Prev
Next

It’s going to take more to keep mothers working

Julia Thornton

by Julia Thornton

07 Jan 05:45am

Must Reads

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses - this is a caption

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

16

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this - this is a caption

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

53

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it? - this is a caption

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

124

Filed under: Children, Families, Maternity Leave, Parental Leave, Society

82 comments

I find it amazing that policymakers have oversimplified the paid parental leave debate, saying it will increase the workforce participation rate.

Cartoon: Jos Valdman

How?

When Westpac and St George introduced paid parental leave, it wasn’t necessarily to get women back from maternity leave, but to get women into those companies over other companies. They knew that if they had something that NAB or CBA didn’t have, St George and Westpac become ‘employers of choice’.

I know of so many women who have one child, go back to work for the requisite time to qualify for parental leave a second time and then don’t go back at all.

We might stretch out their career for another two or three years, but come the time they have to juggle two small personalities at home and the pressure of the workplace, many women opt to get out of the workplace.

There is also a genuine shortage of good long day care spots near major CBDs. It’s a lucky woman who gets a child care place near inner city Sydney and an even luckier one who has access to one in their workplace.

If a woman does go back to work, and their job hasn’t been restructured down to half the challenge and none of the responsibilities the woman had prior to taking time off to ‘breed’, how friendly are their workmates or managers to the new responsibilities of the returning mother?

So many single people (and I admit, I was one of them once) resent the five o’clock bolt many women have to do, not realising that if those mothers aren’t picking up their child at 5.45pm they’re hit with $10 fines for every minute they’re late.

How many of you know a manager who schedules meetings at 4.30pm in the afternoon, then runs late? How do women with one-year-old babies in child care deal with that?

In one year, six of my friends and I had babies - six professional women with university educations and rewarding careers. Three went back to their jobs, two started to work from home and the last one resigned from teaching completely.

Across a wider age group, some of my friends have never gone back to work. The first reason is they don’t have a financial imperative (although one friend was scraping around for the milk money one week, and considered going back to work) or the nature of their husband’s work doesn’t allow much flexibility, ie he works on an oil rig for two weeks out of four.

You might say ‘oh, that’s not the norm’. It is the norm in Queensland – everyone is fly in fly out mining. I’m surprised at how complex most people’s lives are and the most simple solution is: mum stays at home. 

Most of the women I know with kids – either born last century or in the past few years – now have a home-based business. It’s the new white picket fence. They get their internet, their contact book and off they go.

But what of nurses and teachers? Nurses have to deal with the vagaries of shift work. Teachers tend to not want to deal with other people’s children, particularly as they can smack a brat at home, but they can’t smack the brat in the third row.

Finally workplace participation is about access to reliable public transport which gets us to the child care centre before the fines and that rattiness which kicks in after 5.30pm when they get so hungry they can’t see straight.

These are factors which keep women out of the workplace.

Most commented

431Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
390There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
336Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
266Who murdered the Arts degree?
246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...

82 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Eric says:

      04:51am | 07/01/11

      It’s “a woman’s right to choose”. Women demanded, and got, the right to choose whether or not to have sex, whether or not to get pregnant, whether or not to abort. It is entirely, one hundred percent a woman’s decision to have a child or not - men have no say in it at all.

      Choices have consequences. If you don’t like the consequences of the choice you make, choose differently.

      P.S. “... come the time they have to juggle two small personalities at home ...” Do all women always have twins?

      Reply

    • Geoff says:

      07:58am | 07/01/11

      Eric, Eric, Eric…
      It’s as if there are no benefits to anyone apart from women from having children, listening to your story. Even from a basic economic approach, under our current meconomic model, continual growth is required. We simply can’t get that from migration (at least not a this stage).

      YOu need to have a chat to someone to work out and come to terms with your serious issues with women.

      P.S. Are you employed by The Punch or one of their owners to incite people to comment?

    • Lisa says:

      08:14am | 07/01/11

      .....and now all women will exercise their right not to have sex with Eric.

      Good job sport

    • Tom says:

      08:39am | 07/01/11

      @Geoff - being patronising does not make you anything other than a punce. Eric is not the only person in Australia who has a gutful of full on whinging (“advocacy”) from Australian “wimmin”. It is time Australian “wimmin” admitted that they already have a lot more choices and open doors than Australian men.

    • Stuart says:

      08:55am | 07/01/11

      I apologise to all women, Eric does not speak on behalf of most men just the misogynistic one.

    • julie says:

      09:01am | 07/01/11

      I wonder what would have happened if your mother had been aware of her personal power, and the choice for these options. Would she have gone on to have you?  Or was it fate….an unexpected pregnancy…should she have been denied sex altogether?  Do you ever think about how you came to be on this earth Eric, with your right to free speech?

    • Markus says:

      09:13am | 07/01/11

      Don’t see why people attack Eric’s comments so much, especially when they are true.
      I remember G-G Quentin Bryce summing it up well, along the lines of: “Women can achieve anything, they just can’t achieve everything at once”.

      If you want children, have children. If you want to climb the professional ladder, climb the professional ladder.
      If you want both, be prepared to make the same sacrifices fathers have had to make for decades, the primary one being only seeing your kids once a month.

    • Jade says:

      09:56am | 07/01/11

      I don’t know what kind of relationships you have (if your lucky to get any at all) but my partner would help in decision making regarding having a baby or not, not just myself… that would just be selfish.

