and employers do you think would make the feminists pack their bags and say, our work here is done? Is 5 years paid maternity leave enough? 18? Free child care for every child for an unlimited period?

You say 'Work/life balance is an issue for both women and men.', so why is there no push from feminists for policies to encourage men out of the workforce like they encourage women into the workforce? No studies on how it affects men's future life relationships with their children if they choose to be primary earner like there are studies about the effect on women being primary carer? No sob stories about the 'conflict' (ie choice) men experience in 'juggling' work and caring for children? It's just assumed men want to work, or that work is more enjoyable or rewarding.

The object remember is that no choice a woman makes has any negatives. Each choice must not affect any other choice. All choices must be equally encouraged in social policy. No high effective marginal tax rates, no pressure for women to return to work after having a child, and no barriers to women coming back to work immediately after birth.

There are so many 'international days' that it is hard to keep track of them. Was International Women's Day before or after Earth Hour and do either really matter when there are more pressing issues that demand attention?

Maybe if feminism had not lost contact with socialism it might be more relevant to more women and there could be more concern about the lot of women internationally. However, individual rights, greed and secular materialism rule in Oz and for both genders, yes? The gap between the 'haves' and the 'have-not' grows daily and middle class welfare is a growth industry.

Feminism in Australia has focussed almost exclusively on employment and career, which is but one of several important transitions women can be expected to move through in their lifetimes. That is unfortunate because many of the very valuable supports that women once had to help them in their other vocations (transitions) and especially as carers and managers of families have been limited or destroyed by thoughtless government policy.

Opportunities for making cities and open spaces more women and family friendly are being lost. Town planning for example, continues in the direction of inhibiting local social contact and services for people who are at home. Over-population is leading to the growth of socially-sterile high-rise apartment blocks, replacement of small shopping centres with large shopping centres that require vehicular transport, waste hours of shopping time and have no soul.

I suppose this thread will become the usual slanging match between the same adversaries but it could be much more than that and constructive.

Cornflower,

'destroyed by thoughtless government policy.'
I don't think so. The government are bending over backwards trying to concede to the demands of feminists when the demands are impossible to meet. A lot of them are mutually exclusive goals.

Every time you try to help a woman return to work you make it harder for a woman to stay at home. They cant win either way. And in the mean time nobody cares that families with one partner on $150k are suggested to be subsidised by single parents earning $40k a year.

The point is, NOTHING would make these feminists happy. I really think that the majority of women would rather be at home with their kids until school age, with only about 20% really wanting to go back to work.

But any policy that is aimed at helping stay at home mums is designated either middle class welfare or 1950s bare foot and pregnant stuff. Then when women who by financial necessity have to go to work, it's all this 'women are time poor', 'there is too much conflict in juggling their choices', 'they should be able to breast feed until 2 years old' type complaints.

Then women who have husbands earning enough to afford them to stay home (like they want) get put into the stats of gender-wage-gap, the marginal tax rates 'forcing' them to stay home, the 'misogynist' patriarchs who refuse to stay home and support their wife's career, the superannuation gap, the unpaid labour and pynchme's 'slavery'.

Policy should really be about helping the poor have more choices, but instead it's aimed at doctor's wives and the poor, the career minded and the earth mothers simultaneously and any effort the government makes it's never enough, with women painted as the perpetual martyrs of society. In all this, most men end up just being the primary earner or at least working full time, and just looking on non-plussed thinking the average woman still has better work/life balance than me.

Dear Houellebecq,

Most couples I know today struggle with the work-life
crisis and in finding solutions. Everyone is struggling.
Getting a work-life balance is such a massive task.
But in today's society - the choices are open to both
parties to find what suits them.

I have progressed in my career and I find that things
have worked out well. When I was pregnant - they held
my job open for me - and gave me the necessary time off.
I chose to resign instead - because I knew that I wanted
several years off - and that I could get another job
when I was ready to return to work. That's exactly what
happened. It was a decision that was made by both my
husband and myself - and it suited us both at the time.

