*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.