"Legal aid statistical data for the period 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2003 show that, nationally, the highest number of applications approved for grants of legal aid in Commonwealth matters was in the family law area. In addition, statistics for the same period show that, nationally, the highest number of applications approved for grants of legal aid by gender was for women."

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE to The Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee inquiry report Legal aid and access to justice
2004 and the Minority Report by Government Senators

I doubt much has changed, and when talking legal aid, it is mostly about family law and most of the money goes to the woman.

As for appointing more female judges so as to get more justice for women, I'm very suspect about that.

I would much rather see juries being used to get more justice into the justice system.

Guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as opposed to affirmative action and empowerment for women

From the article:"n 2009, major bilateral donors spent $4.2 billion on justice, of which just 5% specifically targeted women and girls."

And how much was specifically targetted at men and boys? Take your time... As long as you people continue to cherry-pick your "facts" your credibility will rank alongside the shills and shysters who sell dodgy solar panels and install dodgy insulation.

Sadly, this sort of polemic from those who earn their living from public money is all to common. A bit of intellectual honesty and a sense of the justice that the author is so fond of talking about would soon sort that out. Does anyone really think UN Women is an organisation devoted to anything but the promotion of people working for UN Women?

We need to get complete equality....less than 10% of the prison population is female. We need to fix up this obviously discriminatory practice!

@Antiseptic,

Five months, to the day. And you came back to have a whinge about the very articles I suspect your original complaint on OLO editorial policies was about. I smiling at the irony.

Welcome back anyway.

rstuart:"Five months, to the day"

Really? OCD much?

rstuart:"you came back to have a whinge about the very articles I suspect your original complaint on OLO editorial policies was about"

Not at all. My disagreement with Graham was on an entirely different subject and I'm big enough to say I over-reacted. However, I haven't missed posting much, since I've been rather busy doing some crisis management and restructuring in my business, which has suffered badly through the significant construction industry slump of the last 18 months or so. The problem seems to have passed for the moment, so I can spend a little time here.

Besides, there is no whinge, my disparaging friend, merely an observation of the self-serving nature of the UN Public Feminist Promotion group or whatever they call themselves today. As an Australian of either gender they're about as genuinely relevant to me as weather on alpha Centauri's 5th planet's third moon, but I suppose they do provide some employment for the otherwise unemployable, even if that's normally the job of the Australian Government.

Justice for women is sadly lacking in the developing world with most inequities stemming from entrenched cultural practices, overall economic disadvantage (men and women) economic dispowerment of women, lack of participation in work and other spheres of life.

The nature of Justice in the developed world is different and I am not sure I agree that more women judges in modern democracies necessarily equates with better justice for women. Certainly in the developing world women are not well represented in the legal system in any form.

The UN has a big job on it's hands if it seeks to change cultural norms around girls and early marriages and childbirth. Much of it is ingrained and access to education would be beneficial where there are not despotic regimes in place.

Recent AusAid data reveal that much of aid funding has been misspent and failed to deliver on essential services to those most in need. Sometimes Aid agencies inadvertently prop up corrupt regimes and overlooking issues of governance is one of the primary causes of injustice and poverty for men, women and children in the developing world.

The UN has no control over what happens in some of these countries such as the food provided for those in immigration centres in Africa are often purloined by locals who are also economically disadvantaged. The UN has no teeth, they do not guard or manage these centres in many cases.

I suspect attempts to address issues of justice will be met with similar obstacles but it does not mean that we should not try as long as the mechanisms used are relevant and appropriate to each unique environment.

@Antiseptic: I've been rather busy doing some crisis management and restructuring in my business, which has suffered badly through the significant construction industry slump

A common story. The neighbour next door was looking at winding up his construction related business at around same time. Like you he managed to pulled through it by the skin of his teeth. Where I work isn't construction related, but we have shed a few employees over the last 12 months too. It has been a difficult time for everyone, and from what I can make out still is. I'm glad to hear you are till alive and kicking.

@Antiseptic: My disagreement with Graham was on an entirely different subject

So what was it then?

I think the women in the developing countries would shine were it not for the idiotic money throwing of the western Governments.
If the West would supply these countries with goods & tools instead of money then I bet the women would be way more apt in distributing the goods than their men are presently doing with the cash.

There once was a pretty fish who lived in a stream.

A nearby farmer fished this pond till one day he snagged the pretty one. He was so fascinated with her, he released her & returned every day to feed her and talk to her.

Soon she could use her flippers to walk about the shore. They became great pals.

One day while waiting for the farmer the fish wondered about the 'BBD' (bigger better deal). She thought to herself "I'll take a walk up the river and see the world".

Pretty soon she forgot about the river and entered the world, used mega gigawatts of power and drove big 4WD's and had many children who used even more polluting energy sources than she did. She became a little bored. So She joined the Greens and protested about pollution and those awful men who mined coal and those that generated electricity. Now She was happy!

Then one day she crossed a bridge. She got out of her truck and peered into the river. Something strange stirred in her. The suddenly the rail gave way and she fell .. down .. down till she felt herself drowning. At the last moment she pulled her iphone, called legal aid and a man came & rescued her. He advised her to take the kindly farmer to court and sue him for half of everything he owned because he was responsible for her and thus her drowning.

After she won the case, the woman judge said this is a great day for JUSTICE and a great day for EQUAL rights for all women.

Are there any recorded instances of a female judge ruling against a woman for slapping/disciplining her child ?

Are you implying that the judge is bent, in favor of women. I would like to see more women in the political circle. Look at the absolute guts of Julia, This woman shows what a woman can do.

a597,
In my opinion you're in desperate & serious need of a dose of reality.
I didn't ask what a woman can do. Read my post again.
Women can do anything, females will do anything.

" In every region of the world, there are laws that discriminate against women. While 125 countries have laws in place to outlaw domestic violence, there are still 600 million women and girls in 66 countries who are denied this basic protection and 50 countries have a lower minimum age of marriage for women than for men, exposing women to the risks of early pregnancy and childbirth, the biggest killer of girls aged 15 to 19 in the developing world."

As everyone can see, this article mainly deals with the appalling conditions for women and girls in developing countries of the world who are denied basic human rights.

How can any caring human being who contributes to this site not agree that this remains a terrible injustice?

I feel just as strongly about this subject as the obviously intelligent young writer does, and I don't understand the under-current of anti-female sneers that oozes through some of the replies.

Suze, the article concentrates on women and girls, but never once mentions boys or men except as bad things that need to be put in their place.

This is why I reject it.

I am happy to discuss the plight of people suffering endemic disadvantage, but to people like this author, 50% of those people are simply not worth helping. they're just males, after all and everyone knows males live lives of privilege and indolence. Yeah, right...

The article reflects all that is wrong with Feminism and the self-serving self-promoters who profess it.

Hear Hear Antiseptic!

African Ubangi women put plates in their lips to ward off evil intentions from both men AND women in a very primitive African milieu.
Some tribes cut off one hand of young boys to deter slavery and abuse.

If all women in Africa did the plate lip they would be safe from exploitation from their own men and women and from opportunist foreigners, and yes Australians among them. But alas guided by western media they seek to live by the Vagina as do their western counterparts.

Africa has its own history and its own ways of dealing with that. The principle problem is overpopulation and much of the carnage and suffering in Africa has always been to do with western pressures to give up seemingly brutal customs that deter lifelong suffering.

The same is true in Australia and western countries but populations V resources has not yet reached the state where carnal influences prevail in orgies of suffering. But it will in due course. The film "Blood Diamond" says much about this!

For western women the answer is not plate lips but three questions remain:

1. If women detest men so much why do they so afraid of being left on the singles "shelf'. And why do they get drunk and dress provocatively to attract brute males to get off the "shelf". Only to tell the male after marriage that it was all a game and now he has to be their servant, without sex, or else she'll call legal aid and get her "HALF" of everything he ever earned.

2. If women are so placard waving concerned about environmental degradation why do they have more than one child (purely for POWER)when they know full well that its crooked because those extra children will pollute the planet more than any preceding generation driven by the same hormones that got them in the struggle they tell us they UNEQUALLY endure.

Continued,

Continuing,

3. Why do women continually say it takes two to make a baby and thus two should PAY & PAY for it when they KNOW damn well that men mostly just want to make love and:

You don't have to have baby to make love and
You don't have to make love to have a baby and
Every women instinctively knows how to abort a foetus if that need arose.

Women seeking EQUAL rights must understand, that pursuit can never have legitimacy unless you dress like normal decent people going out 'Friday nights'. And be honest with yourselves about coping with being left on the shelf. Or find a man you can tell you will only allow sex once a month after two years of marriage. Mind, being honest will bring lasting happiness but in most cases you will end on the "shelf".
But that is not the end of the world and its a necessary part of gender EQUALITY. Women take drugs and alcohol in great abundance to try and forget this very fact!

If you all still think its just MEN at the root of the gender equality problem, you don't have to get a plate lip, but for God's sake dress like an EQUAL and not like a fake Sex-Movie star!!

Women must ask: Do You want EQUALITY or a fast-ride to POWER at the expense of anyone or anything that gets in your David-Jones Boardroom way. I can tell you up front the interminable hand of justice will never allow you both. Gender

EQUALITY truly is a double edged sword and most women I talk to say they will put it in the too-hard basket and GO WITH THE FLOW. Even if that overpopulates the world and kills every other living thing on the planet by necessay pollution and habitat destruction to make room for thir "kids".

Here's an interesting snippet from the Australian today, which confirms what I noted over 3 years ago: participation of young men in higher education is at abysmally low levels, while that of women is at record highs.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/women-doing-ok-but-men-lagging-behind/story-e6frgcjx-1226093313435

"International education consultant Alan Olsen said about 603,000 domestic female students had obtained higher education qualifications between 2000 and 2009, almost 50 per cent more than the 404,000 completions by their male counterparts. His 10-year analysis, which tallied domestic completions against the corresponding population of 25 to 34-year-olds, revealed a 39.1 per cent attainment rate among women.

The rate for men was just 25.8 per cent."

and "The Australian Bureau of Statistics's attainment data, which includes skilled migrants and many international students as well as domestic graduates, also revealed a significant gender gap. Mr Olsen said just 29.9 per cent of 25 to 34-year-old men had higher education qualifications, compared with 38.5 per cent of women."

and ""It is surprising that we have waited so long to name males as an equity group. School success has been skewed in favour of females for some time," Professor Devlin said."

This is appalling and a real condemnation of the efforts of people like Ms McKay. It's even worse than it appears at first blush, because huge numbers of those women are not taking courses designed to lead to productive careers, but are taking soft courses designed to allow them to claim education supplement without having to do very much. The flood of social sector workers and the massive effort to puff up the sector is in part a result of that, while our productive industries are forced to import (male) workers from overseas to fill skilled positions.

How much longer can we afford to spend so much on so little?

What does UN women have to say about this appalling inequality, Ms McKay? A great result for women?

It seems even women in the developing world are not spared the usual rhetoric around gender despite glaring inequalities in those nations.

This article happens to be about women and unfortunately in those countries men wield a lot more power and have more choices than women in heavilty patriarchal societies. Do we just pretend these inequities do not exist. Women are often valued less than animals in some of these regions. While there is no doubt that men can be disadvantaged in these highly corrupt societies, the overwhelming inequities are with women. We are not talking about democratic societies but dictatorial regimes with often harsh punishments for those who step out of line.

The hatred that oozes out on these threads is really disturbing sometimes. KAEP's little fish story was a fiction to behold and completely ignored the 'little fish's' contribution to the household and relationship, probably working two jobs and coming home to do all the cooking and cleaning as well. Unbelievable.

Pelican:"This article happens to be about women"

Yes, they always are. That's the only game in town with any money available for the taking.

Pelican:"in those countries men wield a lot more power and have more choices than women in heavilty patriarchal societies"

They also die a lot younger, sometimes in their childhood as boy soldiers. They suffer the same diseases, they endure the same privations of diet, the same lack of opportunity in the vast majority of cases. If you cut them, they bleed just like women do, yet according to you and this author they're "privileged" and a "patriarchy". What malarkey. By all means feel sorry for people in underprivileged environments, but don't try to pretend that only women suffer.

What this article and you do is to try to compare the worst-off women with the best-off men. It's dishonest and self-serving and it's endemic in feminist discourse. As I said, I reject it utterly. If I were to compare myself to Gina Rinehart or Julia Gillard or Julie Bishop or Anna Bligh or Tanya Plibersek or Gail Kelly or... I'd be looking pretty underprivileged too.

Moreover, it has very little to do with Australia, although I'm sure the author makes a nice bit of coin out of her gig. It's surprising you fell for it though.