"Let’s talk about pregnancy and motherhood"

Tubley you are correct, women evolved to be good mothers.
In times gone by, the kids of bad mothers would most likely
have simply died, thats how evolution works.

Its a long shot to claim that being a good mother, means that
you will be a good politician or a good statesman.

Somebody commented about how rough it gets in business.
Well politics can get alot worse! Look how they hounded
Clinton, turned over any and every leaf in his past life, to
find fault. I am yet to see a businessman be sunk because he has a mistress or an affair.

In my experience, women in general, not always, are far thinner skinned then men. In politics, IMHO for a start you need a thick skin, to role with the punches and not let emotion dominate reason, when the going gets rough, for it will.

Women were not allowed to vote until the Male of our parliament needed a few more bunnies to get them over the line.

So somehow we earned the "Vote".

As women evolute from their voting conception that man ordained she could have, one would expect that since women represent the majority, our Parliaments and ministeries would contain an appropriate aggregate.

The barrier is almost masonic.

Our male counterparts are not programmed to have to tend to the nuturing of the young and balance a full time political career.

It seems to make our way, the expectation is the shovel the dung uphill if we aspire to make the difference needed to our Nation and the misconception that strength in body is leadership.

The ability to create the future and an overwhelming programmed ability to maintain and preserve are the vital ingredients we need in leaders and leadership.



The outcome is life and health.

Col, I would like to address a couple of points.

“How you decide to “do things” in your classroom is up to you (provided you follow the curriculum) and is completely alien to how business works (we do not have rotating corporate planners or general managers but people supposedly employed on their merits to be do the best job they can).”

I believe Tubley was actually attempting to show that he was trying to instil the values commensurate with the basis for this article – that merit and fairness are important to the operation of our society. Something that should be commended rather than denigrated. I am not blind to the fact that these values are in short supply in the real world in which we adults work but I believe that the efforts of Tubley may just improve on that supply issue.

“Tubley We all make choices, most blokes choose to do other things than hanging around with children”

Are you that ignorant? I don’t believe so. You have shown numerous time to be progressive and open-minded. I can only believe that this was a slip in your usual ability to think beyond ignorant insults… either that or your pro-capitalist stances places money-making above all else?

“And “her” ! I do understand how you could be confused”

Between this and the last statement, one could easily presume you are a contributor to the glass ceiling and that all your grand statements regarding merit are hot air and bluster. Both do show a leaning towards a condescending and superior view of men towards women.

Though I do not know you Col, from your posts I would hope that the man I see is more than the man who posted those last comments…

Col,

Of course I don't work for that company any more. Once I realised the disaster I had inherited I resigned and went elsewhere. And why do you think the ladies wouldn't fight the battle in court Col, why?

I'm glad you wouldn't work for a company like that and that you would be so kind as to leave it for people like me to work there... I'd at least do something... Lead, Follow or get out of the way Col.

Are you up to answering any of the questions posed to you by myself and others Col?

Why can't men get away from the "emotional" argument when they speak of women in politics or management. As one woman manager said to me.... "We may shed a quiet tear or two but at least we won't step in front of a train when the going gets tough"

So there you have it... some people are scared of change... and it seems those same people are scared of women... never mind...

Col... so there are NO conservatives anywhere who believe in AA or it's attributes it is solely a socialist thing? There is absolutely no merit whatsoever in AA? Conservative women would be too scared to say they were for it because of the conservative men... the men would have heart attacks to think that women might get a fair go.

Are you an old righty?

Pedant,

I hope it’s an exception too. I wish my job description was so simple.

Col,

I’m a ‘bully’? I thought I was responsible for ‘wosie motherhood statements’. So what am I when it comes to you? I thought a man of your ‘integrity’ would refrain from name calling.

As for the rest of your post – another simplistic representation as usual – similar to your magical comments on saving the world by sterilising underdeveloped nations. And just as the variable of ‘population’ can’t be viewed in isolation from everything else, neither can the variable of ‘gender’.

Your post is ‘void’ because it blatantly neglects the reality that schools are representative of the current status of society in all its taken for granted suppositions on how the world ‘should’ be.

Favouritism exists and is not entirely dependent on merit – rather a reflection of gendered/racial/socioeconomic stereotypes. AA is as forced a process as the obvious marginalisation calling for its existence. Ideally we’d select people on merit alone but it simply isn’t the case. There IS very real and unjust discrimination on a large scale.

We must ensure fair representation for marginalised groups rather than sit down and allow the slow process of time to fix our errors. To address marginalisation we should understand the reasons behind it…

Things are given meaning or value in oppositional relation with what is understood to be its ‘other’ – defined by what it is not, and what it ‘does not’ or is assumed it ‘cannot’ do.

Males and females are seen as opposites. This in mind, males grow up to ‘know’ what it means to be a boy, by believing that they are not girls and should not be ‘weak’ or ‘passive’, like Yabby assumed. In our patriarchal society, the accepted way of ‘being’ is inevitably determined by men, in terms of social structures formed on who they are ‘not’. Therefore, if you're not a man, you’ll find it very difficult to gain political power – not democratic at all.

Your simplistic model hasn’t worked yet – I suggest it’s time for a change.

Reason, I welcome and need more of your posts, dealing increasingly with tubley’s and opinionated’s posts has obviously resulted in a dropping of the bar from my normal standard.

Tubley, I find your last post a contradiction (but there is nothing new in that).

On the one hand, you decry the evils of favouritism whilst simultaneously demanding the affirmative action.

The trouble is, “affirmative action” is “favouritism”.

“gendered/racial/socioeconomic stereotypes” are favoured by Affirmative Action, to supposedly compensate and correct historic discrimination by instituting more discrimination.

Well there are a few facts you need to consider.

1 nothing we do today will alter the past, only possibly influence the future.

2 Far from removing the evils of discrimination, Affirmative Action would see it institutionalised into law to the detriment of all.

3 “Two Wrongs have never, ever made a Right.

You state “Males and females are seen as opposites. “
Your might see males and females as “opposites”. Certainly the women in my life I have never considered as the opposition but as friends, and sometimes lovers. Purely coincidently, I have more women as my closest friends and confidants than men but only for the reason I value them as the individuals which they are, at a level where gender is of no consequence.

In the natural outcome of matters heterosexual, I see men and women as two halves of a couple through which they produce a synergy of experiences, from which both the male and female can develop and grow closer to their own individual potential and fulfilment.

Some might suggest I am being idealistic. Well maybe I am but as I know why the "ideal" is, why should I aspire to less?

Your assertion is, if anything the “simplistic” one. Too bad you just do not have the cerebral constitution to grasp all that might be.

I see you have hooked onto the “void” word. Hardly original but at least you are acquiring an improved vocabulary from reading my posts.

I wonder how many more new words you will acquire from reading me this time.