Disadvantage from discrimination based on race, religion, colour, age and disability persist in modern society despite ongoing efforts at eradication.

Gender is common to all.

Achieve equity between women and men and all else follows.

Smart government comprising agreement between women's and men's legislatures presided over by elders accompanied by courts of women's and men's jurisdiction achieves equity

<chants> 'ere we go, 'ere we go, 'ere we go
'ere we go, 'ere we go, 'ere we go-o

I don't know what relevance that has to whistler's topic, but it is an example of a mindless, yet popular pastime.

Note the "popular": it implies that at least some of the voices chanting are being produced OUTSIDE one's head. Perhaps that's the relevance...

Whistler you really are a great poster. So zany. I love it. I like your style.

Have you ever met Gibo. I reckon you'd both get on well in real life.

In fact, if it were possible, I'd get your good self, Gibo, runner, BOAZ, Col and SJF to come down the pub with me. All my favourite posters. Man I'd love that. We'd talk for hours and hours, and tap in to all those fantastic ideas.

Hey, do you reckon if men and women were treated equally, there'd be no war! I honestly, Totally believe that all the world needs is love. I really like the way you use 'absent' too. It's really cool. I've really got to try it out because, and I'm no expert believe me, but it seems to me it makes you sound really cool.

Dear whistler,

I have to admit that in today's world, I've got
it much better than my mother had in her day.
Sure, I don't get equal pay with men doing the
same work as me - but at least I do get a decent
wage that would enable me to support myself -
and not have to rely on my husband's salary.

I actually don't envy the men in most cases.
As Ian Robertson, in his book, "Sociology,"
points out, and I quote:

"To a man, the main advantage is that he has
relatively greater access to wealth, power,
and prestige. He can earn more money, control
more of his environment, and experience a range of
career and other opportunities that are beyond the
reach of most women. The main disadvantage is the
tremenduous stress associated with a life of
competition, repressed feelings, and the fear of
failure."

I don't suffer from stress-related diseases such as
ulcers, hypertension, and asthma. I don't want to
commit suicide, I don't have any severe mental
disorders, or drink to excess. My life expectancy,
hopefully will be a long one. So I guess there's
a price men pay for their 'success.'

Perhaps one day a person's individual human
qualities will matter more, rather than their
biological sex. And those qualities will be the
measure of a person's worth and achievment.

We can live and hope.

excellent post Foxy, though i would argue individual human qualities are not gender specific, there is no 'mankind'.

the prospect of women and men dealing with each other on equal terms in the modern world is exhilerating.

the good news for the others who posted is that smart government eradicates discrimination which causes disadvantage to those stranded on the scrapheap of inequity.

Doesn't matter what you do there's always 'profiling' going on by those at the top. Certain jobs demand certain attributes. Certain roles in society demand certain attributes. We'd all like to think that there wasn't grey areas where anyone can be whatever they like.

I've seen - most likely we all have - situations where one race is preferred over another for employment. For example many produce farms prefer our asian brethren as employees. Probably some for dishonest reasons but alot of it is because they'll work all day, every day, more so than 'westernised' workers.

I know many employers don't like to employ Islanders for various roles due motivation generalisations.

I've seen employers who won't employ males for certain roles.

Unfortunately what you see is what you'll get forever. In order for someone to be a judge - male or female - they have to adhere to certain 'traditions'.

It's just the way we work. We can continue the fight to minimise overt and unfair discrimination but certain age, sex, race, faith, ability or disability profiling is going to continue forever.

Dear whistler,

That was precisely the point that I was trying
to make - 'that individual human qualities are
not gender specific..."

That perhaps in the future - gender won't matter at all.
It will be our individual qualities that we will be judged
by.

However, as StG pointed out - it's a long, long, way
off yet.

Foxy, I'd say that gender is one of our "individual" qualities. It influences so many aspects of our lives, from physical strength to the way in which we process tasks, with women being much more able to multi-task than men. It also affects things like menstrual cycles, with many women and girls suffering terribly each month and no doubt losing some productivity as a result.

I'd say that it is impossible to ignore any of those things. Women themselves proclaim their gender as being a defining and positive characteristic in most cases. Certainly whistler and her intra-cranial companions think so.

I can see no reason why those differences need to be negative on either side. Women do what you prefer and are good at and men do what we prefer and are good at and we all stick together as one species and get on with living. It's worked for a few hundred thousand years although I doubt that either gender was ecstatically happy on the whole for very much of that time. Still, here we are.

profiling by stereotype is bad profiling, a legacy of the inequity of bad government.

smart government produces smart profiling such that the best person for the job, regardless of gender, race, age, colour or ethnicity, is selected.

gender only matters when there is inequity.

all things being equal, women and men contribute different life experiences to the advantage of the whole community.

That just seems a bit simplistic and wishful. Dunno when you've last looked at the news or read the paper but the world isn't perfect and never will be.

We all profile (or judge) others based on perception, appearance, our own personal history, education, uneducation (whatever the opposite to education is), beliefs etc. It's not a symptom of bad governing, it's a symptom of being human and having instincts and prejudices which flow through to how we run our society.

As for jobs, most women aren't best equipped for many jobs men do. Same goes the other way too.

Very few women could stand in a factory stacking 25 kilo bags of product onto pallets 8 rows high for 8 to 10 hours a day 5 days a week. Quite obviously there's a percentage of women out there who can but based on common sense and the amount of people who apply for jobs the tacit requirement is gonna be that they need to be male.

A certain amount of profiling is needed to keep things ticking over.

It isn't nice, but it's the way things work. I'd like to live in some sorta equality utopia as well. But that ain't gonna happen on earth.

An executive dreams up an idea, has an
assistant who says it can't be done,
and a secretary who does it.

whistler, can you please enlarge upon either or both of these two concepts:

>>smart government... smart profiling<<

And please, don't start your response with "Absent..."

I don't understand what Whistler means by separate women's and men's legislative councils, nor do I see such a form of aparthied as being constructive, progressive or inclusive.

I do know we have a long way to go before there is true equity (as opposed to equality) between the sexes.

Please take the time to watch the video below and imagine if these were the conditions your daughter could be living in without the constant vigilance that men and women of conscience act with every day, even here in a country like Australia.

Thank you.

https://www.planusa.org/becauseiamagirl/takeaction.php

what a true article ,the goverment of new south wales covers up the abuse and rapes that occurred in their state institutions whether you are male or female , this is a gender issue

straight to the point no more crap

the goverment knows about us adult victims that were raped and abused as children ,but because of our past history they cover up for the pedophiles who abused us when we were children

this is why nothing has been done in respect of the 2 two senate inquireies the 1st first Forgotten Australians dated august 2004 and the second report Protecting Vulnerable Children In Institutional Care And Out Of Home Care Dated March 2005

this is where their is a discrimination to i a victim of institutioal abuse by staff and many other victims ,the state goverment of N.S.W still covers up till this day

regards huffnpuff

no doubt their will be those out their who will be like the goverment and want a person to shut up well unlucky not happening

smart government utilises collective bargaining between women's and men's legislatures to enable law, in contrast with the individual bargaining in legislatures whose regulatory failure collapsed the global economy.

smart profiling considers the individual in contrast with the stereotypes which issue from bad government.

thanks for the link, Fractelle.

apartheid is the policy of a constitution which mandates men's legislatures and not women's.

I guess it was too much to expect any real clarification.

>>smart government utilises collective bargaining between women's and men's legislatures to enable law, in contrast with the individual bargaining in legislatures whose regulatory failure collapsed the global economy.<<

In what way does "collective bargaining between women's and men's legislatures" suddenly make it smart? And why is it necessary to have the groups separate in the first place?

I know from experience that there is no possible chance of a reply that contains any substance or meaning, as opposed to simply another bunch of words pretentiously strung together.

>>smart profiling considers the individual in contrast with the stereotypes which issue from bad government.<<

Sorry. That is entirely without meaning. An absence. A void. A vaccuum of meaning, even. It does not attempt to answer the question: what is it?

>>apartheid is the policy of a constitution which mandates men's legislatures and not women's.<<

The word "apartheid" is entirely gender neutral. It simply means "separate development". It's from the Dutch, meaning the state of being separate.

A waste of time, I know, but someone has to swat the flies.

Please, please, please don't read the following as a denial. It is a geniune question.

In what jobs do men get paid more than women for doing the same thing? I ask because I have always been employed by organisations that have set pay structures. Actually, I have only had two employers: a large retailer, where pay scales were governed by an enterprise agreement and had no distinction between genders, and Education Queensland, where pay scales show no distinction between genders. Thus I have always been paid the same as my female colleagues. Certainly, there is an argument that men advance through the ranks quicker - despite the fact that females dominate the teaching profession, I have never attended or worked at a school with a female principal. Principals get paid more than deputies, HODs or teachers, but if my male principal was replaced with a female tomorrow, she would take over exactly the same pay package.

My question is based on a lack of experience in the workforce - I'm hoping someone can point me in the right direction!

Otokonoko:"In what jobs do men get paid more than women for doing the same thing"

None of them. That would be illegal. a small matter that seems to be conveniently forgotten about when the feminist entitlement junkies start their spieling.

Otokonoko:"there is an argument that men advance through the ranks quicker - despite the fact that females dominate the teaching profession, I have never attended or worked at a school with a female principal."

Both of ny children attend schools that have female principals. One is at Mansfield State School and the other is at Holland Park State High.

The perception of faster advancement for men may be directly related to their relative proportions, in that if there is a perceived need for some senior staff to be male (for example, Mansfield has 4 DPs, 2 of each gender) then the small pool of available appointees means that relatively more of them will be selected than would be the case for women. It may also be that many female teachers take time out to attend to family matters, such as childbirth and child raising, thus failing to gain seniority for the time they take out. They may also give an impression of not being committed to their career for the same reason, something that afflicts many women who want a career and motherhood.

I know quite a few teachers and some of them have gone back to teaching after a period pursuing some other career, simply because the conditions are very friendly to mothers with young children.

why is collective bargaining between women's and men's legislatures smart?

because collective bargaining is a pillar of democracy.

the States certainly considered collective bargaining smart when they campaigned for the inclusion of a Senate in the Australian Constitution, albeit that States' rights have largely since been assumed by the Commonwealth.

collective bargaining between women's and men's legislatures substitutes the bargaining between the principal stakeholders at Federation, the States and the Commonwealth from which women were prohibited representation, now obsolete, with bargaining between the principal stakeholders with distinct life experience, the essence of governance, which comprise the people.

prohibiting women at Federation and then claiming women are the same as men a century later is a nonsense.

for those not up to speed with this discussion, profiling with a focus on the individual is smart because stereotypes thrown up by the guesswork and speculation associated with individual bargaining between women and men may be misleading.

moreover, in a post which also contained a link to an enlightening video, Fractelle referred to separate women's and men's legislative councils as apartheid, erroneously in my view because neither gender is disadvataged by their equitable representation in collective bargaining.

Women are paid less then men in most jobs.
Sure it may be against the law to discriminate,
however, discrimination is hard to prove - and
there's lots of "wiggle room," for the courts.
"Do you want kids or cash?" seems to be a common
ethos.

There are very few female company CEOs.
High School Principals are still men.
As are Heads of Public Regional Libraries.
The IT industry has very few women employed.
Women doing the same jobs as men across the
trades will be on lower salaries.
Even women politicians as Dennis Pryor points out
in his booklet, "Political Pryorities," and I quote:

"Under the guise of useful experience women are
given every opportunity to stand for unwinnable seats
at elections. Those who get into Parliament find it
difficult to become Ministers or to get into Cabinet.
In spite of incessant rhetoric and equal opportunity the
mass of male Parliamentarians find it difficult to equate
women with positions of power. Many talented women are
now seeking to enter politics via influential positions
in the public service, where discrimination is waning,
rather than through the tedious and hypocritical process
of preselection and elections."

Women may have the talent, put in the hours, do the same
work, but whether they are Sales Reps., Library staff,
Administrative Office Staff, whether they are in the IT
industry, or even Architects, or Lawyers, their male
colleagues will be the ones earning the larger salaries,
and will have greater training opportunities and
job promotions made available to them.

That's a fact of life that women have to deal with.

Foxy:"High School Principals are still men."

I've pointed to two who aren't.

Foxy:"Women doing the same jobs as men across the
trades will be on lower salaries."

Rubbish.

Foxy:"Those who get into Parliament find it
difficult to become Ministers or to get into Cabinet.
In spite of incessant rhetoric and equal opportunity "

Julia Gillard disagrees with you. When Julie Bishop was sacked recently, she was asked about gender relevance and she said something like "politics is a tough game. I don't thing gender played ay part in this decision."

Foxy:"Many talented women are
now seeking to enter politics via influential positions
in the public service"

Where they don't have to compete against men, because talented men seek positions that challenge them, not positions that provide them with a sinecure. Talented + public service <> a challenging career.

Moreover, the public service has expanded dramatically over the past 10 years, largely because of all the "tallented" women seeking a job that doesn't require any work from them.

Foxy:"whether they are in the IT
industry, or even Architects, or Lawyers, their male
colleagues will be the ones earning the larger salaries,
and will have greater training opportunities and
job promotions made available to them. "

Prove it. I say you're speaking utter gobshite. A female Partner will earn equivalently to a male one, a female Asssociate ditto, a female graduate, ditto. A female graduate social worker might not get paid as well as a grad engineer or lawyer, but her working environment is so much less stressful, isn't it dear? Care for a coffeee and bickie?

Foxy:"That's a fact of life that women have to deal with."

No it's not. It's a standard whinge that men who want to get on with their spouses have to nod their heads and put up with. The reality is that women choose to have children and then they choose not to prioritise their careers for years and then they whinge because their male contemporaries continued putting in the work (talented or not) and they got rewards commensurate with their efforts.

The domination of females in the education system has proven a complete failure. We have large number of boys confused by their genders when they should be affirmed. Young boys are turning into angry men because they are continually hen pecked. The sooner people accept that men are better at some things than woman and vice versa the better. I wonder whether the growth of Islam is a reaction (albeit foolish) to some woman wanting to wear the pants. Nothing could be more unnatural.

Affirmative action (how on earth you could ever call it affirmative?) is a prime example of men being discriminated against by less competent women. Affirmative action would be giving the most competent person the job. Employing 5 foot 3 policewomen to tackle the violence by the many anti social people these days is nothing short of an exercise in stupidity. 'Gender equality' however will win out and you will employ 4 small women instead of 2 strong men. I could go on by you get the drift

Dear Antiseptic,

I'm not going to argue with you and tear
into your post, point by point. Or call
you a neanderthal - tempted as I may be.
I won't even whinge or offer you a bickie...
I won't even say that you're a bitter
and twisted .....(you fill in the word),
because that would be stooping down to
your nastiness, which all of us females
have experienced from you on OLO in the past.

I'm going to stand my high-ground,
and let you go on thinking that all
females are door mats - put on this
earth especially for you to demonstrate
your superiority - Big Man!

And, by the way, I am a
university graduate (got my degrees, while
working full time, and raising a family). I
work in a private company - along
with several other qualified females - none
of us get the salaries of our male colleagues.

And, yes, we do exactly the same work - (actually,
I had to train quite a few of the guys!)

But hey, you know better!

two High School Principals is a smallish sample.
tradies ain't rubbish.
Julia Gillard and Julie Bishop comprise one third of the eighth, six of 48 or thereabouts, women cabinet and shadow ministers.
the Commonwealth is an equal opportunity employer.
there are few famous women architects or lawyers, plenty social workers.
having children is work.

runnermen how can Australian men be discriminated against by less competent women when Australia's Constitution mandates that men boss over women?

I wish job advertisements were allowed to state age, race, gender, and sex. How many people get all nervous and keyed up getting ready and prepared to go to interviews where they have no intention of employing them because they didn't want a person over 50years, a woman (or man) white or black person for the position. They just don't say so and hire who they wanted in the first place.

What a complete waste of time and emotion and effort for the people who go to these job interviews when it could have saved everybody time all around if they had just been able to state exactly what their preference for the successful applicant was in the job add.

Dismissing people on grounds of race, age, pregnancy, religion, etc is a different situation and is a more practical area to apply discrimination laws.

Foxy, is that really the best you can offer?

I was not remotely personal in my post, yet from you I get nothing but personal abuse with not a substantive point among them. I worked in Engineering for nearly 20 years and in that time I never saw a single example of discrimination against women in terms of pay. In fact, at one stage, female graduates were being offered considerably more than men by a firm I worked for because they wanted to attract them in order to make a point about their "equal opportunity" status when applying for Govt tenders. Sadly, there weren't enough girls taking the hard subjects, so even with that incentive and some lowering of standards the positions were only sporadically filled.

At higher levels pay is subject to offer and acceptance and is private, usually based on perceived value to the firm. If you're not being paid as much as some others, perhaps you should look at what you bring to the firm and what you expect from it.

Still, I expect you'll just go on saying "what a mean man Antiseptic is" and ignore the validity of the points made. That might be another clue as to why your boss might perceive others as being more valuable, hmmm?

I'd also remind you that you made the points I disagreed with. If you can't defend them, I guess that shows what they're worth. Another thing the boss might well take into account is the capacity of staff to offer wll-reasoned, defensible opinions on matters pertaining to their field. Simply making bald (factually wrong) statements and running when challenged doesn't cut it.

As for trades, wages are nearly always set by broad agreements within industries. A hairdresser may not get paid the same as a carpenter, but a female carpenter will be aid the same as a male one. There is some variation, with more senior and competent staff being paid more than a fresh tradie straight out of an apprenticeship.

Dear Antiseptic,

How can I discuss anything with you when you
consider what I say, and I quote:

1) "You're speaking utter gobshite."

Then you go on to tell me that a female grad.
social worker:

2) "...her working environment is much less stressful,
isn't it dear? Care for a coffee and bickie?"

Do you know what a social worker's day is really
like, and what she has to deal with on a daily basis?
I do know because I have worked for the Department of
Community Services for a couple of years - and saw
exactly the type of problems social workers had to deal with -
anything from child abuse to teenage suicides to
domestic violence and so on. Less stressful? No!
And by the way - male social workers doing the same
jobs - were on higher salaries.

You can't seem to get your mind around the fact that
women occupy very few high-paying positions.

As Ian Robertson points out in his book, "Sociology,"
and I quote:

"Only 8 out of every 1,000 employed women holds a high-level
executive, managerial, or administrative job. Even when
men and women do similar jobs, they have different titles
and pay scales: the male becomes an 'administrative assistant,'
the female merely an 'executive secretary.'... in fact,
some 80 percent of all working women are concentrated in
just 20 of the 427 najor job categories recognized by the
Department of Labor ...librarians earn less than carpenters,
cashiers less than trash collectors, nurses less than
accountants..."

When I try to point things out to you you simply palm
it off as:

"It's a standard whinge ..."

How can you seriously expect any female to discuss anything
with you when you 'know it all' and consider what they have
to say as 'utter gobshite?'

clearly, the theory that women are not discriminated against does not meet the overwhelming evidence they are, not suprisingly with the theoretical side suggesting "You're speaking utter gobshite" is "not remotely personal" and women who have interests elsewhere avoid "the hard subjects".

the real mystery is as to why anyone would bother to argue women are not being discriminated against when the Constitution of Australia mandates they are.

surely it's a failure of the Constituton if women are not discriminated against.

Ok, I'll bite.

>>the real mystery is as to why anyone would bother to argue women are not being discriminated against when the Constitution of Australia mandates they are<<

Where in the Australian Constitution does it mandate that "women shall be discriminated against"?

The first person referred to in my copy of the constitution is Queen Victoria. Not much discrimination there, I'd suggest.

Foxy:"Do you know what a social worker's day is really
like, and what she has to deal with on a daily basis?"

Yes. As it happens, I have had a fair bit to do with social workers socially. Most of them don't work for DOCS or in crisis intervention, but have "nice" jobs in "nice" environments, where they get lots of time off and don't have to do anything that doesn't suit their sense of what's "nice". The few who do take on the "hard" jobs have my respect, but most are simply looking for a sinecure that pats well.

Foxy:"male social workers doing the same
jobs - were on higher salaries."

I frankly just don't believe you. If they were employed by DOCS, they were covered by Public Service awards that prohibit discrimination on gender grounds.

Foxy:"You can't seem to get your mind around the fact that
women occupy very few high-paying positions. "

Not at all: I'm happy to acknowledge that and always have been. I dispute the claim that people are paid differently for the same work.

To use your Robinson examples, carpenters earn more than librarians because they work harder and take more risks; ditto for cashiers and trash collectors; as for accountants, at my accountant anyway most of the staff are women, including all but 2 of the 10 or so accountants. The owner is a man and his wife, but as he has the qualification his name is on the practise. I agree that nurses are underpaid.

Foxy:"How can you seriously expect any female to discuss anything
with you "

I don't by any means claim to "know it all" but I do know enough to recognise gobshite when it's thrown at me. If you don't like the accusation, defend your statement instead of running off and having a sulk. There's another clue as to why some workers may be paid differently to others, BTW.

If you want more money, go and do a challenging, risky or arduous job that is valued highly. You can't have it both ways.

Dear Antiseptic,

A couple of things need correcting:

1) I'm not in the habit of going off and 'sulking.'
That's your female stereotyping showing.

2) You said, "If you want more money - go and do
a challenging, risky or arduous job that is valued
highly. You can't have it both ways."
Again - that's your female stereotyping showing.
You're assuming that I'm not in a challenging, arduous job
that's valued highly.

3) You don't believe me trying to tell you that gender
inequality still remains a contemporary issue in Australia.

I normally do some research prior to entering into
discussions on OLO, so I know what the facts are.
Had you bothered to google - gender equality in Australia,
or what the Australian Census has to say on the subject,
or even the Economic status of Women, you wouldn't have to
disregard what I'm trying to say. You'd know what the facts
are.

4) For someone with the pseudo of "Antispetic," your use
of language like, "utter gobshite," is rather surprising.
I'm not used to language like that. I tend to associate
that sort of language with rather uneducated, crude,
dull-witted people. And, you're using it in this discussion,
why? Simply because I have an opinion that differs from yours.
If you want your point of view respected, you have to respect
the views of others or else you lose all credibility.

5) The following website is just one of many that may clear
things up for you:

Gender inequality at Work.
New Report Shows Global Gender Gap Bigger Then
Previously Thought.

http://www.ituc-csi.org/spip.php?article2799

6) Finally, I read this on one of the websites I
had scrawled but I can't remember which one - so
my apologies - however it sums things up rather well -
"...we as the next generation will integrate our up-
bringing into our lives ... to reflect the way we have
been brought up to see male and female roles in the
workplace, in the home, in politics, and in every aspect
in our micro worlds...

all women, Queen Victoria especially, were prohibited from the Parliament which enabled the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900.

legislation enabled under this Act, as with the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902, cannot change what is blatant discrimination against women.

the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act provides for a Referendum to redress discrimination.

Otokonoko, to answer your question, men get paid more than women for doing the same thing when they're doing what they enjoy doing most, what men call hard yakka.

this leaves the jobs they like doing least for women, which usually works out fine because the jobs men don't like doing are often the jobs women enjoy, jobs involving people skills comes to mind.

since Australia's Constitution mandates men supervise women, men get paid more for hard yakka because supervisors get paid more for supervising.

What a thoroughly bizarre observation, whistler.

>>all women, Queen Victoria especially, were prohibited from the Parliament which enabled the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900.<<

But it was Queen Victoria herself who enabled the Act itself. Without her it would not have come to pass. That puts her in a fairly privileged position, does it not?

Indeed, our present Queen has the power to declare war, conclude treaties and recognize states. Seems pretty empowered to me.

Dear Pericles,

The King or Queen's position, as you know is predominantly
that of a 'figure-head,' the real power lies with
her Prime Minister and Parliament. She/He does as they
are 'advised.'

The Queen did not want to give the late Princess Diana
a State funeral - nor did she want to return to London
to 'mourn' her passing or fly the flag at 'half-mast.'

She did all of the above - her Prime Minster 'advised,'
she had to do it.

You're right - so much for being 'empowered.'

Foxy, your illustration of the Queen's day-to-day influence is absolutely correct. The Prime Minister and the Cabinet even write the Queen's Speech, the one that opens Parliament and outlines the upcoming legislative intentions of the government.

I deliberately chose as my examples those that exist within the Royal Prerogative and that are essential to her most important duties, defence of the realm and the keeping of the Queen's peace. These powers she can wield without Ministerial advice, as any Prime Minister knows very well.

Overall, the function is more a well-recognized check-and-balance on the really important stuff, I would suggest, than merely acting as a figurehead.

Having said that, it must be a bitch of a job, being Queen, all those traditional duties to fulfil that go back many centuries, and with a bunch of rumbling republicans (in whose number, by the way, I count myself) milling around outside.

I'd be interested to learn the source of your Diana stories, by the way, as I had heard a completely different version of events.

Dear Pericles,

My source on Diana was Tina Brown's unputdownable
read, "The Diana Chronicles," published by
Century, London, 2007.

Just to add to some further information on the "power"
that the Monarch actually has... (Taken from - The
World Book Encyclopedia - vol.11 - J-K, p. 258,
"Kings and queens of Britain and Ireland..."
and I quote:

"In the past, kings and queens had great power in
Britain and Ireland.

Today, the 'monarch' in Britain has little power
but is still highly respected. ...She serves as a
figurehead and a symbol of unity for people in
Britain and the Commonwealth...

The monarch's role in British politics is part of the
un-written British constitution. As a constitutional
monarch, the ...queen is head of state. She holds
office with the aid and agreement of an elected
Parliament. The Parliament provides the government.

The monarch's duties are now mainly ceremonial..."

Cheers.

HOW WOMEN DISCRIMINATE AGAINST POORLY PAID MEN IN THE MATING GAME.

A man with a good financial income has more of an ability to attract the most desirable female partners. An unemployed man or a very lowly paid man with no future prospects is quickly discriminated against by women looking for a mate. This is not so for the female population, just being an attractive female is enough on it's own to attract desirable male partners.

Maybe men on some level are trying to ensure their success in the mating game by making sure they are paid more. Maybe that's why they held out against women acheiving financial independence before women's liberation stormed the bastions

Dear sharkfin,

Speaking entirely for myself as a female - its
not a man's money that I have ever found to be
an "attraction," nor the lack of it a "deterrant."

The 'perfect man' for me is one who satisfies my
emotional appetite. People either connect or they
don't.

I think it's wrong to generalise. We're
all individuals - and -

Different things attract different people. "Beauty's
in the eyes of the beholder."

To say that men do this, of women do that .... has to
be qualified by the word - "Some." Because its
definitely not "all."

Cheers.

*To say that men do this, of women do that .... has to
be qualified by the word - "Some." Because its
definitely not "all."*

Foxy, you are of course quite correct, there are always exceptions.

However, it is not unreasonable to generalise, by for instance saying
that men are taller then women. Not in every case, granted, but
on average they certainly are.

What we do know is that seeing 60 year old multi milllionaires and
billionaires, with young cute things on their arms, is fairly common.

Seeing the reverse situation is far less common.

I've had some deep and meaningfull conversations with some women
about this topic and they generally admitted that the fact that
he is a good provider, was high on their list for finally marrying
Mr X or whoever.

So the old stereotype that males look for somebody who is cute and
females need a good provider, who will be able to provide resources
to feed the offspring, is not that far off the mark. Its also
quite natural.

I've told you before, just study biology and the world starts to
make sense :)

Dear Foxy,
I agree it doesn't apply to all, but it is very notable that we see a lot of rich men with very desirable young wives, with whom they often produce a couple of children. Clint Eastward has a very attractive much much younger wife with whom he has at least a young daughter that I know of. There is Rupert Murdoch and his young wife and children. I know there are women like Demi Moore too, that has a toy boy but that is also largely attributable to the expensive plastic surgery she can afford. Good looking young women will go with the security of money for them and their children, it doesn't matter how old or ugly the man is.

Men know that money gives them an advantage in getting desirable women even if it is just having the luxury of enough pocket money after paying all the bills to visit one of these boutique brothels.
We all know the sex industry is a multi-million dollar industry,

Dear Yabby and sharkfin,

As I said at the beginning of my post I was speaking
on my own behalf - money for me was not an attraction
or the lack of it a deterrant - as far as men were
concerned. Other qualities to me were more important.
And I'm glad to see that you both agree that it is a
case of "different strokes for different folks."
We are all different in our choices along life's path.

As for the "youth and beauty" and "money" concept.
It applies to both men and women - not only men.
Take successful women like - Demi Moore, Susan
Sarandon, Joan Collins, Liza Minelli,Sharon Stone,
even the late Audrey Hepburn, and many more ...
Money and power whether it belongs to men or women -
can always buy what it wants - even historically -
from Catherine the Great,
to Henry VIII - it's always been the case.

Money can't buy you happiness - but you can be miserable
in comfort - right?

At least for some.

And as women get to positions of money and
power - this will continue to be the case
for them as well.

More money, more power, more choices ...
For both men and women.