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...