Over the course of Nicola Roxon's term as AG I have criticised her support of the data retention scheme, cyber-security panic and continual changes to national security/terrorism legislation following in the footsteps of the Howard government.

However some comments responding to her resignation have led me to jump to her defence.

There has been criticism about her resignation as letting down the cause of feminism especially in her wish to spend more time with her family. Senator Evans articulated the same reasons and there has been nothing similar about his failure on behalf of any one cause or group.

Why does one person's personal decision have to conform to any social construct?

Why do some people rant about what other women should and should not do according to their view of feminism.

There is yet to be a policy out of the Office of the Status of Women about supporting the rights of families who choose for one parent to stay at home; or who choose less consuming careers to enable more time with family.

Years ago feminist groups decried the attitudes that made it hard for women to work and raise a family. This is the same sort of prejudice only in reverse.

What sort of world are we that someone is castigated for wanting to spend more time with their family especially those with young children. And why are we harder on women who make those choices.

Senator Evans also said families pay a high price for those choosing political careers so why criticise someone who has the forethought to see where their decisions might lead.

Every women who has worked and tried to raise a family knows the idea that 'you can have it all' is bogus and difficult. That does not mean don't do it and some people are better at it than others. However, this idea that one size fits all as regards family and work is a backwards step and another form of social engineering that fosters a growth, consumerist economy.

Thank you Nicola Roxon for being brave enough to take this step.

Isn't true that if you lose your seat in an election you lose part of your pension as well as anything you have spent on getting re elected. Somebody correct me if I am wrong. Rats do leave sinking ships I believe.

chrisgaff1000
I am not sure how your comments relate to the subject matter.

As far as the pension issue I think your statement is incorrect but I guess it is easily researched if you wanted to obtain factual info.

My basic understanding is that it is irrelevant if you lose your seat (eventually most do at some point in their political career), it is more about how long you have served.

Ignoring for a moment the media's now-standard sensationalist seeking of subtext, I am sad to see her go.

Having met her a few times in her previous capacity (Health) I was impressed by her straightforward and clear-eyed approach to a highly complex portfolio. I was disappointed with her move to AG, and even more disappointed with her somewhat clunky approach to policy in that role. It would not surprise me if she herself does not share that view, in her more private moments, and that this awareness contributed to her decision. She is after all a human being as well as a politician.

Realistically, she would also be aware that spending the next six years or so on the opposition benches is a vastly different career proposition to holding a senior government office

Losing genuine talent is sad for any management team, and political Parties are no different. As in business, the attributes of the job you are offered are the most significant reason for accepting or rejecting it. And there's no shame whatsoever in saying "I don't think that is how I want to spend the next (at least) six years of my life".

Ms Roxon wouldn't know me from the proverbial bar of soap, but I am glad to take this opportunity wish her well.

Pelican, it was hard for women with children to enter the workforce.
That is why the day care facilities came into existence and other
benefits came into existence.
However the whole problem could have been avoided if governments had
not forced lending authorities to lend on both incomes.

As soon as they did that the price of houses rose to meet the amount
of money in the market. It was a bonanza for developers.
Of course once committed to borrowing on two incomes, you have to keep
working for two incomes until the mortgage is discharged.

It was a trap they did not see coming, and it has given them this great
burden and the lower birth rate and all the disadvantages of being older mothers.

A question, if Nicola Noxon resigns as a minister does she get a bigger pension than as a backbencher ?