I want to share a portion of a talk given at the latest conference for the church I attend. I would like to know your thoughts?

"Attitudes toward human sexuality threaten the moral authority of women on several fronts. Abortion for personal or social convenience strikes at the heart of a woman’s most sacred powers and destroys her moral authority. The same is true of sexual immorality and of revealing dress that not only debases women but reinforces the lie that a woman’s sexuality is what defines her worth.

There has long been a cultural double standard that expected women to be sexually circumspect while excusing male immorality. The unfairness of such a double standard is obvious, and it has been justifiably criticized and rejected. In that rejection, one would have hoped that men would rise to the higher, single standard, but just the opposite has occurred—women and girls are now encouraged to be as promiscuous as the double standard expected men to be. Where once women’s higher standards demanded commitment and responsibility from men, we now have sexual relations without conscience, fatherless families, and growing poverty. Equal-opportunity promiscuity simply robs women of their moral influence and degrades all of society.9 In this hollow bargain, it is men who are “liberated” and women and children who suffer most."

D. Todd Christofferson
http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/the-moral-force-of-women?lang=eng

RandomGuy, could female equality begin at home?

http://www.exmormon.org/mormwomn.htm

In your dreams.
Women should be allowed to be who they want to be.
They should not have to conform to the dreams of men as to who they should be.
Leave the religion out of the equation and then we may have a level playing field.
Interesting read all the same.
SD

the value..of woman
depends on..the value of the man

equal-time..or else its spun
god gave woman..the gift of life..[co-creator]
that there..is their..moral-authority[used as a hook..but then..ignored

i..will presume..
a quote..<<.."Attitudes>>

irrelivant

<<..toward human sexuality>>..

concerns *both sexes..equally
[what is good for goose..must be good for the gander]

<<..threaten..the moral/authority
of women..on several.fronts.>>

ok..moral..authority...of women[or mothers]

thing is..we were talking..about sexuality/.
.both sexes/then..moral authority..[of women]

THEN*.attack..the spin-agenda

<<..Abortion..for personal..or social convenience>>

moral-authority?
or authorized moralization..

under the cloak..of sexuality-attitudes..moralauthority
[abortion..comes after sex..we were talking..pre conception
..
now suddenly we jumped..to abortion?..ignoring
the real-issue..MORAL-AUTHORITY..OF WOMAN*

it..reeks of adgenda

<<..strikes at.;the heart of a woman’s
most sacred-powers..and destroys her.moral authority...>>

says who..by what proof?
but at least..we drift back..the pre coitus
that needs apply..EQUALLY..with/to..over/at..men

<<..The same..is true of..sexual
immorality..and of revealing dress>>

THAT GUYS..LIKE TO..THINK..about.
[immoral-thought...[delusions/fantasy...]
all..natural..guilt or joy is shared..bothy scared.

[only hate..is un-natural..
love is love..hate is hate

a revealing dress dont indicte..low mortals..
thinking like that's..a sickness

<<..that not.only debases women..but reinforces..the lie
that a woman’s sexuality..is what defines her worth.>>

oh..i thought..sex was man/woman..
woman sexuality..is her business..i will..trust..them to..speak for themselves

the same applies to..slutty men?
dangling their bits..under their shorts..
or..men are so holy/pure..in..our/mode of dress..and sexual..morals?

oh dear..its..all..so..pot/kettle

Random Guy, what sort of church has 'talks' like this ?
It seems like a step back in time to before the '50's!

If only women had no rights over their bodies, or even in what they can wear, then wouldn't that make the world a better place 'morally'?

What a crock of ...!

RG for a start Churches, all of them from every faith, seem to want to keep women under control.
This world would be a better place without Religion getting involved with sex.
Troubling to see they are still impressing views on us all.
Individual freedoms are to valuable to be controlled by any group, just tell me what place would your God have for women in heaven?
Like men on their knees but ten rows behind the men?.

