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.