For years the feminists & women's libbers banged away at the childcare industry. They reckoned the nice unskilled but motherly types who minded their kids were being exploited. They wanted them to be better paid.

Well they got their wish, those nice girls & women are being better paid. Now of course those same women's libbers are bitching that child care is unaffordable. God help us, what the hell did they expect if a labor intensive industry paid it's labor a lot more?

Now they are banging away at the government, wanting the tax payer to pay more to subsidise the cost of the now very well paid child carers.

Will they never learn. Now the same people have been hammering away at the pay rates for the unskilled aged care workers. Just like the childcare industry, it does not take much skill to wipe bottoms, & change sheets. The main requirement in aged care, as in child care, is just what it says, care, & a caring personality.

Workers in these industries don't need years of schooling to learn to care for others. They have the caring disposition, or they don't. Both have always been low skilled workplaces, with correspondingly low pay. They offer secure employment to unskilled people who have the right attitude.

Keep up this type of claim for higher pay, & you end up with an unviable industry. Just as we have seen, with assembly workers in the car industry now losing their jobs, you can't pay more than a job is worth for very long, without a catastrophe

Hasbeen, you are doing all the daddies out there a great disservice by suggesting it is just the mummies and those dastardly 'feminists' that give a damn about their kid's childcare.

Wouldn't the fathers also care who looks after their kids, and whether paying them a reasonable wage might help insure we don't have uneducated young girls who can't get work anywhere else going into childcare work because that's all there is?
Are these parents to be vilified for wanting quality, qualified people caring for their vulnerable children?

You are very naive if you think caring for the aged in our residential facilities only involves being able "...to wipe bottoms, & change sheets."
Who washes, toilets, feeds, transfers, mobilizes, medicates, and socializes with these also very vulnerable members of our society?

Do you really want unskilled, poorly paid 'labourers' looking after our kids and aged parents?
Surely these carers should be better paid to actually care for humans, than those who look after cleaning our streets, toilets, road building, labourers on building sites etc?

Think about yourself in a few years maybe Hasbeen.
Who do you want looking after you?

Yes, the femminazis never stop whinging. They do some basic training for a VERY low skilled job at childcare, after all how hard is it to change a nappy and feed some kids at childcare and read 'em a story or two? They then whinge about their low wages, and then go on to whinge about high charges when they abandon motherhood and stick their own kids in childcare.

A woman's job is to raise her kids at home. If she's not doing that she's a bad mother. Tony Abbott is doing the right thing by trying to get more women to have more babies, but the femminazis will fight him all the way. Women just wanna be men.

i love woman
how goes that song..'thank heaven for little girls'

huh?

4 yo girl foils home robbery,
prevents black neighbor from being wrongfully arrested,
debunks the real perps and solves the case before the cops.

http://investmentwatchblog.com/4-yo-girl-foils-home-robbery-prevents-black-neighbor-from-being-wrongfully-arrested-debunks-the-real-perps-and-solves-the-case-before-the-cops/

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY!
"Consider the situation. Never has there been an administration so disciplined in secrecy, so precisely in lockstep in keeping information from the people at large and -- in defiance of the Constitution -- from their representatives in Congress.

Never has the powerful media oligopoly ... been so unabashed in reaching like Caesar for still more wealth and power.

Never have hand and glove fitted together so comfortably to manipulate free political debate, sow contempt for the idea of government itself, and trivialize the peoples' need to know." --

Bill Moyers written during George W. Bush administration

WHATS WITH ALL THE SUNAMIES
http://whatreallyhappened.com/

Lester,
Feminists don't represent women, they represent a cruel and warped ideology which makes all people subservient to the state and which has no place in a healthy society. Women working or taking part in public life has nothing to do with Feminism since Feminists don't believe in liberty and freedom of choice for women.
Since when has Abbott been pro family? The coalition is doing everything he can to disrupt and disadvantage Australian people with children and everything they can to turn over the economy to foreign investors and their itinerant third world workforce.