Hi Suse, you ask "What sort of church has 'talks' like this?" The Mormon Church. If you get a chance my link is to a piece on "The Role of Women in Mormonism" its not very flattering of that church. A repressive organisation if there ever was one.
Years back I had a couple of Americans, Mormons elders, two young blokes doing missionary work (more like looking for converts), they knocked on my door. Not giving them a P off as does 99% of people, I had a discussion with the lads. Well talk about wacko beliefs, one told me God is an American, the other said the second coming of Jesus was at hand, and he will be arriving via San Francisco Bay, soon, that was about 20 years ago. An hour later when the lads left, leaving me a copy of 'The Book of Mormon' and promising to return in a weeks time for another discussion, after I had, had a chance to read said book. The lads never did come back, I wonder why. My wife said "you gave that pair some, I bet they are sorry they ever met you!" The thought for the day "God is an American."

The hardest thing I find about sharing anything about my views, especially online when we can all hide behind computers and can avoid looking at each others faces is:

1. To share the whole context of a belief would require more words that I could probably write in a week, so you are all left with small snippets of believe without enough context to defend itself.

2. Organised religion is highly unfashionable in these days and so regardless of how beneficial the belief or instruction may be, it is seen as ugly and hence, undesirable.

3. People seek to know the truth from irrelevant sources. If I wanted to know how centrelink works because I need to fix my AusStudy payments, what is the point of asking someone who doesnt know how it works and just hates centrelink, or is a car dealership that sell tyres?

4. People assume that there is no freedom in religion. What they fail to grasp is that the people who attend churches (with obvious, illegal exceptions) have a choice in whether they walk in the door, or follow the teachings and commandments. And all those claims of "forcing" and "no choice" are simply lies.

5. We are all, here on the forums, apologists for our beliefs. No-one is willing to test out the strength of the belief itself. A true belief would be able to stand as both logical and beneficial to humankind.

continued

Now, relating to my topic, my thoughts are this:

How do you measure the success of a woman? Or a man for that matter?
If you measure the success of a woman based on what a man can do then you are already creating an inequality between the sexes before you start. The value of the gender is not found in "beating" the other gender at the same tasks or roles. The value of the gender is found in what they can do that the other can't.

Look at sport as an example. In the AFL and many other big sporting organisations, there are draft systems, salary caps, compensations, etc. All about making the teams equal. Because of all this, which of the teams can truly measure the value that they individually hold? They are all just pieces in a puzzle and whichever one gets lucky at a certain time will win the prize.

The value of men and women is not fought over a football field as boys v girls, it is better realised as different sporting codes. Men play football and women cricket. You would never compare the Cricketers against the footballers in a proper match, because they aren't footballers, they are cricketers. Hopefully my point is clear.

How can we value women, if not in childbirth and raising children? This is what makes them a woman. (Obviously there are other differences but you understand my meaning)

What a typical pointless academic thread. All are equal & tht's all there's to it. If someone discriminates against another than the victim can retalliate or at least should have the right to but that is a shady area nowadays in the age of equality.

Thanks for sharing that portion, RandomGuy...

I can agree with the premise that women are no better than men.

I can also use this other portion to make the same point. I've added brackets for emphasis:

"From age immemorial, societies have relied on the moral force of [wo]men. While certainly not the only positive influence at work in society, the moral foundation provided by [wo]men has proved uniquely beneficial to the common good. Perhaps, because it is pervasive, this contribution of [wo]men is often underappreciated. I wish to express gratitude for the influence of good [wo]men, identify some of the philosophies and trends that threaten [wo]men’s strength and standing, and voice a plea to [wo]men to cultivate the innate moral power within them."

Was there a similar contribution at the conference from any morally forceful women members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles or the First Presidency?

The Elder missed the opportunity to lighten his delivery about women's moral authority with the obvious pun, "It's not the homily that is important, but the femily".

