I think this article is an extremely interesting account on how democracy evolves over time. While it may be said by some, that women were denied equal rights to males, a more thorough look at the situation usually shows that males had minimal rights or privileges themselves.

An important aspect of democracy would be ready access to information, so that informed decisions can be made on what political party or candidate to vote for. However in earlier times, information or news would have been in very short supply compared to today. There was of course no TV, and very few radios or even newspapers. Many people could not read very well anyway.

Even during the 2nd world war, news about the war was often weeks or months old and quite often censored in some way. People would go to the local picture theatres to see film clips about the war, but often these film clips were not accurate, or were weeks old or heavily censored.

In real terms, having the vote in earlier times meant very little to the average man or woman.

What a wonderful slice of history John McCulloch, and thanks for putting it all together in such an informative and entertaining way. It is such a pity that the history of our political struggles in Australia, including the important role of those brave suffragettes, is not a compulsory part of our school curriculums. Most kids today know more about american and english history than they do about their own history. And we have so much to be proud of in this country. We used to be world leaders.

If we all knew a bit more about our own political history, warts and all, we would be in a better place to defend ourselves against the current assaults on our basic freedoms by the Howard government. Arbitrary detention in desert gulags, and kidnapping and torture by foreign governments spring to mind, in the recent cases of Rau and Habib. Not to mention the pending changes to the Electoral Act, once the Senate falls to the conservatives in July, that will roll back our access to the franchise. But that's another story, stay tuned.

More focus on our political history ..warts and all would be great.. AND..our cultural history I would add.

Brave Suffragettes ? Yep some of them were, on all sides of the ocean. Others were pure terrorists.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/suffragettes.htm

"The Suffragettes refused to bow to violence. They burned down churches as the Church of England was against what they wanted; they vandalised Oxford Street, apparently breaking all the windows in this famous street; they chained themselves to Buckingham Palace as the Royal Family were seen to be against women having the right to vote; they hired out boats, sailed up the Thames and shouted abuse through loud hailers at Parliament as it sat; others refused to pay their tax. Politicians were attacked as they went to work. They homes were fire bombed. Golf courses were vandalised. The first decade of Britain in the C20th was proving to be violent in the extreme."

If one is so adamant about 'due process'.. this raises just a few questions. "Is terrorism ok to obtain social goals" ? If so, then why worry about Habib etc. If it is not, then why refer to the suffragettes in such glowing terms.
Worth thinking about in terms of consistency.

Boaz.
Even with all the different activities carried out by suffragettes, most of the time people voted according to who they were told to vote for by their union rep, their church, or how their parents voted etc.

As well it is debateable whether one gender is better than another when it comes to politics.

Consider the following:-

"Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all." [Nikita Khrushchev , February 25, 1956 20th Congress of the Communist Party]

"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." [Hillary Clinton, 1993]

I have heard that Hillary was offered $8 Million for her memoirs. The strugle for democracy continues

Tim.. just to be sure of something here .. I'm not suggesting any gender is better at voting :)
And the suffragettes of Australia seemed to have it 'right' in the sense of no reported violence that I could see.
Its also noteworthy that it was through their power relationships with certain men who helped them which decided the issue. Not without some nagging mind you..but it got up.

I can play that game to timmy

I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you.I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good ... Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country. We don'twant equal time. We don't want pluralism. [TheNews-Sentinel (Fort Wayne, Indiana), August 16, 1993]

There is no such thing as separation of church and state. It is merely a figment of the imagination of infidels." [Taped interview at the Republican National Convention (9/6/84)] W.A. CRISWELL (Senior Pastor of Dallas's First Baptist Church)

Kenny
can u give 'accessible' sources when u say such things.
Also, can you be sure to put the quotation marks in the right place.
I could not work out where your comments finished and the person you are quoting began.
ok ?

Kenny,
I don’t know what your are on about.

In my view, many people in the past could not make very informed decisions at voting time, because they had little information available to them. Many people often voted along traditional lines, as indicated to them by other people. One gender is not automatically better than another gender at politics.

I would regard the above as being quite accurate, and I don’t find “waves of hatred” in any of it. I will be ignoring all postings by yourself in the future.