Lester You say some basic training to be child carers. Their training is actually a degree in child care. Parents are not allowed to apply for that job because they are not qualified.

Hasbeen has always got that anti feminist attitude about him, it is quite apparent in the words he chooses.

of course feminist want children brainwashed from a young age. No amount of degrees, phds etc can compensate for the natural God given nuturing instincts of a mother. Shoving them into some communist child care centre gives the social engineers even more access to our most valuable assett (our children). No amount of tax payer funded propoganda can change the truth.

I know I will be pilloried for this but if a woman wants to have a child and cannot afford to pay for child care out of her own pocket then she should stay home for the first four or five years and bring up the child herself.
As soon as the child starts school, then the mother can go back to work.
This way the child is getting the proper care it needs in it's most formative years.
That is more important than working to pay off a house that it probably too big anyway.
If the mother has a great career and does not want to stop working then give up on the children.
as for *Abbott is doing the right thing by trying to get more women to have more babies* this is nonsense, there are too many people now without encouraging more for political purposes.

Er...you guys forget that our cosy consumer paradigm is predicated on consuming. As I've said before, if Mrs A pays Mrs B to look after her child then GDP goes up. If Mrs A looks after her own child, GDP stays the same.

Why blame "feminists" (aka women) solely for the Western industrial paradigm that encourages women to participate in the "workplace" at the earliest opportunity?

I don't know how many of you have had a child in the last fifteen years, but I did. We were in a position where I wasn't forced back into working outside of home. Nevertheless, the societal pressure on me to toss the child into childcare was palpable...and much more than when our daughter was an infant 19 years previously.

I was advised by all and sundry to put our son into childcare for socialisation, etc. These days a woman almost has to excuse herself if she chooses to look after her own infants full time.

Actually, I relented for nine months and we found a nice little childcare venue where he attended one day a week...that was until it was gobbled up by a big childcare enterprise, which in turn was gobbled up by an even bigger one (ABC) which closed down our little centre immediately. Nice one...childcare is very big business in the modern world.

As it turned out, it was great for us and we pulled Junior out and he never went back to childcare again.

Even though wages are blamed for child care costs, this is a real red herring. Wages are still low, so other factors are to blame for rising costs.

Such as gold plating, and the structure of the business, like one part will own the premises, then charge rent to the other part, then there is the shareholders bonuses, not to mention the CEO's bonuses.

It might be personality but I would not readily swap jobs with child care or nursing home carers for the same money as I get now.

The job's are from what I've seen of them a minefield of conflicting priorities and dealing with often unreasonable people (including some of those being cared for).

I've been annoyed by the gendered portrayal of the issue, as if its only mothers dealing with the rising prices of child care. No longer a current issue for me but out of hours care was a big expense for me for a number of years.

I don't have easy answers to the issue, I needed to make extensive use of out of hours care for my son during his primary years. Expensive enough as a non-deductable work related expense.

I do think recognised child care should be tax deductable where it is used during either work or work related commuting hours. Not much help to really low income earners I know, however there are a lot of others where it is a far more legitimate income related expense than a lot of what is allowed.

I don't have evidence to back the view but it looks to me like another area where government has intefered in the market to try andmake it more accessable for some and thats pushed prices up.

R0bert

Here's a link that may be of interest to those
that are prepared to read on issues from a variety of
sources rather than just those of NewsCorp Ltd:

http://newmatilda.com/2014/06/24/child-care-costs-grow-and-so-does-risk-abbott

Unintended consequences, Ha!
The whole child care system is based on unintended consequences.
When the feminists demanded that the government force the lending
authorities to lend on both incomes if requested, the feminists thought
they had won.
In fact they lost big time !

They lost the option not to work because the price of houses rose to
meet the amount of money available on two income borrowing.

If you borrow on two incomes you need two incomes to pay the mortgage.

So all this anguish about childcare and government schemes would not
have been necessary if the politicians had had the guts to say NO !

