Modern mums are racing back to work too soon

Sick of This says:

07:43am | 31/05/11

Erick. I couldn’t agree more. Well said. - Being a female without children - I find it incredibly frustrating that in my working life, I and many other colleagues are inconvenienced due to some women choosing to have children. This maternity leave business should be cut right back. Give them enough time to recover from the trials of labour or a c-section (say perhaps 4 weeks) and then its back to work or LEAVE YOUR JOB. And those 4 weeks given? Once the woman finds out she is pregnant - she should be stockpiling her annual leave and/or working extra hours to get time in lieu. Its a choice to have a child and the consequences of that choice should not be dumped on others. Yes women have a right to a career and women have a right to be mother’s - but the concept that the two can be combined - no. If a woman wants to retain her career - super - the father can stay at home and take care of the baby.

RK says:

08:13am | 31/05/11

Erick - were you just a whim?  Is that why you’re so bitter and deluded?

RK says:

08:16am | 31/05/11

Erick and Sick of This - you write as though men play zero part in creating or raising children.

Cloud Strife says:

08:30am | 31/05/11

@Erick

What about men who do the same thing? My sister is the breadwinner in her marriage, so her husband has taken the role of primary care giver, and his job is going to be available for him when he does return to work. Would you deny men this opportunity as well?

He’s not alone - many of my friends have the mother going back to work and the father staying at home to look after the kids.

Tubesteak says:

08:53am | 31/05/11

Erick you are correct. No company or anyone other than the partner should make allowances for other people’s choices.

If you want a baby then that’s fine. Do it on your own time and with your own money (NO PAID PARENTAL/MATERNITY LEAVE!!!!!!) and don’t expect your position to be there when you come back.

At the company I work for several women have become pregnant and took maternity leave and their position had to be held open. All of them decided not to return to work but they took their paid maternity leave and inconvenienced the company and their teams during this time.

The company is now in the process of shifting many jobs to Malaysia….

Cloud Strife
The same should apply to men.

AAAdam says:

08:57am | 31/05/11

Agreed Erick and Sick of This. I’ve seen numerous men and women suffer as a result of people racing off to have a child and expecting their position to be held open for a year. Their main complaints are they are expected to cover the slack of two or three women missing in their immediate work area, at the same pay, for a year. Secondly, no-one can get promoted because these people will return to their positions in a year. At best they can get temporary assignment for 12 months, only to revert back to their lower position when someone that has lost touch and been away for a year comes back. Such feminist ideals do not equal equality, they equal discrimination against every other person in the workplace.

Erick says:

09:00am | 31/05/11

@Carz - I would deny that anyone has the right to expect their job to be held open for a year so they can do their own thing. If parents of either sex can come to a voluntary arrangement with their employer, that’s fine. But demanding it is simply a demand for privilege at the expense of others.

KH says:

09:06am | 31/05/11

@cloud strife - you are right - i know three such arrangements.  The funny part is that the one guy who decided to work part time has found himself in exactly the same position women who come back to work part time often find themselves in - he has commented on the fact that he used to get annoyed about women who came back part time - but has found out now that first, they do tend to get treated differently - he has applied for a couple of promotions but not got them (neither did his part time female colleagues) and he is getting the lesser tasks to do, and second, he has actually become more efficient - a lot of people spend time during the day messing around - cut that out and you can do your 5 day job in 4.  He is frustrated that he is looked down upon for being part time!!  The attitude is just wrong - it is just women who usually experience it, but in recent times, a few more men are finding out just how that feels - they don’t seem to like it much either.  Just because you have a child doesn’t mean your intelligence and skills just disappear.  I don’t know many jobs that change so much in a year that you would be completely bewildered when you come back….....

Suzanne says:

09:09am | 31/05/11

I’m one of those Cloud Strife, my husband was a stay at home dad for 8 months and he loved it. He was so glad he had the opportunity to spend that time with our daughter yet if Erick had his way he’d have been denied any time off with her. Not exactly fair to new fathers now, are you?
And Erick, most workplaces don’t mind holding your job open for you. They’re actually damn glad that you come back at all because it means they can retain all the skills and business knowledge you’ve built up during your time there and a temp or a contractor can cover you for the time you’re gone. By forcing parents to choose businesses will have a much higher staff turnover every year which ultimately will cost them more.
Only a draconian employer would expect an employees family to never get in the way of work, and thankfully many employers don’t have your attitude so they realise by supporting staff with children they can still do their job perfectly well and care for their families.

loxy says:

09:42am | 31/05/11

Erick, you’re assuming that the workplaces don’t want to cater for women having kids. In my experience, it’s usually been my best workers who go on maternity leave so I can’t wait to have them back - even if it’s only part-time. I agree it can be a massive inconvenience to the workplace having to cater around a women’s pregnancy, working part-time etc but if a good relationship exists between the employer and employee it’s often not a problem.

Tim says:

09:50am | 31/05/11

KH,
let me give you an example from my workplace then.
One of my staff had a baby last year and took the full year off to look after him. Fair enough.
However, as an employer I had to keep that job open for her to come back to.
In the meantime I filled the spot part time with another qualified person (woman) who I had just trained to a reasonable level when she got sick of the temporary nature of the appointment and left.
The same thing happened with the second temporary replacement.
So I’ve lost many months of productive time for the position training temporary employees who I could offer no permanance to.
The full time employee returned two months ago from leave and her attitude to work couldn’t be more different than pre-baby.
She has lost important skills and had to be retrained, she disappears early to look after the baby and has already taken multiple days off on carers leave.
Apparently according to you she should have no affect on her career because of this?
Life priorities change and you shouldn’t expect your employer to cater to your personal choices.

Economist says:

10:03am | 31/05/11

Such short-term thinking and ignorance from the I hate women’s rights crowd and I hate other women for exercising their choice crowd. Prior to the introduction of the government maternity scheme, which employers offered maternity leave? government and large employers. Why? perhaps to obtain and retain good workers, it was good for their business.

At a macroeconomic level women are essential for workforce participation, but let’s listen to Erick and kick them out of the workforce and increase immigration to compensate, say about 4 million more male immigrants and their families.

Let’s ignore the evidence that such scheme’s have resulted in improving the educational attainment of women as they stay in the workforce longer, have children later in life and the flow on of this is that their children are better educated.

As for employers themselves, there are no guarantees of retaining their staff, even men choose to leave for promotions or personal reasons. When this occurs someone still has to pick up the slack, in the short-term, and the employer still may not replace the person.

So ask yourself why has the government introduced a paid scheme? To allow small and medium employers to compete with government and large employers for talented individuals.  Because the government (both Labor and Liberal) sees the big picture.  Whereas Erick et al sees a woman leaving her job and resents her for it. Nice.

