There has been gender differences in politics for many years.

An analysis of the budget found that for every $300 spent directly on women, $1 was being spent on men. This imbalance has come about from continuous vote buying and pork barreling over many elections, and there are no signs that such pork barreling will reduce, but only increase.

Men are so stupid they have allowed it to occur, and even organizations such as “Dads in Distress” have had their funding cut off recently, and they were one of the very few organizations left in Australia for men in need of help.

Every party has a policy for women and girls, but there are no parties with a policy for men and boys, and I think that if a party did have a policy for men and boys, then it would be said that that party does not have an interest in “women and their children”

Someone once said that if you are not a liberal at 20 you have no heart and if you are still a liberal at 40, you have no brain!

HRS is correct in what he posted.

Identity politics is for the insecure and fundamentally breeds dependency. Co-dependency is the back bone of politicians and their electorate.

Ironically, this co-dependence is exceedingly disempowering, which l suspect is exactly what the beauru-rats and punters want.

Suits me. It leaves things wide open for those of us who who buck the shytstem and its incredibly self limiting fashions. This is the nature of society... those who toe the line bind themselves within a very narrow existence and then they complain about it. Victims of their own fears. Self flagelating.

In any event, women are from Mars and men are from penis.

JAmesH and HRS

More to the point people make their money from capitalism and then become socialist telling everyone else why they can't be like them.

HRS: "Men are so stupid..."

Well I never! Timk...er.. HRS making a remark that 'maligns' men.

I'm glad I'm not of his ilk :)

Here we go again. HRS, the spending differences on men and women by governments will depend entirely on how narrowly you define them. For example, women are generally the receipients of payments such as childcare benefits/rebates etc. However, on the whole it is both the man and woman in a family that benefits from this. Any subisidies/payments for children are really to the benefit of both parents, even if it shows as women being the receipient. You should be looking not at who gets the payment, but who benefits from it.

CountryGa,
I think the policies for women and girls are quite well defined, but the policies for men and boys are not existant.

DOH!

So who do transsexuals vote for?

Women don't get more funding than men?
Is that why breast cancer gets 6.9 million in government funds, while prostate cancer (which kills the same number of people) gets 2.5 million?

Breast cancer gets 2.76 times the funding but causes the same number of deaths.
The lives (and votes) of women are 2.76 times more important than the lives of men.
http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/news/snapshots/cancer.htm

Here we go again with the "Women must be 50% of everything" nonsense.
Why?
To create better cardboard boxes, do 50% of the workers, 50% of the designers and 50% of the directors at the Waldorf Cardboard Box Company have to be women!

"All those sharp right angles, it's so macho.
Why don't we try something softer and more intuitive."

The reason for the left/right divergence is quite obvious.

Girls are presumed to need "protection", hence the leftist nanny-state bent of their parents.
Boys are expected to fend for themselves, hence the rightist bent of their parents.

From their parents, girls and boys internalise these beliefs and carry them into their own actions as adult voters.
Unconsciously, of course.

If women were more right wing a few decades ago, this is because at the peak of the feminist movement, the argument was for personal liberty (right wing).

Now feminists see the benefits (especially $$$$, but also political influence) of being a "minority" or "special interest group", they've moved to the left, as the right won't tolerate any of that "victim" nonsense.

Women will be MPs to the extent that that's what they want.
A swing of a few percentage points won't matter in a safe seat!

Maybe there just aren't that many women who want to be pathetic toads!
Come to think of it, there aren't that many female used car salespersons or game show hosts either.

It's a conspiracy to keep women smart!

Shockadilic,
I would agree.

These are the websites for the policies of the main political parties.

http://www.democrats.org.au/policies/
http://www.liberal.org.au/about/ourpoliciesplans.php
http://www.alp.org.au/policy/index.php
http://greens.org.au/election/policy.php

Each part has a policy for women, and these policies are growing every election.

One party now has a 45 page policy for women (2.6MB)

But not one party has a policy for men and boys.

If a party reduces their policies for women, or develops a policy for men and boys, then it will be said that the party has no interest in women.

So the parties have to keep increasing their policies for women, and whatever party gets in, they have to keep spending more and more to keep the women’s vote.

But these policies are not based on need.

Not one party has a policy for men and boys, and this is in a country that now has the highest rates of male youth suicide in the western world.