    • Tom says:

      09:57am | 07/01/11

      @ Stuart, “misogynistic “? Big word for a SNAG, but why not dazzle everyone with more uber clever-clogs insults like “racist”, “xenephobic”, “red-neck”. Good words too.

      Here’s one for you, “advocacy fatigue”.

    • Stuart says:

      10:51am | 07/01/11

      @Tom. I am far from a SNAG <farts and adjust himself> but thanks for complementing my vocabulary and enlightening me on a few more pearls to add to the Stutionary.

    • Eric says:

      02:23pm | 07/01/11

      @Markus: “Don’t see why people attack Eric’s comments so much, especially when they are true.”

      That’s exactly why they attack me, Markus.

      The myth is that women could have it all, easily - except for those bad old men holding them back. The reality is that women’s problems are largely a result of women’s choices, not some great male conspiracy.

      But feminists want all the choices and all the rights, without having to take any responsibility or face any consequences. I’m the little voice of sanity that cracks their dream world - and so they hate.

    • Bob says:

      07:31pm | 08/01/11

      Reminds me of an email I received recently suggesting that when (name suppressed) was born, they should have slapped the mother, not the baby!!

    • thatmosis says:

      06:26am | 07/01/11

      If a couple make the concious decision to have a baby then thats what it is, their decision. Not the Tax payers or the employers but theirs and now they expect to be paid for that decision. Employers will dump their maternity leave provisions in their awards and let the Government and the Tax payer carry the full burden of these parasites who believe that their decision is an excuse for them to get money for nothing. Your decision you pay for it.

      Reply

    • Economist says:

      09:52am | 07/01/11

      @thatmosis, no employers won’t drop their schemes. As Julia already highlighted (St George Westpac example), the provision of this leave attracts talent. What it provides is the opportunity for small businesses to maintain talent and as others have previously highlighted, the opportunity to double dip with existing schemes.  It provides choice. For example, some people instead of taking 6 months at half pay, may take 3 months full plus 18 weeks government scheme. Others may take 6 months half and 18 weeks effectively spending a full year with their newborn. This is personally a good thing.

    • acotrel says:

      09:53pm | 07/01/11

      @thatmosis.  If a couple make a ‘concious’ decision to have a baby they are contributing to the future workforce, and providing someone else to subsidise my old age pension.  They should be helped by the taxpayer and the employers, they are the beneficiaries!

    • BobM says:

      06:00am | 08/01/11

      @thatmosis - people voted for Labor, knowing that the taxpayer was going to fund their PPL scheme.  So stop whinging…..you got exactly what you voted for.

    • fayezart@gmail.com says:

      06:42am | 07/01/11

      Think I will only employ the over 50’s women - it’s simpler all round and give older women much needed status.

      Reply

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      06:44am | 07/01/11

      Whatever spin they want to put on it- increase female workplace participation, create a baby boom to support the baby boomers, middle class welfare or simply an election bribe, bad policy is bad policy and in the long term unsustainable policy at that.

      Reply

    • Ray Graham says:

      06:55am | 07/01/11

      Dear Julia, it is now 3 days since Tory Shepard wrote an article on PPL and the ‘hardships’ of women. The repetitious bleating on behalf of women is nauseating. Women are already THE most pandered group society has ever know.

      I posted a litany of the female specific quarantined benefits women have purloined from society so no need to repeat them. At least half the responses to Tory’s article were vehemently negative and not only from men.

      All you media devas ever talk of is women and their difficulties, real or invented, and the lack of inout or acknowledgement of input by men.

      Please don’t anyone respond by saying I’m whinging because I and most men don’t crave help or preference. Men know no one is responsible for them other than themselves and just get on and do it. Women have fine tuned whinging to an art form, engendered and force fed into their psych from birth by the gravy train of articles such as yours. Women need to realise nothing’s easy and in fact the harder, the better is the achievement .

      Here’s a challenge for you Julia. Get together with Tory and write a positive article on men and recognise their input to society and family life. Recognise that men are still going well in the workforce despite a raft of female exclusive legislation aimed at benefiting women and handicapping men, hobbled and hog tied. For younger men a culpably tainted eddcuation structure. Even just recognise men. We do hold up half the sky if you get my drift.

      Summarising Julia I’m just pissed off that women can only see life through their own eyes and that in a deep and meaningful love affair with society women continue ransom demands from a society in which they are grossly over coddled. I used terms that equated to women costing more to employ than they return. But that was too much for some of the psuedo intelectuals to comprehend.

      Kind regards, and give my ‘challenge’ a shot woth Tory. Please let me know how you go (ie between the cafe latte, lunches, cinemas, and the beach, while your husband works and the childcare reigns)

      Reply

    • NicoleG says:

      07:44am | 07/01/11

      Oh dear. I do hope you’re wearing a bib or something similar. All that froth that’s spitting out of your mouth is sure to stain your shirt. Now, go back and re read the article until you actually get it. And while you’re at it, learn some manners.

    • Cloud Strife says:

      07:56am | 07/01/11

      Instead of Julia and Tory writing something positive about men, why don’t you try saying something positive about women? What’s good for the goose and all that…

    • Barry says:

      08:44am | 07/01/11

      @NicoleG, what a stupid, smug response. You are the one who needs to learn manners.

