Pretty short on decent arguments. Its all very well looking at women's wages in isolation without examining any of the reasons why. Perhaps women prefer a more balanced life style. Whilst there are many women capable of being a CEO, few choose to do this. Perhaps they value time at home with their families rather than spending their lives in meetings whilst their children grow up without knowing them.
The author talks about equality, but a quota system does not bring equality. It simply deprives more capable applicants of the job whilst less capable applicants get in ahead.
In Western Australia the increasing pay gap is due to the prevalence of men amongst the fly in fly out workers. Women tend to reject these jobs as they would rather be at home with their families. Few women desire to work in the trades either, though apprenticeships are just as available to women as men. Maybe women don't want to spent their lives toiling in the hot sun, crawling around under peoples houses in their roof spaces or delving into their toilets and drains or wielding a shovel on a hot road.
The author also fails to mention the inequality that men face in certain areas. He does not appear to be calling for a quota of men to receive custody of their children after relationship break ups. Nor does he call for a quota of women prisoners to balance out the inequality in the justice system. Nor does he call for a reduced female life expectancy to match the earlier deaths of men.
In fact I see no call for equality at all, but simply a call to give women preferential treatment in the work place. One might even think the author really feels that women are unable to compete with men on a level playing field. I don't. I just think women make different choices for good reasons.

"Why are we still struggling with gender equality?"

Because it's not true?

Because you don't know what's better for people, than people?

Because women don't have babies as a matter of gender, they have babies as a matter of sex? Because women having babies is not a "social construct"?

Because you don't know what other people's values are?

Because a policy of gender equality cannot be realised without discrimination on the ground of sex?

Because what is impossible or self-contradictory is not a desirable goal of policy, and is an abuse of power?

Because gender equality can't be made true without creating two unequal classes - those authorised to use power to force everyone to obey, and the victims of that power - thus creating an inequality worse than the original supposed problem?

Because it's an anti-human ideology?

Because other people are not your property? Because people are not objects to be manipulated by your threats to serve your ends?

Because freedom of association is an inalienable human right?

Because human relations should be based on consent, not threats of aggression?

The author has written a fluffy piece about something he claims is treated as a "fluffy issue". It doesn't really say anything, except that quotas aren't really that bad.

The basic question that needs to be answered before we discuss any of these things is just what is "gender equality". I believe I understand the meaning of "equal rights" as well as "equal opportunity", but just plain old "equality".

From my understanding this means that both genders, male and female, have equal outcomes in all aspects of life and society. That is the average "whatever" of the male gender is "equal" to the average "whatever" of the female gender.

In this topic that "whatever" seems to be either salaries or powerful board positions on companies. This is simply cherry picking factors out of thin air that the author would like to see equal. If the author truly wanted "equality" then this would count for all positive and negative factors we see differences between the genders. If women deserve equal representation on the boards of companies, do you also want to see equal numbers of women in the trades? Does the author want to see equal numbers of men staying home as primary carers, or as low paid single parents.

While you argue that increasing the role of women in high paying jobs etc. would bring a net benefit to the country, the assumption is that these women would not be taking these high paying jobs from men. This would be a fair assumption if this occurred by free choices made by companies and individuals, however the quota system means that a male with superior qualifications for a position will not be able to fill that position due to his gender. Which I understand is gender discrimination. According to you this is a bad thing, right?

While one can agree with most of what you say Conrad, we confront the practical reality, that only women can get pregnant.
Moreover, there are a significant number of cases, created in some aspects by the forever ticking biological clock, were women stop using contraception, get pregnant, take the six months maternity leave, and simply not return, when it's used up?
A compelling reason for this, may well be the cost of child care, when measured against cost, and tax liabilities, v wages?
Many families deciding that one parent, usually the lower paid, ought to stay at home.
Part of the problem here is the almost routine way society, quite grossly undervalues, the work of stay at home mums, and raising children.
Much of the difficulties experienced by stay at home mums, ho'd rather return to their former careers, is the sheer cost of health care, most of which could be addressed, by simply rerouting the current govts proposed maternity leave budget, to childcare, which would assist many more mothers to return to work; rather than be forced to stay at home, by basic economic realities.
Nor are very many assisted by the complexities of tax part A or B!
A far better scheme all round for all current or intending parents/families, would be a simple raising of the tax threshold, to say 50,000, which ought to assist those who wish to return to their former occupations. Particularly, where the base salary is below that number?
As for equality, there ought to be a legislated outcome, that simply compels, a equal pay outcome for equal work!
A removal of the real cost/benefit barriers that prevent women returning to work, would also assist!?
Rhrosty.