Bazz, I think you are giving these amazing feminists far too much credit if you think it was just women who wanted to go back to work soon after baby is born.

What about the dad's?
Do you not think they wanted the extra money from 2 incomes too?
There is often a lot of pressure on new mums to get back to work from their partners, never mind the supposed pressure from the 'feminists'.

Gee, I wish I knew who all these feminists were exactly, that they had such enormous influence on all the male politicians!

Abbott is true to his conservative background in encouraging mums to stay home with the babies, where they belong, by proposing such a generous paid parental leave scheme, and also pricing childcare out of the market for low-middle income families.
He apparently has enough money to pay for 'chaplains' to spread the good word to the heathen public school kids though.

The financial cost to society of child-care and aged-care, highlights
the fact that for thousands of years society was built off the backs of the unpaid slave labour of women.

Surprise, surprise.
It is now obvious that no one will do the job
unless they are properly paid. Child care centers find it difficult
to keep staff because there is such a high burn-out rate and people
leaving the sector because they feel as though the full on intensity of the demands of the work, is not paid adequately.

Also, if there was no aged-care workers, then, "hello kids!" here is old senile or infirm Mummy or Daddy for you to give up your life caring for day after day. Our selfish society wouldn't want that now would they,
Best pay someone else a pittance to do the jobs non of us wants to do
ourselves. Lets not cast stones at the aged-care workers and
child-care workers saying they don't do a demanding job. People in glass houses and all.

Suse;
Of course the husbands went along with two loan scheme, they used to
think they would get the loan paid off quickly and then they could
have children.

Well that blew up because the house prices rose, just like any market
the price rose to meet the available money.

A friend of mine who was a bank loans officer predicted when it came in exactly what happened.
He knew the builders could not resist it and would grab it with glee.

Young women run screaming from the feminist harridans who tell them what to do and try to run their lives for them.

Now that the feminist dinos are in their dotage, young women can look critically at them, at what they have become (or always were) and their life styles.

'Nuff said.

FIGHT DAMM IT
WE ARE WAITING FOR THE WOMAN/CHILDREN;TO SAVE US/men[makes/us too tired[in the good way]..to fight[we were so close in the 70's/but themn the man/had the plan\they injected the darkies/and gays/with monkey serum.live aids virus.[the plan]it shut freelove down[your next lover will kil you]

good by free love...peace is so close

if only woman could be all men need/that need wil bring us to where we must be[here is where we are/NOW

The attempt to paint Islam as a pioneering force in women's rights is a recent one, corresponding with the efforts of Muslim apologists (not otherwise known for their feminist concerns) and some Western academics prone to interpreting history according to pre-formed conclusions. In truth, the Islamic religious community has never exhibited an interest in expanding opportunities for women beyond the family role.



The fourth Caliph, who was Muhammad's son-in-law and cousin, said just a few years after the prophet's death that "The entire woman is an evil. And what is worse is that it is a necessary evil."



A traditional Islamic saying is that, "A woman's heaven is beneath her husband's feet." One of the world's most respected Quran commentaries explains that, "Women are like cows, horses, and camels, for all are ridden." (Tafsir al-Qurtubi)



The revered Islamic scholar, al-Ghazali, who has been called 'the greatest Muslim after Muhammad,' writes that the role of a Muslim woman is to "stay at home and get on with her sewing.

She should not go out..too often,..she must not..be well-informed,

nor must she be communicative with her neighbors and only visit them when absolutely necessary;

she should take care of her husband...and seek to satisfy him in everything...Her sole worry should be her virtue...She should be clean and ready to satisfy her husband's moods/needs..ergo..at any moment."

charming/charlemane..never been to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DepNLgUjcT0
minnie/riPsiton..;..loving-u
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auYCXBzep9o
i was/after

AND/YES..I KNow..its\like..putting;a flame/under tHE HORNETS NEST
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/010-women-worth-less.htm

Feminism seems to confuse many people. They seem to believe that wanting to be equal means wanting to be the same.