Sure there’s legislation prohibiting the discrimination of pregnant women, but employers aren’t forced to employ women, though I’m sure there are cases where this has occured, but I’d look at the detail. If employers do choose to employ women they are prepared to bare the risks.

Lily says:

10:25am | 31/05/11

My first question would be how is comparing a d-list celebrity concept of “work” anything to do with the real world? They don’t actively contribute to the workplace. They are the muppet that sits/stands in front of a camera and reads something someone else has written.
Choices are choices, just that. I don’t expect my job to be held open for a year if I decide to return to study, travel the world or try a career change, so I don’t see why having children is any different. It’s not a feminism issue anymore. Male parents are just as capable of staying home.

Lily says:

10:39am | 31/05/11

@ KH “I don’t know many jobs that change so much in a year that you would be completely bewildered when you come back”
There are lots of sectors where this is the case: IT, policy, legal etc. If we have someone of for a year in my workplace it generally takes 6 months to get back up to speed, and when that person automatically assumes a decision making role on their return it can be really difficult for everyone concerned.
I would like to clarify that it is the mandatory nature of maternity leave that I have the issue with. If your employer values you and keeps your job open then that is their prerogative. In a large workforce most would be able to rehire you if your skill-sets were valuable enough albeit maybe in a different role. It is the expectation and entitlement I take umbrage with.

Lisa H. says:

11:40am | 31/05/11

As an employer, I resent being directed from on high about ‘good business’ practice by government offical-types and unions.

They’re one-sixe-fits-all is condenscending, and arbitrary.

As an employer who deals with a female-dominated support staff, we do offer as much support as we possibly can for women who are pregnant or have children.

However, if parental and maternity leave really are ‘good for business’, let the business owner decide!

Many business owners will decide in favour of parental support.

Or perhaps this ‘free market’ economy is not so free, after all?

SIck of the misogynists on the Punch says:

12:01pm | 31/05/11

Sick of the women beating on the Punch. Too many misogynists on here for a decent discussion to be possible on any subject to do with women.
Why is it that women are left holding the babies?

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/8255450/us-dads-put-baseball-catches-first

Tubesteak says:

01:22pm | 31/05/11

Economist
None of your points draw a direct link between macroeconomic benefits (ie showing how the economy is better off) and maternity leave provisions.

Firstly, Erick never said the women should be kicked out of the workforce entirely. Just that if they want to leave their job to have a baby then they should resign and allow the employer to fill the job with another FTE. When they want to return to the workforce (at any time of their choosing) then they can search for a new job then. Moreover, there is no need to bring in more immigrants. Even if there was this would increase economic activity merely due to the increase in demand (a macroeconomic advantage!).

The schemes don’t provide a direct link between it and education. Women are having children later in life and that’s not a good thing because of declining fertility rates and more problems that have been shown to be evident in in older women.

Just because employers never have a guarantee to retain staff does not mean a government mandated retention scheme is a good thing. There are a number of examples in this thread disproving that. Anyone can leave their job and when they do it is final and the employer can search for a new person. Simple.

The government introduced a paid scheme as a vote winner because more middle class welfare means more votes. There is no other reason.

@SOTMOTP
So anyone that disagrees with female-oriented policies that have massive flaws in them is a misogynist? Go find a dictionary and come back to us.

Snake says:

01:23pm | 31/05/11

Women are left holding the babies because they have the breasts that feed them. KH nicely articulated why it is that mothers traditionally care for the children and she’s a feminist so I won’t take any credit for that.

I don’t understand why you lot continually want to disregard nature and attempt to push both sexes into one utility like vehicle that is a jack of all trades. That is not the case at all. The sooner feminists realise that we each have a role to play in the upbringing of a family, the sooner they will drop that sense of entitlement.

The problem is, once we as a society realise these gender roles, the rainbow alliance will hurl acid rain on us. God forbid that we suggest that 2 men do not have what it takes to provide motherly input into the raising of a child. How dare they?!

mmm says:

01:48pm | 31/05/11

@ economist. bahahaha did u really say that the government scores the best people??? AHAHAHA thanks i haven’t laughed that long in ages. if u r a professional and u r highly qualified then you do NOT work for the government. vast majority of government employees are bludgers, i deal with them often and one of my friends is an accountant for the state government and laughs at how inept most of them are. the government just can not compete with the salaries of the private sector.

Lisa says:

02:11pm | 31/05/11

Why do we talk about children like they are pets? We are all humans and those who are childless by choice will be glad to have young people around to look after them when they are old.

Matthew says:

04:51pm | 01/06/11

Tubesteak and Erick, you guys are too smart for the women here.  It’s simple, you CHOOSE to have a baby then you CHOOSE to leave your current job and find another one when you’re back.  This means your new job is open to a mother coming back to the workforce and you can find the job of another mother leaving the workplace when you’re ready.

There’s still the same number of employees in the workforce whether you’re on maternity leave or out of a job.  The company doesn’t have to deal with your pregnancy and you don’t have to worry about getting shunned when you come back.  Everyone wins.

Babs of Syd says:

01:07pm | 02/06/11

I agree with you Erick.  My scenario went like this:- Mum to be went on maternity leave for 12 months and before a temp could be put in place the extra duties were shared amongst those remaining.  Then mum returned for 2 months before declaring her second pregnancy.  Repeat the 12 month maternity leave and the temp and extra duties fiasco.  When she returned following the second pregnancy we noted her dress code included a large black cardigan which was constantly adjusted to drape the front of her body.  You guessed it - baby No.3 was on its way.  She came back after her third 12 month maternity leave with a request to work certain days which suited her children’s day care.  Her conditions could not be met and she resigned but not before everyone’s work environment was turned upside down.  I firmly believe leave should only be given when everyone, regardless of age or sex qualifies.  Sick, annual, long service and family leave are the right of all employees and that should be the limit.

KH says:

07:52am | 31/05/11

When they can pass a human head through a small opening in their body, there will be a few words, I’m sure.

Erick says:

08:06am | 31/05/11

@Septimus - I believe that Tracey is against fathers. She has actively campaigned for legal changes which would overturn fathers’ equal rights to take part in raising their children.

Septimus says:

08:33am | 31/05/11

Right KH, they play no part otherwise in the raising of the child.

acotrel says:

08:50am | 31/05/11

‘Yes women have a right to a career and women have a right to be mother’s - but the concept that the two can be combined - no.’

Are these legislated rights?  Perhaps we really do need an Australian Bill Of Rights ?

