why can't women have assailable
positions of power too,
is this the army?

Given the non ending squabbles between men and women in relationships,
it seems to me that we need a more practical model in today's
society. Lets face it, it many cases, the amount of money involved
in many splits, has effectively turned the whole thing into a business
for some, a long time ago.

Even CJ, the star feminist pin up boy, was seemingly driven to drink
in past relationships and only relatevely recently got lucky.

So its perhaps time to be practical and rational. We'll simply
pay you so much for a nooky, so much for cleaning (you make half the
mess) so much for cooking (you eat half the food) etc.

Then everyone knows where they stand at any time and there won't
be all these disputes about splitting up etc. The feminist lobby
should be thrilled by all this, their members are being
compensated for effort after all.

Yabby, there's plenty men
who would be delighted if you would pay
"so much for a nooky, so much for cleaning (you make half the
mess) so much for cooking (you eat half the food) etc",
if you don't like women.

Whilster, there well might be men who just love that concept with
other men, just not in my case lol.

OTOH today, market forces decide many things in our lives.

Some really attractive young things in the US are charging up
to 60'000$ a night, which is hardly exploitation.

Our old fashioned society, just still has problems getting its
mind around these concepts.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25688852-401,00.html

But its certainly practical and solves many of the squabbles
or claims of exploitation or being under the thumb, as you
seem to believe.

If women are paid for services rendered, pricing decided by
market forces, that sounds a pretty modern kind of concept to
me and a fair one too. The feminist movement should be thrilled
by the end of exploitation of women!

A bit of a sticking point seems to have been reached on the discussion title and opening statement - “The real reason for the NRL group sex 'scandal'” is “to get women into unassailable positions of power within NRL clubs”.

Understandably so, Antiseptic. Most people commenting here are anti/sceptical including my totally impartial and logical, good self.

Looks like more like a byproduct to me. Not the main reason. As I said on that other thread (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9030#144483), which may have inspired this one (not my comment, but the subject of discussion, of course), I think it is more about protection of the female reputation and general attempts at reframing, than taking over the administration of football. You know, sugar and spice, and everything nice… victims all, at any price.

Having said that, I don’t think there is much wrong if they do take a couple of “unassailable” positions of power in running football. I’ll be waiting for news stories about these women cornering some young naïve male or female within that particular corridor of power, stepping on their toes, and accidentally elbowing them in the eye. Good for business.

As for another of those funny but uninstructive TPP comments “Is it an attempt to get into power so they can put a stop to males raping females? The evil cows.” … I say pfft. Unless these legally trained thoobs can stop their longer-haired non-feminist groupie comrades entering team changing rooms and male toilets at clubs and pubs where footballers frequent to expose themselves, what possible good can they be? Evil, bovine, or otherwise – it matters not.

Maximiliion:"Because I tried to inject a little balance between extremes I am pilloried and assumptions made that I must be a misogynistic chauvinist?"

Ah Max, welcome to my world. When I started posting on-line, here and elsewhere, I simply expressed my pain at the horribly biased process that Feminist doctrine has made of the Family Law, especially for men seeking to maintain a relationship with their children. The immediate reaction of dozens of feminasties and their sidekicks was to accuse me of misogyny, while in the same breath praising my ex-wife for "standing up to me", never once even acknowledging that men may be capable of feeling such pain or that women may be capable of wilfully inflicting it. I used to get bothered by it, until I realised theirs was the response of the schoolyard bully girls chanting insults. It's childish and contemptible.

Once it became apparent that any comment that wasn't gushingly in praise of misandric feminism was going to be called misogynistic, it was quite liberating, since the lack of any kind of graduated response allowed me to play with them at will, secure in the knowledge that the best argument they could mount was a straw-man, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing" except their fear of an open discussion.

What's less amusing is that through laziness, the manipulation of the fine drive to helping those less fortunate and the hope of being allowed to get the odd bit of connubial bliss, a whole lot of men who should have stood up to the nitwits years ago have instead handed them buckets of money to brainwash more nitwits to demand more money and so it goes on. The rise and rise of this stupidly destructive ideology is one of the great failings of public policy and comes down entirely to men not taking the subject sufficiently seriously.

My advice is to ask your questions, but don't expect any kind of reasoned response from the grrrls brigade. Be satisfied that you are expressing the view of the silent majority and empowering other men to speak up.