The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Endemic patriachal inequality and injustice within our government and judicial system

Endemic patriachal inequality and injustice within our government and judicial system

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
It seems that since the dawn of time there has been inequality and injustice at every level throughout societies globally. The Capitalist elite utilitarian mode of governance has reigned supreme albeit under a different banner. The right of due-process which is not actually a fundamental right within the Australian constitution is neither fair or consistantly implemented and enforced. Society is based on sexism and the masculine white anglo male has/and does determine much in the basic constructs of the law. The High Court of Australia in the past 100 years has had but ONE female judge! This is supposedly based on a meritorious system but when delved into deeper the cracks emerge. The minority capitalist elite who are seated and serving in all arms of government and the judicial system have no concept of the impoverished. They were predominantly private schooled and mixed in a societal hot bed of the rich. Class, race, gender distinction plays a part in society from wages to justice of every kind. The new agenda of governments globally in the 21st century is further impinging on the rights of citizens civil liabilities all under the guise and premise of national security and the threat of terrorism. What then have we left as people and individuals when the very laws that were written to protect us are being stripped away piece by piece under the banner of a 'Democracy'?
Posted by justice1964, Thursday, 27 September 2007 5:58:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Justice,- "Sexism" is a term invented for socio political purposes.

It has no foundation in life other than this.

The idea of 'sexism' suggests or infers that there is a trancendental 'standard' in existence which declares that what is described as 'sexism' is 'wrong'.

Unless you can point to the exact nature of this trancendental standard and prove it's validity.. I'm afraid you are left with the law of the jungle.. unpalatable as that may seem.

Now..at this point, if you have read this far, you are either in denial.. or in a crisis of identity...

I suggest there IS a standard which transcends life..and is a law to which we may appeal... for issues of justice and fairness.

That 'law' so to speak is the Almighty. But with regard to God's self revelation to us.. there are only 2 major points.

1/ Love God...
2/ Love your neighbour as yourself...

These laws cannot be legally enforced as they are matters of the heart. But in regard to your issue..there is no other standard to which you may appeal.. unless you have in mind some other Deity which so prescribes 'sexism' to be morally wrong.

The Christian concept of human relations for males and females is that they COMPLEMENT each other, rather than compete. We each have areas of life specialty, and we will function as a society best when we fulfill those complementary roles.

True Justice is not about 'numbers' in this or that profession.. but about love, dignity and harmony. Obsession with numbers and gender will be our undoing. "Be" what we are..and be the best we can at being that.

Suddenly...it will all fall into place.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 28 September 2007 9:10:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The Christian concept of human relations for males and females is that they COMPLEMENT each other, rather than compete. We each have areas of life specialty, and we will function as a society best when we fulfill those complementary roles."

Sounds like you are suggesting that the man should be the breadwinner and the little wife stay home and keep house. How about instead suggesting that each person has a role and a speciality. Family and society works best when everyone performs the roles at which they are best suited. This causes the least amount of conflict in general. The only problems that arise are where people come into the arena with preconceived ideas about what someone's role should be.

As far as female high court judges go, it is a sad but true fact of life that women will always be more involved in family raising, and so will have restrictions on career-building (in this context read butt-kissing at late night social functions). Some women are able to transcend this (usually with a supportive partner) and its great to see that this can happen. But it takes an enormous amount of drive AND the acceptance that to pursue this path we have to miss out on other things. Its a fallacy that women can have it all. Men cant, so why on earth should women think any different. Both CAN have a career and have children, but the amount of time and the quality of time to be dedicated to one or the other will suffer as a result. In the past men have given up the time with kids, whilst women have given up the career (or at least put it on hold for many years). No-one gets it all.
Posted by Country Gal, Friday, 28 September 2007 9:26:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Half right, Boaz. Which is actually an improvement, so, good for you.

>>"Sexism" is a term invented for socio political purposes.<<

That's the bit you are right about.

And this is the bit where you go of the rails.

