When Unpaid Work Doesn’t Count: The Commodification of Family Life in the new Welfare to Work Order

You may also notice from the language on the NCSMC website, that recognition is made of the concepts in most of your last comment.

A scan of articles to be found on the NCSMC website, might provide you with the answers to what needs more vigilance.

If you do not remain vigilant about these things you will find yourselves back at the bottom of the social/professional/economic/intellectual heap before you can say ‘biological clock’. The basic structures and infrastructures of patriarchy have not substantially changed; they are merely wearing makeup.

Which is a very easily wipe-offable disguise.

As an example: the apparent high level of involvement of women in environmental movements and campaigns has at various times been “explained” in essentialist terms (e.g. women’s greater closeness to nature, women being more nurturing and hence more environmentally aware, etc.). There are in fact much more straightforward sociological, economic and political explanations. Two of the most obvious of these are:

1. As Tasmania University Jan Pakulski argued in his Social Movements: The Politics of Moral Protest (1991), the political closure or near-closure (until recently) to women of formal political organisations such as parties and trade unions meant that politically and socially aware women were more likely to find an hospitable environment for participation in mass social movements such as the environment movement.

2. More women than men are outside the paid workforce and available for activity in community environmental campaigns. This was a point noted by Claus Offe in his influential 1985 study of new social movements. This pattern of homemaker activism has historical antecedents such as Victorian era philanthropic activity by middle class women, involvement of homemakers in organisations such as the Union of Australian Women and the Peace and Disarmament Movement, the Hunters Hill housewives who collaborated with the BLF to save Kellys Bush in the 1970s, etc.

It would make for a very interesting research project to look at how the combination of the opening up (at least on paper) of formal political structures to women’s participation and the narrowing of the gender gap in levels of workforce participation have influenced gender-based differences in political participation.

In the meantime, I’ll endeavour to be blandly literal, if I feel like it.

But for the purposes of future discussion on this point, take my second statement of them as definitive of my point of view on the issue of success in Australian mainstream political parties.

takes time off work, want to go back with some flexibility, tends to take on more caring responsibilities, needs access to affordable childcare options, tends to have time out of the workforce and may need access to retraining and income support?

are WOMEN’S issues rather than issues anyone with a family has, all you’re doing is perpetuating the myth that these issues only affect women, that women are the only ones who raise children and that men have bugger all to do with it.

I am not suggesting we shouldn’t have policies on these issues, just that they are issues anyone who cares for children has, and we shouldn’t assume that’s just the ladies!

The suggestion that we’re still being discriminated against – well, der. But we already have equal opportunity legislation, how much further do you want the government to intervene. Perhaps they could investigate every instance where a man gets hired rather than a woman?

As for Katz, well, you may have MEANT something different, but when you say

Insufficient women have exhibited the character flaws associated with political success

it sounds very much as though you are suggesting women are less flawed, generally, than men – which as Darlene points out, was used as an excuse for keeping us out of politics and other things which were No Job For A Lady. I venture to suggest that the problem was not with my comprehension, but rather with the way you expressed yourself.

Question – Is the gender balance of candidates reflecting a bias against women who stand for pre-selection? If it does, then there is an issue. If it doesn’t, then there is nothing to complain about. If women want to be politicians then get on with it and make yourselves suitable for selection and become a preselection candidate.

I understand the ALP has mandatory affirmative action preseleection policies. If women want to be politicians so much the ALP should have no problem hitting 50% females since they have positive discrimination on their side. So what’s the problem???