Frankly I don't understand why the "feminist" issue is
being dragged up at all in this day and age - as if
negotiating for a decent wage is only a female thing?
Don't men negotiate their salaries as well? And why is
it when a female speaks her mind frankly and expresses an
opinion forcefully - she's immediately given a label
- by some, but no labels apply to a male doing the
same thing? Using labels on people - whether they are -
"male chauvenist" or "feminist" only ends up building
walls instead of bridges. And results in a breakdown of
communication.

Males or females can't change their gender - neither should
they get blamed for it. We are capable of working things
out together - to our mutual benefit. I know that our lives
become cluttered at times and we become shackled with
responsibility and bogged down with work and kids
and the daily rituals and problems of our everday lives -
but most of us are able to work
together to resolve these issues.

The language we employ in these discussions is always illuminating.

This contribution from Foxy rang my personal alarm bells.

>>Most couples I know today struggle with the work-life crisis and in finding solutions.<<

At what point did it become a "crisis"?

My own parents had a twenty-five-year battle to make ends meet, and bring up three children. They were surrounded by people in the same position, but I can't imagine that they ever described it as a "crisis".

Is it really very much different today?

Or did the (financially) golden years of the seventies and eighties warp our thinking, and shift it from acceptance of the struggle element, to an attitude of entitlement?

Just asking.

'the choices are open to both
parties to find what suits them. '

Exactly Foxy. So why do we constantly read all these feminist articles about the women (only) in 'crisis'?

'It was a decision that was made by both my
husband and myself - and it suited us both at the time.'

Again, just the same as most couples. But then you'll hear feminist articles about the 'societal expectations' and lamenting all the disadvantages women (only) are burdened with by this choice.

'Frankly I don't understand why the "feminist" issue is
being dragged up at all in this day and age - as if
negotiating for a decent wage is only a female thing?'

Again, I agree. Why do we constantly hear about all the 'unfair' downsides women experience from their choices as if they represent a gender inequity? Why do we never hear about the downsides for men from their choices as if they represent any form of gender inequity?

pericles,

'Or did the (financially) golden years of the seventies and eighties warp our thinking, and shift it from acceptance of the struggle element, to an attitude of entitlement?'

The expectation on the government in family policy is that a dual income family with no kids (DINKS) and a half million dollar mortgage should in no way have their lifestyle affected by having children.

Tighten your belts, or plan for the new baby, take out a mortgage allowing for the possibility of 1 income for a while after the birth? What have you been smoking? The government should pay

I agree with Pericles - crisis!, what crisis?
This is a western thing. Most women in the world don't have a choice. they work, feed and nurture their families in collective units because the societies in which they live maintain a co-operative ethic - ie, they need each other.
Personally, I haven't ever felt much about women's "right" to work etc, etc. I choose to work as little as possible outside my home, preferring to grow my own - even educate my own. As far as my income is concerned, I would be considered by some as a "have not", however, I have everything I need (and more) including time. I prefer not to buy into the idea that to have a fulfilling life as a woman, that I need to compete and bargain in the workplace. Peace of mind, a sense of autonomy and an unhurried existence are my goals in life.

Dear Pericles,

This just goes to show that we do have to
be careful with the language we use on OLO
doesn't it? Words can be misinterpreted by
some readers. Instead of "crisis" I should
have used the word "situation," or its
equivalent.

Dear Houellebecq,

Why are there certain issues being raised by
certain newspapers? Possibly because they sell?
News articles, and programs, for example tend
to feature stories that will draw large audiences
even if this means omitting isssues that are more
sober but perhaps significant also. And most people
know that what's in the news is to be taken with a
grain of salt - and usually it doesn't apply to
the majority of us who simply get on with our daily
lives.

