ninaf "..if this is such a non-issue, why is it the most commented on article for the week?"

Ahem, that would be to take credit for the hijackings too ;-)

Cornflower says: "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."

And: "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."

Four strong lies for the price of one. Is this an OLO record?

(1) I pointed out that the Macquarie Dictionary gives several meanings for the word 'discrimination' - as against your ignorant claim that it had only one meaning. No one - except you - is claiming that the word means whatever one want it to mean.

(2) Neither the word 'discrimination', nor the laws underlying anti-discrimination, exclude white men.

(3) I do not believe that white men are the enemy - and have never made any such claim.

(4) I do not condone - as you claim I do, without any factual basis to do so - any prejudicial treatment of white men 'because the end justifies the means', or for any other reason.

I argued for a merit-based approach to equal opportunity; but you chose to ignore that. Blinded by you paranoia, it seems you haven't the intellectual capacity to understand what merit-based opportunity means.

I can always tell when OLO posters are losing the argument. They distort what others have written and hope readers won't be bothered to check. When exposed for what they are they normally just move on to another thread.

I hope that Antiseptic took the time to read some of the readers' comments. I am thrilled to think that men will get out from under the discrimination exerted by the macho culture where the only value people have is as units of production. As a whole population, it's long overdue for family wellbeing to be given priority by everyone and I would love to see men in general getting more time with their kiddies.

Please see post by; Brian Pascoe of Maroochydore 11:22am September 04, 2008
Comment 72 of 78

- and here is one that I liked very much:

I am a single dad who have my children one week on and one week off. I am a white collar worker. I have to be honest here. During the week that I have the kids, I come in late and leave early. I then make up the time when I don't have the kids. I am very lucky to work for a company that allows me to do it. If they did not let me, then I would leave the company. My kids come first, period! I know people look at their watches when I leave, I know they don't all respect my decision, buy you know what? In 20 odd years I will be retired (I hope). My work won't remember my decisions, but my kids will.
Posted by: Bov of Adelaide

http://www.news.com.au/comments/0,23600,24289177-2,00.html

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,,24289177-2,00.html

TRTL:"calling people 'conditioned' is weak. "

Only if it's not true. The fact is that we in our Western culture have been bombarded with propaganda for decades about the terrible plight of women and the wonders of feminism. The clear and stated intent is to "construct" a sociological change toward the broad, unconditional acceptance of feminism. Whether you like the word or not, that is "conditioning" and you have obviously been a successful subject. Yes, I have also been subject to the same stimuli and i was also conditioned in the same way. It took my own experience of victimisation in the name of "feminist" principles to break the conditioning and prompt me to examine what I was being asked to accept as fact. So far, I've found it as full of holes as a prostitutes' picnic.

Pynchme:"it's long overdue for family wellbeing to be given priority by everyone"

I couldn't agree more. One of the first things that has to go to achieve it is the discrimination imposed by the various legislative instruments designed to promote the hypocritical goals of "feminism". As long as half the population remains under the impression that they are more valuable and more worthy of societal protection simply because they have a womb, those of us seeking genuine equality will be on an uphill climb.

The Sex Discrimination Commissioner regarded this situation as so obvious and important for equity that it was one of her first discussion topics upon taking office and yet we have heard nothing more and there is no sign of any kind of action being taken toward this end by HREOC. She has been told to shut up and toe the line, I suspect, all in the name of the noble goal of the preferment of women at the expense of men.

Antiseptic,

I suppose it’s a sign that you can’t debate the substance when you reiterate exactly my point about pregnancy – as if you’ve discovered something really clever about sex. So trite!

I note you conveniently omit to make any response to my reference to the laws covering discrimination against "a person" because of their sex or marital status. Nor do you answer the point of substance about the laws covering a wide range of attributes not just gender.

Nevertheless, let’s go back to pregnancy for a moment. Suppose a man were treated badly by an employer because he needed time off to attend to his pregnant wife whose condition required lots of support. Would you not consider it discriminatory if the boss sacked him for needing time off?

The fact that the Sex Discrimination Commissioner is seeking stronger powers under the Act she administers seems to undermine your proposition that discrimination legislation is only about women.

The proposal for a Federal Family Discrimination Commissioner has my full support. It would bring the weaker Commonwealth law into line with tougher anti-discrimination laws in the States.

Your explanation of the tenuous link between Iranian women being stoned to death for being raped and Australian men being ‘second-class citizens’ is patently absurd. You are ignorant of the history of international conventions and their application in Australia.

Your introduction of the stinking fish analogy is most unfortunate but will do as a descriptor of your recent posts. Please do some homework. Any homework!

Spikey,

'The fact that the Sex Discrimination Commissioner is seeking stronger powers under the Act she administers seems to undermine your proposition that discrimination legislation is only about women.

The proposal for a Federal Family Discrimination Commissioner has my full support. It would bring the weaker Commonwealth law into line with tougher anti-discrimination laws in the States.'

I'm sorry I still don't understand that. I remember reading that story, and I never could work out WHY the sex discrimination minister had no power to address discrimination against males. Why was this necessary? To create a whole other department with a new name? To me it did suggest the sex discrimination minister was basically only there to help women, so a new department would be needed to help men.