Modern mums really just want to stay at home

Danielle says:

11:03am | 26/07/10

Here here.

similarly, my mother could afford to stay at home so she did. Then dad did the bunk after 25 years marriage and she is now virtually unemployable and lives week to week in the kind of constrained circumstances I couldn’t fathom.

i think you will also find Rita that most women can not bear the thought of having their kids with them 24/7, 7 days a week. There are plenty who would like to work LESS and have less financial pressure. But ask the average full or part time working mum if she’d like to be the sole carer of her child 7 days a week and she would say no. I’m sure as heck not capable of keeping my 2 1/2 year old busy and entertained 7 days a week.

you have this ridiculously simplistic notion of the situation of modern families that reflects a broader dumbing down of women and particularly female commentators that it is all about ‘work good/bad, no work good/bad’ . This does not reflect any families I know. Plenty (particularly shift workers) don’t need child care and Dad does the kids on the weekends whilst mum works and more and more o fthe men I know are dropping to 4 days or doing a period of paternity leave to be with their kids whilst their partner works. If you think that is a bad thing then you have a pretty low opinion of the male role in the life of a child.

WEML says:

11:45am | 26/07/10

fantastic comments Bec and Danielle.

DG says:

01:12pm | 26/07/10

“So what about supporting men to stay home and take on a more active role that will result in things like better family court outcomes and improved physical and mental health for them?”

This assumes 2 things.

Firstly, that women want to be at work and secondly that men want to be at home. If a woman does not want to be a full time mother, and her partner is unwilling to be a ‘stay-at-home’ father - the options are clear. Don’t have kids, outsource parenting, or make the sacrifice for the kids you want. Similarly, if a man does not want to be a full time father, and his partner is unwilling to be a ‘stay-at-home’ mother- the options are clear. Don’t have kids, outsource parenting, or make the sacrifice for the kids you want.

In my circle of friends (predominately lawyers and accountants), the female members insist that they have a ‘right’ to be stay-at-home mothers. More importantly they, almost exclusively, want to take a break from their career to have children. That is, they would rather be stay at home mums than spend their hours at work to climb the corporate ladder.

Whether that is a wise move (in the long run) is, perhaps, a secondary consideration - they are intelligent people who realise that taking time out of their career will affect their earning capacity, but they would still rather be parents than workers. They would rather take the harder, less financially rewarding path. And at least 2 of them have done so (leaving high paying jobs to be stay at home mothers).

Personally, I would love the chance to be a stay-at home dad (if and when I have children) however, I am repeatedly told by my partner (and the female members of our group of friends) that it’s a woman’s “right’ to stay at home with her baby.

In my experience of having this discussion with a number of women - many see the male ‘duty’ as supporting the mother in whatever decision she makes (either being responsible for financial support, or for sharing the parenting). The emphasis being on the (assumed) fact that it is the mothers choice, rather than a shared parental decision.
“It is, with the caveat that some choices are more educated and socially productive than others.
A s for your suggestion that it’s not a choice where one option is more appealing than the other. Yes it is. It’s can ‘easy choice’. It’s a matter of personal responsibility to decide whether you wish to make the easy choice or take the harder alternative.

When one chooses to be dependent on another person, so that they can pursue interests out of the workplace, they take a risk. The risk being that the person providing the support may not always be willing to support them. Whether it is an ‘intelligent’ choice is entirely dependent on the outcomes. Many women have benefited from the opportunity to be a stay at home mother and have lived long happy lives with the support of their partner. Others have not been so lucky. One thing that they have in common is that they all took a risk.

Increasingly, people are less likely to take this risk (either because they want more money or they are reluctant to be dependent on their partner), and they outsource their parental duties in increasing amounts (either to day-care or to friends any family). It has little to do with lack of choice, it’s a choice to pursue financial interests. to live in a nicer house than their parents did, to have a big TV, a new car, every child to have their own room, private education, a house closer to the city etc - very few are willing to (or are even capable of) leading the frugal lives of their parents.

However, I do understand why people don’t want to take the risk of being dependent on someone else. It’s a huge risk, and the consequences can be devastating for the dependent partner and for the children.

WEML says:

01:34pm | 26/07/10

DG, a couple of points,

your comment assumes that all pregnancies and children are planned.

Women have a right to chose to stay at home or to participate in the workforce.

And it’s certainly not about taking the easy or hard road, it goes far beyond such simplistic frames of reference.  For some women/men the hard road would be returning to work.

I do, however, see your point with regards to remaining dependent on your partner for an extended period…it’s a bad move on a number of fronts not least because it prevents the opportunity for personal growth and the achievement of goals that are not family-related.

ej says:

01:36pm | 26/07/10

DG my heart has broken for you to have your partner say that it is the woman’s right to stay home and the man’s role is to support her.

That is just so, so sad and so selfish of her.

Of course I am projecting here, I am imaging saying that to my beautiful, lovely husband. It would devastate him. It makes me feel gutted just thinking about how sad it is.

star says:

01:54pm | 26/07/10

@DG

Well said. You’ve put it brilliantly.

DG says:

02:16pm | 26/07/10

WEML;

I did not intend to suggest that all pregnancies are planned - but that’s a risk of participating in sexual intercourse. If neither the mother nor father want to stay at home and be parents after learning about the pregnancy, outsource the child raising, or put it up for adoption.

“Women have a right to chose to stay at home or to participate in the workforce.”

If you hold that view then you necessarily conclude that a man has no rights in this regard. You impose a duty on a father to submit to the whim of their partner. Exactly the point that I was making - if you see a woman as having a right, then you impose a duty on a man to submit.

Your stated position means that men have no choice, no rights - only a duty to do whatever part of life the woman doesn’t want to do.

“For some women/men the hard road would be returning to work.”
My point was a reference to the statement by Bec that “It’s a bit of a copout to say that something is a choice reasonably made if the option itself is overwhelmingly viewed more positively”.

I reject the notion that it is a cop-out to recognise that a person makes a choice and one option looks much rosier than the alternative. Life commonly throws up choices of that nature - being a mature adult is about accepting those choices and making the most of the opportunities that you have. Some times that means taking the harder of riskier path (whatever that may be), if that’s the path you want to walk.

It’s a simple cost/benefit analysis. The cost/benefit of staying at home v the cost/benefit of outsourcing. For some people the benefit of spending their days with their child will be more important than the cost of forgoing the annual holiday, For others their career will be a greater benefit than, the costs of outsourcing their parental duties for 8-12 hours a day. yet others will weigh the social stigma against the personal satisfaction and so on. But ultimately it is a choice - some choices are hard, some are easy. But whether it’s hard or easy it’s still a choice. Unless of course Bec was suggesting that this sector of the community do not have the will power or fortitude to make difficult decisions. I certainly do not expect that to be the case.

Whats for dinner Dad? says:

02:48pm | 26/07/10

My wife and I have shared the “stay at home” role.  We swapped roles after 4 years of her being at home when she managed to get straight back into her previous career,  the new company accepted that a break as a mother was legitimate.  I stayed at home from then, i now wish to return to work but I am regarded as a freak, a sub-man and have very severe interview questioning, implying that I have been being kept and made aware of their disapproval.  Had I been a women I feel they would have had no such reaction.  I have also been dismayed throughout what has been a great experience, that a stay at home dad is an unemployable waster.  If you don’t mind that tar brush, it is a great experience and one I will remember more than an equivalent time working.