You forgot to mention, Foxy, that we enjoy these privileges, and our individuality, at the expense of cultures that can't, and the planet.
In today's society there are indeed "many alternative
lifestyles and roles available that should be acceptable
for both men and women", but you neglect to mention that the option is only open to those privileged few in the wealthy west. Which wouldn't be so bad if there was a clear divide between "us" and "them". There's not. It's merely serendipitous-economic. We in fact take the bread out of the mouths of those without privilege, in order to maintain our own.
Sorry to cast a fug over cultural politics. These are simply facts.

squeers:"we enjoy these privileges, and our individuality, at the expense of cultures that can't, and the planet."

Which was precisely Paul sheehan's point, which not one of the "committed feminists" who post here has been game to have a go at. It's all "I'm all right Jack, BTW, where's my next handout".

Despite the success of the female middle class in milking the nation's coffers so they don;t have to earn the money for their lunchtime latte, there is still much poverty in this nation, as well as in other countries. We hear nothing from prominent feminists about how to address the problem of systemic poverty that afflicts both men and women, it's all about how some educated elite can get preferment when applying for jobs and someone else to take care of their kids while they do it.

Sure, we get told about the poor people, but the solution is always "give me more", which will apparently make them feel better or something.

Pure cargo cult.

This is not just a feminist issue but an economic one. It is the pro-growth fanatics that have also influenced the need for 'working families' (a term that still makes me shudder) and thus the natural progression to discussions about child care, parental leave or part time options. There's not too many middle class users fighting on behalf of higher pay for low paid child care workers.

The choice has usually been a woman's one but more and more men are staying at home, which is an inevitable part of change.

The real issue is we have become so bogged down with middle class woes that we forget that while politicians continue to pork barrel middle Australia, lack of funding still has major impact on disability and health sectors (particularly mental health) and on other more important matters.

While we worry about child care places, costs, self-made mortgages and personal debt, or work-life balance, African women are worrying about survival or debilitating fistulas.

There is a great chasm between the government's push to make us all workers and to turn families into working families, juxtaposed against the rhetoric about family values and the importance of a child's development years.

I think we have all gone a little bit mad and self-serving.

Many families share roles, these days or make a choice to make do with less so one parent can stay at home. It is possible just requires some planning and less emphasis on material wants.

But essentially yes, the choice is still more often than not in the woman's hands, unless there are monetary constraints or husbands pushing their wives into the workforce for reasons of 'status' (I kid you not, it is quite common in Canberra). There is a great stigma now for women staying at home, but that is nothing if you don't seek the approval of others.

Long winded way of getting to the point, but basically each couple does what is right for them, and these discussions about family issues should probably occur prior to marriage.

It's more than newspapers Foxy. What about the government departments and offices dedicated to these women and the money handed out to people like myself who frankly don't really need it because of the lobbying of the many womens organisations.

We hear constant bleating about maternity leave like 'we're one of only 2 countries that doesn't have it'. But then you add up $5000 Baby bonus and $8000pa FTB and you suddenly have $13000 tax free handed out to couples who have an income of $150000 a year. It's obscene when you look at all the money needed for carers of the elderly and disabled and the homeless.

The doctors wives have too much pull. If they were really interested in equality they would look at class inequality before fabricated gender inequality that's a result from people with the most choices in life utilising those choices.

Excellent points Pelican - as usual.

Work/life balance is a human problem nor is it confined to the middle classes as media and politicians (and some posters) would have us believe. Some of us can't get enough work - consider the casualisation of many jobs that were once permanent full-time. Most of the so-called flexibility that has been gained has been weighted in favour of the employer - not parents or other people who have responsibilities outside of the workplace.

Further, casualisation of jobs results in difficulty in obtaining mortgages - unless a person, male or female, is employed on a permanent basis banks will not even consider them. This leads people into higher interest, higher risk loans or at the mercy of the rental market. Australia, unlike the USA and other countries does not have fixed rate rental properties.

Why this topic has been presented as a 'feminist' issue is easy to understand if one recalls that Houllebecq himself has stated that he posts for his own entertainment at the expense of others - a point with which he regularly regales us, when a hapless poster has the temerity to complain about his obvious lack of sincerity.

Hence yours truly making an appearance only to post a brief point but not to offer H what he craves - a verbal stoush.

Dear Houellebecq,

I can only speak from my own past
experiences as a working mother.
I worked full-time, cared for two
children under four. I studied
firstly at TAFE, then started (and
finished) tertiary studies at uni.
All of this was made possible by the
help and support of my husband.

I didn't work to live a life of luxury,
and I certainly did not expect nor get
anything from the government.
I worked so my children could have
opportunities and to help pay the mortgage
and bills.

Not once did I receive paid maternity leave,
but I support this 100 per cent for families
today.

As someone else wrote - "It's ignorance that sets
us back decades, not political ideology."

Making this a gender issue and talking about all sorts
of "isms" - I frankly don't understand.

What should matter in this day and age is providing
equity and fairness for all concerned. It's our choice
as to what sort of society we want in this country.
And we'll have a chance to make our choices felt at the
next election.

Hey foxy,

Why do we never hear the term 'working father'. We have working mothers and working families, but never working fathers.

'And we'll have a chance to make our choices felt at the
next election.'

Not really. There is no way I can communicate effectively to any political party exactly why I am voting against them. It really is a vaguely lesser of two evils.

I wish there was a rating out of 10 we could fill out on policies. I have decided the most powerful people are focus groups and people rung up by polling companies. A guy rang me the other day about state politics and the interviewer seemed quite surprised by my answers. He asked if I liked Keneally: Yes. Then he asked will you vote for Labor: No. Why did he find that amusing or inconsistent? Anyway I might be getting onto a focus group.

The only thing is the information that filters back to the parties is used more to 'manage the perception' of what they are doing rather than affect their actual policies.

Dear Houellebecq,

Why don't we hear about working fathers?

Perhaps because in practice most still work
full-time and their partners provide the
bulk of childcare within the family.

If fathers want to spend more time with their
children they have to start demanding flexible
working conditions. Its not enough to express
egalitarian views - the only way to change a
culture is to start demanding changes.

As for politics? I believe that we can affect
policies by making our voices heard.
Individuals often feel powerless in the face of
distant governments. Yet if sociology has a
central lesson, it is that societies, together
with all the social institutions and social
behaviour they contain, are continuously created
and re-created by the acts of countless individuals,
whether these individuals realize their role in the
grand sweep of history or not.

For example,
through collective action, ordinary people with few
resources other than their own determination changed
a national consensus for war to a national consensus
for peace with the Vietnam war.

Although, Foxy, in the case of the Iraq War, the general consensus (especially in Britain and Australia) was that we shouldn't go to war. It made no difference whatsoever. Tony and John tagged along behind George totally regardless of the anti-war sentiments.
Most of us just get swept along by the whims of each government. As you point out, it is possible to turf a government at election time. Sometimes, however, the previous government has dug in too deep, and as President Obama is finding with the war in Iraq, it is not so easy to backtrack even when you want to.

It shouldn't be a gender issue, and strictly it's not; both sexes are complicit in the status quo.
However society is laid down along gender lines. My first wife and I both worked for a dozen years before we had kids, and we always struggled financially (I worked 60 hour weeks). When we started a family we decided that the kids would get a full-time parent--always the mother by default. I continued working long hours in a factory. The irony is that we were better off! We cut back on lifestyle and we had more quality on one wage than two!
Yet it used to irk me that the sympathy went to my wife, for "her" workload, looking after a kid or two. It amazes me that the women always paint their parental role as the sacrifice, as though my 60 hrs of drudgery in a factory was for fun!
But then, when we had four kids, she died and I had to quit work to look after them.
Well, sorry girls but I've got to tell you, it was a breeze. I would leave the house every morning at 8.30 to take the 5 and 6 year olds to school, the 3 and 1 year olds in the pram, and by then all the beds were made, the washing was on, the kids were fed, the lunches were made, the washing-up was done, the house was tidied and the floors were cleaned--things were a bit manic, but it was done, most mornings (This was after mum died; she was very sick for over a year before that and it was a struggle).
So while I agree that the ethical issues I was alluding to above are not gendered, I can see where the male resentment is coming from.
My brother suffered a worse fate than me; his wife left him, and two kids (death is clean), for the "love of her life". Two years later they split up and she wanted the kids back (after even ignoring their birthdays), and proceeded to screw him financially for a dozen years.

