The Forum > Article Comments > Women voters deserve more than the 'A' word > Comments
Women voters deserve more than the 'A' word : Comments
By Mary Broadsmith, published 14/6/2013The Prime Minister's Office seems to be under the impression that voting women can be wooed by references to 'men in blue ties' and the magic 'A' word.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Page 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
-
- All
Posted by Antiseptic, Monday, 17 June 2013 6:22:18 AM
| |
Whilst feminists have sought to inflame this red-headed witch thing into a female vs male World War 3 event, I wonder what would happen if the players were a female with some fleeting semblance of charisma like Julie Bishop & a very average male opponent like Shorten ?? I'm not at all convinced that Australian male voters in general abhor female politicians purely because they are female .. JuLIAR is a special case because she is not only more full of **it than most of her bottom-feeding ilk but she has intentionally attempted to gain herself power by way of her sexist attacks on men. The latter alone has lost her what little male support she ever had but also ensured moderate females will continue to regard her with the contempt she so rightly deserves.
Posted by praxidice, Monday, 17 June 2013 6:27:36 AM
| |
Shadow Minister - The chance of Gillard being replace with KRudd (who was wearing a blue tie) has dramatically increased.
The witch won't go easily, it wants the higher retirement perks Posted by praxidice, Monday, 17 June 2013 6:29:57 AM
| |
Great summing it up in a nut-shell comment by Killarney.
Because, to me at least there is no difference between right-wing so called conservative "catholicism" and fascism I did another browse on the topic opus dei and catholic fascism and I came up with this excellent truth-telling website: http://www.catholicarrogance.org A site which thoroughly deconstructs all of the dogmas and lies of the "catholic" church. And its horrific blood-soaked applied politics. Posted by Daffy Duck, Monday, 17 June 2013 11:26:46 AM
| |
Sry for the delay, I hit the post limit.
On point 3, I think you misunderstand the proposition. The woman always retains her option to choose abortion, with no change to the current situation. All that changes is that if she chooses to carry the pregnancy, then the putative father has the option to choose to revoke all claims to paternity, within a reasonable period consistent with the mother's ability to retain an option to abort. Let's say 2 weeks from the date he learns of the conception, unless the mother doesn't inform him before the pregancy becomes too advanced to terminate, in which case he might be given longer to adjust to the situation. In any case, within a sensible timeframe consistent with the one that the mother has imposed biologically. If he does so, the mother still has the right to choose to terminate the pregnancy. There is no compulsion on her to do or not do anything at all. 4. I hope I haven't misrepresented you in this. If I haven't, would you be able to explain your ethical/moral reasoning? 5. Sorry, it's not going away. I believe it is a serious imbalance in gender rights that has been avoided for too long. The Pill has existed for over 40 years and it has given women the capacity to both control and conceal fertility. That means a woman has the ability, if she chooses, to deceive a man into unprotected sex (which he has an incentive to believe because of the disadvantages in condom use) in the knowledge that he will be committed to the financial support of any offspring, while he has no certitude that she will even permit him to participate in parenting. If you were buying a home, would you accept that having paid a deposit you were committed to the mortgage, even if you chose not to proceed with the purchase and someone else got to live in the house at your expense? Posted by Antiseptic, Monday, 17 June 2013 11:37:09 AM
| |
The article reflects the feelings a lot of women have about the state of politics at the moment. It has been reduced to the lowest common denominator and it would be hard to see how the state of play could get any worse. Given the LNP has no plans to change the abortion laws in this country the speech came across as desperate.
I don't know why the PM does this, she has a lot to offer and would be better reinforcing the positive than the negative. Following in the footsteps of the LNP is a mistake. It is not a good look and people are realising that the Coalition is failing on any real policy detail other than to just throw mud at the ALP. Labor should not step into this murky pool. Develop good policies - that is all people ask of their governments. The rest is the stuff of media gossip and flim flam. The gender card being used in this divisive way is too contrived and the spin doctors surely must be out the door on this one. The PM should stop contriving and just start being herself, speaking from the heart unconcerned about producing media-ready sound bites. Come on JG, let's hear some unifying messages. Posted by pelican, Monday, 17 June 2013 11:45:18 AM
|
1. You are rightly insistent that a woman must have no compulsion in her choice to carry or abort an unplanned conception
2. You are of the view that gestating a foetus is a great personal burden for a woman, so great that there is no comparable burden contemplable in the obligate role of fathers.
3. You are fearful that allowing men a choice to rescind their paternal rights and obligations means a loss of autonomy for the mother vis a vis point 1
4. You are of the view that a man's responsibility to pay for a share of the costs of raising a child conceived accidentally is absolute, while a woman's responsibility to carry a pregnancy is optional
5. You're happy with the law as it stands, so you defer to it and would like the discussion to just go away.
I hope I have that right.
On point 1, I agree.
On point 2, I disagree. A father who impregnates a woman during a casual liaison, or even in a defacto (uncommitted) relationship has a huge financial and potentially emotional burden to face over 18 years, at least. That burden is so great that it causes him, in many cases, to be unable to pursue life ambitions, or even to be able to commit to a relationship with another woman with whom he actually WANTS to have children. In some cases, an indeterminate number because our Government refuses to release data on it, men take their lives because of that burden and its effect on their ability to participate meaningfully in our society. In others, men lose the will to work and once they become unemployed, they remain that way. Some 80% of all unemployed men 20-49 in Australia are fathers who are clients of the CSA.