Robert,

I'm not sure about the exact mechanics, but did notice only last week that when the papers announced average full-time weekly earnings had cracked $1000 per week, they made it clear this was for men only, women's average full-time weekly earnings are still at about the $900 mark.

Some of the reasons for this may include that we still have one of the most sex-segregated workforces in the OECD, and female dominated occupations (nursing, teaching, retail, clerical, etc) remain low paid, even when - as in the first two cases - high skilled. Also, even in the female dominated occupations, the people at the top tend to be male. Given the number of female teachers to male teachers, it is amazing that the proportion of male principals to female principals is the way it is. This, of course, is partly because women still shoulder the majority of the responsibility for childrearing at the expense of their career. One of the great indicators of the relative lack of economic power women as a group have is the huge discrepancies in the amount of superannuation in female hands as opposed to male. Single women face a much less financially secure old age than single men, and they have to manage on less for longer, given women generally live longer than men. All of these facts are clear indications of systemic bias against women and how much further we have yet to travel.

enaj, I don't want to see like I'm disputing what you say - I really am seeking clarification. In particular I was interested in the claim "even when they do the same job". I thought that was addressed by a variety of legislation (I know there are ways to work around it).

Certainly pay rates for different jobs can account for significant differences (teachers/nurses vs managers) but the other issues are hard to split out from personal choices.

I'm not real familiar with the personal finances of a lot of other people so most of my experience is in the difference between mine and my ex wifes finances.

- I've worked full time since leaving school.
She has worked part time as much as she can (regardless of child care responsibilities).
- I did a trade on leaving school and later a degree. Her studies have related to recreational interests.
- My super (now dramatically reduced) is based having worked full time for a long time. Hers is based on choosing easy jobs at minimum hours plus what she got out of me at settlement.
- My super will be added to by my working. Hers will get very little added to it until the next divorce.
- I've never had welfare as a substantial proportion of my income (minimal FTB only). Welfare and child support form the bulk of her income (even when we still had equal shared parenting with an equal balance of work hour child care responsibilities).
- Assuming a male child costs about $7000PA to raise my son is was costing me about $8,500PA under equal shared care. My ex was getting a net profit of about $4000 (based on the last figures I saw) between her share of that cost and what she received in benefits directly related to his care.

The big indicators can tell one picture but the detail can put a different light on it.

R0bert

"Could you define what would be a “female” type politician, and what would be “female” type political policies."

Timkins, I don't believe there is a quintessential "female" type politician and consequently "female" type policies - we're on this small planet together - so better get used to it.

From what I have observed politics attracts certain personality types which are not gender specific. Primarily those attracted to power, those who think they can make an improvement to the human condition and those who possess a combination of the two. Nothing to do with sex, everything to do with personality.

The theory that women work in a more collaborative, communicative method and that this would transform politics is still a theory. Margaret Thatcher did nothing to further equal rights for women, nor did Bronwyn Bishop - these are the "power" type personalities.

Of course, as I have previously stated this doesn't mean that women should not have equal representation in politics, simply because they are no better or worse than men.

You really don't have any idea of what feminism means - nor do a lot of people. For me it is about equal rights - for both men and women. This includes equal representation in all facets of our world. Women can and do make valuable contributions and should not be prevented from doing so by a few men (AND WOMEN) who want to hold on to the balance of power.

There are women who really aren't all that interested in promoting women to higher positions. Why? It gets back to power and control. They like it just as much as men. More women means more competition for them.

So much for your feminist conspiracy theories - they just don't stand up. Women (quelle surprise) are as diverse a group as men and will never be the united force needed for any kind of 'take-over'. Nor would I want that I like men, I really enjoy their company, some of the best support (emotional and practical) has come from men.

Enaj,Trinity,

Unfortunately, I believe you have not given a very clear idea of what is “feminism”.

I keep hearing people talk about “feminism” or describe themselves as being “feminist”. In fact on the ABC radio, an announcer will often introduce someone as being a “feminist”, but other times they do not introduce a person as being a “feminist”, so there must be some difference.

There are many “isms”, and the idea that “feminism” is for equality is rather suspect looking at the history of "isms". Marxism, Fascism, Communism etc were all for equality, freedom, liberty (origionally), which is why so many millions were killed or imprisoned because of those “isms” . Other “isms” such as Colonialism, Imperialism etc did similar.

I would think that there are people who will say that they are “feminist” simply to try and give themselves more importance, or to standout from the crowd. Similar to the learned “feminist” Dr Susan Maushart explaining how she utilizes her PhD:- ”I trot that out when I need a bank loan” http://abcasiapacific.com/nexus/stories/s944592.htm

She uses her PhD when it suits, discards it when it doesn’t, and I have also known people to use the term “feminist” when it suits, and discard it when it doesn’t.

At this point in time I would still have to go with Dr Janice Shaw Crouse’s outline of “feminism” (http://www.worldcongress.org/wcf3_spkrs/wcf3_crouse.htm). I have personally checked some of the data in that outline and I haven’t found anything to be “not true” as yet.

However I have been known to be wrong, so can anyone else provide:-
-A clear, easy to understand definition of feminism, and a list of feminist policies.
-A list of feminist books and web-sites I can read.
-A list of feminist organisations I can join (if possible, as I am a male)

I think people percieve there to be a 'backlash' against feminism as many young women say 'oh no, I'm not a feminist', as they percieve this to mean man-hating, which they (the young women) clearly are not. Perhaps some feminists have been man-hating, but hey, you get nutbags at the fringes of any movement.

I look at feminism and go... hey, if not for feminism, I would not be allowed to vote. I would not be allowed to attend University. I would not be allowed to enter any of the professions. I would be a legal chattel to my father and then to my husband.

And even going back in recent history, after some gains were made- when my mother and father bought a house in the 70s, my mother's income was not taken into account by the bank as "she would just get pregnant and stop working anyway", despite her solid work history, and her qualifications being higher than my father's.

So I look at feminism and don't see male-hating. I see a movement which made it possible for me to work, live alone, attend university, get a well-paid job where I am equally respected with the men I work with. I am no-one's chattel, now or in the future. I expect that any future husband will be my partner, in every sense of the word, sharing responsibilities. I would not expect, ever, to be told that I should do something domestically just because of my sex. And I'm sure this view is shared by all the people I know in my age group.

Equality of opportunity, and equal respect. That is what I believe feminism has given women, and men, the chance to achieve.

I look at my female friends who are, or who are training to be, doctors, scientists, teachers, and engineers. And I look at my male friends who are or are training to be, physiotherapists, teachers, economists and computer scientists, and I think that really, this equality thing that feminism helped to bring about is pretty wonderful.

I don't know how to be any clearer, Timkins, a feminist simply believes in the equality of men and women.
This was revolutionary because until relatively recently (even back in the 70s when I was young) most people believed that women were intellectually, physically and spiritually inferior to men. They believed this to be a fact, hence the development of feminism, beginning in the 17th century with Mary Wollstonecraft's "Vindication of the Rights of Women" - a truly revolutionary text - and the many who followed her, including John Stuart Mill (yes, a bloke), Virginia Woolf, Betty Friedan, Gloria Stienem, Naomi Wolf and many many more. Read any of their books Timkins, if you want to read up on it. Laurie is right, without feminism women would not have the right to their own earnings or their children (both given to British women in the mid 19th century), the right to vote, the right to an education, or the right to refuse sex in marriage. Until just over 100 years ago, women were not considered to be fully human. It was, without doubt, feminism that changed that.
I am sorry if the women in your life have hurt you, Timkins, but women and feminists, as Trinity points out, are, just like men, a diverse group. If you got to know some of us, you might like us.