'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!