WEML says:

02:56pm | 26/07/10

DG, I absolutely believe that fathers and mother deserve the right to either be at home or engage in paid employment, sorry to have not made that clear.  The ideal care/work arrangement as far as I am concerned is part-time employed , part-time carer (for both parents) I realise this is a pipe dream.

My SIL and BIL had a baby 5 months ago and both wanted to stay at home, but she got the gig.  The breast feeding issue was clearly the deciding factor but I truly believe that once that is done with (that is if BF is even an option) either parent should be entitled to state their case to be the primary carer.

Some mothers claim a stronger connection to their children, one which alienates the father, I completely disagree with this.

MM says:

06:10pm | 26/07/10

Similarly, my parents chose that my tertiary-educated mother would be a stay-at-home mum to three children. Almost twenty years later my parents separated. My mother was forced onto a sole-parent pension and subsequently newstart allowance where she stayed for almost two years as she struggled to reskill to become employable again (not just in her field - in any capacity!). She had to raise two dependent children on a pension with minimal child support from my father, could not afford to buy a house, had no superannuation and has to wait until my father retires* until she can access a meagre portion of his (not enough for two separated people to live off).

A dreadful, helpless situation to find oneself in and it has most certainly influenced my subsequent decisions about balancing career and family objectives, particularly in relation to financial security and independence.

*I think the law has changed now so you do not have to rely upon the other spouse’s retirement before you can access joint superannuation assets, but that was her situation.

Rich says:

06:45pm | 26/07/10

EJ et al.,

It does not matter who stays home. What we forget is that we are talking about familes, not individuals. For most men in the so called hothouse of misogeny, there is a partner equally dependant on the salary, plus female and male children. This is not a sexual issue, but rather one of family. My educated Wife wants me to get up the salary ladder not just to prove that I am a big tough male able to break an imaginary glass ceiling, but to support her and the kids. Yea, she is a female too. I also do my half of the house chores and all of the yard work, which, by the way guys, is not that much extra work when you get home and is a great way to unwind.

Lou says:

10:49pm | 26/07/10

I too am tired of the cliche that ‘feminism is all about choice’. Quite frankly it appears to be all about women being able to achieve for themselves and encouraging us to ignore our childrens needs. Happy mum = happy child, happy wife= happy life are the common ones. Well I think they’re a load of rubbish and are an easy cop-out when we know we are doing the wrong thing.  As an educated mother I know that leaving my career behind is the best thing for my children. They are being raised by me with my values and benefitting from my education. They’re not being raised by a young untrained childcare worker, they are being raised by a university educated mother. You never hear of stay at home mums complaining about mother guilt either.

Lou says:

10:54pm | 26/07/10

Danielle, to be honest, from the working mums I know, most of them havent the faintest idea what to actually do with their children when the do find themselves at home with them.  Its very sad.

bec says:

08:29am | 27/07/10

Lou, my mum stayed at home and didn’t have the faintest clue what to do with us either. We entertained ourselves, often many kilometres from home without mum knowing where we were, who we were with, what we were doing, and when we’d be home. We probably spent more time with our dad, who worked 60+ hours a week.

There never was this great amazing utopia where mothers spent all their waking hours, most happily, with their children, without respite or need for someone else to look after them. Back in the 1950s, they might have been working at home, but they were too occupied actually working around the house or in their communities to spend time with their kids (or is the impression I got from both parents, raised by stay-at-home mums).

There are plenty of kids who I teach who have no regard for their mums as human beings - to them, their stay-at-home mums are just unpaid launderers and cooks. These kids have no sense of independence, organisation or conflict resolution skills. You can always tell when a kid had both parents working - they can actually sort their own crap out.

I’m over this cult of the child, which is just a sick extension of anti-feminism. You want to know the source of kids being over-entitled and irresponsible? It’s them getting the impression that the world revolves around them, and that they deserve interrupting other people’s lives for as long as they want. Kids are fantastic, resilient little bastards. They eventually have to participate in the world as independent people. And given that I spend at least 15 minutes at the end of some lessons tying up the laces of eleven year old children whose parents brag “I stayed home - I’m a *good* mother”, I’m fairly over the lie that staying at home = always productive parenting.

Lou says:

09:36am | 27/07/10

Bec, of course you will get ‘bad mothers’ from all walks of life.  But when I look at the children my own children mix with the ones who truly stand out are really living quite sad lonely lives. Materially they have everything. Because of that their mothers completely miss the point, or choose not to see that their children are the ones who are paying the ultimate price for their career fullfilment. Because they have been conditioned to truly believe happy mum=happy child.
I am not talking about families where mum working is essential to buy food. I am talking about affluent families where both mum and dad are professional, they live in beautiful homes, drive expensive cars, holiday often and their children are attending private schools. And the kids are left with any available nanny or friend until late at night because both parents are too absorbed in themselves. I dont think this is sending these children a good message about their worth as human beings.
Sure many kids have been mollyocoddled by over indulgent stay at home mums, but there are just as many materially spoilt and emotianally deprived children craving attention from families where mum and dad are both putting their careers first.

bec says:

07:38am | 28/07/10

Lou, you speak with the ignorance of someone who *wasn’t* raised by an unhappy mother. Someone who is miserable and requires high doses of antidepressants and constant therapy makes a terrible parent - whether they’re a stay-at-home mum or not.

Lou says:

12:34pm | 29/07/10

Bec,  I’m sorry that your childhood wasnt a happy time for you.  But you shouldnt assume that all mothers who are stay at home mums are unhappy.  Just because a few people have unfortunate experiences doesnt mean all mothers and their children will.  Most dont.
My mum had the luxury of a fulltime professional career, which was rare for women in the 1980’s when I was growing up. So did my dad.  They were both happy and fulfilled. That meant my sister and I were left with whatever exhausted scraps of them were left over at the end of the day. Weekends were the same. We spent most of our school holidays with babysitters or whoever they could find to mind us.  Certainly not the sort of life I want for my children.

Alex says:

04:50pm | 05/02/11

Lou, I’m sorry that your childhood wasnt a happy time for you. But you shouldnt assume that every child that has two parents who work turn out screwy and feel unloved. Sounds like your parents just had a bad attitude. That doesn’t mean every parent who wants a career as well as children does a bad job. Get a grip.

KH says:

08:36am | 26/07/10

Of all the ill considered comments I have ever read on this blog, this is one of the silliest.  As for your ridiculous assertion that ‘someone more dedicated’ would have got the place, you mean someone who didn’t get the grades to get into the course in the first place.  I’m thinking a doctor who got D’s all the way through uni wouldn’t be much better than one who doesn’t keep up with the latest treatments. 

Generally, only those who can study efficiently and learn quickly survive medicine - having a baby isn’t quite the same as having a lobotomy.

Bitten says:

09:25am | 26/07/10

KH it’s not simply about getting into a program. It is about then putting that training to use, the reason why we have training places and university programs in the first place. I don’t think it is unreasonable to assert that it is a waste of a place in a limited program if a person who takes that place then chooses not to work. We have a severe healthcare workforce shortage, not just in doctors, but also in nurses, allied health professionals (i.e. radiographers, sonographers, OTs). We should have more training places in all associated professions however questions should be asked about how efficiently the existing training places are being utilised if people take a place but then choose not to work in the industry.

Attempting to gloss over the result of people choosing to train and then choosing not to work, as though it has no negative effect on service delivery, is typical of Australia’s approach to health *fingers in ears* “Lalalalalalala I’m not listening!” Which is kind of how we got into a workforce shortage to begin with.

