The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Nicola Roxon resignation

Nicola Roxon resignation

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. All
Over the course of Nicola Roxon's term as AG I have criticised her support of the data retention scheme, cyber-security panic and continual changes to national security/terrorism legislation following in the footsteps of the Howard government.

However some comments responding to her resignation have led me to jump to her defence.

There has been criticism about her resignation as letting down the cause of feminism especially in her wish to spend more time with her family. Senator Evans articulated the same reasons and there has been nothing similar about his failure on behalf of any one cause or group.

Why does one person's personal decision have to conform to any social construct?

Why do some people rant about what other women should and should not do according to their view of feminism.

There is yet to be a policy out of the Office of the Status of Women about supporting the rights of families who choose for one parent to stay at home; or who choose less consuming careers to enable more time with family.

Years ago feminist groups decried the attitudes that made it hard for women to work and raise a family. This is the same sort of prejudice only in reverse.

What sort of world are we that someone is castigated for wanting to spend more time with their family especially those with young children. And why are we harder on women who make those choices.

Senator Evans also said families pay a high price for those choosing political careers so why criticise someone who has the forethought to see where their decisions might lead.

Every women who has worked and tried to raise a family knows the idea that 'you can have it all' is bogus and difficult. That does not mean don't do it and some people are better at it than others. However, this idea that one size fits all as regards family and work is a backwards step and another form of social engineering that fosters a growth, consumerist economy.

Thank you Nicola Roxon for being brave enough to take this step.
Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 5 February 2013 8:54:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Isn't true that if you lose your seat in an election you lose part of your pension as well as anything you have spent on getting re elected. Somebody correct me if I am wrong. Rats do leave sinking ships I believe.
Posted by chrisgaff1000, Wednesday, 6 February 2013 9:14:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
chrisgaff1000
I am not sure how your comments relate to the subject matter.

As far as the pension issue I think your statement is incorrect but I guess it is easily researched if you wanted to obtain factual info.

My basic understanding is that it is irrelevant if you lose your seat (eventually most do at some point in their political career), it is more about how long you have served.
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 6 February 2013 10:13:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ignoring for a moment the media's now-standard sensationalist seeking of subtext, I am sad to see her go.

Having met her a few times in her previous capacity (Health) I was impressed by her straightforward and clear-eyed approach to a highly complex portfolio. I was disappointed with her move to AG, and even more disappointed with her somewhat clunky approach to policy in that role. It would not surprise me if she herself does not share that view, in her more private moments, and that this awareness contributed to her decision. She is after all a human being as well as a politician.

Realistically, she would also be aware that spending the next six years or so on the opposition benches is a vastly different career proposition to holding a senior government office

Losing genuine talent is sad for any management team, and political Parties are no different. As in business, the attributes of the job you are offered are the most significant reason for accepting or rejecting it. And there's no shame whatsoever in saying "I don't think that is how I want to spend the next (at least) six years of my life".

Ms Roxon wouldn't know me from the proverbial bar of soap, but I am glad to take this opportunity wish her well.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 6 February 2013 10:25:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican, it was hard for women with children to enter the workforce.
That is why the day care facilities came into existence and other
benefits came into existence.
However the whole problem could have been avoided if governments had
not forced lending authorities to lend on both incomes.

As soon as they did that the price of houses rose to meet the amount
of money in the market. It was a bonanza for developers.
Of course once committed to borrowing on two incomes, you have to keep
working for two incomes until the mortgage is discharged.

It was a trap they did not see coming, and it has given them this great
burden and the lower birth rate and all the disadvantages of being older mothers.
Posted by Bazz, Wednesday, 6 February 2013 12:00:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A question, if Nicola Noxon resigns as a minister does she get a bigger pension than as a backbencher ?
Posted by Bazz, Wednesday, 6 February 2013 12:06:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Thank you Nicola Roxon for being brave enough to take this step.'

I don't know about brave. What's brave about it?

Is it really brave to leave your job?

Is Michael Hussey Brave? He left a more important job for the same reasons.

It's not as if someone's going to hurt her.

The bar is pretty low these days for acts of courage. It seems just doing what you want in the face of a tiny bit of criticism is courageous?

Unless Emily's list is a cult and they're going to hunt her down and kill her, I don't reckon it qualifies.

BTW: I never really 'got' the having it all bit. Men have never 'had it all'. It strikes me as pretty self centered for women to believe they deserve to have it all. Somehow they always miss that men who supposedly have a family AND a career never really had much time with their families. Maybe they think men don't really like kids that much and don't care.

Bazz, I'm with you. Though most people can really afford to live under one wage, but they'd have to give something up. I know people who earn half what I do and live quite happily on one income and 2 kids. They even have Foxtel.
Posted by Houellebecq, Wednesday, 6 February 2013 12:31:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican
'What sort of world are we that someone is castigated for wanting to spend more time with their family especially those with young children. And why are we harder on women who make those choices. '

No one that I am aware of castigated Nicola for wanting to spend more time with her child. She however did her best to make free speach illegal showing her true disgusting ideological dogmas. She should be ashamed of that.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 6 February 2013 3:40:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Thank you Nicola Roxon for being brave enough to take this step.'
Pelican,
Yes very brave indeed to run away from the obligations of your stuff-ups & straight into a $100,000+ a year pension. I wonder how much concern she has for those who she stipulated to be on $400 a fortnight.
Maybe we could spend another million for building a statue of her to remind pensioners where their tax dollars have gone.
Posted by individual, Wednesday, 6 February 2013 4:58:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Think Pelican you have bought out the worst in some.
Or is it their normal.
We all know I think Labor is gone, but.
Yes but, by election time, carbon reduction/climate change may be a player.
If Abbotts plan is seen for what it is, one that will not work, we may see it play a roll.
IF Abbott releases his true intentions, to cut the middle and lower incomes benefits raise the rest, that too may play a roll.
One thing we can bank on, some praising him today will do the opposite within months of any victory.
Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 6 February 2013 5:09:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If Abbotts plan is seen for what it is, one that will not work,
Belly,
Abbott could possibly guarantee that things will work if the Unions can guarantee that that they'll reign in their outrageous demands every time a Coalition Government gets elected due to years of Union-backed Labor Government mismanaging. It really is just the wheel going round'n round. The big difference being that the Coalition's wheel is powered by reasonable common sense whereas the Labor wheel is powered by dead academic hamsters.
Posted by individual, Wednesday, 6 February 2013 6:11:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The puzzling part about this is that Julia said that NR informed her twelve moths ago that she would resign in the not too distant future.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but why would anyone promote someone to that very highly respected role, knowing they were on the way out.

Nor should the recipient accept the promotion, knowing they were pulling the pin.

It's my understanding that The promotion occurred about twelve months ago.
Posted by rehctub, Wednesday, 6 February 2013 8:01:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rehctub, you asked; "why would anyone promote someone to that very highly respected role, knowing they were on the way out."

The answer is Craig Thompson knocked the job back, and Pete Slipper was busy in court! Eddie Obeid said the pay wasn't good enough, besides he couldn't see how the 'Family' would be making a quid out of that kind of gig.
Posted by Paul1405, Thursday, 7 February 2013 5:30:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles
I have heard similar about Nicola Roxon in the health portfolio. You may be right about the data retention aspect and perhaps she has been more vocal in Cabinet.

runner
The comments I was referring to were mainly on Twitter and in Letters to the Editor of various newspapers (eg. Canberra Times). Most of the comments on Twitter came from women although one of the most strident was from a letter from a man who stated Roxon has let down the cause of feminism.

Belly
I am not so sure Labor is gone despite the polling. Admittedley it does not look good. Though Abbott does not poll well so it is really about parties. Much will depend on what the LNP comes up with if we are ever privileged to seee their policies in reasonable time prior to the election. They have already shown their stripes in being a mouthpiece for the minining industry in stating they will abolish the mining tax at a loss to those who ought to gain more from these resources.
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 7 February 2013 9:14:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houlley
Your reaction is knee-jerk. I never said that women 'should' have it all. It is a ludicrous starting point for anyone - man, woman or child.

Without getting into a strong gender war, which is not my intention, my main issue is with people who believe that any one person no matter what their position in life is responsible for the public relations and promulgation of any cause through their personal choices. In this case it is feminism but it could equally apply to any cause and any person.

Nicola Roxon clearly said she could not devote herself completely to the role and it is an important role with need for a full commitment. Fact is Ms Roxon wants to spend more time with her family. I imagine she will at some point take-up a less demanding role that will enable her to do just that.

Men have been leaving politics for years with that same reasoning. Why are women to be held to a higher goal and castigated for not meeting the manufactured expectations of others.

The term 'brave' was used because I would imagine she would have predicted the letting-down-feminism responses and instead made the right choice for her and her family.

individual
Ms Roxon will receive the same as male politicians who leave their role. You are missing the point of this thread. Imagine Ms Roxon as a Liberal then you might get the message in the first post.
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 7 February 2013 9:22:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rehctub
I am not sure why Ms Roxon accepted the post of AG if she knew at the time she was leaving, however we are not privy to the discussions or even if she had come to a decision at that time. The PM did state it was 12 months ago and perhaps it suited the seat shuffling at the time to remove McClelland from the role. Who knows. My beef is with the reaction to her resignation from some quarters in relation to the feminist cause.
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 7 February 2013 9:26:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz
I agree with your interpretation as far lending goes. The idea that we are somehow better off with all the perceived trappings of material goods (debt) when it requires two income earners to feed the debt cycle is quite ludicrous.
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 7 February 2013 9:48:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hehehe.

Every public figure, even the great Hussey and Ponting, resigns to 'Spend more time with their families.'

The interesting thing is the sudden realisation that they need or feel they want to spend more time with their families.

It normally coincides with a form slump, or becoming tired of the rigours of travelling or the long hours spent training.

It's a Euphemism. Like... see a man about a dog.

'Why are women to be held to a higher goal and castigated for not meeting the manufactured expectations of others. '

I don't believe that's *generally* the case, but in this instance, lets just say it's for similar reasons men are under suspicion taking their kids into a public toilet.

'any one person no matter what their position in life is responsible for the public relations and promulgation of any cause through their personal choices.'

I did comprehend and agreed with that general point, I was just making fun. I have long objected to footballers expected to be 'role models' too. I remember how upset people were when Andrew Johns showed the world that you can be an absolute superstar and perform at the highest level all the while enjoying the pleasures of recreational drugs. Don't tell the kiddies that Mr Role Model! Hence the teary confessions and the ubiquitous I have a mental illness ruse.

But 'at the end of the day', people in public life... water off a ducks back. Doubly so a politician.

Which is why....

' she would have predicted the letting-down-feminism responses and instead made the right choice for her and her family.'

I don't agree it was brave at all. Who WOULD care about some ideological zealots when making decisions in their personal lives and doing what they think is best for their family.(However belated and convenient the timing of the new found desire to spend some actual time with them.)

Anyway, what kind of mother takes on such a high stress life consuming job in the first place...
Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 7 February 2013 10:57:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The real hero is a guy on say 54k a year who is sole provider for a family, not looking forward to a 100k pension, asking to leave early to pick up the kids.

That's brave! There's no second income, and there's no political contacts and jobs for the girls to come back to if he loses his job for not being a team player. The family depends on the income and there is a real risk and even if he feels there isn't he is reducing his potential for a pay rise.

Or the woman with few skills who leaves her job to be a primary carer, and then tries to get back into the work force 7 years later. She could be consigning herself to a lot of training and begging, being isolated and unemployable and depressed.

That's Brave!

Not some chick on $100k plus who has a partner with earning potential and is looking forward to getting a 100k pension anyway, with connections and a public name who can walk back into a job of her choosing in 5 years time.

Wooooh, what will the mighty feminists think! Maybe these Emily's list people are more scary than I thought.

Every time I think I'm out, they pull me back in...
Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 7 February 2013 11:04:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houlley
Nicola Roxon is certainly in a more privileged position than most. I do think that women and men are held to different standards, as I have said previously there are different 'injustices' if one might call it that, and for lack of a better word at this time of night. Chris Evans' resignation did not invite the same commentary. His need to spend time with family and acknowledgment that families pay a high price sometimes for those in political careers was seemingly accepted.

