The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Women on top > Comments

Women on top : Comments

By Brett Bowden, published 30/1/2006

Brett Bowden asks why Australia has had so few female politicians and no prospect of a woman as prime minister any time soon.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All
Hear Hear, Three cheers for Brett!

So, how is it to be done ?

Is 'Affirmative action' approriate to Australian politics.

Has it got something to do with the 'bullish mateship' that we see during parliamentary question time?

Wise Women Leadership, instead of the flagrant sexual display of 'male aggression', is something we could all do with.

Women have healthy emotional responses, so because women have not blunted their emotions,it is a barrier to Power.

Emotions have always been devalued along with everything female; yet science now proves that decisions are best made when emotions are part of the process.
Posted by Coyote, Monday, 30 January 2006 11:55:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Merit" is the only parameter for leadership.

Merit is where all attributes of all applicants are considered (and gender is not a meritorious attribute, merely an accident of conception).

Gender is as irrelevant as cast, class or colour.

Coyote Australia should be ready to accept the best and only the best leaders our political system can produce, regardless of gender.

“Affirmative action” will not deliver what it is designed to prevent.

The outcome of affirmative action, regardless of its goals, is to inhibit the opportunity of potentially the most capable simply because they lack the prescribed skin pigmentation, social background or “wedding tackle”.

Margaret Thatcher had something to say on the matter (I was pleased to see she receive honourable mention in Brett’s article).

“I owe nothing to Women's Lib.”

She interestingly observed in 1974 “It will be years - and not in my time - before a woman will lead the party or become prime minister.”

For these and more quotes from an inspirational female, world class politician with the gonads to take on the British Union movement and Win for the benefit of all.

Go to

http://womenshistory.about.com/od/quotes/a/m_thatcher.htm

If Australia lacks female leaders it is simply because female leaders are not yet ready for the task. When they are, Australia, I am sure, will welcome them but forcing females to the fore before they are suited or simnply becasue they are female will ruin their careers and more importantly, stuff the country or the State (at this moment Joan Kirner springs to mind and her disastrous premiership’s influence in “running the ship of state aground” in Victoria (although “gender” seems to be no barometer for mediocrity if we look at what Bracks & Co are doing presently).

Treat individuals as individuals, regardless of gender. Then select the best individual for the role.
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 30 January 2006 12:54:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would have thought Julia Gillard must be a fairly high propsect for leadership of the Labour party (and hence potential Prime Minister), and I don't think that is a particularily novel thought at all. So I don't see "no prospect" at all.
Posted by rc, Monday, 30 January 2006 1:04:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brett Bowden asks why Australia has had so few female politicians and no prospect of a woman as prime minister any time soon.

Sorry, but I don’t think this is a significant issue. Much more importantly, we should be asking why Australia has had so few truly environmentally- or sustainability-oriented politicians and no prospect of one becoming prime minister any time soon.

While there are quite a few examples of women reaching state premierships, there is perhaps only one example of an environmentally-friendly government in Australia, and that was Wayne Goss in 1989. But while he was somewhat green, he certainly wasn’t sustainability-oriented.

There is a single example of a truly sustainability-oriented politician reaching a high level and that is former senator and leader of the Democrats, Dr John Coulter. Bob Brown is a highly respectable environmentalist but falls well short on sustainability.

This terrible lack of balance is the sort of thing that we need to be very concerned about, not the gender balance
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 30 January 2006 1:24:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Women ruling the world! Hmm...

Look, here's something interesting about that -

The Daily Targum
A case for feminism
http://www.dailytargum.com/media/paper168/news/2005/10/03/Opinions/A.Case.For.Feminism-1006530.shtml?norewrite&sourcedomain=www.dailytargum.com&page=1
"So there you have it, a list of some of the biggest names in the sphere of female rule. And what do we have? A series of war, oppression, torture and intrigue. Hardly what I would call a "better world."

Wow! Who would have thought?

And what's this in The Australian today, 30/01/06 -

The Australian
Democrats fear Hillary too risky
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17975685%255E2703,00.html
"Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign is running into a hail of opposition from within her own party after a poll showed last week most Americans would "definitely" not vote for her."

Isn't all that just so dreadful?
Posted by Maximus, Monday, 30 January 2006 1:30:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is no better personification of this problem in Australian politics than Julia Gillard. After Mark Latham retired, the ALP had a real chance to elect a female leader for the first time. Instead they went for the tried and tested and mostly detested Kim Beazley. It is instructive that even the (so-called) left party in Australian politics would rather have a two-time loser as its head than a woman. Indeed it is pretty hard to imagine Julia Gillard doing a worse job than Beazley managed in 2005.

I'm not one that thinks that simply being female would make Gillard a better candidate - instead I think she WAS the best candidate, but still didn't get the gig. What does that say about Australia?
Posted by Count0, Monday, 30 January 2006 5:05:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge I agree with everything you have said except perhaps you mean “caste” rather than “cast”…

Interesting to think that, on a technicality, currently Australia is ruled by a woman -Queen Elizabeth II! I’m not an advocate for hereditary monarchy and yes I know that the Queen doesn’t do any practical ruling, but it’s handy to (shock, horror) pedantically point out when people complain that we don’t have any women in government that the person currently in the top job is a woman.
Posted by Pedant, Monday, 30 January 2006 5:25:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A few reasons.

Australian women hate to see other Australian women succeed.(anywhere, not just parliament)

Australian women in politics are subject to sexist remarks and gossip that devalue their achievements.

Parliament is a bully pit that excludes due to it's very nature, not only women.

the question should be "why would a woman go through that"?
Posted by Verdant, Monday, 30 January 2006 7:29:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Coyote, I very much disagreed with what appeared to be a very sexist post.

"Wise Women Leadership, instead of the flagrant sexual display of 'male aggression', is something we could all do with.

Women have healthy emotional responses, so because women have not blunted their emotions,it is a barrier to Power."

I tend to think that there is more scope in our society for women to express and focus on emotion than for men, the "take it like a man" or "big enough balls" type comments that pop up in some of these threads demonstrate that issue fairly well. That does not mean that men don't have emotions or that womens emotions are necessarily healthier than mens, rather the norms for expressing emotions are probably different and possibly the weight given to emotion when making decisions (I'm not convinced of this but will consider the possibility).

I've often wondered at the manner coalition female politicians are attacked and what impact that has on perceptions of their ability. The focus on Bronywn Bishops looks compared to that placed on male politicians is worth a think about. I have not noticed as much of it against more left leaning female politicians, or maybe the left tends to have more attractive female politicians - are the less attractive ones filtered out by Labor?

What role does the focus on female politicians looks play in the ability of capable female politicians to get to the top? Is Bronywn any more unattractive than Kim and does it matter? Is Bronwyn capable (I'm undecided)?

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 30 January 2006 7:39:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why don't women get to the top? You've heard of the 'Sea Change" well Australia women usually take the "Nappy Change".

The "Nappy change" is when a woman has her first child... too often she stops working and never works seriously again. If she does return to work, often it'll be part-time, something easier and close-to-home.

To get to the top you have to work long hours for long years! Sadly in Australia our best-and-brightest women usually stop working full-time once they have their first kid. Nobody stops them from returning to their careers and the long hours... they CHOOSE not to!

Now don't blame expensive childcare... remember this future prime-minister is the woman who was on her way up, successful, hard-working, rapidly climbing up the ladder... she can easily afford the childcare...

In the Nordic countries women generally hold around 40% of Parliament and 30% of board-level positions. Why? Because Dads and mothers get equal parental leave there. Afterwards they both return to full-time work. Dad's get family-friendly policies and love the balance! Women earn their power.

What I don't understand is why Australian dads put up with it... instead of a "nappy change", dads are forced to INCREASE their hours to pay the mortgage and maintain the DINK lifestyle on a single income.

When they stop being DINKS and suddenly become SInKs (Single income 'n kids) a dad's hope for a work-life balance and craving to enjoy his kids sadly SInKs too. Australian Dads do 23hrs a week more 'work'-work than mothers.

The burden of being the breadwinner is why Australian men are afraid to commit to marriage and kids, because it is years of hard work with little of the fun of being a parent. They also have a sensible fear of a divorce which would take everything away, even their kids!

This is exactly why the Nordic countries have kept high birthrates - because men actually want to become dads, because they get to be a parent, not just a wallet.

PartTimeParent@yahoo.com.au
Posted by partTimeParent, Monday, 30 January 2006 8:11:45 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col,

Give it a break mate.... are you saying that our current load of pollies are there on "merit"? Can you provide a list of the "merit" challenges they have passed. I lying about WMD's merit... or misrepresenting that "kids were thrown overboard" and forgetting to tell the country that they were thrown overboard because the ship was sinking.

All parliaments should have 50% of them made up of women.... so that women are properly represented truly reflecting society.

The entire world runs on a system of balance... a balance between industry and environment, work and leasure etc.

Women deserve to be represented by women so that Australia is seen as a truly reprentative democracy.

Under the current "merit" process if you are a bloke you get a safe seat and if you are a woman you get a marginal one. So much for merit!
Posted by Opinionated2, Monday, 30 January 2006 8:48:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You only have to look at our various public services around the country, to see what happens when affirmative action is practiced.
Queensland health has quite a few Area Directors promoted on sex, rather than ability, enough said?
Why is it that only the nastiest women get mentioned as leadership material? I would be ashamed to call Gillard my Prime Minister, although no more so, than I would have been with Labors last candidate. I would not be ashamed of Beazley.
I admired Maggie, from a distance, but I don't know if I would have been proud of her, if I were a Brit.
One of the bigest problems of the left, is their fixation with getting women into senior positions, regardless of ability.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 30 January 2006 9:05:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Women are more than ready for the task and they always have been. Australian men are simply not ready for the task of handing over power to women.

Why else did it take so long for women to gain the right to vote? The right to be police officers and fire fighters? The right to play sport? The right to take the driver’s seat? The right to drink beer at pubs etc etc etc?

It is all so terribly lame. I do not feel that my ideas are in any way extreme. I'm not an alien and I'm not insane. I'm just a citizen of this country who expects fair and equal representation for those who rightly deserve it.

There is a distinct breed of people who for some reason persistently resist the emancipation of unjustifiably under-represented groups. Whether it is through fear or brainwashed machismo thinking – anyone who contributes to such repression will no doubt find their breed extinct in a hundred years time.
Posted by tubley, Monday, 30 January 2006 10:44:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Opinionated2 ”Give it a break Mate”

Why?

Our “current load of pollies” are elected by the will of the electorate.

If you did not see merit in the person you were voted for, or comparative merit to those running, why did you vote the way your did?

I for one, would vote against any political party which used an "affirmative action" process for preselection, because I see “no merit” in such a process and thus be suspicious of the outcome of those they “pre-selected” and that is my right as a voter.

If women want to be elected, more of them should participate and stand.

“Forcing” gender based representation onto the voting electorate (as you suggest) is anti-democratic and likely, for reasons I have previously stated, to produce the less-then optimum outcome by potentially excluding the “naturally best for the job" applicant.

Your presumption to the process of preselection and blokes getting safe seats fails on the ground that, you alone don’t decide who is pre-selected. Take your complaints to the pre-selectors but hands off the process, the process works, because you don’t like the result is just too bad.

Oh, before you challenge my tolerance to women politicians. I am proud to say I voted for Margaret Thatcher in the 1970’s. Whilst she was unambiguously female, compared to Latham, Whitlam or Keating, she was more the “man” if we are to measure each on the basis of their capacity for “girlie hissing fits”.

Hasbeen, Yep affirmative action produces an inferior outcome for the sake of political correctness. It has to because that is the agenda, and the consumer / tax payer or any notion of “quality” driven service can go to hell.

From one who was there and was appraised of the alternatives, I think you would have found no shortcomings in Maggies “Meritorious” credentials.
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 31 January 2006 9:27:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Women deserve to be represented by women so that Australia is seen as a truly reprentative democracy."

Opinionated, by your logic, as a male I then made a terrible mistake, voting for a female as my MP. Clearly I need to be more sexist, according to you, rather then judge her on her abilities.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 31 January 2006 9:47:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I find myself in agreement with Col Rouge on the question of merit. And affirmaive action - At the same time I think the notion of Emily's list is a good thing in so far as it promotes womens profiels in these matters but it shoud have no bearing on selection at the end of the day.

There are countless worthy women out there - the pool of talent is not in question. But politics is a boys game - there are capable women who probably just dont want to play - and those that do are often marginalised. But affirmative action is not the answer to over come the problem.

Evolution, rather than any intelligent design so to speak, will bring women to the fore.
Posted by sneekeepete, Tuesday, 31 January 2006 10:08:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col me old mate,

Sadly you sound like an old righty who probably can't understand the "merit" in affirmative action. The reason that men have such a head start in politics is a result of history. For many, many centuries women weren't allowed to be in politics. They were oppressed!

Finally a few women manage to fight the oppression by getting the vote and then a few others actually make it into the political ranks. Eventually you get a woman or two making it to higher levels bumping their heads on the glass ceiling. Do you believe in women having a vote Col?

Ever been held back due to your Gender Col? Do you understand the complexities of such discrimination? Was Keating there on merit?... Is Howard? ... Is Vanstone? ... Was Latham? See I know merit when I see it but if people in power are there without merit they probably can't assess merit BUT as they hold the power they can stop a persons progress through the ranks too easily. They can oppress merit!

And now you hold Poll tax Maggie up as your shining example. Wow! Wasn't she virtually thrown out of office?

Col have you voted conservative all your life?

If you refuse to vote for any party that has affirmative action as a platform then you are intent on never allowing women to fully enter politics. How will we ever know the merits of these women if they never get a chance? PLUS if that is the biggest thing that stops you changing your vote then how can you call yourself a thinking voter?
Posted by Opinionated2, Tuesday, 31 January 2006 10:43:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Opinionated2 “Sadly you sound like an old righty”

Would it be imprudent of me to ask if you are an old leftie?

I understand, perfectly, the merit in “AA” (Affirmative Action), not a lot to understand really - there is None.

Btw I don’t see AA as particularly a gender debate. It is a debate which transverses all and any human distinction, where one can either accept the

“best for the job”

or

“not the best for the job but deserving a break because of perceived extenuating circumstances or accident of conception”

I believe women should have the vote because they are equals to men.
I do not believe women should be given two votes to make up for historic deprivations.

Similarly, I do not believe boys should be made to wear heavy lead boots when running against girls, which is the effect on the “unaffirmed” in any “affirmative action” program.

Since you ask, whilst I may not have been held back on the basis of gender, I would suggest, without making a cause of it, I believe it probable I have previously been discriminated against by virtue of accent and school. I could get upset about it but prefer to consider the loss not my loss but the discriminating party’s loss and I am better off not associating with small minded bigots.

How can you possibly claim you know what merit is? Your posts announce you are not prepared to bring reasoned argument to the debate, only a prejudicial view which asserts AA as the only acceptable assertion.

“Maggies” demise had nothing to do with poll tax.

What has my historic voting preferences got to do with my position on affirmative action? The two issues were independent and any correlation spurious.

Me voting against AA! That was my considered choice, after I thought about it. Suggesting I have not thought about it merely confirms your prejudices and inability to recognise “Merit” in an opposing view.

Sneekepete yep, Evolution, aid by education, will ultimately prevail
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 31 January 2006 1:37:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is something seriously wrong with the fact that half of our population is so obviously under-represented. When Col mentions 'forced' gender representation, I would like to argue the converse - Lack of female representation transcends the simplistic model of merit - a model that fails to take the 'forced' process of marginalization into account.

I will draw on my profession as this is the experience I like to go by - it is what I do. In schools, favouritism is everywhere. Those favoured students are not necessarily achieving a higher standard than those who are not. I have seen so many children miss out on awards when they had equal or greater merit than those receiving them.

I am always disgusted when I see teachers give captaincy to two athletic football heroes in health and physical education lessons. They take turn for turn to pick their 'favourites' and, as time goes by, the favourites get better and the others get the picture. We base that 'favouritism' in pre-conceived ideas, while not making room for anything new. While all along the potential was there for everyone in the class/community/region/state/nation (you get the picture - schools reflecting society).

I do things a different way - I rotate the roles evenly and democratically - as children gain experience in all roles, they find what suits them best. I find this works. And I haven't had any complaints yet.

Unfair discrimination presents itself in so many forms. To deny this is to admit ignorance. Does anyone have any real answers as to why there are so few female politicians?

Now Col, I have once again broken my promise that I would ignore you. But quite frankly I find you irresistible. To walk away would be to admit defeat. Please do me the honour of reading and responding to my post rather than remind me of what a hypocrite I am, along with your usual armful of insults.
Posted by tubley, Tuesday, 31 January 2006 1:40:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Vanstone for PM. Icon of womanhood, awash with merit, capable of making hard decisions without emotion, obviously competent, all with a woman's soft touch. And we could call her Manny if it relaxes and comforts us.
Posted by chainsmoker, Tuesday, 31 January 2006 6:23:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Does anyone have any real answers as to why there are so few female politicians?"

Firstly its a rough and tough game, you need a thick skin. Not much good having people who break out in tears, when the going gets rough.
Alot of women can't handle that kind of aggressive environment, or prefer not to. Ok, fair enough.

Secondly its hard on family life. To most women family comes first, fair enough.

Opinionated2 has various theories about history, rubbish. Slavery was history too, history has passed. Today any woman who really wants to get involved, can do so as much as any man. The glass ceiling is there for those who don't have the talent and seek something to blame, rather then their own lack of talent. Merit is a subjective thing. Let voters decide on who they think has merit.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 31 January 2006 8:49:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fascinating comments about evolution - and to realise it has already arrived at its current optimum, must say something about this futile argument with proponents of AA and social engineering. Next, we’ll be demanding to be lead (in rotation of course, and in no particular order – just for tubley), by children, the refugees, teachers, nurses, policemen … nuns, and gays.
Posted by Seeker, Tuesday, 31 January 2006 9:40:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col ... no it isn't imprudent ... I answer questions that I am asked... I have voted Liberal, Labour, Democrats, Greens and Independent ... OOps have you ever voted anything but conservative? Your past voting habit says a lot about you Col... Why so shy to share it with us?

I'm no lefty... I understand democracy and the importance of changing my vote depending on issues and who will do the best job.

Tubley seems to have you beaten... you won't answer her, have you hoisted the white flag? Why are you so happy with women being underrepresented in parliament?

You are right Col AA isn't limited to gender but it is hard enough to get 50% of the population (women) fair representation let alone a group with a lesser percentage.

So you believe women are equal to men... UM in everything except representation in parliament... and so now you misrepresent that I'm giving them 2 votes... They should get equal rights in a parliamentary sense.

I reckon that most women would be better for the job than men... so there is no OR.

You don't believe boys should wear lead boots... but you are quite happy for women to wear them where parliamentary representation is concerned. You seem happy that women are so underrepresented. Why can't you add balance to your argument instead of shooting yourself in your lead boot. Ha!

I didn't say Pol Tax Maggie was removed just because of the Poll Tax... but it was a good start!

Thanks Yabby for informing me that history is in the past... I agree with you that voters should get the proper opportunity to vote for women... put more up in better seats to give us the chance. The glass ceiling does exist Yabby... try being a woman and getting to the top.

The fact that you can't see it is because glass is transparent. But it is still there...Oops Don’t bump your head!
Posted by Opinionated2, Tuesday, 31 January 2006 9:52:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Opinionated2 I think Tubley is a "him" not a "her".

Col I always understood affirmative action to be defined as choosing between two people equal on merit “best for the job” but, all other things being equal, choosing one who was from an affirmative action category “deserving a break because of perceived extenuating circumstances or accident of conception”? nb. I am in still in favour of merit based appointments.
Posted by Pedant, Wednesday, 1 February 2006 5:40:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't support AA - I believe totally in merit based appointment; so it is my view that gender is an irrelevant consideration in the selection of a National leader.

However, this article does prompt me to ask why our elected members should reflect the national demographic? Aren't we all 'Australian'? Shouldn't our elected members be there to serve all their consistuants, irrespective of any secondary identifier? Strange, because I'm sure a woman can represent my interests in Canberra just as well as any man - it's her ideology and vision that I'm actually voting for.

We elect those who share our own ideology or vision for Australia, or rather, we elect the candidate from the party whose ideology or vision we share. Their gender is for most of us, irrelevant.

Brett concludes his essay stating: Despite the quotas and the pledges, what is it about party politics in Australia that prevents women from rising to the top? It’s long overdue that both major parties addressed this very question."

There probably is bias, and if so evolution and education wil fix it - eventually.

But thinking strategically, achieving a parliamentary gender balance or getting a female PM is a low priority.

More important is to address the ecological carrying capacity of this planet we live on - and our pollies still seem unable to govern beyond a single electoral cycle. Like Ludwig, I'm more interested in seeing a leader with the skills to educate the nation in embracing scientifically based approach to environmental sustainability.

Whether they are male or female doesn't matter to me in the slightest.
Posted by Stuart, Wednesday, 1 February 2006 7:22:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Opinionated2,

Thanks for your support of my opinion and your valuable input to the forum. Keep up the good work. One thing though, I'm actually a bloke. Just thought I'd clear that up.

Kind Regards
Tubs
Posted by tubley, Wednesday, 1 February 2006 8:06:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Opinionated2, thanks for informing me that glass is transparent :)

All the women of merit that I know, have said to me that they have never even noticed glass ceilings. But then women of merit would go straight through them.

IMHO the AA issue is more an issue for women who think that they have merit, but thats not how others perceive them. Self delusion is a common human foible.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 1 February 2006 10:19:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabs,

A 'rough and tough game', 'need a thick skin', not 'much good having people who break out in tears, when the going gets rough', a 'lot of women can't handle that'? I sincerely hope you were joking.

As a primary school teacher, I work in a female-dominated profession (mainly because most blokes I know don't have the balls to take it on). The women I work with are extremely good at what they do. It's not an easy thing working in oversized classrooms and dealing with out of control children and their equally abusive parents (who love blaming poor grades on anything but their own child).

Yes, I've never seen any female teachers break down and cry, quite the opposite. The standard of professionalism is outstanding. My best colleagues are females. I welcome you to spend a couple of days working in a classroom and see if you still have the same opinion on the resilience levels of females.

Nursing is another female oriented profession, a heart-wrenching job to see the things that nurses must see on a daily basis.

I reckon if women can handle these two professions then politics should be a breeze, shame the powers-to-be won't see it that way.
Posted by tubley, Wednesday, 1 February 2006 11:28:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tubley, your experience, teachers and favouritism, is void, it has nothing to do with merit but models and reflects “affirmative action toward teachers pets”.

How you decide to “do things” in your classroom is up to you (provided you follow the curriculum) and is completely alien to how business works (we do not have rotating corporate planners or general managers but people supposedly employed on their merits to be do the best job they can).

Your criticism of your peers, should probably be taken up with them, I am sure your insightful suggestions will be welcomed from a profession committed to honesty and fair-play in the education of the young.

As for “insults”, avoid serving up what I will, obviously, slap back at you and you will find there are no “insults”.

Yabby and similarly there are a lot more female nurses. However, you and I would not recommend we implement a program of “affirmative action” to get more men in to that role.

Seeker – yes and bugger the discontinuity and inefficiency impacts and training curves and costs for all these sops to PC and AA.

Opinionated2

“Tubley seems to have you beaten... you won't answer her,”

Responses to tubley are constrained only by the posting rules of this forum.
And “her” ! I do understand how you could be confused.

As for “women can do better than a man”.

Then let them, nothing I have suggested will hold them back, Merit is Merit, and is blind to gender, colour race of religion.

As one very able and competent woman said

“Let our children grow tall, and some taller than others if they have it in them to do so.”

When ladies “have it in them to do so”, with all the other competencies they have, according to Opinionated2, they will run the country and will not need to skew the playing field with AA to do it.

Pedant Yep – If it is not on Merit, then there is no merit.

Tubley We all make choices, most blokes choose to do other things than hanging around with children
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 2 February 2006 3:58:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby

Let’s talk about pregnancy and motherhood – things that I am eternally grateful that I will never have to experience first hand. They are in fact, the hardest jobs in the world.

Women are designed tough to handle such extreme stressors – something that makes the pressures of politics look microscopically small.

Please think about this.

Tubs.

And Col,

My statement is not void - your whole post is.
Posted by tubley, Thursday, 2 February 2006 11:44:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are better ways to get more female representation in parliament or anywhere else than affirmative action. It has to be realised that a large number of women already work a full time job as mothers. I don't believe that there is a glass ceiling but there are limits to how much anyone can manage at one time. There are plenty of women who could easily win on merit but the postions require commitments that do not coincide with access to childcare and/or the need for mothers to spend time with their families. This occurs to some extent with men too but not nearly as much.

Maybe instead of intense work with long unpredictable hours interspersed with long breaks in parliament that those in government positions could spread their workloads more evenly then we would see more women eager to take up the challenge. The same would apply if businesses would refrain from breakfast and after 5:00pm meetings.
Posted by sajo, Thursday, 2 February 2006 12:23:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry tubley... for the gender reassignment...lol I too am a bloke.

I have experienced glass ceilings.... I worked in a company where one existed, where the male staff belittled women until they cried calling them weak... sheer bullying. Cowardly, illegal, deliberate undermining tactics! After that they couldn't be promoted... because wait for it ...women are too emotional. Their words never mine!

One lady couldn't fall pregnant due to the stresses put on her by the males. On Drs advice she resigned after 8 years of outstanding service Thankfully she had a lovely family. She was an excellent worker. Women can't complain when they have a management that won't listen. They have noone to turn to.

Many men would carcked under the stresses and the two women who resigned both stated that I was the only Director in the company to help them when they were being attacked and apologised profusely for letting me down when they resigned. I didn't feel let down, they had taken better positions where they would have better prospects and I supported them with honest glowing references.

I was hated by the men and if the women had chosen to sue I would have testified on their behalf as a Director against the company... How's that for being at the coal face Col?...

These woman were great managers ... but the other male directors lacked the guts to defend them or promote them. They aided the undermining and in effect held back their careers. It's what men say (yes even company Directors) when the wives aren't listening that proves the true character of the men.

You can pretend if you want that it isn't still happening but I can assure you that it is.

Everyone here agrees with a merit based system, BUT, must start with a level playing field where merit can be properly assessed. Once AA has done it's job then and only then will women get a fair go in the workforce.

Col you still seem to be forgetting to answer people's questions...Ha!
Posted by Opinionated2, Thursday, 2 February 2006 1:25:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I was reading an article a while ago in some business-research magazine (hey, I was bored, it was there), that was talking about looking at the different ways people approached meetings, based on interviews with participants, and observation of the meetings.

One of the really interesting things that came out of the article for me, was about men and women in senior executive levels, and their pre/post meeting chit chat. The researcher noted that at the start of one of the meetings, a male participant commented that he was 'so tired' because he had been running the kids around all weekend to sport etc. Several of the other men in the meeting concurred and symapthised. The researcher noted that the two women in the meeting, both who had children, did not participate in the discussion, and asked why in a later one-on-one interview. They responded, separately, that at the senior level, women are not expected to mention children, or their private lives, as they are then seen as being 'too emotional' and 'not committed to the job'. There was then some comment from the researcher that in business, especially at higher levels, it seems that children and family concerns are seen as making men seem 'responsible' and 'caring', but are seen as making women seem 'over committed to home', and 'not rational enough' to be given full responsiblity.

It was an interesting analysis, and the more I look around at business and government and similar, the more I see that played out.
Posted by Laurie, Thursday, 2 February 2006 1:59:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tubley, “My statement is not void - your whole post is.”

I observed your post to be void for the reasons I actually stated.
What is glaringly absent is your reasoning to justify declaring my post “void”?

Certainly, since you have not presented any, it can reasonably be assumed you have no reasons and are snapping out of spite. Again, that bullying attitude keeps seeping out from with your drivel.
Good job you have only 8 year olds to deal with, similar levels of conduct among real men, who were tall enough to reach it, would see you with a bloodied nose, for sure.

Opinionated2, I understand the management culture of where you claim to have been Director. It emanates from a weak and apathetic culture, I must admit would not think much of it. But then, someone like me would avoid working in such a place. Well, at least that gave opportunity for someone like you. Btw are you still a director there?

Oh AA – you can turn the playing field on its side until its vertical and you will not manage to “even everything out”.

It is the eternal problem with “idealists” and apologists.

They start from “where we want to be”, completely ignoring “where we are” or why and how we got here.

They then assume they have all the knowledge and are dealing with all the relevant facts which influence why “we are where we are”.

Driven by obsessive self righteousness, they ignore any negative implications of their exercise in futility, insisting that we are really all better off for their meddling. Where as what they have done (I will not use the word achieved) adds nothing to the overall development of anyone, a lot of disruption and a lot of unjustifiable costs.

There is no justification for forcing AA on to any society. It is a socialist panacea and it is crap.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 2 February 2006 3:34:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col you say, “We all make choices, most blokes choose to do other things than hanging around with children”. What’s wrong with hanging around children? I don’t think there should a designated gender to be a primary school teacher. This seems to fly in the face of the other reasoned comments you make, I hope it’s an exception.
Posted by Pedant, Thursday, 2 February 2006 6:17:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If “pregnancy and motherhood... are in fact, the hardest jobs in the world”, then most women reach their pinacle with relative ease. If such achievements come naturally to most women and can be repeated many times over by most in that sample, then perhaps what you really mean, is that “pregnancy and motherhood” is difficult, if not impossible, for MEN.

If that was what you meant Tubley, you would be so right! Even fatherhood is beyond reach or unsustainable for many deserving men.

If you are also implying that women appear tougher than men in primary school teaching, you are also right. Most male primary school teachers would need to feel castrated to remain in the field for any significant length of time these days. I read today that 45% do not see themselves teaching in 10 years time. I wonder why? Will you teach in 10 years time Tubley?
Posted by Seeker, Thursday, 2 February 2006 8:51:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Let’s talk about pregnancy and motherhood"

Tubley you are correct, women evolved to be good mothers.
In times gone by, the kids of bad mothers would most likely
have simply died, thats how evolution works.

Its a long shot to claim that being a good mother, means that
you will be a good politician or a good statesman.

Somebody commented about how rough it gets in business.
Well politics can get alot worse! Look how they hounded
Clinton, turned over any and every leaf in his past life, to
find fault. I am yet to see a businessman be sunk because he has a mistress or an affair.

In my experience, women in general, not always, are far thinner skinned then men. In politics, IMHO for a start you need a thick skin, to role with the punches and not let emotion dominate reason, when the going gets rough, for it will.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 2 February 2006 9:08:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Women were not allowed to vote until the Male of our parliament needed a few more bunnies to get them over the line.

So somehow we earned the "Vote".

As women evolute from their voting conception that man ordained she could have, one would expect that since women represent the majority, our Parliaments and ministeries would contain an appropriate aggregate.

The barrier is almost masonic.

Our male counterparts are not programmed to have to tend to the nuturing of the young and balance a full time political career.

It seems to make our way, the expectation is the shovel the dung uphill if we aspire to make the difference needed to our Nation and the misconception that strength in body is leadership.

The ability to create the future and an overwhelming programmed ability to maintain and preserve are the vital ingredients we need in leaders and leadership.



The outcome is life and health.
Posted by Suebdootwo, Thursday, 2 February 2006 10:33:28 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col, I would like to address a couple of points.

“How you decide to “do things” in your classroom is up to you (provided you follow the curriculum) and is completely alien to how business works (we do not have rotating corporate planners or general managers but people supposedly employed on their merits to be do the best job they can).”

I believe Tubley was actually attempting to show that he was trying to instil the values commensurate with the basis for this article – that merit and fairness are important to the operation of our society. Something that should be commended rather than denigrated. I am not blind to the fact that these values are in short supply in the real world in which we adults work but I believe that the efforts of Tubley may just improve on that supply issue.

“Tubley We all make choices, most blokes choose to do other things than hanging around with children”

Are you that ignorant? I don’t believe so. You have shown numerous time to be progressive and open-minded. I can only believe that this was a slip in your usual ability to think beyond ignorant insults… either that or your pro-capitalist stances places money-making above all else?

“And “her” ! I do understand how you could be confused”

Between this and the last statement, one could easily presume you are a contributor to the glass ceiling and that all your grand statements regarding merit are hot air and bluster. Both do show a leaning towards a condescending and superior view of men towards women.

Though I do not know you Col, from your posts I would hope that the man I see is more than the man who posted those last comments…
Posted by Reason, Thursday, 2 February 2006 11:18:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col,

Of course I don't work for that company any more. Once I realised the disaster I had inherited I resigned and went elsewhere. And why do you think the ladies wouldn't fight the battle in court Col, why?

I'm glad you wouldn't work for a company like that and that you would be so kind as to leave it for people like me to work there... I'd at least do something... Lead, Follow or get out of the way Col.

Are you up to answering any of the questions posed to you by myself and others Col?

Why can't men get away from the "emotional" argument when they speak of women in politics or management. As one woman manager said to me.... "We may shed a quiet tear or two but at least we won't step in front of a train when the going gets tough"

So there you have it... some people are scared of change... and it seems those same people are scared of women... never mind...

Col... so there are NO conservatives anywhere who believe in AA or it's attributes it is solely a socialist thing? There is absolutely no merit whatsoever in AA? Conservative women would be too scared to say they were for it because of the conservative men... the men would have heart attacks to think that women might get a fair go.

Are you an old righty?
Posted by Opinionated2, Thursday, 2 February 2006 11:26:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pedant,

I hope it’s an exception too. I wish my job description was so simple.

Col,

I’m a ‘bully’? I thought I was responsible for ‘wosie motherhood statements’. So what am I when it comes to you? I thought a man of your ‘integrity’ would refrain from name calling.

As for the rest of your post – another simplistic representation as usual – similar to your magical comments on saving the world by sterilising underdeveloped nations. And just as the variable of ‘population’ can’t be viewed in isolation from everything else, neither can the variable of ‘gender’.

Your post is ‘void’ because it blatantly neglects the reality that schools are representative of the current status of society in all its taken for granted suppositions on how the world ‘should’ be.

Favouritism exists and is not entirely dependent on merit – rather a reflection of gendered/racial/socioeconomic stereotypes. AA is as forced a process as the obvious marginalisation calling for its existence. Ideally we’d select people on merit alone but it simply isn’t the case. There IS very real and unjust discrimination on a large scale.

We must ensure fair representation for marginalised groups rather than sit down and allow the slow process of time to fix our errors. To address marginalisation we should understand the reasons behind it…

Things are given meaning or value in oppositional relation with what is understood to be its ‘other’ – defined by what it is not, and what it ‘does not’ or is assumed it ‘cannot’ do.

Males and females are seen as opposites. This in mind, males grow up to ‘know’ what it means to be a boy, by believing that they are not girls and should not be ‘weak’ or ‘passive’, like Yabby assumed. In our patriarchal society, the accepted way of ‘being’ is inevitably determined by men, in terms of social structures formed on who they are ‘not’. Therefore, if you're not a man, you’ll find it very difficult to gain political power – not democratic at all.

Your simplistic model hasn’t worked yet – I suggest it’s time for a change.
Posted by tubley, Friday, 3 February 2006 8:42:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Reason, I welcome and need more of your posts, dealing increasingly with tubley’s and opinionated’s posts has obviously resulted in a dropping of the bar from my normal standard.

Tubley, I find your last post a contradiction (but there is nothing new in that).

On the one hand, you decry the evils of favouritism whilst simultaneously demanding the affirmative action.

The trouble is, “affirmative action” is “favouritism”.

“gendered/racial/socioeconomic stereotypes” are favoured by Affirmative Action, to supposedly compensate and correct historic discrimination by instituting more discrimination.

Well there are a few facts you need to consider.

1 nothing we do today will alter the past, only possibly influence the future.

2 Far from removing the evils of discrimination, Affirmative Action would see it institutionalised into law to the detriment of all.

3 “Two Wrongs have never, ever made a Right.

You state “Males and females are seen as opposites. “
Your might see males and females as “opposites”. Certainly the women in my life I have never considered as the opposition but as friends, and sometimes lovers. Purely coincidently, I have more women as my closest friends and confidants than men but only for the reason I value them as the individuals which they are, at a level where gender is of no consequence.

In the natural outcome of matters heterosexual, I see men and women as two halves of a couple through which they produce a synergy of experiences, from which both the male and female can develop and grow closer to their own individual potential and fulfilment.

Some might suggest I am being idealistic. Well maybe I am but as I know why the "ideal" is, why should I aspire to less?

Your assertion is, if anything the “simplistic” one. Too bad you just do not have the cerebral constitution to grasp all that might be.

I see you have hooked onto the “void” word. Hardly original but at least you are acquiring an improved vocabulary from reading my posts.

I wonder how many more new words you will acquire from reading me this time.
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 4 February 2006 11:57:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col,

I read, respectfully, all of your post up until you resorted to the usual insulting jargon that's become part of the way you handle your responses. Hardly surprising that you'd resort to put-downs, even after you labeled me as a being a bully.

I want to know where you gained the assumption about my 'cerebral constitution' – since you know nothing about me other than the occasional summarised post – which I might add, many have agreed with. Please refrain from commenting on my originality – I used the word, ‘void’ where in context and in response to your post. You don’t have copyright on the word.

I must give it to you though, your ‘insults’ to the users of this site are indeed varied and original, however this says nothing of your dull and predictable responses to the actual content of articles.

As a published author at the age of 28, your comments on my vocabulary are, to avoid using the ‘v’ word again – empty. You know nothing of my lexical status, so you're in no position to comment on it. I avoid using ‘big’ words where unnecessary. I suspect you love using them as a way of proving your 'superior literacy skills'.

I've learned no new words from you, Col but have reaffirmed my belief in your ignorance. You have once again neglected to rebut my statement that marginalisation is as forced a process as the means used to counteract it, other than your throw-away comment about two wrongs not making a right blah blah blah.

It’s called balance. The absence of it tears at the very fabric of a democratic society as we continue to marginalise half our population based on pre-conceived ideas about how women and men should operate. If you really believe in merit, find the source which blocks us from noticing that merit. If reward is based on merit alone, then why are there so few female politicians? Please give me a real answer. Your refusal to adequately answer this question astounds me more and more each time I read your posts.
Posted by tubley, Saturday, 4 February 2006 1:34:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col,
I notice on another thread I can acually compliment you, a somewhat rare occassion, due to your irritating, nasty style as displayed on this thread.

How about we simplify the issue for you....the female population is 51%, democraticly then you would expect approx 51% representation in parliament, correct ? You may correct me if I am wrong, however that is the way I understood parliamentry democracy to work, not so, please explain?
Posted by SHONGA, Saturday, 4 February 2006 1:50:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This goes out to Mr Rouge, Mr Young and anyone else who thinks they can keep me away. I have over 57 email adresses of which i keep updated every day. You can try to suspend me but I will just keep moving to new accounts. You will never keep me down. I get knocked down but I get up AGAIN, AND AGAIN, AND AGAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIN!
Posted by jt_dontmesswithme, Saturday, 4 February 2006 6:08:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col,

None of your suggestions could ever be considered idealistic... perish the thought... In a previous post you called us "idealists"... you can't join the team now mate... Ha!

What a top line this is that you typed "In the natural outcome of matters heterosexual, I see men and women as two halves of a couple through which they produce a synergy of experiences, from which both the male and female can develop and grow closer to their own individual potential and fulfilment."

If you limit the synergy of experiences as happens in many organisations and parliament then you undermine the "natural outcome" and your two halves are out of balance... thereby limiting the underrepresented side to develop.

Congratulations! In one sentence haven't you shot yourself in the lead boot again big time? Thanks for the giggle.

We all want merit based outcomes once the "natural balance" is restored... Col you are a classic! Ha!
Posted by Opinionated2, Saturday, 4 February 2006 6:26:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Opinionated2

No, he isn't answering our questions, using avoidance techniques is the easy way out for Mr Rouge. As yet he's failed to sufficiently address the question asked in the article, '...why Australia has had so few female politicians and no prospect of a woman as prime minister...'

He has, however, managed to inform us on his personal life and his relationship with his partner – how these details are supposed to impact on the big picture is anyone's guess.

Seeker...

'most women reach their pinacle with relative ease'. Glad to see you're the spokesperson for all women. Half the population 'might' just disagree with your statement.

To answer your question, I have no idea if I'll be teaching in ten years time. I've no idea what I'll do tomorrow even!

Yabby,

You chose a bad example. What happened to Clinton is a result of him being a floundering imbecile and a lier. In my opinion I think Hillary handled the situation much better than Bill.

As for your observations that 'in general' women are 'far thinner skinned' then men, I'd have to disagree, as my experience tells me otherwise.

Suebdootwo,

'The barrier is almost masonic' - you hit the nail on the head.

Reason,

You accurately interpreted what I was trying to represent and I thank you for clarifying it to Col.

Oh and Col, about your comment:

'Reason, I welcome and need more of your posts, dealing increasingly with tubley's and opinionated's posts has obviously resulted in a dropping of the bar from my normal standard.'

How noble of you to blame others for your own blunderings. However, somehow I doubt your statements were a result of 'dropping' the bar, as you suggest. I think the bar may have been low all along.

I am dying to hear your rebuttal of my posts in this thread, so I shall eagerly check your next post – your simplistic approach still leaves us with less than 15% female representation in our so-called democracy.

To use a clique – heaven forbid my lack of 'originality'... 'Please explain'.

Shonga, JT_dontmesswithme... welcome back.
Posted by tubley, Sunday, 5 February 2006 1:47:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tubley,

Do woman have equal rights with men to stand in public elections? – yes, balance.

Do women have equal rights as men to vote in public elections? – yes, balance.

Do men and women have the right to vote for men or women? – yes, balance

Do I have the right to ensure more men are elected than women? – no because such an idea is unrepresentative, undemocratic and unbalanced.

Do you have the right to force men and women to vote for your preferred gender mix – no – because such an idea is unrepresentative, undemocratic and unbalanced.

What you want is to engineer / manipulate / massage / corrupt the representation process and force it to conform to your sense of “niceness and balance” simply because what the various electorates have voted for offends your sense of what, in your opinion, the outcome must be. Unfortunately for you, your particular sense of niceness and balance is not a consideration for anyone, other than yourself.

Shonga, the above should explain and as for complimenting me – thanks – however, there, as here, I promoted the view that men and women are equal and should be treated as equal. What else is to explain, why a fair and equal system produces a particular result. We have secret ballots and I do not know the answer to why. However, that the historic pattern of elected representatives produces a particular outcome does not matter. What matters is “do men and women have equal opportunity to participate at the voting and representative level?” – they do so the process is “balanced”.
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 5 February 2006 2:28:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well written Mr Rouge, I couldn't agree with you more.

As for those who have expressed overtly sexist opinions regarding women being better suited for the role of politician, they may be correct. But this is not a good thing. It reflects poorly on the female sex. Today's politician is a subversive liar - manipulative, mendacious, smarmy, two-faced sociopath intent on self empowerment wishing to control others. And that's a pretty good description of the feminist movement too, by the way. But it's not a pretty or fair picture to paint of all women.

So surely they must be wrong.

