Why would blokes want to have anything to do with a party called "What Women Want"? Isn’t this taking feminism just one step too far? The last thing this country needs is more ‘them and us’ division. Regretfully, Australia in 2007, after eleven years of socially conservative government is more divided than ever — public educators versus private educators; unions versus employers; environmentalists versus greenhouse deniers; individualism versus community; public health versus private profit; Australians versus foreigners, and now some say we have a political party that is women versus men. We need parties that represent all of us, and not divide us!

"What Women Want" is a party that emphasizes that we are all Australians — regardless of our colour, creed or gender — and everyone should have a fair go. To portray WWW as anti-men is a fallacy. The phrase "What Women Want" is not just the name of a party, it is a statement of fact. Women want:

• To be heard;
• To be respected; and
• To participate in public life and not be excluded from doing so simply because they don’t have hairy chests and testosterone.

WWW is simply asserting that its policies are what women want. This doesn’t mean that WWW policies are anti-men, and any reading of WWW policies will show that WWW recognizes and supports the role of men in family, economic and public life. WWW is about strengthening family bonds through improving maternity services throughout Australia and providing the social support to families (however defined) to engender a nurturing family life for our children. Do men not want the same things for themselves and their family? Of course they do!

And what of the single thirty-five year old ex-amateur football player waiting for his knee-replacement surgery in the local public hospital? Why should he care about WWW? Does he understand that the reason he can’t see a surgeon within a reasonable period of time is that scarce resources used for funding the hospital system is being squandered on expensive maternity services and diagnostic testing that does nothing for improving safety of birth in this country? He would have his knee surgery by now if the Government wasn’t subsidizing obstetric insurance to obscene amounts. He would have his knee surgery by now if the Government wasn’t funding excessive use of ultrasounds and other diagnostic tests, that show little for their cost in the way of improved care for women and babies. WWW policies will improve access to the health system for everyone — including single men!

I am a supporter of "What Women Want" because its candidates understand just how important a good birth is for not only the baby and the mother, but also the father. A good birth resounds through the future of the family who experiences it. Sadly, so to do the negative effects of a bad birth experience. As editor of the book "Men at Birth" I have spoken with many, many men and know how our current maternity services are letting men down (as well as their partners and babies). Our maternity services are not based upon scientific evidence and the care and concern for child and parental health, but on maintaining the status quo for a small group of highly paid doctors and avoiding litigation at all costs.

Much of WWWs maternity policy is based on the consensus-based 'National Maternity Action Plan' (See:http://www.maternitycoalition.org.au/nmap/nmap.html). This plan demonstrates that the changes proposed will be cheaper for the health system, lead to safer outcomes for women and babies, and lead to better satisfaction with the maternity system. Unfortunately, the Howard Government has ignored NMAP, preferring to doff to vested interests and pour our money into a maternity system that is irreparably broken.

The issues that WWW are campaigning on are not issues of interest only to women, but are issues that deserve the support of all Australians.

David Vernon
Editor and Author
"Men at Birth"
http://web.mac.com/david.vernon

It seems that John Howard's mastery of wedge politics is back. Last time it was the Tampa and the misery of refugees. Now it is Australia's first people. Both John Howard and Kevin Rudd seem to agree that moves like Martial law will improve life for Indigenous Australian children. The seemingly 'soft issues' of improving family structures and enabling self determination are in fact way too hard. Tick a box policy like anal and vaginal probes for children and shipping in the Army are the flavour of the day.

Much of What Women Want is about improving families community and society through strong support during pregnancy and child rearing (where it all begins). A community in a remote province of Canada, Puvirnituq developed the first Inuit controlled birthing service. They shared many of the problems of Aboriginal Australians, substance abuse, domestic violence, Incest and suicide. The huge success of this venture has been made into a documentary. Interestingly it parallels this program with the forced evacuations across remote Australia. The Puvirnituq program has not only reduced many social problems across the community it has actually improved the outcomes of pregnancies (fewer babies die than when women were forced to give birth in a large centre). The C/s rate is 3% as opposed to 27% when women were removed.

The community has control and it is much healthier and happier. see

http://www.jagfilms.com.au/pages.asp?pageid=60&submenu=64

So What would you vote for: Martial Law or Maternal Law?

ALP Leader, Kevin Rudd says women are not appendages to men and that they should be free to be stay at home Mums or pursue a career. John Howard's view is probably not so clear. But what is the real difference if any between them? These broad statements mean nothing unless they are backed up by sound policy.

Quality maternity care with supportive post-natal care
Paid maternity leave
Promotion of flexible working practices
Accessible and high quality child-care

Aren't these the things that make the lives of women and their families easier?

What do you think?

This week, a newborn baby was found outside Dandenong Hospital in Victoria. The Daily Telegraph in NSW printed the Headline "How could she?" Beyond Blue Chairman, Jeff Kennett slammed the media headline, saying

"The baby's getting the best care it can at the moment. The mother - we assume the mother - made sure that happened. What my worry is the life and health of this woman - she might be very ill."

Even Prime Minister John Howard stoked the debate, asking: "How could you abandon a little baby?"

As a mother of 6 my heart breaks for mother and child. My blood boils that we have a treasurer who jovially says "Have one for Mum, Dad and the country" with little commitment to strong social support for the most important job of parenting. In these circumstances it is hard to see the Federal Government's 'baby bonus' as little more than vote buying.

Do you believe the role of mothering regarded by our politicians? What programs and policies could make it better?

What do you think of the Prime Minister's comments?

Justine Caines - Founder What Women Want