“I'd hate to going home from my day at work knowing that a child is at risk of abuse because I could not find a way to make them safe. My guess is that DOC's staff face that regularly and that they will all find different way's of dealing with it.”

I think you are on to something there R0bert. See the caseworkers meet the kids, have a real child in mind when doing anything with their particular case and do get genuinely upset for children. Management don’t.

Females may be better at not “front braining” what is really happening. I’d suggest management regularly do not face anything and hence sleep at night.

Not good enough, would men be braver?

Jewely I can't see a reason to think that men would necessarily do better.

Managers may be more exposed to the conflicting pressures than caseworkers, regardless of how much they know of individual childrens circumstances they still have to keep in mind all the other children who may suffer if "excess" resources are diverted to a particular child. They still have to ensure staff get paid even if the money could help protect children.

As you said not good enough but I'd not swap with them.

R0bert

pynchme:"they have only gained parity;"

No, there are now nore women professionals than men and there are another 80,000(I'll use Ms Cassell's lower figure) women additional to men in the university system ruight now. Women have not achieved parity, they have gone well beyond it. By the time the current generation of undergrads complete their studies, more than 55% of professionals (all professionals) will be women and if the trend continues, which is likely, by the end of the next decade well over 60% (conservatively) of all professionals will be women. It is time to put the brakes on the bandwagon, for the sake of the nation.

Does anyone think that it will be a good thing to have a large group of disgruntled, disadvantaged men becoming as angry at their situation as some of the early feminists were? Where the women carried placards and burnt their bras, young men are likely to carry sticks and burn cars. One has only to look at the Cronulla riots, which involved only a small number of people over a quite trivial incident that created resentment. I also suspect that the surest way to increase the number of cases of DV is to create a society in which men are second-class citizens.

As for "fewer" advancing their degrees, I suspect you're quite wrong, although I'll have to find a study on it. My own observation is that many women who choose to leave the workforce to have children take advantage of the time to improve their qualifications, which is an option not open to men. I see very many mature-aged women students but precious few older men on campus. Whether those women choose to actually use their learning productively is another matter entirely.

At the upper levels of academia you may be correct, although once again I suspect that's merely a lag effect, as well as a consequence of the personal decisions made by some eminently-qualified women to prioritise other things more highly than their career. There have been many years of discrimination in women's favour, after all.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,25610324-5018866,00.html
Brisbane Broncos' Joel Clinton fined $50,000 for code of conduct breach
By Laine Clark
June 09, 2009

"The front-rower was hauled in front of the Broncos board on Tuesday after being “sprung'' with a woman in the team's Sydney hotel ahead of their May 22 NRL clash against Wests Tigers."

I haven't read it all yet, I'm guessing the fine was for not sharing?

LOL Jewely!

Actually, the poor chap has obviously been treated harshly by the feminists who run the Broncos. They ought to know that, being both a footballer and a Clinton, young Joel has no choice once his testosterone kicks in.

I expect we'll soon see large groups of disgruntled, disadvantaged footballers becoming angry at being expected to conform not only to social norms, but also to the rules contained within the lucrative contracts they sign.

I mean, it's not as if they have any choice about the way they behave, is it?

Antiseptic’s messages:

1. If women don’t start acting dumber than they are so that men can be in charge over them; men are going to start (continue? increase?) doing some big physical damage.

2. Men can’t compete. Are you planning to tell your daughter to pretend to be dumb and bypass any opportunity at higher education so that your son's ego isn't bruised?

News: Men aren’t doing all the financial providing alone (and never have). They have the options women have – a couple can negotiate who stays home when and which one studies for higher qualifications while the other provides vital home support. At this stage, men still have more accumulated super than women at retirement because women take time out to have the babies and so on.

I think you’re right that women generally prioritize things other than a career and if that is what they and their partner decide; when all options are open, then the couple are just configuring their household according to their own preferences and beliefs and so on. It’s all good.

As already pointed out; numbers of women on campus have increased because traditional areas like nursing have become university based (not that I agree that it’s the being done in the best way for that profession but never mind – that’s JMO). That’s why I say parity. I think the population might be just over 50 percent for women; so filling a little more than 50 of uni places would seem appropriate – plus we haven’t looked at a breakdown by age. Maybe there are more mature women there just making up for lost time. You’d have to look at the age breakdown and age at enrolment.

Also a lot of mature aged women on campus would be making up for lost opportunities from when they were barred – by policy as well as socio-cultural pressures – from obtaining qualifications that would enable them to earn a decent income. The market place has demanded increasingly higher qualifications, but maybe more men/boys are entering trades courses because they actually prefer them.