It is well known by some, that the Conservative side of politics is an old boys club, populated by male misogynists like Tony Abbott. The Liberal Party had to be dragged kicking and screaming before it would even consider giving capable women the opportunity they deserved in government. Often when they did select a woman candidate it was more for the look of her rear end than for any cranium matter she might have possed. Women candidates were often thrown an un-winnable seat and told to be satisfied.
I thought the party had changed, but not so, last week they dumped Jane Prentice, LNP member for the federal seat of Ryan and Assistant Minister for Disability Services. Jane has done a capable job in her portfolio and certainly deserved endorsement, but the old men of the LNP said no, preferring yet another one of their own. Not content with one female gone the party is now moving to oust another, MP Anne Sudmalis, is locked in a fierce contest to retain preselection for the seat of Gilmour. I though the Liberal Party had manned up and was starting to come on board with women in parliament, but alas with these decisions its still in my view an old boys club. Their cow cocky mates in the National Party are even worse, beyond redemption.

Paul must be in trouble at home, & is hoping to win a few brownie points with this piece of rubbish.

You would think that even a lefty would have noticed that it is since the "ladies" got hold of the education system, that our standards are falling faster than a rock from 30,000 feet.

The same goes for government services at local, state & federal. Not one of the girls club here in Queensland would be capable of running a school tuckshop, let alone a state.

Every female premier Labor has inflected on long suffering states has been a catastrophe, even worse than departments run by their brethren.

The libs were showing a considerable improvement in the standard of government before the effeminate Turnbull added too many skirts to the mix.

Hasbeen,I have to agree. Over the years, I have been sickened by the push for 'more women' EVERYWHERE! Enough is enough. Call me all the stupid names you want, Idon't care. I have always maintained that the role of leader must be one of strength and able to stand his ground in a fight. A woman was not designed with these masculine attributes in mind.
A true 'woman' has a plethora of emotional luggage that does not bode well for them at certain times and situations. Millions of people look to a man for guidance and advise. The same people 'might' look to women for comfort and support. I hired people on their merits not on PC. Since when did women stop wanting to be women? This new-age woman is, by definition, a contradiction in fact. Again, I'm about to cause a tremor in the force. One of the main failures of our system today is because of the direct link to women being told they can do anything they want and that they are just as good as any man. Germaine Greer was one of first maggots to push her arrogant agenda, only to turn around years later and appologise for her part in pushing the female cause. That alone should be enough for women to take stock and retreat to the comfort afforded them by being a woman. I can see what a woman has to go through each morning just to get ready for work, why can't they? It's like your in the dressing room backstage at a theatre prior to the show. Every working day? I can understand if your an actor, but just to go to work? NAH! It's all wrong. Do I prefer things the way they were? Yes! Have things improved over time? NO! This womens liberation thing was started (as usual) by a noisy few and picked up and promoted by an ignorant many. I hope PC is dragged kicking and screaming into a very deep hole and buried once and for all, thereby starting the return to reason and common sense.

Although the Prentice electorate has nothing to do with me, I was initially quite miffed that she had been dumped for another candidate, but I have since learned that she is a dud. Seeing that the decision was made by actual members of the Liberal Party, who want the best candidate for the job, the rest of us should mind our own business.

All this moaning and groaning about women is divisive identity politics from the Left. I've just asked my wife if she thinks any of the women in Canberra are doing a good job. She said no. I've asked myself if there are men in Canberra doing a good job. No, I told myself. Politics and ability have nothing to do with gender. But, while this nonsense about gender is going on, we should try not to blame women themselves for the vicious yahooing of the feminazi and their limp-wristed supporters calling themselves men.

Well, I can see the mysogynists are out in force today. I'll just leave you guys to it, shall I?

But I found a song I think you guys will like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAu1h2NE9Uk

Rather than "push" for more women in Parliament simply for more women's sake. push for more competence & some integrity male or female & others. If a woman is more competent than her male competitor then by all means let her have the job.
Of course this would de-stabilise the cushy public serice because what if a male happens to be more competent ? Or, what if a transgender should ever muster such qualification & stands against an indigenous feminist ?
For integrity to infiltrate bureaucracy would be welcome miracle.

If more women in Parliaments is a desirable thing then let each party put up two candidates for each position, one woman and one man.
Pool their votes to get an electoral decision and then the one of the pair with the most individual votes goes to the Parliament.

Let the voters decide.

All is not lost, as far as women in Federal Parliament is concerned. The Labor Party has fortunately given us a few current female members who can only be described as outstanding. I refer to Penny Wong (my wife's preferred PM) and Tanya Plibersek (my preferred PM). The Liberal's have not been a complete no show, and I must give praise where praise is due to Julie Bishop, although politically not my cup of tea, Ms Bishop has performed adequately when called upon to do so.

It goes without saying the Greens have always given talented women their fair chance in parliament, two of my personal favorites, among many, are Sarah Hanson-Young and Lee Rhiannon. as I said all is not lost, and we indeed can look forward to a bright future of female representation after the next election when the new Greens Senator Mehreen Faruqi will take a seat representing the people of NSW. Some will not be familiar with Mehreen, a shot political outline;
Dr Mehreen Faruqi was born in Lahore, Pakistan. In 2013 Mehreen became the first Muslim woman to be a member of an Australian parliament when she was nominated for a seat in the NSW Legislative Council where she has been an outstanding success ever since. Much will be heard from Mehreen when she enters the bigger sphere of Federal Parliament. Something we call all get excited about.

http://nsw.greens.org.au/person/nsw/dr-mehreen-faruqi

Paul, I know I forget things and am only human, but can someone educate me on the current status of federal politicians in that they have to be Australians. I thought it meant you have to be born in Australia. It's good to see someone finally got their act together and are now allowing non-Aussies to become federal pollies. This Dr Faruqi will be a very lucky person as it seems she will be the first, or at least one of them. Seriously, I have not heard or read about any changes in the rules/laws surrounding a federal pollies eligibility being anything but Australian.
But I am always willing to learn. After all I hate getting it wrong.

Paul must be the only person in the country who thinks the Stick Insect (courtesy of Larry Pickering) has "performed adequately".

In fairness to to female politicians and aspirants, we need to recognise that anyone, male or female, wanting to stoop low enough to get the job is not going to be much chop in the first place. Both genders are likely to be equally grubby and useless.

This is a stupid argument, and if anything just points out how dumb we are.

Issue 1. We don't elect leaders based on their ability to to the job.

What we do is elect leaders on the basis of "Who is the best used car salesman that is tv pretty and tells the most convincing lies".

Then we fall for those lies again and go back to the beginning and repeat the process, eventually lying to ourselves that democracy is working and taking us in the right direction.

At the very least, we elect leaders on the basis of 'the lesser evil' which really is a terrible way to decide who rules over us.

Men V's Women.. who cares it's a diversion we don't elect or even train people on merit to be the best for these jobs in the first place.

AC has a good point generally speaking.

Not sure I would call the lack of women in parliament a diversion though.

Hasbeen has no credibility whatsoever blaming women for the downfall of education. What's wrong Hasbeen, angry at your wife? Did she starch your undies?...lmao - To use a similar tactic you laid on Paul.

Toni Lavis is correct. Any discussion of women on here always brings out the usual misogynists to vent their bigoted views.

What Paul stated is basically correct.

Of course you men who lack a real manliness will always be defeated by a reasonable argument.

Why are you guys so anti-women? Do you hide your comments from your wives you big brave heroes?...lmao

Please pass on my deepest sympathies to all the women in your lives. They got duds!...lmao

Sad and weak men...It's pathetic!

ALTRAV,

One doesn't have to be Australian born to be an MP, all that is required, along those lines, is to be an Australian citizen and to have formally renounced any other citizenship or entitlement thereto.

As we have seen this is a great intellectual hurdle that some MPs cannot jump.

AC, your on the money. As usual I'd like to go a little further. You say, 'who cares'? well there are those of us who do care, but we are so few and don't follow the sheep so we end up outside the herd and ignored because we don't see things the way the masses do. The problem with this topic is that it's another of those PC topics that are driven by people too afraid to get into a 'in your face' situation. So it's easier (and gutless) to go along with the majority, even if you know they're wrong. Whenever I see another woman appointed to a 'top' position, I say 'what they ran out of men for that job'? This push for women has been pure folly. When you look at the stats and see that if most of the women with husbands gave up their jobs, we would not have the amount of unemployment we have and the 'men' that replace them would be able to have the money to retain their families and houses and a normal lifestyle again, instead of the disastrous other options that are the results of a father/husband being jobless.