It doesn’t, it never has. It simply means wanting equal opportunities, equal pay for the same work and an equal right to control and manage your own life and decisions.

A feminist believes that a woman is of equal value to a man, not the same as one, but she is also someone who wants to be seen as a human being first and as a woman second.

Moreover, feminism is an entirely honourable movement. Since Mary Wollstonecraft penned “Vindication of the Rights of Women” in 1792, women have slowly made progress – at least in the West – to full human rights.
Feminism gave us the right to an education, the right to vote, the right to higher education, the right to our own earnings and inheritance, the right to have custody of our children, the right to say no to sex in marriage and the right to say yes to it outside of marriage and the right to know about our own bodies and reproductive organs.

Bazz,

Put the blame where it belongs. Of course the people who sell houses to us would dearly love to strip us of all our money. The same is true of the people who sell us car insurance, kitchen appliances, toilet paper, or all the other types of goods or services that exist in our economy. Competition keeps the prices of most of these things down, however. House prices have gone up because the politicians have restricted supply (by refusing to release land for housing, refusing to stop land banking by developers, and refusing to go ahead with decentralisation) and boosted demand (through a mass migration policy that will double our population in a little over 38 years). They have also increased costs by demanding a lot more up front for infrastructure costs, which is understandable in view of the growing population. The higher housing costs have forced women to go to work, even though many of them would have preferred to stay at home with their small children or to work shorter hours.

The politicians have also contributed to the two income family by oversupplying the labour market (through toleration of off-shoring and mass migration), so that women become reluctant to give up jobs, as they might not be able to get another one or another one as good. I recall a colleague who continued working full-time, even though she had three children under 5 and was showing severe stress symptoms, such as fainting spells. She told me that she and her husband had calculated that given all the benefits available, the family was only $100 a week better off with her working. She was putting herself through all that stress because she didn't want to give up her permanent job.

The politicians also brought in no-fault divorce. It is not a smart move to put yourself in a situation where you are one man away from welfare.

i was going to post/that soon woMAN need to rally..together
accross party divide[but not to rule as men/do

http://www.voltairenet.org/article178638.html

not[by disipline/vile..but by the mothers compassion/the nanna nurture/the matriarchy[where a smith goes into hospital and has a child of the same name as its mum]..govt becomes more like the ideal mum/spoils all kids/then the men get the grown-ups

think invasion[war\kills the men
http://www.activistpost.com/2014/06/16-ways-supreme-court-built-police.html

makes woman change tHE NAME..;TO HIDE THEIR SHAME
AND HIGHLIGHT THEY ARE A OSSESION OF MAN/TROUBLE BEINGsome men are lower than slaves and as civilised as beasts[these cant all be the affect of rape/thing is woman chose /who bfertilises the egg/a smART WOMAN can build a dynasty/of the best genes she could find/combined with her

talk about living through ya kids[but thats all some of us have.

and girLS ITS EITHER hillary/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2666265/I-tried-care-money-I-says-Chelsea-Clinton-married-hedge-funder-lives-11m-home-paid-600-000-NBC-doing-nothing.html

or CHELSI

michelle
pick the winner early/this is for the sisterhood/god made youco-creators/for good reason..
http://investmentwatchblog.com/the-life-of-an-average-american-sheeple-citizen/

recall the serphanT DID ASK EVE..didst god forbid?
and truth is god forbad adam/not you*[besides the mozaic laws in 5 ways give reasob..for a patriarchal/figure\to forgive a woman/her foolishness

a clever woman/would see the hard work..is done[the relevent texts/sorted/now what do they say.by the book\free your sisters
by forcing respect/from the men.but giving respect..too
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/010-women-worth-less.htm

damm i never heard karen sing when i fall in love nice
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgaiE94Klgc
NOW/THAT..OTHER..LINK..er

http://www.voltairenet.org/article178638.html

A..Woman's/Worth..*Relative..to a Man's..
is/the..MORAL-measure/of acounting.