>>The idea of 'sexism' suggests or infers that there is a trancendental 'standard' in existence which declares that what is described as 'sexism' is 'wrong'.<<

The word "sexism" is, in all its usages, pejorative. It is only used to describe an attitude that is inherently unfair or biased, hence there cannot be an application of the term that is either neutral or good.

There is therefore no need for a "transcendental standard". The only reason that the word would be deployed is where something is already "wrong", the word itself it provides no service in the measurement of that wrong, only naming its source.

The author clearly describes an imbalance in outcomes, and attributes that imbalance to sexism. It is reasonable to object to either the facts behind the assertion or the assertion itself, but not to veer off at a tangent to try and establish a neutral platform from which to judge sexism itself.

>>Unless you can point to the exact nature of this trancendental standard and prove it's validity.. I'm afraid you are left with the law of the jungle.. unpalatable as that may seem.<<

This is just another poorly disguised attempt to divert the discussion into religion - the Boaz MIUAUG mythology. Unfortunately, because there is no need to identify or validate this "transcendental standard", the segue falls flat.

"Preaching" can also carry pejorative overtones, Boaz. As I think it does here.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 28 September 2007 9:45:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles... you are half right also.. again.. good for you :)

It is USually used as you described. BUT.. and it's one of those 'follow the finger' buts.. it, (like most things people care about) becomes extended from the basic 'unfairnes' aspect into ALL or ANY aspect of life where women are treated differently from men.

C.G.. you read a lot 'into' my post...did't you :) keep trying.

Pericles..back 2 u... What you describe as 'unfairness' may in reality not be, but simply is perceived that way.

Example. Female front line combat soldiers.

Clearly, they are not as well suited for this task.. as males.
To say to them "sorry.. you are not suited for this" may cause the 'whoa..thats unfair" reaction, when in reality it is extremely fair.. by protecting the rest of the soldiers from a physical 'weak link' which might compromise the safety of their whole platoon.

Many concepts of 'social and gender' justice do, in my opinion appeal to a standard which they believe is a kind of ultimate truth.. along with animal rights, vegetarians.. etc.. Though some might on the surface appeal to medical grounds.. pushed far enough you will find 'other' things..

*Scratch a vegetarian hard enough and you will find an embryonic Hindu*... not universally true, but close.

The number of female or male High Court judges.. should not be linked with 'fairness' in my humble view..except where it could be shown that such a situation exists due to deliberate 'blokes looking after blokes, simply because they are blokes'

Perhaps those who make the decisions about who does what adhere to an ideology or a faith which suggests it is not the best thing to have female leaders ? If they do... who are you or anyone to criticize them..and if you do..on what grounds ? aaah.. see ? we are back to that 'trancendental standard' again
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 28 September 2007 12:20:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BD, the front-line soldiers argument is flawed. Some women wont be up to the physical task, just as some men will fail. To ban all women is silly. Those that want to take on the role have to pass physical standards, and if they can pass them, and they are prepared to take on the risks of being on the front line, then who are you to say they cant just becaue they are female. Rot! I dont suggest that standards should be softened so that more women will make the grade, but if they do make the grade and that's what they want to do, then they shouldnt be stopped because of someone's ideal of good roles for women.

Further the basic standard that we have suggested we aspire to as Australians is equality of opportunity. Where opportunity is indeed equal, then numbers of men or women in particular areas shouldnt be a concern. But while we aspire to this standard, we still fall short of achieving it by a long way. Growing up in an environment where children were encouraged to aspire to anything they pleased, it was a rude shock to me when I left home, moving some distance away, to find out just how unequal opportunities are, both for men/women, rich/poor, etc. Some of the views that are held around me still beggar belief. Eg, that a man who stays home to raise the kids (even in the short-term) is a bludger - it cuts both ways you know. To me that just denigrates not only the poor bloke in question, but also the role of women in general and the value of good child raising.
Posted by Country Gal, Friday, 28 September 2007 12:55:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy