It must be assumed that the term “doctors’ wives” was invented by some crusty old male political scientist who would never think of describing other voting blocs as “housewives’ old men”, “hairdressers’ balls and chains” or “secretaries’ drunken bums”.
Any term that defines a woman by her marital status, like Mrs, should be thrown in the waste-paper basket of history, and be sure to leave room for crusty old male political scientists why you are at it.
Just been having a squizz at the Family First Party’s Short Form Policy section on their website.
There is something oddly progressive about some of it, including the call for “affordable and accessible (housing) to all Australians” and their universal and holistic health policy.
Of course, that might be a bit like saying that a really extreme right-wing group, the Liberals for example, have a jolly good policy on, well, something or rather.
While other feminists, such as Kathleen Swinbourne from the Sole Parents’ Union would disagree (Kathleen wrote a scathing e-mail on Ausfem-Polnet about the Democrats’ preference swap with Family First), the Joint Custody policy could, potentially, work in women’s favour.
The problem I have with the move for 50-50 access is that it only seems to be discussed after the breakdown of a relationship.
It’d be easier to be convinced about the commitment of some groups to joint parenting if it was advocated right from the start of a child’s life, but that would require fighting for more child care, supporting flexible working conditions for both men and women and a rejection of traditional constructs of masculinity and femininity.
Sorry, couldn’t hear you over the deafening silence.