[Adora]

Originally Posted by justaman

I think that's somewhat of a subjective call.

Indeed it is .

If attacks on the clothes women are wearing are the best example you of this prejudice, I'd query precisely how this impacts upon their ability to be politicians. Is there any individual figure in Australia who is ridiculed more than the PM? Hasn't hurt him much. So if this is the type of prejudice you are talking about, I'm not sure it really hurts a woman's chance of being successful in such an environement.

There's a difference between ridiculing someone who is in a position of power on the choices they make regarding a country's policy, and what they wear. One is Australia's long and colourful history of Tall Poppy Syndrome, the other is pathetic, and, if only directed towards one gender, sexist.

it is surely more logical for the female to be the at home parent, since she'll be doing that for a period of time anyway.

Really? I'd argue otherwise: the child should have both parents (if in a two parent household) no matter who carried the child. One could also argue that because she carried the child, the other partner (male or female) should "do overtime", in a sense.

And some of us don't believe that gender equality, workers rights and dignity should be sacrificed for the Great Golden Dollar.

Well, I'd suggest that's precipitously close to fantastic idealism, especially considering that without such a successful economy the benefits mothers do currently receive wouldn't exist.[/QUOTE]
Moot point. There's a successful economy without the sacrificing of human dignity, and then there is one without. The current model being implement through economic rationalism improves an economy but doesn't help the actual people within that economy in the way it should, and so is questionable as an actual long-term plan for a country's economy. There are European models of economies that at the same time as encouraging enterprise and business have social responsibility still within them, with one complementing the other. But, y'know, that would disrupt our buddies in Washington and all.