Kenny
I found some references. No matter what anyone says in the name of 'Christ' so to speak. May I draw your attention to 2 things.
Our calling as Christians is 2fold. Salt (to preserve) light (To illuminate-show the way). There is no such calling to conquer governments or countries. Democracy allows for anyone, atheists, Christians, Muslims to shape the country as they wish. (yes, within the constraints of a constitution, or its current interpretation)

If any group managed to take power in such a way as that democratic right was extinguished, it would be a sad day. But realistically speaking, we all know that human nature in its political suit, will always seek to enhance rather than reduce its grip on power.
We are all guilty of this, and the greater the power, the greater the guilt. What you are witnessing, is nothing more and nothing less than a reaction of a large number of people who have been told for a long time how to think and live, who to accept and who not to. I guess they are just plain sick of it. Perhaps this should not be a surprise, that there are so many motivated people now who are seeking to turn things around. After all, they learnt it from the left wing approach of those who have been drumming the beat for quite a while now. The Church as always been purest under persecution. The day when Constantine Christianity the official religion of The Empire, it was also the day when the purity of the faith was compromised and corruption began eating like a cancer. "Big in the church meant Big in Society" I need say no more.

You know the saying about pendulums. Given enough time, unrighteousness will be seen for what it is, on either side of the political fence. Knock the unrighteousness, but don't knock the process which gives you as much right as anyone else to persue your political and social goals.

Kenny....

just for your information, there are Christian sites and ministries which are exposing some of the 'rabid racist hate filled ' right wing elements. This is one of them.

http://www.antipasministries.com/oldnews/vol1no2.html

Thanks, John, great information. We are taught so little about our own history, that this centenary date passed me by without realising it was a date to commemorate. Our media has become too focused on the 'story of the moment' type of reporting. Where else are we to discuss historical milestones?
I'm thankful to the women and their male supporters who pushed and pushed to gain a political voice, equal to what their male counterparts already enjoyed.

And what is it with men that can't bear to read anything acknowledging women's past inequality, and their achievements, without crying for all to hear, "BUT WHAT ABOUT US MEN?"

You can't be the centre of attention all the time.

OCEANgirl

I havn't seen anything here, including what I posted suggesting that 'men cannot stand' to read anything about womens past inequality ..
can u point to anything or are u just projecting your own pre-held view about men onto what we say ?
As for me, I cannot stand to see people smug about achieving social reform by terrorism. If they achieve it a bit slower but without violence, its a good thing.

OceanGirl,
Your insistence that any criticism of things such as feminism is an attack on women is very tiresome.

I once read a book on “democracy” in different countries throughout the world, (although I cannot remember the name of it now), and there has been very little democracy in any country if you begin to take into account factors such as bureaucratic dictatorship, vote buying, gerrymander systems etc.

In many places, no one, either men or women need have cast a vote at all, as the election results were determined well beforehand.

I’m agree with Boaz, there has been nothing in the previous posts to suggest sexist or discriminatory attitudes except yours and posts by kenny

David Boaz - In response to your comment to OceanGirl, she only appluded Australia's part in the sufferage movement, and you pointed out earlier that Australia's part was not violent.

Timkins very first post did refocus the discussion on male issues related to sufferage "While it may be said by some, that women were denied equal rights to males, a more thorough look at the situation usually shows that males had minimal rights or privileges themselves."

Wouldn't it be so nice.. if we just cared for and loved each other, without artifical 'gender' barriers :)
Just guys being guys and gals being gals.. complementary not competitive.

Hi Boaz and Jci,
Your suggestion Boaz would be very nice, but unfortunately there is a long way to go yet. The article could have been on how democracy has gradgually improved for both men and women for example.

But articles as they are, tend to perpetuate a myth that "men are bad" & "women are oppressed by men" etc. So the matter has to be brought back into perspective.

Removing myth, and bringing things back into perspective is a part of democracy.

Tim
everytime someone tries to 'solve' the problem of male female ..I'm reminded of those beautiful words.

