RObert and Houlle raise valid points.
I would agree on the question of time -for members of both sexes- that time poverty is directly proportional to aspirations. At the risk of appearing sexist, is it possible that consumerism and 'keeping up with the Joneses' has accelerated with the increase of 2 breadwinner families?
As with so many of my generation, my mum could stay at home. She found part time work only when she wanted something father couldn't see any need of: new curtains, carpets...
Is it sexist to suggest many of the things many women regard as necessities, many men regard as luxuries? And vice versa. Many ockers regard a slab and watching the footy as 'necessities', I guess.
In short, does the quality, as well as the quantity of consumerism change as more women enter the workforce?
My feeling is women are far more concerned about appearances, and not just personal appearance.
But I could be wrong.

Drive to the Gym and run on the treadmill and drive home.

Eat takeaway food because you're too tired from working in order to be able to afford takeaway food every night.

Work to pay for childcare, because you need that 'career' as a sechetary.

Go on the latest diet because that model lost her post-pregnancy weight in 2 months with her personal trainer and chef, so you should be able to do it too. She has a video telling you how, you just have to believe like those people on the biggest loser. Follow their journey, you'll laugh and you'll cry.

There is no such thing as Luxuary. You deserve luxury every day. Because you're a time poor mum. You're worth it.

Hey did you know next door has a feature wall, and spanner cushions are on sale at bunnings for $12.36. It would be great for that 'lifestyle' of outdoor living and alfresco dining. Anything European is cool. You can live the authentic slow life if you buy the right paraphernalia.

All in all, I think the end result is magnificent. You used to have more people fighting in pubs for pride, nicer lawns and a clean car, or scheming to marry the richer banker guy, or baking the better cake or starching the collars, but now we just have 'designer', alfresco', 'outdoor living', IKEA, hollywood baby names and private schools and home theatres.

We've progressed!

I don't know whether people are any happy or unhappy, but they are choosing all this. They get told they're time poor and battlers and we are worshipping the economy and it's loving us right. What I don't understand is why people keep critisizing a system where we are wealthy enough to live on half of what we earn and still have a life infinately better than 90% of the world's population.

Why are celebrities real and starving kids in Africa not. Why do people only compare ourselves to people on the rung above. It's a much easier life if you compare yourself to pikeys and bogans. That's what I do.

I prefer to just compare myself to myself.
...
...
(sigh).

Grim,

For one thing, the backyard is now a shrine like the 'good room' of the 70s and 80s. It's the outdoor room, that must be decorated and renovated and renovated.

A nice neat lawn will not do.

I suppose you could argue, that the lifestyle was something women used to aspire to by marrying the right guy. The romance of flash cars and trips to Paris, that sort of thing.

It could be argued that guys worked hard to attain money to impress the chicks with a nice car and nice things.

It's an interesting point you raise about the new driver of women and having their own money. Now they can get this stuff, and they seem pretty keen to work themselves into the ground to get it. But they still want the house cleanliness and that was previously their source of pride, and still want to impress guys with their appearance.

When only the guy worked, it was his simple needs that counter-balanced the wife's desires for asthetics, but now she is working too, so it could mean more trinkets and bows.

Definately applies to back yards.

It's also interesting this new trend of interest in cooking and manual labour handyman skills. With the associated power tools and kitchen gadgets of course. Maybe people long for the simple life, and it's been marketed to them. See, the market always delivers

Houellie and Grim,

You won't find any argument from me on the fact that aspiration is catalyst for a time-poor life in the modern world. It's seems odd to contemplate that in an age of labour-saving devices, women are run off their feet paying for them...upgrade-improve, etc. etc.
Easy access to credit means that the average worker can aspire to filling up their satchel with expensive goodies ad infinitum. They are then left with the task of paying it all off. However, it seems that most would consider this a good trade-off.

Houellie, I agree that ever since the Industrial Revolution "idleness" has been the common enemy of consuming society. It was reinforced by the Protestant work ethic....I think that a goodly drop of idleness in one's day - time for contemplation - makes the world a better experience.

http://idler.co.uk/

Wise words, Houellebecq.
Personally I don't buy the propaganda that women do all the work--and there ain't much to do anyway (except the parenting; that really is huge!). When I was widowed with my four kids I had the domestic side of life running like clockwork, though I only had two at school at the time. With all our labour saving devices it's true that we have more time than ever. I think a big part of the illusion is the notion that one of our duties is to ourselves, that we have to nurture, develop and reward ourselves, devoting more time to "leisure". My aged mother doesn't get that; she can still work 16 hours a day doing domestic work and sewing and knitting and whatever else is required by her huge family and her lazy husband cheerfully. To her that's leisure. She was literally born to serve and wouldn't have it any other way. By the same token, when she brought me and my four siblings up it was a synch; she didn't need the diversions and paraphernalia, or to nurse her conscience because the only holiday activity she'd planned was letting us play in the street. Kids are massively time-consuming and schools are always finding more hoops for parents to jump through. On top of that, rearing an accomplished person (or a useless one) is a major investment. Mine do soccer, music, dance and that keeps me broke.
It's the modern attitude that life owes us something, that we deserve perpetual rewards for our labours (hilarious), via one mode of consumption or another, that keeps us on the treadmill and the economy prospering. Insatiable, unslakable desire, for pleasure, for experiences (as if experiences were something you had to consciously pursue and accumulate--a form of capital rather than fortune), is the driver more than keeping up with the Jones's; formatively, the desire for gratification that's never quite achieved, but with maturity mere habit, consumption for the sake of it, utterly mundane and faddish.

No wonder not many women post here; it's a site for grumpy old men.