I don't dispute there are other 'brave' people out there Houlley and who do it a lot tougher. I resigned from the workforce to raise my own family for a time and have taken on less stressful work to enable my husband and I to live to the choices we made with no regrets. Admittedley I get a bit defensive when I hear this sort of nonsense. You are most probably right that they are not worth thinking about too seriously, however it just p**ed me off.

I don't think Emily's List is the problem. There seems to be some great conspiracy theories around that group. From what I can fathom they are just a mirror of the old boys network or male clubs assisting women to fulfill their career objectives; not take over the world.

We are really talking about some comments in the public domain that I thought were unfair on behalf of Ms Roxon; whether she be poor or rich.
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 7 February 2013 10:55:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A lot seems to hinge on the word "brave" that was thrown into this discussion. It seems to be broadly accepted that there is nothing "brave" about Roxon's resignation, and perhaps this is true. I'd suggest that the bravery lies in taking on the job in the first place. I don't have a lot of time for politicians, and most of the time they seem to grab my attention for all the wrong reasons. They are generally despised by about half of the population, and possibly tolerated by the other half. Nothing they do can please everyone, and those who are displeased tend to be much more vocal in their attacks - downright nasty and unpleasant, in fact. To put yourself out there to be attacked for a few years seems to me to be a combination of bravery and stupidity.

I don't know that pollies deserve their wonderful pensions any more than sacked senators deserve lofty posts on boards or in embassies (http://www.news.com.au/national/im-offering-you-nothing-julia-gillards-response-to-dumped-senator-trish-crossin/story-fndo4bst-1226572146614), and I don't know that it's "brave" to leave office knowing that they have that income to go home to, but I do know that I'm not putting my hand up for their job anytime soon.
Posted by Otokonoko, Thursday, 7 February 2013 11:31:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Otokonoko
Yes on reflection 'brave' was probably not a good choice on my part. :)
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 7 February 2013 11:40:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes Pelican, I read some nasty letters to the editors in other newspapers about Nicola Roxon too.

It does seem that there are some mindless morons in our society who still get their kicks from denigrating women in the workforce.

I think this lot are throwbacks to the good old days when men were the breadwinners and women stayed home with the kiddies.
Some can still afford to do this of course, and that's fine, but I thought society had moved on from the '50s.

Nicola Roxon started her parliamentary career as a single woman, but has since married and had a child, so she made a decision to step away from such a time consuming job.

Good luck to her...
Posted by Suseonline, Friday, 8 February 2013 12:36:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"It does seem that there are some mindless morons in our society who still get their kicks from denigrating women in the workforce"

The 'mindless morons' referred to were fellow feminists who thought Roxon was letting the side down. Quoting from the OP,

<There has been criticism about her resignation as letting down the cause of feminism especially in her wish to spend more time with her family>

But if it makes you feel better to be kicking men in the head just carry on as you usually do.

The 'sexism' and 'misogyny' cudgels (or is that handbags?) have become blunted since Timoy's blunder, where the world's greatest expert on sexism and misogyny obviously riled through her own inaction that maybe she has been a tad harsh in her criticism of others in the recent past.

There is a whole world beyond gender. Time to move on.

Anyway, it is silly to say that a pollie who has reserved a taxpayer funded, fully indexed pension (in the vicinity of of around $160,000 pa?) for life and steps back just prior to the hard yards of a difficult election, is 'brave'. Self-interested yes, but brave, no! Nothing wrong with taking advantage of benefits, but lets not make a virtue of it as the OP did.

The real problem is the parliamentary golden handshake arrangements that were never designed for career politicians to take advantage of, retiring with huge benefits for life from a very youthful age. Both men and women have benefited so 'gender' is irrelevant. Other examples include Bill O'Chee and Natasha Stott Despoya.
Posted by onthebeach, Friday, 8 February 2013 1:53:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Typo, para should read,

<The 'sexism' and 'misogyny' cudgels (or is that handbags?) have become blunted since Timoy's blunder, where the world's greatest expert on sexism and misogyny obviously ruled through her own inaction that maybe she has been a tad harsh in her criticism of others in the recent past>
Posted by onthebeach, Friday, 8 February 2013 1:56:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You are missing the point of this thread.pelican,
I think you're the one who is not getting the point as a whole. Labor, Liberal, Green or Pink, they all get too much of a share from our tax dollar for what ? Nothing! That's what.
To describe a high ranking incompetent who cost us several million dollars as brave is missing the point. The point of sense that is. To put Roxon onto that pedestal is the height of ignorance.
Posted by individual, Friday, 8 February 2013 7:06:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh come off it guys I think the OP makes up what the point is.

'any one person no matter what their position in life is responsible for the public relations and promulgation of any cause through their personal choices.'

Also that men get lauded for their commitment to family, whereas women are letting the sisterhood down in the same situation. Though I still reckon it's just the latest euphemism to fill in time at press conferences.

Otokonoko,

We are in agreeance. Apparently that's not actually a word though. Anyway I wrote a whole OP on whether many would have what it takes to run the baby kissing gauntlet, and was shot down as expected by the cynical mob that I normally join.

My point was that they are actually people, and the job isn't as easy as it looks. The rewards probably reflect that, as who would do it if it wasn't a chance to get a scam pension.

Suze,

'Nicola Roxon started her parliamentary career as a single woman, but has since married and had a child, so she made a decision to step away from such a time consuming job. '

Eminently sensible. It really pisses the sisterhood off though. They want young girls to see that it can be done, or that the hubby should be the primary carer. REGARDLESS of what the woman actually wants. ie it's not really about choice at all, especially if women keep making the 'wrong' choices.

I'm sure I'd be considered old fashioned, but I am dead sure if men en-masse decided they quite liked being the primary carer, there would be a lot of very unhappy women.

When it comes to the crunch, generally, women still chose that role, and more importantly, think they have a right to first dibs. Which is perhaps fair enough after carrying a baby for 9 months.