ITS/merely an..accounting measure
by which..to accord..ACCOUNTABILITY/responsibility/

if a man/does..it/thats twice,,as bad/as
If,,a woman/did..the same.DEBT/OR..CONTRACTUAL-foolishness

Question:Does Islam teach
that..a woman..is..worth[VALUED*]..less than a man?

Summized/assumed\Answer:

Absolutely...The only.debatable point i\s..by/..to\what degree.

men are..bigger stronger/freeer/for sure
thus..to whom much..is given much/more[double]..heis expected[untill jill becomes jack],he,be twice/the man

The Qur'an,,(4:11)THE LAW;-re(Inheritance)

;"The male..shall have..the equal..of
the portion/of..two females"..[in cost's/or inheritance/as a woman more/easy joins-in\the duTIES..OF a good\mother/[than a man]fits in with/another man][and/still\feel..a..man.

(seealso v\erse 4:176).

In Islam,..sex-ism is/mathematically established.[2TO1]

Qur'an (2:282)JUDGING;TESTIMONY-in(Court testimony)

"And call to..JUDGE,..from among your men,...two witnesses.
And..if two men..can-not/be not found..then/then a man and two women."

BECAUSE/TWO WOMAN..WILL SHARE..confidences
AND MAN..SHARES ONLY/WITH GREAT DIFFICULTY

Muslim apologists offer..creative explanations..to explain
why Allah..felt that a man's..testimony>>

hold it/HOLD IT

THIS WASNT..ANY TESTIMONY
its about..deciding/judges\judging/hearing witness*

<<>.in court..should be valued..twice
as highly..as a woman's,>>=TO BALANCE THE..justicable/ DECISION..<<<..but studies consistently/show that women..are actually less likely\to tell lies/than men,>>

THUS TWO WOMAN[PLUS
ONE MAN/MAKE\PEFECT JUDGES/bench.

<<.. meaning that..they would
make..more reliable witnesses...[hence judges]

Qur'an (2:228)-"and the men..are a degree above them [women/presumed?.]

[MUST READ IN CONTEXT*]"

Qur'an (5:6) -
"And if ye .[any/all]..are unclean, purify yourselves.>>

SOUNDS GENERIC

<<>.And if ye are sick..or on a journey,
or one..of you cometh..from the closet,[dunny]..[UNCLEAN]..[IE/ALL]

<<>>or ye have/had contact;}..\with women,>>

WHATS THE CONTEXT/TO BE HOLY BEFORE GOD?
RITUALY PURE TO CHANEL THE INNOCENTS?

SO/FOR CONTEXT..IF YA DIRTY..<<>.and ye find not water,
then go to clean,..high ground and rub your faces =..and your hands with some of it" ..>>

THATS DESERT SENSE
WE LEFT THE DESERT

<<..Men are to rub dirt on their hands if there is no water to purify them following casual contact with a woman (such as shaking hands).>>

MATE/I KISS THEIR FEET/HANDS LIPS AND ITS GREAT
WE HAVE THINGS CALLED SHOWRS/their best with others to rub ya back[or hug you in the bath/face to face[only gods loving grace mercy between thee and me..

teeheeee..me/me

but seriously/my guides advise/sometimes/its too much intinimidation..yet not rape/but i bid my guides be silent.

579, you are making the same basic mistake that some of the strongest critics of feminism make. Assuming feminism is uniform with one set of goals. It's very clear that's not the case, I doubt that there are many movements/ideologies etc were that truly is the case.

There are some feminists as you describe but many of those who get the press, run the gender studies units etc are clearly not as you describe.

There are some feminists who understand that we are all in it together and work to improve opportunities for all of humanity, others who run very gender centric campaigns (often also treating women who don't fit with their values as disposable or letting down the side).

As with many issues many on both sides seem to be firmly entrenched on a "side" rather than working towards goals such as those you describe.

R0bert

Why should victims of the excesses of feminism wait?