The Abbott government needs to ensure that the money intended for the needy actually reaches them. It strikes me that there is an ever growing horde of professionals, both real and claimed, NGOs and government Qangos and agencies getting in between and soaking up the available allocations so that only a trickle is evident at the sharp end.

There are professionals and bureaucrats who have ridden the gender gravy train for their whole working lives. It is shattering that there are more young intending to do the same and they will probably succeed. Come on Abbott government, do something about it! Good Lord, there are so many 'must-do' priorities starved for money.

I don't think gender equality will ever be achievable, for a number of reasons.

Firstly, the definition keeps being redefined.

Secondly it only ever concentrates on the real and imaginary disadvantages experienced by only one gender.

Thirdly, as previously mentioned, many people make a good living out of promoting "Gender inequality" so why would they ever want it to be resolved.

...If women's wages rose to that of men's the Australian economy would expand by $93 ....

That's great, so where does the extra money come from, to pay the extra wages?

While I am not sexists I do believe there are several issues that see women offered less jobs than men like,
Women have babies and to do so they leave work, not only that but now they get paid to do it.

Also, having women in the work place opens the door for sexual harassment cases, cases that are generally easier avoided than dealt with.

I would also suggest that one reason why men are paid higher is that they are perceived to be more reliable in the long run. May just be a perception but does make some sense.

Personally I don't have issues with women earning the same as men, provided the employer is not effected by the fact that they are a woman.

even an ardent feminist if honest must admit the sisterhood brigade was a total diaster for this country. It is going to take years to clean uo the mess.

Because other people are not your property?
Jardine K. Jardine,
I agree but can you do me a favour & convince the bureaucrats of that ? You know the ones that take my Tax Dollars & give to those who breed indiscriminately.

Conrad, the usual anti-feminist suspects that have commented on gender pay inequality so far, never let the truth get in the way of a good female-bashing...

The truth is that there is still unequal pay for equal work/hours for women in some industries in this country. This figure is nothing to do with kids, or part time work or whatever other pathetic excuses misogynists want to put out there.

This is Man doing the same job as Woman, and yet the hourly rate for the Woman is less.
Does everyone understand that scenario?

Women stopping work to have children, whether 'contrived' or not, is not the issue here.
If it was, then all the men should ensure they only practice protected sex when they want to get a bit.....and voila.....no unplanned kiddies!

Wouldn't that ensure all those 'lazy, sneaky' women out there don't slyly get pregnant to get out of work?
One would think all the boys would have worked that out by now.

Suse,

I can agree with you that an individual should get payed the same for the same employment position regardless of their gender.

However, take this example into consideration:

A company has two levels of employment. A high salary full time positions, and low salary part time positions. If the company employs equal number of males and females in each of these positions, then the average salary is equal between the genders.

However, if this company decides to hire one more female employee in the low salary part time position, and everything else remains the same, what happens to the average salary? That right, the average salary of the female gender is decreased compared to the average male salary in the same company.

People such as the author could argue that this is unequal treatment of the genders. As a defender of womens rights, they believe that more females should be hired in the high salary position to make up for this unequality.

What is not asked, is whether the company gets more female applications for low salary part time positions, and this 'unequality' accurately represents the wants and needs of the employees.

I notice you did not comment on quotas. Can you explain your position and how this would be practically regulated. Would it require changes to the sex discrimination act to allow discrimination (which can be positive or negative) based on gender?

For your reference I have quoted the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, which you should note already prevents discrimination based on gender for offering employment, and the terms of employment (including salary).

