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