The United Nations Commission on the Status of Women is "dedicated exclusively to gender equality and advancement of women".
Does the four year appointment of Iran (elected by acclamation - ie no open vote) in any way hold out promise for the advancement of women?
How does this move reflect on the credibility of the United Nations?
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2010/ecosoc6419.doc.htm

Dear Proxy,

What a superb move!

And one that you should thoroughly approve
of - seeing as you're so concerned about
Islamic extremism.

As Johann Hari, one of London's ,"Indpendent's"
columnists, wrote in an article:

"The best way to undermine the jihadists is to
trigger a rebellion of Muslim women!"

This is certainly a step in the right direction
and very much adds to the credibility of the UN.

Bravo!

I can't see the logic that there is anything good in this for women. Would putting a bandit on your audit committee protect your shareholders, or give them confidence in your governance as CEO?

Maybe in the weird world of western feminist politics there is some rationalisation? Not good for women though and therein lies an essential difference.

Membership of Iran lowers the credibility of Commission on Women's Rights. Iran can confidently be expected to be up to its ears in shafting any policy it disagreed with and would be forever promoting its not so delicate ways of protecting women such as stoning them to death and giving them a flogging for sporting a sun tan. Then there is the earthquake problem.

What pray tell are the 'rights' that Iran would support for itself and the West? Would anyone like to mention Sharia Law, the 'right' to (always) wear burqa, hijab or niqab on Bondi beach, FMG as a multicultural right and so on?

What about barbaric halal slaughter, not a problem?

I think the advice about tents, micturation within and without thereof, comes into play here.

I cannot for example see a situation where a single voice might sway the entire commission, despite Cornflower's concerns.

>>Would putting a bandit on your audit committee protect your shareholders...<<

I'm not sure that is a valid comparison, but it is actually quite possibly a good thing. After all, great strides in Internet security have been made by some companies - and governments, even - by recruiting convicted hackers. Having a reformed fraudster on board might be of great assistance to any governance process.

Tents, remember.

>>Iran can confidently be expected to be up to its ears in shafting any policy it disagreed with and would be forever promoting its not so delicate ways of protecting women such as stoning them to death and giving them a flogging for sporting a sun tan<<

Isn't it far, far more likely that the constant exposure to serried ranks of liberated females is bound to have a more-than-substantial impact on the psyche of the Iranian representative? If anyone should be concerned, it is the religious leaders who have allowed her to participate in the first place.

>>What pray tell are the 'rights' that Iran would support for itself and the West? Would anyone like to mention Sharia Law, the 'right' to (always) wear burqa, hijab or niqab on Bondi beach, FMG as a multicultural right and so on?<<

Well isn't that exactly the point? If the Iranian member's ideas are voted down, time after time, isn't there just a vague possibility that this might leak back into the Iranian system, and become a force for good?

>>What about barbaric halal slaughter, not a problem?<<

Not convinced this fits into the Status of Women, Cornflower.

Are you sure you're not just having a whack-a-mozzie rant?

Pericles

Well you won! You were streets ahead of anyone else in going for the ad hominem attack, you good thing. However you will have to pardon me if I don't follow you into that dark place and I don't think attacking me will convince anyone to your view.

Home is where the heart is and Iraq has had and continues to have, a wealth of opportunity to demonstrate a more enlightened attitude to women in its own backyard.

If exposure to the west and criticism of its attitudes to women could have had any effect, why hasn't there been any so far? After all, there is the diplomatic circuit, the media and travel for starters.

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary I remain convinced that Iraq only intends to use membership of United Nations Commission on the Status of Women as evidence at home and abroad of the acceptability of its internal policy and it intends to use the Commission as a pulpit to promote its own agenda.

I thought we were talking about Iran?

Proxy you ask

'How does this move reflect on the credibility of the United Nations? '

It is consistent with their Jew hating philosophy.

Bugsy

Correct, my error. Thank you.

It was but a simple question, Cornflower.

>>Pericles Well you won! You were streets ahead of anyone else in going for the ad hominem attack, you good thing. However you will have to pardon me if I don't follow you into that dark place and I don't think attacking me will convince anyone to your view.<<

Completely out of context, you asked "What about barbaric halal slaughter, not a problem?"

Since this has absolutely no relevance to the topic, I assumed your target had shifted from the status of women, to Muslims in general. Hence my question.

>>Are you sure you're not just having a whack-a-mozzie rant?<<

Not much of an "attack" - all you had to do was put me right on the halal bit.

Or perhaps you were feeling just the slightest bit embarrassed?

Pericles,

I think you should cut Cornflower some slack.

If Australia's most senior Islamic cleric (at the time) gets women mixed up with lumps of meat when justifying the rape of women who aren't properly attired in the Islamic manner...

"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat?"

...then we can forgive Cornflower for thinking that a discussion about women's rights under an Islamic watchdog might include other Islamic rituals relating to meat.