OP2, speaking for myself, I am not anti women! In fact I'm quite the opposite to the point that I will say no more. (for now) My grind with women is that they have been 'groomed' from a young age to be 'anything they want to be'. Then there's the 'women are just as capable as any man' mantra. I can see that all people would like to be something else or do something else, but they have to grow up and accept their lot in life. I am sickened by the fact that the morons in govt caved in to these stupid demands so as to keep their seat. The world is full of the results of this stupidity. Some years ago cement bags went from, say 20kg bags to smaller 10kg bags. It was marketed as a H&S decision. Crap! It was done so as to accommodate women wanting to get into the building industry. This went through ALL industries. Why? Because women are NOT equal to men. Another time I watched in utter disbelief as this young woman, (mechanic) was ready to remove the cylinder head from the main engine and put it on the bench. To my disgust, I watched her call over a male mechanic who had to come and do it for her because it was too heavy. This is the world you expect reasonable people with common sense to condone? Please, I reject any attempts to justify women before men just because they are women. When I see this kind of foolishness creeping into an otherwise stable environment, I react angrily and without favour to stop the rot from setting in and causing long term disasters as this movement has.

Is Mise, then what was the story with the guy who was said to be Kiwi because the NZ PM said they did not recognise anyone with Kiwi parents, born outside NZ, to be anything but Kiwi? He thought he was Aussie because he was born here but the NZ PM said NO, your Kiwi. What the ....was that all about then? Surely he was an Australian citizen?

hahahaha Toni
I guarantee the bigots that infest this forum will not get it.
More than likely they will adopt it as their theme song. LOL

ALTRAV //I know I forget things// its not so much that you forget things, its just you not taking anything in, in the first place. //only human// well we'll leave that for another debate.//can someone educate me// that could take years and then you might still be a complete moron. //I thought it meant you have to be born in Australia// now we are getting to the crux of the problem, your inability to think. // It's good to see someone finally got their act together and are now allowing non-Aussies to become federal pollies// Are you some kind of Rip Van Winkle character and been off dozing while the debate has raged about that very issue. //Dr Faruqi will be a very lucky person as it seems she will be the first// Remember Chris Watson, he was about your time, Australian PM in 1904, Born: 9 April 1867, Valparaíso, Chile, you have missed the boat again. // Seriously, I have not heard or read anything // I can believe that. //I am always willing to learn// some tasks are beyond mans capability. // I hate getting it wrong// Then why do you torture yourself so.

// I am not anti women! In fact I'm quite the opposite to the point that I will say no more. (for now)// ALTRAV you have finally come out of the closet, you're a transvestite!

Why am I not surprised that Wong would be a favourite of Pauls.

I would say it is a very close race for the worst female parliamentarian, ever seen in Oz between her, Gillard & Bishop. Snakes in skirts springs to mind as a suitable description of the trio.

Hassy, for a bloke who spent half his life pumping dirty bilge water over the ecologically sensitive Great Barrier Reef, I can understand how an intelligent progressive female parliamentarian like Penny Wong would not appeal to you. The flathead from the fish shop, the Lovely Pauline is more your style.

Christ Paul, I am amused at the amount of pent up anger and who knows what else you have stored in your head. I ask a simple question about something I don't care too much about so after reading your comments left me wondering if things have changed. That's all. And you come out punching and kicking and suddenly I'm under attack. Anyway as little as I know about this topic, I have another question. If the constitution called for 'Australians', then why was the first parliament not all abo's instead of all poms? No,I'm serious.

I agree with the idea of having an even mix of men and women in parliament. We should have moved on from that debate and be debating exactly where the problem lies. Instead, we never get much analysis of what goes wrong. Are women not running for pre-selection? Are women turned off the long hours and insults instead of debate? Are female candidates unpopular with voters?

Is mise may have given us one solution. At the moment, parties can only nominate one candidate for each seat. It is possible that they see middle-aged white men as the safest option. Maybe we should let them run a second candidate to see how a different type of candidate goes.

ALTRAV I was only taking the piss out of you, being a little jocular at your expense. I don't hate or have issues with anyone in this world, including all the happy hipster cyber folks on the forum. I love you ALTRAV who every you are, and now I know you are what you are I should intro you to a dear friend of mine Sabba, he's a van driver by day who likes to dress up at night, Sabs got style, and you would not believe who are some of the people that have "befriended" him in the past, in his bad old days including the odd politician and businessmen, he also had a high ranking minister of religion as a "friend". Was making 500 bucks a night, now its 500 bucks a week.

//At the moment, parties can only nominate one candidate for each seat// that's not true benk. Political parties can nominate as many candidates for a seat as they like, why they would I can't imagine. A little secret don't believe all "independent" candidates are as independent as they would have you believe.

Hey ALTRAV,
"You say, 'who cares'? well there are those of us who do care..."

Well, you'd be an idiot then, no offense.

And because I don't mean offense, I'll tell you why.
All raising this issue achieves is to devolve us to the level of fighting over 'Battle of the Sexes', and gender / identity politics instead of focussing on the merits (or shortcomings) of political class, their systems and policies itself.

I told you all long ago, if they makes the rules for us, then we should make the rules for them, otherwise there is no real balance of power as they decide their own rules; lies and unaccountability.

It is a diversion Opinionated2.

Imagine your being chased by a group of people and dogs; you come across a big steaming pile of faces and decide to smear yourself with said excrement to get those chasing you off your trail.

Well this argument, is that feces.

I'm not going to lower myself to arguing 'Battle of the Sexes' when we hardly elect leaders on their merit or ability to do the job in the first place.

TV pretty car salesmen who tell the most convincing lies;
And who only care for power that doesn't actually end with Federal politics but Global politics.
Incompetent monkeys in Parliament who grandstand and throw crap at each other whist being paid handsomely for doing so; whilst selling their constituents out to foreign, global and special interests.
(And use guilt card, victim card etc to manipulate the people with their PC agendas)
That's who we elect.

"That's who we elect."

With the exception of the Shooters Fishers and Farmers' Party MPs and a few others.

AC, 'who cares'? I was quoting you sir. I agree with you completely. The issue I have is one no-one wants to talk about, and yes it is as you say, 'the battle of the sexes'. I see no battle. I see clear and well trodden paths that have stood the test of time. I do believe men are the authoritative figure in life. I also believe that the crap we have in parliament display quite a different demeanor. So given the choice of man or woman in a position of authority, for me the choice has never changed from the beginning of time. In trying to accommodate women, men have stepped too far back to allow the women room to 'have a go'. In stepping back they have stepped into a mountain of excrement which the women have quickly turned around and instead of reaching out to pull them out, have instead pushed them in further. Now we are so far in the shite it's going to be a hard trot to get back to where we were before all this PC crap took hold. First thing I would like to see is people telling the truth, even if they feel embarrassed doing so. Then we start to see the true lay of the land, and not this farcical of a joke we live in now. PC must be destroyed and never used in any discussion or debate, ever! To use PC is to lie. At the very least, not expressing the true situation, for fear of offending someone. If what you say is true, how can you offend? And if you are so inclined, then please do not engage in any debates or discussions as your input will be moot.

ALTRAV,

Solid stuff. Politics, like many other male pursuits, is no place for women. I think women demean themselves by going into politics. As a member of Australian Conservatives, I recently had the opportunity to vote on nominees for canditure. There was a woman in the list, but she wasn't suitable in my view. I cannot categorically say that there could never could be a woman suited to the job but, to date, there has never been one I would vote for. I respect woman who act like women. Not PC, I know, but our country and society takes precedence over gender and identify politics.

The following link is an interesting read.
Especially the Conclusion at the end:

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1415/WomanAustParl

Foxy,

Conclusions are usually at the end.

"Under-representation of women in parliament remains a significant challenge in Australia. More than 110 years after the first women contested a Commonwealth election, only one in four Members in the House of Representatives and two in five Senators are women. Despite several women having filled high profile roles in Commonwealth, state and territory parliaments in recent years, including Prime Minister, Attorney-General and Minister for Foreign Affairs, women continue to be significantly under-represented in the Commonwealth Parliament and in senior federal ministries and parliamentary positions. "

Why is it a significant challenge?

Do as I suggested and let the voters decide or would that be democratic and distasteful?

Dear Is Mise,

The Conclusion that I was referring to is at the end
of the link I gave.

Do try to stay focused.

Foxy,

Do try to stay focused.
I quoted from the Conclusion on the link that you gave and I add that conclusions are usually at the end. Thick!!

Dear Is Mise,

So, what's your problem?

