Every other month or so the Guardian has an article about women, babies and work. The emphasis varies and so does the conclusion but generally it is about women,babies and work - do you see what I am getting at? No? Well, clearly you are as bad as the Guardian then.

Babies are a consequence of men and women having sex( stop me if I am getting too technical here). Men and women who are married often have babies, as do men and women who are not married. The important thing is that women and men are involved and therefore if we are considering how children should be looked while their parents work the discussion is incomplete without including men in the equation. Duh!

A bit of social jiggery pokery with tax breaks or NVQs for childminders isn't really the point is it? As it stands women are expected to look after babies - so, whether it is the mother of the child, the grandmother of the child, a nanny, childminder or nursery nurse it is either a non-paid or an under-paid woman who looks after the child or organises the childcare. This is not a social advance, this is fiddling at the margins. Childcare is low status, low paid (or unpaid) work - the education, socialization and loving care of a child is now seen by many as something that only the young, feckless or pointless can do (nursery nurses, non-working single mums and grandparents.... or had you worked that out?)

Okay, so, the solution? Make childcare a joint priority for both parents and stress that parental input in childcare is vital and a responsibility- some parents must see very little of their own children (a couple of hours either side of school around bed-times and the flustered hours of the weekend) and I believe if you have children you have a duty to bring them up: the government should give some practical support but should not be expected to fully take on the parental role. Your investment in your child is far more important than your investment in property, your holidays or your cars. Your child is going to be part of the next generation and making sure that they are loved, intelligent and well socialized is not something that should beminimised or low status.

So parents should both be encouraged to work less and manage the childcare between them - possibly with the help of well paid, well trained and respected professionals (either in the home or in a workplace nursery) but it is up to the mother and father to largely care for the child. If through parental separation this cannot take place in the one home this does not mean that all the care then falls to the mother - why should it? A father can care for his child just a well as a mother and should be encouraged to do so.

Feminism has only managed to entrench traditional attitudes to life and work because it had almost wholly adopted the masculine ethic - that paid work is the main thing and family and children are of secondary importance. High status is accorded those who work and low status to those who don't do paid work - feminism had enabled women to become proto-men and had ensured that men will not want to look after children and do housework as it is low status and unpaid.

If we are fully committed to sexual equality we should make childcare a non-gender specific role and encourage men and woment to view it as an essential and vitally important task that is accorded status, given realistic financial support and flexible working hours for both sexes to accomodate it.

If this happened maybe the Guardian would be printing articles about parents and work.