"have done nothing to improve the lot of women"

This is a very broad statement, and a tribute to the state of our universities how this statement can be made by a university lecturer.

I don't think there is any statement that can be believed from a university lecturer.

While universities continuously have their hand out for more and more money from the public, it would be interesting to know how much of that money comes from a family with a married husband and wife.

Most of the money I would think.

Let's not confuse philosophies here. Gay 'marriage' has absolutely nothing to do with women, won't make an skerrik of difference to what she does or doesn't do in the home.

Women get the bulk of the household chores and child rearing because historically they were the only ones who could feed the offspring so HAD to remain at home; they had less testosterone therefore less musculature and stamina and less able to run all day to catch the dinner. SOMEONE had to do the menial chores. Of course all this was then dyed in blood by religion and what is written in the various 'holy books' making it an edict from their Gods.

Nowadays it's different - many households have two working parents, it's only right that the chores and the childrearing should be shared. Religions should be seen for what they are - out of date instition that continues to promote patriarchal values that have no place in modern society. The 'holy books' should be seen for what THEY are - ancient misogynistic ramblings.

I was under the impression that in today's
society the feminine role, like the
masculine role is now more ambiguous, more
flexible, more subject to interpretation by
the individual. That resolving this kind of
ambiguity is part of the challenge of social
and cultural change. Uner the "old" system
everyone knew what their roles were, and most
people unquestioningly behaved as they were
supposed to. The system constrained people,
but if freed them from the need to make choices.

Today, there are fewer constraints, but the
individual now has the liberty (or the burden)
to choose his or her own path to self-fulfillment.

Today's society is individualistic and highly open
to change and experimentation, and men and women
can explore a wide variety of possible roles.
I'm not aware that gender restrictions limits
anyone today. From my experience and those of my
friends all possible options are open and equally
acceptable for both sexes. It's simply a question
of individual choice, and whatever works for the
people involved in the relationship.

Pathetic! Just because Gillard is non-religious, she might be OK with sexual perversion and such rubbish as gay marriage? Not surprising, for the normal among us, she is not OK with it.

The lesbians and homos cannot seem to get the silly belief out of their minds that religion is the only thing stopping people from pandering to perverts.

One does not have to be religious to be turned off by homosexuality and appalled at the suggestion that any mainstream politician would not feel exactly as Gillard apparently does about the absurdity of same sex ‘marriage’. Most people don’t give two hoots about what these poor, sad creatures do in the private lives; but recognising their shenanigans officially? Give us a break!

Marriage or de facto: who cares? But to equate either natural relationship with same-sex ones is ludicrous.

The 'unnatural' or 'abnormal' criticism doesn’t need to come from religion; it’s to do with anatomy and biology.

As for 'women doing it tough'. I did all of the washing, as usual today, and half the cleaning - including the bathroom. When I retired and my wife continued working, I did the lot, including cooking.

If women think they have it tough, don't blame society. Do something about it. Perhaps joining the army and being shot at on the front line might help you feel better.

Foxy

I see marriage in similar terms as you, another excellent and balanced post.

Leigh

The topic has nothing to do with sexual perversions, it is about gay marriage and acceptance of flexibility of roles within a relationship.

If you wish to discuss sexual perversion you are fully aware you can start a thread on this topic whenever you choose.

@ Leigh

Because there are heterosexuals who sell their body for money, then that makes you a pervert, oh and one does not have to be religious to hold that view. Now can you not see how your judgements on homosexuality is flawed with little logic. Because you judged me, its only fair that I judge you and make wild assumptions. I will repeat, Now can you not see how your judgements on homosexuality is flawed with little logic. Keep smiling.