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?