And as for M' Tubley's opinions; an alarming example of expression that confirms my worst fears of the type of teacher that's corrupting the innocence of our children across the system daily - utterly frightening.

Lastly, for those ignorant of the history of universal suffrage in Australia, it may come as a surprise that at the same time that women got their vote, so did the majority of the nation's men too. Prior to that time only wealthy and educated land owners were considered worthy to vote. Most men didn't get to vote before that. Something of history that you'd think school teachers should know about.
Posted by Maximus, Sunday, 5 February 2006 10:41:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"You chose a bad example. What happened to Clinton is a result of him being a floundering imbecile and a lier. In my opinion I think Hillary handled the situation much better than Bill."

Tubley, still today, Clinton is one of the most respected political figures on the world stage. His indiscretion of a bit of oral sex from an intern, would be laughed at anywhere else in the world but America.

What the whole Clinton story showed, was the 100s of millions that were spent by Starr and Co etc and the conservative movement, to try and get rid of him at any cost. In politics there seem no limits as to how low people will go, to destroy the opposition.

You might be thin skinned, but in general women are thinner skinned then men. Just compare who bursts into tears more often.

There are also good reasons why there are more male entrepreneurs then women. Anyone can become an entrepreneur if they want. Lots of women put their families above their work. Its the same with politics. Living in Canberra, away from the family, for most of the week, is not exactly something that anyone with a close family would really want.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 5 February 2006 11:33:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
New shop front "Male" Manequins

It seems both sides of Politics have been revamping their ministerial portfolios and this does not include representing 51% of the population of female constituants.

The reshuffle only outlines the inequality that women have gauged statistically as an ongoing problem for them and their roles in society.

As we move forward to the proposed change in legislation to our Industrial Awards, we will once again see a dilution of the issue and outcomes that consistantly support a fact that the female worker is underpaid and not respected for her abilities nor her contribution in overall profit.

This saving in its consistant form only serves to allow the management to pay themselves more than what they are worth and the value that they have given themselves.

This imbalance is also to the detriment of a Business and should be realised in the overall evaluation of useful productivity
Posted by Suebdootwo, Sunday, 5 February 2006 11:53:21 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col, Congratulations you are almost there... but you need to address some problems with your theory.

"Do woman have equal rights with men to stand in public elections? – yes, balance". But as there is more likelihood of women getting a marginal seat and men getting a safe seat due to the way parties go about their business it is still unbalanced.

"Do men and women have the right to vote for men or women? – yes, balance" BUT again there is far more likelihood of a male being the candidate than a woman in one of Oz's major political parties - so still unbalanced.

"Do I have the right to ensure more men are elected than women? – no because such an idea is unrepresentative, undemocratic and unbalanced". And yet you are against any system that would improve the representation of 51% of the population ... that too is undemocratic, unrepresentative and unbalanced.

"Do you have the right to force men and women to vote for your preferred gender mix – no – because such an idea is unrepresentative, undemocratic and unbalanced." Gee
Tubley you must be a very powerful individual if you can force this...Ha! It's not forcing it Col... it's addressing the inbalance...

Maximus congratulations... with this line you may have shot Col in the foot "Lastly, for those ignorant of the history of universal suffrage in Australia, it may come as a surprise that at the same time that women got their vote, so did the majority of the nation's men too. Prior to that time only wealthy and educated land owners were considered worthy to vote."

And this is exactly the point we are making - the laws were changed to correct an inbalance so that all people got the vote ... It was done via acts of parliament not by a slow and gradual process of self correction. The same could easily be done to address the inbalance of women, 51% of the population, in our parliaments.
Posted by Opinionated2, Sunday, 5 February 2006 11:53:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It seems there are a number of points being argued:

1. Affirmative Action is unfair as it sides with minorities – against a merit based system.

2. Women have equal opportunity and ability – so shouldn’t need assistance.

3. Merit is the only basis for advancement – so no other structure need be in place.

Addressing each:

1. Affirmative Action (AA) has been misrepresented and misunderstood. The original concept stated that when a position was to be given, based on merit, it was done with the following caveat – if two applicants are of equal merit in all areas of selection criteria and, at the end of the selection process, no differential can be made between them, except in the area of minority interest, then the position may be given to the minority applicant, with regard for a need of diversity in the workplace.

Note I use the word ‘may’. AA is not a given and only becomes applicable once the selection process is complete with no differential obvious. Surely, on this basis – diversity in the work place and all it brings – is a good reason to utilise the concepts of AA, when it applies.

2. Women, for the most part, have been recognised as being both capable and skilled enough to undertake almost all jobs ascribed to the area of men. I think it would be naïve, however, to suggest that a merit based system cannot and is not manipulated to obtaining the outcome desired by those, lets call them ‘lowbrows’, who do not yet agree with this position.

Most would also have to agree that some industries still hold back women – regardless of merit. That this happens does not mean we should automatically provide ‘a leg up’ to those cheated. But perhaps acknowledgment of the abuse, and addressing through AA, may lead to an ‘outing’ of the abuse process which may lead to a subsequent improvement in the process.

Perhaps this is the point of AA. Rather than reverting to the imposition of an ‘imbalanced system of equity’ – as some suggest AA is
Posted by Reason, Sunday, 5 February 2006 12:26:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cont…

- it is to be used to highlight the times when prejudice sways decision making, rather than merit

In fairness most would have to agree that AA has been used to unfairly advance – as an appeasement – thus causing the not wholly unwarranted resistance to the concept. However, if applied in its truest meaning, this is also an abuse of AA, which should also be rightfully challenged as wrong.

3. All things being equal, merit is the only basis for advancement. However, it is safe to say that, in this world, things are rarely truly equal. It would seem that this is the point some make. If all things were equal, no one would require AA. Since they are not, the concept of AA appears to have a place, in promoting more equitable advancement environments in workplaces, while contributing to less prejudiced views of minorities.

As the concept of AA applies to ‘minorities’, I would say simply this, regarding the idea of a minority.

To be classified as a minority, one must be in the minority – that is, outnumbered. Race usually comes to mind. That women, who make up roughly, if not more than 50% of the population, this does not make them a minority. It is only when taken in context of the work place demographic that they become such.

Until recent times (circa 30 years ago) women were not actively choosing to work and build careers. Such a dramatic social change actually takes time – both for the effects of the women’s choice to take part and for the attitudes of some men to adjust to being less prejudiced and open.

This also applies to a world that grants people the ability to move almost at will. Attitudes to ‘foreign’ peoples, which come with built-in prejudices, will also require a term of adjustment.

I do not say that this should not already have been achieved. However the human race is, well, only human and may take longer than could perhaps be reasonably expected.

Please, be patient and try to help rather than be divisive.
Posted by Reason, Sunday, 5 February 2006 12:27:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hear hear Brett. I have naive faith that the world is spinning in the right direction. Germany and New Zealand have female leaders and on January 17 it was reported that Chile's and Liberia's new leaders are women. All we need now is the right women at the helm in the UK and the US (easier said than done). But that said, it is crucial that we get our own house in order. I believe Julia Gillard would make an excellent Deputy PM and then when the time is right she could have a tilt at the top job. I won't hold my breath!
Posted by John Andrewartha, Sunday, 5 February 2006 2:20:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maximus…

“confirms my worst fears of the type of teacher that's corrupting the innocence of our children across the system daily - utterly frightening”.

Big statement. I’m curious, to what extent are you involved in the education system such that you can make a claim of this magnitude. As for ‘frightening’, I can think of scarier things.

You know nothing of how/what I teach but I can assure you I teach within the required guidelines, keeping my political stance out of the classroom. Your allegation about my professional status is therefore invalid.

As for today's ‘politician is a subversive liar - manipulative, mendacious, smarmy, two-faced sociopath intent on self empowerment wishing to control others’. Probably true. But do you think it’s possible that this description has emerged through centuries of male leadership? I wonder if, in time, the achievement of ‘balance’ will alter this outlook.

Your similar description of the “feminist movement” casts a small net over very large and diverse waters, feminism running alongside theology as one of the most sophisticated developments in history.

Col…

Is marginalisation a reality? Yes.

Is marginalisation an engineered, manipulated and corrupted process? Yes.

Is this marginalisation indicative of balance? No.

Is this democratic? Not really.

Have you adequately answered the question raised by Brett Bowden as to why there are 'so few female politicians'? No… no… no.

According to you, the acquisition of political power is based entirely on merit. If that's the case then one must assume that most women seeking a career in politics have insufficient merit. This blatantly contradicts your earlier comment that you “promoted the view that men and women are equal and should be treated as equal.” Is this happening? Of course not. And so there must be something wrong…

Once again I ask – Please respond to the question. You continue to evade the question that I'm waiting so patiently to be answered. If you fail to answer it in your next post then I shall move on to another thread, as I'm sensing that my frequent dialogue with you is becoming a lost cause.
Posted by tubley, Sunday, 5 February 2006 2:53:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Opinionated in your comments in response to mine you included the word “likely”/ “lilelyhood” in two of them . “Likely” is a non-specific term used sometimes when something is a possibility but one cannot prove it or when someone wants to persuade an argument with emotion rather than reason. I am quite certain your stand is either of the sort I mention (non-provable or emotional) and thus, certainly devoid of debating reason and merit.