But you ask, "How can we value women, if not in childbirth and raising children?". To which I would answer, in the same ways we value any man (except for the biological impediment part about giving birth) along with, how any women wishes to value herself.

guy..i..for one appreciate..the topic
as a..means to expand..and reassess..the context..of my...beliefs.

i...mentioned..the poligomony aspect..at the gay marriage threat
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6073#175135

i dont expect it will..be included into..the bigger picture
im..adapting..at lamb-island thread
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6040&page=0

which begun..with..the ..are scientists god/thread
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15257&page=0

as evolved..from..does god use a special.language
and yes there is the true meaning..the adjudged meanings
but the links all link back..via my..post page

so.best allow..[lol]..woman..to define..themselves

but its hard enough to try and join..the dots..of guidance
as i.try to..reply..the other self..revelations..by..you...my peers

thank-you all so much
its so easy..when others speak..openly..of their minds inner urgings

too..much is afraid..of being examined..
with hind site..we together can bring..that better way

but only when we each..have an equal..say
all..links have been..interestingly..clear..in..their bias..but also sincerity..of their fixated beliefs

[anything that hurt's you..personally..
is taken wrongly..[or rather put poorly]..or based on..imaginings[negativity]..more injurious..to the author..than.the reader

lest we forget..if its of god..its all..good
only..men..[ok..man-kind].,.can make errors..but these merely affirm..freewill holds its will free..to will freely..as sacrosanct*

anyhow enough..of me
lets hear more..from..our motherly..nurture

[the mormans 'reveal'..all..woman..may in-time be mother nature
[sustaining the living of life..via.the husband[sun]..life sustained..by light

that just sounds..right

<There has long been a cultural double standard that expected women to be sexually circumspect while excusing male immorality. The unfairness of such a double standard is obvious, and it has been justifiably criticized and rejected. In that rejection, one would have hoped that men would rise to the higher, single standard, but just the opposite has occurred—women and girls are now encouraged to be as promiscuous as the double standard expected men to be.>

I understand and agree with this bit completely. Sadly to create equality I feel as though women have lowered their moral standards. I grew up in a church that I could see preaching something like this, women were encouraged to be modest, patient and caring, but so where the men. Everyone was equal because the men where expected to be modest, caring and patient as well. No women was ever discouraged from achieving what ever she wished too, or from speaking her mind, but we were taught to do so in the correct way, as were the men.
I really wish that instead of women loosing what I believe to be good morals, to be equal that men had gained them. Instead, any man with manners is accused of been sexist and any female with modestly is a prude. Its sad.

eg..take this quote..<<..The hardest thing..I find about sharing anything..about my views,..
especially online..[when we can all hide behind computers]..and can avoid looking..at each others faces is:..>>

myguiodes tell..me..this is a huge key
[see the role of the light[that sustain..mother nature..her fertility]

is as like how a loving husband..gently radiates his loving look at his..'wife'/confidant..lover and mother..to all his imaginative creations/foibles]

see the sun..radiates..the husbands loving life force
and the mother nurture[nature]=wife

we see the love..as each serves out their fertile union
[onthe other gay topic..i would add..

where the use..of two/suns[husbands]
better one sun..plus many planets..[fertile/fruitful-wifes]
some closer..to..their 'man'..other more distant..each will/have
the nurture/nature marriaged/relation-role..

according to..their relative[wifely].
matriarchal-hierarchical-positions..

with*..[in conjunction]..with..
their son/of man..[husband-sun]..[like pluto]..or venus..or uranus

ok..for brevity..not content
where the logic..of two husbands..suns../.but to burn..out..the poor one planet[wife]..

two suns[husbands].[hush-banned]..must eventually..yield their fruits..and burn..the lessor..or tear each other apart
so much for..matters of the he-art.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15542&page=0

research..will reveal

Random Guy, I am sorry if you think I was having a go at your faith, but it was more about the attitude to women.
I really am interested in what brand of religion you practice?

Women should not be measured only by their ability to reproduce.
Sure, it is a unique ability for women to be pregnant, and it is wonderful to be able to have children, but we wouldn't be able to without a male's contribution!

If one concentrates on this aspect of women though, then infertility is seen as a failure.
Or those who choose not to have children are frowned upon.
I would imagine contraception would also be banned?

The 'rules' that religion and society originally forced on women, such as dressing in a certain way, or not being able to use contraception or have abortions, was man's way of keeping the little woman 'under control', and to himself.

We don't want to go back to those days,,,sorry.
Can't religions be followed without all that archaic rubbish?

Bec_young mum of 2, "Instead, any man with manners is accused of been sexist and any female with modestly is a prude. Its sad"

That stuff is popular is some quarters, but generally speaking, avoiding those sections of papers, turning off the TV and not letting toxic whingers into your life, will rid you of most of them.

Most people are still the good, solid, respectable citizens they always were. There are groups that focus on practical things like crafts, or children, where good people congregate.

Our 4X4 club, volunteering and practical interests have always rewarded my wife and I with an abundance of really nice people who help one another out as well. We give any with 'attitude' and a hobby-horse to ride, the big swerve, as others do, and voila, you are always surrounded with kind and generous people who are focussed on the practical things and enjoying life.

Watch A Current Affair or read some of those ratbag columnists and it is inevitable that you come away feel dreadful.

suse..[is it possible..to present a stimuli
that a man..is like as the..sun..and a wife=like the..fertile mother earth?

ps reply to becca..is here

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6040#175151

suze/quote..<<..Women..>>

planets..<<..should not-be measured..only
by their ability..to reproduce...>>AND sustain/nurture..life successfully..

<<..Sure,..it is a unique ability..for women to be pregnant,>>

think..bigger..YOUR GIFT..is the
very creation..of life..a thing..only achieved.,.by god and mothers

<<..and it is wonderful..to be able to/have children,>>

how much greater..to..mother a whole planet
created..of love ..and infinite;'uses'..via..her earthy loins

nurture not only life..but life evolution..
into..wanting to gift..the same..as was gifted..upon..them
upon..their own creations..

<<..but we wouldn't/be able t.. without a male's contribution!..>>

the man..inme says..this is wrong
[so..many..mothers sadly..do too much alone]

but on the planetary side of it i see the husband [sun]
or rather the fathers energies light]..as vital
so much depends..on..the specifics

[spirit=true/loving good merciful]
materially..just trying to survive..the day..today routine..tedium/loneliness..

<<..If one concentrates..on this aspect..of women..though,
then infertility..is seen as..a failure...>>

again..up-size..the context
[is mars..a failure..or a glory..finalized..
[ie the kids are now parenting,..returning their life gifts,,mANYFOLD

thankyou..good wife..mars..well done

<<have we../Or those..who choose
not to have..children are frowned upon.
I would imagine contraception would also be banned?>>

universally?
facts arnt inyet

personally..what is a gift hoarded..
better the life-gift shared

BUT..what..if..the..material-infertility..
inspires..greater drive to position..the right circum-solar..orbit..more/wisely..that..you become..as our mother eve[ear--th]

and thus..thy husband..became a sun
loving his earthy/fertile mother-nature..as much..loving..her creations..nurtured..of the mind..created of the heart-loves..

[our kids..the lot..of em]
think-big

OTB,

Good one.
Gotta agree with that.

SD

OTB and SD I completely agree, I just wanted to point out to Random Guy that I can see where the post is coming from, well some of it anyway.
I am pretty lucky to live in a small country town that nearly all are good honest people, with groups and friends such as your 4X4 club.

Bec,

Country folk ourselves.

SD

We all know that what anything is worth, is what someone will pay for it. If we stuck a lot of women on an auction block, many would not bring much, so there's your answer.

Bec_young mum of 2, I don't think I can go along with that either.

In the days before easy abortion, in the country town I lived in, about 50% of weddings were shotgun jobs. To me this indicates that the young ladies were not all that moral. It also indicates a high moral standard among the young men, accepting their responsibilities, & paying for their fun.