It does seem a bit oil to water but not so weird as one might think.

Couldn't one argue that it is better to drag less evolved (anti-female) cultures into the modern world by inclusion rather than exclusion.

Much can be learned and thus changed through education and exposure to another way of thinking.

Women's lot in Iran won't be changed unless we get them involved as partners in global affairs rather than always adversaries.

Proxy and runner another way to put it according to your faith:

"If anyone says, 'I love God', yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. BIBLE, I John 4:20

Pelican,
Please clarify.
Are you saying that if we don't love Ahmadinejad, St Peter will turn us back at the gates?

Not me personally Proxy but your faith. I don't think St Peter would turn you back in any case, isn't it about forgiveness above all else?

Did you ignore the first part of my post. I wasn't having a go at you merely putting it to you that it may not be such an odd match as you think, for the reasons stated.

The arm of friendship and all that...

Pelican- <" Women's lot in Iran won't be changed unless we get them involved as partners in global affairs rather than always adversaries."

Absolutely spot on Pelican! I read an article about the UN and that is similar to the reason they gave for the UN including Iran in the Commission on the Status of Women.

Of course, people Like Proxy and Cornflower, who are usually ready to have a go at anything even vaguely feminine, don't give a damn about the women of Iran, they just want to push their anti-Islam barrel.

Suzeonline:"people Like Proxy and Cornflower, who are usually ready to have a go at anything even vaguely feminine,"

Oh dear, feeling a bit post-menopausal hon?

On the subject of Iran, I tend to think this is a pretty good move. As Pericles pointed out, it is not a bad thing to have diversity of views and if Feminism is a genuinely robust philosophical construction rather than a self-serving ideology then it will have no trouble encompassing a potentially dissenting view. Of course, rather a lot of the "entitlement feminists" will have their nose out of joint for a while, but that's not a bad thing either.

Antiseptic: <"Oh dear, feeling a bit post-menopausal hon?">

You disagree with Proxy and Cornflower's opinions on this matter yourself - are you post-menopausal?

Which leads me to note that it isn't feminists who are objecting here is it; but Cornflower and Proxy

pynchme:"are you post-menopausal?"

Not so much post-menopausal as non-menstrual. It's pretty common in men.

I do disagree with cornflower, not because I think she is feminist, or non-feminist or because I "hate women" or one of the other silly "reasons" that the Suzies and pynchmes and pelicans of the world trot out whenever someone disagrees with them, but because I think that she is wrong on rationl grounds and that pericles is right.

It's terribly amusing that the same people who whinge about a "boy's club" try to justify a "women's club" on the same grounds that they dismiss when the men use them.

If diversity is a good thing for boards and clubs, surely it's an equally good thing for UN committees?

Anti, there are really very few people who hate women or men. Most people are good. Most are are open-minded and fair in their assessments with a broad overview of gender issues rather than holding a more rigid self-serving stance.

I don't think I have ever read one comment from yourself that actually supports women in any way. Everything about women is negative to you - your POV is your right and I suspect not much I or anyone else can say that will move you from your position of feminist conspiracies.

I would only ask you to take a second look. Read about the origins and reasons behind feminism. Do you really think women should not be entitled to vote in political affairs? Women were treated not only as second class citizens but were unable to legally provide for themselves despite the bizarre theory of some men on OLO that patriarcy was the result of feminists.

The feminist movement was not a perfect one. I don't think there ever has been a perfect cause for change. Despite all these feminist conspiracies women have not taken over in the business, government or political sector.

Change takes time and men are also starting to realise some equalities to correct past injustices regarding Family Law.

What else can one expect from the UN. Iran is nothing more that one State run by fools! The UN is a whole colection of State's run by even bigger fools!

Pynchme, "Which leads me to note that it isn't feminists who are objecting here is it; but Cornflower and Proxy"

It isn't feminists who have objected to what I said either, or do you presume to represent all feminists and if so on what basis? What poll has there been of women that convinces you to believe they think it is a good idea?

Fact is, a rigid, sensitive few on this thread appear to have got their noses out of joint over a rather mild observation that western feminist politics might not always be in tune with what women want or desire. But so what, none of that is news and most would welcome questions and debate as healthy and democratic.

Come to think of it, it isn't modern feminists who are so rigid in their ideology that they always construe differing opinions, especially on what women might want, as threats to be ruthlessly quashed.

Again, there is a real risk that women in Iran will see this as capitulation by the UN and that is the way it will be presented to them at home. Outside, the UN position is an ideal opportunity to further change incrementally along the lines previously suggested by me.

I hope to be proved wrong over time but if the severe criticisms by human rights activists of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) are any guide I am not optimistic for the advancement of women's rights in Iran.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Council

Iran will have opportunities offered by membership of the Commission on the Status of Women it has not had before to promote its agendas and to my thinking that risk should not have been taken.

Antiseptic <" Oh dear, feeling a bit post-menopausal hon?"
Not at all yet thanks 'Hon', but thanks for the concern.

I see you feel the same as me on this issue, but yet still having a dig at my gender as usual.
Feeling a bit pre-Neanderthal are you hon?

Cornflower: <"It isn't feminists who have objected to what I said either, or do you presume to represent all feminists.">

Dear Cornflower,

I was referring to objections to date on this board, as I think you realize.

The one who assumed to know what all feminists would be thinking was Antiseptic as he constructed an irrelevant straw man argument from his scant knowledge of feminism.

This isn't just a feminist issue anyway, but a human rights matter that should be of concern to anyone opposed to human rights abuses.

You seem to be itching for an argument - take it up with your mate Antiseptic.

*I'll go get the popcorn.

Let us hope that the Iranian Commissioner on the Status of Women doesn't take Islam too seriously.
Mohammed on women:
1"A nation headed by a woman shall never succeed”,
2”The worst sin and distraction from virtue that I have left for man is woman”,
3“When I stood on the door of hell, I saw most of its inhabitants were women”,
4 “Women lack brain and religion”,
5 “If I have commanded kneeling for somebody, I would command a woman to kneel for her husband”,
6 “If a man summoned his wife for intercourse and she refused, the angels will curse her till the dawn”,
7 “If a man summoned his wife for intercourse, she has to respond even if she was above the furnace”.
“The husband has the right to have sex with his wife even if she is above the camel”
8“A woman shall not fast without the permission of her husband”"
http://www.myspear.org/quran_stoning_women.html

Suzeonline:"still having a dig at my gender as usual."

Not at all, hon, I'm my usual caring self, concerned only for your obviously fragile state. If you're not post-menopausal, you must have been pre-menstrual - an easy mistake for me to make from over here.

You see, on this one, I agree with you dear. Iran should be part of the process.

It is in places like Iran that global efforts to improve the lot of women should be focussed, instead of this constant whinging from Western women that their featherbeds aren't quite deep enough and the toilet lids don't have automatic closers.

Pelican:"I don't think I have ever read one comment from yourself that actually supports women in any way."

That says more about you than me. I make every effort to make myself clear, but i don't say "grrls rule" every second post so you infer some antipathy on my part. To make it crystal-clear, my concern is for the excesses and discrimination inherent in a Feminist-driven policy framework. Such a schema has produced a generation of women who think the world of men owes them a living. they demand free entry to every aspect of male life, but in the same breath demand the right to exclude men from female activities.

I take issue with the perverted Marxism inderlying much of what those who claim to be feminists say on this forum. Narx said "from each according to ability, to each according to need". Feminism says "from each man according to capacity, from each woman according to her desire; to each man according to minimal need, to each woman according to wants". It's nothing but self-serving poppycock designed to appeal to those of weak mind and weaker principles. I reject it utterly, but i think women are generally terrific. It's tragic that so many of them in our modern society have adopted a victim's mentality at odds with their reality.

Antiseptic,
And so say all of us.

Pynchme, "You seem to be itching for an argument - take it up with your mate Antiseptic."

How so? Almost invariably your posts are belligerent and personal and I was simply answering one such that made a snide personal attack on me.

In answering you and realising that you have to date demonstrated no interest in the subject of the thread except to sneer I nonetheless still endeavoured to contribute comment relevant to the thread for others, which you obviously had no intention of doing.

Now would you like to read the first post and address that because like others I would much prefer to further the discussion in the hope of sharing opinion and learning something.

Dear Antiseptic,

Most women that I know don't see themselves
as "victims." On the contrary - they work
full-time, alongside their husbands/partners,
they share family responsibilities, and along
with their partners they lead
happy meaningful lives. I don't believe that
my experience is unique.

Today's society is individualistic and highly
open to change and experimentation, and today,
men and women explore a wide variety of roles,
and choose what suits them. It's a person's
individual human qualities, rather than his or
hers biological sex that should be the primary
measure of that person's worth and achievment.

I actually don't know of anyone who believes
that one sex is inferior to another and that
unequal treatment is therefore justified.

However, I do realize that some men and women
tend to incorporate prevailing stereotypes
about femininity and masculinity into their
self-concepts, and these understandings shape
their personalities and the way they relate to
one another. Hopefully though with education,
and better experiences in their daily contacts,
these things will change for these people, with
time.

It is for that reason that the UN's election of
Iran to its Commission on the Status of Women
is such a good move. The members of a
subordinate stratum tend to accept the ideology
that justifies their low statuses, because they
see the existing arrangements as "natural" and
proper, and don't question them. Marx called this
kind of attitude "false consciousness", a
subjective understanding of one's situation that
doesn't accord with objective facts. As long as
the members of the subordinate stratum (women
in Iran) continue to take the status quo for
granted, it will persist. But if they receive
exposure to other ideas and influences, they may
come to see their situation as socially created -
and unjust besides, they are likely to demand change.

This is precisely what happened in the US in the
early 1960s, when a women's movement arose and
challenged traditional gender roles. The results
were profound, and still reverberate through American
society today.

Cornflower: <"I was simply answering one such that made a snide personal attack on me.">

Here is my post:

<"Antiseptic: <"Oh dear, feeling a bit post-menopausal hon?">

You disagree with Proxy and Cornflower's opinions on this matter yourself - are you post-menopausal?

Which leads me to note that it isn't feminists who are objecting here is it; but Cornflower and Proxy">

What in that do you perceive as a "personal attack" on you Cornflower?
You posted that you are opposed to inclusion of Iran; Antiseptic posted that he was in favour of inclusion.

Suzie posted that she favoured inclusion.

I'm a feminist and I favour inclusion.

If my post was directed at anyone specifically it was at Antiseptic for inconsistency in attacking Suzie when their viewpoints seemed to be in agreement.

If you feel attacked I can't help it; I didn't intend it and apologize if it's caused you grief.

<<It is for that reason that the UN's election of
Iran to its Commission on the Status of Women
is such a good move.>>...Foxy

It's interesting to note that the latest US Watch List For Violating Religious Freedoms includes member countries of the United Nations Human Rights Council.
Rated by the 2010 Watch List as "Countries of Particular Concern":
China, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Pakistan
Also making it into the top 25 of the latest Watch List:
Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Russia

By the same logic, the inclusion of these countries in the UNHRC must also be a very astute move which would be welcomed by all supporters of religious freedom.
It seems a shame that more UNHRC members didn't make it onto the Watch List.
Imagine the progress that could be made.

Foxy:"It's a person's
individual human qualities, rather than his or
hers biological sex that should be the primary
measure of that person's worth and achievment."

So why then, do we have a Sex discrimination Commissioner who can't hear discrimination cases brought by men except in extremely limited situations, such as dismissal for wanting to work part-time? Why do we get a constant barrage of media telling us how badly off women are in australia, despite the evidence to the contrary? why do we have an Office fir the Status of Women in every state and Federally, but not even a single clerk to advocate on behalf of men? Why do we tolerate the 2:1 ration of women to men at university? Why do we allow our boys to be treated as future labourers while our girls are told they can do anything?

I agree with the sentiment you expressed, but I note that every time there is a criticism of the massive redistribution of both financial and social wealth that is being carried out by our nation in favour of women that you are quick to jump to defend it. It seems that you want equality, but not if it means giving up the handouts and the preferment.

The real problem with this whole subject of gender equity is that it is based on a series of lies. Western women are not badly off and have not been for a long time. Western women are not in need of more and more government regulation to make their lives easier. Western women are the beneficiaries of the goodwill of Western men and they ahve ruthlessly milked that goodwill for all they can get. The current policy paradigm is that women are generally disadvantag and in need of greater assistance than men at all aspects of life. It should be embarrassing for competent women.

Yet despite all those feminist offices, men still make up the larger percentage of higher level executives in private and public sectors.
Not that there is anything wrong with that, men normally have not taken time out to raise families, I raise it only to prove that boys are not being forced into labour jobs against their will.

Anyway Anti all that has changed - now all children, boys and girls are being told they can do anything they want, more's the pity. Then they go out into the real world and have to face reality.

On the subject at hand, now that Iran is a member, maybe the women and girls in Iran might slowly see some change where they will be treated as human beings first and not ranked somewhere down with the cattle and camels.

Iran's involvement is a good thing, I don't know why people always want to go the adversarial route or see conspiracies instead of positive moves for the better. The freedom for women in Iran will also mean more freedom for men who also tread carefully around Sharia Law, the pressure to be seen as loyal to the cause, even if it means subjugation of their wives and daughters. Or that women are blamed if they are raped despite being covered from head to toe

Pelican:"Yet despite all those feminist offices, men still make up the larger percentage of higher level executives in private and public sectors."

Which will be reversed within a few years; women already make up the majority of working professionals and as these women achieve seniority they will also achieve higher-level positions. Unless you don't think they'll stick with it, of course, which is highly probable.

Pelican:"maybe the women and girls in Iran might slowly see some change where they will be treated as human beings first and not ranked somewhere down with the cattle and camels."

As i understand it, Iran is quite progressive compared to some parts of the world. Women have the franchise, they have many public roles and they are seen as part of the "revolution". Yes, there have been famous incidents involving Iranian women, but the similar and more frequently applied treatment handed out to Iranian men never seems to make the news. In fact, Iran is mainly vilified in the West for its anti-Israel stance and kicking the US out with the Shah, not to mention the famous hostage "rescue" debacle. The combination of an Islamic theocracy with state socialism is a scary cocktail for those who seek power within a Christian theocracy combined with corporatism.

I do agree that engagement is important, since Iran is a powerful regional power. What form that engagement takes is not so important.

If the fundamentalist barbarity can be reduced for everyone it would be a good thing.

Dear Antiseptic,

According to an article in the "Good Weekend"
magazine published with "The Age," May 1, 2010
here are some truths from the world of work
in Australia:

1) Women do not form the majority in any category
of senior job position in any industry in Australia.

2) Not a single industry in Australia pays women
more than they do men and most pay less, despite
women's higher educational qualifications and their
dominance in three major industries.

3) The overall pay-gap between full-time male and
female workers, based on average weekly earnings, has
risen to 17 per cent. (The gap gets higher as you go
up - women in lower-paid or blue-collar jobs are more
likely to be protected by awards).

4) in 2008, there were four female CEOs in the top ASX200
companies in Australia. That's two percent.

5) Among ASX200 top earners, only seven percent were
women. At that level, the overall median pay gap
between men and women was 42 per cent.

6) Female chief financial officers and chief operating
officers earned half the salary of their male equivalents,
while female CEOs earned two-thirds the salary of male
CEOs. Even in senior human resources positions, where
women are more common, the pay gap is 43 per cent.

7) Out of a total of 1474 board directorship positions
on ASX200 companies at the end of 2009, 128 were filled
by women. One hundred and six ASX200 companies had not a
single woman on their boards. Australia has one of the
lowest participation rates among OECD,and even non-OECD,
countires.

8) The number of female executive managers has declined
by 18 per cent since 2006. In the same period, the number
of male executive managers - already a significant majority-
declined by only seven per cent.

9) Women make up 27 per cent of lower house MPs and
35 per cent in the Senate, which puts Australia on a par
with Afghanistan, behind Rwanda (56 per cent) and
Sweden (46 per cent), but ahead of the US (16 per cent in
Congress) and Britain (close to 20 per cent).

Dear Antiseptic,

cont'd ...

As Robert Care, Chairman
of engineering firm ARUP Australasia said,
"We've actually had quota systems for 150 years.
We've had a lot of corporations in existence which have
been about coming from the right school, from the
right golf club...If one were to move to a quota
system (for womnen), you would be merely balancing
out the existing quota system."

It's called fairness.

pelican, "On the subject at hand, now that Iran is a member, maybe the women and girls in Iran might slowly see some change where they will be treated as human beings first and not ranked somewhere down with the cattle and camels."

I know you didn't intend it but that comment could be seen as detracting from the huge amount of work by civil rights activists and by feminists being done in Iran. Although looked at from the outside the apparent progress is excruciatingly slow, there is necessarily an enormous amount of time and effort put into organising and other effort by civil rights activists (usually unacknowledged) and by feminists.

Iran has seen change so far from tedious gut-wrenching effort and that is the way of the future: ordinary people making an extraordinary effort and taking the supreme risk. The image of a young woman shot by a government sniper is a haunting reminder of the latter.

I don't think there is any reason at all to be jubilant and self-congratulatory as a feminist about Iran's elevation to the UN SoW Commission and it is ridiculous to think that the Commission is capable of influencing Iran's leaders, even in a minuscule way and at the margins.

The heavy spadework and the danger remain with activists inside Iran and we need to find ways other than just relying on a very diplomatic and often ineffectual UN commission to help. That might not help our consciences, but it is reality and Iran's leadership is not going to give up any of its infallibility because they have recently discovered civil rights from exposure to liberated women on a UN commission. No, they will continue to fight like hell and can confidently be expected to use their new found pulpit to further their power and influence.

Dear Cornflower,

"Every journey of a thousand miles
begins with one step."
(Chinese proverb).

No matter what the hurdles for Iranian
women, they have to continue down that
road until it becomes a familiar path,
a well-trodden direction which will put
them miles ahead of anyone else and much,
much closer to achieving their once
impossible dream.

The unacceptable alternative is of course
to do nothing. And, I'm sure that's not what
you'd be suggesting is it?

The 54th session of the Commission on the Status of Women will undertake a fifteen-year review of the implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and the outcomes of the twenty-third special session of the General Assembly.

The above, what a load of rubbish! What did we get out of the other 53 sessions, sweet FA. I for one have no problem with Iran being on this 'Gravey Train' at the UN, they might bring some balance to this usless Commission and who do the 'Pinko Fairies' want?

Dear Paul,

You ask:

" Who do the pinko faeries want?"

That's easy:

Definitely NOT Neanderthals
facing extinction!

"I know you didn't intend it but that comment could be seen as detracting from the huge amount of work by civil rights activists and by feminists being done in Iran. Although looked at from the outside the apparent progress is excruciatingly slow, there is necessarily an enormous amount of time and effort put into organising and other effort by civil rights activists (usually unacknowledged) and by feminists."

True Cornflower. Iran has actually made some progress and hopefully will continue to do so.

Antiseptic: <"Western women are not badly off and have not been for a long time...
... Western women are the beneficiaries of the goodwill of Western men and they have ruthlessly milked that goodwill for all they can get.">

If your predictions ever eventuate where women are dominant, you can take comfort in the thought that women will extend as much goodwill towards you as you extend to them.

You are welcome to do just as much milking too :)

Foxy- loved the comment about the Neanderthals! Rofl.

Pynchme, I always thought men preferred dominance in a woman :)

No wonder this forum always brings up subjects that can be turned into gender debates- they are always the funniest and the longest debates.

Back onto the subject at hand, I am just happy Iran has been placed into the spotlight of the rest of the world, via the United Nations, so that maybe they will look a little harder at how they treat their women.

pynchme:"You are welcome to do just as much milking too"

That's where you and I differ and it's pretty revealing of your underlying motivations. I don't have any desire to do any "milking", I just want a fair go to make the best of what I have. You, on the other hand, see everything in terms of who gets next go at the teat. You don't want to make your own living, you want someone else to hand it to you on a platter and it had better be good or else...

It's the entitlement model of feminism. As I said, it appeals to those of weak mind and weaker principles. Everything that Western women have they have because Western men have the quaintly romantic idea that women are "special" and must be cared for. We see this even here, when the odd Gamma male like CJ can't help himself, but has to try to "stand up for" one of the women. Women are under no such illusions about men, but are more than happy to make use of the men who do.

Western women know that their power is firmly based in their possession of a womb and they make sure that men pay and pay and pay for being allowed to use it. Traditional families evolved out of the recognition that if a woman wanted on-going support from a man she had a mutual obligation to him that went beyond simply using her uterus once, as largely happens today. Child support, Family Law, all the handouts given to women who use their uterus have been put in place to ensure that women can depend on that payment, without having any further mutual obligation to a particular man. They also ensure that a man pays, even if he was merely a means for the woman to acquire some sperm, while receiving no on-going quid pro quo for the payment

Foxy, guess what? There were Neanderthal females too. Given the fact that the Neanderthalers died out or were assimilated, those females must have hated sex nearly as much as some of the women here.

On the other hand, Neanderthaler genes live on in all of us, according to the latest research, so the males must have managed to convince a few Homo Sapiens Sapiens girls to open their legs.

Perhaps pynchme, for example, has a touch more Neanderthaler ancestry than most, given her obsessive dislike of anything to do with sex?

Lets bring some rationality into the debate. Iran are the perfect choice to be a member of this UN 'Talk Fest'. Look at the situation in Iran, who's got a problem, 0-14% of the population are 15 or under, they should be at home playing in their sand pits with mum and dad looking after them, they're sweet. 5% are 65 or over with a life expectancy of 70, they have nothing to worry about, the undertaker is on his, or hers, not to be sexist, way. they're sweet. What do we have left 73% which splits 37% male 36% female. The 'Pinko Fairies' whinge about Iran being a macho society, take them at their word, therefore 37%, they're sweet. What do we have left 36%, and since 90% of those are Muslems who think kicking women in the guts is ok anyway, what do we have left, about 3% or around 2 million unhappy souls. Since many Iranians have an overwhelming desire to travel, let the 3% of unhappies jump ino a leaky boat and sail to a feminists shangri la, Afghanistan. Then the other 97% will be all happy and smiling.
PS If your house get invaded by Civil Rights Activist and/or Feminists, call the Flick man right away, he can kill cockroaches, spiders etc etc.

Dear Antiseptic,

Guess what?

My response was to the "pinko fairies" comment,
and the type of mentality that goes with it.
Including people who persist in the practice of
accusing one gender, while excusing the other.
The only fear that I have is that these
Neanderthals will get any sort of traction.
Fortunately, it is they who are facing
extinction, not normal thinking people.

I hope this clear things up for you.

Foxy, don't worry, most intelligent people on this site would have understood your reference to Neanderthals!

Of course Antiseptic is right about there having been female Neanderthals, but history books don't talk about them much because they were treated as just sex objects and baby making receptacles by the chest thumping, aggressive males.

Gee, I'm glad we have moved on from that era :)

Dear Suze,

Thanks for your kind words.

I'm not worried. I realize that
there are some men who'd prefer to see women
in the traditional role of sex object,
shimmying bare-breasted around poles, while
they throw out the occasional
"phwooooar," to confirm
their approval.

As I said, fortunately, it is they who are
facing extinction.

Dear Foxy

"there are some men who'd prefer to see women
in the traditional role of sex object,
shimmying bare-breasted around poles"

Has it crossed your mind that just maybe there are some women who like shimmying bare-breasted around poles. The ones I've seen were'nt exactly screaming in pain.

Foxy:"people who persist in the practice of
accusing one gender, while excusing the other."

Aah, so you were talking about pynchme and Severin, et al. Glad we got that cleared up. I thought you disagreed with me for a moment. I muct admit, the image of a hirsute pynchme telling her Heanderthal hubby "not tonight, oook, go take it out on those cro magnon chicks" is compelling. Thanks for sharing it.

Paul1405:"Has it crossed your mind that just maybe there are some women who like shimmying bare-breasted around poles"

I think Foxy is more partial to Estonians or Lithuanians or something, but I'm sure she understands the sentiment.

Of course, there are some women who should be forcibly restrained from shimmying altogether. I suspect we have more than our share of those here...

Antiseptic,
Keep that up and you may find yourself the subject of a girlcott.
Or maybe even a Kristallnacht.

Proxy

You and Anti should really meet up - clearly you are soul-mates.

Meanwhile, in countries like Iran, women continue to be stoned to death for the crime of being raped - must make you feel all warm and fuzzy just to hear about it. Perhaps you could start your own version of Sharia Law here in Australia.

Cheers

Dear Paul,

No, it actually hasn't occurred to me that
women enjoy being objectified, shimmying
around poles bare-breasted. You think
it's okay because they've chosen to be
sex objects... Choice, however, implies
there's a real, equally well-rewarded
alternative. The wheedling, seductive
message to young women is that being
decorative is the highest form of power -
when of course, if it were, Dick Cheney
would have gone to work every day in
a sequinned tutu.

We've come to accept it as normal, and
confidence-boosting, for millions of
lovely young women to offer their breasts,
their noses, their labia, to the surgeon's
knife. If sexiness is about celebrating
their own sexuality and womanhood, why keep
finding fault with themselves?

Dear Anti,

I refuse to have a battle of wits
with you. I could respond point by point,
but it would be an exercise in futility.
I used to think there was more to you,
but - I can see that you aren not in
a position to have something worth
saying. You can't seem to go beyond
labels, your bigotry defines you and you
will continue to blame women for it.
Sad! As I wrote on another thread -
any ctriticism born of ignorance,
mistrust or hatred is not only ineffectual,
it's harmful and elicits equally pointless
and damaging responses. As for your
Estonian and Lithuanian references -
I'm actually into other nationalities as
well - I believe in multicultralism, unlike
yourself apparently!

proxy:"you may find yourself the subject of a girlcott."

I'm perfectly willing to endure the famed Amazonian torture "the death of a thousand" erm.. "cuts". Of course, It might take a few more or a few less, depending on how deep each "cut" is...

Foxy:"The wheedling, seductive
message to young women is that being
decorative is the highest form of power"

No, the message is that if they work at being decorative more young who like to work at being decorative will want to be with them.

Foxy:"I refuse to have a battle of wits
with you."

Probably wise.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1274952/Men-ARE-brainy-women-says-scientist-Professor-Richard-Lynn.html

of course, the last post should have read "if they work at being decorative more young MEN who like to work at being decorative will want to be with them."

Dear Antiseptic,

That is, of course, one way of ensuring
women are in no position to co-run the world.
And while women might be able to see that
they can pole-dance and run a corporation,
it's being sold as a women's choice, yet
it bears an unfortunate resemblance to a
consolation prize.

Interestingly, according to "The Age,"
May 1, 2010:

"Iceland, which has a strong women's
movement, a female head of state and a
very high proportion of female politicians
(almost half), has just passed, unopposed,
a law to extend existing restrictions and
close down strip clubs and lap-dancing clubs.
It will be illegal for a business to profit
from the nudity of its employees. It's the
first country in the world to make such a
ban for reasons rather than religious reasons.
Prudes, or taking a stand against women as
anonymous commodities.
Said one of its women politicians,:
"Once you break the glass celing and have more
than one-third female politicians, something
changes."

Foxy

Imagine a world where women and men are simply:

People.

Foxy: <"The wheedling, seductive
message to young women is that being
decorative is the highest form of power -
when of course, if it were, Dick Cheney
would have gone to work every day in
a sequinned tutu.">

Haha! the image of DC in a fancy tutu!

Priceless.

Foxy that para is worth framing

I think the law was changed in Iceland due to a huge number of frost bite cases affecting the bear breasted women.

"Once you break the glass celing and have more
than one-third female politicians, something
changes." The economy for one.

The lap dancers might be ok out of work but have a look at the Icelandic economy, its a basket case.

ROFL

Bear: http://www.tinyurl.com.au/7a3
Breasted: http://www.tinyurl.com.au/7a5
Woman: http://www.tinyurl.com.au/7a6

OH! You mean BARE breasted women.

:P

Severin:"someone else's kids will look after me"

right.....

Anti

I have never said, claimed nor intimated that "someone else's kids" will look after me.

Would you please stop the creepy stalking and ad hominem attacks.

And develop a sense of humour for chrissakes!

Rofl indeed Severin! I was imagining a women with a bear tattooed on her chest- very attractive to some I suppose!

Paul1405 is shaping up also to be a soul mate of our lovely old boys- Antiseptic and Proxy- don't you think?

I'm thinking that all three boys would be much happier living in Iran actually.....

Severin:"I have never said, claimed nor intimated that "someone else's kids" will look after me."

Yet still the fact remains. Apparently Kevin Rudd thinks he;s popular 'n' all...

Anti

The nurses and doctors who will care for you in your final days on this planet will all be someone's children. We will all be taken care of by someone's children at some point.

You do realise what a complete idiot you are making of yourself don't you?

Now, please leave me alone.

Severin:"The nurses and doctors who will care for you in your final days on this planet will all be someone's children."

As they will be for you. Well done grrrl, you rok.

Antiseptic, you are getting perilously close to being sent to the naughty corner again....just do the lady a favour and give it a rest now will you?
We all need to stand up for the status of women on this forum too.

Suzeonline:"Antiseptic, you are getting perilously close to being sent to the naughty corner again"

On what grounds, honey? Feel free to make your case. Good luck.

Not sure why Severin is being so relentlessly pursued across threads.

The level of debate is sadly declining lately. Is it a full moon?

What is happening Anti? Given your that your abilities to engage in intelligent debate and your skills in expressing yourself is more often than not exemplary (in non-gender related issues), why not argue the point instead of the person?

We will all be cared for by either our children or someonelse's at some point. Why does the genetic relationship of the carer make a difference, given that many blood relatives utilise the services of a nursing home.

Suze, Severin, et al,

Wouldn't you rather be on a thread
which doesn't display intellectual
bankruptcy?

Why feed egos by responding
to their nonsense?

You tried to have a civilized discussion, but in some
cases it's not possible.

Move on.

suzeonline:"We all need to stand up for the status of women on this forum too."

and some animals are more equal than others. At least Orwell was talking about pigs...

The girlcott expands:

"From now on I'll simply
scroll past when I see your name. I urge others to
do the same."
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 3 May 2010 8:17:20 PM

Suze, Severin, et al,
"Wouldn't you rather be on a thread
which doesn't display intellectual
bankruptcy?
Why feed egos by responding
to their nonsense?
You tried to have a civilized discussion, but in some
cases it's not possible.
Move on."
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 9 May 2010 6:25:24 PM

I guess different people have different strategies for compensating for the feebleness of their argument.
Tolerant people like CJ just call you a bigot and try to textually asphyxiate you.
Nice people like Foxy just call you a bigot and urge everyone to girlcott you.

You are right of course Foxy.
See you all on another thread.

You picked it Proxy. The girlcott has been applied. The women on OLO continue to demonstrate their complete inablity to think independently, with very few exceptions.

Poor old foxy got out of her depth quickly, Severin was always stuggling and of course Suzie makes an art out of saying "me too". I'm a bit puzzled by Pelican though. Despite a strong natural desire to do what the other girls tell her to, she occasionally has shown some capacity to work things out for herself. That seems to be diminishing.

What i find the most hysterically amusing in all this, is that I was deliberately arguing for more support for mothers, but couched in terms that placed the onus on one of the girls here, to whit, Severin, for her decision not to have kids.

Instead of a chorus of approval for seeking more support for those women who breed, I got the crow's chorus for sugesting that women should have any responsibility at all for anything at all, even their own decision not to breed.

It's funnier than Jon Stewart on a good day. It's also tragic: you women have become so dependent on the free ride that the mere concept of responsibility is anathema. Poor things.

"We all need to stand up for the status of women on this forum too."

Posted by suzeonline, Sunday, 9 May 2010 6:06:00 PM

Why? I could demand we all stand up for the status of Billy Goats or should I say Nanny Goats, or for the sake of political correctness Goats of no particular gender. I for one, don't want to stand up just for the status of women, or goats for that matter.

I want to stand up for the ststus of all, men women and children.

More UN shenanigans:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/05/11/anne-bayefsky-iran-united-nations-human-rights-council-libya/
According to the proffered logic, Libya's appointment to the UNHRC should mean another important step forward for human rights.

Proxy
Don't you think including countries like Iran and Libya will do more to influence human rights issues in those countries than exclusion? There is nothing to lose, only the possibility of something to gain.

Anne Bayefsky:

'On April 28, 2010, the U.N. elected Iran a member of its main women’s rights agency, the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW). After EYEontheUN found the outcome buried in U.N. documents and Fox News brought the result to national attention, prominent women’s rights activists around the country began gathering signatures urging Secretary of State Clinton, at a minimum, to denounce the move after the fact. They will remind her of the famous 1995 declaration she delivered at the U.N. World Conference on Women in Beijing: “If there is one message that echoes forth from this conference, let it be that human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights, once and for all.” Fifteen years later, Democratic priorities have changed.

Evidently, there was a backroom deal on Iran, which until recently was on the ballot for the Human Rights Council elections. The United States would look the other way when it came to an Iranian seat on the Women’s Rights Commission, if Iran withdrew its candidacy for the Human Rights Council. While the Obama administration, European Union members, and even some U.N. officials, worried Iran’s election to the Council would be a potential embarrassment, they had no such sensitivities about a women’s rights agency.'

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/05/11/anne-bayefsky-iran-united-nations-human-rights-council-libya/