So many of these statistics overlook the fact that during the divorce, she often gets most of the assets.

And men work longer hours than women and earn their superannuation. The concept that women are being oppressed is feminist propaganda only, as women in Australia are perhaps the most pampered individuals on the planet, compared to what they do.

"Australian taxpayers contribute $27 billion a year in superannuation tax concessions". I wouldn't mind getting my share for my super fund. It has been going for 5 years, hasn't made any money, yet every year it pays thousands of dollars in tax. I suspect there are many others in the same position as me. Most Super accounts have either gone nowhere or lost money the last few years yet continue to pay tax. Your statement is just wrong!

There is a flaw in the Superannuation system but you haven't grasped it. The present system taxes contribution and profits but payouts are generally tax free. If the system worked the other way - no tax on contributions and profits but distributions classed as taxable income, it would mean low income people would pay little or no tax and high income people would have a disincentive to put too much into super.

Superannuation is just a tax effective savings scheme. The problem for many women is that they never earned enough to save in the first place. This should be rectified through Social Security rather than messing with Super.

I don't have the figures to back up my suspicions but the article did keep referencing "single, divorced or bereaved women"

It would be interesting to see a deeper breakdown of figures of overall wealth for the relevant grouping's. In a lot of cases divorced women will get at least half of the combined wealth (including superannuation) of the family, more than that if there are dependant kid's in her care (although that's likely to be well separated from retirement age) and sometimes impacted by potential for future earnings.

I'd assume that in most cases bereaved women would have ownership/control of most of the previously joint assets (especially so if a long term partner). Again no figures to back it up but I'm assuming that in most cases wills leave the majority of assets to a spouse first and then to children - some info on NSW law where there is no will at http://www.legalanswers.sl.nsw.gov.au/guides/wills_estates/inheritance.cfm

Still thinking about the impacts on long term single women, I'd expect that the dynamics limiting the amount of superannuation they have accrued compared to men would be different than the average. How does the superannuation average for long term single women compare to the same figure for those who've had a long term spouse?

I'm left with the impression of cherry picking to create an impression that may not reflect reality, work with some averages and extrapolate in way's that ignore inconvenient external factors.

I could be wrong but there do seem to be some big holes in the argument being made. Be interesting to see if anyone has access to a more suitable set of figures.

R0bert

There is much wrong with this article, including the points other posters have made – a woman who has been single all her life will have the same earnings opportunities as a man; one who is divorced or widowed is likely to have a share of his assets, even if not in the form of superannuation.

But ... there is an element of truth behind it, in particular in that our retirement income system is adequate for a person who has worked full time for most of their adult life, but most individuals (especially, but not only, women) are not in this situation. The politics of self-supporting vs pension-reliant retirees is likely to get ugly in coming years as baby boomers retire

Robert,
In general terms, if a woman gets married and stays married, she will be twice as wealthy on retirement age as an unmarried or divorced woman.

As well, the majority of women do not work until retirement age (65+), but retire much earlier.

The earnings of men are keeping them alive.

It is not women being oppressed by men, it is a system of men keeping many women alive, most of whom do not earn enough to ever pay their way.

Seems incontrovertible to me. Women have much less super than me, for a variety of reasons. The central reason is that if they have kids, they either have trouble re-entering the workforce or else enter at a lower position at which they exited ergo lower super.

There is a multitude of factors which hit both sexes and affect super balances but women's lower earnings across the lifespan is key. It's simply the case that at critical decision points in a womans life, such as getting married, having kids, etc, a woman may have considerably to lose re money in the bank for old age.

Cheryl the concept of womens average super being lower than men's isn't being disputed as far as I can tell. It's the authors extrapolation of that.

Broadly the arguments against the point the author (and others) seem to make about relative wealth leave out some significant factors
- women with partners generally have access to the benefits of combined wealth regardless of who's name the wealth happens to be in.
- divorced women generally get at least half of the combined wealth if the couple have been together for a significant period of time. Their own super may not be high but that's not the only factor.
- widowed women are likely to have the majority of the combined wealth that the couple had
- many of those points which impact on mothers are not factors for long term single women (other than long term single mothers).

The article would be much more significant if it was backed by figures relating more specifically to the group's mentioned and covered all relevant wealth. Basing a case on the average superannuation of women and extrapolating to specific groups does not help.

R0bert

Wattle, most PAYG tax payers don't contribute to super, their employers do instead.

Then, if you are still able to afford to contribute more, you are limited by age as to how much per year you can contribute, before kissing the tax incentive.

Perhaps high income earners should be taxed more, then, they should also get the perks of the health car card etc etc etc.

Cheryl,
Women having babies is not a great reason why women's superannuation is less. Many women make a choice of working at jobs that pay less wages, they tend to work fewer hours, and they tend to retire early.

I often go to work at 5.00 am in the morning. About 99% of the other drivers at that hour are male, and many are young and not married and have no children. However they tend to be skilled workers going to higher paid jobs, and they may be working 10 to 12 hour days, 6 days a week.

That is how they build up their superannuation.

rehctub,
The employees pay superanuation, the employers simply take it out of their wages.

If the superanuation contribution levy goes up (as is planed), it simply means that the next pay rise isn't so high.

The employers don't grow the money on a magic tree.

If we regard superannuation from the perspective of what an individual employee deserves, then occupational super as it is currently structured may look ok. But most people would need a lifetime of full-time work to accumulate enough to maintain a lifestyle in retirement proportionate to their lifestyle while earning. The trouble is, most people nowadays don’t have that working pattern.

This ABS publication (http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/C4C9530A2947002ACA25796400145D56/$File/62380_july%202010%20to%20june%202011.pdf) has some fascinating data on retirement, including:

- More than a quarter of men and more than half of women retire before age 55
- Most retirees are working part-time before they retire
- Among male retirees, the prevalent main source of personal income after retirement is a government pension (53% of retirees), with superannuation the main income source for just 27%
- Some 44% of women report partner’s income as their main source of funds to meet living costs in retirement. 39% of women had no independent source of personal income (pension, super or other)

Even allowing that compulsory super should give more people more super in future, vast swathes of the population will be relying on the pension for most if not all retirement income. That means pensions will be a growing burden on taxpayers as baby boomers retire, and pension levels will have to stay low. This is what compulsory super was supposed to avoid.

It may be the harsh reality that people who don’t earn, can’t save. But the current system makes it hard for many people who CAN save to provide towards their own retirements. The self-employed don’t have to pay super. People not in the labour force have only limited access to favourably taxed occupational super accounts.

Add to this the cruellest con of all. Unless you have lots of super and are self-supporting, there is a fierce poverty trap for those with superannuation savings. Taking into account taxes and the withdrawal of benefits, each extra dollar of super saving yields only a few cents net extra income in retirement.

The super system was badly designed, and many hapless baby boomers anticipating a comfortable retirement are in for a shock.

The simple answer is women have less retirement income because they work less, retire earlier and live longer.

One way to fix the problem would be for women to retire 5 years later than men. However, I suspect the multitude of taxpayer funded women's groups will convince us that men who work longer, harder and in more dangerous positions only to die younger should be responsible.

I'm sure we'll do anything except ask women to take responsibility for themselves.

Wow, lifestyles of the rich & famous.

My mother lived as a single pensioner, with virtually no support than the pension, for 24 years.

For most of it she lived in a self contained granny flat she bought herself, installed on my property. This was rent free, but she funded all living costs, including power, phone etc, from her pension. It would only have cost $30,00 a week more to sight the thing in a trailer park.

In the last 3 years, [from when she was 96], due to her prudish son not being able to handle the job, she funded in home help with bathing, & cleaning, government subsidised at $96 per week.

She did not go without, but during that time she squirreled away over $50,000 out of that pension, into her bank account.

I am retired, with no debts, & what I call my hump. That's a home in good repair, 3 sports cars, almost as old as me, but simple tastes. I am living the life of Riley on less than $38,000 a year, & a health care card. I really can't see how one could actually need more.

My only future problem is maintenance. I hope the rain water tanks will last a few more years, before I have to replace them. Provided I can keep up with that, what more could one want?

Last time I checked, women were spending around 300 million $ a year
on Botox. I have no idea of the cost of all those silicone breast
implants, even more shoes and clothes etc.

The point is that its well within the financial capacity of women
to change their priorities and put away a bit more for their
retirement, if they choose to do so, as the evidence shows.

What is certainly becoming clear is that women are far better
at complaining and lobbying then are men, who simply get on with
it.

So Vanna, if and when this increase comes in for super, are you then suggesting a wage freeze for that year?
that will be the real test to put this argument to bed.

As Yabby says, women spend lots more than men on NON ESSENTIALS. Men's haircut, $20, womens, more like $100.

That's just the beginning.

Hasbeen,
How come you were able to retire with so much money. Didn’t you get divorced?

Yabby,
Not only are women spending big on Botox, Australian women have a higher rate of plastic surgery than US women.

They need all that because they are “carers”.

So men have to work longer and longer hours to pay women more money so they can retire in style, after a lifetime of reading women’s magazines, gettng their hair done, shopping for that new look, watching day time TV, gossiping on the phone, getting their divorces, and whinging.

The essence of the modern woman.

Rehctub,
Superannuation is often a part of a salary package, and a salary is not a free gift from the employer.

If the superannuation levy increases from 9% to 12%, and company profits do not increase because of this (unlikely), then the employer simply reduces the next pay increase (most likely).

Vanna that was way back in the 70s, when she shot through while I was in PNG. She got my Ozzie assets, but no kids so no maintenance.

When I came back I kept buying deep water waterfront properties in out of the way areas, at just the right time, to build myself a new yacht. One I payed $7500 for brought $280,000 just 3 or 4 years later. Built simple but nice weekenders on a couple of them too.

Each time I found a better one I bought it, for peanuts at the time. Then those areas were "found" & they all appreciated like there was no tomorrow. As an old mate says, it's no good getting old, if you don't get lucky, & I did.

It's not all that much money, but then, as I was saying, you don't need all that much to live well, if your kids have gone, & you're debt free.

My EX got all of my accrued Super(and naturally kept all her own) along with 80% of our combined assets in the false DV allegation fueled divorce that she initiated . At 41 years of age I had to start all over again, along with paying 11 years of inflated "mothers lifestyle support" aka CSA payments, which saw her receive regular tax free gratuities ( I had to earn $50,000 PA to pay her the approx $25,000 she received in the fist year post divorce.) I suspect she will do just fine in retirement, she can retire younger and has a greater life expectancy to enjoy the fruits of her lies and deception.

So any divorced women who is not well catered for in retirement can only blame herself for inadequately screwing her ex, or inadequately providing for herself post divorce .

Single women, your in the same boat as single blokes - you make the choices you live with the consequences, you know equality!

Widows ? sorry ladies same same, you should have insured your ATM husband, how inconsiderate of him to die, before you had a chance to screw him in divorce.

Of course all men will retire sitting pretty, nope no men live in poverty post retirement, so we don't need to discuss them and factor them into to the debate. We just need to keep widening the gender divide by focusing only on the well-being of women. Thanks feminism for the wonderful effect you are having on our society.

Some fine women hating quotes here - almost freudian. Thank God the women involved with some of these blokes are free of them.

Now back to the subject. Australia's productive output rose by one full percentage point in the 70s and 80s, in large part to the rise of women in the workforce. For many, their thanks will be the old age pension, which is something the introduction of the Superannuation Guarantee was trying to avoid. More super saved adds ballast against offshore recessionary fall out.

Current and future generations of women will do much better as they are better educated and will have a longer working span to make contributions of 12 percent or maybe even 15 per cent.

I think the future will be a scary place for some of the male posters here. Girls are already soaring in academic prowess at school and universities. They will earn more than men and the silly snide comments about women who 'can't do this' and 'can't do that' by the old guard will ensure their blood stock withers on the vine. Their kind will be breed out by discerning women.

If the superannuation levy increases from 9% to 12%, and company profits do not increase because of this (unlikely), then the employer simply reduces the next pay increase (most likely).

No Vanna, they reduce staff,either that or they invest in tech that replaces staff.

Trust me, this next super increase will come with dire consequences for employees.

Just you wait and see.

Cheryl
Would you like to point to the statistics that show exactly how much women are earning compared to men.

Women in universities outnumber men in a few subject areas, namely in medicine (nursing) and social science. Men outnumber women in just about every other area, and in the areas that pay high wages.

Almost 50% of female graduates never earn enough in their lifetime to pay for their university fees, a major reason for the billions in HECS debt the country has accrued.

Men pay about 70% of personal income tax, and I do believe women should be more than grateful for that.

Unfortunately, universities do seem very keen on programming women to be anti-male, and in expecting men to give them more and more for doing less and less in time.

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/maybe-women-are-just-bad-at-asking-for-a-higher-salary/

Look at the updat3e about halfway down the original pieces and then have a look at what the reader Tim posted.

Here you go Vanna.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap_in_Australia

Cheryl,
Exactly.

"in 2008 females made up 55 per cent of students enrolled in Australian tertiary institutions.[8]."

What such propaganda rarely mentions is that female university students are concentrated in a few subject areas, and most will become government employees on middle or lower wages.

One could argue that they should be paid more, but where will the money come from?

It will have to come from the taxpayer, and the vast majority of personnal income tax is already being by men.

I believe too many men are overlooking the fact that most of what they earn eventually goes to someone else, but if that money is going to someone who wants to work only a few hours a week and retire on a government pension, then they should think more about the matter.

Men in Australia are being sucked in big time.

Oh please Cheryl the good old feminist myth of the gender "pay gap" rears its ugly head again.

Yep Julia Gillard earns a lot more then the check out chick at the local Wollworhths, are we lamenting this pay gap? Why not, all the determinants of it are exactly the same as the pay gap between any individual male and female ( and heck Julia will be much better provided for in retirement as well thanks to the obscenely lucrative superannuation Politicians have legislated for themselves, whilst showing precious little regard for their constituents plights)

The statistical gap between women's and men's earnings overall simply reflects the summed total of differences based on individual men and women choices. Nowadays women have all the same choices men have, and it is their choices that determine their ultimate financial position, not some mythical systemic discrimination against women.

Women also still have the choice of attracting a partner/spouse who will provide for them, and whilst some men may end up in a position of being provided for by a female breadwinner, it remains a rarity, and certainly could not be counted upon

Vanna, what in the heck are you talking about re uni enrolments? Men and the tax base?

It's a simple proposition. Women earn less for numerous reasons which flows across the life span and most measurably in less super. Reread the article.

*and it is their choices that determine their ultimate financial position,*

Exactly, that kind of sums it up for all of us, men and women.

Women are simply far more talented at complaining, then are
men.

Cheryl, it's also a fairly simple proposition that the average does not always equate to specifics. In this case there is good reason to think that the financial situation of most of the women in the groups mentioned, especially divorced and bereaved women is not reflective of the average superannuation balance and may be substantially better than suggested.

It's also fairly clear that for most women still with long term partners the joint financial situation is more relevant.

The only group where the arguments put forward make much sense is long term single parents and in that case the averages may overstate their position.

For the article to have any real meaning it would have to back it's arguments with more specific details on the overall financial situation of the mentioned groupings.

R0bert

Cheryl,

Increasing the superannuation levy being paid by employers is going to cost the employees eventually, and they will most likely see a decrease in their next pay rise, or no pay rise at all.

As for your previous comments about female university graduates, it is obvious that universities are heavily corrupted by feminists, and I do wish universities or their advocates would tell the truth for once.

THE TRUTH IS: Female university students outnumber male students in a few areas (mainly nursing and teaching), but most female university graduates will not earn high wages, and almost 50% will not earn enough in their lifetime to ever repay their HECS fees, and this situation is unlikely to change in the long term, which means that their debts will have to be paid for by the taxpayer eventually, most of whom are men.

If only universities would tell the truth.

Vanna,

Anyone who manages to get in the phrase 'women hating' and freudian' in the first sentences of her reply is surely one of those 'university women' you were talking about. I suspect a first year student, but standards are falling so rapidly who knows?

Trying to convince women like Cheryl that men are people too is a waste of time. Their sense of entitlement runs so deep and their sense of female privilege so strong that whatever men do they will never be pleased. We should stop trying. These women are incapable of fairness. They only see men as useful for changing lightbulbs and hanging pictures anyway.

Dane

Look at some of the comments on this thread (including your own). These surely qualify as woman hating:

“I'm sure we'll do anything except ask women to take responsibility for themselves”
“women are far better at complaining and lobbying then are men”
“women spend lots more than men on NON ESSENTIALS”
“So men have to work longer and longer hours to pay women more money so they can retire in style, after a lifetime of reading women’s magazines, getting their hair done, shopping for that new look, watching day time TV, gossiping on the phone, getting their divorces, and whinging.”
“any divorced women who is not well catered for in retirement can only blame herself for inadequately screwing her ex”

Rhian,

'women hating' is such a hollow phrase nowadays. It's simply a rhetorical device used to shift focus from facts (like women live longer, healthier lives while working less and retiring earlier) to an emotional straw man.

You obviously feel that women are so much more important than men that they should be able to live longer, healthier lives and receive more money for less work. I can't blame you alone. Many women have this sense of entitlement. Men's mistake was to believe that when women said they wanted equality that you actually wanted equality. Silly us. We didn't consider how women communicate differently to men. We now realise that when men are in charge it's called 'patriarchy' but when women are in charge it's called 'equality'. It was a bit naive on our part.

We used to call that sort of analysis 'rational' but if under our new feminised 'newspeak' that is called 'women hating' then I really don't care.

Rhian,
I tend to think that increasing the superannuation levy will result in a loss for someone, and the most likely people who are going to lose will be male workers.

The fact that increasing the levy has been backed by various feminists immediately raises suspicions.

I also believe that men should start and think about how much money they earn that eventually goes to a woman somewhere.

As with handing over the paypacket, giving her the credit card, paying her child support, paying her most of the assets at divorce time, or paying out money in taxes that so often seem to end up in the hands of women somewhere.

Women would have to be remarkable creatures to be receiving so much, and there is a question of just what do they do to be given so much money without working for it.

Rehctub

I was intrigued by your comments about non-essentials, so went looking for data. I couldn’t find anything from Australia, but this survey from the UK found that:

“Women spent more than men on food, women's and children's clothes, child care and educational courses. Men spent more than women on alcohol, motor vehicles, repairs to the house, meals out, gambling and holidays. The balance between men and women in spending was more even when it came to household goods, medical and dental expenses, tobacco and recreation. Rather surprisingly, perhaps, women were responsible for two fifths of the amount spent on men's clothes “

http://www.radstats.org.uk/no075/pahl.htm

Seems to me there’s a mix of essentials and non essentials in both lists, it’s just that the non-essentials bought by men are not the same as those bought by women (or do you see alcohol and gambling as “essential”?)

Dane, you say:

“You obviously feel that women are so much more important than men that they should be able to live longer, healthier lives and receive more money for less work”

Rubbish.

Your caricature of radical feminism bears little resemblance to anything Cheryl or I have posted.

I challenge you to find anything I have said in this or any other forum that suggests that I think women are more important than men (or vice versa), or that women should be “in charge”. My earlier posts in this thread addressed the gap between the individual effects of super and its economy-wide effects, emphasising in particular that the latter are not what we were led to expect. My more recent one merely quoted extracts from other posters' comments many, of which are patently bigoted.

Yes, women live longer (on average) than men. I know no-one who thinks this “should” be the case. It seems to be mainly biologically determined (http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/1998/10.01/WhyWomenLiveLon.html). If there are things we could do to raise men’s life expectancy and close the gender gap, I’d be all for it.

Women don’t get more money for less work. Even allowing for men’s longer working hours and employment continuity, women on average get lower hourly pay than men, as the link Cheryl posted to shows. And women are more likely than men to do unpaid work, whether in the home, in charities or in family businesses. Personally, I don't get too upset by this - there are many reasons for it, of which discrimination is probably a relatively minor contributor. But it does have flow-on consequences in areas like retirement income.

Vanna,

You sound to have had some bitter experiences, but most women do not end up divorced.

I agreed with your earlier point that more superannuation probably means less take home pay (I’d add, and/or less employment). It’s all part of remuneration, and if labour costs increase employers will either employ fewer people or squeeze other parts of the wage bill.

Rhian,
My experience with the modern woman are probably no different to most other men, but I am prepared to question what we are told to believe.

And that includes questioning what we are being told to believe about women.

But as a hint, look at various studies that investigate women's happiness, or investigate what makes them happy.

I haven't seen a study yet where women rate paid employment as the primary thing that makes them happy. In fact, most studies find that women rate paid employment as one of the least likely things to make them happy or give them satisfaction.

So they get men to do most of the paid employment and bring in most of the money, and then they manipulate men to give them that money.

Seems to all fall into place doesn't it.

*“women are far better at complaining and lobbying then are men”*

Err hang on, Rhian. I point out a mere obvious fact, you classify
it as "woman hating".

Now lets look at some of the evidence. How many threads for
instance, appear on OLO, complaining about the raw deal that men
get, in comparison to threads complaining about the raw deal that
women get?

We frankly have a mountain of female lobbyists posting their
propaganda on a regular basis. Some time ago I did challenge one
of these lobbyists, who in the end admitted that her campaign was
not about fairness at all, but about promoting her cause, as is the
case with lobbyists.

Next point, how many men complain about being nagged to death by the
wife? They do it quietly, under their breath, to their mates.
Nagging is clearly a female talent, ask most married blokes. Take
out the rubbish, put the toilet seat down, etc. etc.

If housework was done to most mens standards, life would be quite simple.
I've never had a man enter my house and freak out over a mere spider
web. Not so for women!

Perhaps you should apologise for your ridiculous assumption and
apply some objective reasoning to the claim. Either it has merit
or it does not

Rhian,

You make my point about why men shouldn't try to please feminists very well.

You even linked to a website called 'radstats'! Was that a joke? Am I really suppose to take statistics produced by a group who call themselves 'radical statistics' seriously? what does it say about you that you take such advocacy seriously?

'And women are more likely than men to do unpaid work, whether in the home, in charities or in family businesses. Personally, I don't get too upset by this - there are many reasons for it, of which discrimination is probably a relatively minor contributor. But it does have flow-on consequences in areas like retirement income'

So women decide to work less hours, in jobs they enjoy in comparison with men who work longer hours in jobs that meet their families financial needs (i.e. they may hate their job but do it because someone has to be responsible) but it is women hating to point this out and ask women to take responsibilty for themselves? And you can't see where your sense of entitlement comes from?

You consumerism remark is just as funny. Next you'll be telling me you're sick of walking into department stores and seeing floors and floors of mens consmetics, shoes, and clothing while poor women only get a quarter of floor 5 or something. Your apparently genuine belief that women don't spend more than men betrays how blinded by ideology you are.

Here's a link to Steffi Graff receiving a marriage proposal. This is from the real world not some ideologically driven man hating journal. Note her reply.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYxlKbe0WZY

Yabby

Yabbly

You say it is a “mere obvious fact” that women are "better at" complaining . Its not “obvious” to me.

If there are more threads complaining about women’s lot than men’s, there are two possible explanations:

1. Women are more inclined to complain than men
2. Women have more to complain about than men

I'm inclined to conclude the latter.

Anyway, most posters here (and many others that touch on gender inequality, in my observation), are complaining about the raw deal that men get, not women. Cheryl and I have pointed out that women don’t earn as much as men or get as much super, but both of us say there are reasons for that.

Most importantly, We have not made categorical statements about men and their motives, behaviour and shared flaws in the way that you and other hostile posters have about women.

I have good male friend who is phobic about spiders and indeed freaks out about their webs, let alone the beasts themselves. And if you reckon nagging is a uniquely female talent, let me introduce you to my husband!

My point is, the root of bigotry is to make negative generalisations about a group of people and use that to draw conclusions about individual members of that group in order to dismiss them or treat them less favourably. The inference of these posts is that women don’t have enough to retire on because they spend their money on botox, they have plenty of money because they gouge their male ex-partners, or their complaints can be dismissed are merely characteristic self-serving whinging.

All provide an excuse to play the (wo)man, not the ball.

Dane
Combining paid and unpaid work, women work the hours as men (http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4153.02006?OpenDocument). Housework and child care contribute to household wellbeing no less than paid work, and is often grindingly dull.

I didn’t say women spend less than men. Women do most of the household shopping, for example. The point is whether women spend more on non-essentials. Men spend more on gambling and alcohol, women on makeup and hairdos. So what?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-419040/Women-talk-times-men-says-study.html

Rhian, seems to me that you are not a very good observer of human
behaviour. Women in general, (there are always exceptions) talk
more then men and part of being female is telling others how you
feel. Part of all that talking is complaining. Many a man has done
what men do, ie suggest solutions to their many complaints and
problems. Only to have it made plain, they don't want solutions
but only somebody to listen to their many grievances. Its a well
known girl thing. (yes, there are always exceptions)

This article was yet another complaint, about women earning less
then men. Did anyone point out that they might just be poorer
negotiators then men? I take note of what successfull women have
to say and they don't mention glass ceilings, but of course its a
great excuse for some women, who refuse to accept their own failings.

*2. Women have more to complain about than men
I'm inclined to conclude the latter.*

Well hang on. In the real world, men earn most of the money. Women
get most of it in the divorce courts. Women call the shots in bed.
Many a hen pecked husband agrees to she who must be obeyed, just
to get a bit of sex occasionally. The housework must be done to
her standards, its her kitchen, her house, the toilet seat must be
down for her, not up for him. etc.

Fact is that on OLO we get these regular "Poor women" threads, which
kind of make my point for me. As some of us who are men, post on
OLO anyhow, pointing out that its more feminist propaganda is quite
reasonable, IMHO.

That does not mean that somebody like me hates women. Its just that
I am aware of the cushy deal that we have given them, by swinging
the pendulum well past any middle point of what is fair and just.

rhian,

If women earned their own money and spent their own money I would absolutely agree with your 'so what'. But the problem the men here are complaining about is that women work less than men because they choose to and then complain about having less super. The implication being that they should get some sort of preferential treatment where they work less for more money.

The men here are being accused of women hating because they point out that our society is already geared to transfer wealth from men to women.

It's also most probably true that men spend more on alcohol and gambling than women (although an awful lot of women enjoy a wine) but the fact is women have less super than men. So however much men spend on alcohol and gambling it is not enough to reduce their savings to the level of women's 'lifestyle' choices (on average).

Yabby,
Yes I would agree with that.

Women (and by that I mean the majority of women) have to whinge and whine to get at the money that is mostly earnt by men.

And they have to make men look guilty of something or other, so men feel obliged to give them money.

And we also get a plethora of articles that make women looked oppressed and suppressed, so everyone thinks they should get more money.

But whether or not they deserve more money is another matter.

I think that the modern women really doesn't deserve much at all simply by being the modern woman.

'hen pecked husband', 'whining women', 'nagging women', one can almost see 1950s Australia from some of the previous posts - where women sat out in the car in the car park and drank because they we're allowed in the hotel if there wasn't a saloon. Astounding stuff. Hang on to those prejudices fellas. They're so endearing. Do your knuckles scape on the ground when you walk?

Re super, if you take as your first principle that women earn less on average over the life span than men and that events such as doing unpaid work as per a housewife are the norm (or dependent on another earner's salary), then it's not only reasonable, but correct to infer that women per se will have less superannuation.

Will all women have less superannuation than men? No. That is because we can't list every single case but if you have a look at mature age earnings from 55-64, super payouts by gender in the 55-64 cohort, you will see that a social problem emerging and it is the rise of older women who are divorced or caring for a sick husband or family.

Rhian "My point is, the root of bigotry is to make negative generalisations about a group of people and use that to draw conclusions about individual members of that group in order to dismiss them or treat them less favourably. "

But this is exactly how most feminist theory works. Isolate a couple of example of misogyny, then infer from the particular to the universal.

You can't complain about men engaging in such an approach to the social sciences when feminists do the same.

Cheryl
"older women who are divorced or caring for a sick husband or family."

Sounds like something straight from a feminist’s manual.

Times have changed.

About ¼ of women don’t have children anymore, a meal can be cooked in 10-2- minutes, housework is minimal with automatic dishwashers, automatic washing machines etc, groceries can be ordered over the internet, and delivered for less cost than driving to the supermarket.

More women are also becoming feminist indoctrinated and not getting married.

So it is very much looking like many women simply don’t earn enough.

And the reason: Many women don’t like paid work, and prefer that men do it.

However I’m sure men will be called upon to pay for such women some way or another.

"it is the rise of older women who are divorced or caring for a sick husband or family"

Or in the case of some people I know an older man caring for an ill wife.

Aristocrat makes a very good point, the heart of feminist theory is "negative generalisations about a group of people and use that to draw conclusions about individual members of that group in order to dismiss them or treat them less favourably"

A view of the world that highlights what is convenient and ignores what is inconvenient in order to create a dialogue of "oppression" and male privilege while ignoring context and many of the realities of peoples lives.

It would also be viable to construct a view of history based on those who have had the main child nurturing role through much of history perpetuating social stereotypes that pressured males into taking the most dangerous (other than childbirth which could not be passed on) and unpleasant roles and enforced a variety of symbols of submission upon males (standing when a woman enters the room etc) whild allowing token claims of power rarely reflected in actual homes.

Feminism is a revision following the changes which came following the industrial revolution to take some of the benefits accrued from that. Such a view of history would also need to ignore much context and history but in terms of western culture is no less valid than feminist views based around male oppression of women.

In reality culture has been a mix of practical necessities of periods taken past their use by date and perpetuated by both genders.

R0bert

*where women sat out in the car in the car park and drank because they we're allowed in the hotel if there wasn't a saloon*

Gawd Cheryl, thats nearly as bad as the "kiddies down the mine"
argument which some desperate posters sometimes try on. We are
discussing here and now, not history.

Reread the article. Its all about "woe is poor women", totally
ignoring the fact that most the points could apply to men too.

Fact is, on average women live longer then men, so they will land
up with most of the loot when men die. Just check out the cruise
ships full of loaded widows.

Super is but one income stream for old age. Most Australians still
land up owning a house. If the pension and their super is not enough
for them to live on, people are free to sell their homes and live out
their last days in comfort. The next generation will already inherit
more then any other generation before them, its not compulsory to
scrimp and save just for their benefit.

Yet that is what some oldies do. Spending the kids inheritance is
quite legal

Yabby

Women don’t talk more than men; that study is discredited:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=women-talk-more-than-men

I haven’t complained about glass ceilings or women’s lower average earnings or even toilet seats. Compare posts and you’ll see many of the male contributors have complaining about the opposite sex; I have not (except a poor joke about my husband).

Your language seems to me to presume male power and entitlement. “We” (men) have “given” (because it’s in your gift) “them” (women) a “cushy deal”.

Couples agree who does paid employment, housework, childcare, etc. Often women do more unpaid work, and men more paid work. If that partnership breaks down, then surely the women is entitled to a share of the assets accumulated jointly – her unpaid work contributed no less his paid work. And if there are children, and if she is the primary carer of those children, then it’s fair that she should get more than half, at least until the kids are self-sufficient. Both parents are responsible for their children.

Dane
Do you think that exchange with Steffi Graff was a “real” marriage proposal, or her reply a serious answer to one?

The data cited in the article you disparage are from the UK household survey.

If a man and woman share a household and share the work needed to run it then they should share its resources – just because the man earns more income does not mean the woman has no right to spend some of it.

You may regard women raising children rather than working full time as a “lifestyle choice”. But if it’s a choice entered willingly by both parents, they should share responsibility for the consequences, including ensuring that there is enough saved to support both in retirement. That mutual responsibility extends to a fair share of assets in the event the relationship fails.

Aristocrat
I agree, there is a strand of radical feminism that demonises and stereotypes men, and is no less bigoted than misogyny. But in this thread, all of the negative gender stereotypes and sweeping generalisations I can see are made by men about women

Rhian:"Your language seems to me to presume male power and entitlement. “We” (men) have “given” (because it’s in your gift) “them” (women) a “cushy deal”. "

Well, considering that Feminist historical revisionism places men in sole charge of everything, then yes, it IS "within our ift" and given that women have taken for granted the man's role as provider, then it's still within our gift.

You see, you can't have it both ways: if you want an easy ride, then it has to be provided by someone else's effort. If what you want is genuine equality, which seems unlikely in light of the rhetorical offerings to date, then there's no easy ride to be had.

Unfortunately, many feminists spruik equality while demanding that easy ride, demonstrating a basic sense of entitlement to the fruits of other's labour that no amount of rhetoric will erase.

It's a childish ideology, really.

*I haven’t complained about glass ceilings or women’s lower average earnings or even toilet seats*

Yes Rhian, but one swallow does not make a summer. Your perspective
would be that of a woman, not women in more general.

There is nothing wrong with generalisations. Like we know that
men are taller then women, on average. But only on average.
I would have thought it was bleeding obvious that there will be
exceptions to the rule.

*Compare posts and you’ll see many of the male contributors have complaining about the opposite sex *

Well yes, after yet another " Woe is we poor women" thread is published. Its about time that men started standing up for
themselves, after all that intense feminista lobbying, swinging the
pendulum all in womens favour.

*her unpaid work contributed no less his paid work*

That depends on what he did and what assets he had, before they
got married. As this weekend's AFR points out, those pre nups are
not worth the paper that they are written on.

Antiseptic

What have I said that makes you think I want an “easy ride”? I have worked full time since leaving university, earn more than enough to support my spending, expect to have saved enough to live on in retirement and have never taken a government handout or relied on someone else as “provider” (except as a child). I have been fortunate; others are less so. So I don’t mind some of my taxes paying for others’ retirement incomes when they have not been able to save for themselves, especially if it’s because they have done something socially useful like raising children instead of earning money (not that earning money is a bad thing).

Yabby

I may not be a typical woman and have not claimed to speak on behalf of women in general. I don’t know many women (or men) who are typical.

I agree generalisations can be harmless or even useful, as long as they are accurate (men are indeed taller on average than women, but women don’t actually talk more than men), fair (most of the generalisations here are unsubstantiated and derogatory, some positively vicious) and not used to belittle or dismiss individuals because of their membership of a particular group.

Negative stereotypes are the stock in trade of bigotry, whether targets are labelled by race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, lifestyle, ideology or anything else. Here I’ll again agree with Aristocrat, that negative stereotypes of men are used by some radical feminists in much the same way negative stereotypes of women are used by posters here. I disagree with both.

Rhian, the whole point of the article is that women should be entitled to more super simply because some members of the gender don't have much. I'm a man and I have none at all worth speaking of, thanks to years of self-employment. How do you feel about your taxes going to support me in my retirement? I could have been drawing on them for the past 12 years instead of working, after all.

I have no problem at all in supporting people who can't support themselves, but I have a great aversion to being forced to contribute to the lifestyle decisions of those who are capable of self-support. that includes a significant portion of mothers who have chosen not to work after initiating a separation from their children's father.

My point, however, was more simple: you can't have two bob each way. Either men are "patriarchs" and all the benefits that women have experenced as a result of feminism are gifts from men, or men are simply people just like women. If we are "patriarchs" then a bit of thanks is in order. If we're just people, then I reckon an apology is due to all the men that have been demonised by feminist rhetoric or have missed opportunities as a result of "affirmative action".

Antiseptic
If you are self-employed you could have saved towards your retirement; people without earned income don’t get that choice.

As I said in my first post, the problem is that the super system was sold as a solution to the challenge of supporting the baby boomers in retirement, but it was never going to deliver that. It presumes an employment pattern that is not typical for many women or, increasingly, for men either. There is no complete solution to this, but a more flexible system which allows people not in the workforce to contribute to super (and indeed the self-employed), and measures to address the poverty trap caused by withdrawal of benefits because of super, and a more progressive tax regime, might help.

I suspect I’ll wait as long for an apology from those who have demonised me with misogynist rhetoric, as you will from those who demonised you with feminist rhetoric. Please note, however, that I am not one of the latter

*but women don’t actually talk more than men*

Well Rhian, IMHo that one is still up for debate. As it happens
the article I referenced to and the claims were both made by women.

Various studies have been done, but in this case you have to examine
some of the claims made by Louann Bridendine, the neurologist who
wrote "The Female Brain".

As it happens, I have the book on my Ipad and she essentially
examines how hormones affect behaviour. As its not PC, its ruffled
many feathers. You should read it.

The study which you referenced, was a trial done amongst a few
university students, so that does not make it gospel. An interesting
study would be to see who sends more text messages, teenage girls
or boys.

Rhian, the problem for self-employed people is that their super comes directly out of their income, it's not an extra that someone else has to provide as it is for wage and salary earners. The choice to set aside money for super is therefore often an option competing with operational needs of the business. Moreover, for many small business people their "super" is the capital gain embodied in their business, or perhaps the continuing income stream in retirement.

As I've closed my business due to the parlous business conditions over the past 2 years and as I haven't actually made sufficient income to pay rent for the past 12 months, I'd be fascinated to find out your magic formula for me to have put super aside. You're right to say that I made a choice prior to that to invest my funds in the business rather than in someone else's business via super. Now that investment has been shown to yield a lower return, isn't it up to those more fortunate to support me in my retirement? If not, why is it up to someone else to support women who chose not to work?

In the past 5 years many billions of dollar have been spent on subsidies aimed at women of all stripes, from parental leave schemes, baby bonuses, preferential "affirmative action" hiring and promotion schemes within the APS and moving to private industry, child care subsidy, "family tax benefit", preferential health funding, the list goes on and on. What has been spent on helping men who find themselves in poor circumstances specific to men? The answer of course, is "nothing". If a problem affects predominantly men, then we are told it is "unfortunate" or "unavoidable" or a "structural change" and those men affected had better pull up their socks and nothing is done.

I called feminism a childish ideology and I think that's accurate, at least insofar as it is an institutionalised part of the political process.

'In the past 5 years many billions of dollar have been spent on subsidies aimed at women of all stripes, from parental leave schemes, baby bonuses, preferential "affirmative action" hiring and promotion schemes within the APS and moving to private industry, child care subsidy, "family tax benefit"...'

But by the same logic as used above anti, men benefit from many of these schemes. It evens out; Men profit form the middle class female targetted welfare to their wives, and women benefit from the superannuation of their husbands.

Not that I'm in favour of any middle class welfare. I'd much prefer the lot was scrapped and they just lowered taxes. But then unemployment would rise with all the paper shuffling public servants flodding the centerlink offices they used to work in handing out family tax benefits.

I also reject the paternalistic anti-libertarian bent of superannuation. I deserve the right to spend my money as I wish, and not support a very inneficent and inadequate finance industry. Thank god self-managed super is becoming more feasible, as I am making money and not paying 2% for the priveledge of losing money.

You are right though when you say...

'If a problem affects predominantly men, then we are told it is "unfortunate" or "unavoidable" or a "structural change" and those men affected had better pull up their socks and nothing is done.'

This is due to the effective victim-positioning propaganda of feminists (I loved 'Feminist historical revisionism' BTW). When you position women as universally and unilaterly at a disadvantage to men, regardless of class, and in any sphere of social interaction, it's really quite offensive for any men to be helped until the last women has been helped.

Also, I will end with a generalisation. Women are conditioned with higher levels of empathy, men are conditioned with higher levels of responsibility and independence. This is the essence of the different perceptions of the world for men and women.

Although I think this is changing with chicken hormones and metrosexuals these days. We will one day reach androgyny.

In the end Rhian, all this woman hating bigotry is really a reaction to the constant denial of the flow of money from women to men by feminists.

This flow of money is conveniently avoided in all feminist rhetoric, as it would alow the context of loving relationships and adoring husbands and functional marriages to cloud the universal theme of hatful male abuse and priveledge they're spruiking.

There are NO loving husbands who share their income and super, and appreciate and value their wife's homemaking and child raising efforts, and die 15 years before her leaving her everything. THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN!

There is only selfish abusive misogynist patriarchs, who deny the little woman any financial independence, and laugh with an evil laugh when they die or divorce her leaving the poor happy selfless martyr home maker with nothing!

Feminist social revisionism 101.

BTW That should read 'denial of the flow of money from men to women by feminists.'

Since I have wasted a post, I'll just also add here that I find it hilarious that in feminist rhetoric, it is a DISadvantage that women have that they live longer than men:-)

'Women suffer a superannuation deficit compared to men, yet live 4 years longer.'

They have less super, and those poor women also have to live 4 years longer!

Or, maybe it's that those selfish, abusive, misogynist patriachs are so selfish as to die before their duty of providing for women is completed. Those B@STARDS!

Yes Houellie, men can benefit from those schemes as long as they remain in a domestic relationship with the woman. Women can benefit from a man's super even if they decide not to remain in the relationship.

As you say, there is a large set of assumptions that underlie feminist special pleading. Feminists carefully avoid examining those assumptions, on the whole, although I have to express some hope that things are changing a little in that regard. The inequity of preferentialism based on false premises is becoming too obvious to ignore.

Jeez, it's not the flow of money, it's the economic power and relations that determine how much a woman can accumulate in superannuation.

There will always be a host of other factors such as children, personal health, whether a woman has a partner, etc, but the crux is whether a working woman, without any help from any other party, can make the same continuous levels and duration of contribution that a man can.

She can't.

Cheryl:"She can't."

She can, if she chooses to do paid work and she chooses to work as long as her male peers each week and she chooses not to prioritise having children over working in the same way that they are assumed to do.

The bottom line being that on the whole she chooses not to do all of those things and so unsurprisingly, she doesn't achieve the benefits that accrue to those who do. Nothing to do with ability, everything to do with application.

Moreover, the real problem is the whole idea that she should be able to do as well on her own with children as she would have done as a member of a parental couple. Why? It's an obvious truth that two parents means double the resources, while costs are lower per person with more members in a family. It's one of the principal reasons for people getting together throughout history.

It seems that some women today want all the benefits of being in a couple without having to put up with the obligations.

Antiseptic
Good on your for running a small business – a tough gig. But compulsory super is not a gift to employees, ultimately it’s a part of their wages that the government is forcing them to save. I respect your choice to use your income the way you want; wage and salary earners do not have that choice. And if your choice means you don’t have enough to live on in retirement my taxes will support you. Why should they not also support someone who is has saved less because she was raising a child rather than earning a wage?

Most of the benefits you list are directed at child or parental support. If a relationship breaks down and the woman is receiving child support her ex partner still benefits, because as a taxpayer I am subsidising the cost of raising his children. Why on earth should a man who is not the primary carer of his children be subsidised by me?

Houellebecq
I have some sympathy for many of the posts here attacking radical feminism, but I don’t see any radical feminism on display. In fact, the disproportionate vitriol attacking women in general on display here is a close parallel of the anti-male vitriol that radical feminism is accused of. As you concede, it is “woman hating bigotry”. And such bigotry is wrong whoever displays it.

The flow of money is not the only measure of social and economic contribution. The OECD estimates the value of unpaid work in Australia as equivalent to about 46% of GDP. Women on average work 138 more minutes a week at unpaid work than men. Men work an average 146 minutes a work more at paid work or study than women. Australia's difference in total hours worked (7 minutes) is one of the lowest in the OECD.

www.oecd.org/els/social/indicators/SAG

'And such bigotry is wrong whoever displays it.'

Well, the feminists display said bigotry in the national newspapers, published books and in the mind moulding universities of the nation, while the posters here are read by a few bored housewives and retirees.

'The flow of money is not the only measure of social and economic contribution. '

And the accumulation of money is not the only measure of power or independence or happiness. But it's somehow the only measure feminists are interested in. Would you rather be the one who earns more money or who spends more money?

I don't pay attention to estimates of whether bathing a child you love is work or whether mowing the lawn or commuting to work counts. It's all subjective rubbery nonsense. You cant put a dollar value on a hug from a mother for a start.

But it stands to reason that men and women would do an equivalent amount of work, seeing as couples generally work together. The spiel you always hear from feminists is that the provider has all the fun in life and has all the power and all the money and all the choices.

Back in reality land, families decide what mix of paid and unpaid work each partner does, according to values, attitudes to childcare, working opportunities and conditions, previous education and earning power, choice of partner (Women still like to marry up), a billion different considerations.

Often the guy takes on a traditional role, as does the woman as it's easier in life to swim with the tide, and it's in line with the gender roles and values they were raised with.

All that is by the by.

What gets me is that there is zero concession by feminists that men give money to women, or that women might have better family relationships in compensation for a super balance, or that men and women have equal ability to negotiate their role in the family unit in the first place.

It's all women = victim, the downtrodden martyrs of society, men = living the life of riley.

Rhian, if I have inadequate super when I retire, then I will be dependent on the aged pension. The same applies to women who prioritise having children over making money. The article is not satisfied with that, however, it is trying to justify the idea that this choice represents a social injustice in need of redress, which I say is nonsense.

I'm interested to see that there is such little difference in the total amount of work done by both genders. I suspect that for many single men there is almost no time spent on unpaid tasks whilst for most women, single or not, there is a reasonably consistent amount that is considerably larger. This implies that the women are choosing to do many of the unpaid things they do for reasons that have little to do with necessity and a lot to do with preference, informed by social expectations (we regard slovenly women less highly and the same does not necessarily apply to slovenly men), or by simple personal motivations. In a ddition, as has been discussed elsewhere, much of what is claimed as "work" is regarded as recreation in other contexts. My daughter, for example, thinks the height of entertainment is to go shopping for clothes and her mother loves nothing more than doing it with her. Nonetheless, I'm sure she'd include it as part of her "unpaid work" if faced with a questionaire defining it that way.

In a relationship, the woman has traditionally been compensated for this work by the increased income that married men have traditionally been able to earn and the social opportunities that were available to married but not single women. That's the nature of a contractual arrangement: there's a quid pro quo. Unfortunately, feminism has been largely about removing the quo whilst demanding the quid grow ever-larger.

I must say it's a nice change to have a proper discussion on a subject related to gender. Few who call themselves feminists are prepared to examine their own views very closely, so their expression of those views is necessarily jingoist at best.

Rhian, I missed a point. On the subject of compulsory super, it is entirely an employer's responsibility and forms part of the "on-costs" of employment, rather than being a part of one's wage. When it was introduced it was expressly not a trade-off for wages, except for the first 3%. The remaining portion was always in addition to wages that previously existed and was specifically an employer contribution.

However, that wasn't my point. Whether it is an employer contribution or not, it is not part of the employee's cashflow and employees don't consider super as part of their income in most cases. Job advertisements don't mention super unless the employer is offering more than the SG. For self-employed people, the money that is paid in super might be the difference between staying in business for another year or shutting the doors; being stuck with an old an obsolete piece of equipment or purchasing a new one and so on, so very many of them decide not to take it.

The interesting thing about that is that one of the motivations for the scheme was to redress an inequity that existed previously, in which the self-employed were more likely to have super because the tax implications were favourable for them.

Houellebecq
Yous say “It's all women = victim, the downtrodden martyrs of society, men = living the life of riley.” If you read the posts in this thread, you overwhelmingly get the opposite impression.

Antispetic
I see the inadequacy of private savings to support retirement incomes for a significant proportion of the population as a matter of economic policy concern.

The data suggest that the bulk of unpaid work is housework (cleaning, cooking, maintenance etc) followed by caring for dependents (children, elderly) then shopping. Women do spend more time shopping than men, but I couldn’t find a breakdown by type of shopping. Undoubtably there are people who enjoy clothes shopping, but I find it hard to believe that accounts for most shopping time. And there are people who enjoy gardening too, but it’s also part of household maintenance. “Retail therapy” is hardly enough to account for the difference in unpaid work between men and women.

The data suggest that young people do less unpaid work than older people, which is consistent with your idea that young single men do least unpaid work. I’d guess the same is true for young single women.

Yes, superannuation is the employer’s responsibility. But whatever the government’s rhetoric, the economics of an increase in labour costs are identical whether that increase is in the form of direct wages or benefits. It’s the difference between the “initial incidence” of a tax or impost (who is responsible for paying it) and the “final incidence” (who actually carries the cost). Employers may not have cut wages to offset super, but subsequent wage increases would be lower than they otherwise would have been. There are no magic puddings in the labour market.

Jobs ads don’t mention super unless it’s above the legal requirement because people take for granted that they will get their legal entitlements. The very fact that payments above the minimum ARE mentioned and are used to attract employees demonstrates that employees consider it part of their remuneration.

As a self-employed person you at least you had access to favourably-taxed supernnuation if you wished.

Rhian,

As I said, they do it in refutation of the feminist social commentry, which enjoys a much more widereaching audience. The constant message we're fed is how bad women have it, and how it's all mens fault, how men need to do better, and how women are victims in any gender conflict. So this needs some evening out. It cant go unchallenged! Surely. It's only natural for people to defend themselves. This constant barrage of one-sided commentry that doesn't align at all with their life experience must be really frustrating.

Imagine if you have never seen a woman with a black eye, as vanna always says, and you are told there is an epidemic of battered wives and it's everywhere, and men need to wear a ribbon to prove their innocence, and it's the innate nature of the abusive male. Imagine if you've actually been attacked and would never dream of hitting a chick.

Imagine if all your friends fathers were hen-pecked, and their mothers ruled the house, yet you see this constant propaganda that men have controlled women and kept them barefoot and pregnant all these years.

I think these men post in the mistaken belief that the author may read the comments and accept the opportunity to defend their case. Notice how with each deafening silence, the natives get more and more restless. They're dying to have their voice heard I reckon.

All that ever seems to come back at them in response is 'misogynist!', and none of their challenges to the content, to the biased use of statistics, the agenda driven research ever get addressed.

I reckon if someone came on here and adressed their actual points they'd behave much better. Maybe it's too late for some of them though, they seem to reflexively bark at cars these days.

In the end though, I reckon they're all coming from a position or a feeling of powerlessness.

Well that's the vibe I get.

Rhian,whether I had the opportunity or not is irrelevant: women who choose to have babies rather than working also have the opportunity to make a different choice that would yield them a higher super balance.

Houellebecq:"The constant message we're fed is how bad women have it, and how it's all mens fault, how men need to do better, and how women are victims in any gender conflict. So this needs some evening out"

You might be surprised to know that Eva Cox agrees with you.

In response to the Jennifer Wilson (Briar Rose)/MTR foofaraw she wrote an article for New Matilda, in which she said:

"It is not feminist to infantilise women by removing our right to make the wrong choices.

We need to recognise that all genders have similar capacities to make good and bad choices and need similar conditions in which to make them. While I am no fan of sexploitation, of objectifying and commodifying human beings, I do not see tactics of censorship and banning of particular manifestations as useful. Emphasising women as victims also contributes to gender-based biases in political thinking. "

http://newmatilda.com/2012/01/18/call-me-whatever

She seems to be shifting her position quite a lot in recent times. I've been looking at some of her stuff and I'm considerably impressed compared to her earlier rigid ideological stance. she may even be leading the next wave of equality-feminism that has to eventually supercede the entitlement model.

Antiseptic
You won’t get much disagreement from me either – and I don’t often agree with Eva Cox. A culture of victimhood, blame, denial of responsibility and demonization is unhealthy and unproductive, whoever we cast in the roles of victims and perpetrators