Women's Rights, Equality and Politics

[natasha]

I too am grateful for the women of the past that have paved the path before me, but I really think that feminism is taken to a terrible extreme in many cases today.

Do you want to share some specific examples of feminism gone awry?

[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.

[Fisher]

Originally Posted by natasha

Do you want to share some specific examples of feminism gone awry?

example

[natasha]

Originally Posted by Fisher

example

ROF.

So you can't take a joke? Okay. Thank you. I just signed up.

[Sweetie]

Are you tired of the walking wounded moping around expecting that the world owes them something because they are victims?

Despite the statements of some of our more Bitter Heartless Bitches, Heartless Bitches International is NOT about Man-Hating. We don't discriminate against stupidity, arrogance, irresponsibility, bloated egos, or immaturity on the basis of gender.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Fisher

Hey Sweetie,

We may not agree on Catholism, but I damn sure agree with you here. I am not a fan of modern day feminism either. I too am grateful for the women of the past that have paved the path before me, but I really think that feminism is taken to a terrible extreme in many cases today.

I'm interested to know what exactly you mean by "modern feminism" and what specific damage to society you see it causing. I take it Sweetie believes that "modern feminists" are "anti-life", is that what you think too?

[Fisher]

Originally Posted by natasha

ROF.

So you can't take a joke? Okay. Thank you. I just signed up.

A friend of mine directed me to that site about a year ago. I spent hours reading different articles, and the more I read, the more it pissed me off.

I refuse to believe that men are bad. Hell, they seem to make my life pretty damn good. I ain't bitchin.

[Sweetie]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

I take it Sweetie believes that "modern feminists" are "anti-life", is that what you think too?

I only call them anti-Life because they are anal enough to "anti-choice."

It's Pro-Life and Pro-Choice to me, simple, inoffensive I think, accepted terms. Using others is just well......just about being anal and it's unnecessary.

[viscousmemories]

Hmm, yeah I'm gonna have to agree with natasha on that one. I mean that that site is mostly tongue-in-cheek. I don't think the Heartless Bitches website really reflects the real principles of the modern feminist movement. As far as I know the modern feminist movement is interested in all the same things the old feminist movement was interested in, which y'all still don't have.

(Which isn't to say there aren't rabid manhating feminazis out there... don't get me wrong. Did someone mention MacKinnon? I just don't think that describes the majority of modern feminists.)

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Sweetie

I only call them anti-Life because they are anal enough to "anti-choice."

It's Pro-Life and Pro-Choice to me, simple, inoffensive I think, accepted terms. Using others is just well......just about being anal and it's unnecessary.

I agree because those are the most commonly used terms. I still wish "our side" had gotten the more fluffy-bunny loving title, though.

[Fisher]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

I'm interested to know what exactly you mean by "modern feminism" and what specific damage to society you see it causing. I take it Sweetie believes that "modern feminists" are "anti-life", is that what you think too?

No, that's not it for me. I just absolutely hate the horrible picture that seems to be painted of men by feminists. Men are not the antichrist.

[Fisher]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

Hmm, yeah I'm gonna have to agree with natasha on that one. I mean that that site is mostly tongue-in-cheek.

Hey, I certainly can't deny that there is some funny stuff on that site, but there seems to be a very heavy man hating undertone in almost all of it.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Fisher

No, that's not it for me. I just absolutely hate the horrible picture that seems to be painted of men by feminists. Men are not the antichrist.

Well like I said I don't think accurately describes most feminists. In fact I'm pretty sure the only requirement for membership in the Feminist Organization is a desire to stop breeding. (Okay, bad AA joke there). Seriously though feminism to me means equal rights for women. Period. As far as I'm concerned the abortion issue and manhating don't have a lot to do with equal rights.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Fisher

Hey, I certainly can't deny that there is some funny stuff on that site, but there seems to be a very heavy man hating undertone in almost all of it.

Yeah but how do you know it's inspired by feminism? Maybe they're just PMS'ing.

[Fisher]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

Well like I said I don't think accurately describes most feminists. In fact I'm pretty sure the only requirement for membership in the Feminist Organization is a desire to stop breeding. (Okay, bad AA joke there). Seriously though feminism to me means equal rights for women. Period. As far as I'm concerned the abortion issue and manhating don't have a lot to do with equal rights.

Hey, I agree with you in supporting equal rights for all people. I am an equal rights supporter completely. If that's what an organization is truly after, please sign me up.

[Fisher]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

Yeah but how do you know it's inspired by feminism? Maybe they're just PMS'ing.

LOL! I think that almost every time you get a bunch of women together for an extended period of time bitching about men seems to come naturally.

[Gurdur]

Originally Posted by Sweetie

I think the feminism of the past is different than the feminism of the present is my differentiation. I support what was done in the past, I do not support the stupidity of those who have taken it too far as people are want to do when they start getting power.

That is not the differentiation you made when replying to Beth. You made a personal attack on her, and slammed all feminism. So you are grateful after all to the feminists for winning those rights for you ?

And the fact that feminism actually is composed of many different strands, some of them very much in competition with each other and contradicting each other, should not surprise you at all; after all, feminism is merely exactly the same as the Roman Catholic Chruch in that regard.

[Sweetie]

Originally Posted by Gurdur

That is not the differentiation you made when replying to Beth. You made a personal attack on her, and slammed all feminism.

Which comment? I said I generally have little tolerance for feminists, is that the comment you are speaking of?

So you are grateful after all to the feminists for winning those rights for you ?

It wasn't Beth that was winning those rights for me, was it?

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.

Equal rights, check.
Heath Care for all, check.
Women being able to care for their children, check.
Women, persons under the law, check.
Defended by the law, check.
Persons not property, check.
Should not be abused, check.

Etc., etc.

And the fact that feminism actually is composed of many different strands, some of them very much in competition with each other and contradicting each other, should not surprise you at all; after all, feminism is merely exactly the same as the Roman Catholic Chruch in that regard.

Right, well, as has been noted, I'm actually a Fundamentalist go figure, so I guess I'm not the only one who makes mistakes in that regard, terminology.

Anyhoo, there may indeed be different claims of belief, in my encounters there's a general trend so that is what I call feminism, it may not suit your definitions however.

[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.

[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 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.

[Adora]

Originally Posted by John Carter

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

Where's she from then?

[beyelzu]

The frozen tundra, think north america. And as a last hint: maple leaf.