Dear Sarah,

Thank you for your response. I am glad to hear that you do not hate other people, even if they have different views and I appreciate that you like learning from them.

Now what happens when you do successfully learn from each other to the point that all misunderstandings are cleared and you agree on all the facts, yet you still find that your values, or your dreams, are fundamentally different and incompatible?

Is it the case, in your view, that yourself and Abbott essentially want the same and only disagree on how to get there, or is it that you desire different and conflicting outcomes?

If it is the former, then how come this "Left"/"Right" conflict was not yet solved in over 100 years?

I definitely support "people engaging respectfully with difference", yet how can one maintain the respect when the differences come down to one's core values and one's success in living according the their values and fulfilling their dreams - is the other's failure?

My solution is to separate, to create space, so that people of fundamentally different values can live independently of each other rather than be tempted to subjugate each other for the fulfilment of their dreams. Moving physically to different locations is indeed of last resort, so if only possible, it's best when this separation is only in governance, not in geography, which could be the case if both sides are committed to "live and let live" without enforcing their dreams upon others.

Sarah,

'not to respond to people who call me a “cretin”, as dane did'

You disparage millions of men of who are white and heterosexual with the insinuation that they are somehow 'smug thugs' with a 'toxic sense of entitlement' but then claim you don't respond to personal insults. I guess that's one positive because you sure do know how to dish them out.

'I am interested in evidence to support dane’s view that “white women are the most privileged species on the planet” '

Feminists are now the establishment. Women control our schools, universities, and government. Women have much better life outcomes then men by practically every measure. Girls have long outperformed boys at school and universities, they work less hours per week on average for less years in jobs that are less dangerous than men. Women receive more health care funding than men, take more sick leave than men, take more time out of the workforce than men and retire earlier than men only to live about 6 years longer than men.

Women initiate more divorces than men because they know they they will get the house and kids while men will get the bill....the list goes on and on.

Then you have the gall to rehash long debunked myths like a gender pay gap, domestic violence, glass ceilings, superannuation differences etc.

A cretin is a stupid or mentally obtuse person. I was incorrect to call you a cretin. It is the legion of men who willingly go along with their own demonision and marginalisation at the hands of feminists like you who are the real cretins.

Sarah:
“it was cheeky to coin the acronym TATs. I regret doing this and apologise if this acronym offended anyone.” So your are only sorry if you have offended someone. You are not apologising for your behaviour which was intended to offend but only if it hit the mark.

Why do you need to use a ‘feminist framework’ to interpret behaviour? If the people you describe have behaved in an unjust or aggressive way then it is enough to show how they have done so and leave the reader to interpret whether or not their behaviour is sexist. It is enough to point out that Tony Abbot’s behaviour was that of a bully – it is irrelevant that he was a man. It is the bullying aspect that needs to be challenged not the fact that he was a man. Are you suggesting that bullying is the sole prerogative of men?

So many of the other attributes that you ascribe to ‘TATS’ are human behaviours that are equally displayed by women when they are in positions of power. The problem for you seems to be that men are in power and you think that by describing their faults and failings you are presenting an argument for more women to be in power. There may be an argument for more women to be in power but not for those reasons.

Your opinion piece is not an opinion piece about the issue Griggs was addressing. It is a lament that men have positions of power and the Griggs issue is just an example of how they sometimes abuse that power. If you have a problem with men having so much power then you should approach that problem by using your reason and wit and not by trying to pretend that women would be any different.

Sarah,

Now I believe that you are being deliberately disingenuous for the following reasons:

a) Your link is to an opinion piece by Ben Saul, (who for all his qualifications leans strongly in favour of refugee activism), and his ready acceptance of "the dog ate my homework" excuses carries little weight especially since he was subsequently proved wrong.

b) the link predates Triggs' own admission that she deliberately delayed the submission of the report so as not to affect the elections, which irrespective of her stated motivations, saved the Labor party from embarrassment on subject that was hurting it in the polls. This was an action that clearly favoured labor over the Libs, and given the absolute need for Triggs to be non partisan, this was either incredibly naive or deliberate.

c) Triggs also admitted having discussions with Chris Bowen leading up to the election. Which given b) looks like collusion.

Hi SM,

And, once she released her report, did Triggs say anything about the dramatic reduction in the number of people affected ? The number of children affected ? And the efficacy of the new policies ?

Conversely, did she complain about the high numbers under Labor ?

So much for impartiality. Let's move on.

Joe

Dear Yuyutsu,

I do not agree that people with different values should live separately. I enjoy living in a multicultural society. I think it is better for all of us to acknowledge and respect each other’s different values, religions etc. My problem (and the reason for writing my Opinion Piece) is when leaders in government, the community sector and the corporate world do not engage respectfully with alternate views.