I guess it comes down to what you value most

indicates that the young ladies were not all that moral. It also indicates a high moral standard among the young men,
Hasbeen,
Yep, fathersday in our commuities is always one that confuses the show.

Thanks suse, although I did not feel offended I do appreciate your intention. I think what did worry me is that my purpose in writing could not be completely understood from the way I resorted to write it. I was frustrated in my lack of ability to convey my message in the way I would like. I wish that I could show, tell, invite each of you to experience my message, that way there would be no misunderstanding and you could know what I'm trying to say. Unfortunately I can't do this will have to do.

I'm going to write more but I have to go into work. I think. .. On reflection I would have created this thread more taking about the purpose of morals rather than the woman's role or ability to influence them. ..

Hi RandomGuy,

Ok, we got the extracts and read your link, now what? It’s your Church, what do you think?

Before you respond perhaps you might like to make some apologies.

In reading this sermon I could find absolutely no reference to “the value of women”, what a shocker RandomGuy, this was a either a beat up for your title or you totally misunderstood what was being discussed, I suspect the latter.

The sermon is totally focused on the “moral force” of women as it relates to every thing they do in life and all the decisions they have to make.

Now that you have misdirected attention to all the things that were not said, not implied and nothing to do with the sermon, where does that leave you?

It leaves you to a series of apologies. One for implying on OLO that women should have a “value”. As perceive by who?

Next you should apologize to Todd for demonstrating that you neither “read” nor “comprehend”, you just feel and emotively react.

Then you should apologize to your church for being the most needy of its’ congregation, write one thousand times, Mea Culpa.

One thing you have done is reinforce the fact that so many on OLO just pick out an emotive word and chase it off down the road like a hound after a Unicorn.

Paul1405 goes off chasing “equality” and “religion” as it relates to Mormons, Shaggy dog is off and running down the equality/religion trail, even OUG gets started on your false title, “The Value of Women”, shame on you OUG. Although you do get back on track later.

Belly, god bless you. Religion, control, Sex and female subservience. What?

Suseonline, you are the closest to the point.

Women have a moral force which, in the modern world is trivialized. Society throws sexuality, virtue, ideology, trends, physical capabilities, intellect, prejudice, religious and legal restrictions on the rights of women to make decisions about themselves for themselves.

This sermon is about these issues RandomGuy, it is not about the subjective “value” as perceived by you or anyone else.

Denmark was recently declared to have the world's happiest population.

There. the churches have little influence, men and women are treated as equals and the women are free to make decisions for themselves.

An American social scientist, Phil, Zuckerman wrote a book detailing his experiences and many of the interviews he conducted while living for a year in Arhus a city of nearly 300,000. The book is well work reading.

After being in the city for some days he realised that he had not seen any police presence. He kept count and it was 35 dyas before he saw his first police officer.

To illustrate the difference between Denmark and the USA Zuckerman stated that not long after hes return to California, a church-going friend "couldn't wait" to show him the new handgun.

What is the value of women?

About $760,000 if I've got the currency conversion right. The skin is worth about $35 if you charged the same as cowhide. Hair can fetch $5-$9 per ounce depending on it's length for wigmakers. Muscular tissue is all but worthless but could probably be sold as pet meat; fans of 'Fight Club' will appreciate the value of adipose tissue. The transplantable organs would be the most valuable parts: corneas would be worth about $6,740; the heart $67,000; kidneys between $17,000-$33,000; lungs about $126,000 etc.

If you sold to the highest bidders you could make a killing.

Cheers,

Tony

Spindoc,

Shaggy Dog does not run down any trails these days, a fast hobble at best.

SD

RandomGuy I must say that I don't agree with your basic asumptions. Women as in Garden of Eden are "the root of all evil" as the saying goes. The Bible has that right and for a good reason. All current religious leaders lament that no one wants to talk about the current child abuse scandals. "mum is the word". Men WANT to treat women like slaves, but women DO treat men like cattle.

Foyle, Denmark sounds like my sort of place. : )
No wonder Princess Mary looks so happy in all her photos!

Random Guy, I think you wrote exactly what you wanted to convey, but are now back-peddling because it doesn't sound too good for women in our modern, secular society to reconsider moving back in time.

Hasbeen, you are a disgrace as usual, but I'll bite...
Even way back in the good ol' days of your youth, it still took two people to tango and produce a baby, both in and out of 'wedlock'.

If they did this before marriage back then, surely BOTH boy and girl should have been considered immoral?
If not, why not?

Foyle,
Doesn't the situation in Denmark back up my argument about mentality ?

Of course they were both immoral Suse, by the rules of the day. I was merely pointing out that women were not the moral force another poster claimed. Also that it was moral for the man to front up, rather than flee to Darwin, as some did. That, & the hiding out crims is where most of Darwin's population came from way back then.

I'm not sure what I think of today's morals. It does seem to me that those who meet, marry & have kids young, [or vice versa] tend to rub each others sharp corners off, & become a unit, better than those who marry older, with higher expectations, which are harder to fill.

Not sure of that. Some island communities who tend to sleep around a lot, & more or less communally raise the kids appear pretty happy & relaxed.

Hasbeen,
Yeah I lived in the Territory and TPNG in the 60s. As you say there were a few runaways and bolters about the shop.
SD

appear pretty happy & relaxed.
Hasbeen,
I suppose we'd all appear happy & relaxed if we didn't have to worry about income & responsibilities.

From a political aspect, I must say in Australia the role of women in some political parties leaves a lot to be desired. The Labor Party is trying to elevate good competent women to positions of equality with power and influence, which is very good and deserving, however they still have a long way to go. The treatment of Julia Gillard by some of her male colleagues demonstrates that. The Liberal Party, not withstanding the fact it is generally devoid of competent women, still clings to the notion that the women's role within the party is being supportive of men. If that means Julie Bishop has to make the afternoon tea during cabinet meeting, so be it, after all there are no other women in the room.
The Greens is the only major party that has total equality within its ranks. That has much to do with the fact the party is full of women of ability and outstanding competence. Males within The Greens have always valued women as equals in every aspect and it is a much better party for that.

paul/quote..<<..not withstanding..the fact it-is..generally devoid of competent women,..still clings to..the notion..that the women's role within the party..is being supportive of men.>>

interesting point..that links to..the gay-mirage issue
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6073&page=0

see/that
we have confused..the wife..
[married to..her..professions]/much..like a man..
married to..his job..[that relates specifically..to a change of status

[they are dependable..upon[wife]..
or nurturing it to death...like a man..obsessively attentive/.loving wife/hushband..

thing is woman..are..not girls
and neither..are mother..[a realm..of empowerment..
thus earning..the bonding..or marriages/..but as a mirage

creative/mothering..smothering
all..of its own..[bar-god..ie..obsessive
nurturing..of..meeting the desires..of his creations needs]..

so..much-is dependent..upon..the REALITY
as opposed to..our perceptions

explained more fully..at lambs isl thread
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6040#175231

Bit extreme, Tony Lavis... ? "If you sold to the highest bidders you could make a killing."

Which it would have to be, by definition.

But I suspect RandomGuy had in mind something more along the lines of Net Annual Value, but perhaps not limited to the twenty year pay back period.

(Hope you enjoyed the Fry and Laurie I linked over on 'bore me to tears'.)

Don't be so silly Paul, they are trying to buy the feminist vote, & the general women's vote. Nothing to do with trying to elevate good competent women, they are promoting the women with factional backing.

This means the worst of them are getting the nod, nothing to do with competence. The whole lot of them, male as well, advance the system player, the lurk worker, who knows how to buy political support gets on.

Just look at the number of them in the courts now, for working the system illegally, if you believe that rubbish.

Hasbeen, no danger of the misogynistic Liberals buying the general woman's vote, unless you count the $75,000 for the very rich baby makers.

lets reset..away from..the..money/material..motivations
and return..to..the sexist..stuff[that didnt sound right]..regardless

quoted..extracted..from
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6079&page=0

This variety of..•taste,[preferences/expressed]..
which is obvious...at but..a casual glance..turns out on examination..to/be..even •greater ..in reality..than/in appearance...

Men often differ..about
beauty and ugliness..of all kinds,..
even when they talk in..the same way..[culturaly]..
of what/kinds of things..are beautiful..and what kinds..of expressions..are ugly.

Every/'language..contains some words..*that imply blame,
others/that imply praise;..yet others..our inner feelings loves/hate/bias..em[rem]-motions]..and all..those who/use..that language/must agree..in how they..shall/apply them.

All the voices are/united..in applauding elegance,propriety, simplicity,the essence/or spirit..in writing;..and in blaming pomposity,/affectation,/coldness/and spurious glitter.[misscreations]

But..when critics..get down/to particular-details,..this
seeming unanimity..*vanishes..and they/we..turn-out..to have given very different..personalized/-or-\rationalized/meanings*..to their words...[as afflicted..by our works/and life experiences.

An explanation..of..the words/contextualized/meaning..usually ends the controversy,,,and the disputants..are surprised to learn that basically..that..*they agreed..in their/judgment..all the time when they were quarrelling.

·AN ASIDE..ON MORAL DIFFERENCES·

Those who base morality..on sentiment..more than on
reason..are inclined/to..apply the former observation..[about
differences/of taste/standard..or measure)..also into ethics, maintaining..that in all/questions.;.concerning conduct and life-styles..men really differ/more than they appear..to.

at first sight...It is indeed..obvious/that writers..of
all nations..and all-ages..of all sexes/races/status..agree in *applauding..justice,/humanity,/magnanimity,/prudence,/truthfulness,
grace/love/mercy..compassion/empathy..and..in*.blaming the opposite qualities.

Even poets and other
authors—whose works mainly
aim-to please..the imagination
are nevertheless..found to instill..the same moral_precepts
and to applaud/blame the same..virtues/vices...

This great unanimity is..usually credited to/the..influence of plain reason,..which in all these..cases maintains..similar sentiments..in all men,[but let woman..speak..for thyself.

full/context

Paul1405,
If those very rich baby makers, you speak of, spent five years in University to learn her career and five years paying tax on an income of $150,000 then the $75,000 for a year off to care for her child is virtually downsizing her career choice. You prefer to keep her working and paying taxes to fund unemployed girls to have babies in low economic conditions. Sounds to you promote politics of envy.

$75,000 for the very rich baby makers.
Paul1405,
You're forgetting those where grandma looks after the kids & therefore collects child support as well as the mother whos in the pub all day playing the pokies. On top of that Grandma & Grand dad & Mum & dad are all on unemployment plus when they need to fly somewhere the health department is paying for family escorts also. Plus if they happen to miss the flight another one is booked for the next day. There are very many of them. Then there are those in the public service who literally fly somewhere at least once a fortnight but no-one knows what they actually do. Of course all the taxpayer funded flights give the public servants Qantas frequent flyer Gold cards. Just let me know if you're interested in talking about rorts & corruption & standover tactics in the public service. It'd make an enlightening discussion. Ah, & not to forget the consultants appointed by the bureaucrats to cover for them. Gee, nearly forgot to mention that 50% of those mentioned are women.

Paul1405,
two days ? shouldn't take you that long to prove me "wrong" , should it ?

Indi, its not a matter of proving you wrong. What's there to prove? Your diatribe above is just that, a diatribe. You are a great percentage man. I recall you famously said "85% agree with me". So what is the percentage of mums in the pub etc?
You have a particular perception of welfare recipients, which no doubt has coloured your opinion of these people, along with your particular brand of conservatism and innate hatred of such people. Add to this your unwavering belief in the rightness of your thinking and nothing will change your mind.

Paul1405,
that's not an answer, that's a cheap unintelligent attempt to avoid the issue.