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?