I've been pondering the gender dynamics on OLO, and this has led to a few questions.
What is your opinion as to the way commenters respond to one another depending on which gender they are addressing?
Do you think you might pull your punches or become more strident in your approach depending on the gender of the person you are addressing in a rebuttal?
Does gender have any influence at all on the mood of the debate?
I ask this because,for some reason, when I was registering I chose a masculine identity even though I'm a woman.
I have no idea whether this fact was obvious, but to me it felt like I was travelling through cyberspace genderless.
In the end, I found that I would prefer my gender to be known.

Dear Poirot,

Does gender influence debate on OLO?

I can only speak for myself.

It doesn't for me.

I don't repond to a person's gender - but to their
comments. Admittedly I do have posters whose
opinions I value. They're from both genders.

As I stated on another thread - it's a person's
individual human qualities, rather than his or
her biological sex, that to me is the primary
measure of that person's worth and achievement.

I find that one of the attractions of OLO is that
opinions are valued equally from both sexes.

I think world views speak a lot more than gender on OLO. Some females are just as forthright, crude and insulting as some men.

I couldn't tell ya who's what.

But, I wouldn't be that patronising to change how I address someone even if I did know their gender. Gender is irrelevant, on the whole.

We all want to think it does not I know it has no affect on me.
But I have seen some who plainly dislike women, others who show Little respect.
But they are very much a minority.
Runner? what else can I say?

In repect of my response to individuals, it makes no difference - I respond to the words. On the other hand, I have noted that many of the women posters are far more eager to claim that they are being "bullied" or that a poster "hates women" for refusing to accept their particular POV or even pointing out perceived flaws in their reasoning. That usually triggers a bout of whiteknighitis within the victim appreciation society and the discussion degenerates.

belly:"But I have seen some who plainly dislike women, others who show Little respect."

Speaking for myself, rspect is not given, it is earnt. One's gender should be irrelevant to that process. People who grasp that fact have already gone a long way toward being respected and are likely to continue the process. Those who expect respect to be handed to them on a platter are likely to be respected by nobody, even themselves.

What's the current rate of Unionisation in the mining industry, belly?

Dear Antiseptic,

If you're really interested in statistics -
why not google ABS on union memberships?
Or call the Reference Department of your
National Library or the ABS Library in your
region - for the current figures.

But I think you're just having a go at Belly
aren't you? It's 'quid pro quo' for his comment
about respecting women, and all that.

Never mind - statistics on their own usually
don't mean that much anyway unless they're looked
at with other considerations, in context.

The following website may be of interest though -
(just by way of general information) - on what
mining unions are trying to achieve:

www.awu.net.au/40_5.html

My apologies Poirot - for getting off topic here.

Ostensibly yes but by intention no.

My posts to women tend to be politer more sensitive simply because their questions, style, manners, requirements tend to be that way.

Most male respondents tend to be well, not quite so or just plain combative and thus I respond more so.

As a preference I prefer the responding to the lesser combative style. Simply because it generally opens up more useful discussion.

Like it or not Men are different from women and viva la difference.
NB notwithstanding, I treat everyone *as they treat me or as I believe the need requires*, regardless of gender.

writing is informed by the life experience of the author.
all life experience is either male life experience or female life experience.
writing unidentified as either male or female defaults to the status quo,
occupied exclusively by men when men boss over women at law as in Australia.
failure to distinguish a female author's gender supports the status quo.
both men and women who decline to distinguish the gender of a female author
maintain the status of women as second class citizens.
Poirot is perfectly correct in preferring her gender to be known.

Oh Foxy, you're so cute when you get all bolshie solidarity 'n stuff.

The Unions have always had a fine line in rhetoric, but the performance has all too often been below par. As I said, respect is earnt.

Howard got the abortion that was Work Choices up because the Unions had lost the support of workers. It has been revoked not because of a worker-led revolt, but because of the self-interest of Labor politicians who draw their backing from wealthy Unions.

I am the first to point out that workers can only prosper in a capitalist world by collective bargaining. It is tragic that the organisations charged with the responsibility for representing workers in that process have proven so inadequate.

Dear Antiseptic,

Me cute?

Nah, dazzling, striking, gorgeous,
are a better fit!

Cute is for petite people.

I'm too tall and lanky - as I've said
on other posts. But Thanks anyway (I think)...

As for 'collective bargaining' - isn't that
what unions do on behalf of workers?

ALIA - Australian Library and Information Association
is not a union unfortunately - and is about as useful
to the library profession as the Architects Association.
Both are merely "Clubs," where the elite continue to
pat each other on the back - and give each other awards -
while the rest of their members struggle for their
rights professionally.

I'm a member of a union as I've said before, but I've
never been put in a position where I've had to go on
strike. And, although I'm sometimes frustrated when
the union does its job badly. I support without
reservation the right of all working people to join
together so as to preserve and protect their livelihoods.

But again - here I am de-railing Poirot's thread.

Let's stick to the subject in future -
Ok, handsome?

Woman debate only when they are right.

Men debate only to try and prove someone else wrong.

Men are always on the losing team.

Dear TM,

A woman can say more in a sigh
than a man can say in a sermon.

Foxy

Hee hee.:)

I like the idea of gender being admitted on OLO - just makes life, argument and thought more interesting !!

After all we are fairly different !

How about we post a photo in the mix !

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=4977 contains my photo.

david f

I wondered why you were being so quick off the mark to post a photo. :)

kartiya jim

In a way photos would be interesting, but I also think they'd detract from the power of the imagination - like when you read a book and then see the movie - the images in front of you seem so stark and rarely measure up to the world you'd created in your mind.

Photos of Col and Houellebecq would I'm sure spoil all my fun. :)

I don't know if gender has any real impact on me, but I'll admit that I draw parallels between regular posters here and people I know in real life. Some are the grouchy old men who, despite their angry exterior, actually mean well in all that they do. Some are the nice old men like my grandfather. Some are the bitter, angry women who plagued the lecture theatres when I studied literature as an undergraduate; in those cases, I assume that there is a reason for their bitterness and anger and try as hard as I can to tread lightly. Maybe this is my attempt to get to the bottom of some of the bizarre posts I see on here. Thankfully, nobody has reminded me of any of my students (yet).

For each link I draw, I think I moderate my responses. Some just don't seem worth responding to (they are the ones who, from life experience, are unlikely to see what I consider to be reason). Others I defer to, and others excite me because I can engage with them in a lively discussion. We don't always agree, but that's part of the fun.

Yes, I believe gender does influence debate on OLO, even if unintentionally at times.

I deliberately posted a female online name to show my gender, because I believe our gender colours our opinions more than anything else. I am also proud to be a woman!

Yes, our life experiences certainly account for much of what we say, but at the end of the day the gender differences of opinion make for the most lively, and often heated, points of view.

As much as I may become annoyed at some posters taking the high male road, I do enjoy giving them my differing points of view.

Of course gender influences what we think and what we post.

So does our sexual preference.

So do our politics.

So does our family situation - single, married, divorced, re-married, re-re-married...

So does our wealth. Or lack of it.

So does our age.

So does our education.

So does our religion (oh boy, ain't that the truth)

So does the work that we do. Or not do, voluntarily or otherwise.

So, probably, does what we had for breakfast, or the hangover we are nursing.

But how would declaring upfront that I am a gay, liberal, filthy rich single man, educated at the Sorbonne, a Muslim (converted from Catholicism) who spends his time healing sick puppies, and who had kedgeree and kidneys turbigo for breakfast, help the reader understand what I am saying?

I'm either readable, or not. Intelligible, or not. Interesting, or not.

No amount of additional background will change that.

Besides, I could be lying.

Except about the breakfast.

Yum

Foxy:"although I'm sometimes frustrated when
the union does its job badly. I support without
reservation the right of all working people to join
together so as to preserve and protect their livelihoods."

Sadly, in today's world the unions are no longer worker's collectives, but have become vehicles for political advancement of union officials and the workers have been left to fend for themselves. As a Public Sector employee you've never been placed in an adversarial situation with your employer, as many if not all private sector employees have been. If you had, you'd have come to realise that the Unions are not interested in anything but preserving theitr own privileges and as a result have lost nearly all the support they once enjoyed. You live in a protected world.

Collectivism is essential, but the current union model is not the way to achieve it.

Pericles, for once we agree. It must be time to examine my assumptions...

*But how would declaring upfront that I am a gay, liberal, filthy rich single man, educated at the Sorbonne, a Muslim (converted from Catholicism) who spends his time healing sick puppies, and who had kedgeree and kidneys turbigo for breakfast, help the reader understand what I am saying?*

Sheesh Pericles, that is exactly how I imagined you :)

Gender does have some influence I am sure.

I am sure we all make assumptions about people and we react differently to various posters based on their political or philosophical input - probably even moreso than gender.

I admit when I see an Antiseptic post I don't expect a glowing commentary on women and I would not expect a rehctub post to be defending the rights of workers. It is impossible to be completely bias free when it comes to the expectations built up when you have visited OLO over a period of time. Col won't be writing about some positive program the Rudd government may implement. But in saying that it must be remembered what any of us post here does not reflect ALL of who we are. Where there is difference of opinion there is also sometimes agreement. We are all not one thing or another.

But I think it more to do with value systems rather than gender in most cases.

Would we really know if we approach a post differently based on the perceived gender of the poster? I am not sure if any of us would be that 100% self-aware.

Dear Antiseptic,

I've actually been placed in an adversarial
position with my employer a couple of times
in the past. Once when our organisation was
being re-structured - and we all had to re-apply
for positions - and another time when they were
'downsizing,' within the organisation - trying
to convince full-time staffers that it was to
their advantage to accept packages and leave,
or become - part-timers. Under Jeff Kennett -
quite a lot happened - that would have been
quite difficult - without union support.

*Under Jeff Kennett -
quite a lot happened - that would have been
quite difficult - without union support.*

Sheesh Foxy, it should be clear to a smart lady
like you, that even Govts cannot constantly spend
more then they earn.

Victoria was frankly a basket case, because previous
Govts did not understand that basic fact.

Kennett did what he had to do, unpopular as it was.

Just look at Greece right now. They too thought that
they could book it all up on credit, fudged figures etc,
but its all about to hit them on the shins.

Reality is hitting home in some European countries.
Govt workers have had to accept pay cuts, dismissals etc.
Alot more is about to follow.

What surprises me is that you don't personally max
out on your credit card, you are clearly level headed
about money. Yet you don't seem to accept the hopeless
situation that Victoria was in, before Kennett sorted it
out the hard way.

Foxy:"I've actually been placed in an adversarial
position with my employer a couple of times"

How many staff actually lost their jobs in that restructure? Was the restructure necessary? Did the Union oppose the loss of jobs, or the restructure itself? On what grounds?

As for the "downsizing", I'd have thought that librarians were a prime group to benefit from improvements in technology leading to huge increases in productivity. For example, when was the last time you assisted someone to sift through a drawer full of index cards? What about the last time you had to spend the time preparing inter-library requests for specific titles, rather than simply accessing the database?

What you have described is a natural process that should be allowed to take its course. It is thanks to Unions opposing productivity-based improvements caused by new technology that we had the MUA/Patricks debacle under Howard.

OTOH, if an employer is refusing to implement reasonable safe-work practises, or is exploiting workers by underpaying, or is making all sorts of other excessive demands on workers or is failing to provide the basic necessities to do a job, there can exist genuinely adversarial situations. I've been involved in several of those, all in the construction / mining sector, under 4 different unions - the now defunct BLF, the AWU, the CFMEU and the CEPU/ETU. I've even been hit by a car driven by a Telstra manager attemptng to cross a picket line (no, I wasn't hurt). In each and every case the Union "settled the dispute" and business went on as usual, while the workers were left out of pocket. The Union reps didn't lose a cent in pay while their members did what they were told and went on strike. On a couple of occasions we struck although noone but the Union Rep claimed to know why - it's solidarity, brother.

Whenever people are given power without genuine responsibility and especially without personal consequence for misusing their power then bad outcomes follow

Anti you make a lot of sense on these issues.

The only thing I would add though is like Foxy I have also been in organisations that have re-structured or downsized. Thankfully mostly without loss of jobs but generally with change in job function or transfers to the new regime.

In government these changes are not always for the better and often are done to preserve the excesses in the senior executive and access to extra funding by merging two areas (one of which for political reasons has the greater funding) to the detriment of operational and high customer service areas within the public service. Change is generally a good thing and is inevitable with ever-evolving technologies but it cannot occur IMO without impartial scrutiny and review.

One of the worst things the government did was bring in bonuses for SES officers based on 'merit' in the guise of positive change. Often managers are compelled to bring about change merely because their bonus depends upon it not because there is any real benefit to productivity. Sometimes the productivity is actually curtailed, such is the nature of the beast.

Governments and public servants are sometimes too focussed on the 'look' of a thing than the realities - sometimes at the behest of their Ministers sometimes not.

Dear Yabby,

What Jeff Kennett did in Victoria was inexcusable.
He may have inherited problems from the previous
government but he left an even bigger and greater
mess when he lost the election.

My husband worked in the hospital system and watched
the gradual deterioration of the hospitals
leading to cannibalisation and scavenging of old
hospital equipment to maintain and service whatever
working medical equipment was left. Schools instead
of being maintained were filled with second-hand
re-locatable buildings. Roads and streets were badly
maintained - costing more to fix in the long term.
And Kennet's only real concern during that period was his
fetish with gun- control. Thousands of mentally-challenged
people were put out on the street to fend for themselves -
Many people were forced into early retirement - while
the Party boys were given high-paying top jobs and other
benefits. And then this man has the nerve to head the
'Beyond Blue' organisation after putting thousands of
people through major trauma and stress.

Dear Anti,

Our Regional Library System was only one example of
what happened here in Victoria under Jeff Kennett.
We were already functioning on skeleton staff -
and multi-skilling I can assure you - further
"dowsizing" -was a joke. Even so that would have
been acceptable - had it not been for the fact
that getting rid of library staff was one thing -
but replacing library staff with dysfunctional
CEOs at top salaries as well as so called
"Library Managers" who knew nothing about libraries
was not only - no saving - but a much larger expense
and unnecessary.

By the way - I retained my job - but many of my
hard working colleagues didn't - and they were
professionals in their areas of expertise - and
valuable assets to the organisation. Hands-on
staff - who were able to deal with all the challenges
that library work threw at them unlike the inexperienced
managers that replaced them.

Foxy, how many of you librarians offered to take a 10-20% pay
cut, so that the jobs of your fellow librarians could be preserved?

Fact is that prvious Labor Govts in Victoria, had created a
financial train wreck, which kept increasing. Everyone protecting
their little patch of self interest, meant that they did not know
how to deal with it.

When its time for the receivers to move in, drastic action is
required and it may not be pretty. You might not like what
Kennett did, fact is he had the balls to do it, unlike any
labor politician. The public clearly understood, for they voted
him back after first term.

Similar things are now happening in the US. Clinton handed over
the Federal Govt to Bush, in great financial shape. The big
question at the time was, how they would spend the surplus.
Within 8 years Bush wrecked the economy, landed the US Govt
in its deepest debt ever and can take a large blame for the GFC.

Obama was left to clean up the mess, but things were so bad,
that had he been touch, global depression would have been the
most likely result. Fact is, it will take years for the US to
dig its way out.

One year later, voters are increasingly blaming Obama. They must
think he's the fairy godmother, who can wave his magic wand and
fix it all in 12 months.

So Obama will cop the blame, as you are blaming Kennett, rather
then the cause of the problem.

Dear Yabby,

I'd like you to read in its entirety the
following website:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/features/four_corners/

It explains how the business of government was
being done under Mr Kennett.

I'll list just a few of the items discussed for you here:

1) Lack of transparency in processes.
2) Contracts let without tender.
3) Deals done in secret under the shield of
commercial confidentiality.
4) Laws changed to deny the public's right to know.
5)The fate of Victorian Auditor-General became
a rallying-cry for those concerned about the
Government's style of doing business. A plan
supported by the Premier to allow Departments to
appoint their own auditors - was widely seen as an
attack on the Auditor-General's power to review
Government decisions.
6) Part of a systematic campaign was to stem the
powers of the Director of Public Prosecutions, The
Equal Opportunity Commission and Local Councils.
7) Two hundred or more Acts of Parliament went
through which exluded the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court to review the actions of Government...

And there's more, much more - but read it for
yourself. Describing the guy as having "Balls"
is not quite how most Victorians would describe him!

Most of us agree that without proper controls -
things get out of control (corruption - jobs for
the boys - et cetera.) It's important to maintain
a system of checks and balances.

As for the Library Staff - we not only offered to
take cuts in salary - we offered to job-share -
to save jobs! But when you cut three jobs - to
appoint a CEO - who is consistently on "leave"
at a salary that three librarians could have
been appointed on - I'm sorry Yabster - you had
to be there to really appreciate how pathetic it
all really was!

Anyway - I don't want to discuss it with you any
further except to politely say - we'll have
to agree to disagree on this one.

I am a dual citizen of the US and Australia and agree with both Foxy and Yabby. I think Foxy has it right when she describes Kennett in Victoria, and Yabby has it right when he describes Bush in the US.

Foxy, I'm not arguing about the Kennett government, although Yabby's point abouthim inheriting a basket case is accurate. I wasn't a supporter of Kennett (albeit for purely personal reasons) and I don't have a lot of time for his efforts since politics. Depressed people don't need a "peak body", they need help on a day-to-day basis. I guess there are higher director's fees payable to the board of a "peak body"...

My point, however, was more general: restructuring and technology-driven change are essential. A sensible worker's representative body doesn't stand in the way of such things but tries to ameliorate the worst impacts on workers.

I don't see a lot of good sense in the Union movement today, but I do see a lot of political operatives lining themselves up for a tilt at being a Labor MP.

Dear Antiseptic,

I'm not against innovation or change.
As I've stated on other threads - the
only constant in life is change - and having
worked in Special Libraries, Public Libraries,
University Libraries, the ability to adapt
has been part and parcel of my career.
My career has encompassed all aspects of the
provision of Library Services, ranging from the
selection and acquisition of library material,
cataloguing and processing of material,
managing and operating library loan and circulation
systems, preparing book-lists and current awareness
bulletins, and providing reference and research
services, including community information using
directory databases and other sources. I've worked
with computerised library systems, trained junior
staff, dealt with difficult patrons in a wide variety
of situations. I've managed inter-library loans,
reservations, and branch requests. I've organised
library displays, done bibliographic searching on
databases, compiled bibliographies on a variety of
subjects, and been involved in the promotion of
library services - including taking library tours of
International Students on a large American University
Campus.

The Re-structuring however that took place
within Regional Library Systems under Mr Kennett -
was unnecessary - and did a great
deal of harm. He was determined to cut jobs no
matter what the cost - and he succeeded in Victoria by
cutting 75,000 jobs from the public sector - which
is no small feat. He also sold off the power industry
to the private sector - but that's a separate issue.

Anyway, I don't want to dwell on the subject. Unions
don't always get it right - and as I've stated previously
I do get frustrated when they do their job badly,
union bullies have always existed - (as bullies have
everywhere) - but
as I've stated previously I support without reservation
the right of all working people to join together so as to
preserve and protect their livelihoods.

Pelican,

>>Governments and public servants are sometimes too focussed on the 'look' of a thing than the realities - sometimes at the behest of their Ministers sometimes not.<<

I couldn't agree more. It's amazing what can be "done" with a nice and slick powerpoint demo. We had a case fairly recently where a PP was used at the conclusion of a data search project to depict the search system as working when it was nowhere near ready (except in the mind of the project leader). Fortunately, the Audit Office (ANAO) did an audit of this (and a lot of other related systems) and came up with a fairly scathing analysis of the outcome.

BTW, the ANAO officer who did the audit was a woman - she was switched on and intelligent, saw right through the haze of bulldust from day one and did a fine job. The report will almost certainly result in a permanent reform being made to the way such projects are done in future.