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