Err hang on, its a bit of a cop out to just blame society, culture,
their job or men, for the huge amount of trouble that women go
to, to improve how they look.

All those boob jobs, all that botox, are affected by a couple of
large factors. Firstly women are highly critical of each other and
competing with each other, in the Darwinian race of life.

Just watch women, when some new woman walks into a pub. The bitches
amongst them, are ripping her apart with their eyes, as they criticise
every detail. A few honest ones, have admitted to me that its true.

Secondly whilst men in general (there are always exceptions) are
more focussed on what they think, women in general, are more focussed
on how they feel. That includes as to how they feel about themselves.

Many a woman goes through all kinds of operations and spends large
amounts of money, for that very reason.

IMHO that's just the way that womens brains are wired, as to distinct
to men. Once again, there are exceptions, its a bit like saying
men are taller then women. On average that is true, not in all cases.

Women will only be free, when they stop fussing so much about what
others think

R0bert

‘… authors such as the one who wrote this article are giving a misleading view of how things are. They use selected statistics to try and create an impression of oppression and lack of opportunity.’

I notice that you often take this line in your posts and it seems to have earned you a reputation for being a fair and sensible poster. I don’t agree. I think you are playing a game of paternalistic double-speak – professing a balanced approach to feminist rhetoric, while continually seeking to undermine it.

Take, for example, your post of 7 March 2008 8:32:41 PM...

In response to the author’s claim that ‘- women do more than twice as many hours of unpaid domestic work than men, provide the most unpaid childcare and family care, and do more voluntary work’, you offer the following vague response:

‘See [ABS link deleted] for a discussion of this.’

I did, and I found that the article actually validates the author. Housework division in the focus year (1997) was 35.6% males; 64.5% females, and volunteer work was 6.7% to 12.7% respectively. So what was the point of posting this link, if not to cast doubt on the author’s credibility, quite possibly assuming that most readers wouldn’t bother to read the article itself?

In response to the author’s claim that ‘- anywhere from 40 to 57 per cent of Australian women will experience physical or sexual violence at some point in their lives’, you respond with a quote from another ABS link: "In 2005, 11% of men and 6% of women aged 18 years and over reported at least one experience of violence during the last 12 months."

So? The author was referring to whole lifetimes, not the last 12 months. Again, who’s doing the misleading here? Perhaps it’s the researchers for the International Violence Against Women Survey 2003 (Australian component), who found that: ‘Over half of the women surveyed (57%) had experienced at least one incident of physical or sexual violence over their lifetime.’ [http://www.aifs.gov.au/acssa/statistics.html]

Post continues …

R0bert (continued post)

In response to the author’s claim that: ‘women hold just 7 per cent of the top earner positions (80 positions out of total of 1,136)’, you inexplicably respond with a quote from an ABS link that "In 1982, 8% of all women were in the highest income quintile, compared with 11% in 1999-2000".

Huh? Is a 3% increase over 18 years supposed to be proof that the author is misleading us about a continuing gender gap in top level salaries?

You then go on to comment that: ‘… it's clear that the major factor in the difference between mens and womens income is workforce participation.’

True. But it’s decades since ‘equal pay for equal work’ became law in this country. Since then, the common criteria used to determine the gender salary gap have been work participation patterns, salary packages (asked for and offered), and average salaries in male- v. female-dominated professions. The author is doing no sinister withholding here. Or would you like to accuse every research body that uses these criteria, of misleading the public?

The author has used reliable and convincing statistics to show that women are still very much subjected to ‘oppression and lack of opportunity’. However, it’s hard to realise this after the fog of ‘selected statistics’ you have used to ‘create an impression’ that her statistics can’t be trusted.

Yabby

"I am here to discuss concepts, not fuss over details. Unlike you, I don't conform to others rules or opinions."

I wasn't being pedantic, Yabby. I was trying to point out that you'd completely missed the gentle irony in Romany's post, and again in a later reference by Vanilla. You wasted a whole post to Romany defending yourself against a charge she never made. And all because you muddled up two words with very different meanings. I tried to tell you tactfully but it was obviously too subtle for you so I'll be blunt and to the point this time. It's got nothing to do with conformity, it's about basic communication.

I too admire non-conformity. I just happen to think it's easier for men to be non-conformist regarding their appearance than it is for women. Your example of Richard Branson building his empire whilst wearing jeans only reinforces my point. Society is kinder to men who refuse to waste time on how they look. Men can let their hair grey and their lines show. They can spend most of their non-working time in often quite daggy looking but comfortable clothes like shorts, T-shirts, jeans and thongs and no-one gives a toss.

If women let their hair grey and their lines show they'll soon learn what invisibility is all about. If they choose to wear comfortable shoes and trousers as well they'll certainly know all about it. As women age they are forced to waste more and more time and money on keeping the aging process at bay in a way that men don't have to think about to nearly the same extent.

The pressure to have the right look is being felt at an ever-earlier age too. While boys are out kicking the football, girls in early primary school are poring over the latest look in some kids magazine.

From cradle to grave, looking good is a part of women's lives whether they like it or not and I think you really have to have lived this yourself to truly understand what we're on about here.

give Robert a Fair go, SJF.

SJF you wrote that 11% of women were in the highest income percential, so statistically the other 89% of people in the highest income percentile will inflate the figures for average male weekly earnings. This will distort the statistics when comparing the diferences between male and female earnings. In my work a large majority of the women work part-time, so if you were to do a comparison between male and female earnings, on statistical averages men would be earning more, even when people are being paid the same rate of pay for their level of experience and qualifications.

Last time I looked into this 69% of wage earners earnt less than the average weekly earnings. The top end of the income bracket $1 mil or more is perhaps comprised of fewer than 1500 people in this country.

I believe there is a saying like "there are lies, dammed lies and statistics!"

Danielle in another post wrote that if you ask the right questions, your survey can say anything you want it too. Even demonstrate that 90 year old men in a nursing home were watching internet porn.

Women particularly in western society are the most privileged women in history and you write that "women are still oppressed and lack opportunity".

The link below looks at Norways effort to get female bums on the boardroom chair.

This makes american feminists seem reasonable.
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1925

R0bert,

“I believe that our own beliefs about what we can and cannot achieve have a much bigger impact on us than any remaining societal gender discrimination. We may have to work a bit harder to overcome perceptions sometimes but that's life”

I largely agree.

A survey should be taken of the numbers of women doing tertiary Business Studies, or MBAs, or Corporate Law degrees. This would provide an idea of women’s realistic expectations. One of these qualifications, plus an Asian language degree ...! And women are increasingly going into Law and Medicine.

Also, unlike women of “my day”, women can now take out bank loans ... in fact, back then a woman could not have a credit card with a shop unless it had a male guarantor.

Channel Nine's head of news John Westacot is, as an OLO writer stated, a “dinosaur” - and a ludicrous one at that. After seeing his photograph, any idea of “fuckible” would be a one-way street. It would have only needed an advert taken out in the press to boycott the station’s advertisers, accounts which the channel relies upon, and Westacot would have been ... I’m sure men, as well as women would have answered “the call”. A boycott, even for “one day,” would have enormous repercussions on the acccounts.

The media’s influence on women (and men) is a problem. When some “celebrity” has now taken our a large defamation claim against a paper because it stated “she was piling on the pounds” ... ! However, any glance at the magazine section for women, would suggest that women have brains the size of a pea rattling round in a pumpkin. It is up to women to demand better from these women-run media.

Importantly, we must rid ourselves of any “male mystique” at the top end of town, also “female mystique” associated with housework.

cont ...