Dear Antiseptic,

A couple of things need correcting:

1) I'm not in the habit of going off and 'sulking.'
That's your female stereotyping showing.

2) You said, "If you want more money - go and do
a challenging, risky or arduous job that is valued
highly. You can't have it both ways."
Again - that's your female stereotyping showing.
You're assuming that I'm not in a challenging, arduous job
that's valued highly.

3) You don't believe me trying to tell you that gender
inequality still remains a contemporary issue in Australia.

I normally do some research prior to entering into
discussions on OLO, so I know what the facts are.
Had you bothered to google - gender equality in Australia,
or what the Australian Census has to say on the subject,
or even the Economic status of Women, you wouldn't have to
disregard what I'm trying to say. You'd know what the facts
are.

4) For someone with the pseudo of "Antispetic," your use
of language like, "utter gobshite," is rather surprising.
I'm not used to language like that. I tend to associate
that sort of language with rather uneducated, crude,
dull-witted people. And, you're using it in this discussion,
why? Simply because I have an opinion that differs from yours.
If you want your point of view respected, you have to respect
the views of others or else you lose all credibility.

5) The following website is just one of many that may clear
things up for you:

Gender inequality at Work.
New Report Shows Global Gender Gap Bigger Then
Previously Thought.

http://www.ituc-csi.org/spip.php?article2799

6) Finally, I read this on one of the websites I
had scrawled but I can't remember which one - so
my apologies - however it sums things up rather well -
"...we as the next generation will integrate our up-
bringing into our lives ... to reflect the way we have
been brought up to see male and female roles in the
workplace, in the home, in politics, and in every aspect
in our micro worlds...

all women, Queen Victoria especially, were prohibited from the Parliament which enabled the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900.

legislation enabled under this Act, as with the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902, cannot change what is blatant discrimination against women.

the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act provides for a Referendum to redress discrimination.

Otokonoko, to answer your question, men get paid more than women for doing the same thing when they're doing what they enjoy doing most, what men call hard yakka.

this leaves the jobs they like doing least for women, which usually works out fine because the jobs men don't like doing are often the jobs women enjoy, jobs involving people skills comes to mind.

since Australia's Constitution mandates men supervise women, men get paid more for hard yakka because supervisors get paid more for supervising.

What a thoroughly bizarre observation, whistler.

>>all women, Queen Victoria especially, were prohibited from the Parliament which enabled the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900.<<

But it was Queen Victoria herself who enabled the Act itself. Without her it would not have come to pass. That puts her in a fairly privileged position, does it not?

Indeed, our present Queen has the power to declare war, conclude treaties and recognize states. Seems pretty empowered to me.

Dear Pericles,

The King or Queen's position, as you know is predominantly
that of a 'figure-head,' the real power lies with
her Prime Minister and Parliament. She/He does as they
are 'advised.'

The Queen did not want to give the late Princess Diana
a State funeral - nor did she want to return to London
to 'mourn' her passing or fly the flag at 'half-mast.'

She did all of the above - her Prime Minster 'advised,'
she had to do it.

You're right - so much for being 'empowered.'

Foxy, your illustration of the Queen's day-to-day influence is absolutely correct. The Prime Minister and the Cabinet even write the Queen's Speech, the one that opens Parliament and outlines the upcoming legislative intentions of the government.

I deliberately chose as my examples those that exist within the Royal Prerogative and that are essential to her most important duties, defence of the realm and the keeping of the Queen's peace. These powers she can wield without Ministerial advice, as any Prime Minister knows very well.

Overall, the function is more a well-recognized check-and-balance on the really important stuff, I would suggest, than merely acting as a figurehead.

Having said that, it must be a bitch of a job, being Queen, all those traditional duties to fulfil that go back many centuries, and with a bunch of rumbling republicans (in whose number, by the way, I count myself) milling around outside.

I'd be interested to learn the source of your Diana stories, by the way, as I had heard a completely different version of events.

Dear Pericles,

My source on Diana was Tina Brown's unputdownable
read, "The Diana Chronicles," published by
Century, London, 2007.

Just to add to some further information on the "power"
that the Monarch actually has... (Taken from - The
World Book Encyclopedia - vol.11 - J-K, p. 258,
"Kings and queens of Britain and Ireland..."
and I quote:

"In the past, kings and queens had great power in
Britain and Ireland.

Today, the 'monarch' in Britain has little power
but is still highly respected. ...She serves as a
figurehead and a symbol of unity for people in
Britain and the Commonwealth...

The monarch's role in British politics is part of the
un-written British constitution. As a constitutional
monarch, the ...queen is head of state. She holds
office with the aid and agreement of an elected
Parliament. The Parliament provides the government.

The monarch's duties are now mainly ceremonial..."

Cheers.