For example, male victims of domestic violence, they do exist,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3PgH86OyEM

Try again for video,

http://youtu.be/u3PgH86OyEM

New economic roles have brought women greater
equality with men and also many fresh opportunities,
particularly the chance to experience careers and
achievement in the world beyond the home. However, many
women are finding that the rigors of pursuing
their careers, maintaining intimate relationships,
and raising children, are not easy to balance.

Also, as we've seen from this thread - the
changes in women's roles have also had an immense impact
on the family. Generations of children are now being
raised by working mothers, who leave them in some
form of day care from an early age - something that once
was unprecedented on this scale in our society.

For their part, men have generally reacted positively to the
growing equality of women. In fact, their own roles,
have become complimentary to those of women in many cases.
Like the feminine role, the masculine role is now more
ambiguous, more flexible, more subject to interpretation by
the individual. Resolving this kind of ambiguity is part of
the challenge of social and cultural change in our modern
society today.

Equality does not necessarily mean gender similarity or a
"unisex" society. It does not necessarily mean that women
are adopting the characteristics of men.
The pattern today seems to be
one in which many alternative lifestyles and roles are
acceptable for both men and women. Our modern society
today is highly individualistic and both men
and women are today, exploring a wide variety of possible roles.
Ones that suit themselves and their families.

As I've stated in the past -

True liberation from the restrictions of gender means that
all possible options are open and equally acceptable for both
sexes. That a person;s individual human qualities rather
than his or her biological sex is the primary measure of that
person's worth and achievement.

The postfeminist generation of women
today take the benefits of women's liberation for
granted, however, they are dubious about being the
"perfect wife" mother, and executive. They expect to be a part of
a team - in their marriages - in the full sense of that word.

Foxy, I wonder if you thought about the wording in "Generations of children are now being raised by working mothers"

I'll make a point of it because its an example of the way the stereotypes keep being reinforced (often unintentionally).

I know its not universal however men play a large hands on role in the raising of children in most of the intact and blended families I know first hand. That was a part of my growing up experience as well but maybe the dynamics of rural life made that different to people of my generation being raised in urban areas.

I know some people of both genders who don't in my view take the responsibilities of parenting seriously, rather parenting at their convenience but they seem to be in the minority.

R0bert

@Foxy, Thursday, 26 June 2014 12:12:55 PM

Lots of words, but will you be taking the pledge on WRD? You would want to 'break the silence' on women's violence against other women, children and men, wouldn't you?

Dear RObert,

It's a common problem when typing on a forum such as this.
Phrasing is so important - and sometimes gives the wrong
impression.
However, I think you know my personal feelings about stereotyping,
and labelling of people,
and the acknowledgement of the important role both genders
play in so many issues. As hopefulloy my previous and past posts have clearly indicated.

Foxy I think your stance on stereotyping just highlights how easy it is for stereotypes to slip in even when not intended. Agreed that it is a pain trying to always get what you mean into posts in an unambiguous manner, too many times I've focussed on an aspect of an issue when typing a post and come back later and realised how much potential there is for some phrase to be taken out of context either accidentally or deliberately.

I've been a little frustrated by the way this issue has been so clearly played as a womens issue by both sides of the debate. I think that there is an element if truth to it, many women returning to work at some stage after childbirth will be in jobs that don't pay a lot more than the cost associsted with doing that job (childcare, tax, transport etc). From that aspect its a womans issue.

When thinking about families with two adults though I don't tend to think of the finances as being seperate entities. For most intact families I don't think that they work as seperate financial entities. Then its a human issue.

R0bert

Dear RObert,

I'm glad that you understand the issues so well.

Gee, Sueonline I actually agree with what you have posted but I Can't find it now. However I would like to suggest A look at the basic biological facts which evolved when we lived in caves. Man was dominant due to his strength and fighting ability. We would not be here now if women did not evolve a means of balancing man's physical superiority.
I suggest women evolved the sisterhood which like the mafia, has secret powers based on communication and sex as a weapon. The only way forward is to deweaponise and demystify sex.