Tubley, you protest too much.

I did not argue-

Against women in politics or any other pursuit.
For the right of men to protect some bastion of maledom.
For women stay at home.
That the rigors of politics is either beyond or beneath to females to deal with.

I do however, as in all things expect males and females to be treated as equals within and before the law and in their civic and civil rights.

I do expect
men and women to equally cast a secret vote in public elections.
all those votes to be counted and treated equally
you to respect the outcome of all and every election, unless you can identify and prove coercion of corruption in which case you should dispute it.

Your issue with “marginalisation” is an emotional response to losing the argument. When suffrage and the right to nominate or be nominated for election is universal, there can be no marginalisation, in the elective processes.

Again you don’t like the outcome, get over it.

Re “fail to answer it in your next post then I shall move on to another thread”

Please yourself but threatening me will never work. To withdraw from posting is the act of the petulant bully who is miffed at not getting their own way. And that justifies what I said about you previously

“Again, that bullying attitude keeps seeping out from with your drivel.”

Doubtless, you would have me banned if it were your site (I think you might have even said that too, I will check). Life is tough when tubley don’t get his own way.
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 5 February 2006 6:45:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are far better ways of increasing the proportion of women in government than affirmative action. Affirmative action would only increase the number of poor quality candidates and would eventually have the effect of denigrating women in government. Selection must be based on merit but it is imperative that the option is available to as many people as possible to allow true representation of all groups.

Few women with families are able to work the unpredictable and odd hours that are required by parliament. Perhaps if parliament sittings were spaced more evenly throughout the year rather than long hours followed by long breaks then more women could fit it around their family committments. This would also open up the field to those men who are also capable and willing but unable to carry out the job due to other committments. Maybe we would even get someone worth having running the country - male or female.

This of course also applies to businesses. Anyone with family committments - mainly women - cannot attend breakfast or after 5pm meetings and drinks after work. These 'networking' opportunities should not be a requirement for promotion.
Posted by sajo, Sunday, 5 February 2006 8:54:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi there M' Tubley, how do you do?

Thank you for engaging. You've made my day.

You enquire as to my involvement in the education system so I shall speak freely and reveal all. My involvement with the education system is that of being a user - you know, user pays and all that stuff. As a user, I am a parent and deeply alarmed I was at the rubbish and utter bullsh' that was being served up to my young son by the system you call education. Education it was not. Marxist brainwashing was what it was and so I'm pleased to say that my son is now intellectually prospering as a home student. Now, he is no longer subjected to discriminatory persecution for having been born an intelligent white male. Now he can develop freely without being metaphorically bashed over the head daily for demonstrating normal healthy masculine behaviour. He is now a happy boy developing self confidence, self respect and knowledge. He is now beyond the clutches of your "politically correct".

And I'm a very happy father too.

Probably, all of that will come as quite a bit of a shock to you, but get used to it. Your so-called "teacher's" game is up. People are getting wise to your disgrace dressed up and sold as education.

And oh, by the way, I'm a career expert in the field of adult education. I've been there, I've done it, and I've got a long, proud history of success to look back upon in my present retired status.

But good luck to you mate, you're going to need it.
Posted by Maximus, Sunday, 5 February 2006 10:43:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Women on top" well these days with all my medical problems,there is no other option.Of course when I was young and healthy,this would have been out of the question.
Posted by PHILB, Sunday, 5 February 2006 11:05:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maximus,
Just an observation, if as you say Education is Marxist clap trap, it is extrordinary that we have had a conservative Federal Government for a decade.

Col, tubley,
We are discussing equality of the sexes, however it is common knowledge that politics is and always has been "a boys club" with very few exceptions. Merit does not really apply to politics as we know it, but another very important life rule does "it's not whay you know, it's who you know" nod nod, wink wink say nomore.

The sad part of this topic is that it will be not a woman of merit, from either side of politics, who will become our first female PM, but rather [unlike the male counterpart] a woman of exceptional merit, who will fill that vacancy in history.

With so few women in the parliament, I can think of at least 2 women, from either side of politics who stand out in performance from their male counterparts, but for whom their respective leadership aspirations, is virtually non existant.
Posted by SHONGA, Sunday, 5 February 2006 11:24:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would just like to state for the record, that if Tubley is ever exposed as a lesbian feminist Marxist, I would not at all be surprised.
Posted by Seeker, Monday, 6 February 2006 12:17:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Seeker,

As you're a man, I know it must be hard, probably being brought up on the belief that the only defense is offense. But if you want to insult me, please try harder. There's worse things than being labeled as a Feminist Marxist. As for being a lesbian, you never know.

Maximus,

Bashing people over the head? I’m glad your son is exhibiting healthy behaviour, I treat all of my students with dignity and respect. I get the impression that you think I’m trying promote ideas that limit opportunities for males. In actual fact, I’m suggesting that we enhance opportunities for all people, women and men.

My principals shall judge my professional conduct, not you. On the other hand, please feel free to judge me on a personal level if you have anything worthwhile to go by.

PS, I choose not to rely on luck… skill is a far more consistent and dependable option.

Yabby,

In your experience, women may be seen as thinner skinned based on the way in which they express their emotions in daily life, socially, among friends and family. But this says little about how they handle themselves professionally, which is a different medium.

It may also say more about the inability of men to express themselves emotionally when they need to, which is a disability of sorts.
I want to suggest a reading by Colette Dowling... The Frailty Myth: Women Approaching Physical Equality. I recommend it to anyone.

Now, Col…
Strike three!

You’re really grasping at straws made of air now. As I read your post I called to mind imagery of a rat I once encountered in my garage while servicing my car. As we noticed each other it quickly backed itself into a corner, sharp and crooked teeth showing, claws swiping, while letting out a grotesque screeching sound in defensive anarchism.

So here’s a poem for you, Col, to summarise:

The Rat in the Shed
by Tubley Thompson

An ugly display, from the rat,
Who went away, to another shed;
Hopefully, you’ll do just that…
See you ‘round, in another thread.
Posted by tubley, Monday, 6 February 2006 1:56:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Women on top"I must be getting a bit senile in my old age.I thought we already had a women as Prime Minister?(What was that honey that's my wife speaking over my shoulder)oh sorry silly me,she just reminded me it's pudgy the minister for foriegn affairs thats more inclined to be on the bottom (emphasis on the bottom) than the top.Sorry fellow posters I do get confused at times,now my wife tells me Amanda Vanstone is a women.Must be the way they dress I dun know.What this country needs is a Thatcher,look alike for P.M. umm Bronwyn Bishop maybe with out the make up.At least she wouldn't get touched up by all those manly hot blooded members of the liberal party (small L).She would certainly bring out the true wets of the party.
Posted by PHILB, Monday, 6 February 2006 2:34:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maximus,

As a person who knows many teachers (but) am not one myself I have never met one whom I would consider anywhere near Marxist. Teachers are a fantastic group of people who (generally speaking) work long hours (many unpaid marking assignments & exams) to help educate and bring out the very best in the children under their care. Obviously in any large group of people there are good and bad teachers - with the good teachers massively outweighing the bad.

They do their absolute best to educate children and prepare children for their futures. Like nursing it is one of the most honourable professions around.

From my experience most people think they are an expert on education, (even the untrained), because they have been through the system but to suggest that the Education System is Marxist brainwashing is garbage. Please lay out some of the marxist brainwashings your child has been exposed to by teachers?

So now you are a home schooling parent and congratulations for that.... hopefully you won't be teaching your Marxist theories about teachers.

The true test of your expertise as an educator will be the performance of your child as a result of his/her home schooling and I genuinely wish you every success in that endeavour.

Too many times teachers are denegrated unfairly by people who have never stood before a class of 30 children all with varying abilities. If you think Adult education compares with Primary or Secondary education you may need to expand your expertise.

I remember from my days at school even through the Whitlam saga - a very emotinal time - I never was exposed to any personal opinions by my teachers on politics and any discussions were always very balanced
Posted by Opinionated2, Monday, 6 February 2006 9:21:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Opinionated2,
Maximus, seems to see most things as a communist plot, I don't really know why, however in my humble opinion if women are good enough to become police, teachers, nurses, administrators, solicitors, judges, labourers, clerks or anything else they feel so inclined to do then for the life of me I don't understand why a women in any important occupation, including mother, should not seek to represent her community in the parliament of this great nation.

Women somtimes have a new perspective to add to a debate, and should be encouraged to join political parties, to provide their input into life's issues, politics can be an exciting endevour, because politics is LIFE...
Posted by SHONGA, Monday, 6 February 2006 11:23:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tubley wrote “Re “fail to answer it in your next post then I shall move on to another thread”

Then wrote
“An ugly display, from the rat,
Who went away, to another shed;
Hopefully, you’ll do just that…
See you ‘round, in another thread.”

As the sign-off on Frazier goes -

“The rat is leaving the building.”

Bye, bye tubley, threats and bullying might work in your classroom (where you have the height advantage) but they will never work here.

Maybe he is in the wrong media, television might suit better – I think teal should be the colour and a big hook in the head of the suit for “telly-tubley”

Philb I guess politics does not have the same requirements of form as being a runway model does, but then, it could work as the second career the age of each do not overlap.

RE Maximus reservations to the politically unbiased delivery of education

Quote -
Former Victorian education minister Joan Kirner once argued that the work of schools had to be radically redefined. Instead of education being impartial, she said, it had to become "part of the socialist struggle for equality, participation and social change, rather than an instrument of the capitalist system".

The AEU told classroom teachers to tell students that the US-led war was illegal, that allied troops should be immediately withdrawn and to "support students who take an anti-war stance".
More recent evidence of the AEU's left-wing bias is evident in President Pat Byrne's prepared remarks at the 2005 Queensland Teachers' Union biennial conference on June 21.
Based on the works of Marxist intellectuals such as Antonio Gramsci and Pierre Bourdieu, the union also argues that the education system, instead of providing a ladder of opportunity, is instrumental in marginalising disadvantaged groups.

Extract http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3787

Maximus makes a good point

Oh Shonga - politics is part of life - but not "LIFE" itself developing and growing as an individual is what life is about.
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 7 February 2006 6:51:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Changes in gender relations across the world can be seen in terms of shifts in the underlying gendering of politics. Women, the community and the social are vital to Third Way and social democratic politics, taking the hard edge off neoliberal governance without doing neoliberal economics much damage. Does the current government Australia need a softer face? Is there any real challenge in the formal political sphere? It is most likely that women are leading the way in alternative politics spaces such in the social movement activism of late and perhaps this is where we should all be looking for real change.
Posted by Gerda, Tuesday, 7 February 2006 4:19:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Women on top?

About time society benefits from this obviously underutilised capacity. Probably time women became better taxpayers too - at least to the point of collectively paying for their own health and education costs, supporting “their” children, and those of other women unable to support themselves, such as other single mothers and the elderly. Come to think of it, they should do a lot better in the superannuation stakes as well. Rather than rely on multiple consecutive divorces to build up retirement savings, they should be alerted to the not-so-insignificant retirement plans of politicians. For those not suited to politics, perhaps our defence forces could do with a softer face for that upcoming Iran conflict.

And let’s not overlook the opportunities in local government - ranging from waste collection to Lord Mayor.

With sustained graduation rates higher than those of males, not only should we now expect full repayment of HECS debts, but some real financial contributions to society for a change. No, consumption alone, no longer qualifies. The time to get out of the kitchen and produce something more tangible has truly arrived. Roll on progress!
Posted by Seeker, Tuesday, 7 February 2006 11:21:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You heard it here first folks, our investigative reporter Mr, Col Rouge Esq. has just announced to the world that the Gulf War 11 is legal, yes you have it, straight over the UN Secretery-General's head did our intrepid reporter go, where none would have dare gone before him, THE WAR IN IRAQ IS LEGAL....read all about it, Rouge trumps the UN read all about it....

Ah Col, it makes me proud to be an Australian today, shooting over 100,000 Iraqi men women and children civilians, and it's now all declared legal, good on ya mate, you are a credit to your country, even if you are a bleeding Pom, we'll claim ya, anyone who can trump the Un is ok by us....Col Rouge for PM...OI,OI,OI...
Posted by SHONGA, Wednesday, 8 February 2006 3:20:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SHONGA – Please identify the post I made regarding UN Secretary General.
I can find none, from which I can only assume you are deluded and have retreated to “SHONGAland” a place where bland is pursued and personal development discouraged.

If you have something to say, say it, otherwise you are simply wasting good air which someone else could be breathing.

Oh and to your description of me, I would far sooner be described as a “bleeding Pom” than a “retarded troll”.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 9 February 2006 5:27:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col,
You have said the Iraqi War is legal, for you too say that you must override the UN Secretary-General, gee you have to spoon feed some people.....especially those to whom everything is a communist plot like you and Maximus mate. I mfound another post of yours which I was able to compliment you on mate, do you have an alter-ego who also makes posts under your name, as the posts on which I am able to compliment you on are obviously made by a person who is reasonably in touch with their emotions, and feelings, not at all like your style Col.......
Posted by SHONGA, Friday, 10 February 2006 3:18:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shonga, where did Col say that the Golf/Iraq war was legal. I've found a spot where he points out that a teachers union was promoting the idea that a US lead war is illegal - that is not the same thing as declaring it legal. In the lead up to the war I heard a lot of conflicting opinions regarding the legality of the war but am not aware the the issue has ever been fully put to the test.

At this stage legal or otherwise appears to be a matter of opinion, it would be interesting to see a definitive authorative answer to the question though.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 10 February 2006 3:35:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shonga – you made a claim – your last post merely aludes to what you think I might have said but does not define when, where or even what I actually said to justify your accusation.

You have a choice

Either Identify and substantiate what you claim I said and present it here
or
Apologise

Robert, not for the first time do I thank you for your observations. Doubtless, it will not be the last either.

:)
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 11 February 2006 7:30:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col,
Two things, First my apology for taking you out of context on your 7 Feb post,if you are critisising teachers for their percieved stance,[percieved only by you and Maximus, and possibly Robert, the three stouges] I quite wrongly assumed you were against them, nice to see you may have had a change of mind, and agree that the war is in fact illegal.Second, the other Politics is LIFE. Politics covers our lives, we have Government Depts for Health, Education, Industrial Relations, Sport, Immigration, Treasury these Departments and their policies control every facet of our lives, so politics is life....which is why we need more female perspective introduced into the decision making of all political parties.
Posted by SHONGA, Sunday, 12 February 2006 3:57:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SHONGA, thanks for the apology.

You bring up a good point in your comment

“these Departments and their policies control every facet of our lives, so politics is life”

I understand what you say and completely disagree with it.

Like you and everyone else on the planet “my life” is the product of the decisions I make.
Whether to study or play,
whether to risk all on migrating or not,
whether to be faithful to my partner or to ‘play-around’,
whether to cherish my daughters or neglect their need for a father. Etc. etc.
None of that is controlled by government or its departments.

I then have the “relationships” which form important facets of my life, professional, social and business friends, family etc.
which ones will be sustained and which ones will not.
None of that is controlled by government or its departments.

Then there is a small, but significant part of mine and everyone else’s lives which is regulated by our elected leadership.

To use Hawke’s analogy of the “playing field”, my observation is

Government are like the referees, they set the rules and try to ensure fair play but how we, as individuals, decide to play the game is entirely up to us. The name of the game is “Life” and whilst in part it is “regulated” by government, is not “controlled” by government.

In this respect, I try to play the game as hard as I can but not unfairly because, what goes around comes around and this is the only time I will get to play, there is no rematch.

I would suggest, 95%+ of my life is of my making and 5% is shaped by external influences. Your proportions might be different, that is up to you and how you perceive what “control” you have over your life and what you are prepared to do about it.

Condello was murdered last week.
How did he "play the game"?

I only hope his children look to his example and find it within themselves to do better, because they would find it hard to do worse.
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 12 February 2006 6:32:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The ratio of women to men is increasing. It seems nature won't be baffled by BS.

You only need one Bull but will their be any fields left after they finish playing with their guns and bombs?

There are some animal species that get the male to look after the kids. Maybe society should have a rethink on job roles.

In saying that, we could then comment about "his" lack of accountability in contributing to taxes.
Posted by Suebdootwo, Monday, 13 February 2006 12:13:18 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col,
I take something my grandfather told me 40 years ago into account when I say politics is life. He was a wise old Englishman, a gentleman, with a great love for his family, his adopted country, and for humanity in general, he cared about people, and he cared about life. He told me once "Politics is life son, because politics affects the price of a loaf of bread, and also effects how much money you will have in your pocket to pay for it" obviously I have never forgotten that, and just as obvious nothing has changed.
Regards,Shaun
Posted by SHONGA, Tuesday, 14 February 2006 2:44:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Women not on top? Who can imagine such a world?
Posted by Seeker, Tuesday, 14 February 2006 10:38:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Seeker,
Women have always been the power behind the throne, as they should be, without my wife's constant support I would not be here, I think women are the most wonderful creatures God ever put breath into.
Regards,Shaun
Posted by SHONGA, Wednesday, 15 February 2006 1:34:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy