Will the quotas exist to force companies to promote more women or to force more women to work the ridiculous hours that executives work? Perhaps the legislation that we need would ban companies from expecting any employee to work more than 60 hours per week.

*It failed to recommend mandatory quotas for women on boards*

I should frigging hope so, for anything else would be sexism!

We have some great female CEOs and female board members, but
merit matters, not genitalia.

Anyone can start a business, join the corporate world and
do what they like, providing they have the motivation and
some aptitude. But its hard work and needs determination
and skill.

If a South African bank teller can become the CEO of our
biggest bank, then those Australian women who keep whinging,
perhaps simply don't have what it takes and rather then blaming
themselves, conveniently blame the system.

Oh hell, another one.

It only takes a quick look at our public services, state & commonwealth to see what a bl@@dy mess you get with any sort of affirmative action.

The continuing deterioration of our health, & education systems are directly proportional to the feminisation of their management.

We should be taking more advantage of our ladies true abilities. Bare foot, & pregnant was always a good idea. I can't see anything has changed.

Why are not there quotas ensuring that there is an equal number of each 'gender' working as primary school teachers?

Exactly Dougthebear.
We do need more male teachers at all schools. They often relate to both boys and girls much better than some of their female counterparts.
However, there are always good and bad teachers of both sexes, as I am sure we can all attest to!

My daughter's school has about half and half male and female teachers, and the headmaster is a male. She loved some of the male teachers and detested some of the others, just the same as for the female teachers.

Let's have effective teachers at our schools, no matter what the gender.
Education is not an area we can afford to have ineffective teachers just because some groups in society lobby for 50/50 gender balance in teacher numbers.
It should be on merit alone.

suzeonline, "It should be on merit alone."

Did you say that with your tongue firmly planted in your cheek? As most would be aware, merit isn't the problem, the massaged job specification and selection criteria are the tools already in use to achieve affirmative action.

In Victoria 'merit' will be achieved through positive discrimination against 'white men'. Easy to do with fudged job descriptions and selection criteria, especially where bad law encourages prejudice.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24771759-2862,00.html

"Women are more interested in getting the facts."

While men spend every day consulting the horoscope, women are concerning themselves with facts. Who ever heard of a woman reading the horoscope? We know how frivilous these men are - just look at the Mens' magazine industry: Mens' Weekly, Mens' Day, Cosmo Men... The list goes on. Instead of reading about facts these men can't get enough gossip. Let's not start on fashion or beauty. Men are just so frivilous. Thank God we have women always searching out 'facts' for us - I suspect this is why just about every major scientific discovery in the history of humanity was discovered by women.

"Much more prepared; ask many more questions. Men tend to shoot from the hip."

Right again. You know just last week I told my husband he had put on weight. You should have seen him. Not Happy Jan. Let's just say I'll be sleeping alone for some time.

"Women on boards are also more interested in how the organization will actually work."

Men on the other hand just read those mens' magazines and talk on the phone. It's so hard to get them to focus...

"Think of an acquisition or a re-org to take a company more global. When women are in the discussion, they ask questions like: 'don't just show me the Powerpoint. Who are these people? What are their responsibilities? Matrix type questions. Women tend to see the organization as more of a living thing."

After all, it was women who invented the modern organisation. Did you know the world's oldest continuing institution was founded by women - the Catholic church! The world's first incorporated company and the first multinational was founded by a woman! In fact, it was women who invented democracy, the modern nation state AND parliamentary democracy. Thank God for women. [Aside: what were MEN doing all these years?]

"If I had to generalize about the differences between men and women on boards?

I'd probably say it all comes down to FACTS. Women, like our distinguished contributor, are simple more concerned with FACTS.

Whether board members government ministers or teachers, such positions which have the most influence on shaping our society and economy should always be decided on merit not gender. When i was going for custody of my daughter the [MALE] princiapl at the school gave me no support even though she was missing weeks of school every term and getting no help at home.Small wonder she was put in a class for slow children. Yet after i got custody there was a female principal there and she bent over backwards to help me improve my daughters education.
It's funny though while i see large numbers of women demanding a greater female presence on company boards, government positions etc, i never see them demanding that more women be employed shovelling dross down the local smelter, or digging trenches or cleaning out septic tanks etc or any of the myriad of dirty and dangerous jobs that many men have to do to support their families. Anybody know the statistics on the ratio of male/female workers killed in industrial accidents. I would agree with balancing the genders but not when a certain gender picks and chooses which jobs it wants and is not interested in the dirty dangerous ones.

eyeinthesky

‘I would agree with balancing the genders but not when a certain gender picks and chooses which jobs it wants and is not interested in the dirty dangerous ones.’

Dirty and dangerous? … Like prostitution. Like shiftwork. Like changing bedpans. Like lifting, bathing and dressing adult patients. Like cleaning up vomit from floors and blood from operating theatres. Like caring for frail, disabled and terminally ill relatives. Like looking after sick children. Like changing 50 nappies a week. Like cleaning people’s homes and toilets. Like working in women's refuges and women's prisons. Like industrial garment making and laundering. Like women's factory work. Like giving birth.

And if women have it so clean and safe, why aren’t men moving into female dominated jobs in droves? Why don’t more men want to be clean, safe secretaries, librarians, kindergarten teachers, housewives, primary teachers, nurses, cleaners, strippers, babysitters, hairdressers? Chances are that, even if men wanted these jobs (given that many are so low on the social scale), most are so lowly paid that you couldn’t support a family on them.

And what percentage of men actually DO all this dirty, dangerous work anyway? I don’t see men lining up to do this kind of work unless they don't qualify for anything else or unless they carry some kind of macho mystique. And I don’t see men in these dirty, dangerous jobs promoting women into their ranks. Quite the opposite. The macho mystique ones are jealously guarded as bastions of male pride. If a woman comes within coo-ee of wanting one of their dirty, dangerous jobs, chances are she’ll be harassed and bullied with the full intention of getting her to go elsewhere.

SJF. It might interest you to know that i am currently studying for my cert 3 in aged care.It might interest you to know that when i lived with my daughters mother i changed most nappies myself because her mother was too lazy to. I also did most of the feeding and toilet trained her and taught her to eat. It might interest you to know that when i got custody of her i had to teach her to wash and shower herself, and paid $20.000 to the family court for the privelige of doing so while the neglecting ex got all the legal aid. It might interest you to know that shortly after i got custody, in addition to looking after my daughter, my father fell terminally ill and i was also looking after him for a considerable time showering,shaving,dressing, cooking, taking him to the toilet etc.Don't think for a minute that men are not capable of doing these jobs. More men work shiftwork than women, more men die and have serious accidents in the workplace than women, show me any official figures to the contrary. My fiancee told me that the best nurse she worked with was a MALE nurse.When she worked in an aged care facility her fellow female workers were the worst bullies out, to their own sisters too. The few men who were taken on were soon picked on, bullied and made to leave. She now works with handicapped people and despite there being a number of qualified men in our town to do the job the ratio where she works is 11 females to 1 male and guess who does all the heaviest jobs. Look at the ratio of male/female workers in such areas as social work and relationship counselling, all nicely worked out to advantage women. Ive been told that at kings cross there are almost as many male prostitutes as female, every month there seems to be a male strip act visiting my town. Equality, bring it on, i'll be glad when the male female suicide ratio is 1/1 instead of 5/1.

eyeinthesky

Your ex-wife from hell sob story is nothing new and is equally balanced by the next person's ex-husband from hell sob story.

What you are trying to do is use YOUR version of your marital woes (without your wife being able to tell her side of the story) to score gender-wars points about men's work being dirty and dangerous while women just sit around keeping warm, clean and safe at their expense. Also, none of your pseudo-statistical litany of men's work woes did nothing to lessen the fact that women do a lot of dirty, dangerous, menial and mind-numbingly boring work.

They also suffer depresssion at almost double the rate of men and they attempt suicide at about 4 times the rate (it's just that their preferred methods are less violent).

I'm afraid I have absolutely no patience left for the continual bleating and whingeing by the Poor Menz movement advocates like yourself who love to wallow in the belief that they are enslaved by a system designed to advantage women at every turn. Tell it to someone who cares.

SJF:"They also suffer depresssion at almost double the rate of men and they attempt suicide at about 4 times the rate (it's just that their preferred methods are less violent)."

What a lot of tosh. First we get "mum's harm their kids more because those horrible Menz won't take them, besides, Menz are really horrible, did I mention it's all Menz fault", then this latest rubbish. Straight from the "How to Milk Victims" handbook, well done you.

All of the evidence is that women not only harm their kids, they often self-harm as a means of getting attention. Self-harm is also more prevalent in girls than in boys. I suspect it's because girls tend to get a lot of fuss made of them when they get hurt, where a boy is likely to be told "be a man, suck it up". It's that constant conditioning to rely on the goodwill of others instead of standing on their own that has also lead to your own egregiously self-serving version of Feminism.

Men die from suicide at 4 times the rate of women. If women are trying at 4 times the rate of men, that means that for every male that dies, 16 women are pretending to try. By all means let's address that horrendous drain on our health services. What do you suggest should be done to reduce the waste?

SJF:"wallow in the belief that they are enslaved by a system designed to advantage women at every turn."

Welcome to the machine...
"Come in here dear girl, have a cigar, you're gonna go far"
"and did we tell you the name of the game, girl?
We call it riding the gravy train"

Yes, Kellie,

Lets start with mandatory 50% representation of men in the management and senior staff of the Child Support Agency.

Seems fair. 50% of parents are men, 50% of children are male.

Rusty.

SJF. "Tell it to some one who cares".What a piece of work you are. There we have it folks, straight from the feminists mouth. The same attitude i got right through my battle to rescue my daughter from abuse and neglect. From the man hating feminist social worker who ignored the fact that my daughter was missing weeks of school every term, ignored statements by people such as my neighbour who is a sherrifs officer JP and former acting magistrate[ a woman], police statements and even evidence from their own crisis workers, and who told me quite literally that my daughter didn't have the rights of a dog, to the family court registrar who said when informed of the daily filthy verbal abuse that my daughter was being subjected to " its no worse than she would hear at a football match, the childs probably used to it",to the family court judge who refused to do anything when the ex broke every court order placed on her continually, even those designed to safeguard my daughters welfare, to the police who drove off and left a 7 yo girl who was left alone at home at 4.00am despite sighting court orders and in clear breach of the child protection act in my state, and who then,after being instructed to remove the ex from the pub, lied in their statement and said she wasn't drunk, this after she had been drinking for 7 hours. Yeah " tell it to some one who cares", none of those people cared about a young childs welfare any more than you do. And you have the nerve to say that the feminists care about child abuse and neglect and that men and their children are not unfairly treated, what a load of piffle.

Rusty:”Lets start with mandatory 50% representation of men in the management and senior staff of the Child Support Agency.

Seems fair. 50% of parents are men, 50% of children are male.”

Add DoCS to that quota Rusty, I'll back you the whole way.

Eyeinthesky, your wife was a useless whore. There ya go, a female has agreed, she sounds like a complete drop kick, if I meet her I will hate her.

I'm guessing your daughter is lovely? I'm thinking you don't share this stuff with her? You support her choices in life and don't bombard her with what utter bitches all women are and how downtrodden men are because of females being so inherently nasty?

Cause we're not, you do know that aye.

Anti baby, have you thought about not talking in such sweeping statements? Are you on Ihategovdept.com ?

I can say that the last 30 foster kids coming my way they were all about domestic violence and abuse (sexual and otherwise) and each one was actually the man. The previous 80 there were two women, a heroin addict and a mental case. 78 kids over time with me because of daddy.

So my own personal experience put those men as err requiring a beating at some point I guess.

What if we all had a conversation only about what we know about how the different genders act. No googling, no stats, jsut what one group of us has personal knowledge about?

TPP:"
Anti baby, have you thought about not talking in such sweeping statements?"

which "sweeping statement" would that be, Jewels? I've looked and can't find any unsustainable comments I've made on this thread at least.

The figures show very clearly that the past 30 years of the Feminist-inspired Family Law Act has lead to a massive rearrangement of the way in which many of our children are raised, as well as the growth of several massive bureaucracies to both administer the Act and to support the single mothers it has created. As SJF points out, one of the consequences has been that some of those single mothers harm their kids, since it is a sad fact of human nature that people tend to laqsh out at those nearest and dearest (and smaller). Over time, the number of single-mother households has grown and so has the rate of violence they commit against their children, often compounded by neglect.

TPP:"78 kids over time with me because of daddy"

No, 78 kids with you because of DOCS and no doubt because of the Police. As you know, my ex tried to get a DVO against me during our divorce proceedings, which lead to my kids being kept from me by Court Order with absolutely no evidence heard. I'll never forget the magistrate's words: "We cannot take the chance that her allegations may be proven, therefore, I will agree to join the children to the order, although there has been no allegation of violence involving the children".

How many children do you see as a result of Mummy falsely accusing Daddy? How would you know?

I've also told you my experience with DOCS, when a complaint was made against the ex by her new BF's ex. I could have made up a story and probably made her jump through a stack of hoops, but I didn't, because I don't like lying. How many mothers, when faced with a DOCS worker or police DVLO asking leading questions just blame it all on Dad, especially if he's no longer in the household?

Morning Anti, you never sleep in huh. I was speaking as in “you” meaning all of you. One of my more brilliant hypocritical moments there, sorry. I just think narrowing it down to personal knowledge might really help.

But you are still talking figures and I know the more I look at varying stats and things on subjects that annoy me only certain ones jump out, I have to work very hard at being fair.

Well yeah DoCS and CYFS (NZ), police, court got the kids here. But the kids I had were removed from both parents, neither at the time deemed suitable to parent. Mums get in a lot of trouble for standing by and letting themselves or their children get hurt.

I know cause the kids told me. Take about 15 out of the equation, either mentally not okay or too young to tell me anything. One that couldn’t talk had to be removed because the wee dot wouldn’t stop screaming every time a male walked in the room though. Hubby spent three days avoiding the poor toddler until another placement was found.

I’m also going to have to spend some time thinking about the single mums the kids were taken off; most of these cases had the boyfriend hurting the kids. They weren’t automatically handed to the biological father either as workers would quickly find out mum kept hooking up with the same kind of men.

Now don’t get me wrong, I am still inclined to blame the females in most cases for their part in letting things happen to the children they claim to love.

I know a woman recently hit her fella and he kicked her out straight away, she rings and gets a ton of support from various agencies because she said she had suffered emotional abuse. Now she finds out she is pregnant to him – the poor bugger.

So from where I sit both sex impresses me not at all and all the ones I receive kids from are low income.

TPP. You are right on both counts about my ex and my daughter. I don't bombard her with what bitches ALL women are because i know its not true, and she knows i know its not true. I don't bombard her as to how unfairly fathers are treated in the family court she knows that already and bore the brunt of all those decisions made by the family court and social workers for 3 years. If you doubt me i would refer you to the fathers day letter i shared with this forum on another thread, fatherhood and the love revolution. If you were a social worker and a woman came to you saying, my partner goes out all night boozing and partying, often not coming home till daylight, i get abused and put down on a daily basis, sometimes i don't get enough to eat,i have to hide in the house to avoid being hit when he flies into one of his violent rages, and iv'e been threatened and intimidated to be quiet about it all. What would your advice be to that woman, i think we both know that answer, yet the social workers and family court forced my 5/6/7 yo daughter to live in exactly those conditions for 3 years. I am well aware of the high incidence of domestic abuse inflicted on women and their children and i abhor such acts. How could i not, my fiancee went through 19 years of an abusive marriage herself, one of her best friends, a younger woman and very good mother is currently having an awful time with a husband who goes out with his mates boozing all the time then comes home and hits her and smashes up furniture etc. To be honest its nice to find such women as yourself who are at least trying to inject some objectivity into the debate. I do not hate all women, what i do hate is the women who use the system for their own selfish ends and agendas, and the system which allows them to get away with it.

Noticeably the feminist, male bashing author did not say anything positive about male board members. Everything about female board members was positive, but not a single positive word said about male board members.

If any person has ever come across a feminist who has ever said even one single positive word about the male gender, please let me known.

Some of the greatest amount of bigotry, discrimination and prejudiced in our society is now coming from those who call themselves “feminist”

Eyecanseeyou, First I’d like to say well done, thank goodness you got your daughter in the end and horrible that it was such a battle for you to just be able to do the right thing by the wee girl.

But I can see if I didn’t have any cash and I wanted out of something and the government made it all possible and would just hand over the means to whatever end I had chosen, then yeah anyone would be tempted. If they have made it easy for females then females are going to use it. This isn’t just because they are females though; this is human nature across both genders. A generation back and it was the men folk enjoying this advantage. I think both men and women here would prefer the better parent gets custody immediately, every single time.

I read your daughters card. It was really nice and she was obviously raised by a good man.

I have been dealing with DoCS caseworkers for a few years now and honestly would not be able to answer your question, the decisions they make on behalf of children usually leave me raging, crying or bewildered. I am so unable to predict them that I live in a constant state of unease wondering what they are going to do next. I’ll stop there before I begin to rant.

So how come you argue with Suzy, SJF etc? Because you actually sound like there is a certain level of agreement going on. And not one of us grrls here is responsible for the law, acts or policies put in place by the government that causes children to suffer by judge’s bad decisions.

Oh and hey congratulations on your engagement to Daphne.

Shuddup Vanna, the author didn’t mention the décor of the boardrooms either or what snacks were available or if the tea lady was efficient because it wasn’t about the other stuff. And right after telling you to shuddup I have to ask – could you define feminist? I could be one in your opinion and not even know it.

Who can forget Sallyanne Atkinson, the ex-Liberal Lord Mayor of Brisbane, who chaired the board of ABC Learning? After blaming the media, bad Karma and goodness knows what for the collapse of ABC Learning, which Sallyanne believed was impossible to go wrong because the child minding industry is propped up by guvvy funds, she opined that as chairwoman of ABC's accident-prone board she did not think she needed any understanding or grooming in financial matters. So much for the fiduciary responsibilities of the Chair and what the hell did she think she was being paid for?

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24619261-2702,00.html

With respect to those who are demanding affirmative action for company boards, there are already problems in ensuring that members of boards have the requisite skills and experience and are the best people available.

Ta, TPP.

I'll cheerfully add DoCS to the 50% quota.

Can I further specify that a court-appointed Child's advocate (50:50 sex ratio of course) should attend all CSA and DoCS meetings and review/comment on all legal allegations tendered by either parent?

Given that CSA don't like *any* witnesses present, I'd just love this one, fly on the wall style.

Rusty

TPP 'could you define feminist?'

If you want to be a feminist then telling someone who questions feminism or feminists to 'shuddup' might be a good start. In fact, I think telling anyone who dares to question the sisterhood to 'shuddup' is a prerequisite for feminists, isn't it?

'I have to work very hard at being fair'

This is a common problem among members of the sisterhood and certainly works in your favour.

'Mums get in a lot of trouble for standing by and letting themselves or their children get hurt'

This is staring to look better. Now you're portraying men as the aggressors with women at worst being passive bystanders. See the link below for facts

http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/sheets/rs7/rs7.html

This particularly struck me: "Child deaths resulting from parental abuse are unique among homicides in terms of the high proportion of women offenders"

'I know cause the kids told me.'

Oh well. That clears everything up. A 5? 7? 9? year old told you, so it must be true. Again, refer to actual statistics. Eyeinthesky's case demonstrates why 'Hell hath no fury like a man scorned' was not what Congreve wrote.

'I’m also going to have to spend some time thinking about the single mums the kids were taken off; most of these cases had the boyfriend hurting the kids'

Children taken off SINGLE mums = boyfriend's fault. I see what you mean when you say you have to work very hard at being fair. I think the non-feminist response would have been - single mums who feel their partner might pose even the slightest risk to their children need to dump him and move on.

'the wee dot wouldn’t stop screaming every time a male walked in the room'

Good. Emotional scene, unsubstantiaed, one POV only, no context, involves violence or implies violence. In fact, you managed to get fear from not just one man but ALL men in there. Excellent. You qualify as a first rate feminist.

Rusty:”Can I further specify that a court-appointed Child's advocate (50:50 sex ratio of course) should attend all CSA and DoCS meetings and review/comment on all legal allegations tendered by either parent?”

Yep, sounds good. Do they have court-appointed advocates now or you wish them to have them?

Rusty:”Given that CSA don't like *any* witnesses present, I'd just love this one, fly on the wall style.”

There’d be policies about people with clipboards or briefcases attending meetings. It’s probably called the Panic Clause within the Over a Barrel Policy of the CSA.

Dane, I do believe I get to see the worst both genders can do.

Based on the way I phrase my posts you say I am a feminist. Interesting but more a comment on yourself and how you choose to view the world. I just asked hubby if I am. His reply “from my limited understanding of the feminist movement I wouldn’t say so” – yeah he always talks like that, drives me nuts.

I would urge parents to listen to their children though; if this is feminist thinking then it is one they got spot on. A small child terrified of males (the S means more than one) is a bit of a clue in a non-speaking child. One that cringes when any big person approaches them is another clue. All I get is clues, no one has videoed what happened strangely enough.

My point in the message was to break it down to personal observations and stop the stat thing... which reminds me of a quote I heard..

TPP,

'Based on the way I phrase my posts you say I am a feminist.

I think if you read my response carefully you'll see I did actually go beyond your phrasing.

'Interesting but more a comment on yourself and how you choose to view the world'

Interesting indeed. I took your post and pointed out why I felt you more than qualified as a feminist. I did this by taking your worldview and matching it to that of a feminist. That is called justifying an agrument.

'I just asked hubby if I am. His reply “from my limited understanding of the feminist movement I wouldn’t say so”

Kudos to your husband. He is a very sensible man.

'I would urge parents to listen to their children though; if this is feminist thinking then it is one they got spot on.'

The problem with making an appeal to our feelings is that it makes us feel warm and fuzzy inside and all good about ourselves but does little else. Children are immature humans, and as immature humans they are very prone to manipulation. Heaven help me if I suggest that mothers going through a divorce might manipulate their children. I would never do that. But at least you admitted to thinking like a feminist (sort of).

'A small child terrified of males (the S means more than one) is a bit of aclue in a non-speaking child.'

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. You seem to be suggesting the child had good grounds for concern. Are you saying the child should be afraid of all men? Are you saying the child was acting rationally?

I have to say appealing to our emotions over our intellect is a common feminist strategy. As any good marketer will tell you, this is far more effective than getting people to think. When you throw in some misinformation like 1 in 4 women experiences domestic violence etc, you have a very potent mix. We're not thinking, we're feeling. We accept the bogus claims as fact: all men are a danger to children.

TPP:"There’d be policies about people with clipboards or briefcases attending meetings"

Nope. They've even run away from meetings that they called when I showed up and put my tape recorder on the desk.

Me:"I'm recording this to save taking notes, please state your name for the record"

CSA person:"erm...." [looks at other CSA person}"erm...."

Me:[turn tape recorder on]"My name is [...] and this is a recording of a meeting between myself and Mr? [indicates to CSA person to state her name]

CSA person:"We can't allow you to record this"

Me:"I'm sorry?"

CSA person:"It's CSA policy that we don't allow recordings"

Me:"but I recorded my last two meetings, with Ms Kylie Warren and with Mr Michael Peterson and Mr Jayson Lavender. It's just as well I did, because Ms Warren made a mistake and issued an order to garnish my wages when she had clearly said she wouldn't do so until my objection to the change of assessment determination had been finalised. If I hadn't had the tape, her mistake might have never been detected and corrected."

CSA Person:"I must insist you turn that off"

Me:"I'm not prepared to do so, given the history of dishonesty shown by some of your colleagues. I remind you that the reason I will no longer deal with your Agency on the telephone is because I have no confidence that your staff will accurately record what I or they say."

CSA Person:[to other CSA person]:"I think we'd better call this off"

Me:"What are you afraid of? Aren't you prepared to stand by what you say in this meeting?"

CSA person[gets up, gestures to other CSA person to follow and walks out].

That was the last time the CSA asked me to attend a meeting. I have offered to meet with several State Managers, including the current one, Lorna Andrews, to discuss the whole mess - none have accepted my offer. After my offer to Miss Andrews, which I never received a reply to, my case was transferred out of Qld and I now deal with the NSW office. The CSA is corrupt to the top.

My last got away from the topic, which is that affirmative action to place any specific group into leadership positions is dumb. Leaders are leaders because they lead, not because they're the right gender or the right colour. If they don't become leaders as a consequence of their own natural talents, they shouldn't be asked to try to pretend: it's not just unfair on us, it's unfair on them

I have little confidence that many of the women who might be selected as a result of an affirmative action process would even be the best woman for the job, let alone the best person.

The whole scheme is yet another way for second-rate ideologues to leverage their way into highly-paid positions. Look at Anna Bligh for the classic example of a gravy-train rider who's floated to a position way beyond her capacity. Now imagine a thousand Anna Blighs ruining businesses in the same way she's ruining Qld. We can't afford to pay for their free ride.

Me:”'Based on the way I phrase my posts you say I am a feminist. “
Dane:”I think if you read my response carefully you'll see I did actually go beyond your phrasing.”

I don’t remember sitting down, having a coffee with you so you could understand my view of the world, of men and of women – what tone I have or where I am at in life. I am pretty sure I didn’t say one in four women experience domestic violence.

I can’t appeal to your feelings? You left me no choice, your logic is flawed. The men seem angry at the CSA and at court and that the system is flawed. What I don’t understand is why females in general are to blame for this. When my daughter turns 18 is she suddenly going to be labeled a femnazi because Aussie males see females through this narrow lense?

It is a funny thing this ignoring children you advise. At what age would you suggest a child is finally listened to?

The children I get are mostly from households where domestic violence is common. And the child’s view is the one I need to address and cope with. I don’t meet either parent or the boyfriends. I don’t get the he said/she said, I get the child. No one is here to manipulate them. This is what I was saying to Anti, instead of stats and numbers that can be manipulated to suit any agenda, bring it back down to what we know personally.

But I might not have been clear, the children live with me full time from a few weeks to a couple of years.

Hubby’s last words to me on this subject were that I should go find out what feminism is since I am the only one that would be able to decide if I am one.

PS... a child who has been attacked by a dog will end up scared of all dogs for awhile. No it isn’t rational, but it is a common reaction.

Anti that recorded stuff was brilliant.

Accounts like Anti's are why I suggested a Child's Advocate. If court-appointed, the CSA could not fail to acknowledge that the children are stakeholders, and that the child's interests must also be addressed before enforcing crazed determinations.

Sadly, accounts like Anti's indicate why it probably still wouldn't work.

Rusty

Nothing that I have heard on this issue gives me any reason to believe that these children's advocates would be at all impartial.

TPP. not quite sure what you mean by a generation ago it was the menfolk enjoying this advantage, i can't recall any time in recent history where the family courts have given fathers greater rights to their children than mothers and rewarded them as hansomely as mothers are rewarded today. Perhaps you can enlighten me. As regards DOCS case workers, i vividly remember chatting to a female worker at the family court once when i was waiting for some paperwork to be processed, her words were, " that would be them, they jump in when there is no need, and when there is a crying need they sit back and do nothing, they ALWAYS get it wrong ". In her job she must have seen lots. You say that not one of you girls is responsible for the law or government policies yet SJF has stated quite plainly that the feminists have lobbied for decades to get more support for single mothers, you must have seen yourself her reply, "tell it to some one who cares", a completely different attitude to your own. People like SJF would rather pour millions of dollars into propping up those single mothers who don't care about their children than just place them with a father that does when one is available. They freely point out government statistics that support their views then ignore or deny those that don't. And as i've said elsewhere they are quite prepared to accept innocent children like my daughter left, with an abusive mother, as collateral damage to be sacrificed on the altar of feminism. I can't believe that as a foster carer you could agree with that.These same people are now actively seeking the repeal of the shared parenting laws introduced by the previous gov't, citing a few high profile cases of child murder perpetrated by fathers, while at the same time ignoring the much more numerous case of child murder abuse and neglect perpetrated by mothers and their new BF's.

Hey Eyeinthesky, I messed up the threads last night, managed to mix this one and the father one up and replied to your message over in the in the love revolution topic. Sorry about that.

I went and read stuff on feminism, it’s actually quite interesting. Although female I think I may be “pro feminist” rather than a feminist, and reading it I get where Anti started calling them “grrls”. Men see this movement as “anti-male” but I couldn’t see where that is part of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism

Main article: Pro-feminism

Pro-feminism is the support of feminism without implying that the supporter is a member of the feminist movement. The term is most often used in reference to men who are actively supportive of feminism and of efforts to bring about gender equality. The activities of pro-feminist men's groups include anti-violence work with boys and young men in schools, offering sexual harassment workshops in workplaces, running community education campaigns, and counseling male perpetrators of violence. Pro-feminist men also are involved in men's health, activism against pornography including anti-pornography legislation, men's studies, and the development of gender equity curricula in schools. This work is sometimes in collaboration with feminists and women's services, such as domestic violence and rape crisis centers. Some activists of both genders will not refer to men as "feminists" at all, and will refer to all pro-feminist men as "pro-feminists".

Then by the definitions you cite, i must be pro feminist myself.I believe in equal work for equal pay, i do not advocate violence against women, i'm against sexual harrassment in the workplace and i believe in job placements being made on merit not gender. The problem is that the modern feminists are not interested in equality they are about superiority. They are not interested in so much furthering womens rights as stripping men of theirs especially in the arena of family law. As in this article they are interested in getting quota's of women on company boards and in government instead of things being decided on merit. I wonder if they would support more and equal numbers of men in the currently female dominated fields of child psychologists, social work, relationship counselling etc such jobs being filled because the applicants are men not because they are any good at it. Feminists were instrumental in bringing in no fault divorce with the result that at least 70% of divorces are now initiated by women, yet they still expect special treatment when it comes to child custody,this despite rock solid evidence that far more mothers abuse kill and neglect their children than fathers.They advocate spending millions on supporting single mothers who abuse their kids rather than advocate that a child live with a loving father.Plenty of courses in womens studies around, i don't see too many for mens studies. Currentlt all a woman has to do is just say she is afraid her husband might harm her and that man will summarily be romoved from his childs life, if the allegations are found to be malicious lies nothing will happen to the mother but the fathers life will be blighted for ever. Even as i write diana bryant is attempting to bring in legislation so that even costs wont be awarded against a mother even if she commits perjury like this. I wonder what her attitude would be if i posted in the media that she was a lesbian paedophile who bashes kids, what do you think it would be.

Eye:”Then by the definitions you cite, I must be pro feminist myself. I believe in equal work for equal pay, I do not advocate violence against women, I’m against sexual harassment in the workplace and I believe in job placements being made on merit not gender.“

I know it’s so weird. I am guessing like in any “group” there are extremists. I think I am happy being called pro feminist; I wouldn’t know what the description for the other side is “pro masculist”?

“The problem is that the modern feminists are not interested in equality they are about superiority. They are not interested in so much furthering womens rights as stripping men of theirs especially in the arena of family law. “

I think there is also a group called the “accidental feminist” where if they are advocating for something that comes from a female perspective then a label is flung at them no matter what the context. I am sure you will find some that are about superiority, you would find the same types within the male community. Humans are pretty predictable in that respect.

To me this article looked as though females were frequently overlooked because they weren’t having any merits acknowledged.
I don’t’ know about how things work here Eye – It is a tricky one. Like if a kid says something bad happened to them the first thing to do is believe the kid and sort out the facts afterwards, it is the only way it should happen initially. I’d say the length of the process afterwards is what causes so much grief.

I found this:

The Family Law Act 1975 established the principle of no-fault divorce in Australian law. This means that a court does not consider which partner was at fault in the marriage breakdown. The only ground for divorce is the irretrievable breakdown of the relationship, demonstrated by 12 months of separation.

What is wrong with it?

As for the rock solid evidence about who abusing who, I am still dubious of stats and the story they don’t tell.

Benk,

You're probably right, they may not be impartial. But unlike the CSA, the solicitor acting as CA risks his job if that can be shown.

Currently, The CSA claims to be acting in the child's interest, yet will throw that out the window rather than fix a simple error. The CSA has other interests than the child's interest, A CA has no other interests.

In any case, simply having another person in the room helps to reduce the air of secrecy about all their procedures, always a good thing.

Rusty

TPP. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with what you posted about the family law act. What i am saying is that while THAT area of the law underwent what at the time was a radical change, there was no commensurate change in the associated area of law which covered child custody and access. In effect the feminist lobby got to get their cake and eat it too, while many fathers in effect have only got to eat a few stale crusts. As you say regarding females being frequently overlooked because they wern't having any merits acknowledged, so it is the same in the family law system except that it is the fathers who are being overlooked, the figures [85% of mothers getting custody] speak for themselves. I know that,as you say, i would find some within the male community that advocate male superiority, i have seen just as many of these websites as i have seen man hating feminist superiority sites.

I cant believe I missed this one. Man some storm chaser I am.

Hey anti re; Posted by Antiseptic, Monday, 14 September 2009 6:45:15 AM

That's gold man.

Hey dane, do you reckon woman = feminist. They're like interchangeable man aren't they? Piper; wink!