Susan says:

10:28am | 26/07/10

I gained my degree not knowing whether I would have children or not. 
Now I have children, and stay home full time with them.  I don’t believe my education has been “wasted”.  Instead, I’m using my training to help in bringing up my children the best they can be.
I don’t see any difference in me no longer working in the field my degree was in, as anyone who else has changed careers.  It’s just that I don’t get paid (monetarily) for my current vocation.

Anne71 says:

12:41pm | 26/07/10

Joan, do you know any doctors personally? I’m guessing not, otherwise you would not have made such an ignorant comment. My sister is a doctor, and she has four kids. She could only take couple of month’s leave for each one because if she had taken any longer, she would have had to sit an exam to re-qualify to practice. And even during her leave, she still kept up to date with all the papers, journals and so forth that every doctor has to read as part of their job. She went back part time at first, and then once her kids were school age, back to full time. And, FYI - she was and still is one of the most popular doctors in her practice. None of her patients think she is “out of touch” just because she had kids. That’s just your prejudice, I think.

Jayne says:

01:00pm | 26/07/10

Joan, my female GP has 3 kids, from the age of 8 to 15. As a mother of two kids under 6 being able to get real life medical advice from a medical professional who has also had life experience, has benefited my family. And yes, she’s a part time GP, working 2.5 days per week. And yes, she’s up to date.

Joan says:

01:37pm | 26/07/10

Well girls grades mean nothing if you don’t use your expertise and yes I have met many female GPs through my line of work and the part time ones don’t rate, only the full time female Drs Good luck to you if you find quality treatment amongst that lot, I know I won’t take my health care there.

Bitten says:

01:46pm | 26/07/10

Jayne in your example, 1 full medical degree is being utilised at 50%. Do you really think that in big picture terms that has no negative impact? You’re suggesting we effectively have to double medical school training places to simply provide the supposed number of doctors we should have full time right now. Where would you like me to look for the money for that to come from Jayne?

And that number isn’t actually enough for just the current population. So we might have to triple or quadruple the medical school training places (plus intern places, plus residency plus specialist fellowships) just to adequately service the current population.

I really think it’s time women had a long hard look at themselves and considered that ladies, your choices are rarely just about you. Sometimes you will do things that affect other people’s lives. Maybe you should be a bit less selfish/self-obsessed. You may like to feel that you don’t find your education has been wasted - hurrah! But that thing is, it’s not just about the impact your choices have on YOU. Doing nursing? Decide to stop work? That’s one less nurse we have in an already short workforce. Doing OT? Decide to stop working? That’s one less OT we have etc etc etc. Or to use Jayne’s example: doing medicine? Decide to work half a full time workload?  That’s 0.5 fewer doctors we have in an already short workforce. You need a reality check if you think that taking a training place in a workforce-shortage area and deciding to stop working has no impact - you are directly contributing to the problem.

n_dude says:

02:01pm | 26/07/10

This is a very blinkered view. The fact is that the job of a doctor is extremely stressful and actually does not lend itself to raising a family. My wife is a registrar in a public hospital and after giving birth to our daughter has decided to move away from the field because the system here in NSW overworks it doctors and unfortunately my company does not provide paid paternity leave or flexible options. The fact is my salary is more than double my wife’s, hence the system (rather than the individual workers themselves) makes it difficult for mothers wanting to return to work,

Lou says:

10:52pm | 26/07/10

How ridiculous ! A smart educated mother raises smart children. An education is never wasted, unless its value is only judged in dollars and cents.

Lou says:

10:21am | 27/07/10

Education is never wasted.  The smartest highest achieving children I know have university educated mothers who left work to help guide, supervise and support their children through high school. Far better that then leaving them home alone each afternoon to watch TV and take drugs all so mum doesnt ‘waste’ her education and keep working. Besides, why is the worth of an education only judged by its earning potential? What about the benefit it has for the whole family unit?

TLM says:

09:57am | 28/07/10

So you only want the uneducated bogans to breed? that’s what it sounds like, everyone whether they be doctors, nurses, lawyers, pilots, scientists whatever they all have the right to have children if they so choose.  otherwise we will be ending up with a next generation of no hopers who will be on the dole and retirement age will increase to 90.

That’s a beautiful future.

Even if these doctors do not go back to work, they are still enriching their own children, teaching them and emparting knowledge from their time at school and giving their children another way of learning. That’s not a bad thing in my book, otherwise how else will will get the doctors of tomorrow?

M says:

10:43am | 26/07/10

I am a mother and student, hoping to find work once I finish in November.  My identity is wrapped up in both these ‘occupations.’  I have a very strong desire to be in the paid workforce.  There are moments of stress, anxiety and life is indeed frantic at times, but this was the case before I went back to study.  For me, I need to know that there is something beyond caring for my kids, after all they’re not always going to need you as much as they do now.  Having a life of ones own may sound cliched, but it’s crucial to sustained happiness…as far as I’m concerned.

Danielle says:

11:08am | 26/07/10

I’m really glad that works for you and think its great for your family.

On the flipside, I doubt we could survive financially but even if we could, i couldn’t do the stay at home parenting thing 7 days a week adn i doubt my 2 1/2 year would be that interested in it. There is no way I’d be doing play doh by 9 and songs and scouring the neighbourhood finding other children to play with. I don’t have any guilt about that. I’m great with little babies and primary school kids but the energy and imagination required for toddlers 7 days a week is above and beyond me.

Just like you loved the arrangements you came to, I love my 3 days a week weeing in private and exercising the muscle of my brain.

Robert Smissen Rural SA says:

10:49am | 26/07/10

Funny isn’t it, before the “Female Eunuch” was published most Australian families had 1 bread winner (usually male, athough, not always) a stay at home parent & a lot more kids to handle. Yet we were all well fed, well clothed & unemployment amongst youth virtually unheard of? ? ? What

Anne71 says:

12:48pm | 26/07/10

@Robert Smissen - I think it might be something to do with the cost of living being much higher now than it was then. Yes, average salaries were lower but the money went much further than it does now. Not sure what “The Female Eunuch” has to do with it though. You’re not another Eric, are you, blaming all the evils of the world on “them feministas”?

JS says:

01:55pm | 26/07/10

It is possible to survive on 1 salary, but not to current standards. When I chose to be a full time parent, we rarely had take-away meals, the kids shared a bedroom and going out to dinner was a rare luxury. If I had my time over, I think I would have been happier working part time and having a few luxuries, but that is my personal opinion.  My point is don’t assume that surviving on one wage can’t be done, it can but there are substantial sacrifices, and not many people today are prepared to make them.

star says:

02:04pm | 26/07/10

@Anne71

The cost of living has risen mainly because people are now more materialistic than they once were. We now want 2 (or more) cars, 2 (or more) plasmas, a bedroom for each of the kiddies, a house close(r) to the city, more food, better food, new kitchen, new bathroom, new furniture etc

The cost of living has not increased because of Labor or immigrants or any other bogeyman that people like to trot out. It’s our own materialism that is to ‘blame’.

We only have ourselves to blame. However, you can easily survive on one income. You only have to forego all the things you think you want. Or be like me and earn a lot of money.

PaulB says:

04:20pm | 26/07/10

Is the problem the cost of living or is it the cost of living in the style to which we’ve all grown accustomed?  Many people in the world would find this debate somewhat indulgent.