'If fathers want to spend more time with their
children they have to start demanding flexible
working conditions. Its not enough to express
egalitarian views - the only way to change a
culture is to start demanding changes.'

Easier said than done. For a primary carer, the risk is the extra luxuries that go with your job after the principled stand to work a 3 day week lead to unemployment. To the primary earner, the principled stand leads to losing the house.

Demanding stuff from the hand that feeds you doesn't always turn out so well. Fine for those in a position to bargain, but for those who aren't...

Also easier to justify a reduction in hours for the partner earning less. There is less to lose financially and less sacrifice. The difference between no Foxtel and more serious sacrifices for work/life balance. The consequences to my family via me deciding to work a 3 day week are more constraining than for my partner doing the same. Since women marry up, I'm sure that is the case for many partnerships.

It's a doctor's wife solution Foxy.

squeers,

'It amazes me that the women always paint their parental role as the sacrifice, as though my 60 hrs of drudgery in a factory was for fun!'

I think that's to do with the assumed validation and appreciation gained by a pay packet. Women get no appreciation or validation of their role in the form of money, so they rely on compliments from their spouse. Anyway, as every women used to know, working as a wage slave is fun. Now when more women have had a taste of the reality of hell in fluorescent lighting, surprise surprise those who can afford it find the life of a home maker much more rewarding regardless of their post graduate degree.

squeers,

'Well, sorry girls but I've got to tell you, it was a breeze.'
You're obviously lying. Ask any women.

My partner finds work a breeze (As she's more into career), and I find time at home a breeze as it's a novelty for me. I think both our opinions are skewed by the fact on Tuesday afternoon that's it for her working week, and when I'm on home-maker duty it's normally only for a few days at a time.

I think it's also less presure for me as I'm not expected to be a good parent or housekeeper, so I feel no pressure in having the house spotless for visitors and if the kids don't have matching socks or have dirty clothes. I can emotionally handle the kids crying better than her and remain more in control. I have more patience too.

Conversely she feels no pressure to provide financially as her job allows the extra luxuries not the Mortgage and Food. She also enjoys the social aspects at work and enjoys her job and is interested and conscientious.

Looking at it, I should be the primary carer really, but she would miss the kids too much, and her family lives OS, and I earn more.

Dear Houellebecq,

It all comes back to individual choices and how
they affect our lives doesn't it? - which is
what I stated in my first post - and what I've
been trying to say all along.

Yes but haven't you been listening to feminism 101 Foxy. Women's choices aren't real choices, they're built on 'societal expectations' created by the patriarchy. Men on the other hand... well, they're just denying women their rightful place in the workforce.

The gender wage gap, the absence of maternity leave, casual employment are all examples of the unique hardships of the downtrodden martyrs of society (ie woman). That's why we have all these Office for the Status of Women type government departments.

Work/Life balance is a womens issue only, and women (uniquely) juggle these societal expectations and mutually exclusive work/life choices (sorry conflict). All the men are happy in their jobs greedily building up their superannuation and forcing the missus to raise their kids for free.

Women should have the right to leave work for 5 years and come back to work 2 positions up the ladder after their 5 years paid maternity leave. Anything less is discrimination, and evidence of the misogynist society we live in.

It's 'overdue' you know!