[Sweetie]

Originally Posted by Adora

Sweetie, before I start, qould you puh-lease stop talking about some "difference" between "feminism of the past" and modern feminism.

Sorry babe, in my eyes feminism of the past was working towards the benefit of the woman and the family, your type is detrimental to women and the family. Even your porn stance, it devalues women but I don't expect you to see past yourself enough to recognize that.

Originally Posted by Sweetie

No, actually. Says research surveys conducted in the US, Britain and Sweden. And who says they "agree" on anything? You're assuming all issues of power and consent in the majority of sexist heterosexual relationships are the same as the idealistic perfect balanced ones? Hardly.

I'm saying that people in relationships determine how their relationships are going to be run. If there is sexism in your relationship you both choose the relationship and allow that to happen. It's their fault, not the government's.

The reason for bringing up Australian chauvenism is primarily to point out that the way things are there is not necessarily how they are here, people perhaps don't act the same, men perhaps are less chauvenistic so your claims of NZ or Australian sexism means very little to me, it's entirely irrelevant, it's as I said, situational. Australia and NZ are really small places compared to North America.

Sweetie, here's the thing: You use the percentage statistic argument for your case supposedly that governments are "Anti-Life" (bias, much?). But when somebody else uses those same statistics, you can pantsy.

Please, for your own sake, make up your mind.

Did you actually quote a statistic to show the balance of power within your government? I missed that.

What about childcare? Education? Child health? The general cost of feeding and clothing a child? Give it a break.

Duh, Health Care, Child Tax Benefit is given according to how much money you make, for every child depending on your income, you could bring in a couple hundred dollars a month tax free. Pays for a lot of clothes and food, it's tax free, you don't request it, the government just gives it to you.

Childcare? Girl, you have no idea what you're talking about, seriously.

If for instance, you were a young single woman here with a child, you could get welfare with all your health and dental covered. Not only that you could get your schooling paid for or if you went to University, you could get half your student loan forgiven, your childcare paid for, etc.

Education? I think I'll have to pay $27 for my son to go to school next year. My two girls, I can't remember. No more than eighty for the two of them I think, and part of that is paying for crafts.

I worked before and after three maternity leaves but damned, back then I only got six months of maternity leave. Piss me off, I could have had another year and a half off paid for! Well, I like getting out of the house so, I was probably better off.

I can't help it that you don't know what goes on in countries other than your own unless it's what you know filtered through feminist propaganda first.

Hmm, actually I was reading the other day about how Health Care in Canada was primarily caused by the Catholic Church/Bishops way back when. Don't remember the source.

So actually, no, I think Australia is politically more forward than the US, in regards to women-in-politics, which was what this thread is about. Still, unless it improves, it's not equal, for a number of political and social issues.

Will you consider it equal when half of the government is female? That would be real stupid.

No Sweetie, it's not just six senators. It's the Bush Administration, fundamentalists leaders who hold sway with powerful individuals like Karl Rove, and all those men in power who implement the Global Gag Rule.

Oh, give me a fucking break. Now it's that even though Clinton was just in Parliament how long ago, Bush is running roughshod over Pro-Choice? Do you think Americans and the rest of the American government is incompetent and impotent?

Are you dense girl? Consipiracy theories, that's what you got?

No, but everybody else will. If you're really for all those things you say, then you are a feminist. If you're just putting on a farce, then you're worse than those "feminists" you diss.

It's humanism that I'm for, not feminism.

But after that, I see no reason why it can't be the other way around in a household, with the man being a stay-at-home father, and the woman working to bring in the main income.

It can be, is there a law against it? That's their choice. My husband would love to be a stay-at-home father, it's only circumstance which has said that that is not how it can be at present.