DragonLass says:

05:15pm | 26/07/10

The main cost that has gone up since the 50’s is housing.  And I firmly believe that it has a heck of a lot to do with females working.  Why? Because suddenly each couple is earning more money, so can afford to spend more on a house.  Because the housing market is simply driven by what people are prepared to pay for it, so it played a huge part in driving up the price of housing.  Prior to a large part of families having 2 incomes, the money simply wasn’t there to pay over inflated prices.  Yes, land availabilty is also part of it, but the same issue still stands.

So of course, for a single income family, it makes housing become a huge part of overall expense.  Yes, it can be done, and isn’t so bad outside capital cities.  But living in, say, Sydney, it is very hard.  If you’re raising a family, you don’t really want to live in the cheaper high crime areas like Fairfield.

V says:

12:01pm | 26/07/10

This comment reflects very little insight into parenting.  What you appear to be mostly refering to is housework…

ALC says:

03:22pm | 26/07/10

BK, I think your view is a little limited and maybe you haven’t tried being a stay at home mum with a toddler?  Saying it was “probably a hard job several decades ago” is true, but please don’t discount it is a hard job now too. 
I work 2 days a week from home - thankfully I found an employer who would take me on and be flexible after being cast out of a high level public service job because I wanted to work part time.  I cook from scratch 13 nights out of 14, I clean our house, I do the ironing (OK so not the sheets!) , I studied for the last two years to get my 2nd uni degree, I do playdough, playdates and library visits with my nearly 4 year old, and we cook and bake and sing and dance and swim. So don’t talk about it not being hard. 
Yes, my husband and I make those choices together, and yes, he does take over to give me a break but exhaustion and hard work?  Its all still there.  That hasn’t changed in decades.  For what its worth, my mum, who was a stay at home until we were all at school and then worked part time, says she thinks its harder for women now to raise kids and be settled - back then there wasn’t the issue of guilt (and believe me its there all the time - not doing enough work, not spending enough time with the kids etc) and it wasn’t nearly so isolating.
Everyone has a choice, but its the constant criticism for whichever choice you make that makes things difficult - why should we have to validate how we as a family choose to live?

P says:

03:22pm | 26/07/10

Yes but let us be honest here. These things are ‘expected’  from a stay at home mother also.

BK says:

09:44pm | 26/07/10

I stand by what I have written. Go back several decades and consider all of the changes. Polo shirts have replaced school and work shirts requiring ironing. Packets of bisuits have replaced home baking. Sending kids to day care has replaced being stuck with them 24/7. Houses were spotless, no matter how many kids lived there.

FYI I am a stay at home dad of two (2yo & 4yo). Being male, I feel privelleged to have this opportunity and haven’t been socialised to see myself as a victim. Some people need to stop angrily defending their victimhood and realise how good they have it.

Sickemrex says:

09:47am | 26/07/10

Spot on.  Having heard an unemployed 27 year old mother of seven saying that she’s made enough money for a while by having babies and is going to have a break, I can’t help but agree with a policy which might encourage educated, intelligent women to have children.

Possum says:

02:06pm | 27/07/10

On the other hand, if an employer is offering full maternity leave and support for returning mothers and another isn’t, who would you work for? 

I thought that we have low unemployment, with it getting worse once more of the baby boomers retire - isn’t that why the government is keen to encourage women to work?  But we also need population to look after those of us that went before - we need women to have babies.  The best policy for employers, governments and taxpayers is a group of women willing to have children but also willing to return to work - that keeps the employee pools wider (and wages lower), more taxpayers are produced and we have economic activity still continuing.  Also, if the relationship does go belly-up from the pressure, then the woman is still in employment, so the government doesn’t have to provide a pension.

ej says:

10:48am | 26/07/10

Really Ray? So you are happy to be a wage slave to a woman are you? You go out and slog your guts out all day, come home exhausted and don’t get to see your kids while your wife spends your money and watches Oprah? Ray, you are a sucker. I wish my husband was as dumb as you. Actually I don’t.

Women aren’t ‘punishing’ men by working outside the home. They are helping men to enjoy a better balance by allowing them to spend more time at home.

Do you want to end up as one of those bitter, women hating men who are divorced and who are broke because they have to pay all their money as child support for children they don’t even see? Well then marry some woman who says she is not a feminist, that she will stay home with the children. Yeah right! Until she realises that you are never home (because you are out making money for her), then she is out the door with half – or more – of all your stuff.

If you want to have a better work/life balance, to see your kids and not hate your wife, you should marry a feminist. I am perfectly capable of earning my own money so I don’t have to lean on my husband and crush him with the weight of my financial needs. My husband doesn’t have to work day and night to keep a roof over our heads. When we have children my husband will have time to be with them. If we ever get divorced (perish the thought) there is no way I am going to demand sole custody and child support because they are his kids too, so he should be with them as well.

Honestly, old fashioned men are so dumb. Wise up guys and marry a woman who is your equal and who won’t let you down.

Bon says:

02:13pm | 26/07/10

Really ej?  So stay at home mums sit at home watching Oprah and spending their husband’s money?  Stay at home mums are not feminists?  We crush our husbands with the weight of our financial needs?  We are not equal?  Your attitude is even more old fashioned and insulting than Ray’s.

Ray Graham says:

02:22pm | 26/07/10

Hey ej I think you better read my blog again. This time put the vitriolic animosity on the back burner and digest before spuing out filth. I didn’t suggest being a wage slave. I suggested women chose their path and can live with it. Women have used unscrupulous methods to knee cap men to achieve their own ends.

As for your comment ’ if I ever got divorced I wouls not pursue child support and sole custody’. Well you left out 70% min. of the assets as well. And while many women might proclaim similar thoughts, when push comes to shove and the boom drops on the marriage, their true viper colours are revealed and the poor ‘sucker’ as you say is taken to the cleaners.

Your husband should be warned. Like most women you have trouble fronting the truth on gender matters in contrast to the carte blanche society has deigned to you.

You sound like one sick puppy. Pity your other half when the leash is off. Poor sucker. You can end up as ‘one of those bitter man hating females comprising 52% of Australia’s population who cleans up through the family court’ aided and abetted by the Family Law Act and Child Support Agency. Live a life of guaranteed funding with the option of working or not. An option not avasilable to men.

Or marry some ‘old fashioned’ male with integrity, honesty and values. May be you have, and the poor sucker is living on borrowed time by invitation before implementation of the attitudinal holocaust.

The point is dear Rita (Meter Maid) women cast the die. And with the overwhelming tertiary qualified female corresponts saying ‘opt out of work’, out resources are put to waste. R

Re balance the scales of education and educate our young men to enble them to carry the slack. Re balance the education they have been denied through misplaced preference to girls. That will of course require you to jetison the memory fade of affirmative action of education through the 70s to the present.

misty moo says:

02:31pm | 26/07/10

yes EJ - kind of harsh, but there’s a kernel of truth there. it’s not fair to say stay-at-home mothers are a burden on their husbands, and it’s pretty nasty. but what I do agree with is that these old-fashioned men like Ray who hate career women should realise that we make their lives easier financially. in fact I’d say most modern men appreciate having a high-earning partner who can share the financial load. a working wife not only eases the burden on the family budget but contributes to super. and in the event of divorce - you’re right - much better to be a financially independent woman. otherwise, what happens to all these SAHM who’ve lost their skills, too old to get back into the workforce, and their husband leaves them for a younger model? they end up in poverty - all the studies show they are seriously disadvantaged. so women need to protect themselves and provide for their future security by maintaining their skills and at least a toe-hold in the workforce.

ej says:

02:43pm | 26/07/10

Ray! I am on men’s side for goodness sake! Not all of us a venomous harpies but I can see you’ve got your blinkers on and want to play the victim, so what can I say to you?

And Bon, all I can say is please consider whether or not your husband is actually happy in his role. Men have been boxed in by society as much as women have. It is wrong to assume that all men want to financially support a family as much as it is wrong to assume that all women want to stay home and raise kids. Women have (thankfully) found their voices and have a choice. Men, unfortuantely, are still bound by societies rules and feel that they are ‘unmanly’ if they say they want to have more time with their kids. It is very sad.

Look, in my view feminism is about equality of the sexes. For men this is great! You don’t have to bear the burden of support your wife and kids. You don’t even have to open doors for us anymore! How is that not a good thing for men?  Men just have to get over their own issues (usually their fear of what other men will thing of them) and use the leverage that feminism brings for them.

Ray says:

04:01pm | 26/07/10

Hey ej and Bon, read again SLOWLY. Where did feminism benefit men? Really, that’s clinical delusion. After you have read SLOWLY you will realise I am saying women wanted it all at any expense to men and who cares. Any gender matters are and were a lopsided war with only one side allowed to fire salvos. Women created a gender separation that is irrepairable. Women created it and as far as I’m concerned can solve it.

As far as ‘old fashioned’, men and women did have mutual respect, and unless you suffer the serial paranoid delusion you already exhibit, then that respect has disappeared. Thanks to women.

You have even stolen education from young males by preferential advancement (careful of the memory fade). But all that is to be conveniently forgotten.

Peter says:

01:28pm | 26/07/10

One of my life’s failed ambitions was to become a ‘Mr Mom”, where i stayed at home and my wife earned millions… Oh well…

WEML says:

01:47pm | 26/07/10

what are the others?

Peter says:

01:59pm | 26/07/10

Not winning the US Masters Golf, Wimbeldon or playing for the Hawthorn Football Club.. Lots of failers, but only takes a few succusses to make up for it.. Still, the stay at home option is the one that hurts the most…

Amber says:

04:30pm | 26/07/10

Oh dear WEML you are one bitter little biscuit, aren’t you? And I suspect from your ill considered ramblings a person with few life experiences. If you actually knew mothers you would have some hope of understanding of why women want to stay at home with their children. You are so wrong that you are almost amusing. Almost.

WEML says:

07:00pm | 26/07/10

Amber, I am promoting choice and the idea that one kind of motherhood should not be promoted as the only standard of mothering. 

If that makes me a “bitter little biscuit” in your eyes, so be it.

Madoc says:

10:04am | 27/07/10

Hear hear! I am a mother of three and cant wait to get back to work. I feel a day spent doing housework and house admin is a waste of my intellegence. I however, cant find childcare, so I can’t go back to work yet. If women didn’t place so many unreasonable expectations on themselves then I bet more would be able to work. They are just children for god’s sake, not gods!

I think the more children you have, the less you worry, less expectation hinged on one poor child’s shoulders. Those poor children having to solely provide meaning and reward for their parent’s sacrifices!

WEML says:

11:11am | 26/07/10

ha ha yes what a catch!

Ray says:

09:58am | 28/07/10

Yes WEML I’ve been caught so you’ll have to look elsewhere.

Hermano; Yes it was ‘ladies’. What a field. A bit like a quinella, me and the field. Unfortunately, the ladies field has now reduced in numbers et al WEML.

But back to the topic. I admire women who stay at home to raise quality humans. It is a pity they bought the original feminist mantra of ‘me first’, ‘have it all’, and demonise men. An egalitarian outlook goes a long way.

Ray says:

05:05pm | 28/07/10

Look Hermano and WEML, OK I fess up, I was irresistable to women and took wanton advantage of opportunities until I met my true loved one. I AM egalitarian and denied any right I might have to resist, I availed myself to wanton pleasure that women saw as their right. Who was I to say no, refuse their desires. It served me well not to differentiate, discriminate or scrutinise. I do feel well for my discerning acquiesence in these circumstances, much as my instinct said to me do not be greedy.

As you can see I had as little choice in matters of the heart as I do in the university of life. Where women have the choices and men have the obligations.

I will suffer my fate of limitations of life choices, not to be denied to my female contemporaries, with stoic deliverence, as in the matters of the heart, which, although testing, embarked me on the variety and sacrifices that one must face to maketh the man. It was difficult.

JC says:

02:36pm | 26/07/10

sorry Misty Moo, it’s a nice idea to stop judging others choices, but as long as modern parents insist on sticking their snouts in the governments trough, we all have a right to judge. Maternitiy leave is paid for with out money, we have to say where its spent.
If people would just go have kids and live life without constant whinging on how hard it is and they cant afford the flatscreen tv and fuel for the Pajero we would leave them alone, but they cant shut up and neither can i

Ray Graham says:

03:39pm | 26/07/10

WEML you are too angry to make any sense, and appart from that the truth hits a sensitive chord does it not? Women not biologically destined to bear children? Well that sums up your logic. Go through every species on the planet and that is the case. Only human females wish to jetison biological inheritance by some ubiquitous reference to historical context. To deny workplace discrimination, as with education discrimination, does not occur to men is equally absurd.

WEML you are that angry that you cannot get your head above feminism.

This trait was clearly evident when in last night’s debate Julia couldn’t get her head above one dimentional ‘plank’ intelligence and copped a resounding thrashing. No policy just crafted one liners that when disected mean nothing.

From a bygone era? That’s your take. Well and tried feminist mantra also reflecting one dimentional ‘plank’ inteligence.

Amen to feminism asd its dispicable mentality.

I’ll close by saying women ‘wanted it all’. Now they’re saying hold on, no we don’t. We want our cake but want to eat it as well. But no wait on may be. Oh no yes we don’t.

Happens to all those who get all for nothing.

DG says:

04:20pm | 26/07/10

“If women were biologically destined to bear and raise children, why has the birthrate been in decline?”

I’ve got to agree with Ray here (to a point). Females are biologically determined to give birth to children any they alone are biologically capable of sucking the young. There is little doubt that it is a biologically female function - that it can be outsourced does not deny the fact that it is a biologically female process, simply that it can be replicated artificially.

As for why the birth-rate is in decline. I think we must consider this to be a social trend rather than a biological one. That it is sociological is perhaps supported by the fact that women are delaying having babies and are, statistically, having less babies than they would like (for financial reasons). It is hard to suggest that this is a predominantly biological function (although in some cases is most certainly is), it is clear (from the increasing age of first time mothers and the demand for IVF) that there are a number of women who desperately wish to have children but have spent their best (biological) years, earning an income.

It is hardly surprising that as we see the increasing effects of this delay (birth defects and infertility) the younger generation are learning from the circumstances of their elders and pursuing motherhood when it is biologically preferable, with the expectation that they will rejoin the workforce later on.

I agree that employers do not offer work-life balance, and I can understand why that is the case. Any employer with 2 brain cells to rub together would prefer to employ a person whose primary interest is their career over someone who has stated that they have competing interests. This isn’t discrimination - this is picking the best person for the job.

Just as the housing market has expanded to reflect the willingness of people to live the dual-income, No-kids lifestyle, So too are modern mums and dads competing with people who are willing to make work their highest priority (at the expense of kids). It is inevitable that the later is a more desirable candidate - someone who you can rely on to be willing to work weekends with little/no notice, willing to do the extra hours when the boss wants them, rather than negotiating time off when the employee wants it.

