I've been struck of late by the number of obvious press releases that are put up as "news". The federal Attorney General's department is one of the more obvious offenders, with many such pieces being put about in support of the very poor Family Law Amendment bill that McClelland is trying to ram through.

These puff-pieces have some common features. They start with a "motherhood statement" such as "Too often, children are the victims of warring parents." which few could disagree with, then go on to mention some extreme examples (real or not, it doesn't matter, the important thing is that they be as extreme as possible).

A good example is this:"In another family, two boys aged three and four are placed in their father's care, despite the fact they try to masturbate, anally penetrate and have oral sex with one another, which they explain to their mother is a ''game we play with daddy''. A court later rules that she is discouraging their father from having a relationship with them, so they are placed in his custody."

This is followed by some pseud-quoting of "experts" that have been cherry-picked from some minor advocacy group. This is a good example:"Charles Pragnell, from the National Council for Children Post-Separation, describes the 2006 Howard reforms as ''seriously flawed''. He believes they are solely concerned with parents' rights and give no consideration to the needs, wishes and rights of the children caught in the middle."

The final feature of all of these things is the lack of any opportunity for public comment. The last thing the Government wants is for the message to be diluted by people thinking about it.

We're expected to just sit down, listen to our betters and do what we're told without question.

And here was I thinking the Government was elected to do as the people think best...

Antiseptic
While there is often little opportunity for public comment on some issues I can't agree with the premise that parent's rights should take priority over children's rights. The first obligation is to children merely because they do not have the legal authority to make decisions for themselves.

The difficulty as in the extreme case you mention above is legitimate concerns about welfare may be construed as a malicious intent to keep children away from the father. What is someone to do in those circumstances when there is very real evidence of abuse but nobody is listening?

Putting an emphasis on children's rights does not mean parent's rights are necessarily excluded. Most of the legislation recognises that children's best interests are served by contact with both parents (assuming both are rational and responsible carers). The problems only arise in cases where there are accusations and they are minimal.

Instead of targeting the laws that seek to put children's rights first, why not evaluate the investigative processes that determine who is telling the truth and find better ways of negotiating with parents. Howard did that to some extent with the relationship centres including in oft forgotten regional areas.

If we make these laws too flimsy and allow abuse to continue I would not blame any parent who 'kidnaps' their children to protect them from harm, such as the father in the US who was apprehended by the FBI after some years but with the support of his children it was concluded that the system had let them down by allowing his wife full or majority custody when she was clearly dealing with a drug issue and not a responsible carer by any means.

Dear Pelican,
This discussion really is a sensitive one.....I think though that rather than refer to the word 'rights', which covers a lot of areas, I think 'responsibilities' is more appropriate. We all have right's and responsibilities, but where children are naturally innocent of many things, it is the parents' responsibility to teach the children about various vagaries of nastiness in the wider community, provided that the teaching is sound and not 'overdone'.
'Tis a sensitive subject my friend, isn't it? Parents are charged with a lot of responsibility, education of the Social mores is tricky, judging how much or how little should be taught to kids at the one time.I do also think that the 'cards' fall down against the males in a lot of cases.
Have a good one.
NSB

Are we talking about changes to
the Family Violence Bill here?

Because if we are then I don't understand what the
objections are. According to the Attorney General's
Department - " This Bill isn't about the rights of
men's groups or women's groups - it's about
prioritising the safety of children and ensuring
violence and abuse is reported and addressed."

Apparently the ammendments to this Bill have been
made in order - to
get rid of "entrenched obstacles in the system to
reporting family violence and child abuse."

As stated on the Attorney General's website -
"The Family Violence Bill prioritises the safety
of children, encourages people to bring forward
evidence of family violence and child abuse and
helps families, law professionals and the courts
to better identify harmful behaviour through new
definitions of "family violence" and "child abuse."

Again from the Attorney General's website:

"During public consultation on the Bill a total
of 73% of respondants expressed support for the
measures and a further 10% made no specific comment
on the Bill but offered information about personal
experiences."

As the website tells us:

"The level of support and interest from the community
around these changes indicate that the Government is
responding to a clear need to improve and strengthen
aspects of Family Law and that the overwhelming
majority of the community support the Bill."

The Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional
Affairs which was inquiring into the Bill had
received more than 200 submissons. This is a Bill that
has been thoroughly investigated - and it's no wonder that
it has received the overwhelming support of the
community. Children to most of us - are a top priority.

Hi Lexi,
Sorry, I sort of got off track with my last post.
Of course the safety of children is paramount, it always is and always has been a priority with our kids and, subsequently they, with theirs.
But surely positive education (not school ed.)delivered in a manner which neither frightens the children nor is it too much information for kids to comprehend, is better coming from parents at the perceived 'right time' in their lives.
Both Fathers,Mothers and their offspring need to be protected from abuse at all times.
One thing does bother me regarding rights though, is this, why does it seem that the Father of the children is often portrayed as the 'bad guy'. Men are driven by desperation after the marriage has failed, the cost of child maintenance is crippling them financially, usually the family home is occupied by the Mother and Children, leaving the Father with absolutely no hope of ever being financially free until the kids reach a certain age. My nephew's wife blithely announced one Christmas that she is leaving him and taking the kids with her. He had to pay high maintenance for the three children, the mortgage on the house and meeting all the financial demands made on him. His wife had found another man, he was living with her immediately after the separation was announced in a home that partly belonged to her bereft husband. (I say partly, because he had to pay the mortgage on it). He didn't ever hurt her or the kids, she just found some one else....where is the justice there?
Cheers my friend,
NSB

Dear Noisy,

I don't think that this piece of Legislation is about the
rights of men's groups or women's groups. As the Attorney
General's website stated this particular piece of legislation
or - Bill
"is about prioritising
the safety of children and ensuring that violence and
abuse is reported and addressed." You're talking about
different issues. And, of course I fully agree with you
regarding father's rights. Perhaps - that may be next
on the agenda - if enough pressure is applied.

The only way things
will change will be if enough people apply pressure on
their Members of Parliament. Look how long it's taken for
this legislation to receive these ammendments?
And you'd think everyone would be concerned about children.

Hi Lexi,
Yes, you are quite right, it is about the children., how could it not be about them. Their rights as kids seems to be overlooked these days by those who are close to them.
As usual, I am writing about one thing and my thoughts trail off somewhere different, but also in my view relevant.
Let's hope that there will be adequate protection for the kids, it would be nice though, if today's marriages would last for a life-time, providing more stability for kids. Seems to me that a lot of marriages these days are just temporary, when things go wrong, everybody suffers in the family group, instead of trying to make things work.
Kids shouldn't be subjected to that. More stick ability and less temporary marriages should prevent hurting the kids, who are the ones who suffer.
I am probably still slightly to the left of most topics, oh! how my mind drifts of to other problems of (un)blissful family lives for some poor unfortunates.
Have a good evening my friend,
NSB

I think Iam going to be sic.....:)

This is the best you've got?

Oh Dear...

LEAP

Hi Lexi and Noisy Scrub Bird (interesting name!), I agree it would be better if mum's and dad's could stay 'happily' together, for the kid's sake.
However, it is even more toxic for the kids if their parents stay together and are NOT happy. This destroys kid's perceptions of happy relationships and is as damaging as divorced parents, in my humble view.

We can't and shouldn't force parents to live with one another if they are not happy, like back in the 'good old days'.
What a miserable existence some people must have led, until their spouse died!

Getting back to the original subject of the Family Law Amendment bill, I agree that it is a good step in the right direction for kids who have at least one 'toxic' parent, for whatever reason.

It doesn't need to be a gender thing at all, given that women who are abusive to their kids are just as bad for the kids as the men.

I don't think anybody should have a problem with a bill that proposes more security for kids...unless they have something to fear.

Quantumleap, do you even have a view on the subject matter of this thread?

Yes Sue....the horse feed is well understood........and your right, I have nothing to contribute.

LEAP

Thanks for the responses folks, but I think we've got off the track of the subject. Yes, I think these amendments are bad, but that's not the subject.

What I wanted to discuss was the attempted deception inherent in publishing these press releases under a byline as well as the rather nastily egregious anti-male "examples" chosen by the Attorney-General in his press fare.

The Attorney-General is the highest non-judicial legal office in the land. We have every right to expect the person holding that office to behave impeccably, including in their politicking.