    • Modern Slave says:

      09:02am | 07/01/11

      All driven by the multitudes of women in public service making themselves very comfortable nests, unfortunately all paid for by the enslaved and less privileged in the private sector.

    • NicoleG says:

      09:14am | 07/01/11

      Really Barry? So what’s your point?

    • Economist says:

      09:53am | 07/01/11

      @Ray Graham
      You want a positive article on men? Why don’t you write it yourself and submit it to Lucy for Friday’s Open thread. To get it started here’s a few ideas, but you probably want like them because the issue is men and women are actually a team, we live in the same society.

      The empowerment of women has strengthened the role of men and provided more flexibility for men. The sharing of housework is quite satisfying. Don’t you get that warm fuzzy feeling from purveying a clean house prior to your toddlers tearing up the place again? Men can now freely interact with their children more than previous generations. They can play doll house instead of just sitting on the couch watching the footy and drinking beer. Men can now cook 3 course meals in the kitchen while they send the wife out to pull the weeds. 

      Women in the workforce are primarily in the service sector, both private and public, their management style can be different and productive for men.

      No men are not left carrying the can at the workplace while women leave early to pick up their kids. If you perceive this to be the case then the problem is with your managers. Management is about maximising staff. Good managers know their staff’s commitments and factor it in.

      Men now can express their feelings not it a SNAGgy way, they can just be a little more open in their discussions with their partner, minimising their stress levels. 

      You seem to be of the opinion that only women benefit from these “litany of the female specific quarantined benefits”. Many men do as well.

    • Ray Graham says:

      10:03am | 07/01/11

      NicoleG You’ve played your hand and it does not look good for you. The frustrating thing is that intelectual vacuums can’t see it. or have such tunnel vision they have no answer other than glib comments.

      And CLOUD STRIFE - Say something positive about women? I’d have to line up and it aint real news. I’m talking about some ground breaking action that is a challenge for Julia and Tory and society in general.

      Nicole you my dear or habitual light weight, but then again you are protected by our worst industrial protectionism.

    • Ray Graham says:

      10:20am | 07/01/11

      Economist you have a habit of stuoid staements. If men and women were a team why would part of the team want special privelege over the other. Why would part of the team use every opportunity to trash talk their male counterparts.

      What you propose is far closer to a male mentality than to any female mentality.

      Oh, and a bit of friendly advice, as men would do in true egalitarian style, please get another psuedopnym. ‘Economist’ is a rather optimistic moniker for you.

    • NicoleG says:

      10:40am | 07/01/11

      Ray, I was simply pointing out that you didn’t quite get the meaning of the article. Also the fact your tone was rather condescending, patronising and rude. You are entitled to your opinion and I have no problem with that at all, but you really could have pushed your point in a nicer way.

    • JulesG says:

      11:23am | 07/01/11

      To all the detractors of Ray Graham’s 6:55 am post: I’ve read Ray’s post several times and I have tried to put it in the context of others, shall we say, less supportive posts on this thread and my conclusion is as follows.

      Ray’s post is not misogynistic nor a dummy spit. It is a plain, unemotional discourse of the facts. It is eloquently written and I have to say that I agree with Ray Graham 110%. Women have had preferential treatment for so long now that they’re not even aware that they have such universal one sided and biased support; a lot of it at the expense of men.

      The fact that this article and many others are about women, proves my point. They’ve already got it all and yet they want more and more and more. When is it going to stop? When is there going to be an accounting?

      I reiterate Ray’s challenge to The Punch to write articles about men and how they have lost ground and become 2nd class citizens as partners, fathers, workers, consumers, speakers, advocates and not to mention, socially and politically too!

      I’ll wait for the inevitable back lash now.

    • Economist says:

      11:29am | 07/01/11

      Oh dear Ray, you are one aggrieved individual. No I won’t change my pseudonym. If you’re concerned about my anonymity my real name is Mark, but there are already enough Marks at The Punch. As for me not being an economist, well economics is a pretty diverse field and my area of expertise does not stop me from commenting generally on ignorant nonsense written by others. And the funny thing about economics is that for every opinion an economist has another economist will have a different opinion, but should we stop the flow of ideas and testing of hypotheses, because one loud mouth insists he/she knows best?  Your response shows your lack of understnading and willingness to stereotype. As for the PPL, flow of taxes etc, have you ever heard of the multiplier effect? It’s why Ken Henry basically said go hard, go early, go household in response to the GFC. The $570 dollars is still taxed, therefore logically the scheme doesn’t cost the government $570 it’s a transfer of wealth, the money is spent and circulated etc etc.

      As for “why would part of the team want special privelege (sic) over the other”, but it’s not, the money is paid to the primary care giver, male or female. As my wife is the primary care giver the money still comes into my household benefiting me. I don’t have to look for a promotion/ second job, working longer hours away from my family.

      The flexibilities employers offer women with part-time benefit my children and hence benefit me. The fact that an employer can’t sack my wife for being pregnant benefits me as I know that we’ll still have that income.  The way you use egalitarian is almost communist in its thinking. Since when does egalitarian mean totally equal. Realism please. Women are not men.

      My wife and female work colleagues certainly don’t trash talk me for being male. I’d say your experiences are more to do with you as an individual and the people you choose to associate with. Perhaps the women you’ve met in your life are nasty people, not because they’re women, but just because they’re a..holes.