As we reach full employment this will change, and employers will be willing to do more to acquire and keep staff, but that the moment there are more than enough people competing for the existing jobs - employees have little room to make demands in the current climate. Especially while competing with people who are willing to do things on their employers terms rather than making their own additional demands.

WEML says:

04:20pm | 26/07/10

ha ha Ray, I have clearly hit a nerve with you.  My comment with regards to biological destiny referred to women bearing and raising children but to suit your poorly constructed argument you chose to only repeat the ‘bearing’ part of my quote. 

Some women are able to bear children, some aren’t…does that make someone less of a woman, because that’s where the argument goes.  And to suggest that by virtue of the fact that some women can bear children that they should or naturally do desire to perform the primary caring role is ridiculous. 

And by suggesting that “only human females wish to jetison biological inheritance” are you saying that masculinities have not fragmented and augmented with in changing social and historical contexts?  The fact that there has been so much resistance to your comments tells me that in deed your brand of masculinity is out-dated and hopefully on the way to extinction.

Oh and the you’re so angry line is so lame.  Women with opinions have been referred to as irrational, angry, etc for eternity.  Such predictability.  My original comment was written with a sense of irritation and perhaps amusement at your silly logic. 

Oh and lastly, Is ‘ubiquitous’ the word of the day Ray?

WEML says:

04:37pm | 26/07/10

The point of that sentence was the word ‘raise’ not bear…clearly women are the only ones who can ‘bear’ children (of course we know that not all women can).

Emma says:

09:54pm | 26/07/10

OMG that is the biggest problem I have. Why have kids if you know you plan on returning to work? Why are you having kids knowing a stranger will raise them? I’m not judging, I am just really, really confused!

Ocmad says:

10:14am | 27/07/10

Just because children are in care doesnt mean you are not ‘raising’ them. I instill values in my children as a part of their growing up. One of these values is that neither men nor women have to choose between a career and parenthood. If you are organised enough you can do both exceptionally well. My well mannered, balanced and healthy three children as well as my successful career, are testament to that!

TLM says:

10:28am | 28/07/10

Why not? you don’t have to return to a high powered career but why not work? you don’t have to work full time, even if your kids are in day care 5 days a week, it’s usually between 9-3 have a job from 10-2 to earn extra cash and to have adult conversation and stimulate the brain, give your kids social skills but it doesn’t mean you are not raising them. No one is saying work 12 hours a day, those of us that return to work most of us have returned to part time while kids are in school or day care so we are still employable once kids are older.

WEML says:

12:14pm | 26/07/10

Peter, you are more than entitled to say you bit, so please feel free….these issues are contentious and always spark debate…which I think is very healthy.

What I will say is that feminists are often criticised for pushing an agenda that is antithetical to the desires of stay-at-home mothers.  Whilst this may have been the case during the 2nd wave of feminism 20 or 30 years ago, I think you’ll find that feminism has evolved and diverged in to a number of different subcategories. 

At it’s heart, feminism is about equality—giving people a voice.  This doesn’t mean man bashing, in fact there is a great move towards studying ‘masculinities’ in gender studies departments at some of our best universities.  Issues relating to class, ethnicity and race are all taken seriously by feminist academics, not just the plight of women.  After all there are some women in our society that possess a larger degree of privilege than some men in our society.

Therefore, as a feminist who is currently engaged in research relating to motherhood, I am saying that I completely support women who chose to “stay at home”—if that is what they want to do.  I am not interested in judging women’s choices, rather I am interested in the circumstances surrounding the choices being made.

It is wrong that SAHMs are put on some kind of pedestal and lauded as the ideal mother…because that may be the case in some circumstances but certainly not all.  It also implies that fathers are supplementary and that mothers who are in the workforce are bad mothers.  This is totally untrue.

Peter says:

12:50pm | 26/07/10

@ WEML. I do not feel that way at all. My favourite ex girlfriend was a very hard working profession woman who was/is a fantastic mother to her daughter. I can not question the quality of her parenting..

The same can be said of my sister though who chose to start having a family first. She is also an excellent parent to her kids. What we don’t need is modern feminism degarding my sister by displaying fake outrage when somebody uses the term “housewife”. My sister is a housewife and quite proud of it.

Where the system fails I think, is for SAHM who after raising their kids, want to join the workforce. It is bloody hard for this group of women to get meaningful employment, because yes, some employers do look down on women who have taken the “i’ll have kids first” approach..

As men, we love our women and we want them to have choices, we want them to get paid the same (or even more) if it means more money for the family. It is in our interests as well that women are looked after.

But if you have read previous posts of mine, i am a supporter of “choice” and will not put someone down for choosing to work or stay at home..

WEML says:

01:59pm | 26/07/10

Peter, it seems we agree on a few things.  I guess the point that I was making related more to your disparaging “modern feminism.”  It bothers me that feminism is derided for being too PC or out of date…as far as I am concerned there are ‘factions’ of feminism that benefit marginalized sections of the community in a productive and palpable way.  And so in that vein, I am happy to declare that I am a feminist and proud of it. 

As far as taking offense to the term housewife…as long as your sister is happy then that’s all that counts…though the use of the term is ideologically laden (ie. assumes marriage etc) and should be avoided by State representatives—I’m wondering whether this was the issue some people took exception to.

Peter says:

02:27pm | 26/07/10

@ WELM. I don’t know. All I know is that Tony Abbott was ironing a shirt and wearing an apron when he said it (how PC is that!), but he still got canned..

Maria says:

12:29pm | 26/07/10

Shane, this was correct back in the day when you could actually buy a house on a single incom!!.  And with regards to taxes, do you think females in general and working mums specifically haven’t paid their dues?  I worked for nearly 2 decades before having kids - is it too much for me to expect some to come back to me instead fo going to some 16 yr old unemplyed single mum who has contributed nothing?? (and I actaully want her to be helped more than I was because I know how hard it is!!)  The system is geared to “pay it forward”  For the first 18 yrs of your life, your parents and the govt support and educate every single one of us - don’t those same parents deserve some payback?  And it’s pretty rich coming from a male who by nature can’t give birth and also happens to be part of the group in society that is not getting ripped off by employers paying below your worth?  Come on!  Give the girls a fair go -  if we could palm childbirth and other intrinsically female things to you guys instead and pursue that fabulous career, many women would do it in the blink of an eye - WE DON’T HAVE A CHOICE!!  If a country is to survive through population growth, then who’s going to have the babies??  THE WOMEN ARE!!!  But we need the men to HELP, not HINDER!!!

Lisa says:

10:11pm | 28/07/10

Maria, don’t agree with the concept of paying tax to get it back out again. You seem to be talking about a savings account, or a type of superannuation. The income tax system we have in this country is heavily progressive, meaning that, say, 20 per cent of the people pay 80 per cent of the tax. Tax is not about you, it’s about everyone else. A super-type system for child-bearers sounds like a good idea, though.

WEML says:

12:53pm | 26/07/10

nice comment Lana.  I am really happy for you that you are doing what you want to do but that you have the intelligence not to force your way of life on to other people.

Carlie says:

04:42pm | 26/07/10

Unlike you WEML who forces your extreme views on others. I’m just like Lana too, Masters degree, accompolished a great deal in my professional life but I choose to be a stay at home mum because we can afford it. My heart breaks for many of my friends who reluctantly returned to work because of economic pressures. Women want to raise their children. Surely that is obvious to even the most blinkered feminist?

WEML says:

07:10pm | 26/07/10

Carlie, not sure what you mean.  If you mean that by promoting an inclusive, non-judgmental discursive approach to mothering, that I am forcing extreme views on people, then so be it. 

Go back and read my posts and you’ll find that there’s nothing terribly radical about what I’m saying.  In it’s barest form I am saying that the stats Rita is talking about with regards to low numbers of mothers in the WF is not soley the result of women’s universal desire to stay-at-home, there are other issues such as the long work hours culture in this country, and lack of PML/PPL.

I think you read my comment to Lana as sarcastic…?

TLM says:

10:35am | 28/07/10

They offered you the full time job which you then turned down. Good on them, you could have returned if you were willing to work full time, why should they keep the job part time if they need someone full time? if you want to work part time get a job at Big W or K-Mart or something like that

Sarah says:

02:00pm | 26/07/10

Interesting discussion Maria, but I really do wish you would use paragraphs - it is extremely difficult to read and your points would be clearer if they were set out logically and in a more tidy fashion

Shane From Melbourne says:

03:01pm | 26/07/10

Singles and Childless couples don’t have a CHOICE- they have to heavily subsidize the lifestyle CHOICES of middle class families, therefore they are not treated as EQUAL to them. As simple as that. I’d be willing to subsidize maternity wards, childcare places, primary schools, but I’m not willing to subsidize the middle class family to go out and buy another plasma TV, take overseas holidays etc.

Peter says:

04:46pm | 26/07/10

Good point Shane. PPL is great in theory, but for most people it amounts to what you said, plasma TV’s, holidays, etc. The pure facts of the outcomes of the PPL scheme are being buried under the guise of “rights” and so called discrimination…

Like you, happy to pay for maternity wards, child care, school (primary and secondary), your kids teen dental plan, your health care etc. But this PPL scheme to give people up to $75k is just ridiculous. Even with this scheme a lot of women will probably decide to stay at home anyway (esp those getting the $75K). This is a waste of money and not fair on those that have to pay for it…

Emma says:

09:43pm | 26/07/10

Umm so they can afford to set themselves up first and so they are educated enough to actually help their kids in school. Smart parents = smart kids. All I can say is don’t you complain about bludging bogans spitting out babies if you are complaining about educated women having babies.

Noty says:

09:47pm | 26/07/10

You’re kidding right?! You seem to be suggesting that all women who get uni degrees will have kids straight after graduation and never work again in their lives. I would say that the majority of women will (hope) to have kids at some stage. Most will study/work first then take some time off and guess what they might even go back to work when the kids are a bit older. University would be a very male dominated place if anyone who planned to take a career break to raise kids at some time wasn’t allowed to go to Uni! Both sexes want to work and have careers even those that take a bit of time to do a very natural thing and procreate. Your argument could be used against men who decide to take time off for travel, or to spend time with their families or other pursuits.

Maybe government policy should be that both parents get an equal share of the paid parental leave to be taken at some stage in the first few years of the child’s life. This might help prevent any gender descrimination against parents returning to work.

I personally can see why the paid parental leave scheme is higher than the baby bonus (although not much higher once you’ve paid tax on it!) The whole idea of the scheme is to encourage working (and hopefully educated) women to have children. It’s not trying to say that stay at home mums don’t deserve as much money, it’s just not trying to encourage them in the same way. Could there be other ways of encouragement rather than monetary? Probably…. suggestions?

Trish says:

05:08am | 27/07/10

Because most university applicants (theoretically aged between 17-25) do not have children in this age group.  What are they supposed to do with their time between high school and parenthood?  And what about when the kiddies hit school years??  So a lifetime of tertiary qualified full time work ie between 18-65 is abstained from due to several years off as a carer or as a part-timer?

Next you’ll ask why do they complete high school if they are planning on being a stay at home parent.

Another fact: Tertiary educated people tend to work in higher paying positions and receive more financial remuneration compared to their non tertiary educated counterparts.  So fiscally speaking, I’d rather work as a Medical Laboratory Scientist at $35/hr than a Medical laboratory technician at $22/hr.  But wait, you can only work as a scientist if you have the relevant degree!!!!

ps.  Research has found that children of tertiary qualified parents are more likely to be academic than non tertiary qualified parented children. 
pps.  those university places are not free… stay at home parents may or not pay theirs off as quickly as their full time counterparts. 
ppps.  And university placements are often based on your academic ability… rather than your eventual parenting choices.

Susan says:

11:58am | 27/07/10

Yeah, let’s return to the days when girls left school at 15 to answer phones and serve customers in shops, regardless of intellect or capabilities.

Violet Crumble says:

11:50am | 27/07/10

It doesnt say that at all Sammy!  It does not say that MOST women WANT to stay home.  It says that MOSTt women dont return to full time work.  It doesn’t say WHY and it doesn’t say that they don’t return to part time work.

People are responsible for their decisions - they make choices to have children and then choices how to raise them.  You would deny them those choices.

TLM says:

10:59am | 28/07/10

Sammy, sometimes it’s not a choice but an accident that it happens and if you are a single parent like myself you do need to work to support yourself and to actually feed the children (novel idea I know!) and some women need the mental stimulation.

Why not have child care? I don’t see the problem, until the children are in pre-school etc then day care is a good idea, 9-3 they get to socialise while I work and not a high powered career, I don’t need to do that, it’s a job that’s all

Just because you send you kids to child care from 9-3 3 to 5 days a week doesn’t mean you are not raising them, it’s like school, are you also sick of school programs and taxes being used to upgrade schools because parents should be teaching their children themselves?

Allie says:

11:33pm | 26/07/10

This “tradionalist” idea of the need for a “strong family unit” where men always work and women always look after children is completely sexist, outdated and irrelevant. There is no “one-size-fits-all” approach to raising a family. Your criticism of women who choose (or need) to work as “monsters who care little for their families” is a completely unfounded, unfair, ridiculous generalisation.

Rich says:

12:17am | 27/07/10

I think Farah sums it all up very well.

Farah says:

03:31pm | 27/07/10

So Allie, you think that roles can be reversed easily.
If so, why are we seeing such a massive conflict, confusion and resentment with these mish-mash of roles of which no one seems to have any idea what to do, why they do it and how?

If its not broken, don’t fix it.
I never said women should never work. They can work, of course, it is their freedom to do so. But not at the expense of her family.
I never made a commentary about how a family should be raised, but rather, the roles in which there needs to be a leader and a support. Two kings will ruin a country.

But ultimately I doubt you would want your husband to mince squealing towards you when the big bad boss/fierce butcher man/drunken lout/aggressive burglar, bunching up the hems of your skirt to his frightened face while hidden behind you.
Nor would you want to come back home and see hubby in a flowery apron - no sense of self-worth in his role, in being unable to display his natural instincts to protect and serve his family by providing.

Its about a partnership. Men and women today are completely confused by their lack of solid roles and the amount of bickering that goes behind who does what, what does what, etc - instead of focusing on actually running, maintaining and bringing up a proper family by two strong but distinct individuals - is destroying the lives of the children and extended family they are too busy squabbling over to protect.

You can dismiss every point I make as “ridiculous” and “generalised” flies into the face of human evolution since time immemorial of the male and female role.
You can change your “roles’ outwardly but you cannot change what you have been optimized for biologically.

TLM says:

11:06am | 28/07/10

Farah - I agree, but do you know who made the men they are today? Feminists, they have destroyed chivalry because women can do it themselves don’t need to man to do this so the men are confused and don’t want to reach out a helping hand for fear it will be ‘bitch slapped’

Susan says:

12:17pm | 27/07/10

I feel like such a failure, having been to uni, and now having left the workforce to spend my entire day with the small person I love more than anyone else in the world (except my husband). It’s awful having to spend time helping him learn to read and discover the world.  I’m sure I’ll feel like such a waste of space when he goes to school and I’ll be available to help out in the classroom.  It will be terrible knowing that I’ll always be home in the afternoons to help with homework, and not having to organise a day off to look after sick children.  It’s so humiliating to look after our household budget, and determine which money goes where, and not buying awful take away or prepackaged food because I’ve got the time to cook meals from scratch, from vegies I’ve had time to grow in my garden. 
I am such a waste of space, me with my full-time child care position.  Obviously sitting at home all day reading gossip magazines and watching Oprah, or out spending all my husband’s hard earned money.

TLM says:

11:13am | 28/07/10

Dude (Susan) you can work part time or casual while kid is in school, 9-3 and still be able to do all that stuff, I usually start cooking at 4.30 and that’s a roast dinner with all the baked vegies, if I am doing a caserole I slow cook it from 8 in the morning and still be able to work and look we have money to go on holiday overseas!

As they say on the Simpson being a house wife is not a job, especially if the kids go to school/day care it doesn’t take all day to clean, I vacuum once a week, wash up nightly after dinner and do laundry throughout the week, it’s not that difficult being a parent, maybe I am in the minority but I am not exhausted at the end of the day, i am not run ragged or any of the other reasons I hear mothers complaining about and I am a single parent with twins so go figure

Susan says:

01:10pm | 28/07/10

@TLM
I agree entirely. 

I just don’t appreciate being called a ‘waste of space’ because I never intend on returning to work full time!    I’m years away from deciding whether I work part time/casual once I’ve got kids in school, or work from home/do volunteer work.  I certainly don’t intend sitting around drinking coffee all day, but I don’t believe parenting ‘stops’ when the kids get to school.

TLM says:

01:38pm | 28/07/10

@Susan, yeah that was a bit harsh of her to say that, I have no problem if you have a husband who works and supports you to stay home with kids, I don’t have that option being a single parent so I work, luckily it doesn’t take me too far away from the kids

DG says:

11:03am | 27/07/10

The writer further suggests that the “high cost of living requir[es] many [women] to return to work much sooner than they would otherwise choose.” This is simply a personal belief. I could just as easily conjecture that many women are forced to stay home due to the inavailability and inflated expense of childcare, which in fact discriminates against women wanting to return to the workforce, not mothers that choose not to.

* The cost of childcare is directly proportional to the demand, and inversely proportional to supply.

* That mothers choose to stay at home rather than pay for child care is indicative of the cost/benefit analysis conducted by the parent. Even if it were a zero sum equation (where the income of the mother would be exactly equal to the cost of childcare) a mother who wanted to work could do so without a negative financial outcome. However, people choose not to do so because they would rather be at home than going to work to pay for someone else to raise their children for them.

* You perpetuate the belief that it is women who are hindered from entering the workforce (rather than men) without explaining why this is the case. Surely a woman is capable of negotiating with the father of the child to arrange a mutually suitable outcome. If not, they really should have considered that before having a child (and electing to keep rather than put up for adoption) .

The alternative is that it is a choice between competing interests. As with many things in life, the things that we want to do take time and are often mutually exclusive (I can’t play golf and go surfing at the same time, I have to choose my priorities). If a person wants to spend your time at work - it seems petulant and childish to complain that the decision to commit time to being a parent is making it difficult to pursue your other interests. After all, it’s not as if people don’t know that the decision to have a child is be a long term commitment.

“The writer obviously believes that women “are making a far more valuable contribution in raising their children then they would be in the paid workforce,” (not exactly promoting the validity of different people’s ‘choices,’ there) but unfortunately for her, this opinion alone does not prove that “modern mums really just want to stay at home.” “

* On this point I agree. The authors position is anecdotal without references to the polls and stats that support her position.

I do not agree, however, that the author has a duty to suggest that all decisions are, while equally valid, of equal value.

A persons has no duty to provide the most valuable contribution that they can (that would be socialism). Instead, each person is only required to contribute what they are willing to contribute and they are rewarded based on their contribution (this is called capitalism).

We do not live in a socialist country - as such I am interested to know the basis for your assumption that a persons contribution must be of the maximum ‘value’ to be a valid choice? This was certainly not suggested in the article. The author’s suggestion that the contribution is more valuable than others does little to discredit the entitlement of a person to choose otherwise.

A person who elects not to haggle on the price of an item does not receive the best ‘value’ that they could have achieved - does this make it a less valid decision?

I tend to believe that each person is entitled to make a decision that they want regardless of its perceived value to the community (so long as the decision is in accordance with the law). If you are suggesting that every person has a duty to make the most valuable contribution that they can, who is the one that is not accepting of the equal validity of a persons choices.

TLM says:

11:25am | 28/07/10

let the bogan dole bludgers help out at the schools, I will continue to work and enrich my childrens lives but being able to take them on overseas holidays. the ones that are only after the government payment can help out at schools and what not, not everyone is needed to do it

TLM says:

11:42am | 28/07/10

I’m sorry, you think a teeneger shouldn’t have responsibility? like what cleaning your room? cooking dinner? making cuppas? doing your laundry? Teenagers need responsibilty, it shows you trust them to be able to do this and gives them a sense of pride, my kids aren’t teenagers yet but as someone who was one who was given all number of chores and responsibility it helps and was great

TLM says:

04:52pm | 29/07/10

Opi - what do you classify as “parental” responsibilities? laundry? cooking? grocery shopping alone (that one i would give you, I would have bought all chocolate if I was left to do that) I didn’t and don’t know what you mean when you speak of these responsibilities, if you could clarify so I can be sure that would be great

Lou says:

09:59am | 30/07/10

Its great to hear your sentiments.  I have 4 primary school aged children. At their recent parent teacher interviews all of their teachers complimented my husband and me on having the most wonderful, well behaved children.  One teacher went so far as to say my child is one of the reasons she gets out of bed each day, many of the other kids in the class are revolting. And then realised she had gone too far and asked me not to tell anyone she had just said that! On our way out, the school Library teacher stopped us and complimented us again.  She told us she teaches every child in the school and the ones who stand out are the ones whose mothers have stayed home with them and given them love and discipline.  She then said there are too many children here growing up with busy parents and they are too busy to see how naughty their kids are, and it makes teaching them very stressful.

bec says:

08:57am | 31/07/10

I disagree firmly. By the time they reach secondary school, it’s overwhelmingly the kids raised by working mums who are far better to teach. They’re independent thinkers, they are organised, they don’t behaved in an entitled way in terms of your time commitments, and they appreciate the effort you put in for extra-curricular stuff. They’re also far more resilient, emotionally and intellectually.

I’m sick of being expected to mother the hopeless kids whose mothers do everything for them. They never get their homework done, or done well, they have no conflict resolution skills, and the little routine things like packing up, putting shoes on, or getting ready for lunch take *forever* because they’re not used to doing it on their own.  (The only exception to this was a woman who homeschooled her seven kids. She was a total hardass who raised a whole brood of amazing kids.)