Part II—Prohibition of discrimination
Division 1—Discrimination in work
14 Discrimination in employment or in superannuation
(1) It is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against a person on the ground of the person’s sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, marital or relationship status, pregnancy or potential pregnancy, breastfeeding or family responsibilities:
(a) in the arrangements made for the purpose of determining who should be offered employment;
(b) in determining who should be offered employment; or
(c) in the terms or conditions on which employment is offered

(2) It is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee on the ground of the employee’s sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, marital or relationship status, pregnancy or potential pregnancy, breastfeeding or family responsibilities:
(a) in the terms or conditions of employment that the employer affords the employee;
(b) by denying the employee access, or limiting the employee’s access, to opportunities for promotion, transfer or training, or to any other benefits associated with employment;
(c) by dismissing the employee; or
(d) by subjecting the employee to any other detriment.

"Why are we still struggling with gender equality?"

Because its an imaginary boogeyman?

Because you're expecting the lives of millions of free individuals to match some kindergarten-level theory?

You claim a huge discrepancy, yet cite *no figures*.

What is the difference?
What is this calculation based on, annual income, hourly rates, same job in same industry or across industries/positions?

Of course, people who do different work are not going to get the same pay.
Women don't necessarily *want* to do the same positions or work in the same industries.
Not in equal numbers anyway.

To get completely equivalent results, you'd need the same number of men and women doing the same jobs for the same hours with the same amount of leave.
In what fantastic universe is this ever going to happen?!

And why don't we want quotas?
Well, if we support equality of opportunity, we don't want to be hypocrites.
And we if we support personal liberty, we don't want to be fascist dictators.

Suseonline "The truth is that there is still unequal pay for equal work/hours for women in some industries in this country"

Cite a single award that stipulates lower hourly rates for women.
Cite a single court case involving an employer who does this.

Why are you presuming all women who leave work when pregnant had "unplanned kiddies"?
As usual for the abortion fanatic, children cannot be wanted, they must be a mistake, a burden.

Shocadelic, you're spoiling a lovely warm n'fozzy dream.

Lovely to see the MRAs so active on this topic. I guess its a good warm up for IWD. Perhaps they would also like to add the additional furphies of more men dying on the job, men in combat, and men in the most dangerous jobs. These, like the gender pay gap, are real issues. And just like the gender pay gap they are issues created by men themselves. Maybe it's time to stop whining and get out there and do something about it like, I don't know, feminists and the sisterhood.

Conrad
Symptom: gender inequality
Cause: a culture defined by "my penis is bigger then yours"
Explanation: above culture demands high testosterone
Result: men win more than women
Cultural impact: adolescent male culture of vacuous measuring
Solution: change the infantile culture
Futility: discussing the symptom, ignoring the cause

Required strategy blueprint:
Reveal, undermine, ridicule " my penis is bigger then yours culture

Warning: do not superimpose an artificial alternative as this will invite combativeness and testosterone will win, rather undermine and permit an organic alternative to form

Never forget: men and women are of one species, both are equally culpable. If you make it us v them, your playing the mans game.

There are plenty of opportunities for women in the high paying trades and semi-skilled.

Laying vinyl floor coverings brings in over $100k pa. It is $450 for visit under one hour (and the snake does all the work) to unblock a sewer pipe blocked as usual by feminine sanitary products and 'disposable' wipes. Plumbing and draining is all plastic and easy copper these days. Too easy to take shorter days or work by the quote, so the worker can decide the hours.

Where are the tradie women with their utes?

Electricians? A cool $100 per each to move to one side and reinstate a moveable stove, fridge (just unplug it and push) or dishwasher for the floor covering trades in the kitchen or installations to complete new kitchens.

Servicing trailer boats and outboard motors. There is very good money awaiting any woman who does the training. So easy to do. No takers though.

Cabinet making? Why don't women have a go. After all, in the TV shows there are women who present as renovators and there are short grabs of them using light tools. Strange how they all have a model's hands and manicured fingernails.

Much better pay than clerical jobs in the public services though.

What prevents women from taking up these opportunities? The feminists screen out anything but 'management' and 'directorships'? It is "Gimmie the top jobs or nothing"? "Gimmie that SAS job on the front line actually means some lets-pretend training for the photos (pack on the truck), then a leg-up to that Colonel's job, PRONTO! The discriminating feminists are materalistic middle class and it takes a high pay to buy those Audis and shoes and to swan off somewhere cool.

Honestly, these Grrls don't represent women, just themselves and their networking (read as favouritism) mates. How many of them did it take to destroy Don's Party the Democrats and what about the destruction of State and federal Labor? Yay for the Grrls of Emilys List. The Greens Protest Party next and Christine, Sarah Hyphen-Hyphen and the crazy Trotskyist are beavering away on that.

Second last para should be 'materialistic'. True too!

Yep we will be struggling with gender equality until we get rid of feminist control of education. There is no chance of equality until we get back to examination results for ranking, rather than teacher evaluation.

We will need to get back to real subjects too. Dance, media studies, & performing arts have no place in assessment of students.

Once this happens, we will need to get rid of all the fairy floss subjects growing like mildew in our universities. With proper ranking, & real subjects in universities we may get equal access for males.

Until then we will have the existing overrepresentation of girls in higher education. Equity starts at school, as should represent real scholarship.

Conrad do you recall the story of "The Boy who Cried Wolf"?

Some of the earlier comments highlight part of the problem, there is so much spin and misinformation on the issue that any genuine structural inequalities are hard to pick out from the doctored claims.

Part of the problem is that the concept of gender equality is very much treated as Us against Them rather than a recognition that past structures have provided advantages and disadvantages to each gender.

Part of the problem is that those most strongly pushing the gender inequality barrow refuse to accept that women have played any role in shaping society. The significant role that early childhood nurture has on future attitudes and values is dismissed.

The role women have in shaping which characteristics men strive for is dismissed. Few men grow up not knowing that the male who earns more, is tougher, or in some other way ahead of the pack is more likely to have an easier time attracting a mate than others.

We don't see those claiming that gender inequality is still a major issue working to change many women's preference for dating men who are wealthier than themselves.

The problem is compounded by those who don't consider women as responsible as men and who want special leniency. One that particularly frustrates me is the view that men who don't want to be ruthlessly hammered by CSA had their choices ended at the choice or not to wear a condom by those who are also keen advocates of a woman's right to an abortion.

I get the impression that there are still some genuine inequalities facing women that are not just a matter of preference (women choosing careers they find more emotionally or lifestyle rewarding than men). At the same time there are injustices and inequalities facing men.

Neither are helped by the spin and lies clouding the issues.

R0bert

RObert, I agree there are lies and misconceptions from both genders re gender inequality.

Like the lie about most women only looking for men who earn more than themselves.
What utter old fashioned rubbish!

I obviously don't mix in that particular shallow pool of vacuous women (or men).
Maybe you need to look in other areas or circles for women RObert.

Certainly, like some men, there are some pompous women about who feel that way, but more likely it is the men in these relationships who feel they should make more than the little wife, thereby able to have control over the finances, as in all other areas, by saying they earn more money than her!

I have always earned more than my husband for every year of our 26 year happy marriage, even when I only worked weekends after my daughter was born.
We look at all money coming into the relationship as 'our' money, and it has never been an issue at all.

So speak for yourself RObert.

Suseonline, I was going to respond with links to research and logical argument but that seems like a waste.

It will be interesting to see how many of those critical of OTBs style take you to task for the nature of that post.

R0bert

Rubbish RObert.
You know I'm right, so there is nothing you can say.

I get sick of the whining men on this site blaming feminism, gold-digging women, ex-partners, female politicians, female academics, single mothers... in fact all women, for all their problems in life.

Anyone but the real problem...themselves.

I don't want to argue about this with all of them though, because doing that caused a vast number of female posters to leave this site, and I still find enough interesting discussions about other issues to keep me here.

If you think I am as bad as OTB, RObert, you should ignore me, like I do him.

"you should ignore me, like I do him." for the most part I do so. I posted to topic, avoided naming you in my reference to those holding the disgusting double standard of expecting mens choice to end at the sex act while supporting almost unlimited choice for women in regard to abortion.

Your tactics are very much like those which people complain about for OTB.

I don't have the time to go digging out references right now but the research I've seen and anecdotal evidence suggests that in my generation there was a strong tendency for women to marry up financially. Some claim that has reduced in those born more recently but the findings are mixed on that front.

It's not universal, few of those things are but there is enough of it around to give men a stronger incentive to make different career choices than those women make. That in itself will contribute towards the gender pay gap.

My main point is that for whatever truthnthere is in many of the issues feminists highlight there are social factors which contribute which are ignored or denied where the real progress could be made. The focus does not appear to be on fixing the issues, rather on blaming men alone for societies woes and on grabbing advantage for some women while leaving the real causes of the problems alone.

R0bert

Hi RObert,

I'm one of those who criticises otb's technigue of deciding on a female target then relentlessly employing post after post to impugn her by twisting and misrepresenting her intended meaning.

I think Suse has a long way to go before before she starts to pursue you for such ends - she's more dismissive of your views than aiming to make a meal out of them.

On topic, it's really just the same old same old, fortunate humans trying to force basic human imperatives to fit neatly into industrial consumer society...not so easy.

As Thoreau pointed out "Most men lives lives of quiet desperation and go to their grave with the song still in them"
(For any feminists about to take offence, "men" meaning "people" in the generic sense)

We are a lucky lot materially, but we're no less enslaved to the system than were our forebears.

Since I've stuffed up that quote by Thoreau, I'll correct it a little more fulsomely:

“The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. What is called resignation is confirmed desperation From the desperate city you go into the desperate country, and have to console yourself with the bravery of minks and muskrats. A stereotyped but unconscious despair is concealed even under what are called the games and amusements of mankind. There is no play in them, for this comes after work. But it is a characteristic of wisdom not to do desperate things.”

Men and women are in this together....yet in a fortunate society there is this "gender squabble".....I've always said that as a species we're intelligent, not wise.

A brand new market, the "Dashboard" camera tie-clip. I decided to never have dealings with lone females given the bias of the system hence such a device could protect one from malicious and/or frivolous accusations from even groups. Any time someone approaches it turns on.

Hmmm, the hive is abuzz and spitefully so. I must have been asking for (shudder, shudder) accountability again.

It doesn't do to ask about political priorities for the expenditure of taxpayers' money. As for the measurement of results obtained and value for money it is all 'Never you mind'.

Here are the questions presented earlier along with relevant evidence and examples,

@onthebeach, Thursday, 6 March 2014 11:59:48 AM

The time-honoured way out for the political 'Progressives' is to abuse any person with the temerity to hold a mirror up to them, ask questions and insist on accountability for the many obvious negative consequences of their constant tweaking of social policy. Always closed doors of course, the 'Progressives presume to always know what is best for others, so to them democracy and freedom of speech are superfluous.

Where the political 'Progressives' can divert it onto personalities, which they are in the habit of doing, they escape accountability.

Conrad Levaris,

First I wish to note that from my experience of such articles 95% focuses on CEOs and leadership positions for women. But who cares if rich people have some small inequality,

Second, you say that our society should treat the gender issue "seriously" and not like some "fluffy" emptiness, but are you really serious yourself?

I notice you spend most of the article speaking about gender inequality in the leadership classes and only briefly at the end as if to force an air of diverseness and seriousness do you mention other group like "working women" and "single mothers.

Third and to me most telling, you make NO mention at all about the more than 50% of our nation's people who do not fit into the image of this rich white ruler class nor the setting of North Sydney upper middle class ALL white suburbia.

When you say "we" and "our nation" etc. do you realize that these millions of people are also included, even though they are from non-white, non-western cultures and backgrounds and many will obvious have different opinions and conceptions of how gender and equality have historically been dealt with. That is, some cultures have not openly accepted gay equality let alone gender equality. Many still, like our own culture 50-100 years ago, keep women at home to raise the family and no possibility of an independent career women exists.

What can you say to deal with this, if course you ARE actually serious ABOUT EQUALITY AND FAIR TREATMENT?

Perhaps you should first apologize to all those you have clearly overlooked, no doubt since you do not consider them important enough to matter even though they out number your interest group hugely.

"Why are we still struggling with gender equality?"

Good question, given that The Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act was introduced by the Howard government way back in 1999. The Howard legislation was amended and renamed the Workplace Gender Equality Act last year and the agency name changed to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA). All organisations employing more than 100 employees have to self-identify to the WGEA and must report annually on their workplace programs for women. (See Economics Professor Judith Sloan's article, "Oh, Man! Gender Agency Should be Given Nudge", at http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/oh-man-gender-agency-should-be-given-nudge/story-fnbkvnk7-1226563760816).

It is obviously in the interests of the WGEA, and apparently the author, to point out any possible gender inequality -- read women faring badly relative to men, not the other way around.

The WGEA earlier this year issued a press release, claiming "New figures (sourced from Graduate Careers Australia (GCA)) show the gender pay gap between female and male university graduates more than doubled last year , increasing from $2,000 to $5,000 per annum. The figure will shock many recent school leavers as they contemplate their futures while awaiting university offers in the coming weeks." The biased ABC gave this wide coverage at the time.

To quote Sloan, "Sadly for the WGEA, its analysis of the GCA data was dead wrong. In what is an early contender for smack-down of the year, Bruce Guthrie, GCA policy and strategy adviser, had to spell out publicly that there had actually been no change in the earnings gap between male and female earnings: "The (WGEA) researcher in question has missed some vital paragraphs in this fairly short document which would have explained a lot of the stuff we had to clarify.""

Cont. in next post

Post cont.

Sloan pointed out that " the explanation of the graduate earnings gap stems from the fact that men and women are differently represented in the various fields of study and graduate earnings vary markedly across the fields. Some of the highest earning graduates -- dentistry, engineering -- are dominated by men. Moreover, there are relatively low response rates among some graduates, which reduces the statistical validity of the survey results in any case."

One of the principal objects of the 2012 Act is to "improve the productivity and competitiveness of Australian business through the advancement of gender equality in employment and in the workplace." However, if the national interest is to be best served , business needs to appoint and promote its workers on the basis of merit -- not gender equality -- if it is to improve productivity and competitiveness.

Sloan opined that "The operation of the WGEA is just another example of what I call the government trying to teach grandmothers to suck eggs", and concluded with, "My advice to the Coalition is to promise to abolish the WGEA. It is a bad and costly joke and we would be better off without it."

It is not surprising that Sloan confirms her view of the WGEA in no uncertain terms in her recent article, "Surge in red tape gives gender equality a bad name", accessible at http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/surge-in-red-tape-gives-gender-equality-a-bad-name/story-fnbkvnk7-1226844019243.

As females are just as selfish as males we can safely say that there is gender equality. If some from either side believe they're not getting their share then they need to look into a mirror.
We have unemployement, a stuffed economy, hungry & homeless people, victims of crime being persecuted etc etc & some morons have nothing nothing more to worry about than this gender equality crap ? Get a life dimwits !

raycom the links I tried to follow were premium content and I could not get to them.

These may be relevant
http://www.smh.com.au/national/tertiary-education/simplistic-view-distorts-graduate-pay-scale-findings-20130104-2c8x8.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/07/graduates-gender-pay-discrepancy-data-dropped-from-report

and a start with the WGEA material https://www.wgea.gov.au/learn/about-pay-equity

My impression is that some of the points WGEA make have validity but they overrate the societal pressure aspects when it helps their point of view and ignore it when it's not convenient.

R0bert

Suseonline "I get sick of the whining men on this site blaming feminism,... in fact all women, for all their problems in life."

Isn't that exactly what the "equalist" activists are doing?
Blaming all men for the presumed "problems" of women.

As usual, progressive activists accuse others of what they themselves are guilty of.

Look,

ANYONE SERIOUS ABOUT ANY EQUALITY INCLUDING GENDER,

unless you would first attack every single embassy of cultures and nations where women are almost in apartheid and also where many groups are mistreated and abused and neglected, such as Extremely rich Arab Gulf nations as well as basically ALL the third world and Asia . . . .

. . . . . BEFORE you would go to some Western nations door and begin the attack and only focus the attack at this place,

THEN GO AWAY and do not bother discussing this issue.

I Know this seems harsh but it is necessary considering the state of affairs that modern and rich westerners can spend 100% effort in their "attack" on gender inequality and other inequalities on the WEST where quite truthfully (regardless of whether any issues still persist and need improving) the West is by far the most tolerant and advanced culture for rights etc. (even though I still rage at the ingrained severe classism present here).

If this truth cannot move a person than not much can and anyone acting as though they care and are involved in improving rights for all etc. IS a FRAUD and is in fact IN THE WAY.

Jottikilli, no need to shout.

This is an opinion forum, so everyone is entitled to their opinion.
No point in yelling at others to go away from an opinion forum because you don't like their opinion. That rather defeats the purpose of an opinion forum...

Shockadelic, are you calling me a 'progressive'?
So I'm an advocate for social reform then?
Excellent!
I agree I would like to see social reform.
So you think there is no need for any changes in our society?
Lucky you.

I am not suggesting men should be the downtrodden gender, but rather that men and women should be treated equally, whereas if things stay as they are, then women will remain downtrodden in many areas of our society.

We only need to look at the appalling domestic violence statistics that show women are bashed and killed by their intimate partners on a daily basis in this country, but the media focuses on 'one-punch'' deaths and other murders as though women killed by their intimate partners are not really a murder at all.

Until our society treats these domestic assaults and murders just the same as any other assaults and murders, then we are no where near equality of the genders.
(And yes, that goes for the few men that are killed by their intimate partners too, of course.)

RObert, for the Judith Sloan articles, try Googling:

"Oh Man Gender Agency Should be Given Nudge"

"Surge in red tape gives gender equality a bad name"

or else refer hard copies of The Australian of 29 January 2014 and 4 March 2014 respectively.

Suseonline "So you think there is no need for any changes in our society? Lucky you."

I never said that (and "progressive" is a technical label, not a compliment).

Any changes needed in our society should happen spontaneously and genuinely.
All the "rights" movements started that way (though not with majority support).
They have all become bureaucratically/legislatively dictatorial.

Jottiikii, is right. The West is the least of your problems.

Yet you no doubt support our overwhelmingly non-Western immigration policy.
How on Earth are we to improve the West's social issues, when we import so many less-socially-evolved people?
We'll not simply stagnate, we'll go backwards!

Shockadelic,

I love the way you congratulate us on our social evolution.

"... when we import so many less-socially-evolved people?"

Here we have a population which both major parties wooed on policies of locking up desperate people in the harshest of conditions, taking advantage of our poor neighbours to do so.

The Abbott govt, sure of it's mandate, brags daily in parliament of its border protection, which involves frisking people, taking their property, stuffing them into orange pods and dumping them offshore from Indonesia...all with a supposed mandate from "socially evolved" Australians.

When one of our badly run concentration camps(no processing being done) hosts an atrocity, the Minister or Immigration lies and spins and cries crocodile tears over the fact.

Just shows you, doesn't it, that our social evolution isn't all you crack it up to be.

Poirot, "When one of our badly run concentration camps(no processing being done) hosts an atrocity"

You are having another of your hysterical 'turns', Possum.

Do sit down and have a glass of cold water before you swoon. A Bex, as well?

No one could seriously believe that Australia runs 'concentration camps'. That is a huge offence to Holocaust survivors as well, trivialising their dreadful suffering as it must do.

Poirot, you know very well that most immigrants are not (claimed) refugees.
Immigrants with the appropriate permission/paperwork don't spend a single second in custody.

This was a thread about "gender equality".
My reference was to that and other "rights" movements like gays, children, the disabled and the mentally ill.

Ask your friends in the camps what they think the "rights" of these groups should be and see how touchy-feely you are.

Women? Must wear a tent, lest they develop social interaction with infidels.
Gays? Hang 'em.
Children? Whip 'em if they speak out of turn. (Girls can just be killed).
The mentally and physically disabled? Let them beg in the street.

Look at what happens in their homelands.
They will bring the same attitudes with them.
No thank you.

otb,

They meet the definition of confining and persecuting minorities or aliens, because there appears to be no processing going on there.

And spare us your faux offence on behalf of those tragically lost in the Holocaust. (I'm wise to your common tactic of angling for outraged sensibilities)

What's going on in those camps is offensive and should be seen as such. I'm ashamed to think Australia, 2014 treats asylum seekers such.

Your comment: "No one could seriously believe that Australia runs 'concentration camps'" hits the nail on the head, because when I was growing up, that's something we learned other people did or had done - something diabolical which we as a people would abhor.

Interestingly, we're still coming to terms with the dreadful events that occurred in one our "camps" on Manus - a blood bath....and you accuse me of trivialising the issue.

Poirot, the difference between the Nazi camps and this one is that the residents caused the "bloodbath" (1 dead) not the operators.
Hardly comparable.

You can take migrants out of the Third World but...
You can't take the Third World out of migrants.

Shocka,

I haven't mentioned NAZIs.

I called them concentration camps because they meet that definition.

You're obviously still working to the script of Morrison's initial pressers...because a whole lot of witnesses have made it fairly plain that the attempted massacre was due to outsiders being let into the camp. The inmates were attacked inside the perimeter - and it appears the only people attacked, injured and killed were detainees.

So you can stop with the spin.

(But we're way off topic here, so my last post this thread on the subject)

Poirot "I haven't mentioned NAZIs."

You just use a term inextricably linked to them (Google it), and whose meaning was changed by such association.

You could simply call it an internment camp.
But that wouldn't have the "evil racist" association.

If anybody "let in" the "outsiders" (note: outsiders, not the camp operators), it was the inmates, who were already rioting (not the first time either), pushing a fence down.

It's a little early for you to claim any certainties about what happened.
The events are still under investigation.

Okay, Shocka...internment camp...whatever.

And I'm sure you're 100% correct in your theory that the detainees took one look at the hordes outside wielding weaponry and snarling in their direction, and thought "Hey, why don't we let 'em in and see what they do to us!"

Yeah, right....

Poirot, "And spare us your faux offence on behalf of those tragically lost in the Holocaust. (I'm wise to your common tactic of angling for outraged sensibilities)"

You are shameless.

Your allegation that Australia runs 'concentration camps' is contemptible and malicious.

BTT

otb,

Here's the faux outrage - again.

"Your allegation that Australia runs 'concentration camps' is contemptible and malicious."

How about you show a bit of outrage for the fact that Australia presides over camps of this nature.

The UN appears to consider them a blight.

These camps are shameless...and so are you for defending their existence.

I believe that there are a couple of reasons that gender equality will never be possible.

Firstly, we hold men and women to different standards, either consciously or subconsciously.

Secondly, there are many different perspectives. So how do we decide which perspective is the most accurate or true full.

Thirdly this topic is highly emotive, and emotive arguments ignore being analytical and logical approaches.

Wolly B, another problem is the different definitions of "equality".
People who talk of quotas and gaps are referring to outcomes, not legal rights, opportunity or access.

Even in a society with no technical restrictions or biases, you will not get identical outcomes, simply because millions of people are making choices about their own lives.

These choices are never going to match some symmetrical hypothesis.

No one should ever refer to third-world peoples as being somehow "LESS" or "worse".

ALL people are essentially equal and deserve full respect and dignity.

However, this must be understood carefully. First the equality is an existential equality as if to say "ALL life is sacred" and the "Self is a sacred thing in and of itself".

But this should be something that causes us confusion when dealing with real world problems such as judging whether certain behavious is moral or not.

This may mean that we should not refrain from making judgements in moral matters especially where people have been harmed and mistreated. This goes for a case of an individual as much as for an entire culture or group.

This is why we were correct to be outraged at the Nazis and we did the right thing to destroy the movement. And the movement or way of culture needs to be seen as separate from the individuals who may practice it since people are always redeemable and should be given a chance to change.

But if we do not confront such behaviour and even dod not sometimes allow ourselves to think that it exists, we are acting against human rights and the eventual state of universal equality of all.

Therefore when we fail to pressure the female apartheid in Arabia by perhaps (as we did with South Africa in apartheid) banning these nations from international sport etc., then we are actually assisting these atrocities.

The fact is that in the west it is primarily the LEFT that controls this horse and the left who has made our culture shudder with fear and at the taboo actions of actually confronting a non-western culture as equals and telling them what we think of some of their behaviour. These cultures certainly tell the west often enough.

The LEFT is responsible for blocking our assistance of these matters and so the LEFT is responsible for maintaining these atrocities in the name of their own deep anxieties and fears.

Just watched an interesting TED talk by Anne-Marie Slaughter called Can we all "have it all"?

http://on.ted.com/c0494

It raises some interesting points for the topic of this article.

R0bert

Jottiikii "No one should ever refer to third-world peoples as being somehow "LESS" or "worse"."

Why not? Look at the societies they live in.
*They* created them, a reflection of their nature.

"ALL people are essentially equal"

Maybe all people have the *potential* to be equal.
But that's not the reality today.

Nor has it been for thousands of years.
People who build huts made from animal pooh and people who build space stations are not "equal".

"Values conflict" has anyone heard of the term?

Basically an individual is raised with a certain set of "values" usually instilled in them by their parents, community and peers.

Conflict can occur when that person meets another with a different set of values. In can be catholic verses protestants, labor verses liberals, ext ext.