      What amuses me even more is the level of civility you use in your language to convey your thoughts and ideas. It’s not productive because all it results in is a slinging match, like this little rant of mine, rather than a productive online conservation of ideas.

    • Tim says:

      11:31am | 07/01/11

      Economist,
      what about the men and women in the workplace who don’t have children?
      How do they benefit from the litany of entitlements that parents demand?
      No, once again we’re left carrying the can because little Johhny has the sniffles or needs to be picked up from soccer practise early.

    • Ray Graham says:

      01:33pm | 07/01/11

      Hey Mark the Economist, your stupidity astounds me. Egality means ’ pricipal of equality for all mankind’. You have blinkers on to the wider concept here. One avenue of assistence here or there is no problem. It’s when women have a monopoly on social initiatives, move from one to the other, and still claim disadvantage. The only people really disadvantaged in this country are Aboriginals. Not the feted prima donas masquerading as disadvantaged latte sipping, preference seeking females

      Hence my comment 3 days ago for Tory, now we have Julia, what’s in the next 3 days. Women are past the point of no return. They are a condescending, self centred and conceited in their own space and will continue down this path until the relevence of men is exhausted, aided and abetted by ‘economist’ mentality of fools like you. Economists are renowned for standing on the hill and sending the troops into battle and retreating to safety when the battle is lost. But that is a digression.

      The facts are women are bludging off society by purloining every advantage possible while giving nothing in return, with the added enjoyment of kneecapping men at the same opportunity if at all possible.

      Cheers to you and your abacus.

    • KH says:

      06:59am | 07/01/11

      I have met a couple of those ‘have one kid then come back long enough to claim another lot of maternity leave before leaving altogether’ people - then they wonder why they don’t get the challenging projects etc - because they have already broadcast their complete lack of interest in the job, so why should they get the good work over colleagues who are serious about staying on?  Also there is attitude - some come back with a big chip on their shoulder about being part time and immediately start accusing everyone of treating them differently - of course this becomes a self fulfilling prophecy doesn’t it - people do start treating them differently - even avoiding them altogether!

      QLD or WA might be ‘special’ with mining jobs - but the vast majority of people don’t have these jobs.  So where are the fathers?  Why aren’t they ducking out at 5pm to pick up THEIR children?  If more fathers did that, then it wouldn’t just be assumed that it is the womans job all the time - if everyone does it, you can’t discriminate against one gender over the other.

      Example - at my current job, one guy (who happens to be my manager!) comes in early as his wife drops off the kids, and leaves early so he picks them up - he also has a few days off now and then because kids are ill - as does his wife….........its called sharing the load, and our team respects him for it…......no one complains, and in fact it has encouraged others to do the same - as a result, this is totally normal at my work.  Everyone does what they are supposed to be doing - no one is working less hours - just slightly different ones, and there is no penalty to anyone.  How great is that!  Its a really nice place to work…....

      Reply

    • Rob says:

      07:49am | 07/01/11

      I wish all workplaces were as flexible as yours, i would be happy to start early and finish early but in my job its just not possible.
      I agree all fathers should share the load but the mindset is stacked towards the woman from the beginning - for example I am entitled to a whopping 5 days paternity leave when my child is born, while female colleagues are entitled to 16 weeks plus the goverments 18 weeks.
      I do realise that i am not the one giving birth but I still share 50% of the responsibility regardless so should i not receive equal leave entitlements or something even remotely close to equal?? Even 6 weeks would be nice.  As it stands i have to take time out of my annual leave to spend more than one week at home with a newborn to help my wife out.  Can you see where the equality is???

    • KH says:

      08:23am | 07/01/11

      Rob - I agree -  fathers perhaps shouldn’t get as long on paternity leave (unless you had an episiotomy, or have a caesarian wound to heal, or just some general recovery after passing the equivalent of a small chicken through your left nostril….....! I’m being flippant but physical recovery is part of this time for women) but it should definitely be more than 5 days - the first few weeks are the hardest and the time when you bond with your child - fathers shouldn’t be denied that….workplaces should be more flexible about all parents - it just seems whenever the subject comes up,  it never talks about ways of changing workplaces and attitudes so fathers get more time with kids and do some of the childcare runs and so on, which would allow them to be more involved with their children, and allow their partners to continue working….......the solution always just seems to be lets throw some taxpayer money at it so mum can continue doing everything….....

    • Rob says:

      08:49am | 07/01/11

      I guess its all about changing the attitudes of people and especially employers from the traditional, Dad works while Mum looks after the kids.    I was excited that the goverment leave scheme was eligible to be taken by fathers but only if they are the primary care giver, which means i would have to quit my job and due to my gender my employer does not have to hold my position for 12 months, unlike my wife who is automatically entitled to this due to maternity laws.
      I agree that part of the maternity leave is to allow the woman to heal physically and I would love to take on the majority of the load while that happens but I don’t see why it should come out of my annual leave if I’m to be of use for more than a week.