By encouraging the Press, in this case the Fairfax press, to create a faux "story" out of a political press release an altogether misleading impression of the nature of the piece is created. It is clothed in a spurious authority granted by the byline, while the real source of what is after all no more than a propaganda puff-piece is hidden. Hardly the sort of behaviour we'd expect from the judiciary, or the DPP, or the police, but apparently it's OK for the Attorney-General.

It's also interesting that the A-G's department seems to think that doing things this way will be more effective than simply putting out a press release saying "the Attorney-General said". Perhaps they know more about McClelland's personal standing than they're letting on. These things are never opened for commentary.

I'll make a point of collecting these puff-pieces over the next few weeks, not just from the A-G, but from other departments. There is no shortage of Ministers, both State and Federal, wanting to wrap themselves in the authority of the press as a means of bolstering their own minimal stature. McClelland is simply the most obvious example of such a lame duck.

Anti sorry but I'm going to respond to one of the earlier comments.

Suzie made the point "I don't think anybody should have a problem with a bill that proposes more security for kids...unless they have something to fear."

I've mentioned this numerous times before and it's a point that seems to be routinely missed or ignored by those who think that the proposed laws are gender neutral.

On their own possibly they are gender neutral however in conjunction with other proposed changes that's a very unlikely outcome.

I refer to an article published last year (473 posts, OLO's 4th highest ever post count)

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11280

From page 2
"Recently enacted domestic violence acts in several states are prefaced by the words:"domestic violence is predominantly perpetrated by men against women and children" (eg. s.9 (3) of the NSW Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007).

The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) in its far-reaching report Family Violence - A National Legal Response released earlier this month has recommended that similar discriminatory words preface all state and federal laws dealing with domestic violence, including the Family Law Act (see Recommendations 7-2 and 7-3 of its report)."

If that goes in as well then action based on accusations would be extremly unlikely to be gender neutral.

Regardless of individual views on who does more and which stats people believe the addition of a profiling statement can't be reasonably ignored in the context of accusations of domestic violence.

R0bert

Noisy Scrub Bird
I agree it is about facing responsibilities and 'rights' are bestowed they are not naturally occuring. It is disheartening to see two parents point scoring or warring when there are children involved. I am at a loss to see how governments can ever sort these problems out to everybody's satisfaction. It is impossible to get it right every time. The risk is twofold. Either an abusive parent continues to have access or a non-abusive parent is denied access (not to mention all the grey areas).

It is not an easy problem, which is why Howard's relationship centres which included follow-up counselling was a good start. A mediator in these cases goes a long way in identifying certain needs such as anger-management, specialist counselling and financial support/advice.

Anti
Would these media releases sit better if there were a mix of gender-perpetrator examples? I can certainly see a case for being more even-handed and it might go some way in reducing hostilities.

No they wouldn't sit better at all, Pelican. It's not the blatant misandry that I object to as much as the dishonesty in trying to pretend that your words came from a journalist instead of a press release. If the A-G is so lacking in an ethical framework that he considers that acceptable, what chance is there that on the hard questions he's able to be more trustworthy?

As I said, this was meant to be about the lack of such a commitment to ethical behaviour in our politicians generally. McClelland just happened to be the one who jogged my elbow with the particular puff-piece I mentioned.

It wasn't meant to be about the Family Law amendments, which are obviously motivated by internal party politics rather than being about children. Let's face it, the Family Law has always, for the ALP, been about party politics and the feminist ideology that underlies such Party groups as Emily's List, an enormously powerful back-room group that has as its motto "When women support women, women win" (so much for anybody who says the gender issue is not seen as a "war" by these people). It represents a way of transferring wealth from men to women and hence making "women win" in the words of the Emily's listers.

Could it be that the pseudo-journalists who put their names to these pieces are subscribers to this philosophy as well? Are they trying to make sure that "women win"? Is that really the role of journalists and Attorneys-General?

Anti
Media releases originating from Communications Sections are often written by ex-journalists, ex media advisers or graduates from Communications/PR Courses. Press releases are just spin, most media journalists just regurgitate what is in the press release without much additional analysis due to deadlines and time constraints.

They write in line with government policy, department's are support to their Minister (or the AG in this case) and press releases are written to provide information about what the government is doing. I have to disagree that there is a personal feminist line being pushed by the writer. Public servants don't imbue their own opinion into these releases, that is not their role. The same goes for public servants tasked with writing speeches.

