lol

Upgrade to the web-site address of the cartoon that appeared in the editorial page of the Australian Newspaper on the 10/2/05. I understand that this cartoon is being condemmed on a number of web-sites world wide.

http://network.news.com.au/image/0,10114,416926,00.jpg

Within this cartoon, there are two women drinking wine at a bar. One says to the other ”Did your marriage improve after the first decade.” The other says “Oh Yes, he forgot our tenth anniversary so I killed him”

The cartoon could have been as follows "There are two men drinking beer at a bar. One says to the other ”Did your marriage improve after the first decade”. The other says “Oh Yes, she forgot our tenth anniversary so I killed her”

However that cartoon would probably be too objectionable for publication in a major national newspaper

Calling for government and employer 'support' is not inconsistent with the Robin Hood, social welfare state, entitlement atitude that pervades mature western economies. Same old crying that someone esle should support my choices, my life. For reasons a,b,c,1,2 and 3.

If you choose a family then you can support your own decisions. Expecting taxpayers and employers to pay for your choices because taxpayers 'benefit' or have some sort of 'social responsibility/con-tract' or an employer should pay because they gave you a job strikes me as quite disempowering... the first rule of which is taking responsiblity for our own decisions.

If you want a family, then that becomes a priority purely by din of the nature of the commitment. It is very time consuming and much is involved bringing people into this world and caring for and preparing them for life. Its a project/job which makes paid employment pale by comparison. Sure you dont get paid (in cash) for it but that is the price of projecting your genes into the future, of vicarious living thru progeny and the self centred (selfish ?) quest for virtual immortality. Oh and the self-sacrifice of that bundle of joy... once they enter the world. Provided of course, its your bundle of joy and not someone else's.

Me thinks the fertility 'debate' is becoming the fodder of media and political hacks. Trying to break peanut shells with baseball bats. Overkill. This 'problem' is so easily fixed thru immigration, that it begs the question... why are we even talking about it?

PS. the idea that its 'all mens fault' when women dont get whatever they want is hardly a revelation of modern thinking. Men are the default scapegoat for women's disctontent. Always have been, always will be. These days, nagging, whinning and complaining has been re-baged as isuues, concerns and gender politics. All the Orwellian Newspeak and Doublethink is not going to change what we can see with our own eyes. Hmmm, l wonder if this has anything to do with mens 'failure' to 'partner.'

Calling for government and employer 'support' is not inconsistent with the Robin Hood, social welfare state, entitlement atitude that pervades mature western economies. Same old crying that someone esle should support my choices, my life. For reasons a,b,c,1,2 and 3.

If you choose a family then you can support your own decisions. Expecting taxpayers and employers to pay for your choices because taxpayers 'benefit' or have some sort of 'social responsibility/con-tract' or an employer should pay because they gave you a job strikes me as quite disempowering... the first rule of which is taking responsiblity for our own decisions.

If you want a family, then that becomes a priority purely by din of the nature of the commitment. It is very time consuming and much is involved bringing people into this world and caring for and preparing them for life. Its a project/job which makes paid employment pale by comparison. Sure you dont get paid (in cash) for it but that is the price of projecting your genes into the future, of vicarious living thru progeny and the self centred (selfish ?) quest for virtual immortality. Oh and the self-sacrifice of that bundle of joy... once they enter the world. Provided of course, its your bundle of joy and not someone else's.

Me thinks the fertility 'debate' is becoming the fodder of media and political hacks. Trying to break peanut shells with baseball bats. Overkill. This 'problem' is so easily fixed thru immigration, that it begs the question... why are we even talking about it?

Some interesting observations about academia... the idea that one needs to relate to or be birds of a feather in order to contemplate and comment on an issue seems illogical. How do academics present anything of value if they go foward with that perspective? l hear you saying... How can an English Literature teacher teach literature if they've never written a book?

Social academic studies have a tendency to Predict the Past. They tell us what we already know. What society has already embraced. Just so that we know. And so we can learn from the past. The thing is, we never really repeat the same history, so that assertion, though seemingly plausible, becomes a bit spurious. That and not risking the lucrative funding of research projects... the reports which just end up being shelved/binned and never read by more than a handful. l know, from personal experience, that academic researchers/consultants can make a small fortune churning out pointless research reports. Snouts in the trough.

PS. the idea that its 'all mens fault' when women dont get whatever they want is hardly a revelation of modern thinking. Men are the default scapegoat for women's disctontent. Always have been, always will be. These days, nagging, whinning and complaining has been re-baged as isuues, concerns and gender politics. All the Orwellian Newspeak and Doublethink is not going to change what we can see with our own eyes. Hmmm, l wonder if this has anything to do with mens 'failure' to 'partner.'

Trade,
I’m not sure if immigration is an answer to increasing the population. Several reasons. Immigration is being cancelled out by increases in emigration. (IE increasing numbers of people have had enough and are shipping out)

For example, from a report “Emigration From Australia Economic Implications” at … http://www.immi.gov.au/research/publications/econimpact_1.pdf

“provisional figures for the year 2000 show that there were 41 100 permanent
departures, compared with 24 800 in 1983. (In 2000 there were also 92 300
permanent arrivals, making a provisional net permanent gain of 51 200.)”

So if emigration keeps increasing, immigration has minimal effect in increasing population, if increasing the national population is required.

Also immigration has a cost, and it is best to have skilled immigrants. However skilled people are becoming in short supply world-wide (particularly in certain trades). So Australia has to compete with other countries to attract skilled immigrants. This is not always easy, because Australia has high tax rates, high mortgage costs, and quite a few social problems that now make other countries more attractive.

If we do need more children, then I think it best to get marriages working better, as over 70% of children are born in marriage. Despite all the bad press that certain people have tried to throw at marriage, it remains the best environment for having children and raising them.

So it comes back to basics. Follow leftist dogma and believe that temporary relationships are best for having children, or go back to basics and have more marriage, which has been found throughout history to be the best environment for raising children.

Also agree with you that too many women have become too prone to blaming men for anything they feel like. Also too many women like to speak in “forked tongues”, where they say that they like men, but in reality they only want men as pay-packets.

Cannold's article sets men up using that age old ploy that mothers use to control their sons (and which women later use to control their men)... alternating the dispensation of approval/affection and denigration/withholding of love.

First comes the denigration and withholding of affection by espousing disapproval of various behaviour by men, like 'failure to partner.'

Then comes the measured and calculated dispensation of approval with the 'georgious man' concept.

This is classic emotional manipulation. Those that manipulate, and particularly those that do it emotionally, do not have any real respect, love, nor basic regard for the object of manipulation. It is a cold and calculated strategy to influence and control. In my estimation, people can pick up on this behaviour and conclude its attendant implications. Not many folks like being undermined, particularly emotionally. I would go so far as to suggest that the so called gender war has made all very aware of this modus. Feminist politicians, for example, make constant use of this technique and many a maligned male are removing themselves from the damaging aspects of exposure to that mindset.

Incidentally, l distiguish between those that 'see the light' and pioneer a movement such as Feminism or Unionism and those that then move in, co-opt the legacy of the founders and use it as a basis for building a constituency that underpins political power. These paper shufflers forment fear, discontent and division. These are the buttons they push. They do not care about the essence of a social ideology. In fact they eventually disenfranchise their constituency as their self serving subversion becomes obvious. l suspect this may be behind the attrition of the union movement in recent times. l suspect that it is now starting to happen with feminism. The majority of change that favourably impacted the majority of people was affected in the formative stages. Now the politcally motivated and the fringe dwellers trying to get at that remaining 5% on the periphery have over run the landscape. For most of us, it is approaching both irrelevance and argumentative navel gazing entertainment.