    • JoC says:

      09:20am | 07/01/11

      I agree fathers should get longer on the birth of a child. If part of paid parental leave is about physical recovery then the mother will still need some support and ideally that is the role of the father - it is a perfect bonding time and for a first child a chance to get into the swing of how to function as a family unit with little people.  I think this is also a critical time for changing attitudes and behaviours too - a father who is bonded with his child is more likely to want to share parenting responsibilities.  This should be a policy priority.
      KH your workplace sounds fantastic!  I think this kind of work place flexibility is the critical thing missing from this policy -at least it’s called parental and not maternity leave, but the major cultural change needed is for equal public support for both parents to be involved (if that’s what works for their family) in raising their child.  I think then those banal comments about women having children to get money (like raising a child is an easy job ???- clearly comments from people who are childless or were not engaged with raising their children!), or women choosing to have children, so therefore they are not welcome to contribute to society in any other way - what a pathetic society we would be if only people not involved with raising children were supported to contribute.
      I think there are many in this debate who just can’t cope with change and can’t see the possibilities for a better society and culture within our workplaces (which in my experience are predominately more culturally comfortable for traditional men).  I’ve worked in flexible workplaces too and they are dynamic, high achieving creative places to be - what’s so scary about that?!!  I can’t understand why there is so much resistance.  If your staff are stressed out because they are worried about their children and other life responsibilities then as an employer you’re not going to get as much out of them.

    • Jesscar says:

      12:14pm | 07/01/11

      Like Rob my husband would love to stay at home and take the most of the 18 weeks PPL (and I would love for him to take it!), but unfortunately he works for a company that doesnt support men taking time off for children. There wouldnt be a job for him to come back to. (Yes that would be against the law, but private companies get around those laws all the time by various means)

      He’s also asked his employer if he could drop down to 3 or 4 days a week to be with the kids. I can understand they have said no for operational reasons, but the reaction of surprise and dismissivenss for even ASKING pisses me off. As if its such a ridiculous idea that a man should work part time and only women should do things like that.

      I think the government has done a great thing making it available for men (and I believe 52 weeks unpaid with a job waiting is also in legislation for men), but unfortunately these great schemes wont have much of a benefit to men until SOCIETY catches up.

      Oh, and to KH, my workplace is the same, we have flexi time so everyone works the same amount but just different times to suit their lifestyle. Its a really great environment, and its not only people with children that benefit. When I was a single party goer coming in for the late shift everyday was brilliant.

    • Tim says:

      01:35pm | 07/01/11

      Jesscar,
      have you ever thought that maybe your husband’s company does have legitimate reasons for not wanting him to take half a year to a year off?
      In my company we are constantly hindered by women taking large chunks of time off to be with their children.
      The lost productivity in having to find and train a new employee, whilst keeping the old position open for when/if the woman comes back is enormous.
      And then you often lose the now newly trained employee when the mother comes back from leave because you can’t offer them any security.
      I don’t know how we would compete if the men were given the same option.

    • KL says:

      07:33am | 07/01/11

      If we really want to keep women into the workforce we should consider the Danish system.  1 year paid leave and free childcare until the child starts school.  They have 97% of women in work.  It also takes away alot of the problems that we are seeing with unaffordable child care. It removes parenting, childcare payments etc and alot of the rorting that exists in these systems.  It costs but it works.

      I really don’t think the current paid scheme has been well thought out and the impact on business and the need for childcare in the coming 12 months with be enormous. 

      Just being paid for 6 months of a child’s life is very short sighted way of looking at a much bigger and greater problem.  Men and Women will still need to fund and care for this child for the next 18ish yrs.

      Reply

    • Annoyed teacher says:

      07:58am | 07/01/11

      :Teachers tend to not want to deal with other people’s children, particularly as they can smack a brat at home, but they can’t smack the brat in the third row”

      Thanks for that insulting and offensive stereotype. I’‘m a teacher - I don’t have kids so a lot of your other information doesn’t count for me - but the idea that “they can’t smack the brat in the third row” being a reason for mother’s leaving the profession is abhorrent. A lot of the time when mothers leave this profession is because it’s difficult for them to return to full time and schools rather full time teachers - this is more of an issue with secondary as students in senior years in particular need consistency doing their HSC.

      When you are talking about smacking a child - don’t be flippant about it. You make it seem like we are all just half a step away from punching on in the classroom when this is nowhere near the case.

      Reply

    • Paul Neri says:

      08:20am | 07/01/11

      I guess the disturbing thing is that once people get their child, they don’t seem any the happier, indeed the opposite kicks in.

      Arguably, parents don’t know what they are getting into and there needs to be more having-a-child-education-campaigns.

      Won’t happen, of course, because the State and the Church wants people to breed. Easier to control people who are particularly financially dependent and vulnerable.

      Reply

    • Lisa says:

      08:27am | 07/01/11

      If all men in the world were like the men who make these awful comments, then I would be surprised if any woman would have a child.

      Newsflash boys - having a baby is no walk in the park physically or emotionally.  If men were biologically designed to have children, then I would be more than happy to let my partner take on the job whilst I worked. 

      Paid Parental Leave is available to men and women who take on the role of primary caregiver and the issues raised in this article with regard to child care are just as applicable to men as women - if the wife wasn’t picking up the kids then the husband would be the one running into the same problems.

      True - those without children will not receive this work entitlement, but as I’ve stated previously, there are many government-provided services which certain groups in society are not eligible for or do not use due to their demographic (indigenous, aged care) or personal choice (private health/schooling over public).  That’s how the taxation system works.  If you don’t like it, move.

      Reply

    • Tom says:

      08:51am | 07/01/11

      Condescending blogs are so passe.
      “Newsflash boys - having a baby is no walk in the park.” Yes, we know, blossom. So, unless you have anything intelligent to add to the debate, get back to the kitchen.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      09:51am | 07/01/11

      You seem to be a bit confused about whether paid parental leave is a work place entitlement or a government provided service. The two are not the same. You also seem to be a bit confused upon the nature of public goods and private goods, and the role of government in general. That is understandable, I strongly doubt the ALP and Liberals have a clear definition of what the government roles should be….

    • Ray Graham says:

      10:12am | 07/01/11

      Lisa don’t you understand? Men have simply had a butdul of women and their recidivous bleeting and preordained protected species entitlements.

    • Tim says:

      11:38am | 07/01/11

      Methinks you don’t know how the taxation system works.
      Although you do have a well developed sense of entitlement so that’s not surprising.

      Our taxation system should not be used to give public money to what is basically a private good. You choose to have your kids, then you pay for them.

    • Ray Graham says:

      01:50pm | 07/01/11

      Well there you go I made a typo slip - I meant ‘gutful’. While I’m at it ‘no walk in the park’? Well it’s being going on for a while (procreation that is).

      Point is Nicole everything is geared for women. Walk in a man’s shoes; Nil recognition to family input, work from cradle to grave, 102,000 lost in the major wars to about 400 women (the rest stoked the home fires or kept them burning - there is a subtle difference), watching women take maternity leave then walk back in to work and expect promotion and get it over the male carrying the load, castration by the Family Court as a given, and above all pushed to redundancy by an insipid love affair with women from a misguided society.

      History WILL ask WTF were this lot doing to culpably harness the progress of their male species, and with unilateral support for their women, all while history has previously shown that social engineering is a rank failure.

      These points and others of mine, need to be made forcefully in the faint hope that the dunderheads who can’t stand up to feminist ideology some how come to their senses.

    • Mayday says:

      02:55pm | 07/01/11

      Ray Graham @ 1.50pm

      Women’s biology has tied them to the home for centuries and its only been the last fifty years that decent contraception have allowed a choice and control when it comes to pregnancy.

      Affirmative action (remember that, so 1970’s) Quotas in the work force,
      access to Family Courts, Paid Maternity leave etc are all forms of social engineering designed to help women catch up and participate fully in society.  They can even fight on the front line in battle.

      We are finding our way, still lagging through massive social change and we all need a hand up.  Men have run the show for a long time, life changes with ebbs and flows so maybe now its the womens turn?

    • Ray Graham says:

      04:14pm | 07/01/11

      Mayday, women chose to take this path hell bent on destroying men. And when you hold all the cards that is not difficult.

      I thought we could have done things in a more educated, egalitarian manner. That is with each other rather than against each other.

      Women chose the ‘against’ them rather than ‘with’ them path. I have no compassion for women whatsoever. They are parasites who can see no further than their own needs. One thing that they should remember is the sons they fawn over one day become men. At what point do they turn against them with intent.

      They have no conscience to use their motherhood statements ‘in the best interests of the child’ (stuff the interests of the father), to gouge anything they want IN THE INTERESTS OF WOMEN.

      You are not looking for a better society, merely following the history of proven failure of all for me and stuff everyone else. It works for a while but eventually ends in anarchy. The first step of which is contempt from your drawn in the sand opponents.

      Women have drawn the line in the sand - ‘against each other’.
      Good luck you’ll need it when more men pull the pin.

      Check history and it is the same path for anyone who wants everything other people have got and give nothing in return other than to take. They end up falling on their own sword. 

      And they will get no sympathy when they can’t have or get everything and then self destroy. Women have already nearly reached the ‘self destroy’ as they are an untouchable, protected group who believe in their own press. Matter of fact I will celebrate. The powers of women’s physical attraction is in serious wane so watch this space. Don’t look to men for help.

    • Lisa says:

      09:06am | 07/01/11

      haha Tom, hello pot, meet kettle?

      Reply

    • Tom says:

      09:49am | 07/01/11

      Oh, do catch up, please.

    • Bitten says:

      09:11am | 07/01/11

      Oh, the poor plight of the Western woman in a developed economy. Able to get an education, able to work, to earn an income, to be independent and then to have children and occasionally they have to unload a dishwasher and run for a bus. Oh, the humanity.

      Reply

    • Ray Graham says:

      10:10am | 07/01/11

      If they don’t make it your way ‘Bitten’, they can use the Family Court, have children to 4 or 5 suckers, marry a rich bloke and divorce him, or claim workplace harrassment. All with gilt edged guaranteed dividends. Women are a very unattractive package and do not understand why young men just stoke the fire and scarpa.

    • Lisa S says:

      09:12am | 07/01/11

      I wonder if Erics mother is now questioning her ‘choice’ to have kept him???  I wonder if he was bullied by an older or perhaps younger sister

      Reply

    • Barry says:

      01:14pm | 07/01/11

      What a vaccuous comment. Do you vote?

    • The Badger says:

      02:01pm | 07/01/11

      She may not vote Barry but she has excellent comprehension skills.
      I think she may be on to the truth about eric’s problem.

    • Barry says:

      03:14pm | 07/01/11

      @Badger, she must be bursting with pride getting an endorsement from you.