Foxy, has it ever been considered that men ARE the better choice for these positions? And has it ever been considered that no matter how many things are written about gender equality and such that men are still the preferred option? What about the idea that the women are suggesting the hiring of more women in positions traditionally held by men? Foxy, as someone who hired and fired, I would always hire on merit, not on PC. Why would I hire a woman just so I can go flaunting around saying, look at moy, look at moy, I'm up with the times so think of me as a nice guy. I think of such bosses as wimps, neuters and just plain weak, seeking approval from a gaggle of women when he should be focused on the success of the business. This is a touchy topic for me and over the years I have followed women in top jobs. In doing so I have noticed them coming and going without any real or grandiose ideas. All that stands out is the press releases about this or that company hiring a woman. All I see and hear is PC, PC, PC. To all those men and women who believe there should be more female representation out there, stop promoting this futile agenda. I for one am sick of women going on about this topic. It's a no-brainer. Keep it up and you will only alienate men altogether, thereby reversing the trend on women. OK now that I have vented, you can all go on the attack. HAH, bring it on!

Foxy,

"So, what's your problem?"

No problem, I was just having a gentle dig at your statement that the conclusion was at the end.
Conclusions are usually at the end so 'in conclusion'.

Let's recap. Julia Gillard....plunged us in to a debt position we will most likely never recover from, or at least kept the good efforts of Kevin 07 going strong. Anna Bligh... played a huge role in crippling QLD. Julie Bishop.... what a joke. Plenty of tax payers money to go round, well, borrowed on behalf of the tax payer, just not to be spent on us. Yep, I can see why we need more. The point is we need strong people to lead, regardless of their gender. Wanting to balance the books on gender is simply a distraction we can not afford to have, because unless you have resided under some rock for the past 11 or so years, we have gone from ZERO DEBT to something like SIX HUNDRED AND EIGHTY BILLION. Short of a modern day dictator taking the reins, we are doomed, and no amount of gender balancing will have any effect on the inevitable.

But then again, most of you still think just turning up for work should be reason enough to be paid a living wage, and productivity comes a distant second. Any wonder we are in such a mess.

Butch,

You should get down on your hands and knees everyday and thank those poor underpaid workers of yours for keeping you in the life of luxury you have become accustomed to. If things do get too tough, then you can always sack the Butler, and if need be, the upstairs maid as well! Cut the annual holiday to the Bahamas from four weeks to three, a cost saving right there.

If cash is a problem, how about downgrading the Sunday drive, flog the Rolls, and get a Bentley.

Paul, who's Butch?

rehctub,

Isn't it amazing how you can do something good, provide jobs and a service to the public, and still be lambasted by the loony Left, most of whom had to work for a boss because they didn't possess the enlightened self-interest that makes the money and prosperity go round. Good on you!

Paul, for the record, I have several Rolls Royces and Bentleys, so selling one or two won't bother me at all. No seriously. I would just like to know how that would affect my lifestyle? I imagine I would have more cash, thereby making my lifestyle better, would it not? Oh also I have had no need for a butler or a maid. Although I did have a driver for a few years. Trying to get parking close to where I was going, in the city was impossible, so the need for a driver. Still don't know who Butch is.

ALTRAV,

I missed your post about the Kiwi bloke who was born here, he's my local member and I know him fairly well.
He genuinely thought that he was an Aussie only and he was/is an Australian citizen but he just got caught out through not doing sufficient research or asking someone; as a dual citizen myself and having researched the matter many years ago, I could have put him right.

Paul,

The Sarah Hanson-Young that you mention, is she the same Sarah Hanson-Young that thought that the TV drama "Sea Patrol" was real life?
Is she the one that they call "Sea Patrol Sarah"?

Not directly related to women in government, but women on boards and calls for quotas, I just been listening to Alan Jones talking to Janet Albrechtsen who is hot on unqualified women being put on boards just because the are women. The female chair AMP who was forced to resign after the RC on banks was one mentioned who should never have been appointed in the first place. Albrechtsen, a very smart women herself, reckons these dizzy dames are costing us a mint with their incompetence.

Careful there ttbn, you know facts don't sit too well with many on this site. The next thing you know you will be called sexist lol!

Unfortunately for some of the male members of the forum they find strong assertive women a threat to their egos, and their already weak and submissive positions in society. A woman with an intellect is something they simply can not handle. They most likely have been dominated by women of stronger character since birth, firstly by their mothers, and then later by their wives. These under achievers are easily identified by their demands that women should know their place.
When you read //Politics, like many other male pursuits, is no place for women// and //men ARE the better choice for these positions// You know the poster is feeling that any support for women would undermine their own already perilous position. They certainly feel threatened.

Paul, how do you come up with these pearls of wisdom? Is it so hard for you and your followers to understand pure logic? I'll make it easier for you. I don't care about women in this or that position. Again it's real simple. Women are pushing their agenda because THEY feel they are missing out on the glamour and social standing THEY believe men have. So THEY too want the 'look at moy' factor. They have used PC to promote their cause, and people like you, the weak ones, for not having the stones to be honest with them and instead encourage or even facilitate them. To what end, I don't know. Are you trying to keep in good with the missus? By comparison, my missus is a 'A' grade academic having had scholarships and......anyway this is only relevant because she is one of the capable ones YOU are promoting or referring to. She has her own opinion and she agrees with me. Before she became pregnant she had a leading position in environmental science at one of our universities. Once she fell pregnant she quite her job and became a mother and we ended up raising two more A grade academics, now both high up in accounting. CFO, tax etc. This was possible because SHE, not ME, took on the role and responsibility of raising the family. I was the disciplinarian. I was focused on my responsibility, and it was to provide for my family. Having done things OUR way we have done pretty well. BTW the decision for my wife to stop work and look after the family was not discussed. It was the natural next step for both of us. She has never looked back and has always felt that while a woman should work when they are young, it teaches them and exposes them to life, they must respect the fact that they are women first and as such creating children and nurturing them is their priority in life, not becoming some wannabee exec. There are more than enough men for those roles.

to continue..........

I once heard a woman (did not hear what she did) being interviewed and one of the points she made was 'women have to understand, trying to juggle work and family, does not work. By trying to do so means that she is only giving each of her charges 50% of her time and attention instead of 100% to one or the other'. We all know which one she should be attending to. It is the height of arrogance for women to expect to be hired simply because of some sick irrational sense of entitlement. Here's a thought. I hear people complain about kids today. Gee, could it be that Mom's not around because 'she is a person too' and 'has a life'. Well you snowflakes, when you decided it was 'time' to have a child, you should have decided to also make the time to raise a child, and not fit them in between board meetings and whatever more important issues you decided to put before your child and your true life. And there is the uncut version we all know is true but too gutless to say it for fear of peer rejection.

//Paul, how do you come up with these pearls of wisdom?// By having a clear open mind on the subject, and by feeling equal with women in society. ALTRAV, I freely share my wisdom with you.

Your above post clearly demonstrates what I have said, a dominated male who feels threatened by intelligent assertive women in your life. Do not despair, there are plenty of you in society. You will find these failures in any pub, crying in their beer about their faulted relationship, and how it was all the fault of "that bitch!" You put it in different language, but your sentiments are the same in general towards women in society.

Of course you can attack me for, "taking the side of the enemy", and that is how many of the degenerative males react to those, male and female, who point out their shortcomings.

Paul, I think you are being driven by your beliefs. In reading your last post it is now obvious that you actually don't read other posts but simply keep pushing your point of view. If you did read my last post you would see that your last comments are in no way related to what I said. No one is being dominated as we both don't drink,(at all) we have no idea what goes on down the pub. Apparently you do so we are to assume that your last post was actually referring to yourself. If you had read my last post you would see that the missus took on her natural and intended role as mother and carer without discussion or co-hersion from me or anyone else. We both knew our role and responsibilities in life. She knew that SHE was the one to best care for a child in it's early years of life. I knew my place, to provide for them and protect them. Why you and others like you mock and knock men for being men and women for being women, is beyond reason. A womans physiology is all about child birth and nurturing, and absolutely nothing to do with 'careers'. The sooner women realise this the sooner we can start turning things around for the better. I'm sorry but for women to rise, men have to fall. You are living proof of this. Role reversal is a sick and dangerous folly driven by misguided women. If they want a career, don't have kids. Try as they may, they can't have it both ways without them paying for it in other ways. In hind-sight, women look back and see that it was too high a price to pay for trying to go against nature.

ALTRAV,

Could you just slow down a bit and separate your sentences?

It would make your posts more comfortable to read.

Is Mise, thanks for that. I have been told before, but it seems I try to get my thoughts down as quickly as I can. In doing so I don't realise I'm making it seem like one l..o..n..g sentence. I will have to keep it in mind, and if I stray, someone will put me right again I'm sure.

I've got some questions for you - and I ask that you be honest
in answering the questions.

1) If given a choice who would you prefer to be your cardiologist
(heart specialist)
a male or a female? Both are equally qualified and experienced.

2) What about the party leader of the political party you
support?

3) What about the Prime Minister of our country?

4) What about the nurses looking after you in an aged care
facility - male or female?

5) What about your barber/hairdresser?

6) What about your dentist?

7) What about your GP?

Males and females get the same educations, work in the same
professions, they pay the same taxes, therefore shouldn't they have
the same rights in politics, executive positions, or professions?
So why the discrepancies?

Foxy, for me it as follows
1,2,3 neutral, 4 F, 5 & 6 N and 7 M.

I couldn't care if we had all males or all females running the country, it's just that history shows that the majority of female ministers/leaders don't have a very strong track record. Just saying!

Dear rehctub,

Thank You for replying honestly.

It is interesting that you don't
have a problem with women in certain positions
yet you still prefer your GP
to be male. And, frankly so do I.

I can't help but wonder - is it that
men in medical professions and the networks
they have developed are so strong that
they actively resist women?

Not sure.

Foxy, I'd like to have a go. This will stir things up a bit.

Right, here goes;

1.M

2.M

3.M

4.Either

5.Either

6.M

7.M

As for your suggestion we having the same rights. NO. Because we are not the same at all.
There is nothing about us that is the same, beginning with our physiological make-up.
And no end of women banging on about being equal and demanding this or that and using the equality mantra, is going to change that.
I strongly suggest to women; be happy with who you are and stop trying to be someone else because of PC and some childish folly. You are a woman. Enjoy!

Foxy I don't think the gender/race/sexual orientation of any of those matter to me as long as they are in the role based on their own skills, not on the basis of one or more of the identity issues being a key factor. Most likely to be an issue for 2 and 3.

Hoping I don't need a heart specialist for a long time.
I have a friend who is a male nurse and have known some in the past.
My hairdresser only seems to employ females but I can't think of any reason to prefer either gender.
I had a female dentist for a while. My now ex didn't much approve of her. Currently a male dentist and female dental hygienist, both great (and both asian)

I've never had a female GP but can't think of any concerns about that.

Have you seen the Jordan Peterson/Kathy Newman interview (or other material on the topic) of the gender pay gap? Or read the James Damore memo? (https://firedfortruth.com/) which I understand is for the most part accepted as being pretty close in regard to the science although some disagree.

Statistically men and women make different choices in all sorts of areas and careers are often one of them. Both in terms of they types of careers we choose and the proportion of our lives we are willing to burn on those careers.

I'm not personally across the research but I gather that the more egalitarian a society is the more people revert to roles and careers associated with their gender. Few of us entirely conform to any pattern for our gender but taken on mass there are recognisable differences that tip some of the numbers.

R0bert

No woman of child bearing age should be in a position of power affecting National or State security, health or politics etc.

Women are different to men in one vital aspect, Pre-Menstrual Tension.

PMT has been accepted as a defence to murder, therefore those that suffer from it (and it can be any women in the PMT group) should not be in positions of power as above.

Issy, I suppose as an old woman you are past the age of PMS. Oh! for Christs sack, you could be leader of the whole bloody country! What am I saying!

//No woman of child bearing age should be in a position of power affecting National or State security, health or politics etc.//

Does that apply to our Queen as well, Is Mise?

Is Mise has raised biological factors which nobody wants to talk about, but which are not going away.

Toni, given that Queen Elizabeth got the job by double default, (first Uncle George decides he's going to shtum a divorcee, forcing his brother into the job. The first default.
Then the brother goes and dies, forcing his daughter, Elizabeth, into the job as ruler. Second default.) so she had no say, if she did not want a third default and the scandal that went with it.
She could have passed on the job. Because she knew her place and what was expected of her, she did her duty and went on to become queen.
She is the kind of people I have respect for. Unlike her two maggot daughter-in-laws.
They turned out to be common maggots of the selfish kind so prevalent today.
I sense Markle may go the same way. Let's wait and see.
So Toni, next time there is an election to vote in a 'queen', whether it be a male or a female, I'll be sure to check which one is best suited for the job. Although I feel they would both suffer from PMS.

ALTRAV, a history lesson for you. [t was Edward VIII who abdicated on 11 December 1936, in favour of his younger brother, George VI, the Queens father. After his abdication Edward married the American divorcee Wallis Simpson. Well yes the Queens father did die. With an hereditary monarchy that is what generally happens, one dies and the heir apparent, in this case Elizabeth II takes over. Unless George never planned to die, or was going to father a son, the Queen was always going to be getting the gig!
"Unlike her two maggot daughter-in-laws." The Queen actually has had four daughter-in-laws, three living, one dead. Not sure which two you refer.

Paul, to clarify. To be specific, I am refering to Fergie and Dianna. I know they are not commoners, but my inference is that unlike the Queen, who 'stepped up' when called upon, these two were a great disappointment in maturity and commitment.
They chose to act like little spoilt snowflakes instead of committing themselves to the role and all that's expected of them.
When you join any institution like a Royal Family, you are agreeing to a strict set of rules and doctrine.
You leave ALL your personal traits behind, and you become 'public property'.
Markle was given the same induction speech by every dept of the 'machine' that is the house of Windsor.
She was informed of her new 'life' and given the option to decline should she have felt so inclined.
Once you agree to marry a 'Royal' you agree to accepting a whole new life.
One without personal whims and fancies, but one of discipline, servitude and commitment.
In other words, your life is not yours to choose anymore. You belong to your 'people'.
Dianna and Fergie displayed extreme 'common' traits by not sticking by their men and responsibilities as expected of them by church and state.
Let's not forget they swore an oath to such a commitment, to church and state, not just some random person down the street.
Anyone with maturity and 'class' has in the past, sucked it up and carried on with their chosen new life.
That shows maturity, and is deserving of our respect, if only because they have given up their original life path to a new one completely managed by others including us, their 'loyal subjects'.

I guess the sooner we come to accept that men are from venus and women from mars to sooner we can all move on.

//I guess the sooner we come to accept that men are from venus and women from mars//

No, they don't. They both come from Earth. They both belong to the same species. They share 45 out of 46 chromosomes, and their similarities are much, greater than their differences.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/busting-myths-about-human-nature/201205/men-and-women-are-the-same-species

//Because she knew her place and what was expected of her, she did her duty and went on to become queen.//

Wow, no excrement, Einstein.

The point is that when she became Queen, she attained a position of great power in national security (commander-in-chief of the British armed forces), whilst being a woman of child-bearing age.

Is Mise has just said that he thinks that women of child-bearing age should't have such positions - but I've never heard him complain about the Act of Succession that got her in the crowned in the first place, or the changes recently made to Act of Succession replacing male-preference primogeniture with absolute primogeniture (which increases the chances of getting a Queen rather than a King). Every single member of the British armed forces swear allegiance to, and only to, the Queen... never heard a peep from him on the folly of having a nation's military swear allegiance to somebody who may suffer PMT.

Is it possible that he thinks royalty don't menstruate?

//So Toni, next time there is an election to vote in a 'queen'//

How is that relevant? Democratically elected or appointed by hereditary succession, she's still a woman. The clue is in the word 'Queen'.

Toni, the difference, and the part you are not considering is, that a Royal has no choice, or should I say, they have two choices, one is to accept the job or two, is to reject it, and abdicate.
We can do nothing about a royal, PMS and all the other foibles that come with them.
Where-as 'electing' a woman is a whole different story.
In this scenario WE, the people, get a choice.
I think you may be attempting to deflect by the substance of your question.
I bring your attention to the title of this topic; 'Women in parliament'.
As a queen is not a political appointment but a hereditary one, I think you can see what I'm getting at, your question might not apply here.

//Toni, the difference, and the part you are not considering//

Yes, the reason I'm not considering it is because, as I pointed out in my last post, it's not relevant.

Is Mise didn't specify women democratically elected to positions of power. He said, and I quote:

//No woman of child bearing age should be in a position of power affecting National or State security//

Not 'No woman of child bearing age should be elected to a position of power affecting National or State security', but rather 'No woman of child bearing age should be in a position of power affecting National or State security'. Do you understand the difference in meaning between those two sentences? Serious question.

