pelican,

'And why are the male posters given leeway while female posters are not. Men have not traditionally been paid less so the historical relevance is not there to instigate a movement per se. There is however historical relevance in relation to child custody issues so I would always support improvements in that area.'

As I said..

When are we to start looking at the objective reality around us and stop reflexively reacting to injustices past?

This is one of my issues with feminism; It wouldn't matter what the relative advantages to men and women are in society, feminists will never be happy. They'd be out of a job for a start. So they must, at all costs, continue to represent women as universally disadvantaged even if/when it becomes no longer the case. If they succeed, then even enforce a society where men are massively disadvantaged, do you think they'd stop there?

As I've said, I'm happy when feminists admit they are a lobby group interested in getting advantages for women wherever possible, regardless of the effects on men. When they mention equality they expose themselves as hypocrites.

I agree in principle Houlley, which is why this article is a beatup. Equality is already in the workforce for the most part hence my later reaction. Bringing attention to women earning more than men in one small area in one country (if the statistics are genuine) is nothing more than stirring the pot. And it worked on all of us (me included).

It already got Anti on his high horse about his son's prospects when really it will be down to his son's own abilities, character and choices that will determine his happiness as with all of us. None of us are given a free ride. We are all responsible for our own decisions and access is readily there for anyone who wants to take advantage.

Why is everyone down on tradies. Just because mostly men do it does not mean it should be demeaned. Most tradies earn more than the average last time I looked and so what if more men choose a trade than women. There are more female receptionists, secretaries and office workers - what is the problem with that? Men and women can be tradies or receptionists if they want to - no-one is stopping them.

The fact that it's a beatup is not under question pelican. As I said, I think to a large degree the thread is to highlight the hypocrisy of feminists and some of the female posters. If the stats were the other way around, they would be nodding their heads about the poor women being victims of societal expectations that girls don't go to university.

Now that it's men who don't go to university in the same numbers as women, those societal expectations... hey, where did they go?

They were never there in the first place. The reason now is like you say, and like I have always said regardless of the gender being discussed; Choice.

Nobody is hiding the information that being a nurse or a teacher pays poorly, and nobody is hiding the fact that you may be able to get more money if you go to university rather than doing a trade. The goalposts aren't moving and the game is fair, as it has been for considerable time. Certainly in my lifetime.

But there will always be those feminist lost soldiers, fighting away in the jungle long after the war is won, parading around their 17% gender wage gap like a badge of honour, like it's some sort of evidence of victimhood.

I think, perhaps, we should force all women into the workforce after 6 months of having kids, so as to fix this statistical anomaly. We could also force women who are happy with their work-life balance, who love their kids and only work a little because their husband doesn't earn enough, to train up and become CEOs. We can force a certain percentage of teachers, who have chosen the 12 weeks holiday and 9-3 hours, to go off into the mines to work 12 day shifts. It's a human rights issue.

Case in point.

Sleep is the latest feminist issue. Apparently women need more sleep, and their societal expectations are so much higher than mens that they need more sleep than men. The poor dears are 'time poor', and working themselves into the ground. It's a uniquely female problem apparently.

'Naomi Wolf was prompted by Arianna Huffington, publisher of The Huffington Post, and Cindi Leive, editor of US women's mag Glamour, who began a campaign about sleep earlier this year, describing it as “the next feminist issue”'

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/wellbeing/are-women-getting-enough-sleep-20100907-14yj3.html

If there is any evidence women have achieved equality it is articles like this. How desperate can feminists be to find some inequity in our society. Perhaps they are tired of polishing up that 17% gender wage gap argument, or are starting to feel that even the most irrational people have accepted the glaring oversights of that argument.

Is there any end to these uniquely female trials and tribulations. Is there any topic that doesn't need to be researched separately for gender and reported and emphasised only if women may somehow be doing worse than men.

These overbearing female only societal expectations are ruining the lives of women. Every day another stone is turned over to find yet another burden these downtrodden martyrs of society are carrying.

*I don't care if Yabby or Antiseptic resent women generally and it shows in their comments.*

Hang on Pelican, I do not resent women. I am just really sick
of the tearjerker stuff on OLO, about how downtrodden and
powerless women are. It is rubbish and somebody needs to
say its rubbish.

For every hard luck story about a woman that you can tell me,
I can tell you one about a man, downtrodden by a woman.

I can't remember the name of the poster, it was some time ago,
but she was clearly involved in political feminist politics.
She made it quite clear that what she was doing was not
about equity and fairness, but about lobbying for women,
as any business would do, in its own self interest.

Now you may take those comments personally, that is your choice,
not what I am writing.

The thing is, we still hear so much of this "poor women"
tearjerker stuff, that many have failed to notice that
the pendulum has swung well in womens favour.

When we point that out, a poster like Suze thinks thats ok,
because women seemingly were disadvantaged before.

What a lame excuse.

Dear Houllie,

You ask would I rather earn more money or
spend it?

To be honest with you - the money that I
earn goes into the joint bank account
that my husband and I share, and we spend
it to pay our bills. I've worked full-time
all of my married life.

If the world consisted simply of some self-
evident reality that everyone perceived in
exactly the same way, there might be
no disagreement among observers. But as this
thread illustrates, the truth of the matter is
that what we see in the world is not determined
by what exists "out there," its shaped by what
our past experience has prepared us to see and by
what we consciously or unconsciously want to see.

Knoweldge and belief about the world do not exist
in a vacuum; they are social products whose
content depends on the context in which they are
produced. A fundamentalist preacher will tend to
view pornography in one way; the owner of a
strip-club in another way. Each is inclined to
perceive facts selectively and to interpret them
accordingly.

How can this problem be resolved? The first step
would be to recognize that subjectivity and
objectivity are not two neat and separate categories;
they are really matters of degree. By exercising
caution we can attempt to be as objective as
possible. This caution involves deliberate efforts
to be conscious of one's own biases so that they can
be kept in check. To try to hunt down the relevant
facts and not ignore those that are inconvenient
for one's pet theories.

I guess total objectivity is probably
impossible to achieve, but a self-conscious effort
to be as objective as possible will produce vastly
less biased results than not making this attempt,
and it may open further channels of communication.

One can live and hope that this will happen on OLO.