Suse
We always seem at odds but really we are just two women coming at a problem from a different angle.

The feminist movement has achieved many positives for women (ignoring for a moment some of the not so good) but the way forward IMO is to end the patriarchy/matriarchy debate and just get on with a holistic approach.

I don't dispute we have a way to go on gender in some areas which I have written about elsewhere eg. attitudes to rape, women's sexuality. The question we should be asking is how to approach these problems. I don't necessarily accept governments always have to play a starring role other than ensuring a strong judiciary and rule of law and of course assistance in the form of information, shelters, counselling etc.

It does not mean we as a society stop discussing some of these issues.

My simplistic view is gender discussions should not be divisive. This is not the same as saying, there is no sexism or there are no misogynists or misandrists. You only have to read some of the men's sites to see there are some pretty nasty views and generalisations about women. I get the impression much of it is influenced by personal marital experiences and like most people, tend to see things only from their POV. I've met some women with similar views about men after a breakup ie.'all men are b*ds' response. Like religion these are in the domain of personal issues.

My point is how this discussion is to be reflected in policy, what role governments should play and how it is articulated.

A holistic approach benefits everyone equally and would reflect a high standard of respect, care and attention to men, women and children.

Pelly,

Very good point (It is so refreshing to have you posting here regularly again...along with Suse and Lexi)

I'm supposing that traditional societies operated holistically - for the good of the tribe/community. It doesn't work so well for some reason in advanced societies where the use of technology blurs the gender lines.

I'm wondering, in that case, if the paradox can ever be overcome?

pelican,

'All can be forgotten', 'never you mind', 'suck it up' and 'move right along' would be very nice for the middle class feminist elite who have managed quite comfortable niches and even pyramids for themselves, and dip from the bucket of taxpayers money. They they can continue to beaver away feathering their own nests and manipulatiing policy behind the scenes as they have done for years.

NO! There has to be a sunset on the victim industries that have been a drain on the public purse in the decades since the Whitlam government, and increasing in size and cost every year.

There must be independent comprehensive AUDITS, not politically suspect 'reviews' headed by professionals and involving interests who are themselves dependent on the victim industries they are briefed to examine. The audits must also examine the objectives, measuring of attainments and that value for (taxpayers') money is always being obtained. The audit reports must be made available to the public and that includes preliminary and part-reports where necessary.

It is simply not good enough that the direct and indirect costs to the taxpayer of (say) 'multiculturalism' are not known and cannot even be estimated with any confidence. Yet the cost must be many millions annually. But for what and how does the taxpayer know that the best value for money is being obtained, or even if measurable objectives can be drafted?

Would you open your bank account for some vague motherhood purpose and without even an end date for payments?

Thanks Pelican and Poirot,
You are certainly some of the few logical thinkers on this site : )
Pelican you are right of course, and I agree with your analysis of the current gender related problems in our society.

Maybe if I had been badly hurt emotionally or financially by an ex partner, like some people obviously have on this site, I may react the same way as them.

I will, however, still stand up for what I believe is true, and not be put off from expressing my opinions on this opinion forum...as we all should do.

I think I have said pretty much all I want to say on this thread by now, so I will look forward to seeing you all on another thread.
Cheers,
Suse.

Thanks Suse and Poirot
In the end we are all after the same thing. Please do keep putting your views forward. The object of expressing opinions on this site is not to persuade but to offer different ways of looking at things. :)

otb
Agreed. Audits are important part of government processes. The difficulty comes sometimes with how to measure success. In the case of some 'feel good' agencies the measures might be simply that there are more women in traditional male roles. The difficulty is in proving whether a particular agency had anything to do with that achievement. Naturally most will claim those successes.

In the early days agencies like OSW were part of the machinery of raising awareness which probably served a purpose (not for stay-at-home mums necessarily :)) but now that purpose has been served I don't see a place for agencies like OSW. There is already a human rights and discrimination Commissioner, Fair Work Australia and other bodies to which people can approach if they think they are being unfairly treated or discriminated. Other than providing a spokesperson who is wheeled out from time to time on media to talk about gender, I cannot see what new on-the-ground work is being accomplished by OSW that is not already entrenched now in our cultural norms.

pelican,

Thank you for the considered reply. You most likely realise and I have said it before, that I don't really mind what policy government comes up with provided that:

- there is proper consultation, preferably direct, when it is framed ie should be based on evidence; and

- there must be measures for attainment that provide timely public reporting on value for money obtained and success in meeting the pre-determined goals.

No, I do not believe that government should apply my taxes to policy where the outcomes cannot be measured (or, as activists prefer, ought not be measured).

The government does not have any money itself. All government money comes from applying State force to take money from those who have laboured to earn it. Now I don't mind that either, provided it is to meet identified needs, it is not just regulation for the sake of it (as many new laws seem to be) and as said earlier, there are numerical measures for success.

I would like to see a 'Sunset Clause' on all legislation that provides for automatic review along the lines suggested above.

The growth of agencies outside of the usual departments is a worrying trend.