    • Eric says:

      09:45am | 07/01/11

      So much hatred and vitriol - just for suggesting that women should take responsibility for their choices, like men do.

      I wonder why this is such a sore point?

      Reply

    • NicoleG says:

      04:49pm | 07/01/11

      You want hate and vitriol, I present you with Ray Graham. That’s one big chip on his shoulder. She must have taken him to the cleaners. Eric, thank God you’re not that rude and horrid.

    • Ray Graham says:

      06:26pm | 07/01/11

      NicoleG, Don’t like the irrefutable? Never been taken to the cleaners especially by reserve graders. Stick to your own grade. Don’t worry, where required I will give you both barrels. Don’t get it? Well it’s an equal and opposite reaction to the regard to men displayed by women.

    • NicoleG says:

      07:13pm | 07/01/11

      For the record Ray, I think this PPL is absolute bullshit. If you want kids, pay for them yourself. We’re on the same page there.

      As for your views on women, blah, blah, blah. Now excuse me while I just don’t care.

    • fairsfair says:

      10:25pm | 07/01/11

      Nic, I’m just catching up with some late night reading. Eventful day here, which I have missed. I’m feeling a bit left out. I am so happy to see “excuse me while I don’t care” coming back into play. Tis a cracker.

    • Economist says:

      09:51am | 07/01/11

      Firstly this article tells me more about Julia Thorton’s friends and socio-economic circle. This is not a criticism just an observation. The reality is that it’s a combination of factors that will increase the workforce participation and paid parental leave is simply one aspect.

      Julia claims it is no longer the norm, particularly in QLD for two income families..  Really I think you’ll find many families across Australia are still constrained financially, they’re not all married to miners. 

      The issue for the government is does the outlay provide a greater return for it in the long run through more taxes. The issue is further about the flow of taxes. The boffins in Treasury want to be able to estimate tax revenue. The PPL is still taxed so taxes still flow.

      Reply

    • Ray says:

      10:06am | 07/01/11

      Economist. It’s paid out of taxpayers money so being taked is hardly going to ‘flow’. Quaint but eroneous.

    • guy lee hanlon says:

      09:53am | 07/01/11

      if you are a nothing bloke on welfare, on public transport, on soup kitchen for meals, in public housing, voting ALP , public library internet, and up the pub, one is no good with women.
      Hence one doesn’t get kids and problems are avoided.
      Otherwise ,if successful with the absolute might of the chicks, mothers should be at work and fathers at home.

      Reply

    • NESLIHAN KUROSAWA says:

      10:15am | 07/01/11

      Hi Julia,

      It definitely takes a special woman to have a career as well as having children to take care of, no matter what the actual reasons for working were, in the first place.  To juggle both is not that easy at all, even though Eric does not think so.  Both parents are responsible for bringing up their children.  But traditionally, this particular job definitely belonged to and designed for a woman, no offence to anyone!!!! It may be for economical or other reasons, but this choice should be respected and not made fun of.

      Of ourse in the Developing World most women and children, lack the resources we may seem to have.  However, still women are putting in more hours when it comes to house hold duties and other work obligations.  And that is a fact!!!  May be, when it comes to becoming a parent,  we should “ask real parents, the real questions”  And then respond to their answers and solutions.  It might actually give us a different perspecttive.  Best regards to your editors.

      Reply

    • kerrie o'rourke says:

      10:34am | 07/01/11

      double or triple the pay and conditions if the employee is a mum

      Reply

    • Anthony says:

      12:13pm | 07/01/11

      I, as an employer, will not employ women of child bearing age as a result of these kinds of Government policies. It is not worth the risk to employ a woman, have her work for three months to suddenly have a baby, be paid for 12 months off and I’m then left to fill her job with a non-ongoing because the Government funding doesn’t cover my predicted loss of productivity. Too much hassle! Not when I can get a man or older women to do the same job without the risk.

      Reply

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      12:44pm | 07/01/11

      Actually, the lost productivity is pretty significant. Lost productivity in training the temp to replace the person maternity leave, lost productivity reintegrating the mother into the workplace on systems and procedures introduced in their absence, lost productivity in the paperwork claiming the maternity leave payments from the government, lost productivity in maintaining a workplace flexible enough to cope with childcare runs and days off due to ill children, curriculum days etc. But hey that’s what you get when the workplace is a place for social engineering instead of what it is supposed to be- working.

    • Ray says:

      02:21pm | 07/01/11

      Sahane. you sdpeaka my language but don’t expect anyone to listen. The well will eventually run dry.

    • Chester V says:

      01:37pm | 07/01/11

      A rather a middle class centric article and subsequent discussion.  Nice to see the more comfortable in society unable to view from any other social strat than there own. lovely.

      Reply

    • Giles says:

      03:23pm | 07/01/11

      Surprise, surprise working wives generally being a middle class issue. Thought of joining Mensa?

    • RDJ says:

      01:47pm | 07/01/11

      Equality or Chivalry, pick one.

      Reply

    • out of the workforce says:

      03:42pm | 07/01/11

      Legitimate question (possibly out of ignorance, but please excuse me):

      Why is it so essential that we get all mothers back to work? Am I somehow doing the wrong thing in my decision to not hand my children off to a childcare centre for a couple of days a week? 

      My babies are only little for a few years and I want to enjoy those years, even if it means we can only afford one car and an average house.  We have what we need: not everything we desire.  I know that not every family can afford it, but we can have me stay home full time. Why does the PPL rhetoric imply that this is an undesirable situation? 

      Oh, and I can’t help but add that my husband hasn’t been in a rush to leave teaching since having children, and I chose the teaching profession before having children because I saw it as being more flexible if one day I did have need to return to work!

      Reply

    • Eric says:

      04:03pm | 07/01/11

      OOTW, it’s essential that we get all mothers back to work because feminists want to deny the most important role of women, while usurping the role of men.

      It’s a sickness in our society.

    • guy Lee Hanlon says:

      05:57pm | 07/01/11

      eric male chauvinist pig,
      there is no role for men in work ,in society or at home.
      just get welfare, live in government housing, eat at soup kitchens, catch public transport, use public library internet and visit the pub like every other hard working male.
      males will be obsolete by 2020 due to 2020 vision.

    • Chris says:

      12:27am | 08/01/11

      OOTW, I agree fully. If you have the means, there is nothing at all
      wrong with a woman staying at home with the kid(s). The idea of the
      “career on hold” was a deception from the start. Who said a career
      is important to a woman or a man? Will it make you a better parent to
      return to your $120,000 career and leave your 1-year-old in child care?
      Do you want the traditional latch-key children? Will this help your
      “career”? Get real. Be a mother. Be a father. Your children need you to be on deck right now. You have a responsibility at home.
      How you manage that is up to you, PARENTS.

    • guy Lee Hanlon says:

      05:48pm | 07/01/11

      Your comment:
      if julia gillard or kristina kenneally gopt pregnant in office, then mother in law and mothers in work reform would be considered important and essential motherhood statements for all female workers.
      if Nicole G married Tim B with Steely Dan as marriage celebrant, then nothing would happen for there would be no motherhood statements

      Reply

    • guy Lee Hanlon says:

      05:52pm | 07/01/11

      all mothers need supporting mothers benefit whether in work or not until kids turn 21

      Reply

    • Ray Graham says:

      06:40pm | 07/01/11

      To anyone who thinks my comments might be vitriolic, please think why. Think if we’re going down the right path. Is it right for society to throw money at causes that don’t need it. Is it right to set a dividing line between men and women because men will not collectively complain - not wired like that. The fact that women with PPL can access industry based payments AND tax payer based payments should send warning bells. The fact that other men and some women can see this should also ring bells.

      That I have a turn of phrase few can match is of little concern. That I have such strong opinions should also be of concern and wake some decision makers from their slumber of political expedience.

      Reply

    • fairsfair says:

      10:46pm | 07/01/11

      Ray, all that aside - I agree with you. At the election, I thought the coalition PPL scheme was a goer because of what it meant for business - the small man has a chance of gaining and retaining quality staff in that he can remain competetive, but now I am just over it. It should not be offered by anyone to anyone, but in terms of Westpac etc - we can’t stop them from doing it - that is not what our country is about. It is funny though, because PPL - a couple of years ago I would have also said that is not what our country is about either. Oh how things change and pretty quickly at that.

      Fact of the matter is. I am young and female. I have to say in looking at the bigger picture - I could not possibly blame an employer for hiring a 45 year old woman or a man over me. I am likely to (in a few years) be looking to have kids and it is a muckarse around for everyone. Least of which, the mum. They get to spend time at home with their new baby, they are not even thinking about repercussions. Nor should they, it is their time - but from the other side of the coin, we can’t expect everyone to bow and scrape to accommodate our changed lifestyle.

      It is my and my partner’s choice to have a child and we should not be doing so if we can not afford to survive on one wage for a period of time and with restricted earnings for an extended period. I fully appreciate that some people simply have to work to make ends meet, one income is not enough. I don’t understand this modern notion that children are an accessory. People seem to be under the false assumption that they don’t lead to drastic lifestyle upheaval. They are not just a third person joining you for Sunday brunch. To all those women out there who have to go back to work in a half assed capacity to be able to pay off that second car and ensure the holiday is a possibility this year - wtf is the point of having children? I just don’t get it. Most people are only managing to do both things crappily. Pick your battle, fight it. Change the goalposts when circimstances chance (like your kid starting school), make it happen. Don’t expect others to help you- they have their own problems.

      Ultimately we wanted choice ladies. We now have it. We are now back pedalling. We were desperate to get into the workforce, now we are being paid to stay at home. I don’t understand it and it is absolutely infuriating.

 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 09:27PM

Dementor doing a good job for sweden #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 09:11PM

Ukraine song pinches chord progression from The Verve's Bittersweet Symphony. Fo real #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 09:00PM

RT @GerardDaffy: @antsharwood all the talk over there is the grannies will win.they entered to get a church built,feelgood story

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 08:57PM

These peole insult my grandmothjer, who was born in minsk, belarus #sbseurovision

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

by Claire Connelly

41

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

I’d like to be able to say that sharing the world’s largest radio telescope with South Africa…

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

by Laurie Oakes

60

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

When North Queensland Liberal MP George Christensen got the idea of launching a new political organisation…

Please enter your password

by Lucy Kippist

39

Please enter your password

Help! I’ve succumbed to a crippling modern illness that can strike at any moment. Symptoms include:…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed