Women's Rights, Equality and Politics

[justaman]

Originally Posted by Adora

But just to take this reply back on-topic, women in politics are still not in the majority, and regularly these women get into positions of power by being just as misogynistic and conservative as the men they run with/against.

I'd like to see you illustrate the 'misogynistic' claim a little more, but I think it is more generally erroneous to say that the smaller number of women in politics is because of the 'uphill battle' feminism has to fight.

The stark fact of the matter is that the majority of women in our country want to have children. It is undeniable that there is an overwhelmingly greater commitment to a child from the mother than the father, what with the whole pregnancy thing. It is therefore statistically less likely that women will be available to dedicate the amount of time that is required to climb the slippery pole of politics. It's not to say they can't, it's not to say they shouldn't, it's a simple fact of a slight unbalance between the female and male pools from which politicians can be drawn.

There is, after all, a demand for a minimum number of women to be present in a party, which indicates that there are in fact too few women willing and able to be competative for political positions. That's not male dominance, that's a female lack of interest.

At the same time as the government is making this token effort, it has also gotten rid of the women's portfolio, is reducing the ability for women to enter the marketplace in full-time stable work (and thus gain economic independence) by changing industrial relations to suit a more neo-liberal-economic model

How exactly? I'm not trying to be clever here, I'm legitimately curious, I don't know enough about the proposed model to say.

and blocking moves to get a proper, suitable paid-maternity-leave legislation through parliment.

I suspect it's because of the rather significant impact it would have on small business who quite simply couldn't afford to do it. It's all very well to think about the mother's rights here, but such legislation is effectively garnering the responsibility of the mother's decision onto her employer. In big organisations, no dramas. Small business is the concern.

On a related issue, the government thinks we need more babies. This is why y'all get 3Gs if you pop one out. This is a fickle one because women are - presently - the only members of our society who can have children. If the government needs more children (which it says it does, fucks me why) then the pressure must be placed on women to achieve this. That is - arguably - inherantly sexist, but if the government has correctly identified that more children need to be produced, how else could they encourage that end?

[Adora]

Originally Posted by justaman

I'd like to see you illustrate the 'misogynistic' claim a little more, but I think it is more generally erroneous to say that the smaller number of women in politics is because of the 'uphill battle' feminism has to fight.

Well, let me put it this way: if you're a Liberal party senator and you're a female, you've got Issues.

There is, after all, a demand for a minimum number of women to be present in a party, which indicates that there are in fact too few women willing and able to be competative for political positions. That's not male dominance, that's a female lack of interest.

And yet, women who get into politics are subjected to discrimination and prejudice unheard of in regards to male politicians. This is a symptom of male-dominated political culture. Or are you telling me people really care what Beattie wears as much as they do with Vanstone?

The stark fact of the matter is that the majority of women in our country want to have children. It is undeniable that there is an overwhelmingly greater commitment to a child from the mother than the father, what with the whole pregnancy thing. It is therefore statistically less likely that women will be available to dedicate the amount of time that is required to climb the slippery pole of politics. It's not to say they can't, it's not to say they shouldn't, it's a simple fact of a slight unbalance between the female and male pools from which politicians can be drawn.

I agree with your statement of facts, but it doesn't have to be that way. The problem is, because modern female equality movements have focused primarily on the public spheres (ie- those outside the home which were predominantly male-dominated) it has ignored the private ones, and thus we still have problems like women doing just as much housework as they once did, yet also working full time, and the continuing problems of sexual and domestic violence, which by definition is hidden in the private sphere, and only dealt with in a token fashion by those in public. If society bothered to equalise the private sphere, the pressure on women to try and balance an imbalanced career and homelife would be less, and you would have more women with the time and energy to go into politics.

This is my problem with those articles you see pop up in the media every week or so that bullshit on about "Women can't have it all like they thought they could" and shit. They can't have it all because they're still doing the same work they did 50 years ago in the home, because nothing has changed there, only with an added stress and pressure from the public sphere. A symptom of this is that there's still this idea being promoted of men spending "quality time" with their children, like the kids are getting something special and out-of-the-ordniary, which has so many things wrong with it I don't know where to start. When a father nurturing his children is depicted as something "special" and not simply a normal state of family life, you know there's something wrong, both in the public and the private spheres.

How exactly? I'm not trying to be clever here, I'm legitimately curious, I don't know enough about the proposed model to say.

Currently the liberal government is in a shit with the unions over there reformations of the industrial relation reforms where they want to introduce more individual contracting, and they've already put in a loophole for the unfair-dismissal laws for companies with fewer than 100 employees. They're promoting supposedly getting more women into the part-time workplace (and individual contracts) being a good thing, but part-time work does not provide the same economic stability and independence permanent-full-time work does, because you don't get the same benefits. As I mentioned, they got rid of the women's portfolio, which, especially in the case of industrial reforms, would have been the ones pointing this out.

I am honestly not 100% clear as to how the government would get more individual contracts into the workplace, because I'm not well-informed about the wokrplace negotiation laws. I think currently there's something like legislation that says certain business have to do group-contracts (ie- the same plan for a certain group of workers) which allows these groups to then negotiate their conditions for pay and hours etc (like unions) and helps build worker solidarity. Individual contracts are usually used for casual employees and businesses that don't want their workers grouping together for workplace rights etc, since it cuts out any wider-group negotiation and means the worker has to negotiate on their own with their employer. It goes hand-in-hand with unstable casual work, especially in places like the food/retail sector where the majority of casual work is. Group contracts are mostly in the larger industrial sectors, education and factory workers, where there is more unionisation and larger economic powers who will benefit more from the requirements for group-contracts being lessened (if that's what the model proposes).

I suspect it's because of the rather significant impact it would have on small business who quite simply couldn't afford to do it. It's all very well to think about the mother's rights here, but such legislation is effectively garnering the responsibility of the mother's decision onto her employer. In big organisations, no dramas. Small business is the concern.

I question this, since the economic model being pushed by the government is geared towards big-businesses, not smaller ones, who would take a significant profit cut if they had to implement a paid-maternity-leave plan for all their female employees.

That is - arguably - inherantly sexist, but if the government has correctly identified that more children need to be produced, how else could they encourage that end?

Allow them paid maternity leave? Allow them more group/unionised contract negotiations so they can cut themselves a better deal, and thus have less hours to work, be less stressed, and have mor reproductive coitus? Lessen the cost of raising a child in general? The government is doing the same economic dance they did in England over 100 years ago: trying to trade off a happy baby-making population with the demands of economic powers. Unfortunately, the Liberal government is putting business first, and expecting the people to just do as they say for peanuts.

[Sweetie]

Originally Posted by Adora

And yet, women who get into politics are subjected to discrimination and prejudice unheard of in regards to male politicians. This is a symptom of male-dominated political culture. Or are you telling me people really care what Beattie wears as much as they do with Vanstone?

I agree with your statement of facts, but it doesn't have to be that way. The problem is, because modern female equality movements have focused primarily on the public spheres (ie- those outside the home which were predominantly male-dominated) it has ignored the private ones, and thus we still have problems like women doing just as much housework as they once did, yet also working full time, and the continuing problems of sexual and domestic violence, which by definition is hidden in the private sphere, and only dealt with in a token fashion by those in public. If society bothered to equalise the private sphere, the pressure on women to try and balance an imbalanced career and homelife would be less, and you would have more women with the time and energy to go into politics.

That's situational and I don't see that it has any relevance. Women have to do as much housework? Says who? Says those women and men in those relationship that agree with that.

The only real constant thing I have every heard about Australia is that the males are terribly chauvenistic.

When a father nurturing his children is depicted as something "special" and not simply a normal state of family life, you know there's something wrong, both in the public and the private spheres.

Right.

Allow them paid maternity leave?

Here, women get a year off paid for by the government, 65% percent of their wage through Employment Insurance.

Here, their jobs are held for at least six months.

Here, you may or your spouse may take the parental leave.

Lessen the cost of raising a child in general?

Here we have Child Tax Benefit.

The government is doing the same economic dance they did in England over 100 years ago: trying to trade off a happy baby-making population with the demands of economic powers. Unfortunately, the Liberal government is putting business first, and expecting the people to just do as they say for peanuts.

In some ways, I think you are confusing your part of the world with mine and lumping it all together.

[Adora]

Sweetie, before I start, qould you puh-lease stop talking about some "difference" between "feminism of the past" and modern feminism. There's not. Pick up a bit of information actually about feminism, and the same goals haven't changed for over 100 years. There's no difference between the calls for female autonomy (sexual, economic, social and otherwise) back in the 1800s as there is now. Feminists still want all women (ie- not just cushy, middle-classians who think just because they have social privilege, everyone else does) to be able to live in a society that doesn't devalue them because they are women. Is that so hard for you to comprehend?

Originally Posted by Sweetie

That's situational and I don't see that it has any relevance. Women have to do as much housework? Says who? Says those women and men in those relationship that agree with that.

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.

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.

The only real constant thing I have every heard about Australia is that the males are terribly chauvenistic.

And this is relevant to the discussion HOW?

Here we have Child Tax Benefit.

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

In some ways, I think you are confusing your part of the world with mine and lumping it all together.

Actually, Sweetie, if you want to get specific, politically, the US is far behind places like Rwanda, South America and Australia in terms of women-in-politics. Whilst many women in Australian politics might be Liberal Party (ie-Conservative) lap-dogs, we're still better number-wise (which seems to be your chosen chant) than the US.

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.

Sweetie, if you fail to see the significance of my pointing out the effects of the Global Gag Rule, you're either in total denial or chosing ignorance. You know what? Your government is anti-life, but not in the sense you think it is. The men with the power are passionately anti-abortion, and therefore anti-women's-health, which, when you're a Uruguayan woman dying of poisoning because you couldn't get an abortion thanks to your country's laws, is anti-life. Suck It Up. The anti-abortion movement in the US is not some victimised group like the faux-attacked conservatives like to make it out to be. It's large and in-fucking-charge, and happily harming the lives of other women around the world, outside the US borders.

Who is in power, that's my question, by what do you judge male domination? If you really are going to claim that because of six US Senators it's very clear that the Pro-Life movement is male dominated.........wtf?

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.

Fischer- if you think Heartless Bitches is what modern day feminism is about, you're as ignorant as Sweetie is. "Modern Day" feminism is about bringing education to women who are still forced to wear the burquas in Afghanistan. Modern day feminists fight against domestic violence, which is the largest cause of health problems for women in Australia aged 15-45. Modern day feminism is not a lame bunch of internet chicas cracking a joke, which you obviously don't get. If you can't realise what modern day feminism actually is, then you shouldn't judge it.

Originally Posted by Sweetie

Put it this way, if I can still be a Catholic and agree with what many feminists say then that is not what I call feminism.

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.

Originally Posted by justaman

Yes, well Beattie isn't grotesquely obese.

No, he's just grotesque.

I really can't think of any examples of prejudice.

I can. Constant attacks on what the women are wearing, which is what I meant by the comparison of Beattie and Vanstone. Both, in my opinion, are as grotesque as each other, yet Vanstone gets all the shit thrown at her.

How is this actually achieved? Again, I think you may be fighting the greens of the simple fact that women - biologically and sociologically - must drop what they are doing for a certain (though perhaps debatable) amount of time to tend to the upbringing of their children.

Of course, 9 months is 9 months. 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.

If I have two applicants and one tells me "Yeah mate, I'm a great worker, but I'm going to be checking you out for about 8 months next year when I shoot off to the bahamas", I'm probably going to choose the second.

But this isn't "shooting off to the Bahamas". If the government is supposedly wanting to increase the population, then it shouldn't matter if it's a small or a large business that's providing the maternity leave.

With a bonus, they've actually done something relatively simple, and the statistics are showing that it's worked.

I thought that was nothing except an incentive which was then spent on the economy itself, not the child.

Which is probably why, it must be acknowledged, our economy is in fact doing so well.

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

[justaman]

Originally Posted by Adora

No, he's just grotesque.

I think that's somewhat of a subjective call.

I can. Constant attacks on what the women are wearing, which is what I meant by the comparison of Beattie and Vanstone. Both, in my opinion, are as grotesque as each other, yet Vanstone gets all the shit thrown at her.

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.

Of course, 9 months is 9 months. 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.

As I mentioned in the antecedent, there's no reason at all why this should be avoided, beyond the fact that for 9 months (if we call it that for now) the male is working while the female is not. Ignoring everything else, if one of them is going to be the 'career' parent and one the 'at home' parent, 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.

But this isn't "shooting off to the Bahamas". If the government is supposedly wanting to increase the population, then it shouldn't matter if it's a small or a large business that's providing the maternity leave.

Well it's actually worse than the Bahamas, because the business has to pay as well as release them. The government may want more children, but it also wants a stable small-business environment. Dividing the female population into 'workers' and 'mothers' - as the bonus somewhat obliquely does - achieves this. Trying to allow all mothers to be workers as well, simply does not.

Individual rights are not - and shouldn't ever be - absolute. I do not see a good rationale behind why the right of the mother to have a child should be allowed to undermine the right of a business owner to run their business efficiently.

I thought that was nothing except an incentive which was then spent on the economy itself, not the child.

Perhaps. But the birth statistics have risen for the first time in 10 years, and this has been largely attributed to the bonus. The intentions are more or less irrelevant when considering the reality of the outcomes.

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.

[John Carter]

Ummm... Adora, Sweetie is not in the US.

[Adora]

Originally Posted by John Carter

Ummm... Adora, Sweetie is not in the US.

Where's she from then?

[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.

[justaman]

Originally Posted by Adora

Indeed it is .

I take it you don't dig akubras.

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.

That's not what I meant. I meant he is ridiculed for his stature, his beady little glasses-eyes, his gandalf like eyebrows, and of course, his voice. What radio station doesn't have some dedicated John Howard satirist call them up occasionally? I do not think that pathetic, childish insults are limited to the one sex by any stretch of the imagination.

Really? I'd argue otherwise: the child should have both parents (if in a two parent household) no matter who carried the child.

A luxury perhaps the rich can afford, or the poor if they and the child don't mind a squalid environment.

One could also argue that because she carried the child, the other partner (male or female) should "do overtime", in a sense.

Well that's a bit weird. Looking at the problem pragmatically, one parent has had their career interrupted, the other hasn't. Why interrupt both careers? Why stifle the paycheck, which to a new family is rather an important thing? Again, it's a very idealistic suggestion that seems big on rights and somewhat weak on responsibility. One would really think the primary focus was the wellbeing of the child, rather than the career aspirations of the mother.

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.

I don't think domestic economic policy has anything to do with the US whatever.

I also wonder why you don't think our economy helps people. If there is one thing we in this country shouldn't be complaining about, it's the economy. I wonder if any European countries of equivalent size to us would have been able/willing to send $1 billion to another nation for tsunami relief. We're a small country but we're pretty well off, and rather gregarious when we want to be.

[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.

[Adora]

Originally Posted by Sweetie

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.

So working to change attittudes in society so both parents share parenting and household chores to encourage a happier and more equal home-life is detremental to the family?

HAHA no. Give it a rest Sweetie. You don't even know what feminism is, so this argument is pointless.

Even your porn stance, it devalues women but I don't expect you to see past yourself enough to recognize that.

Even gay porn?

Originally Posted by Sweetie

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.

It is if the society around them including the government encourage such sexism.

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.

And yet they both share the same problem of almost exactly the same levels of domestic violence. Funny that.

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

Australia still beats Canada. Obviously you're not as "different" as you like to think you are.

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.

What about married couples? You want to talk about "situational" irrelevancy, then you use a single situation to back up your argument.

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.

*snorts* Yeah, well, when you do, give us a call. Considering Tommy Douglas was a socialist, I think you're talking shit.

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

Why would it be really stupid? Equal representation for equal population.

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?

No, it's because those in power, who are men, are extending their influence to where it should not be, and interfereing with the democratic process of other countries, and more importantly, the lives of women who they should have no power over.

Do you think Americans and the rest of the American government is incompetent and impotent?

They let the new administration get away with invading Iraq, didn't they? That speaks volumes of incompetency to me.

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

The Uruguayan example is not a conspiracy theory. Look it up, bitch. Nor are the facts of the Global Gag Rule, if you bothered to educate yourself. The deaths of women around the world because of an anti-woman government refusing to save their lives because of conservatism and backward religious values are facts, which you are chosing to be anti-life towards and ignore. So before you start using such a phrase, maybe you should reconsider your own stance on whose life is more important - your own cushy one living happily in denial of the reality around the world, or those of women dying because of a Superpower government.

Is feminism defined by those who self-identify as one? If I walk around saying I'm a feminist does that mean that what I say feminism is is what it is?

It works for Catholics.

Right, find me a feminist that is not pro-choice and I'll just say they are not a feminist because there has to be some lines.

Why does there have to be some lines? If you have "not time for feminism", supposedly, why do you care how they define themselves, and what causes they support?

That's from Adora, she figures men should be able to stay at home and women go off and have big careers.

And what's wrong with that? Just as a properly managed career/housewife situation can provide the child with the right amount of parenting one way, why can't the properly managed career/househusband do it the other way, if, supposedly, as you are always arguing Sweetie, they choose to make it so in their relationship?

or daycares can raise them which is normally the case,

HAHA evidence plskthnx.

We have to draw lines in order to even be able to speak about things of this nature.

Indeed we do. But see Sweetie, usually lines are drawn by people who actually have some knowledge of what they're talking about. Not people who "have no time" for that thing which they are making lame attempts to define.

[Sweetie]

Originally Posted by Adora

So working to change attittudes in society so both parents share parenting and household chores to encourage a happier and more equal home-life is detremental to the family?

I really don't understand how you only have stuff like this to offer and still consider yourself superior, seriously. What planet are you on?

My husband cooks. He's gone three weeks a month but he enjoys cooking and he always did for instance, when he's home and not exhausted. He cleans, if I'm not up to par or need a break if he has the priveledge of being home, he takes care of things. He hates dishes but he'll do 'em and he hates laundry but he'll do 'em if he really, really has to.

In my house parenting and household chores already equalized according to the amount one has to work outside the home.

Where does feminism come in in all of this?

Who are you blaming that this isn't the case in your la la land? Who's fault is it that it is that way?

Even gay porn?

I'm against all porn so it's simple, yes it objectifies all people but women moreso.

Originally Posted by Sweetie

It is if the society around them including the government encourage such sexism.

Really?

Well, interesting. It's the government's fault that my husband won't do laundry.

Put it this way, I wouldn't date a guy who wouldn't get up and help out around the house and I sure as hell wouldn't have kids with one if I was just to be wifey.

And yet they both share the same problem of almost exactly the same levels of domestic violence. Funny that.

Right, so you perhaps have falsly named your enemy then, correct?

Besides, isn't female physical violence on the rise?

*snorts* Yeah, well, when you do, give us a call. Considering Tommy Douglas was a socialist, I think you're talking shit.

Good Lord, at least I'd be in good company.

Seriously, are people over there all like you? You guys actually desire to sleep with each other if the men are pigs and the women are snotty bitches like you?

Why would it be really stupid? Equal representation for equal population.

Equal representation requires the actual physical presence of a woman? Weren't you just bitching about females being misogynists before? Therefore what? If you think really, really hard I'm sure you could see what's in there waiting for you............the falsification of your ideas or indication of their irrelevancy.

No, it's because those in power, who are men, are extending their influence to where it should not be, and interfereing with the democratic process of other countries, and more importantly, the lives of women who they should have no power over.

Mmmhmm.

The Uruguayan example is not a conspiracy theory. Look it up, bitch. Nor are the facts of the Global Gag Rule, if you bothered to educate yourself.

I really think you missed the part where I determined that it's irrelevant.

The deaths of women around the world because of an anti-woman government refusing to save their lives because of conservatism and backward religious values are facts, which you are chosing to be anti-life towards and ignore.

Oh goodness.

So before you start using such a phrase, maybe you should reconsider your own stance on whose life is more important - your own cushy one living happily in denial of the reality around the world, or those of women dying because of a Superpower government.

Holy Fuck. I and all men and all religions are resposible for the big enemy, America. *oohhs and ahhhs*

Why does there have to be some lines? If you have "not time for feminism", supposedly, why do you care how they define themselves, and what causes they support?

Geez, is your brilliance this obvious to everyone?

Indeed we do. But see Sweetie, usually lines are drawn by people who actually have some knowledge of what they're talking about. Not people who "have no time" for that thing which they are making lame attempts to define.

You keep using this "have no time" line. I never said I had no time for feminism if that's supposed to be intended as some sort of cheap shot.

[justaman]

Originally Posted by Adora

And yet, women who get into politics are subjected to discrimination and prejudice unheard of in regards to male politicians. This is a symptom of male-dominated political culture. Or are you telling me people really care what Beattie wears as much as they do with Vanstone?

Yes, well Beattie isn't grotesquely obese.

I don't think there is any excessive discimination placed upon female politicians. All politicians are the butt of the jokes based on their physical appearances and what not in every political carichature you are likely to come across. I really can't think of any examples of prejudice. The Democrats have had two female leaders and Julia Gillard stands a good chance of taking up leadership at some point in the future. This surely couldn't be if our political system was hampering the efforts of females.

And in leadership roles in general, I just don't see the trend you are implying. Some of our most respected journalists are women, and here in WA you have an example of two women quite effectively anchoring a prime-time news program, apparently with no regard to whatever boy+girl expectations the public might have. We have a female magistrate in the highest court in our country, we have female heros in our sporting arena, we have female CEOs in our businesses, we even have senior female leaders in our military, surely the toughest environment of them all. It seems to me that the framework is there for any woman in this country to do most anything she desires, and the statistics - far from representing a systemic shortfall - are showing the relative interest level of women to pursue such occupations.

If society bothered to equalise the private sphere, the pressure on women to try and balance an imbalanced career and homelife would be less, and you would have more women with the time and energy to go into politics.

How is this actually achieved? Again, I think you may be fighting the greens of the simple fact that women - biologically and sociologically - must drop what they are doing for a certain (though perhaps debatable) amount of time to tend to the upbringing of their children. If that is the case, surely it is going to be more intelligent for a given situation for the male to be working while the female is unable. It is a very short step to conclude it is therefore more likely that the male be the 'career' person and the female be the homemaker.

Once more, there is no reason why this 'should' ever be the case, I just think it is going to be more simple and therefore more logical 51 times out of 100.

I question this, since the economic model being pushed by the government is geared towards big-businesses, not smaller ones, who would take a significant profit cut if they had to implement a paid-maternity-leave plan for all their female employees.

Well it's the same logic, really, isn't it?

If I have two applicants and one tells me "Yeah mate, I'm a great worker, but I'm going to be checking you out for about 8 months next year when I shoot off to the bahamas", I'm probably going to choose the second. There's not much difference between this and a woman leaving for 8 months to care for her new-born, other than that the employer may in fact be obliged to pay her for her absense. Until this country becomes socialist, I see no reason why a company would or even should consider paid maternity leave to be in their best interests.

Having said that, it's not like organisations don't. I'm in the military and our maternity leave is generous and fully paid for. But then fiscal outcomes aren't actually what we grade ourselves by.

Allow them paid maternity leave? Allow them more group/unionised contract negotiations so they can cut themselves a better deal, and thus have less hours to work, be less stressed, and have mor reproductive coitus? Lessen the cost of raising a child in general?

These alternatives aren't exactly simple to implement, and I'd suggest the last in fact impossible. With a bonus, they've actually done something relatively simple, and the statistics are showing that it's worked.

Unfortunately, the Liberal government is putting business first, and expecting the people to just do as they say for peanuts.

Which is probably why, it must be acknowledged, our economy is in fact doing so well.