"Wives respect ur husbands".
"Husbands, love ur wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her"

Taken together, it don't come much better than that. Take just one, or the other, (excluding the other) and u have serious problems.

It seems to me that most 'articles' are written from the 'camp' of those who are experiencing an unbalanced view of male female relationships. So, where should we look for a motivator for restoring balance ? :)

Boaz,
Many letters and complaints have been made by many people to many politicians and various organisations. Many warnings have been given. All have been ignored.
see
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3007#2218

TIM yes..I noted that thread mate.
thanx.

An important aspect of the early efforts by women to gain a vote, would be to look at the current situation, to identify what those efforts by women in earlier times have acheived for women presently.

There are now many organisations that offer a variety of services for women at a state and national level. There are a number of Offices for Women, and also a Sex Discrimination Commission which has recently called for an enquiry into parenting.

While making an announcement for this enquiry on the 10/2/05, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner was quoted in The Age newspaper, “It's easy to say, 'You wanted the children, you're the mother, you breastfed them, you know what you're doing.' You can't do that with your parents. She's not going to wipe your father's bottom."

It is unknown where the Sex Discrimination Commissioner got her information to make this remark, as she has made many similar generalised and maligning remarks about males in the past. It has been noted by a number of people, that the Sex Discrimination Commissioner has rarely had a dignified or positive remark to make about men, and there have been innumerable complaints made.

However the Sex Discrimination Commissioner seems to be inert to such complaints, and she has much backing and support from other women’s organisations. All complaints from men about her vilifying remarks, are routinely dismissed because they are the Commissioner’s opinions only. Continuing to make complaints can result in a male being regarded as misogynist.

So this would appear to be the final result of the earlier efforts by women during the early 1900’s.

Tim..
as I said to the gay group, and have said on many an occasion (as nauseum' probably) it boils down to 'rule or be ruled'.

There is no such thing as 'stopping at equality'. Reason,-its the radicals who always drive the agenda.

So, i return to the tone of my previous posting.. about reaching out, in sympathetic compassion and love. Love covers a multitude of sins AND social inequalities. (love also seeks to redress those inequalities). (up to the point where the fundamental belief system is not compromised )

When people are driving you into the ground by selective application of legislation, and judges say "This is to be interpreted in BROAD manner to give reasonable outlet for discussion and public interest' and then they ACtually interpret in the narrowest of ways.. and when 2 complaints of similar merit are presented, but one is accepted and the other not (because it does not fit the 'mood' of the equal opportunity commission) u have to be a bit cynical about the motivation.
Still, as I said.. love overcomes. I recall my dad whacked me once with the words "This is going to hurt you, but not harm you" and I knew it was done in love. So, love does not exclude a serious and vigorous struggle for ones beliefs.

Hi Boaz,
I understand what you are saying, but unfortunately these people have no interest in negotiation at all. Negotiation has been attempted on many occasions, but the general attitudes from so many people in the women’s movement remains unchanged. This is in a society, where statistically women are healthier, wealthier, and safer than they have ever been in the past.

Even after innumerable complaints from many people, and many attempts at negotiation, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner has not changed her attitudes towards men in any way at all, and she continues to make her maligning and vilifying remarks about males at every opportunity.

Nearly all remarks made by persons such as the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, are not based on any research at all, or if they are, then it is normally highly biased or very selective research where anything positive about males is overlooked.

"Wives respect ur husbands".
"Husbands, love ur wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her"

David Boaz - Well said!

Timkins - most women don't see men as "bad" if they did they wouldn't want to associate with them, and certainly not marry.

"This is in a society, where statistically women are healthier, wealthier, and safer than they have ever been in the past." Firstly, that is for society in its all, not just for the women. Women's safferage was initially advanced by the woman's movement, so thank you to them back in 1905, but it is also due to mainstream society (ie men and women) becoming more accepting of different roles for people within society. This applies to religion, ethnicity, eduction and gender. How can it be a bad thing if people generally are healthier, wealthier and safer?

I only did history for two years at school (I chose geography for year 9-12) and we didn't learn about the suffragettes.
Did do a bit about it at university so John's article wasn't totally new to me.
Unfortunately the majority of the Australian history taught at my school was about colonial times and its impact on aboriginals.
No stuff on suffrage, no study of federation and the commonwealth and very little on world war one and two.
There were plenty of videos of reenactments of aboriginals being killed, learning to throw boomerangs and one project I can remember where we had to work out a plan to break into a squatters house, steal sheep without getting any of our tribe killed (killing the squatter or his family didn't mean the plan wasa failure either.
And this is the type of Australian history kids are taught these days.
There is more to it than that, stuff that makes you proud to be Australian.
Oh well
t.u.s.

Jci,
It is not a bad thing at all for people to be healthier, wealthier, safer etc.

However in reality, very little of this has actually come from the women's movement, and most advances in society have come from science and technology. There are countries such as the US that do not have compulsory voting, and only about 30% of females vote in some elections, so women voting is not the main reason for advances in society. Women having the vote means very little in ensuring democracy also, as many countries can have highly corrupt voting systems even with women voting. Women voting is just one small part of democracy and of society.

Very recent examples have been given of the attitudes and type of thinking of a number of women in the women's movement. You are suggesting that such people are male-friendly. Unfortunately there are many who believe that such people are some of the most untrustworthy, deceitful, and ungrateful of individuals, who have no interest in changing their general attitudes towards males in the slightest. The matter becomes more important when a number of them are being paid out of the tax-payer’s pocket.

You say that women like men, unfortunately very few women have ever made any formal complaint about the highly objectionable women who often become involved in the women's movement. I have heard a lot of informal complaint, but there appears to be minimal formal complaint being made by women about these other highly objectionable women. One can only assume from this that the vast majority of women actually support the type of maligning remarks and male vilification from such people as the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, who has rarely made any positive remark about the male gender.

You will all LOVE this... purely gossip and definitely SEXIST...
Some years ago, I pulled in at a service station. I noticed one car was parked ACROSS the flow of traffic. It was totally out of whack with how it should be. Then, the drive emerged from the snack shop. Like an idiot, instead of calling 'her' an inconsiderate moron like I should have, I said "aah..had to be a woman driver" which threw her for a second, after which she responed with "Sexist bastard".... wellllll I've been hearing that guys are supposed to be better at 'spacial' things than gals.. dont know now true. But this morning, I went to another service station, and there were parking bays outlined in front of the snack shop bit, clearly marked. U GUESSED IT, a car was parked ALONG them.. taking up about 3. Not able to park, I plonked my car right behind that one, so it could not get out. I didn't worry about who or what was the driver, but it did happen to be female :) who had to wait patiently for me to do my business inside before she could move her car.

Hi Timkins

You have actually almost entirely agreed with my point, did you note I said that the main reason for the advancement of women's sufferage was the change of attitude of society as a whole to more areas than just women's rights?

Regards

Bad women drivers - You are just trying to wind me up now!

I think its like dogs, its how you are taught to behave. Let me explain that...

I find small dogs (like chihuahuas and terriers) yappy and annoying but every now and then you find a really sensible small dog. It usually turns out that this dog is raised by someone who already has a Kelpie or a German Sheppard or some other sort of none-cutsie dog. The result is the little dog doesn't know its a stupid yappy dog and doesn't act like it.

Its like that with women drivers. I was taught to drive by my dad (as was my sister) and we are both excellent drivers (her more than me, but anyway). The main thing that my dad taught us both was consideration for other drivers - don't cut people off, don't drive too slowly and hold people up, look before you do something, etc and so forth. Basic GOOD MANNERS.

That women who parked over three spaces was just plain RUDE! The problem is its probably impossible to educate her.

JCL
Looking at the situation very objectively, then some of most sordid, disgusting, and biased remarks I have seen in the media in recent times, have come from people involved in the women’s movement. But as “mere male” my opinion would be misogynist only

JCL
yes..I know :)
I stir the pot from time to time. I can't let those who already see me as a 'male chauvenist pig' lose faith completely in that vision eh ...
But on the other hand...I'm so NOT politically correct. I give and I take. If some lady says "Blooddddy MEN" !!! I don't mind.
Warm hearted digging at the opposite gender is fun. If we have lost our sense of humor over such things I think its a sad day. Digs are not meant to degrade people, they are actually saying 'I"m a guy, Your a girl.. isn't it GREAT'

Boaz,
Unfortunately, if you look closely at the agendas of certain groups, then they don't want males. They want males out of families, out of education, out of media, and eventually out of society.

If you look objectively at many statistics, then much of this agenda is succeeding. That is a fact, as men are being lost in great numbers from families, education systems, media etc.

The idea that these groups will negotiate is naïve, as they will only negotiate on their terms only. However these groups have the most minimal idea of where their agenda is taking society, but keep ploughing ahead regardless.

TIM
fair enuf. It might be an idea to reduce the amount of info you present per time mate. And focus on a specific case, and we can toss that around. Not info overload. Maybe u did this already, so correct me if I'm being unfair here. 'exclude males from society' can u support that one with a couple of easy to access sources ?
Thanx

Boaz,
Easy enough to see.

More than 1 in 3 marriages end in divorce. If there are children involved, then they will reside with the mother nearly 90% of the time, and the father almost has to make application to even see those children again(although he must pay the mother money of course).

Nearly all pre-school teachers, and almost 4 out of 5 primary school teachers are female, and this type of ration seems to be creeping through the secondary school system as well.

Outside of newspapers, the vast majority of printed media is in women’s magazines which operate to a formula to make women believe that they are un-happy, and being victimised, and in need of some type of shopping spree or make over. This is even occurring in media for younger girls such as “TotalGirl” magazine (which has a sub-title of “No Boys Allowed” by the way). There is now an all-girls TV program in Australia called “Girl TV”, which is like the younger girls edition of Ophra etc.

Males are gradually being forced into the outer fringes of society. Is the women’s movement concerned about this? It appears that they only become concerned if it begins to affect them financially.

Well... my solution is to refocus the socialization of our community along 'biblical principle' lines :)

Other than that, we will face a continual swing of a social pendulum.
The reason males and females are being alienated from each other, would in part be due to the 'loss of anchor' due to moral relativism and the inroads of socialist/communist beliefs about naturalistic determinism and psychology. Women are just one of a number of issues, including perceived 'discrimination' and Labor unions, where the real goal is not 'justice' but "disruption" so that the dialectical materialism can proceed and a social sythesis can occur with the ushering in the socialist revolution.
So, it does not surprise me that a wedge is being driven into us as you describe. The sad thing is that most women don't even realize they are but pawns in the grander scheme of things.

The problem is, that having by and large abandoned our Creator as a source of justice and ethics and values, the established social order has little to counter the rising socialist voice with apart from simply disagreeing with it.

Yes Boaz,
I have sometimes wondered why people in the women’s movement are doing the things they do. There would be a couple of reasons, but I think that propaganda and brainwashing is foremost. This brainwashing makes women believe that they are under constant threat from “patriarchy” etc. It makes them feel fearful, so they have to commit themselves to the women’s movement to avoid that perceived threat.

However, what threat? If you look at old photos or portraits of women in earlier times, how many seem unhappy or oppressed. Most women seem to be draped in furs and jewels. Is that “oppression”. I have heard from women in their 70’s that they were much happier in the 1940’s and 1950’s than now, as their life was much simpler, more stable, more certain, and less stressful.

I could only recommend looking at Christine Stolba’s essay on indoctrination processes used within the women’s movement.
http://www.iwf.org/pdf/roomononesown.pdf
Reading her essay would be on par with reading works such as 1984 or Animal Farm, in getting an understanding of how indoctrination processes operate.

Best of luck in any future discussion with people such as Grace, a strong supporter of the women’s movement. Notice how trying to discuss something with her using facts, logic or even common sense doesn’t work. These things are not often used within feminism.

Hi Guys

David Boaz - I totally agree with the un-PC comments. You should SO not have to watch every comment you make, it makes life tedious.

BUT

Do you really think men and women are alienated from each other? I don't at all. I think the relevance of the radicalism of the women's movement has deminished now, and society has found a new balance that share's responsibility and rights better. Now that balance has been found women's rights have become almost irrelevant. They will probably remain so for another 50 odd years until advances in technology or globalisation or some such thing upsets the balance and then when people have chosen sides, one side or the other will start campaigning. There are still articles being written about feminism in the background but there are very few people interested in them.

It is a bit unfair that there is a bias in the courts that gives the mother the kids most of the time. I am sure that a good portion of the time the court hasn't even examined the family situation closely. But the courts are not a good reflection of general public opinion anyway. How many people give child molesters a 10 year sentance where they can get out for good behavoir in 6? None of the general public but the courts do it all the time.

JCL
well said.
I don't think all males and females are alienated, but sadly there are some among womens groups who appear to be pushing views which tend to alienate as Timkins has been rather regularly (I'll avoid monotonously, he might beat me up :) sharing.

Sadly too, there are some who have gained a bit of personal momentum through the womens (and any) movement who will (like the Unions) struggle for relevance by trying to unearth new issues to base their lives on.

Hopefully natural selection will consign such to the social wood pile :) and we can all get back to the wonderful business of joyfully, respecting and mutually upbuilding relationships with our beloved opposite sex.

Jcl

- There would be enough evidence to say that the Family Law “system” (not just the Family Court alone) is heavily biased against males, even in the face of enormous evidence that it is essential for children to spend more time with their fathers.

- There is evidence to say that children should be taught by female and male teachers to give diversity (and I know of one headmaster who has had mothers come to him begging that their children be taught by a male teacher for once).

- There is evidence to show that children’s media should have both males and females in it, yet we have Girl TV with almost no males on the show.

Do you see the women’s movement marching in the streets over these issues, that even affect children.

HELL NO.

You have to be particularly naïve to believe that these people are at all interested in gender equality, or even in children’s well being.

And I won’t even mention the lack of complete opposition to highly sordid, debased or sexist comments made about males by other females. Or the lack of opposition to the enormous number of “male-hate” courses so sweetly called “women’s studies” that are being run around the country.

Or opposition to rad-fems such as Greer who called for more divorce in Perth last year (and received a standing ovation for doing so) while so much points to the fact that divorce is tearing apart society.

HELL NO

No opposition what so ever by the women’s movement, OR from the vast majority of women in society either.

TIMKINS
have you by any chance been a victim of the family court yourself ?
U seem to have unrelenting passion about this, which suggests that you have been bludgeoned a bit with the rough end of the stick of life.

Boaz,
The Family Court is just one aspect of an attempt to force males out of society. This attempt is also occurring within education, media, health and also government.

As a male, try writing a letter to a government member about some issue where you feel that males are being discriminated against, and see what type of reply you receive. Why do you think there is no Office of the Status of Men, or no policies for men by any of the major political parties.

Have you seen the statistics for male suicide, or for things such as prostrate cancer? Are these things priorities for governments?

Of course not. Every time someone raises these issues, a member of the women's movement will say that money being spent in these areas is being taken away from women, and the government backs down for fear of loosing the female vote.

Does the women's movement support some of these issues that directly affect males. NOT that I have ever heard of.

Boaz,

If you think that I am talking rot, have a look of this :- Divorce parties for women at
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1474751,00.html

“MUSIC blares from the speakers, partygoers nibble on canapés and the hostess looks resplendent in a little black dress.
Lots of alcohol is consumed with dancing and general bitching about men,” Ms Seal said. “One of the parties had handsome young men in tiny shorts serving canapés and drinks.
Games are a must, according to organisers, with favourites including saucy charades, spicy dice (an X-rated version of the forfeit game) and piñata penis — a woman-only take on the traditional Mexican game.”

Do you hear of the women’s movement opposing such things?

Tim
I'm not saying you are talking rot.. did I say that ? don't think so.
I simply suggested you appear to have been on the rough end of the stick of life mate... in respect of women. Otherwise your passion is a little difficult to understand.

Boaz
I terms of being a possible “female hater” then I have just finished writing a weekly letter to a little girl and her family in Africa that I sponsor. I have sponsored 3 children over the years, 2 girls and 1 boy. So such things would not classify myself as being a “female hater” if that is what you may be thinking.

However the situation in our society with many feminists and many women’s organisations has reached critical mass stage. There are an enormous number of these women’s organisations being directly supported by government. You can start at the web-site of the Office of Women and then begin to find these organisations.

People have researched a number of these organisations, and found that they do not have any males within them, and their policies and media releases indicate they have minimal regard for males. In effect, they are highly gender incestuous and are often “male-hatter” type organisations. They often rely on highly biased social science research to make their claims regards men, and try and indoctrinate women into becoming male haters as well.

Now on the other side, there are many men in the community who are in great need, but organisations that try and help such men have to go hand in cap to government to receive even one cent in government support. You may have heard of the Mensline phone service, which is the government’s main telephone counselling service for men. It daily receives calls from men about to commit suicide, but nearly 4 out of 5 calls cannot be answered by Mensline because they are so under- resourced (and this service is the government's "main" service)

http://www.menslineaus.org.au/cms/

So feminism is mostly a complete fraud, because it is based so much on false information and brainwashing (as I have given details of in previous post in a number of forums). Women’s organisations are often highly gender incestuous, often become “male-hater” type organisations, and soak up government funding that should really be going to other areas.

So, should men OR women just sit back and allow this to continue indefinitely, like it has been occurring for a number of decades now.

I don’t think so.

TIM
agreed. No argument with what u posted.
I hope u can garner support and make something happen along the lines you suggest.
The 'male hating' womens organizations would most likely be driven by a very left wing philosophical foundation. Which is a specifically identifiable part of their wider strategy to destablize society in preparation for the 'revolution' :) well.. or perhaps "If u cant take over with guns, take over in more sneaky ways"

BOAZ_David,

You say “Sadly too, there are some who have gained a bit of personal momentum through the womens (and any) movement who will (like the Unions) struggle for relevance by trying to unearth new issues to base their lives on.”

Well here’s a new issue in that struggle for relevance.

“Women working for Toyota would receive 12 days' paid menstrual leave a year under a deal being sought by the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union.”

http://smh.com.au/articles/2005/02/10/1107890350588.html

Oh, what a feeling? No more Toyotas for me.

Seeker..yes exactly my thought.

While I sympathize with the plight of women experiencing severe period pain, I would think a discretionary approach might be better, and also if such a thing crops up each month on a PRODUCTION line, it may mean that they are not suitable for that work environment, which is disruptive to the flow of production.

But let's not kid ourselves that this will be the 'last'... there will be many more.. "a Macca's style PLAYGROUND at each workplace for single mums to park their kids" :)

Boaz, timkins, your posts have served to prove my point more adequately than any rebuttal I could provide.

Your comments have nothing to do with the article, its intention or the tone in which it was written.

You have merely used this article as the basis for a concerted attack against the women's movement, feminism, women in general, and even individual women.

I notice that this is a particular tactic employed when replying to any article or comment made about women, here at The Forum, regardless of the topic.

Bitterness and anger is obvious. But you don't offer anything other than blame and religion.

Which, coincidentally enough, were always used hand in hand when it came to societies subjugation of women.

Oceangrrl,

Please provide specific details regards your accusations about myself. Your accusations are totally generalized and non-specific.

In this forum and in others, I have provided many details and examples to support my statements, and I have provided innumerable links to other pieces of information that can be easily found on the web, and if you have ever made the effort to read that information, then you will normally find that it was originally written by females. This hardly would qualify myself as being sexist in some way, as you are attempting to infer.

You have provided "nothing". No specific details, no links to other pieces of information etc. Just generalized accusations about myself which are in effect, very similar to the type of policies and media releases from many organizations now within the women’s movement, and that is where the women's movement has finally evolved to

What is the use of women having the vote, if they are not using that vote constructively. I think that is an important issue.

BTW. Do you agree with the concept of “divorce parties for women”, (as detailed in an earlier posting), and if not, then why doesn’t the women’s movement condemn such things?

I’m just glad Oceangrrl doesn’t think my decision to avoid Toyota products could be mistaken for an attack on women ;-).

The power of the vote, AND consumer choice … oh, what a feeling!

I agree there seeker,

Trying to communicate to certain people using information, facts, logic etc, is very difficult, as such things appear to be alien to them. So other people have to vote them out, or not purchase products that are related to them. Believing anything they say becomes very difficult, as so much of what they say is hype, spin, propaganda, or attempts at brainwashing.

There is a list of organisations that would contain many members of the current women’s movement at… http://www.nwjc.org.au/avcwl/lists/info/index.html

However trace this back to a web-site at …http://www.nwjc.org.au/avcwl/lists/info/wesnet-padv-committee.html
and you will arrive at a web-site at….http://www.wesnet.org.au/

Now this site is titled the "WesNet" web-site or “The Women's Services Network”

A closer study of this organisation shows that it is a domestic violence organisation, but only for “women and children”. They state that they are “diverse”. (EG “The WESNET National Committee comprises delegates from each State and Territory to ensure adequate national coverage of diverse policy issues is achieved”). However the National Committee is made up of women only, which is not diverse at all.

What is the purpose of this organisation :- “WESNET is a national women's peak advocacy body which facilitates and promotes policy, legislative and programmatic responses relevant to women and children who have experienced domestic and family violence.”

They also state the following :- “WESNET works within a feminist framework which promotes an understanding of domestic and family violence as gendered violence.”

So we have words such as “feminist framework”, “gendered violence” etc.

So eventually we find that this is an umbrella type “feminist” organisation, that has no male representation, and promotes the belief that domestic violence is “gendered”. Is domestic violence “gendered”, or specific to one gender only? There is much discussion about this. One article which discusses it is at… http://homepage.ntlworld.com/verismo/dv.againstmen.html

So the women’s movement and feminism is very much alive, but many things are becoming more clear in time. If it is researched, then many of these women’s groups are often supported by government subsidies (IE the tax-payer) to promote their policies, but these policies can be generalised and highly biased, and not necessarily true or accurate by any means.

That is the current evolution of the women’s movement, after all these years of voting.

OCEANGIRL
I have no idea what u are on about (hate towards women blah blah)
My problem is with those who 'hijack' a legitimate movement for the sake of personal agenda's and who then 'manufacture' issues to justify their own existence once the main goals of the movement have been achieved.

I happen to rather love women, even equally paid women :) You seem to still be seeing in terms of 'them/us' shame. I'm for a more holisitic approach to gender. My key phrase is 'not competitive, but complementary".

Also, I hope you are not one of those girls who has just 'swallowed' everything the radical feminazi's have thrown your way. The idea of women be 'subjugated' is repulsive to me.

Boaz,
I can see the type of thinking of some people.

There are groups such as Wesnet, that claim to be “advocates” of “women and children”. Now if someone were to criticise the activities of WesNet, then other people may construe this as being an attack on “women and children”. They will do this to protect Wesnet, and allow it’s activities to continue (regardless of whether those activities are constructive or not).

There also appears to be feminists that claim to be the voice of women in general, so any criticism of those feminists is an attack on women in general.

It is a type of logic I guess, but a very insidious form of logic.

It looks like many people should start boycotting Telstra, after it’s decision to not support LifeLine any further.

However the women’s movement continues on, often subsided by government, and often protected from criticism by a certain form of logic.

Boycotting Telstra, for pulling the plug on LifeLine is a good idea. This is such a worthwhile cause, and after making $2.3 billion in half yearly profits, Telstra should be ashamed of its position on Lifeline. Not only will Telstra cease providing free telephone calls for people in distress, it will be making a profit out of those about to commit suicide. How sick is that?

Seeker,
Possibly the government needs to publish an up to date, and easy to follow listing of which organisations are receiving government subsidies or government funding.

This then lets the taxpayer see where their money is going. The taxpayer can see if their money is going to organisations that dedicated towards the common good, that are non-biased, that do not use false claims and statistics, and do not use indoctrination.

It would help avoid essential or vital organisations having to cut back, while funding goes to organisations that are non-vital, or even harmful for society.

The government may already publish such a list, but I can’t find it