"When women support women, women win"

I don't know much about the organisation Emily's List but 'win' can be in the context of 'righting a wrong' not about overtaking, overpowering or reducing men. Men don't need support in the workforce in relation to access to top jobs or trades, they already had access.

Access has improved for women too because of the feminist movement. I don't think this would have happened 'naturally'. Feminist organisations have transformed over the years to be more inclusive.

The EL website indicates that by empowering women you also empower men eg. access to childcare. It seems to me to be more about valuing women and getting rid of old stereotypes about women's work as inferior. My only objection to these sorts of organisations is that they sometimes swim in a one-fits-all pool in the main, and don't do much for families where one partner (usually the mother) stays at home. There is very little advocacy for those roles and little in the way of reducing the 'inferior' status. Which is why it is best to ignore the bleatings of the current trends and be confident in your own choices. That way everybody 'wins'.

http://www.emilyslist.org.au/about-us/what-we-believe-in

Pelican, you're still missing the point somehow. The press release is fine as a communications tool. when it appears in the paper under a byline, it takes on the appearance of being a properly researched piece of journalism, when it is not. this is dishonest, since it clothes the particular piece of propaganda in the authority of the press. The particular byline-owner is obviously a hack, but still has greater authority than the A-G in the department's eyes, apparently.

If the A-G is not prepared to put his name to this sort of thing, why is he promoting the legislation?

Emily's list is a particularly nasty group. If a group of male parliamentarians was to do the same sort of thing they'd be pilloried by the very same people who think it's OK when women do it.

"Winning" is very much about dominance and control of the political discussion. Have a look at the course on "progressive debate framing", which is basically about inventing something that you think sounds good and then repeating it, ad nauseum. Have a look at the course on "Lobbying Labor politicians".

Whatever you might like to pretend about feminism, as it is practised by this lot, it is very definitely about "winning" the gender "war". As such, McClelland had very little choice but to do as he was expected to do by these very powerful women, who seldom get recognised for their enormous influence.

hHre's a classic piece of attempted bandwagon-riding from Peter Beatty, the master of doing nothing for lots of pay. Pete must be lookng for a new "job" now the sinecure in the US has finished. Funny how any aspiring Laborite looking for a "job for the boys" has to first appease the girls of Emily's List...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/prejudice-alive-and-well-against-political-women/story-e6frg6zo-1226117934810

I wouldn't mind, but it's so poorly written it's an embarrassment, no doubt it'll play well down at the Fabian Society.

Apparently, in Pete's world, it's unacceptable for a female candidate to be asked about things she has said. It's unacceptable for a female candidate to have to do anythng except sign the oath of office, apparently, according to Pete.

Still, he got his job application in: "I have been a strong supporter of advancing women in politics, and of both Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Premier Anna Bligh. Indeed Queensland has witnessed the rise of powerful women: Bligh, Quentin Bryce -- my recommended appointment for governor to the Queen and now Australia's Governor-General -- president of the Queensland Court of Appeal Margaret McMurdo, and State Governor Penny Wensley head the list."

I'm not sure how he sees promoting bligh and Gillard as being positives, let alone Bryce, but that's the wonderful world of ALP gender politics: "never mind the quality, feel the width"...

Here's a bit more "progressive debate framing".

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/two-speed-salaries-leave-women-behind/story-fn59niix-1226117776603

This puff-piece, by one of the usual suspects, the rather tragically-underperformed Sue Dunleavy, attempts to pretend that the fall in retail activity is somehow a gender-discriminatory thing. It says:
"THE two-speed economy has morphed into a battle of the sexes.

And women are losing the fight as the tug of war between the booming male-dominated mining sector and the flagging retail sector, staffed heavily by women, helped to push the gender pay divide to 17.5 per cent in May - the largest gap in 23 years."

Now Pelican, can you honestly say that the "reporters" who put their name to this piece of fluff are simply reporting the news? Do you really think there is anything remotely to do with gender or the "gender pay gap" in the fact that retail is doing poorly and mining is doing well?

It's simple: if women want to be paid the same as men, then go to the dirty, dusty, dangerous places and ask for a job. Don't choose to work in Katies because you like the staff discounts and the airconditioning and the availability of coffee shops and hairdressers close to work.

Perhaps Ms Dunleavy could do with looking for a better job as well. She doesn;t seem to have much aptitude for this one. I'm sure the Sisterhood at Emily's List can find her something to be going on with...

Dear Anti,

Women select jobs that appeal to them, the same as men.
Talking about salary gaps -There are three men and one woman in charge of the big four banks - they're certainly
powerful. But are they rich? Most definitely. In fact, they are much
richer than they first appear and their wealth is growing faster
than company profits.

Wetpac Banking Corp chief executive Gail Kelly owns $32.9 million worth of Wespac shares. By contrast, the average Australian has
amassed only $232,000 over their lifetime, according to the ABS.
As Kelly and the others get generous annual salaries, the true
wealth gap is even wider than this. The composition and size of their
pay packets preordain this fate, providing they stay in the job
long enough.

Big bank executives are either already in or well on the way to
joining the ranks of the salaried rich. The big question is
whether they deserve the pay propelling them there?

A typical teller at a big bank earns less that 1 per cent of what
their ultimate bodd does. The people who deliver services to
customers, the people who process important documents, the
people who make sure customers can get their loans on time
before a property they want is bought by someone else, are not
being rewarded for the success they are also contributing to.

The best reason for doubting the levels of bank executive pay is that
the executives themselves appear to doubt its appropriateness.

Asked on the ABC's Q&A TV program recently to explain the gap
between her pay and that of the average teacher, Westpac's Gail
Kelly conceded, "I can't for a moment justify that gap."

"Or with nurses or policemen, similarly I simply can't.
What I can say is we do pay a lot of attention to try and make sure it's appropriately structured, that it's aligned around long-term
performance and it's aligned around an organisation - a bank doing
it's very best work to try and support communities it works in and looks after of its stakeholdeers. But it is a big number."

Lexi:"Women select jobs that appeal to them, the same as men."

Men choose jobs, on the whole, for a couple of reasons. The pay level, security of tenure and yes, possibly some "appeal" in doing something hard and worthwhile. Some women no doubt do the same, but overwhelmingly women choose jobs in just a couple of occupational classes, mostly dealing with other women. They are over-represented in retail, food services, nursing, social welfare and bureaucratic roles, even when they've done professional courses at uni. You'll note that none of these roles add to the wealth of the nation except by churning what has been produced elsewhere; hence counting as part of GDP and therefore adding to personal tax revenue. Unfortunately, however, without the mining sector there still wouldn't be enough tax to go around, largely because women's workforce participation requires so much subsidisation. Productivity thanks to female participation has increased by just 22% since 1974, according to Goldman Sachs, while welfare spending has increased by 50% since just 1983. The sums don't add up.

I'm not sure what your point is about bank executives' pay. If you want to be paid like a bank executive perhaps you should go and do a couple of economics degrees and an MBA or two and see if you can get a job with a bank?

I do agree that there is a major problem with the discrepancy between executive pay levels and that of less-senior grades, but I'm not sure what could possibly be done to affress it. The pay blew out because a couple of Australian firms (including, notably, Westpac) decided they needed overseas executives and so they had to pay based on overseas market levels of pay. It has never dropped since.

A small correction, I should have said "welfare spending as a proportion of GDP has increased by 50% since 1983".

Anti
I think I must be missing the point but I do have to pick you up on your interpretation of anything contrary to your opinion as wrapped up in an easy 'whatever you pretend about feminism' throw away line. Why are my experiences and analysis inferior to yours and worse a 'pretence' of some sort. From that shallow analysis I will assume I don't have much more to offer on this subject that would not be misinterpreted. Only to add that as a woman I have experienced sexism of various degrees over the years but much less in the last 10 thanks to movements like feminism albeit it's outcomes are not always perfect, even for women.

As for "winning then gender" war - this cand be interpreted as merely winning equal access for women. Do you really think there is a great conspiracy out there to subjugate men?

As for the press release the AG puts his name to as soon as it is approved. The press release is public policy as designed by the incumbent no matter who actually pens the words.

Pelican:"I do have to pick you up on your interpretation of anything contrary to your opinion as wrapped up in an easy 'whatever you pretend about feminism' throw away line."

It's nothing like that. I observe things and I ask "why". You might be surprised to know that I have read quite widely in feminist literature and the only constant I've been able to find is the desire to try to justify on the one hand independence from influence and on the other the provision of massive preferential treatment of women with no quid pro quo.

If you diisagree, you're very welcome to try to make your case, but I have no obligation to make it easy for you. that would be special pleading and I have little time for that.

I'm not sure why you think I'm saying your experience is a "pretence". I've never suggested that at all.

Pelican:"Do you really think there is a great conspiracy out there to subjugate men? "

Yes, in a nutshell. It is implicit and often explicit in every aspect of institutional feminism. The Emily's Listers are simply one of the more overt about their aims, since I guess they feel they are a dominant faction. Funny how we never hear from our Labor Parliamentarians about their factional alignment with Emily's list, don't you think?

"Destruction of the patriarchy" is a basic tenet of feminism from the Left, as exemplified by Emily's List. There are no female patriarchs. QED.

The A-G didn't put his name to anything at all. Instead, there was a deliberate misrepresentation of the story by putting it under a byline rather than crediting the A-G as the source.

That's dishonest.

Well journalists are not known to be even handed on most issues.

No you don't have any obligations to me - I would not ask it of you. I only hope there is some degree of honesty. I have the right of free speech to defend accusations of some sort of pretence on my part.

Feminism clearly means something different to you and that I accept as your right in a free country even if we disagree.

Pelican, feminism is by its nature divisive. By making everything about gender, feminism destroys a great deal of the social cohesion that has brought us this far.

It is most definitely not an equality paradigm, but a nasty ratchet, in which the game is to get more in each round of policy-making. As I've said before, there is no negative feedback mechanism within the feminist movement and whenever someone tries to apply a brake, they are immediately attacked.

At present, 2/3 of Australian-origin university students are women.
At present, 85% of Australian-origin trades trainees are men.
and

"While male apprentices are employed across a range of trade fields and industries, 42% of female apprentices are employed as hairdressers with just under half (47%) employed in Cultural and recreational services and Personal and other services industries. "

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/C29360250F66B9C3CA25732C00207435?opendocument#Untitled%20Section_3

This is a simple illustration of the way in which Australian society is being constructed as "women white collar, male blue collar". It will only get worse, since the women who gain power, especially in the ALP, all self-identify as "feminists". They have to, Emily's List makes it mandatory.

I know you don't share the views of the more radical "sisters", so don't take any of this personally. I know plenty of women who don't think like the radfems, but the radfems are the ones setting the agenda and the moderates are silent.

As always, evil flourishes when good people are silent about it.

I must congratulate Chief Justice Bryant of the Family Court for her excellent piece in refutation of the piece referenced in the original post.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/rights-of-child-supreme-in-abuse-claims-20110822-1j6l6.html

She says:

"Parties should feel free to raise concerns about risks to children in having contact with another parent and the law should never be an impediment to them. Nor should the law be an impediment to the capacity of judges applying it to make orders that protect children from harm. To the extent that the current amendments to the Family Law Act improve those processes, they are welcome amendments."

and

"Raising an allegation or a concern is not the same as proving it to the requisite standard in a court. I can say, however, that contrary to the assertion attributed in the article to Mr Charles Pragnell that "the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities at the extreme end of the scale", that is not the applicable law in Australian family law courts.
Advertisement: Story continues below

Since the 1988 decision of the High Court in M v M, even if a judge cannot find an allegation proved on the balance of probabilities, having regard to its seriousness, the court may still refuse to make an order for contact between a child and a parent if that order would expose the child to an unacceptable risk of abuse. That is because the court is ultimately deciding what is in the best interests of the child, not whether abuse can be proved to have occurred."

and

"These decisions are not about the rights of parents, they are about the rights of children: to be protected from physical or psychological abuse, but to have a relationship with another parent where it is in their best interests.

Understandably, parents do not find it easy to be objective about perceived risks to their children. However, the courts provide objective and experienced judges assessing the evidence, whose ultimate task is to make orders in the best interests of the children and who do their best to do so."

Feminism is only divisive if used to encourage laws that discriminate against men. Not so if to meet a standard already afforded to men.

I agree that as a society it would be more constructive to take a 'humanist' approach. In that respect I think feminism has served it's main purpose in opening up opportunities that were not available for women.

There is certainly more to be gained in promoting fairer societies across a number of different spheres such as class, race, religious freedom, open government and environmental protection just for starters. These issues affect men and women.

Pelican:"Feminism is only divisive if used to encourage laws that discriminate against men. Not so if to meet a standard already afforded to men."

Quite so. I say that the way institutional feminism is done, by the various highly politicised advocacy groups, it has already gone far beyond any equality paradigm. The sheer dishonesty of the oft-repeated claim that women are underpsid compared to men is just one example.

This is a story that appeared back in June, but was buried from the start at the bottom of several other links that were simple puff-pieces.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/executive-lifestyle/women-to-outdo-men-in-pay-race/story-e6frg9zo-1225882144080

"THE pay gap between men and women is set to vanish within 14 years among the professional classes, according to an analysis of the US workplace.

Women will, on average, earn more than men in careers such as law, medicine and academia by 2024, said Maddy Dychtwald, an expert on demographics.

In a new book, Influence, based on US government statistics, she said women in more than a third of professional dual-income households in the US were making more than their husbands, up from just over a quarter five years ago.

If this trend continued, women in middle-income jobs such as teaching, healthcare and the arts would start overtaking men shortly after 2024.

The predictions mark a break with official estimates at the start of the century, which suggested the pay gap would persist for another 40 years.

Declining birth rates, a growing number of female-friendly posts and the "mancession" - more men than women lost their jobs in the US recession - had helped to shatter elements of the glass ceiling."

Do you reckon this will ever be mentioned by the Emily's Listers?

"Women will, on average, earn more than men in careers such as law, medicine and academia by 2024, said Maddy Dychtwald, an expert on demographics."

Does it matter if women earn more than men in some fields?
Does it matter if men earn more than women in some fields?

Disparity in wages where people are doing the same sort of professional work only happens in careers where salaries are negotiable and the law is about making money. The more money you make for a law firm the more money you earn individually.

This does not apply to award wage positions or where rankings determine wages eg. public service.

At the moment men earn more money in the Law than women. Are you at all concerned about that inequity or only if women are ahead. It seems to me if men earn more you don't think it is a problem or worthy of comment which makes me wonder about your motives at times.

Does it matter if men and/or women are earning more at any one time (this will vary over time) or represented more in certain professions.

The issue is 'access' after than invididuals make up their own minds about the jobs or careers they wish to pursue. I doubt there will ever be 50/50 on anything let alone gender choices.

Pelican:"At the moment men earn more money in the Law than women."

Not when they do the same work. The point the article made was in regard to the fact that women professionals will be in the senior roles, so they will have the higher salaries, not that women's salaries will increase, since there is already parity.

The reason this matters to me is that it's all about "framing the debate" in such a way that women are always perceived as disadvantaged, even when they're in charge. Emily's List loves this stuff, as the link I provided earlier shows.

The story above is also notable for the way it sets the bar not at parity, but at women exceeding the income of men on average. It says, on the one hand "THE pay gap between men and women is set to vanish "

and on the other "Women will, on average, earn more than men"

meaning the pay gap will not "disappear", it will be reversed. Do you think there will be clamouring from the Emily's Listers for men to be encouraged into professional careers rather than blue-collar ones in order to address this inequality?

Why not?

But Anti are you not guilty of the same.

Any of us could go and find a sector where either men or women could be perceived as disadvantaged and frame the debate thus. Often the disadvantage is concluded purely by numbers as though this is the only marker or relevant factor.

How is your framing the debate any different from articles complaining about low representation of women on Boards or CEO roles? Sometimes these comments are made without any reference to other factors equally relevant as we have discussed many times.

As for blue collar work. One might write 'women are not well represented' or that 'men are overly represented' and spin it to denote disadvantage or advantage depending on one's bias.

Does anyone really give a toss if more men are employed in blue collar work, or if more women are senior lawyers, or more women in child care, or more men in engineering and science.

As long as the opportunties are there then it is up to individuals to take advantage of them according to desire, aptitude and sometimes just plain luck.

Pelican:"Anti are you not guilty of the same."

I don't think so. I try to back my assertions with well-reasoned arguments and I have no vested interest, other than as a citizen of this nation.

I observe, I hypothesize then I try to find support or otherwise for my hypothesis. I don't make misleading statements designed to "frame" the "debate" out of existence in favour of a one-sided advocacy for an outcome.

When I first started here there were quite a few "progressive debate framers" who did their best to drive me off. They "framed" my views as misogynist and me as somehow antediluvian and filled with "hate" and "anger" to discredit my participation.

Pelican:"How is your framing the debate any different from articles complaining about low representation of women on Boards or CEO roles?"

I'm not looking for a board position for myself or anyone I know. The Emily's Listers and their fellow travellers have this as their primary goal. They are "framing the debate" on dishonest grounds.

The reason for my focus on the subject of tertiary education levels is also simple: professionally qualified people make the decisions, while blue-collar workers do as they are directed, to a large extent. I have no confidence that people who see it as perfectly reasonable to be discriminatory and to "frame" debates in dishonest ways can be trusted to ever be honest and to make decent, fair, just decisions.

Have a look at George Orwell's "The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism" (the book inside Winton's Newspeak Dictionary) for a very prescient view.

http://intercontinentalcry.org/the-theory-and-practice-of-oligarchical-collectivism/

"These new movements, of course, grew out of the old ones and tended to keep their names and pay lip-service to their ideology. But the purpose of all of them was to arrest progress and freeze history at a chosen moment. The familiar pendulum swing was to happen once more, and then stop. As usual, the High were to be turned out by the Middle, who would then become the High; but this time, by conscious strategy, the High would be able to maintain their position permanently."

Orwell also anticipated the social constructionist movement in socipology in that piece.

"The new doctrines arose partly because of the accumulation of historical knowledge, and the growth of the historical sense, which had hardly existed before the nineteenth century. The cyclical movement of history was now intelligible, or appeared to be so; and if it was intelligible, then it was alterable."

and
"The new aristocracy was made up for the most part of bureaucrats, scientists, technicians, trade-union organizers, publicity experts, sociologists, teachers, journalists, and professional politicians. These people, whose origins lay in the salaried middle class and the upper grades of the working class, had been shaped and brought together by the barren world of monopoly industry and centralized government. As compared with their opposite numbers in past ages, they were less avaricious, less tempted by luxury, hungrier for pure power, and, above all, more conscious of what they were doing and more intent on crushing opposition. This last difference was cardinal. By comparison with that existing today, all the tyrannies of the past were half-hearted and inefficient. The ruling groups were always infected to some extent by liberal ideas, and were content to leave loose ends everywhere, to regard only the overt act and to be uninterested in what their subjects were thinking."

Sounds pretty much like the sort of thing that is developing in the artifical dichotomy being created between the interests of men and women.

Here's more

"The possibility of enforcing not only complete obedience to the will of the State, but complete uniformity of opinion on all subjects, now existed for the first time."

Of course Orwell was writing a work of fiction, but the analysis is nonetheless sharp.

Here's some more "debate framing", this time from the underperformed Tanya Plibersek and her tame pseudo-journo, Renee Viellaris.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/money/money-matters/queensland-deadbeat-dads-tax-returns-targeted-to-recover-outstanding-child-support-payments/story-fn3hskur-1226123625724

In the whole "story", not a thing is mentioned about the 23% of paying parents who are women. Of those women, the vast majority are not earning enough to have a meaningful contribution assesses and of the ones that do, most are simply not subject to CSA collection because the fathers simply can't be bothered going through the hoops demanded of this grossly discriminatory agency.

Tanya Plibersek is, of course, a prominent member of Emily's List, so misandric pronouncements are de rigeur. No doubt tjhere will be lots of back-slapping over this wondefully vilificatory piece of "debate framing".

What a shame Viellaris doen't have more journalistic integrity. She occasionally produces something worth reading.

Charles Pragnell seems to have a had a change of mind with his change of employment

http://www.childrenwebmag.com/articles/child-care-articles/child-abuse-is-rapidly-declining

"Claims that there is a vast amount, or indeed any amount of child abuse which is unreported, is therefore pure mythology, and it can be reasonably claimed on the basis of these statistics that child abuse is grossly over-reported. Allegations of the sexual abuse of children are declining far more rapidly than any other category of alleged abuse of children.

Most concerning is that 41,100 children and their families (72,100 - 31,000) were unnecessarily drawn into intrusive, invasive, unnecessary and unwarranted child protection investigations, which cause children severe and long-lasting harm and have a devastating effect on their families who are stigmatised and shunned, isolated, and reviled in their neighbourhoods and communities. They have had no fair and just opportunity to refute and rebut the accusations made against them."

ChazP: ""The selective use/misuse of information is part and parcel of any debate"

Glad we got that sorted, eh Charles?