Feminist propaganda is that men just wont let them and refuse to take on the carer role, and if they would then that would make women 'truly' happy and fulfilled.
Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 8 February 2013 8:37:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I like this new Emily's list BTW. It reminds me of the Masons, and also the the Brethren. I remember the rodent and his secret communiques with the Brethren. It all sounded really exciting.

I wonder if they have a secret hand shake. It reminds me of Schindler's list too.

Cracks me up that feminists have rallied against male colleagues daring to play golf together for so long, but are totally cool when it comes to women having a secret little club.
Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 8 February 2013 8:46:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This responsibility and self actualisation stuff is complicated.

"I'm sure I'd be considered old fashioned, but I am dead sure if men en-masse decided they quite liked being the primary carer, there would be a lot of very unhappy women."

Sidesteps the point that regardless of what men en masse decide there will always be a lot of very unhappy women...

Of course there are those who just wish women would make up their minds as to what they want and stick to it -- so that men know what they're left with and can stop guessing all the time.

Everybody won't be happy until we get this parthenogenesis thing sorted out for humans.

But I'm not insensitive and can understand carrying a baby for 9 months makes a woman fufilled and that postpartum she's left feeling empty.
Posted by WmTrevor, Friday, 8 February 2013 9:24:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh Trev you do have a talent. You just do it for me.

'so that men know what they're left with and can stop guessing all the time.'

That's what I argue to my feminist friend. She laments the sidelining of her career, and says women should be able to have it all etc etc (I actually add yada yada blah blah in my head I must admit)

But men's 'choice' actually happens AFTER women's choice I tell her. She decides whether she will go back to work, is thinking to herself what terms would suit her, and then envisages her husband fitting in with whatever arrangement she decides would suit her best, all the while feeling a tad sorry for herself and thinking women are hard done by.

For some reason she gets a bit shirty when I mention the husband might be interested in some 'choice' too!

Women have more flexibility and choice in the workplace, but are the ones looking for 'equality' and more flexibility.

Women hold the choice with abortions and better contraception, and are screaming about 'reproductive rights'.

You're right Trev, I don't think 'women' (or Feminists really) can ever be happy. More fool us for trying to placate them I suppose.

It seems men are brought up to accept they have no choice, work, do what it takes, accept the limitations, and suck it up. In fact they fear choice I reckon.

Women think they want choice yet they seem particularly upset when they get it.

Men don't seem to change friends, haircuts, clothes, any of their likes once they pass 30. They 'decorate' their house with a TV and stereo and a few trusty items and then that's it. Women are always changing their hair and clothes and friends and are always on the lookout to renovate and buy new cushions.

Is it any wonder women initiate all the divorces. They're a bunch of malcontents:-)
Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 8 February 2013 10:32:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Pelly,

Not sure what all the fuss is about, politicians
come and go all the time and no-one usually makes
a big deal of it unless scandal is involved.

In Ms Roxon's case it should seem perfectly understandable.
She's been in politics since 1998 and her daughter is
now 7 years old. Wanting to spend more time with her
family seems like a natural choice at this point in time.

Mark Dreyfus will replace Ms Roxon as Attorney-General and
from what I've read - he's a highly respected and capable
person who will do the job well.

There has been quite a re-shuffle in the PM's Cabinet -
and as the PM has stated it's "fresh talent with fresh ideas,"
going into an election year. Surely that can't be a bad thing.

I also wish Nicola Roxon All The Best. 15 years in any job -
is quite long enough. Good Luck to Her!
Posted by Lexi, Friday, 8 February 2013 3:54:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Regardless of who it is, the real problem is the parliamentary golden handshake arrangements that were never designed for career politicians to take advantage of, retiring with huge benefits for life from a very youthful age. Both men and women have benefited so 'gender' is irrelevant. Other examples include Bill O'Chee and Natasha Stott Despoya.

Should a politician aged 41 retire on a fully indexed guvvy pension with other benefits?

Another point, the politicians' superannuation is indexed against average weekly earnings whereas the superannuation that the government's public servants and military have paid for is indexed against the discounted CPI. So the politicians' spending power is maintained while that of its 'servants' or employees, is quickly eroded.

As long ago as 1972 the Jess Committee, a Joint Parliamentary Committee, recommended that, "..retired and invalid pay be expressed as a percentage of final pay and be adjusted annually so that relativity with average weekly earnings is maintained" and stated, "The Committee has concluded that the most appropriate method of maintaining the real value of retired pay is to ensure that it maintains relativity with average weekly earnings."

The Whitlam Labor Government and later Governments including Gillard's Labor/Green government have chosen ignore the Jess recommendations. EXCEPT in relation to politicians' superannuation. Bosses are different and Labor are as much bosses as any other. Perhaps more so.

Much better to be Nicola Roxon or Julia Gillard than a soldier who risks his life in another country. Or his widow and children if he does not return.

Yet Roxon and one presumes Julia Gillard are to be regarded as 'brave'? For bloody what? For ambition, for enjoying a jolly good living and entitlements while in the job and their $150,000+ fully indexed for for life?
Posted by onthebeach, Friday, 8 February 2013 5:23:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
enough damage in a short period of time. We should be rejoicing.
Posted by runner, Friday, 8 February 2013 5:55:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houlley
'Cracks me up that feminists have rallied against male colleagues daring to play golf together for so long, but are totally cool when it comes to women having a secret little club.'

And the reverse applies, that is why I wonder about all the fuss about a women's club. I don't have a problem with men's or women's clubs. Why all the fuss about Emily's List and the singular approach from some people. Also I don't think men are denigrated at all for wanting to spend more time with family nor should it be so.

Suse
The reaction was more in response to Ms Roxon's decision to leave her role to spend more time with her family as onthebeach noted rather than her being in the workforce ie. as though she has somehow let the 'side' down. If feminism is about dictating what women 'should' be doing for the cause or conforming to some universal standard concocted by an elite group of privileged middle class women with their own agenda, then it is a lost cause.

WM Trevor
I think you may be right, many women still want to be the primary carer but more men are doing it now too,especially if their wife earns a higher salary and there is a mortgage to be paid. Basically whatever arrangements families make is up to them.

Lexi
Well put, it is a no-brainer really which is why I was at a loss to fathom some of these negative comments.

individual
You made me laugh. I started the thread so the point is of my making..Yes?

What happened to people living to the beat of their own drum. If feminism was about anything it was about widening the choices for men and women, albeit the first wave was more about 'equalising' in a practical sense ie. equal pay for equal work etc. Men on balance probably have fewer choices in this regard when it comes to work/family but on a positive they are more involved now with their kids
Posted by pelican, Friday, 8 February 2013 9:35:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Outgoing Attorney-General Nicola Roxon has left a raft of significant legal reforms ... prohibition on causing offence that would limit free speech"

Roxon suddenly becomes maternal...how old is this orphan of her's?
The kid seemed to get along fine until seven, but the bad polls and the payout brought out the "mother" in Roxon.

Shove a gag in our mouths and take the money and run. Labor criminal moll.
Posted by sonofgloin, Saturday, 9 February 2013 8:01:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican, I'm going to break my silence just this once in response to your comment above.

" If feminism is about dictating what women 'should' be doing for the cause or conforming to some universal standard concocted by an elite group of privileged middle class women with their own agenda, then it is a lost cause. "

I just wanted to congratulate you for "getting it".
Posted by Antiseptic, Saturday, 9 February 2013 9:01:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I doubt you have ever been 'silent' at all Antiseptic.

I agree with Pelican that some women are actually worse than men at putting other women down.

If a woman wants to work, and has kids at home, then they are considered 'bad' mothers.
If a woman wants to stay at home with the kids, well then they are boring and not fulfilling their full potential.

Damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

Feminism is not about hating men at all.
It is about equality as far as I am concerned.
Is that too much to ask for?

Politics is predominantly male however, so the condemnation from male colleagues towards female politicians is undoubtedly more common.
Posted by Suseonline, Saturday, 9 February 2013 11:17:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'll drink to that Suse, but only if it goes both ways. The whole no fault system with the dissolution of marriage has proved to a huge con job by the ladies.

Yes if dad decides to shoot through with his secretary, or the pub barmaid, he should leave the family home behind.

However when mum decides she wants to live with the baker, rather than her old man, it is she who should leave that family home behind. Having the old boy kicked out so she can move the baker in, is not equality.

Until we get this situation as standard there is nothing like equality.

Unfortunately the above is all too often a feminists idea of equality. Unfortunately with the law as it is interpreted today, any man who marries, or even stays around long enough for the de facto laws to be triggered, is setting himself up to be screwed.
Posted by Hasbeen, Saturday, 9 February 2013 2:08:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anti, good to see you are still alive. The point you highlight is a worthwhile one especially when contrasted to what a lot of non-professional feminists and feminist supporters want it to be "Feminism is not about hating men at all.
It is about equality as far as I am concerned."

The reality is often very different to what a lot of people of good will want it to be. The evidence is there but it's an inconvenient truth and is ignored in favour of what feminism should be.

If it the professionals feminists and those who write the papers and drive the agenda's were really about equality of opportunity I'd be a big fan but the reality is often very very different.

Not sure how to ever get some to take the time and effort to examine the evidence for themselves though. What does not fit existing beliefs about feminism is brushed aside.

Convenient but unsubstantiated beliefs are touted as self evident "so the condemnation from male colleagues towards female politicians is undoubtedly more common." - numerical strength does not always equate to corresponding representation in a particular behaviour.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Saturday, 9 February 2013 2:11:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As one who has worked with and observed many a poly and aspiring politician, I can say for some it's lucky getting elected does not require any formal qualification or even a job interview. That has nothing what so ever to do with gender. Besides the blatantly obvious requirements of understanding issues and policy plus the ability to articulate the said issues and policy the single most important asset a poly can have is 'political savvy' which enables a politician to deal with every thing from the media to little old ladies who vote. Even if one is light on when it comes to the issues and policy if you have that 'savvy' your are well on the way to political success. The most complete politician I ever did see was Neville Wran.
I thing both the Labor and Liberal parties have been guilty of underscoring the abilities of woman, often viewing them as people who can easily be controlled and manipulated I think many in the Labor Party seen Kristina Keneally as such a person, when in fact she had more ability than the manipulators gave her credit for.
A female with good looks in politics, as in employment, is often seen by many men and other women as a person with little ability and some how have only risen through the ranks based on their appearance. A handsome man does not necessarily suffer the same indignity.
Posted by Paul1405, Saturday, 9 February 2013 2:46:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh dear, the old boys club have taken over a discussion on why Nicola Roxon resigned, and turned it into an anti-feminist/anti-female tirade.

Nicola is wise to get out of the male dominated political world, and I am wisely leaving this thread for more interesting subjects.
Posted by Suseonline, Saturday, 9 February 2013 4:22:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<A female with good looks in politics, as in employment, is often seen by many men and other women as a person with little ability and some how have only risen through the ranks based on their appearance. A handsome man does not necessarily suffer the same indignity>

There is plenty of research to say that presentation assists career (and credibility).

At first this appears unfair and it is a bit too because genes do matter in all sorts of ways. That is why we try to choose the fitter, more able partners to have children. That is life.

However when you look into it, presentation can be assisted and built through effort. It isn't just what you started with.

As well, examples abound of physically plain and 'unattractive' people who have done very well in the world. Obviously they have played to their strengths. Choice matters.

What many women object to is that sort of affirmative action that catapults the less than competent into jobs at their level, casting a shadow over their own achievements in the process. The predictable, catastrophic failures from women mateship and favouritism during the Anna Bligh years are instances. In the public agencies for example, there are plenty of good women available from outside and in, but the pecking order is often established by networks. In politics it is cynical politics, political opportunism, that elevates. Usually the product is evidence of that.

What lets women down is not Nicola Roxon moving through one of the usual transitions expected for women, but the middle class academic (and bureaucratic) careerists with a vested interest in not recognising those transitions. It is an elite who identify the (their) needs, the (their) expectations and the (their) solutions.

Again, that is life. Wherever government gives special conditions and support it will be the middle class who step in to exploit. That is not a political ideology talking, just practical reality. Whitlam wanted to improve the training options available for unemployed women. Shortly after, middle class women filled available places in humanities and social sciences at universities.
Posted by onthebeach, Saturday, 9 February 2013 4:41:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Nicola is wise to get out of the male dominated political world, '

hopefully the PM will catch such wisdom Susie. Just goes to show the sisterhood are never satisfied. At least the destruction of their reign and emasculated males is evident for all to see and it ain't a pretty picture. Hopefully Wayne Swan will also catch a little of the 'wisdom ' Susie mentions before the country ends up with any more major blunders.
Posted by runner, Saturday, 9 February 2013 5:09:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
suzie, that was crap. If you and Poirot agree on a point is it the old girls club taking over the discussion? On what basis does the claim rest that professiinal feminists don't do as some of you want to believe they do somehow become anti-female?

If there was a mens group in parliment specifically devoted to furthering the interests of men in parliment would that be an object of suspucion? Remembering that Emilies list existed at a period when the only every level of government covering my home was headed by women despite their being more men in two of the three levels that people get to vote on.

Just for some context on politics being dominated by men
- I had/have a female mayor
- I had a female state premier - currently male
- I had/have a female state governor
- I had/have a female prime ministor
- I have/had a female governor general
- I have/had a female head of state

If politics is currently dominated by men its not exactly showing in who gets the top jobs. Men do outnumber women at state and federal levels in seats occupied, no so sure about council levels. Thats probably a lot more to with choices people are willing to make about work life balance than any male domination. Its my understanding that women voters outnumber male voters, I don't think any of the major parties stop women joining or standing for seats. Eg the claims of male domination are another of those convenient misrepresentations that don't really tell the story.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Sunday, 10 February 2013 6:50:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear RObert,

Thanks for the list that you've given us -
in your attempt of showing us that some women
do reach top positions. I wonder though what percentage
of women overall occupy high-paying positions,
that is, the high-level executive, managerial,
or administrative jobs, and why do men and women
who do similar jobs today still have different titles and
pay scales. For example the male becomes an
"administrative assistant" whereas the female,
merely an "executive secretary."

How many women are
there on seats on boards of the nation's leading
corporations. Is corporate leadership no longer
a kind of old-boy network. Are you stating that
there aren't still many men who feel a woman should
be at home, or in bed, or having babies - rather
than hiring, firing, and ordering men around.

Take a look at some of the posts on Nicola Roxon's
resignation. They're real eye-openers. Would a male
Prime Minister have been attacked on some of the
issues that our PM has been - like her religion,
her single status, her appearance, the fact that
she does not have children, and so on?

As Dennis Pryor pointed out in his booklet, "Political
Pryorities," on women in politics:

"Under the guise of 'useful experience' women are given
every opportunity to stand for unwinnable seats at
elections. Those who get into Parliament find it difficult
to become Ministers or to get into Cabinet. In spite
of incessant rhetoric about equal opportunity the mass
of male Parliamentarians find it difficult to equate women
with positions of power. Many talented women are now
seeking to enter politics via influential positions in the
public service, where discrimination is waning, rather than
through the tedious and hypocritical process of
preselection and elections."

Of course there are exceptions to every rule, but we're
talking about what the norm is, not the exceptions.
Posted by Lexi, Sunday, 10 February 2013 9:34:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lexi how about a response taking the list in context as a response to Suzies claims of a male dominated political world and further to her dog whistle about old boys club taking over the discussion and anti-female comments seemingly because I responded to a single post by anti. Tired old sexist tactics.:-)

If you really want to ask those questions put them in some context, maybe ask about the amount of child support paid be either gender when they are not the prime carer (and use the same rules of choice etc as used to justify the earlier questions). Ask about some other metrics which are not so convenient? The professional feminists are very good at highlighting anything that can be painted as disadvantage for women, massively unwilling to address any structural advantage.

The feminism that writes the reports and studies which get used in framing laws is not the "just about equality" thing that some of you cling to, its a nasty dishonest web of lies and half truths with a strong anti male focusdetermined to create specific advantage for a particular version of female whe it can. Generally at the expense of anyone who does not share its vision, male or female. A refusal by some to examine the evidence and a tactic of claiming that those who object are anti-female does not make it different.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Sunday, 10 February 2013 10:04:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Personally I would rather there be a humanitarian approach to policy than gender specific based policy. In the early days there was good reason for positive discrimination but too many commenators relate lack of female participation in some spheres to discrimination while ignoring other factors. This only diminishes the cause.

Women do experience prejudice in some quarters and there are injustices but these are experienced by both men and women usually in different ways.

My beef is really with what sometimes (I stress 'sometimes') can be seen as a fascist approach to feminism ie. that women must conform to a universally agreed standard on what it means to be a feminist. I am old enough to remember when the feminism of the 70s was about choice.

The pendulum has swung now in the opposite direction. One example of this was watching Q&A many moons ago - I cannot remember who it was - a woman on the panel made some comment about 'who would want to stay at home with children anyway'.

Suse
Women can be hard on women. Much of it is defence mechanism ie. 'this is my choice so the fact that other people don't make the same choices means they are implying my choice is wrong.' A bit like debates about religion. :)

Anti
I can't remember why you chose to be silent but you shouldn't. OLO participants will often disagree but don't you find people are looking for the same things. And it is natural for people to see things in a particular way from the view of their gender experiences. All anyone can do is try to see things from another POV.

RObert
You always strike me as someone who tries to see things from many angles. I did not take your comments as anti-female.

As for political entitlements I guess that is a whole other subject.
Posted by pelican, Sunday, 10 February 2013 10:38:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
These are sobering posts by Pelican. I agree with the sentiments expressed. Who cannot when there are so many examples of the baby being thrown out with the bath water.
Posted by onthebeach, Sunday, 10 February 2013 11:40:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear RObert,

I don't like labeling people. Terms like "professional
feminists," et cetera don't sit well with me simply
because I'm not quite sure what that means. I thought
I was responding to your post in context in that it's
all very well to make a list of women who have "made it,"
when most are not given the opportunity to do so. Also
many women who have looked forward to "having it all,"
are finding that the rigours of pursuing their careers,
maintaining intimate relationships, and raising children are
difficult in balance. Like the case of Nicola Roxon shows us.

I can't comment about your reference to "Family Court" issues.
I have no experience in that area. However, true liberation
from the restrictions of gender should mean that all
possible options would be open and equally acceptable for
both sexes. Then a person's human qualities, rather than his
or her biological sex would be the primary measure of that
person's worth and achievement.
Posted by Lexi, Sunday, 10 February 2013 5:13:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
".. it's all very well to make a list of women who have "made it,"
when most are not given the opportunity to do so.."

Actually it works the other way to advantage. There is one hell of a through put of women in public agencies for example, as women choose other life transitions, one being to take time off when they have partnered (not necessarily formed a family in the sense of having children), and another being to travel (women are more likely to change careers and take long leave to travel).

The public services can keep advancing women to meet affirmative action targets and reporting but the churn continues. That happens at all levels and strongly advantages any women who actually do want a career. They are fewer in number, are offered the development opportunities and and fall almost automatically into higher positions. It works the same in academia (generalists, humanities).

Of course some are super women who have the 'child' and continue on at work after mat leave.

What is interesting is that this elite, educated middle class, are the women who advise government on policy concerning women and families. But if gender is ruled out they have scant in common with the significant majority of the women they 'represent'.

Maybe this is at the root of the problems Pelican is talking about. It is certainly something that could bear much broader and deeper discussion. For example, because many girls are steered towards tertiary education and end up completing generalist humanities degrees including law, many cannot find a job except in the public service. I will not go on but it is easy to see how some self-fulfilling prophesies are set in motion.
Posted by onthebeach, Sunday, 10 February 2013 6:28:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lexi it may be a clumsy term but I'm trying to find a simple way of expressing the difference between the average woman who considers herself a feminist and has a relatively personal understanding of what feminism means to her and the seemingly uniformly anti-male nature of the output of those who get paid to be feminists.

You may recall the challenge put out some time back by vanna to find material by an Australian academic professing to be a feminist which had anything good to say about men. I had a go at it using on line resources (you might do better than I could with your skills and access to resources). I fund plenty of papers by Australian academics highlighting that they were feminist. The closest I could find was some praise for men who had behaved in a way deemed to be feminine (they had cooperated) and a generally positive piece on men's sheds. Plenty of positives about women and feminine characteristics but the commentary on men and masculinity was overwhelmingly negative.

CSA is a different kettle of fish, you have been around long enough to get a feel for the gender breakdown on of clients who consider them to be a massive sexist scam. I don't think the legislation is specifically gendered, rather it's structurally gendered to create the difference. A topic for a different thread perhaps but one that never seems to draw much interest on OLO.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Sunday, 10 February 2013 7:10:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican I do try to see both sides of the issues. My view on most of the gender stuff (especially as it relates to our society and my lifetime) is that we are pretty much in it together.

There are areas of advantage and disadvantage remaining that we can and should address but I don't think that there is a credible case to claim that overall one gender is notably advantaged over the other because of oppression by the other. I'm really really tired of plays to the simplistic gender catch cries which ignore a significant part of the picture - eg Suzie's male domination of politics which seemingly is unaware of how many of the top roles are held by women.

We don't see those on the public payroll who make the news touting differences in the numbers of men and women in senior roles wanting better community understanding of the lower life expectancy for men, wanting better understanding of the far higher suicide rates for men or a number of other issues which are of far greater note than the very small proportion of people who have roles on boards or at executive level. I'm not sure if I've had opportunity or not to pursue that myself, the personal cost is higher than I've been willing to pay so it's never been a topic of serious consideration.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Sunday, 10 February 2013 7:15:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert, I was just stating a fact.

Look it up yourself.
There are 113 sitting male members of Australia's Parliament ... and 37 female.

I wasn't discussing the state of the Family Law system at all, because that's not what this thread is about.

I just want a more level playing field for women in all areas in Australia, because we definitely aren't there yet....
Posted by Suseonline, Sunday, 10 February 2013 8:35:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes r0bert the discussion can always be paraphrased like this...

Feminist Social Commentator / Feminist Author (FSCA): Men suck they're filthy perverts and they bash women, it's hard to really come up with any redeeming features.

Male Forum Poster: Feminists hate men just look at the tone of the article, feminism sucks man.

Female Forum Poster: Awe look at all the misogynist posters, feminism is all about equality and who could object to that!

FSCA: Evidence shows women are still, have always been and will forever be the downtrodden martyrs of society, and I have all this hand picked research to back it up. In fact I devote my life to proving that men are the source of all women's problems, and if women ran the world there would never be any wars or conflict.

FFP: I can just sagely nod my head, safe in the knowledge I am one of the downtrodden virtuous gender. The male privilege blinkers will stop these male posters from seeing the truth!

MFP: OK I can hand pick stats with the best of them and I reckon I can refute those stats because I must protect my identity and the indirect accusation that I live the life of riley and I walk around like some kind of royalty.

FFP: It's not about you privileged WASP boy, you're such a misogynist, you wouldn't know the hardship us poor downtrodden deal with every day!
Posted by Houellebecq, Monday, 11 February 2013 11:05:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
' that women must conform to a universally agreed standard on what it means to be a feminist. I am old enough to remember when the feminism of the 70s was about choice. '

I reckon when people have an ism, or a religion, they should be obliged to spell it out. What are the central tenets of this.

I see this 'Broad Church' BS as a flaky way of sidestepping any criticism, and being an impossibly small target. It's a mechanism where anything can be said and done and condoned by the followers of the ideology but the name of the ideology is in no way affected. It can simply be passed off as, he/she's just using my religion as an excuse for this, or that's not my feminism; My religion/ideology is harmless and wholesome, and you should ignore the messages from leading identities and people of positions of authority on the ism come out with daily.

Well it's not good enough. If enough proponents of an ism spew hate daily, the ism is a hate filled ism. It's up to non-haters to wage a PR campaign or have the name of th-e-ism tainted.

So in a way, I like this designation of who can and cant be a feminist, as at least it attempts to create some consensus of what is allowed under the ideology, and works to limit the lamey Broad Church way of weaseling out.

I've long said I respect religions that say we don't like gays for example, that's the rules of the church, if you don't like it piss off. At least you know where they stand. Then I can safely dismiss that religion.

What I hate is when the top 100 leading feminists broadcast an anti male doctrine full of hatred and misrepresentation, and then women still defend the ism with 'Broad Church ya-know' and 'that's not feminism'.

If a significant and vocal percentage of 'career feminists', the lasses that are there for every news outlet as 'cash for tut-tut' after every Office for Women press release says something, THAT's FEMINISM!
Posted by Houellebecq, Monday, 11 February 2013 11:23:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BTW: There's choice, fine, ok, good to have choice about how to live your life.

But really what feminists are looking for is choice while being immune from any judgement. Nobody has that. God knows us men don't, just ask any feminist about men! Judgement a plenty there!
Posted by Houellebecq, Monday, 11 February 2013 11:24:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear RObert,

Thank You for clarifying your position for me.
I misunderstood what you were saying. And of
course you've raised some valid points.
Posted by Lexi, Monday, 11 February 2013 12:38:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houlley
I don't think it's fair to say that feminists hate men or have an anti-male stance in the same way that men might raise family law issues does not mean they are anti-women. It's a bit like the cries of anti-Catholicism for raising lack of duty of care regarding pedophile abuses. It's a diversion from the core topics and such an approach usually means the problems or divides continue unabated.

A manifesto of central tenets and beliefs would be helpful but feminism doesn't have a central HQ. It is not an organisation? Who owns it or runs the campaign? And if anything like a party platform (motherhood statements) without sufficient detail would probably not be too helpful.

That is part of the problem when trying to define feminism or trying to espouse what it means to be a feminist. Feminism is a football kicked from generation to generation and it's tenets of equality are so broad that it can be convoluted into anything you want it to be according to one's own agenda or to fit the current social morays. Unfortunately the most vocal and those who have public air-time do not always reflect the views of all women. They cannot possibly.

Why not a broader humanist approach that approaches life from the overall good. Afterall women and men are, as RObert puts it, in it together.

That is not to argue away from some gender specific policies that may affect one gender more than another particularly in relation to male/female health etc. That is, I am not arguing that gender becomes a 'no go' area altogether as there will be times when gender is applicable such as conscription (men) or issues around rape-violence while mainly affecting women may also be experienced by men.
Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 12 February 2013 10:52:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican have you had a look at Bob Mongomery's article yet? http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14683

Given the background all these discussions can easily turn to pitched battles, something I'd rather avoid.

I do see your point regarding no central manifesto but I think there comes a point where if the overwhelming majority of those working professionally in an area are pushing a particular hard line barrow that barrow can be fairly recognised as central. If feminists of good will rise up en mass and express their rejection of the hard liners then I'd have a different view but I've not seen that happen.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 12 February 2013 4:49:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
' It's a bit like the cries of anti-Catholicism for raising lack of duty of care regarding pedophile abuses.'

Indeed. There IS a lot of anti-Catholicism mixed up in that. I don't think you can deny that. Seriously, so many feminist articles are really just an excuse to hate on men.

It's one thing to bring up a societal issue that affects women.

Its another to explain how the actions of men have contributed to or cause such a restriction or hardship for women.

So far so good. But the FSC always proceeds to...

Ignore or deny that women have had any hand in shaping societal attitudes, and put it all on 'men'.

Assume they are in a position to assign motive to the particular men that have caused the hardship by their actions, always ungenerously.

Assume to project this motive onto all men and use phrases like 'Men's attitude to women', or 'The Patriarchy', and opine it is a problem with masculinity itself, and propose as a woman you should re-define masculinity for men.

That's fair dink-um hate speech!

All the while complaining about men judging women in any way shape or form, and go so far as to decide what men should even find attractive in women.

BTW:' rape-violence while mainly affecting women may also be experienced by men.'

Men are far more affected by violence than women. It's just it's accepted for men to be victims of violence. Being male they are responsible for the violence of other men.
Posted by Houellebecq, Wednesday, 13 February 2013 1:34:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting article RObert.

Houlley

I agree it is wrong to see all forms of discrimination (perceived and real) against women as some great plot masterminded by men. Historically 'the partriarchy' is something much more entrenched in reflecting on the early days of feminism when there were rigid roles and expectations for both men and women. But that was back then. I would hate to see the feminist movement become like the old patriarchy ie. one rule fits all approach and expectations of conforming in an environment that does not allow people's own choices and aptitudes to flourish. My point is really about free choice and opportunities to exercise those choices. Keeping in mind that none of us are always able to exercise our own choices in every scenario, life just does not work out that simply at times. Sometimes sacrifices have to be made or paths may change for reasons beyond our control. That is life.

There are differences between men and women which don't impact on abilities, skills or opportunities in work but should be appreciated. I think problems arise more when those differences are seen to be prohibitive and exclusive for either men or women.

It would be much simpler and fairer to move on to examining issues from the effects on human beings and/or individuals in a reasoned and rational way
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 13 February 2013 2:21:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Pelly,

One would hope that in today's world the
most probable pattern of gender roles would be
one in which many alternative lifestyles
and roles are acceptable for both men and
women.

Our society is individualistic
and highly open to change and experimentation,
and it is in this kind of environment that
both men and women should be able to explore
a wide variety of choices and possible roles.

As I've stated earlier, true liberation from
the restrictions of gender means that all
possible options are open and equally acceptable
for both sexes. Then a person's individual
human qualities, rather than their biological sex,
becomes the primary measure of that person's worth
and achievement.

Of course not everyone wants to explore a wide
variety of choices and possible roles. But that's
a different issue again.
Posted by Lexi, Wednesday, 13 February 2013 2:38:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Exhibit A pelican

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14685

I rest my case.
Posted by Houellebecq, Wednesday, 13 February 2013 5:27:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lexi that's it in a nutshell. :)

Houlley
Ha ha. Yes, not everything related to such commentary is about a mission to control womens' bodies. Pericles' comments mirrors my own on that particular article.
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 13 February 2013 7:01:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy