I didn’t read it as an attack on working women, but it is very much critical of working mothers (who by default are working women) so it probably is just that. Women working has less to do with the “affluenza virus”, than necessity. In England and in Canada you need two good incomes not to struggle. With a child or more you probably need nearer three.

Having said that, I do feel that a certain section of feminists sold women down the river - by making them believe that they could have it all career, stable children, happy relationship - and me-time. And the way to this was equality in the workplace.

And that, in my opinion is simply untrue. If it was true, I might have had kids myself ;). Women are short-changed because they have kids and yes, are expected to be and often want to be, the primary caregivers. Men are still not expected to be the primary care-givers, as you say. They are expected - by society, their partners included, to work hard, get a top earning job/career with prospects, and top pay that can support wife/partner and multiple children AND take on half the child-care. And people wonder why they aren’t more involved!

Asking for (and even getting) shorter hours, flexi-hours and other entitlements isn’t equality at all and that’s the problem.

Women do need to find their own identity, yes. The answer is not by being like a man. Sadly it seems that identity is still rooted in childbearing and childcare - and often this is self identification by women themselves.

Which from my a childfree perspective helps no-one move forward.

its the entitlement minded feminists who ruin it for every other feminist on the planet, thats the problem, the solution is to make these people realise that they cant just take take take. this is why they say blind feminism, its that vocal yet tiny but powerful minority corrupting the ideals of equality

Probably because their parents work and stick them in childcare instead of staying at home with them.

You know, more than the rest of the article I think I have issue with this sentence. I’ve heard it a lot, and you know what? I think it’s absolute rubbish. I was one of those kids; I spent literally ten years in childcare (from age 2 to the end of primary school). Crèche, after-school care, holiday care… you name it. I never really enjoyed it, but I also went through various phases of not enjoying, say, school; something that I imagine is common to most children, yet no-one is seriously suggesting that we pull kids out of en masse because it might make them ‘unhappy’.

This is what I think the real issue is; it’s going nothing to do at all with childcare so much as it’s an attack on working women. Because that’s exactly who it’s targeting; women are still expected to be primary caregivers. Men are only ‘encouraged’ to be ‘more involved’ (prior to going to day care at age 2, my primary stay-at-home parent was my dad).

@mercurior
Careful, your lack of understanding of feminist thought is showing. It’s funny how equality feminist are seen as the ‘friendly’ feminists. I suppose it’s because the message they’re pushing is non-controversial, as far as these things go (men are the standard, let’s be like men). Difference feminists, on the other hand, are reviled because they dare to push the line that maybe being ‘exactly like a man’ is not where women should be at, that maybe women need to find their own identity. It’s actually equality feminism which has given us the problem of women and work; men aren’t mothers, so equality feminist has no room for it.

Incidentally, the line “all men are rapists” was originally a kidding-on-the-square joke. Don’t find it funny? That’s the point. There are a lot of things in pop-culture feminists don’t find funny either.

ok, they expect men to look after their kids, ok, thats not really a problem, but where is the division of labour, if a man goes out to work, he is earning for the family, then to expect him to look after the children if the wife stays home, it seems unfair. (now if a man is at home and the woman works, that would be unfair too)

a lot of it is the governments idea, if 1 person wasnt working then the economy wouldnt grow as much, so what they need to do is push everyone into working, so more tax is paid. look at the house prices, you need 2 incomes today before you can start to have a house, unless you have the easy option of having a kid and the government bends over backwards for you.

i think there is a confusion about what today is the definition of feminism, and what it was in the past, the original feminists were more for equality, everyone is equal, which i have no objection against.

but then came the anti male ones, the men are defective women, all men are rapists, the ideas of dworkin and Valerie Solanas, and the other rabid anti males. now in todays feminists, theres a larger group who want it all, they want to work, they want to have kids, they want, they want, they want, at the expense of society in general. feminism or 3rd wave the most recent form, is part of the problem, the i want attitude, the i need attitude, look at the divorces, more women apply for divorces, why well its seen as an easy out, get the man to pay for it all, (there are always exceptions) thats modern 3rd wave feminism for you, we want it all NOW, regardless of cost.

this is part of the childed world, and a few of the cf world as well, the idea that women deserve more because of this, thats the most dangerous form of feminism, i dont call certain people feminists i call them equalists, people who want total equality, not just what they can get out of it.

now these are my opinions, and there are always exceptions to every group