Spikey:"The latter makes it unlawful to discriminate against "a person" because of their sex, marital status or because they are pregnant or might become pregnant."

Erm...know lots of pregnant men, do you?

In fact, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner has called for comprehensive reform of the Sex discrimination Act because it does not confer any powers upon her to redress sexual discrimination aimed at menm in the workplace.

Don't believe me, go to this link and read it for yourself http://www.news.com.au/story/0,,24289177-2,00.html.

I quote:"A FAMILY discrimination commissioner with the same powers as the Sex Discrimination Commissioner has been proposed to ensure men get equal rights to flexible work conditions."

and:

"Under the current Sex Discrimination Act, men can make a claim about discrimination only if they are sacked for asking for part-time work.

WOMEN HAVE GREATER RIGHTS [my caps] and can make a case if they suffer indirect discrimination such as being placed on a mummy track without promotion if they work part-time".

Spikey:"I just don't get the connection."

The connection is that our HREOA and our SDA are designed to be compliant with UN treaties that are themselves justified by the appalling treatment of some people in some countries. That treatment does not and has not ever been a feature of our own country. It's akin to me being banned from eating fish because someone else who lives somewhere else doesn't have access to fresh fish. The fact that their fish stinks doesn't mean my own shiny-eyed specimen should be treated as fit only for the garbage.

As I said, the incidents I mentioned happened in the past (though well within the 30-40 years it is claimed that women have been copping it sweet for) - the "ball-breaking" thing happened 15 years ago. I think it's funny and others do too. But then they know me. I could quite see however, that on a forum such as this people might not understand I brought it in as a light incident and think I was citing it "aggressively". Nope. I still think it’s funny.

That was why I used the word “resonated”. I do try to choose my words with care.

The attitudes in academia however are real and on-going. I'm living and working in a country where women are still considered second class - and I'm doing my damndest to raise awareness about what is now governmental policy to combat the situation that has already led to an imbalance in gender distribution. But the reason I'm leaving after 3 years at this institution is that I’m a realist: these attitudes are so entrenched that they are affecting the way I do my job. I’m going to have to find another route.

Perhaps because my area of private research is so contentious and threatens change (to the English canon of Literature which, I expect, the average person could not give a damn about anyway) I very definitely encounter resistance also in Australia.

But golly-gee campers - I'm not frothing at the mouth about it. It’s simple: some people think that discrimination concerning females is only positive. My personal experience shows that discrimination - of all kinds - still happens.

When I was a kid we used to call it "getting picked on". You get picked on in life in all kinds of circumstances and for all kinds of reasons. You do what you can about it and what you can't change you suck up. That's life.

My efforts to effect balance are directed at areas where I can make a difference. Not to arguing with disgruntled people who thrive on stirring.

Hi Nina,

I can't believe that your harmless and lighthearted article has generated so many comments and I am shocked and disappointed that so many of the comments come from readers who have vehemently attacked feminism, the NGO where I gather you work and you personally. I am horrified. I thought OLO was read by people who are open minded, reasonable and empathetic.

I thought we had moved on as a society from attitudes where rape victims are blamed for causing their rape or accused of fabricating the assault and from attitudes where feminism is blamed for society's ills.

Feminism is about equal rights, removing discrimination based on gender and promoting choice. Unfortunately the attitudes of some of the posters show that feminism still has a lot of work to do.

If a woman chooses to change her name when she gets married, if the man chooses to change his name, if they hyphenate etc etc - it's their choice. It doesn't affect me what other people do and I'm so grateful that people have choices and can do what they see as best for themselves and their relationship.

Thank you Nina for your column and your work with/support of those who have experienced sexual assault.

Antiseptic, calling people 'conditioned' is weak. I'd expect better from you. It's a hollow insult that can be directed at anyone.
Clearly, you've been 'conditioned' as well. We all have, but it's only people flailing for arguments who need to use it in a debate.
No, I wouldn't react to the word 'masculist'. Nor would most. It's the content of criticism.
This piece was lighthearted, yet it still provoked ire. Nina clarified that most of her attention in relation to feminist works, was directed at people overseas suffering very real abuse because of their gender.
Yet, it still provoked ire. Simply put, some people can't think logically when this word is used. They fly into a frenzy and lose their ability to apply logic.

That's my core point. Do you have a problem with women keeping their name? No? Then why has this article provoked such ire, hmm? If not for a deep seated issue with a word.

It's just a word, antiseptic. Before you start on about the significance of other 'words' consider that this simple word is typically used to describe people who believe women deserve equal rights to men.

To some, it will be different. Some might be negative people. Some might cause harm to men. Many won't.

It's just a word, for a very broad group of people.

Get over it.

Banjo - publically funded people can do what they wish on their own time. Just because there are more serious issues doesn't mean lighthearted ones should be banned. I'd be more worried if 'publically funded people' could only speak about sanctioned 'serious' topics.

So, then, I take it the only valid topics for discussion here at OLO are the crisis in Sudan, and the economic crunch?
Really, everything else seems pretty tame compared to those. Thus, according to the latest directives, anything that is deemed lighthearted is banned because there are more significant issues that must be discussed 'first.'

banjo... just one more thing... exactly where did you come up with the notion that I'm publicly funded? Not only do I contribute to OLO in a voluntary capacity, but I also do not receive any money from the RCC (I volunteer there and have donated my own money to the centre). Similarly, although universities are publicly funded bodies, my contract with them is a private one and has no bearing n my decision to contribute to OLO in my own unpaid holiday time. Moreover, TRTL makes a sound point- if this is such a non-issue, why is it the most commented on article for the week? Clearly it's hit a nerve and although I intended it to be light hearted and comical, it's obviously sparked a number of other debates. Isn't this the point of a forum? Generating discussion?

Spikey

The meaning of a word should remain consistent for at least a sentence. However, as you explain, such an important word as discrimination can mean whatever you like and apply to any of the chosen ones, which excludes white men of course.

Problem is, you believe that white men are the enemy and any prejudicial treatment of them is quite OK because the end justifies the means.

Plainly I disagree with that and I am horrified that any democratic government could even contemplate such bad law as that proposed by Victoria. I am happy and honoured to be abused by you and any other who would support such a mean, disgraceful piece of legislation. Equal Opportunity Commission CEO Dr Helen Szoke should hang her head in shame for supporting and probably recommending, this unfair and spiteful law.