Maximillion:"May god save us all from "ists", of any ilk or flavour.

amen

hi Maximillion,

I apologise if I misrepresented your approach. I was concerned as to whom is the 'you've' you referred when you suggested:
"Women’s average pay? True enough, but since you’ve had decades to do something about it ...".
I guess I assumed you would be of the view that women have been at the forefront of the campaign for equal pay for women.

With respect, my 'cant' has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with feminism, you're completely off the mark there and i'm suprised your concern overwhems your contributions to the extent it does. My 'cant' is about the provision of equity. In particular about the provision of an equitable democracy. Feminism simply brought the possibility of discussion about the provision of an equitable democracy to the fore.

Discrimination against women is the focus of the pursuit of equity because therein lies the solution. Yes, men are discriminated against , subjected to violence, ripped off, violated, abused and whatever else you'd like to name. But since its the refusal of men to cede power over women to a women's legislature, men are bringing discrimination upon themselves, myself included. So where do your sympathies lie, with the victims of discrimination imposed by others or the victims of self-imposed discrimination? More importantly, with respect, where is your solution.

Have you considered the best way to stop women henpecking men about achieving equality might be for women to achieve equality, with provision, for instance, of a women's legislature.

(1/3)

Constant male supervision? ... men supervise women because Australia's Constitution mandates they do. A constitution sets down basic rules by which a community lives. No woman spoke or voted on the Act of Parliament which became the Constitution of Australia. It was enacted entirely on the doctrine that men supervise women absolutely and this is the doctrine by which Australian society proceeds today. There is, of course, provision to change the Constitution to remove this doctrine through referendum on provision of a women's legislature.

Endemic violence against women? ... as the link I posted earlier explains, since the introduction of anti-discrimination laws 30 years ago, statistical evidence suggests "the possibility of no drop, or even of an increase" in violence against women. The laws don't work, the Constitution is necessarily at fault.

Sex crimes are common? ... yes, paedophile rings proliferate, abusing both boys and girls, rape is intractable, whole sections of prisons are set aside for convicted sex offenders, DOCS spends enormous resouces detecting sex crimes and supervising released sex offenders ... there I go talking about the bad stuff again! ... yet the appearance of sex crimes in Austalian indigenous mythology over 50 millennia is almost non-existent.

Women’s average pay? ... since women don't receive equal pay on average because men supervise the valuation of jobs and pay themselves more for the jobs they prefer doing, remuneration laws obviously don't work and the Consitution, again, is necessarily at fault. Jobs which women overwhelmingly, but not exclusively, prefer, nursing and child-minding come to mind, are far less rewarded than finance speculation or camel driving, for instance, because men prefer finance speculation and camel driving over nursing and child-minding.

(2/3)

Men making and delivering laws? ... Irregardless of how many women make and interpret law, they do so under male supervision, they do what men expect them to do or they don't get a run. The women who succeed as lawmakers are the women who accept the indignity of male supervision, and they have achieved magnificently. However, in no way are these women repesentative of all women. Neither are men who enjoy a good punchup representative of all men.

Discrimination against minorities? ... minorities are comprised of women and men and neither are a tangible minority. What I call discrimination is a side-effect in all minority groups of women being disempowered in a democracy which prohibits a women's legislature.

As for the First Immigrants? ... with respect, it's a bit silly to argue indigenous disadvantage is caused by anything other than ruthless, ongoing discrimination perpetrated by introdcued Australians. It was only seventeen years ago introduced law recognised indigenous prior occupation of Australia, for goodness sakes. And even then there was a scramble by government to discriminate against this recognition.

Many First Australians may well live in squalor, but who will save introduced Australians from social squalour, endemic crime, sexual violence, greed, corruption, government impotence and legal incompetence? ... all the stuff First Austalians already living in squalor have to suffer after their organisational structure of women's and men's business was outlawed and their livelihoods removed and replaced with a dependence on gender dysfunction, the source of all discrimination.

As to whether First Australians are first introduced Australian in inconclusive. I think it was Alan Thorne who suggested homo sapiens sapiens (us) emerged from homo sapiens in several regions around the globe including Australia. I recall no mention in Australian indigenous mythology, when I completed a BA in Aboriginal Studies and tutored in Aboriginal Studies at UNSW, of ancestors coming from elsewhere, although some communities recognise prior occupation of their homelands by ancestors from a previous ecological era, as with the Bradshaw figures in the Kimberley, WA.

Again, thanks for your comments. I trust my replies are as considered.

(3/3)

Whistler,
It is pointless making discriminating differences based in sexuality for the law to administer. Justice applies equally to persons irrespective of sex, race, religion or nationality or any observeable difference. We already live in a democratic society under democratic governance, where diverse inclusiveness is paramount.

Your proposal is just a hot air fest. Please identify real injustices that currently occur in laws or its administration, and how they could be improved. Or in your proposal - how sexual identity causes injustice. It appears you have an underlying hang up about maleness and femaleness. Democracy means freedom for all within the law that is meant to accomodate the unity of difference for all persons.

Give us an actual case. Not a gab fest from your immagination. There seems to be something unhealthy in your personal immagination that is prompting this proposal

Well said Philo.
Whistler, "Discrimination against women is the focus of the pursuit of equity because therein lies the solution".
I rest my case, if that's not one-eyed femnist cant I don't know what is.
While I respect your right to your own view, and to post same here, I feel there's little point in discussing things further, you're coloured glasses effectively mean we'll never even be able to reach a common definition of the problems, let alone any solutions.
I feel we, as a society, should focus on real problems, real battles, not continue digging around on an old battlefield looking for slain enemies to mutilate, which is how I see your ranting. You should get out more, talk to the young women who are living the life of the old femnist dream, and listen to them with an open mind, you just might learn something new.