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.