grim:"as far as I am aware, I have argued consistently that all humans have a right to be treated as equals, regardless of their differences."

That's a motherhood statement. What does "treated as equals" mean? That's the question that has caused so much trouble.

"Motherhood statement"?
It was and is an Egalitarian statement; the fundamental belief of all egalitarians. Since when did become necessary to be a mother, to believe in equal rights for all?

"1.equal rights before the Law,
2. equal opportunity for everyone to achieve as much as they want or are capable of achieving,"(saving only where such achieving impinges on the rights and liberties of others)
"3. the right to be treated with the same respect, regardless of race, creed, colour, sex and physical or mental ability
4. an equal right to freedom from exploitation, abuse and curtailment of civil liberties...
Need I really go on?"

grim:"Since when did become necessary to be a mother, to believe in equal rights for all?"

from wiktionary: :a "feel good" platitude, usually by a politician, about a worthy concept that few people would disagree with, without any specified plans for realisation. For example, "Our country must contribute to world peace.""

grim:"Need I really go on?"

Yes, you really should. A series of axioms is all well and good, but they're just axioms, they don't actually give any indication about how best to achieve the noble goals or even what that might mean in practise, given the inherent inequalities that exist.

Until men share governance equitably with women with provision for women's legislatures enacting laws in agreement with long established men's legislatures men are solely and singularly responsible for the problems of governance including environmental degradation, warfare, poverty, greed and economic collapse because men control power at its source.

If men want to celebrate their achievements let them celebrate achieving equality in governance with women before anything else.

It's simply laughable and brings all men into disrepute that some men should complain about women in power and not include women equitably in governance men conceived and created in the first place.

Whistler I know that this is not the barrow you are pushinbg however I think we are past the point where any talk of lack of political power is relevant.

The levels of government for my address

Local Councillor - female
Mayor - female
State member - male
State premier - female
State governor - female
Federal member - male
Federal senator's - 3 female 9 male
Prime Minister - female
Governor General - female
Monarch - female

Antiseptic "if we have a genuinely rational democracy none of those things make it too hard." that would be great but I think we have a way to go yet.

R0bert

Antiseptic

What is politically possible depends on public opinion. Changing it can’t be done without expressing political opinion intended to persuade, in other words, polemics.

We must first identify what is wrong to change it.

The men of Australia have themselves to blame for voting on the underlying false beliefs that:
• women have a special right to consideration of their different reproductive interests – ‘motherhood statement’ – which deserves the full weight of policy. They have a right to equal treatment *and* equal outcomes (Grim’s fallacy). Despite equal treatment in law, any worse outcome for women proves unfair treatment.

• men’s different sexual and reproductive interests are illegitimate, despicable, ridiculous – especially their unequal interest in casual sex! The full weight of policy is justified to try to force men to sacrifice their different interests and values in women’s favour.

Let’s do a thought experiment. Imagine if the double standard was the other way around. Men’s interest in casual sex was supported by policy and taxes as self-evidently legitimate and deserving, while women were forced to provide or pay for it, as well as their own interest in motherhood. That would be the male equivalent of the current bias towards women.

The result is two unequal classes:
1. those who raise their own children
paid for by others
*and* get subsidized child care
*and* extra benefits.
This group overwhelmingly comprises women.
2. those who raise their own children
*and* pay for it themselves
*and* have to work harder to pay for the first class
*and* then after work have to do the shopping, cooking, vacuuming, laundry and so on in their spare time.

What’s fair or equal about that?