KH says:

08:57am | 31/05/11

My point, Septimus, is that it is physically demanding to make another person - no man can ever really understand that, no matter how hard you try.  It takes time to recover from that, and the associated hormonal changes.  Also, it is the female who is charged with feeding the child (if you are doing it the way nature intended, that is) - this is also something that can be very tiring and taxing on the body - and you kind of have to be present for it to work properly.  Recovery time is paramount - hence women usually get the task of doing the initial care period, and someone - normally the father - has to still be earning money.  Oh, and babies don’t just sit there and do nothing all day - they require constant attention - its not like you can just go out and forget about them.  I think there a few women who would be more than happy to pass on these tasks if you could somehow take over the physical part of it.  At the very least, six months is time needed to adjust to the new situation and physically recover.

Septimus says:

08:59am | 31/05/11

@Erick

When Australian Mums murder their kids, does Tracey do similar articles on restricting their rights to access to their children?

Slothy says:

09:04am | 31/05/11

Ugh, don’t get me started on fathers. Right now my team is screwed since my (male) manager is on a family vacation and my (male) acting manager has just called to say he won’t be in today because he has to look after his son (this isn’t a once off - I didn’t have a single manager avaliablefor the crucial last week of our biggest deliverable for the year thanks to simultaneous kid issues). I don’t blame them, it’s your family, you do what you have to do, but the fact is their family life affects the whole team, but that’s okay, because they’re men.

When they do it, everybody gushes about what great fathers they are - so devoted to their kids! But when any of the women need to run home for an emergency doctors appointment, people start talking about how annoying it is, and how it would be better for her to be at home. Unless of course she doesn’t go, in which case she’s a heartless mother putting her career in front of her family. So then if she throws up her hands and stays home, she a freeloader sitting around watching soaps all day waiting to get the cash in the divorce.

I’m hoping to have kids in the next couple of years, but first I have to decide which form of terrible mother I want to be.

Septimus says:

09:30am | 31/05/11

We will never really know will we KH.  Women could be just over dramatising the whole pain/recovery/effort thing.  Unlike a woman, to over dramatise though…especially around here.

My point is that these days fathers ALSO stay home and look after the kids, some fathers WANT to stay home and are denied the opportunity because they are the bread winner and nobody, including Tracey, gives a toss about their entitlements.

It’s all about the ‘poor’ woman.

Erick says:

10:30am | 31/05/11

@Septimus - I am unaware of any feminist seriously addressing the issue of mothers who kill their own children,  despite the fact that this is more common than fathers killing their children.

Feminism is all about hating men and getting more privileges for women at the expense of children, so I would not expect to see any such articles.

Bev says:

12:06pm | 31/05/11

Septimus says:08:59am | 31/05/11

@Erick

When Australian Mums murder their kids, does Tracey do similar articles on restricting their rights to access to their children?

Easy NO
Its interesting feminists keep running back to the Chisom report but use it selectivly.  He did state that 30% (why does that 30% keep cropping? maybe it true) of DV brought up in family court is committed by women. Don’t see feminists mentioning it though.

Bev says:

12:16pm | 31/05/11

Septimus says:09:30am | 31/05/11

We will never really know will we KH.  Women could be just over dramatising the whole pain/recovery/effort thing.
Third world women seem to be able to give birth without being incapacitated for months. True death due to child birth is high but mostly because of unsafe and nonsterile intervention by midwives. The same was true of western women who died because doctors/midwives unsterile intervention before Lister.

js says:

12:47pm | 31/05/11

@ Septimus - “Unlike a woman, to over dramatise though…especially around here.” hahhahahahahahahhahahahahahah rofl, then erick comes up with some garbage about babies being murdered on a blog about women going back to work hahahahaha - still want to talk about women overdramatising? hahhahahhahahahahaha. sounds like some men can do a good job of it to

Tim says:

12:58pm | 31/05/11

Slothy,
are you serious?
“When they do it, everybody gushes about what great fathers they are - so devoted to their kids!”
This comment is a load of crap.
I’ve never once heard a good word said about a man who leaves his work for family issues.
With the women in the office it’s expected that they will leave to look after their children, when the men do it they are definitely hurting their careers.

Fiona says:

09:23pm | 31/05/11

@bev, clearly you know diddly squat about birth. The third world women thing gets chucked around so much it’s almost predictable. Do you know what a vaginal fistula is and what causes it? PS, it’s got very little to do with unsterile midwives intervention, more like lack of said midwife and malnutrition.
@slothy, give it careful thought, but just know that you’ll be hated whatever type you are. After 34 years, I’m still not sure which type of despicable mother I am.

Cloud Strife says:

08:33am | 31/05/11

What the relationships where the mother goes back to work and the father stays at home? This is becoming more and more common.

RyaN says:

12:55pm | 31/05/11

@acotrel: the real kicker is that sex is as rare (if not rarer) when you are married than when you are single.

Bev says:

01:35pm | 31/05/11

Cloud Strife says:08:33am | 31/05/11

What the relationships where the mother goes back to work and the father stays at home? This is becoming more and more common.

Also true (England) that these woman tend to ditch huby because they are uncomfortable with the role of bread winner while their husband stays at home. “They are not real men anymore”.  “They are not pulling their weight”. “This is not the strong responsible man I married”.

happy little fella says:

03:03pm | 31/05/11

Ryan - “sex is as rare (if not rarer) when you are married than when you are single”.

Keep dreaming, you singles only get half as much sex as us married guys.

•Couples living together report having sex 146 times per year.
•Married couples make love 98 times per year.
•Single folks are having sex the least at 49 times a year.

http://marriage.about.com/cs/sexualstatistics/a/sexstatistics.htm 

A - “Why would any man take on a wife, kids….”
Why not? If your calling is to be an eternal wanderer, then good luck to you, but for me the family life is a great fit.

Fiona says:

09:32pm | 31/05/11

Can we bag the shit out men then, cos this is getting really old. Personally I’d love the chance to moan about say, how deceitful, lazy, aggressive and unappreciative men are, but I actually like most of the men I know and really appreciate the effort my husband puts in. I wonder how the male punch readers that are partnered feel about the females that are in their lives?

KH says:

08:22am | 31/05/11

Actually in my observation, women who come back part time often find themselves getting the crap projects and work.  Where I work, some project managers don’t like part timers (messes up their schedules) or the part timers are given pissy little projects that no one else wants to do.  No one says anything directly, but its pretty obvious that to go anywhere or get the good projects you need to be full time - so they aren’t really getting their ‘old’ jobs back at all, just a shadow of what it was.  There might be some industries where this isn’t true, but I’m yet to see a part time female collegue get a promotion, and that is after more than 10 years here.  Oh and for the record, we have a couple of part time male employees too - one uses his day off every week to ride motorcycles or some nonsense.  You could do it too - but be prepared to take a hit for it.

acotrel says:

08:35am | 31/05/11

@Ray Eventually the sex industry will have to be made illegal again.  We cannot have a viable alternative to ‘the system’ ?

acotrel says:

08:43am | 31/05/11

@Ray If you find yourself in the wrong type of relationship, the best action is to pay your way out of it early, with no custodial or visiting rights, and walk away without looking back.  Death by inches is very unpleasant, and the kids will rip your heart out slowly. Start again, and be more careful finding the new partner.

acotrel says:

09:03am | 31/05/11

@KH
‘Oh and for the record, we have a couple of part time male employees too - one uses his day off every week to ride motorcycles or some nonsense.’

I like his style.  The best thing I ever did in forty years of stressful grind was of that type!  I used to ring in sick when the bikes were on at Sandown, and instead of turning left and driving across Melbourne in the traffic to Maribyrnong, I’d turn right and drive to Springvale.  I’d get into the circuit for free, and watch the stars go for it.  They were the very best days of my first marriage.  I have absolutely NO REGRETS about dudding my employer to get there!  He got value for money anyway, and I tolerated his shitty workplace for far too long.

KH says:

10:20am | 31/05/11

@acotrel - I think a lot of people would like to drop a day of work to pursue their own interests - I know another guy who only works 4 days to play golf once a week - I wish I could do my own thing one day a week - but I have to say, people think these guys are cool - playing golf, motorcycles - but if someone goes part time for kids, it is looked down upon.  The attitude has to change - I wonder if a lot of men are just put off from taking on more of the childcare duties because of the perception that they will no longer good at their jobs?

Markus says:

10:50am | 31/05/11

@KH, they are given the crap projects and work because they can no longer be depended upon to prioritise their work over their family.
It’s the same reason that they aren’t given promotions.
Sure, for the latter you could argue that there are full-time male bosses regularly taking time off for family etc. They just happened to do a better job than the part-timers of keeping up the charade that they place work above family, until they got the promotion. Don’t be hating because they play the game better.

And yes, the guys you mentioned are cool. They knew full well that going part-time would cost them their career goals and aspirations, but chose to do it anyway. That is cool.
Only going part-time out of necessity, not so cool. Complaining that you are being overlooked for promotions for people who prioritise their work over their family life? Even less cool.

Geoff - Brisbane says:

01:54pm | 31/05/11

@ KH - Its her fault for working part time. If she went full time and did the hard yards she would get her promotion. But she won’t and like all feminists you stamp your feet and scream about sexism.

It sounds like you want the perks of full time (good projects, money, promotions) without actually putting in the effort of full time.

Why would a workplace favor a person there 3 days a week over someone whos there 5?

pffft says:

01:59pm | 31/05/11

@KH… what the heck is wrong with you??? shouldn’t the best person for the job get the promotion? how could you justify promoting a PART TIME worker over a full time worker… any senior position requires FULL TIME. i can’t think of a single position that is part time outside of minor support staff.
nah stuff that though aie… this person who’s here only half the time should manage this project even though they can’t attend all the meetings or put full time into it.
you are either irrational or actually have no experience with real work or what it takes to hold a senior position.

Fiona says:

09:39pm | 31/05/11

Free babysitting? Umm, aren’t they your kids too? Since when did you become a babysitter? Plenty of fathers don’t bother with access too you know.
Do something more concrete than whingeing online if it bothers you that much.

Ray says:

08:35am | 01/06/11

Fiona - They are ‘my kids too’. Why doesn’t the family Court regognise that as well rather than just garnishee my efforts’

And Fiona it is very easy for the preferred gender to moralise from the haigh ground and say stop whinging, when whinging has become a puritied art form for women.

Nulligravida says:

01:46pm | 15/06/11

@ Ray. That priviledged gender are mothers, not all women Childless (by choice, circumstance or other) are a third gender. Replace “female” barrow with “motherhood” barrow.

Justine says:

08:39am | 31/05/11

‘They’ choose to have them? They as in a man and a woman or just the woman? In a lot of cases there are 2 people of different sexes involved in the decision to have a child.

And stay at home with them? Great if that can happen but despite Wayne Swan’s belief that families on 150k pa are rich, that is not the reality so what happens to the gaping whole that is left when the woman is no longer earning money and she has to return to work?

Why is it so easy for you all to make nasty, sweeping, one sided judgments.  Why not try some compassion and understanding for other peoples’ situations?

And ‘Sick of This’... should you ever become a parent, I hope that you have supportive and helpful colleagues if you do return to work as you might find it is harder than you think once you’re in the situation

Erick says:

09:05am | 31/05/11

@Justine - Having children is a woman’s choice, and a woman’s choice alone. Women are in control of all reproductive rights and all reproductive options. Women are in control of all child raising and child custody. A man’s only choice is to do as a woman allows.

Since women have all the rights and choices in our society, they should also bear all the responsibilities and consequences.

Anubis says:

09:43am | 31/05/11

@Justine - Simple, if you can’t afford kids, don’t have them

Q says:

09:47am | 31/05/11

Erick - you may be a hen-pecked individual who is treated poorly by the women in your life but don’t paint all men with your sad reality.  It was my husband who decided when we would have children, he wanted to wait 2 years after we were married.  I respected his decision and we waited the 2 years.  Both our children were planned and I would have had a third but he was happy with what we had so we left it at that.  You see we respect each other and value the others opinion. We understand that this relationship has the power to wound more than any other so we are careful with how we treat each other.  We value each other and our children above ourselves.

Sony B Goode says:

10:10am | 31/05/11

Erick is anti-misandry, that does not make him misogynist. What he highlights are the consequences of leftist ideology of treating men as oppressors and women as oppressed and the resulting misandry that the left has created in society and in our legal system.

wakeuppls says:

10:31am | 31/05/11

When women have the legal right to abort (read:murder) an unborn child, it is fair to say they should also bear full responsibility of raising it. Fairs fair. If you want extra rights, take the responsibility that goes with it.

Cloud Strife says:

10:55am | 31/05/11

@Wakeuppls

Abortion is not ‘murder’.

acotrel says:

12:22pm | 31/05/11

@Erick
‘Since women have all the rights and choices in our society, they should also bear all the responsibilities and consequences. ‘

So if you were an American, you’d be voting for Sarah Palin - another product from Republican Idiots Inc. ?

Bev says:

12:29pm | 31/05/11

Q says:09:47am | 31/05/11
Accept what you say but regardless you still have absolute power.
You can choose to lie about contraception and if you fall pregnant he is still responsible for the child despite your lie. If you accidently fall pregnant you can get an abortion and decide so even if he doesn’t want you to.  Under no circumstances can the father force you to have an abortion. So who is in absolute control?

wakeuppls says:

12:38pm | 31/05/11

You should watch the documentary on youtube titled “The Silent Scream” and then come back to me with a renewed opinion of the matter.

Anubis says:

12:40pm | 31/05/11

@CloudStrife - If it is not murder then what is it - the deliberate and purposeful termination of a life. Sounds like murder to me.

Cloud Strife says:

01:48pm | 31/05/11

@Anubis

This is where opinions and facts do not meet. I do not believe that a cluster of cells with no discernable organs or brain is a life. You do.

wakeuppls says:

02:31pm | 31/05/11

Cloud Strife,

A baby has a heartbeat after 6 weeks. Care to retract that statement?

Fiona says:

09:48pm | 31/05/11

So erick, women have somehow managed to do this all by themselves? Clearly you’re henpecked and yes you’re a misogynist despite what SBG says.

Septimus says:

09:05am | 31/05/11

Because so many women delusionally believe they are ‘entitled’.

Lily says:

11:34am | 31/05/11

@NSW LOLS… My thoughts exactly… and seriously how much time can doing that really take out of your week?

fairsfair says:

09:53am | 31/05/11

#1 Rule in feminism John - it is only and always about women. I think you will find it is for this very reason that younger women like myself are just so turned off by bleating hags that they just can’t even tollerate the notion anymore.

It is sad. I am thankful and proud of what feminism has achieved for me in recent decades - but the new wave of feminists are just raging too hard. Their motivation now is so far beyond equality and to the expense of the male that it is rediculous. I am not the only one who feels like this either - there is a growing number of women of my vintage that just don’t give a crap because there are simply bigger fish to fry in this world - like actually achieving something as an idividual not a member of any particular sex.

Markus says:

09:59am | 31/05/11

I don’t see how any of the work practices are unfair.
Employers are more likely to promote someone who clearly places their work above all else - family, personal life etc etc.

Companies continue to claim they are encouraging healthy work/life balances, but really all of them are still after people that would take a bullet for their job.

John Smythe says:

10:22am | 31/05/11

Fairs has cottoned on to what i was about.

Markus :
Companies continue to claim they are encouraging healthy work/life balances, but really all of them are still after people that would take a bullet for their job.

Exactly! Which means, YOU make a choice….and YOU should own the responsibility thereof.

John Smythe says:

11:12am | 31/05/11

Sorry Markus..the YOU didn’t specifically mean “you”....pretty sure you understood though…just wanted to correct myself.

HappyCynic says:

03:40pm | 31/05/11

@John

I had a manager try to suggest that I’d be up for promotion if I stayed back a bit more so I told him that, in my opinion, if I can’t clock out on time then I’m not performing my role satisfactorily and that if I couldn’t get promoted where I was working I’d find a company where I could.  Needless to say my manager couldn’t argue with the logic and in fact completely reversed his tune afterwards.  I’ve been promoted several times since and still get out on time.

Do people really have no courage to stand up for their beliefs?  Do they really lack the strength to tell a manager where they can stick their work-aholic lifestyles?  You do realise you can’t be sacked for having good values.

Erick says:

10:35am | 31/05/11

@Tam - After a lifetime of feminists telling men that we are useless, that fathers are unnecessary and unwanted, that all men are potential abusers and fit only to be sperm donors and child support slaves - what did you expect?

Tam says:

10:59am | 31/05/11

@Erick - I’m sorry that this is where your attitude towards women comes from.  I certainly don’t agree with men-bashing as I believe this is counterproductive to the feminist movement.  As women, we simply want to provided with the same opportunities as men in the workplace.  Unfortunately, god has dictated that we are also the primary reproducers, which makes having a long and fruitful career a little more difficult!  I believe that paid maternity leave offers a good balance, to allow intelligent, skilled women to have a good career, but also take on the huge responsibility of maintaining our population at the same time. 

Just for the record, my husband is a fantastic father, and contributes to all aspects of our relationship, both financially through his own career and also in the home.  Not all women believe men are only fit to be sperm donors!

Markus says:

11:02am | 31/05/11

Until you have experienced covering both your own work and the work of someone on maternity leave for 12 months - for no extra pay - and the exhaustion that follows, I honestly don’t think you have the authority to comment on the plight of career minded fathers and childless men and women.

I don’t care how sorry you feel for us. You made your choice in life, don’t expect the same work entitlements and opportunities as someone who didn’t place their family above their job.

Suzanne says:

11:22am | 31/05/11

@Markus…that’s down to poor planning by your employer, not the parent who has taken time off to look after their child.
Place the blame for your exhaustion where it lies, on the person who failed to hire a temp or distribute evenly the duties of the person on leave.

But I suppose it’s easier to blame nasty women for your woes, isn’t it?

Fred says:

11:57am | 31/05/11

@Markus, I have been in that position, yes.  And, I suspect that when my wife took maternity leave she put someone else in that position as well.  This is how socities work.

Tam says:

12:38pm | 31/05/11

@Markus - I have covered maternity leave positions on two separate occasions, both without receiveing extra pay, and both of which I had to leave when the previous employee decided to return.  I know exactly what maternity leave does to the workplace, but you know what, having filled both those positions, and receiving the extra training that came with it, put me in good stead to receive two very good promotions.  So how about you quit wining about your unfortunate situation and look at the positive side!  Employers look very favourably on capable, organised employees who are happy to put in the extra work (even without the extra pay).  And yes, even women have to fill maternity leave positions when other women decide to have a baby (and inconvenience the whole world, apparently).

Snake says:

01:19pm | 31/05/11

Hey Tam, I don’t know about your situation but in my home, my wife will stay home and care for my children. In turn I will provide for my family as best I can so that my children get the care they need. I do not want some random immigrant child care worker raising my children.

Further to that, I do not expect my wife to chase a career only to come up second best to a better prepared male. It is a misconception of feminism that women can compete with men at a professional level in any industry they like (please take note that our sports are divided). That is why there are traditional roles for both sexes. Just like I wouldn’t expect a male to lead the field as a nurse, I wouldn’t expect a female to climb the corporate ladder in the mining industry (Unless daddy leaves it all for you).

Once my children reach an age that allows for my wife to go to work on a part time basis, then she can go for it. Before that, no. You can flap on about how physically tiring giving birth is, I don’t doubt it for a second, but don’t tell me that me giving you a few years rest after it is “taking away your choice”. You can’t say you’re buggered from giving birth and but you aren’t too tired to go to work.

While we’re at it, scrap maternity leave. We have become a nation dependant on handouts. Now we can’t even budget for children. We can’t decide how much money and leave to put aside for the big day… we have become that useless that we need the government to force our employers to hand out cash so we can bring a bundle of joy into this world. I bet all the leftie scum celebrated their dysfunctionality when maternity leave was brought in. Fancy that, an employer paying YOU for something that does NOTHING for the workplace. Amazing.

Finally Tam, your last paragraph makes very little sense. How is it that those who have experienced child birth are more qualified to give an opinion on career minded mothers than those who have not? If anything, someone in a management role who employes “career minded mothers” would be the best bet for a spot on opinion. Not that working mother herself. Quite frankly I agree with the exhaustion part of your message, you just lost most of us when you went on the career woman rant towards the end there.

Debbie says:

01:33pm | 31/05/11

Totally agree Tam, I find it depressing to read most of these comments and wonder what century some of these people are living in. Clearly we have a long way to go.

As you said, 2 incomes is a necessity for most of us these days, and I too run my own business so i can be flexible to be with our kids and lifestyle.

And to all those putting down women for taking time off and then working when they have kids - everyone is doing the best they can for their families. Whose to say how many times other workers have to take the burden of sickies, holidays and other things that cause people to be absent from the workplace. get a life people and let us get on with raising our families to the best of our ability.

Fiona says:

10:00pm | 31/05/11

Snake, a lot of posters here seem to think that women who stay at home with their children are lazy, coffee drinking, soapie/Oprah watching leeches, whose only aim is to divorce their husbands, drain them of all their money and then marry a younger man.  How do you get past that attitude?

Erick says:

10:26am | 31/05/11

@Suzanne - Predictably, you have reverted to the standard feminist shaming tactics as you can’t argue the case for more female privilege.

These tactics are so stereotyped that there’s a catalogue: http://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/

In your case, we have, in order:

Charge of Misogyny (Code Black) - The target is accused of displaying some form of unwarranted malice to a particular woman or to women in general.

Charge of Irascibility (Code Red) - The target is accused of having anger management issues.  Whatever negative emotions he has are assumed to be unjustifiable.

Charge of Instability (Code White) – The White Padded Room Charge - The target is accused of being emotionally or mentally unstable.

For more details of anti-male shaming tactics, visit the site.

Suzanne says:

10:59am | 31/05/11

And you Erick have resorted to the typical stance of someone with no counter point, simply shrieking MISANDRYST is not an argument, particularly when it couldn’t be further from the truth in my case.
As I said, the majority of babies are concieved after a joint decision by both parents to start a family.
And I stand by my comment that you have issues with women that need to be addressed. Such anger and hatred towards people isn’t normal or healthy.

Markus says:

11:04am | 31/05/11

I would recommend you never go to Europe, their family-friendly policies and workplaces have most of the countries in the EU on the brink of depression and economic collapse.

Markus says:

11:15am | 31/05/11

I’m surprised you didn’t list Code Purple first up Erick, given how often you cop it

Charge of Rationalization (Code Purple) – The Sour Grapes Charge

Discussion: The target is accused of explaining away his own failures and/or dissatisfaction by blaming women for his problems.  Example:
•“You are just bitter because you can’t get laid.”

Suzanne says:

11:26am | 31/05/11

“I would recommend you never go to Europe, their family-friendly policies and workplaces have most of the countries in the EU on the brink of depression and economic collapse.”

Yeah, just look at Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, eh?
And of course the economic crisis in Europe had nothing to do with poor financial planning, a banknig industry too keen to hand out money to people who couldn’t repay it and on over-reliance on property markets.
No, it’s all womens fault for wanting or needing to return to work after having a baby.
The b!tches.

I think I just sprained my eyeball from all the rolling.

Muttley says:

11:50am | 31/05/11

Suzanne,
its not as case of being maligned for having a family, the question is “why should the world stand still waiting for a parent to decide if they wish to return to work?” Having a family , great. More power to you. But why feel as though the world owes you your old job?

Markus says:

12:05pm | 31/05/11

You mean the same Denmark, Norway and Finland whose debt to GDP ratios are on par with the economic trainwreck that is Argentina?
Yeah, look at them…

wakeuppls says:

12:45pm | 31/05/11

What Suzanne fails to realise is that her precious systas in the 70’s drove women into the workplace, rapidly expanding the economy (due to dual incomes) and thus damning every generation to follow in servitude. Then she has the gall to whinge about not getting a choice anymore! LOL !!!

Stephy says:

04:18pm | 31/05/11

Suzanne, I love the idea of women - and men - creating families. What I hate beyond words is the fact many women palm their babies off to daycare to be raised by a bunch of contantly changing strangers so they can pursue their former lifestyle which, to be frank, the pay would only just cover daycare costs. What the HELL is the point of having children only to dump them in daycare when they’re not but three months old (often younger)? That’s not mothering. That’s selfish. If you’re going to have a baby, do it a) when you’re financially capable, b) when you can take a year or two off work to look after your offspring and c) when you can maturely make the sacrifices that having a family demands!

Outraged says:

09:24pm | 31/05/11

Suzanne- if the “the majority of couples decide *together* to start a family. It’s not that the woman decides she wants a baby and ties the man down until he impregnantes her.”...that is BS!

If a woman is pregnant and wants to keep the baby, but the man doesnt, only the WOMAN gets to decide to abort it.

BUT

If a woman is pregnant and she DOESNT want to keep the baby, but the man does, only the WOMAN gets to decide to abort it.

Why isn’t the man’s “choice” ever considered in the discussion?

Jay-ded says:

12:52pm | 31/05/11

@ Loxy - completely correct!  Most families can’t live on one wage - especially if they have children - and a mortgage.  The added burden of another person within the family (or 2 or 3) forces the person on maternity leave (either male or female) to get back to work ASAP.  It’s got nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not their job is available to them when they get back.

Kate says:

04:16pm | 31/05/11

Very true Loxy!
I know those will be the reasons I will return to work once I have a child. I’ll save up money beforehand, but my partner and I won’t be able to live on one income for long. More importantly, I suspect I will go absolutely mental without adult conversation after a while.
It’s just personal preference though. I really like working and would find it hard to cope without a job. My boyfriend, on the other hand, would love to be a stay at home dad and could probably do it for a few years before getting sick of it.

Outraged says:

09:27pm | 31/05/11

You can’t have it both ways, ladies!

On the one hand, women tell us “Motherhood is a wonderful, empowering, exciting journey only women get to experience”

but then on the other hand you say: “Motherhood is boring and we need more stimulation”?!

Which is it?!

Fiona says:

10:16pm | 31/05/11

It can be both outraged. You love your child/ren very much, yet I don’t know anyone who’d find excitement in changing nappies, cooking veggies for pureeing, washing baby clothes, having no adult conversation all day et, oh it’s very repetitive.. I challenge anyone to tell me there are no boring aspects to a job they love.

Tam says:

10:23am | 31/05/11

Holy moly, the glass ceiling is still alive and kicking with attitudes like that!  To point out the obvious, every single man on this entire planet has a mother - in fact, it was was a beautiful, thoughtful caring woman that brought you into existence.  Imagine if your own mother had decided career was more important than having children….Oh wait, then we wouldn’t be reading your sexist, chauvinistic, derogatory comments.  I genuinely hope you aren’t married.

Cloud Strife says:

10:53am | 31/05/11

@Ray

“Just as an aside but relevent to equal pay and other attendent oversites. Afghanistan. Now 26 dead - 26 men, no women. Which women are decrying this position. Tracy?”

Lots of them. Pretty much every woman in the ADF wants to do it. Don’t you remember the ‘women on the front line’ from a few weeks back?

Ray says:

10:59am | 31/05/11

TAM, also every feminist has a father.

Also correction, it’s now 27 dead in Afghanistan 27 men, no women.

Also once at the War Memorial in Canberra, on Anzac Day, I heard a female Major General address the audience with ’ when theMENn and WOMEN of Australia and New Zealand stormed the beaches of Gallipoli’ - quote.

Nice don’t you think.

Erick says:

11:03am | 31/05/11

@Tam - every single woman on this entire planet has a father - in fact, it was was a beautiful, thoughtful caring man that brought you into existence.  Imagine if your own father had decided career was more important than having children….Oh wait, then we wouldn’t be reading your sexist, chauvinistic, derogatory comments.  I genuinely hope you aren’t married.

Ray says:

11:38am | 31/05/11

Cloud Strife, I knew the intellectually and ideology challenged would come up with that cop out.

Doesn’t rate really.

And the real reason is a group, say a military platoon is only as strong as its weakest link. That is the real reason women are not on the front line. Nothing to do with natural protection of a woman. It’s about safety of the poor buggers who front up defending your country and put their lives at risk. Doing so whilke ingrates sit at home pontificating about gender equity.

But that would be talking abvout the interests of men in the field, wouldn’t it. But hey that’s hush, hush, wink, wink because we can’t talk of the interests of men. You can’t even acknowledge men’s goodness and their contribution

I reiterate an experience at the Canberra War Memorial on Anzac Day Service, where a female Major General addressed the attendees and quote expressed remembrance of ‘the MEN and WOMEN of Australia and New Zealand who stormed the beaches at Gallipoli’. Work that out.

As I’ve now said Afghanistan now 27 dead, 27 men , no women. That’s just for the ingrates.

Tam says:

12:50pm | 31/05/11

Erick says:11:03am | 31/05/11

@Tam - every single woman on this entire planet has a father - in fact, it was was a beautiful, thoughtful caring man that brought you into existence.  Imagine if your own father had decided career was more important than having children….Oh wait, then we wouldn’t be reading your sexist, chauvinistic, derogatory comments.  I genuinely hope you aren’t married.

Ray says:10:59am | 31/05/11

TAM, also every feminist has a father.

Ah, but we’re not talking about men taking time out from their careers to have children here, are we.  Even the most career minded of fathers are happy to have children as long as the woman can stay at home and look after it, feed it and nurture it.  My father had very little to do with raising me in the early days - he was a truck driver and would be away for weeks at a time.  But that certainly hasn’t tainted my attitude of men, unlike some of the men (and women) who seem to be happy to woman-bash to their hearts contents.

Every person on this planet has a mother AND a father, but I’m going to hazard a guess that at least 80% of the population have been predominantly raised by the female parent, and that many a good and fulfilling career has been sacraficed in order to raise said child. 

So to that end, your argument is effectively moot.

mike j says:

12:58pm | 31/05/11

Agree, Ray. I used to like Tracey when someone else wrote every word she said.

And I’ve given up expecting intelligent commentary from the women who post here. You’re lucky if you can get one to see past her own personal circumstances and irrational sense of feminist entitlement long enough to understand what you’re saying.

Muttley says:

01:51pm | 31/05/11

And why is it that 80% (your figures) have been predominately raised by women? Well up until relatively recently men had little choice in the matter. It was the fathers role to go to work. The balance is SLOWLY being redressed, but it certainly isnt even. I would like nothing more than to give up work to spend my time raising my kids. The point raised is far from moot. Mothers and Fathers are both important. Once the actual birth is complete there is little difference whether the mother or father are the primary care givers.

Cloud Strife says:

01:59pm | 31/05/11

@Ray

I actually work with the ADF. Many of the women I see would (literally) kill to be on the front line. If it was up to them, they’d be on the first plane to Iraq.

I can acknowledge and know and thank plenty of servicemen and their views, rights and entitlements. Most of them would also like their female collegues to join them.

So, no, it’s not a ‘cop out’, it’s a point where women, specifically women in the service, are decrying that position, as you asked.

PS: You and Erick like to seem to think I am a women. I wonder why that is, because I have a differing viewpoint? PROTIP: Men don’t have a hive mind anymore than the women do.

Tim says:

02:21pm | 31/05/11

Cloud Strife,
I’d suggest most people think you’re a women (sic) because last week you were telling everyone about being raped and how it was a horrible experience for a woman.
Do you think that could be it?

Ray says:

03:15pm | 31/05/11

TAM No we are not talking about men because we never do other than to pilory them. Look at the Punch there;s 6 concurrent articles on women. And the continual man bashing by women HAS tainted my attitude towards women.

CloudStrife I worked for the Military for 28 years & given utmost respect by military and was given Aust. Day honours for it.. So you are one of the women under the auspices of Defence that provided the unwelcome attitude towards male employees. I carried women on countless occasions when they got accelerated promotion and were out of their depth. Theinitiations in Defence of affirmative actions is like an addictive plague

As for women on the front line; you think you can handle it but can’t. Bugger putting the male troops in danger by you as a weak link. Those soldiers you infer to are all on the career warning not to say what they think of women in the military.

Can’t decode your final sentence

Cloud Strife says:

06:06pm | 31/05/11

@Tim

Actually, I believe I said it was a horrible experience for any *person* to go through.

@Ray

BZZZZZT! Wrong again!

Ray says:

08:23pm | 31/05/11

Really CloudStrife. I no doubt out rank you as well

Tam says:

10:37am | 31/05/11

@Laughable - the government will never abolish paid maternity leave for this exact reason.  Our economy can’t afford to: a) not have women in the workforce, and b) not have women reproducing.  When you do the maths on that one, paid maternity leave is here to stay!

Jade says:

10:47am | 31/05/11

And it takes two years for your body to fully recover from the whole ordeal…

Vince says:

11:07am | 31/05/11

Not to mention that none of these “sick of this” type posters would even be here to be sick of anything had not some generous mother decided to make them, raise them and feed them - essentially donating a huge part of their lives in the process.  Maybe “Sick of This” should change his/her name to “Ungrateful” as that is more appopriate.

The Free Libertarian says:

04:14pm | 31/05/11

Laughable, I’d be interested to know why children are a net benefit?

Do you have any logical, economically sound principles to back it up?

Thank you

Shane From Melbourne says:

03:30pm | 31/05/11

Bunch of crap. If this was the rationale for maternity leave then it would be economically more viable to import adults as immigrants and thus save on the costs of rearing children. What? We already import large numbers of immigrants? What was your point again?

Max Redlands says:

12:36pm | 31/05/11

@ Suzanne

and this right there is an example of the source of a lot of the problems.

More than a few people and a lot of them women don’t seem to want to or simply can’t get their heads around the notion that life is about competition. It’s a struggle to survive.

It’s a dog eat dog world and there’s only so much dog to go around.

If some-one wants to get ahead of the pack then sacrifices usually have to be made and as much as talent will get you somewhere not much happens without the work being done.

If want to prove yourself as an exceptional worker then you need to do an exceptional amount of work or work of an exceptional quality - both will take up your time.

Markus says:

11:56am | 31/05/11

No, just doing your job in the hours that you’re being paid for is not enough to expect promotion to higher duties and pay.

I have no issue with anyone who chooses a better work/life balance. I only have an issue with people who make this choice, then complain that they are being looked over for promotion for others who did not.

I fail to see what is wrong with Australia rewarding those who demonstrate they want the extra work over those who show they don’t.

RJ says:

12:21pm | 31/05/11

Someone elses benefit?

Since when is YOUR career someone else’s benefit ???

Lostie says:

02:08pm | 31/05/11

Suzanne -

You are not expected to do extra work. It’s your choice. But you are in competition with people who are willing to go that extra mile because they want that job/money.

People do those hours for their own benefit - they are free to say “No I wont do that”. but at the same time the employer, when deciding that next promotion, would be an idiot to look past that person who has put in extra effort. If you reject their request to do extra work don’t be surpised if they reject your request for a renewal of contract or a promotion in the same way.

Your behaviour, your choices, will also affect any reference they give you. “Suzanne was unwilling to work weekends, when the rest of the team came in for X, Y and Z. She insisted that she didn’t have to do that. Thankfully the rest of the team picked up the slack.”

If you want a career, you suck it up and do whatever it takes to attain the fulfilling career that you desire. If you want a family, you do whatever it takes to have the family you desire. Sometimes that means settling for someone less than the perfect partner, going without a nice car.

Sure your employer gets a benefit - why else would they pay you if not for the benefit that they receive. You do extra work in the hope that they will receive extra benefit and share that with you.

Welcome to freedom.
The freedom to suffer the consequences of your choices.

Suzanne says:

04:34pm | 31/05/11

I have no objection to evening or weekend work when there’s a need for it. I’m on call this weekend actually for a project. What I object to is the expectation that unpaid overtime is the norm and anyone who ‘only’ works the hours they’re paid for instead of putting in an extra 1 or 2 hours each day is not a team player.

Man, some of the attitudes here are straight from the 1920’s. I suspect if a lot of you had your way women still wouldn’t even be allowed to vote, hold a job once they got married or drive a car.

lol says:

06:39pm | 31/05/11

@ suzanne… u r just a spoilt self entitled lazy cow. the ONLY reason you resent other people working over time or putting in the extra work is because it makes you look bad because ur not willing to. well that is just simply too bad. fact, u dont deserve to take the promotion or whatever it is if someone else is working harder than you. don’t blame the system or the other person, its not like they’re ‘cheating’ somehow lol. its very simple. u have made ur decision not to work outside of standard work hours, or ‘sacrifice’ ur free time… they have made their decision to dedicate extra time and effort to work. u need to just be able to accept the consequences of ur actions… like i said, ur just a spoilt brat who wants everything she’s NOT entitled to.
and ur last post is hilarious… u are clearly just trying to backtrack with that ‘oh no i actually dont have any objection to working overtime, see im even on call this weekend’... and then with these accusations about how men want to suppress women and our 1920’s attitude, thats not even relevant to ur post! ur somehow trying to change this post from people who work overtime to men not wanting women in the workplace… ur just trying to save face and throwing out some irrelevant accusations. ur hopeless im afraid.
just get on with ur life and accept the consequences of ur actions and enjoy ur free time, and dont resent the others who are ‘sacrificing’ their free time to advance their careers!

Lostie says:

11:09pm | 31/05/11

Suzanne,

Regrettably, this system applies to men as much as women, it’s just that it has long been accepted that men will sacrifice family lives to do their job.

You’ll note that I carefully avoided gender references because I sincerely believe that the same challenge applies to both genders.

I am intrigued by how this is a view from the 1920’s…

bec says:

06:46pm | 31/05/11

It’s the consideration I made. Given that the vast majority of elderly people who live in poverty are women (lost wages, superannuation, little savings, lack of skills for promotion due to time taken off work), when I have kids, I won’t be able to afford to take time off work; it might be feasible in the short-term, but the long-term prognosis is poor. I choose to protect my children from poverty in my later years and the prospect of them having to financially support me; thus, I choose feminism.

Max Redlands says:

03:02pm | 31/05/11

@AR

“You’re all a pack of idiots.’

Welll i guess that settles it then.

“it’s not our fault we are the only gender who can bear children”

WTF?? - no one’s blaming anybody.

It may not be women’s fault but it is their lot.

Ray says:

08:18am | 01/06/11

@Magot (excuse the spelling - James! knows I can’t spell., and tryies to remind me)

This whole exercise in indoctrinated worshipping of women to massage their ego. Nothing to do with welfare or social advancement. Rome burned while Nero fiddled. If you’re on $150,00 you do NOT need welfare.

This whole exercise underlines women’s feeling of entitlement, with the full knowledge that they only have to flit around the edges without putting in to receive a rails run through life.

It’s also nothing to do with kids, as women have blatently used the ‘kids’ excuse to lever many other benefits, in particular the
Family Law Act and its attendent gender orientated family court.

So there is no philanthropic motive here it is pure self indulgence which women have refined as an art form.