Sarah Russell,

I seem to have come to your article rather late in the piece, and it's an article that hits the nail on the head.

"Tony Abbott's aggressive behaviour towards the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission, Professor Gillian Triggs, has been named for what it was: bullying...."

Indeed....Tony Abbott, Brandis and Macdonald (he who chaired the inquiry, yet couldn't be bothered to read the report) displayed pure odium in their treatment of Gillian Triggs, and in doing so merely showed how thug-like the "Tony Abbott Type" far right-wing born-to-rule elites conduct themselves when the chips are down.

Never mind that the report criticised both parties - or that we now know that the Abbott govt knew of child abuse on Nauru for 17 months and did diddly-squat about it. - Gillian is to blame because her report rendered the govt (and the Opposition) transparent in the depraved little scheme it calls "border protection".

Sarah,

Like many advocates who push an agenda rather than look for truth, your use of statistics is specious.

It reminds me of a story I once read in the newspaper where the reporter reported that up to a third of all road fatalities involved alcohol. The joke was that you better start drink driving because TWO-THIRDs of road deaths are caused by drivers who are NOT drunk.

This is the history of feminism and the use of statistics. Here is a 4:45min video where a Thomas Sowell demolishes feminist arguments about pay gap. It appears this was done over 30 years ago. But either feminists have an enormously difficult time understanding and interpreting statistics or you wilfully advocate falsehoods (or both!).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_sGn6PdmIo

Incidentally, Sowell belongs to a racial group and gender who run the risk of getting shot in the back when they come in contact with the police. To me that constitutes a real disadvantage. Please let me know the next time you hear of a white woman getting shot in the back by police.

Since feminism has long since stopped being about an equal playing field and is now about equal outcomes, surely you would join me in advocating for a higher retirement age for women? After all, as I said in my last post women spend only a fraction of the time in the workforce that men do and retire earlier only to liver 6 years longer than men so why not raise the retirement age for women? This would give women more time to accumulate super too (I noticed you were baffled by women's lower super). Surely a win-win situation: more wealth for women and equal outcome in terms of gender.

If my tone is a touch sardonic, please remember: white women are hardly treated like black men (or women), yet for decades you have misused powerful positions in government, schools and academia to portray yourselves in the same category as the genuinely disadvantaged. Middle class, white feminists have reaped all the benefits of being middle class and white while accepting none of the responsibility.

Since the topic of this thread is Abbott, how would you rate the following on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being trivial and 5 being utterly evil:

* wearing a blue tie

* wearing Speedos

* winking

* eating an onion

* drinking a beer

* hacking the heads of twenty people on a beach.

Take your time :)

Joe

Loudmouth,

How about you consider toddling off and growing up.

Cheers

Sure - you go first, Poirot :)

Sarah,

I don't think you did herself any credit in terms of having a plot - and then revealed a whole list of your viewpoints. You are entitled to do this, regardless of what I may think though.

As one person put it to me, all that has happened over time, is that humans have labelled other humans as a certain type of "designer label" - and humans have constantly tried to out label each other, essentially like designer label clothing. Some labels have of course come out looking and selling better (fashion wise) and others have not.

In terms of your list of items in the woman vs man fight, these are all human created. Are they needed at all?

For me, it's not about separation, it's simply respecting other people's values, beliefs and personal space - even when values are incompatible or different.

For example when I went vegetarian as part of a high school project, my mum dumped a plate of meat in front of my face and DEMANDED I eat it. I said no and pushed it away. I don't go around telling people to go vegetarian - I simply want basic respect principles for individuals worldwide as much as possible. Not selection. This basic respect of views unfortunately is going down.

For example, one woman said to me when she sees other women wearing the burqa - she is offended. I said would she like to be told to stop eating meat? She changed her attitude. I also know of one case where a man was screamed at because of his views on abortion - but it was my view he is entitled to believe this, with no force placed onto others.

We do need solutions to problems facing the planet, as humans live on the planet earth - and that is where I do differ - as the environment cannot always look after itself, facing constant human damage.

You don't mention that though - why?