*The way the statistics are presented means they're asking not for equal treatment, but for equal outcomes. The inference is that they want special treatment to ensure these equal outcomes.
Posted by Desipis, Monday, 17 March 2008 6:04:23 PM*

Congratulations to that! So very true!

*The way the statistics are presented means they're asking not for equal treatment, but for equal outcomes. The inference is that they want special treatment to ensure these equal outcomes.
Posted by Desipis, Monday, 17 March 2008 6:04:23 PM*

I echo Yabby’s view,

Affirmative action only achieves its objectives by setting the hurdle for the participants from among the non-favoured group high and the hurdle for the favoured group low.

It is neither moral nor equitable.
It could generously be called patronizing and guaranteed to produce

1 Alienation from those for whom the hurdle is set comparatively high

2 Produce substandard results compared to the outcomes of a meritorious competition.

You will never fix the supposed problems created by what is mythically claimed to be the “old boys network” by duplicating them in "affirmative action" policies.

Vanilla,

'Give me evidence, and I’ll revise my opinion.'
I don't feel the need to convince you, and I only have my own experience to draw on which would not likely satisfy you anyway.

Perhaps it's just as invasive a myth as Billie's quotation of the author "Women who speak out for equal rights - the same rights, not special rights - are often described as being 'man-haters', or worse." , or the authors quotation of The Clarion “I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a door mat or a prostitute.” which I have heard quoted from many feminist posters. I notice you felt no need to challenge these assertions.

' believing them less complex organisms compared to blokes. '
Come again? If that's your definition, I'd love to see how many people qualify as Misandrist. Just read 'Mere Male' in Women's magazines or think of Homer, or anyone who ever says men are simple creatures. If anything people are more likely to say women are much more complex creatures.

CJ Morgan,

'but I suspect it's too subtle for many around here'
Ho ho ho ho. Indeeeed. You're both just so intellectually superior aren't you.

Col and Yabby,
I agree, but what does a 'usual suspect' like myself know :-)

R0bert

‘I didn't mention unhappiness in my post to you. Is that a genuine mistake on your part or are you using a strawperson argument’

I said: ‘In GENERAL REFERENCE to your last post to me, you SEEM to be confusing oppression with unhappiness.’ An impression is not a direct quote. So who is the one making the straw argument here?

‘My local councelor is female, my new mayor is female, my states premier is female, my states govenor is female, the deputy prime minister is female and the head of state is female (the Queen).’

Oh … look! Five women in political positions! And another one who gets her twinset and pearls paid for by the public purse! We feminists can all go home now. Honestly, Robert. Is that the best you can do?

‘Last time I looked it was rather hard to tell that any one gender controlled the social, political and cultural agenda.’

Check out: Women in National Parliaments [http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm]

… and then tell me how ‘rather hard’ it is. (On second thoughts, don’t. You’ll just come back with a dozen links to ‘prove’ that the site is written by unfair-minded feminists trying to provide a misleading picture.)

Also, if you believe I should be reading the odious Warren Farrell, who makes breathtakingly ridiculous arguments like: ‘When slaves give up their seats for whites, we called it subservience; when men give up their seats for women, we call it politeness’ [Yuk!], then you could check out R.W. O’Connell’s ‘Gender Politics for Men’. I quote …

‘Men’s dominant position in the gender order has a material payoff, and the discussions of masculinity have constantly under-estimated how big it is … Men have ten times the political access of women worldwide (measured by representation in parliament). Men have even greater control of corporate wealth ... [and] men control the means of violence, in the form of weapons and armed forces.’

Yabby,

Certainly business was very vicious, and a better man has been fallen by a less capable man by this "dog eat dog" philosophy. It wasn't the best reaching the top, but the biggest bastards. You don't have to go that far back in history of the top end of town. Unfortunately, when the businesses eventually crashed, they took a lot of happless people with them, including investors; but they themselves seemed to survive supremely well. Is that what you would call a good business operator?

I understand that Business Ethics is now being taught in MBA's and other courses. Let's hope those who do these courses take this with them into the outside world. This would make a level playing field for really competent men and women.

Desipis

‘"because society places a higher value on paid work done in the workplace over unpaid work done in the home."/ That could be because the 'paid work' is contributing to society, whereas the housework is not.’

Oh … Lawd! And people wonder why there are feminists!!

I quote ABS Fact Sheet ‘Measures of Unpaid Work’ (2006): ‘The most recent estimate of the value of unpaid work in Australia was $261 billion in 1997 - approximately half of the total gross domestic product (GDP).’ The link is here:

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/2914.0Main%20Features234002006?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=2914.0&issue=2006&num=&view=

‘You seem to be saying that the most important thing worth having in life is a career.’

What you think I SEEM to be saying is up to your own imagination. However, what I actually DID say was that:

‘… SOCIETY places a higher value on paid work done in the workplace over unpaid work done in the home.’

I’d like nothing better than to live in a society in which paid work done in the home was given the value it deserves – at least equal value to paid work done in the workplace, and certainly not the token sentimentality surrounding Mothers Day and Fathers Day. This is precisely why I'm a feminist.

However, I’m not holding my breath. As the above ABS Fact Sheet points out, ‘The 2006 Census was the first time questions on unpaid work have been included in an Australian census.’ (A bloody disgrace!). And that was only after a long, hard lobbying campaign by women’s groups such as the Women’s Action Alliance. Even then, the question looks as if it will be dropped from the next Census because a bunch of sexist statisticians have decided the question is ‘too subjective.