//I think you may be attempting to deflect by the substance of your question.//

Deflect from what, you daft twat? I asked Is Mise to clarify his point about whether women should be in positions of power affecting national security. You're the one throwing in all these pointless (and, might I add, tautological) red herrings about hereditary monarchs not being elected.

//I bring your attention to the title of this topic; 'Women in parliament'.//

Yep, that's the title alright.

But Is Mise didn't specify women in Parliamentary positions. He specified women in positions of power. Which the Queen definitely is.

//I think you can see what I'm getting at//

No, I'm just scratching my head as to how you can be so remarkably thick as to fail to understand the point even after it has been explained simply and clearly a number of times.

Toni, then instead of responding to a comment you clearly knew was off topic, why did you not choose to simply correct him by highlighting the name of the topic, thereby getting back on topic.
Oh and by the way 'women in parliament' are 'elected', so back to MY point, you should have pulled him up for going off topic.
Even though it's off topic, I stand by my previous comments.

Toni Lavis, "//I guess the sooner we come to accept that men are from venus and women from mars//

No, they don't. They both come from Earth. They both belong to the same species. They share 45 out of 46 chromosomes, and their similarities are much, greater than their differences."

Come on Tony, you're kidding me. Do you really expect me to believe that just one little chromosome, only a fraction over 2% could cause so much trouble in the world.

You had better pull the other one, it yodels.

I've been reading all of your comments with interest.

It appears that many of you recognise that our society
is individualistic and highly open to change and
experimentation, and that men and women can today explore
a wide variety of roles. Including running for office
in Parliament.

To me personally true liberation from the restrictions of
gender means that all possible options should be open and
equally acceptable for both sexes. That a person's
individual human qualities, rather than his or her biological
sex would be the primary measure of that person's worth and
achievement.

Our Parliament should reflect the communities it serves.
It should be made up of a fair representation of those
communities. Women are a vital part of those communities
and should be represented in Parliament. Ar the moment this
is not the case - hopefully things will get better.

Foxy, I and of course, many others do not agree with your views. Maybe it's easier to be called a lot of names than to try and explain some things in pragmatic terms.
For example, I am not an evil person for suggesting that men should have leading roles.
It simply means that I have considered the matter and taken all factors into account, I find that the answer is not one I 'came up with', but it presents itself. I merely have to say it as a conclusion after the facts.
I cannot understand to what end and what worldly good and purpose, a woman would rather leave her child of only a few months in the hands of strangers so she can pursue an endeavour that thousands of men can do.
Unless this woman is an absolute genius topping any men in her field then I would have to yield.
You see I don't get this thing about women. They apparently get to an age and something kicks in. It tells them they have to have a child.
I know of several women who having caught this 'thing', have signed up to a dating site with a view to marriage.
Once married, weeks, possibly months later, she is pregnant. She has the child and some months even weeks later sometimes, she declares she is going back to work. I see so many things wrong with that.
The main one is pure and rampant selfishness. The rest I won't even bother to mention as they have been told many times.
Roxy, if you and your followers cannot see the wrong in that then we are set on a course of self destruction.
I don't expect you to agree, but I do know you understand, and the more sensible part of you cannot deny the flaws in womens arguments today.
BTW, 'true liberation from the restrictions of gender'? Really? I tell you what, the day men can give birth, I will revisit this topic.
How's that?

What is it? Are women applying for jobs, just like men, and either getting them - or not - just like men; or are they waiting around to be 'appointed', of have firms begging them to work for them? Our best businessman, Chris Corrigan has left Australia, taking his skills with him because, he claimed, too many totally unqualified women were being put on boards by MALE business people trying to be social activists instead of getting on with business for their shareholders. I doubt that any of the regulars will know the answer, but it seems to me that a certain kind of female these days thinks the just making a lot of noise and badmouthing men will get them what they think they are entitled to.

Lowering standards to allow women into the armed services and police forces is pitiful. This whole push for 'equality' has led to the dismal emasculation of the abc. I feel sorry for women who want to be women and mothers these days. They are treated with contempt by the feminist. I am so glad I was born in an era where women did not have to pretend to be men. Biology, standards and competency has been thrown out the window for this feminist drive.

Foxy while I can see the appeal in your views I'm much more concerned with being represented by people who's views and actions I respect (and I suspect from what I've seen of you over the years so do you when you stop to consider it).

I'm guessing that their are or have been male politicians who have far better represented you in parliament than Jackie Lambie or Pauline Hanson.

If their is disproportionate representation of one "grouping"in some role then it does make sense to ask why but that asking should include a willingness to consider answers other than discrimination or that if it does come down to individual choice that it's something that requires fixing.

Also as has been often noted those most concerned about the relative under representation of women at the highest levels of power rarely seem concerned with a similar under representation in the most dangerous or physically unpleasant of roles.

When we try and group people by identity for these kind of issues it also gets down to the number of variations on that theme which should be considered. I doubt either of us are well represented in government by people who share many of the things about ourselves we consider most important. My gender and sexuality are clearly significant to me but in some ways less so than those parts which I feel I've had significant choice in.

R0bert

It is complicated, I can see that.

As women began questioning their role in the family and
in the community, men too, began to ask themselves why
they were what they were doing. Although men's liberation
has not been organised to the extent that the women's
movement has, many men have rejected the old notion that
the male should be the breadwinner, tough, hard,
ambitious and ruthless at the workplace, and kind, generous
and loving with the family.

The "superman" mould that men were meant to fit into was
as painful a straitjacket as the "little woman" role of
their wives. In some ways men are still discriminated
against because of the old notion which governments
are slow to change (e.g. deserted fathers don't get the
social welfare benefits that deserted mothers are entitled
to).

What we still need is more open discussion about the
relationships between the sexes.

We need to bring up
issues that are concerning to us all.
Look what has been achieved thus far in our
major cities - we now have centres to help women in
need - rape crisis centres, half-way houses for battered
wives and children to escape to, centres where legal and
health advice is available. More and more women are
demanding to be treated as equals.

Today we have books,
films, and plays, magazines and newspapers dealing with
the problems in our society. In the past girls were
advised on how to "catch, keep, and serve" a man. Today,
women are now more often than not, advised on how to
"get the most out of their relationships." The emphasis
has shifted to "rights", away from "duties."

Men and women should not be treated differently simply\
because of their sex.

Today, we should as individuals be able to choose his or her
own path to self-fulfillment. Not every woman or man wants to have
children, go into politics, have a profession, et cetera.
The choice should be up to each individual.They should not be dictated to by society - as to how
they must behave.

Dear RObert,

There are many female politicians that I wouldn't
vote for. The same applies to male politicians.
But it would be great to have more diversity in
our choices as to what's currently available.
That's my point.

Toni,

"Does that apply to our Queen as well, Is Mise?"

No, she is past child bearing age; didn't you know?

Foxy, just a quick response on your last paragraph; 'They should not be dictated to by society-as to how they must behave'. Do you realise the irony in that last comment? We as a society ARE being dictated to every minute of our lives. Why should women expect to be exempt.
Now to the rest of your response.
Your first paragraph implies that men are starting to change into something more effeminate and less masculine.
If this is the case, mores the pity, but I think that kind of person is more a male than a man.
Foxy, your next paragraph is more of the same theme in trying to make us believe that men are suddenly all lovey dovey and soft and cuddly creatures, and so on. Stop it. We must never stoop to such lows. Men MUST maintain there position and posture or the matrix which is humanity will fall into a critical mess. Do not comment on masculinity, your comments are without merit, just your opinion and those of your followers. 'Superman', yeah! sure! You are over-reaching when you make wild comments like that.
And for God's sake, what we definitely don't need is 'more discussion about the relationship between the sexes'. These forum discussions are already brain numbing, over and over. Enough already. I don't care about issues you describe. Women are so well represented EVERYWHERE, I'm sick of hearing about it.
Men and women SHOULD be treated differently because of their sex. What is wrong with you people? Oh here's a hint, because we ARE DIFFERENT. In every way. I don't know why I have to keep saying it, but I don't understand why women want to be men, sorry, males?
What you and your followers are demanding is a change of attitude to satisfy a very selfish group of women and a few moronic males.
I hope I can be bothered to keep explaining this topic before I have to run to the toilet and evacuate these emotionally, meaningless, socially debasing, regressive, attitudes I am hearing.

Foxy, I see your point. I'm though am much more concerned with diversity of opinion than physical characteristics and most of what gets passed off as diversity is strongly opposed to diversity of opinion.

R0bert

I saw two Muslim women Captain & First officer, fly an A380. Why did they ? Because they had the brains to do it.
Same goes for any job, politics included.. Some people have this notion of quota. Why ? If a man does a better job than a woman or vice versa than give them the job. We've been waffling on about more women in Parliament. So what ? Isn't it at election time when everyone has the chance to convince the fence-sitting voters ?
Where I used to work they brought in more women for the sake of having more women. Efficiency did not benefit & costs increased as did the Facebook activities. There were times when people called my extension because the receptionist was not answering the phone because she was on facebook.
More women in any organisation is not a bad thing nor is it a good thing if proficiency suffers.
The quota arguments only keep those in whining positions whining for whining's sake.
It's a bit like SSM, now that it's in place the proponents are frantically seeking for a new subject to whine about & disrupt everything else for no good reason.
I suppose Parliament is as good a place as any to kick off the new challenge. If only it didn't cause the waste of so much needed funding.

//No, she is past child bearing age; didn't you know?//

Her reign commenced in 1952, when she was 25 years old.

Are you going to try and tell me that 25 is past child bearing age now?

It thought it was a pretty basic question, although I guess I shouldn't be too surprised that you're struggling with it: if women should be excluded from positions of power because PMT, why shouldn't the the Queen have been excluded?

Do you really believe that Her Majesty has not menstruated at any point during her 66 year reign? Because that's not how it works, Is Mise.

//why did you not choose to simply correct him by highlighting the name of the topic//

Because I was curious about his opinions.

//you should have pulled him up for going off topic.//

Why? I don't care if he goes off topic.

//Do you really expect me to believe that just one little chromosome, only a fraction over 2% could cause so much trouble in the world.//

No, you need the other 45 as well.

BTW, the Y chromosome isn't that big; it only contains about 1% of your DNA.

Dear ALTRAV,

Our
society today is individualistic and highly open to
change. and men and women have been exploring a wide
variety of roles. Some women support their
husbands (earning more money) while some husbands stay
and look after the house and home. And vice-versa. Others
both work (they need two incomes) and both contribute and
share their child and house keeping duties.

Today, the gender roles are more flexible.

You need to think about the advantages and
disadvantages involved in what you are promoting.

To a man, the main advantage of his traditional role of
having to earn a living and be the provider for his
family was that he had relatively greater access to wealth,
power, and prestige. He could earn more money, control
more of his environment, and experience a range of career and
other opportunities that were beyond the reach of most
women in those days. The main disadvantage was the
tremendous stress associated with a life of competition,
repressed feelings, and fear of failure.

Compared to women, men had
a much higher suicide rate, far more higher rate for
severe mental disorders, and a very high rate of alcoholism.
Men committed a higher percentage of all serious crimes
and constituted a higher percentage of prison inmates.

They were far more likely than women to suffer stress-related
diseases than women, such as ulcers, hypertension, asthma,
heart conditions. The bleakest statistic was life
expectancy. The average male died years sooner than the
average female.

Today, men are now permitted a more gentle and expressive
personality than would have been considered appropriate
a few decades ago. The 1950s "John Wayne" image of manhood
has less and less appeal to both sexes today.

Under the "old system" that you support everyone knew what
their roles were, and most people unquestioningly behaved as
they were supposed to. The system constrained people, but it
freed them from the need to make choices.

There are fewer constraints today, but the individual now
has the liberty - or the burden - to choose his or her
own path to self-fulfillment. Yay!

I just don't get why people are obsessed with having to have what they see as the 'right mix' of W/M in parliament. It does not mean a thing who is in, and perhaps one reason we are in the mess we are is because pollies have listened to the squeaky wheel brigade. What I do know is we have had something like 5 prime ministers in the past 11 years (one twice) and they are all on the public tit. It's a joke beyond belief. Wake up people, we have gone from zero to 680 BILLION in debt in the same period of time, with no signs of improvement. No amount of women/men mix in parliament. No amount of marriage equality laws and no amount of 'sorrys' are going to fix that as the only sure fix will be a big pair of you know whats. From what I can see there are very few who have these, and if Julie Bishop had any chance she has thrown that away with her snubbing of the locals in favour of almost anyone else it seems.

Toni,

Your question was "Does that apply to our Queen as well, Is Mise?"

You did not ask should it have ever applied to her, sorry if I took your English literally.

Those subject to PMT should never be in positions of power, be they Queen or cab driver, or driver of any other motor vehicle.

However there is nowt that can be done about it, it's a risk that we have to take, like giving a young policewoman a Glock.

But it does highlight one or the many differences between men and women.

It was not OT because PMT may well affect the performance of a woman in Parliament, just as staying too long in the Members' Bar may affect others; Breath Tests and Drug Tests before voting should be mandatory.

Foxy, I'm sorry but your comments are simply your opinions.
Such things as men today are trending towards staying home while the wife works, is simply not true.
A FEW 'males' might be more likely. The men are still providing for their families.
You describe a way of life you aspire to. If a woman is working today it will most likely be because they (husband and wife) have over committed themselves to a lifestyle they could never afford. I have no sympathy for these people. I hope they work till they drop, and only then will they learn a few of life's lessons, that you can't have everything NOW. If the public were not so stupid, greedy and needy, they would not be in the situation they are in today, such as both having to work. People like yourself facilitate people like this by trying to make the old ways look bad. I totally dis-agree with your comments that men suffered and died young and all the other negatives you came up with. So according to you, the women can now also die and suffer the same fate as the men, because they are attempting to do the same work as the men. Good idea, so when both parents die or become mental cases as you suggest will surely happen, the children can then go to work and also choose whether they want to do work that was traditionally that of the other gender. So what? they can get sick or die too? Foxy leave things well enough alone. We must not make changes for change sake. When someone says we are going back in time, most of the time that's a good thing. Look at what these stupid ideas have cost us over the years. Foxy, you and your followers are not progressives. You are regressives. you would all do well to rethink your positions and move back to the natural order of things. Women in charge (or in politics)is not one of them.

Dear ALTRAV,

I stopped reading your post after a few sentences.

Enjoy your evening.

Foxy, if you choose to stop reading my posts, it then follows that you should stop writing yours.
By your own admission you expect others to 'do as you say', suggesting yours is the only way.
Have you not noticed that your beliefs generate a lot of resistance and dis-agreement.
Your views are YOUR views, they are not those of the majority.
Trying to justify this new world order you are trying to push is pure folly and totally impractical. It will not work!
If you think I am wrong then answer my question about your suggestion that men are getting sick and/or dying sooner because of all the stress they suffer being the breadwinner and provider under ALL this pressure.
Your suggestion that women should follow in this fate only makes a mockery of your comments and in so doing renders them moot and therefore actually made your comments not worth reading after the first few lines.
If anybody thinks I am wrong please tell me so and why.

Hi Foxy, ALTRAV is like many men, he has a problem taking directions from a women, or being under the control of a woman, be it the female manager at work, or the woman driving the bus. He feels it somehow lessens his male position of dominance. For example if Carol the female manager was to say to him; "Al, in future I want to see you scrubbing those toilet bowls, otherwise its sack Al time! and Al was forced to cry; "Sorry Ms Smith, please don't sack me Ms Smith, I'm the breadwinner at my house, and the cheese and kisses and the little bambeanos rely on me." Or if the woman driving the bus was to yell at Al "I don't care if you're 98, next time show your concession pass or its walk'n time." Al reply's "Sorry about that I'll will show it next time, I can't walk, I'll be late for work, and Ms Smith will sack me."
Lunchtime.... Al to his mate Buffo; " A lousy Vegemite sandwich for lunch again from the misses, can't complain, she'll beat me up, ... I hate women and Vegemite!"

One thing that's more obvious now since more females joined Parliament is that the country is somewhat stagnating. it's a toss-up between more females or all ex lawyers amongst the men.
Whichever it is it is not working for country.

Paul, your comments are as fanciful as Foxy's.
As you don't know me I take it you are describing yourself and your relationship with your wife.
Perhaps you might have a go at answering foxy's dilemma.
She spews out these opinions about what she believes the 'new age neuter' is all about without realising the huge flaw in her fantasy.
The question is, in reference to Foxy's suggestion that;
In the past men have suffered mentally or died prematurely because of the stress of being the breadwinner or provider for the family, so I ask why does she feel it's ok for women to suffer the same fate in them taking the place of men.
The fact that Foxy appears to take the moral high ground is a good act, when all along she is pushing the somewhat feminist or 'females first' agenda.
She portrays a self-effacing image but hidden in her rhetoric is this push for women and a future where women are in charge and the men presumed to become more effeminate and lose, as she puts it, the 'superman' image.
I suppose I should thank her for elevating men to such a position because without her describing us in this way we would have never known that we were somehow superior to women. So in that sense I suppose I should be thanking her for her adoration and praise for men and in holding us in such high esteem.

Dear Paul,

History and statistics tell the full story I
could go on and on in this discussion - having
studied Sociology - but there's no point.

We have the
recent example of Julia Gillard who was so fraught with
a perverse fixation on her gender and perceived "inadequacies"
of women in leadership that we saw Australia still has a
lot of growing up to do when it comes to getting our
collective head around the inherent power of diversity.

Different standards are applied to women in leadership positions.
Ambition is seen as a positive attribute for men, for women
it's a negative.

Many men in our society still do not trust women to wear the
wig and gown, to wield the scalpel, to deliver their babies,
to preach from the pulpit, or to take a seat in Parliament.

Men in those professions and the networks that have developed
are strong - and many actively resist women.

However, things are inevitably changing - as women acquire
the skills and the education necessary to achieve. And men
after some hesitancy, are generally reacting positively to
the growing equality of women.

On a personal note, I have worked full-time all of my life.
I have studied, acquired several degrees, worked and
travelled overseas, raised a family, and whatever has been
achieved has been done - with the full support and
help from my husband.

See you on another discussion.

How can anyone say women are working more, while in the same breath they say women are earning less.

Sorry, does not work as the disparity in wages is not that high.

Another undeniable fact is that there have been three women in high profile roles, Gillard, Bligh and Pal...all have been dismal failures in their roles although in the defence of Gillard, she did follow on from the Kevin 07 train wreck. Then there is Julie Bishop, a potential alternative to Turnbull, in self destruct mode.

Sorry, but history doesn't lie, nor does it take sides.

Dear rehctub,

There are plenty of websites that you can look up
regarding the gender pay gap. And they don't lie.

Gender pay gaps are especially wide among high-income
earners. The Australian Tax Office figures show some
of the biggest discrepancies between men and women
are amongst those employed as barristers, financial
traders, and surgeons.

Figures released recently by the Federal Government's
Workplace Gender Equity Agency revealed a 28% gender pay
gap amongst general managers based on full time renumeration.

Cheers.

Not that I'm a religious man but it is a curious fact that the earliest mention of woman and her arrogance, resulted in her and Adam being punished because she chose to eat the fruit off the tree when she was told not to.
As the story goes, Eve disobeyed, and in doing so was the cause of Adam's downfall by making him an accomplice.
If we are to take stock from this, we see nothing has changed.
Women are going back to their origins and all the mis-guided and mis-directed traits Eve spawned from the very beginning.
Disobedience, arrogance, selfishness and so much more.
Not a good look.

We can see - that the sexist belief
in the superiority of men pervades
many areas of our social life.

Some men still tend to incorporate prevailing
stereotypes about femininity and masculinity into their
self-concepts, and these understandings shape their personalities
and the way they relate to one another.

To some men, women are
widely viewed as being in some sense the sexual property of
men, and so are expected to be suitably submissive and
deferential. Any deviation is considered to be "arrogance."
And "not a good look."

A striking illustration of this submission is the way women learn
to hide, reveal, or distort their bodies in accordance with the
prevailing male notions of how women should appear.

In traditional
China, men admired tiny female feet - so girls' feet were
permanently deformed through footbinding, a painful practice that
left them barely able to walk.

In North America, where large, firm breasts
have been admired for most of this century, millions of women
have had their breasts surgically reshaped or enlarged.

Now that men's ideal for womanhood is shifting to a leaner more
athletic look, dieting has become a female obsession, with
many women considering themselves too fat. Every year, in fact
millions of young women starve themselves to the point of
anorexia.

Throughout history, most women - have accepted
their society's system of sexual
stratification, despite its consequences for their own relatively
low wealth, power, and prestige.

Why? the members of a
subordinate stratum tend to accept the ideology that justifies
their own low statuses, because they see the existing arrangements
as "natural" and proper, and do not usually question them.

As long as members of the subordinate stratum continue to
take the status quo for granted, it will persist.

But if they come to see their situation as socially created - and
unjust besides - they are likely to demand change.

That is what is slowly happening today. People are beginning to challenge the traditional gender roles.
The results are profound,
and will continue to reverberate through our society.

And down with high heels!!

Dear Is Mise,

I prefer high-heeled boots.

Fozy, again you project YOUR views.
This new age woman is not a good thing at all.
You say they are moving away from the 'traditional' and antiquated roles of yesteryear.
Fine but they have not set limits, parameters or boundaries.
Those who practice what you preach are in a mental void with no clear path and absolutely no terms of reference as to what to do when they get there, let alone know when they, 'get there'.
They are on a path of self destruction.
From your own comments, I fear you are a well read person and are now at a point where you are too high brow for the likes of us and the level of reason on this forum.
I think you are wasted here.
Your views are too extreme and personal.
I believe your views would be far better utilised in a more 'upmarket' forum.
I would appreciate your comments on the question I posed as to, why it is that you say men suffer emotionally and die prematurely that you would even consider promoting women into such a life threatening situation.
Bearing in mind women are Not as strong emotionally and physically as men.
Or to put it more clearly; Men and women are NOT THE SAME!

Foxy I'm of the view that a lot of those things you describe are more likely to be required by other women more so than most men.

Men make convenient scape goats for feminist ideology but it does not make it true of most.

R0bert

Lee Rhiannon announced today she will be resigning from the Senate in August. Who will fill her vacant seat, none other than Mehreen Faruqi. What a coincidence I mentioned Mehreen, and a Senate seat only last week.
I am pleased Lee has seen fit to give Mehreen the opportunity to establish herself as a sitting Senator ahead of the next election.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-25/greens-senator-lee-rhiannon-to-resign-within-months/9799348

Looks like a trip to Canberra is on the agenda.

Dear ALTRAV,

I only listed the advantages and disadvantages that men suffered
compared to women. To show the differences.
The statistics tell the story. They are
readily available. And most of us are aware of them.

New economic roles have brought women greater equality with men
and also many fresh opportunities, particularly the chance to
experience careers and achievement beyond the home. Surveys show
that most working women enjoy their jobs, and for economic
and other reasons would not wish to be "only a housewife."
Yet for most women, the experience of a career has
involved hardships. The rigors of pursuing their careers,
maintaining intimate relationships, and raising children
are not easy things to balance.

I am not for one minute suggesting that all women should
take on careers. However, in today's society both men and
women should have the choice of being able to explore a wide
variety of possible roles.

As I've stated earlier, true liberation from the restrictions
of gender should mean that all possible options should be
open and equally acceptable for both sexes.

Then a persons individual human qualities, rather than his
or her biological sex, would be the primary measure of
that person's worth and achievement. People should have the
right to make the choices of how they want to live their
lives. The choices should be up to each individual to make.
Each should be given that opportunity and not denied it
simply because of their sex.

I can't make it any clearer. The choice is not up to me -
the choice is up to them.

Dear RObert,

We're all individuals. And our wishes and expectations
should be respected. We should be allowed to live our lives
however we choose, as long as we don't hurt anybody.

Dear Paul,

Thanks for the information.

I wish the new lady All The Best, and every success
in Canberra.

Foxy, your premise is admirable and I understand your message.
I come from what you would call 'old fashioned' values.
I do not back away from this fact.
What I feel is being called 'choices' in one hand, and allows the woman to do what they want to do, is in fact causing harm back home. It is all too clear that a man is absolutely the wrong fit for role of homemaker and the world you try to depict for the 'new age guy'.
I strongly maintain that the woman is designed to be the nurturing, caring one. Not the man.
I know for a fact that men would rather be doing something else than going to work.
I can also state categorically, that being the homemaker is nowhere to be found on THAT list.
When he says he'd rather be doing something else, it usually means he'd rather be doing some inane endevour, such as fishing and so on.
What you are projecting is typical of todays generation.
I believe you fail in making your point, albeit sugar coated, by suggesting that women have choices today and should be allowed to pursue them.
This is where you are wrong.
Try as they may, because they are the baby making machine, IF they choose to have a child, their lives are no longer theirs.
If they are to deny what is clearly the path of nature and decide not to procreate then they can pursue their selfish agenda and do what they want.
ALL the problems of today can be narrowed down to women and their, as you suggest, 'right to do what they want'.
Animals accept their lot in life and do it well because it comes naturally without deviation from the natural path designed for them.
For humans to move away from this path only raises many other problems.
We are clearly witnessing this today.

ALTRAV, I will agree millions of women throughout the world are bound by your narrow definition of the roll of women. You talk as of it is a choice, this is not necessarily something they choose, but is imposed upon them by cultural and/or economic circumstance.
The move to a more dynamic function in life for a woman. which generally revolves around a career, is a luxury afforded only by education and economic independence. I see no reason why women should be returned to a life of penal servitude imposed by a dominant male society.

Foxy, I am expecting big things in Canberra from my friend, an extremely capable person who I believe gives the lie to everything negative being said here about the roll of the progressive woman.

There's not much more that really needs to be said.

What will be the final shape of gender roles - only time
will tell. Equality does not mean gender similarity or a
"unisex" society. It does not mean that women will
gradually adopt the characteristics of men or that the
two existing genders will converge on some happy medium.

The most probable pattern is one in which many alternative
lifestyles and roles will be acceptable for both men and
women. As I stated earlier our society is individualistic
and highly open to change, and therefore it is likely
that men and women will explore a wide variety of possible
roles. As they are already doing.

Just as one example,
my GP is the principal family provider.

Her husband describes himself as a -
"house-husband" (He's a retired lawyer).
He looks after the home and their
children. And he is only one of the many couples that we know.
Who have chosen this life-style.
Today, people want to be free to make choices that suit
them and their families. And they should be entitled to do
precisely that - male or female.

Dear Paul,

We so badly need capable people in Canberra.
Male and female. We need talented people
with the capabilities to work the machinery of our
liberal democratic way of life. Who can reflect
public opinion - and at their best lead public opinion
and transmute it into laws that shape our society and
our country - and for that to happen, for us to have
a free, fair, and vibrant society, we need a broader
representation of our population in Parliament -
not just a male-dominated one. not if we are going to
try to find the solutions that suit us.

Paul,

"Foxy, I am expecting big things in Canberra from my friend, an extremely capable person who I believe gives the lie to everything negative being said here about the roll of the progressive woman."

She ain't doin' too well on the Brumbies.

I have a prediction or forecast as to where this type of lifestyle is headed.
If we don't base our lives on some kind of nature driven set of rules we will end up being emotive, secular and self absorbed, to the point of quite the opposite of what humans have lived and benefited by 'sticking together', each knowing their place.
Foxy, fortunately the majority of the population will not follow your ideals, but those that do will live something like this;
The females and males will live separately in their own home/apartment/flat, because it's more convenient.
They will only meet when the woman wants sex, or go to dinner or other social engagements.
They will normally return home to their own abode to sleep, unless sex was involved, then one would 'sleep over' at the others place, but leave as soon as is practical.
They will not have children because it will be 'too inconvenient' and won't suite their lifestyle.
They will cling to their 'mates' as they are the only people left to interact with.
You see what you attempt to portray as women rising to a higher level, in matching that of their male counterparts is actually a recipe for disaster of both sexes.
The couple you describe are not to be treated as the norm or even the new norm.
They are muddying the waters by re-arranging things that ultimately don't make sense, are inconvenient and 'un-natural'.
All because 'she' wants to do what she wants to do.
The family you described are the very ones I speak of.
Foxy, when you tamper with nature you will regret it.
I may not be the best person to debate this topic but I know that this new ideology you are pushing is wrong, and we will rue the day.
As much as you and your followers believe, with the strongest convictions, that you are right, just think a little further than you have done and you will discover these serious pitfalls which you disregard, as it will reduce the viability or even the validity of your argument.

Dear ALTRAV,

A couple of corrections.

Firstly I am not pushing any ideology.

I do not have any "followers."

How people choose to live their lives is their choice.
It is not my place or yours - to tell them how to live or the
choices they should make

Foxy,

"How people choose to live their lives is their choice.
It is not my place or yours - to tell them how to live or the
choices they should make"

Bulldust!

Society tells us all how we should live and the choices we should make, it tells us that we should pay our taxes for starters.
It tells us the minimum of clothing that we must wear and what type of clothing in some cases, the same with hats, some are compulsory depending on the regulated activity that we may be engaged in.

When the country is threatened then Conscription is possible/probable and all of your ideas go out the window.

Dear Is Mise,

Yes, society has been telling us for decades regarding
gender roles - which is the topic of this discussion.

However, the point being made is that these traditional
roles are now becoming more fluid - as the following
link clarifies:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/tom-brake/building-modern-man_b_8626802.html

Foxy, in the interest of clarity.
By your own comments and admissions you are broadcasting a particular view of what YOU believe, ie; your ideology.
Because there are people who agree with you and are following your comments and respond in compliance, so it is you have followers.
A further misnomer.
You say, 'how people choose to live their lives is their choice'. 'It is not my place or yours-to tell them how to live or the choices they should make'.
Well it is actually.
We are a collective and we DO tell people how to live, in the form of how to conduct themselves such as when interacting with other people, otherwise we would have chaos and social dis-order or dis-connects. One of the ways we tell people how to live is through legal sectors like family courts and just laws in general.
I'm sure if someone researched the matter they would find that the picture of the future world you are painting is in fact contrary to a number of social and emotional values and expectations, and definitely contrary to what the majority of the population believe.

Dear ALTRAV,

Kindly read the link I cited for Is Mise on the previous page.

It may help.

Foxy,

Tom Drake seems to be more of the problem than the solution.

Dear Is Mise,

I guess he's one of the many in western countries who
constantly challenge gender roles. That's why we
have stay-at-home dads, male receptionists, female
doctors, lawyers and judges, male nurses, librarians,
and so on.

Foxy, I care not what this or that person says or thinks.
There are far greater and more relevant people than those you promote. Step away from what these so-called experts push and look at things from a detached angle.
You are too engrossed and emotionally invested in this topic to be taken seriously.
You have continually displayed the classic signs of this by repeating the same ideals and opinions.
Further to confirm your bias, you do not respond to direct questions attacking and refuting your comments or beliefs.
Until you answer the questions or prove a questioner wrong, your words are that of a spoilt child who will not listen to logic or reason.

JUST LIKE MOST WOMEN!

//You say, 'how people choose to live their lives is their choice'. 'It is not my place or yours-to tell them how to live or the choices they should make'.
Well it is actually.//

The thing is, ALTRAVing lunatic, that you can tell people what they should do until you're blue in the face... and they're still going to ignore you.

In a free, liberal society like Australia I'm not sure why you'd expect anybody to make decisions based on what you've decided is best for them, rather than on their own circumstances.

Toni,

Helmets for bicycle riders?

Dear ALTRAV,

However whether we like it or not - societies and
times do change. People do question things.

Australia
today is not the same country as it was in the 1950s
or even earlier. People question the wisdom of some
of the rules imposed by law. Things like early
closing for pubs, censors banning books, plays, and
films. More and more people began demanding their right
to see, hear, and read what they wanted and so on.
In the 1950s and 1960s, Australians were becoming
more and more aware of the fact that they were considered
a cultural "backwater." For the best in the arts one
had to go overseas.

However, during the following years many plans were made to
put an end to that state of affairs. The Australian Opera
House, The Victorian Arts Centre just to name a few. The White
Australian Policy was abolished. Critical self-consciousness
became more and more apparent and forced both politicians
and the public to revise not only policies but also many
of their long-held and cherished notions about themselves
and the rest of the world.

We then saw women going out to work.
Equal pay finally is becoming an
accepted thing in many occupations where women and men do the
same jobs, (although it still has a long way to go) the
greater affluence of women has become apparent. Two-income
families have often now become two-car families
with many added luxuries as part of the normal purchasing
power of the average Australian.

We are today considered to be an affluent society and much as
some of us would like to deny it, Australia has changed and
will continue to change. Intolerance towards people of
other nationalities, races, and religions has long
been unacceptable to most decent Australians. Now Australians
are questioning their intolerance of the other sex - that is
their sexism.

Anyway, I've had my say on this topic.
I don't have anything further to add.

I've enjoyed our robust discussion.

I look forward to the next one.

Enjoy your day.

Foxy,

" Intolerance towards people of
other nationalities, races, and religions has long
been unacceptable to most decent Australians. "

So in your estimation, there are some decent Australians who are intolerant, how does that work?

cont'd ...

I forgot to add the more recent changes in societies -
like same-sex marriage. Ireland's recognition of abortion.
Women political leaders - in the UK, New Zealand, Germany,
Lithuania, to mention just a few.

It has now become apparent to politicians that if they
want the woman's vote, they have to earn it by
legislating (making laws) for the equal rights of all.
(Male and female).

More and more women are demanding to be treated as equals.
Books, films, plays, magazines and newspapers are dealing
with the problems of women. Whether we like this or not
is irrelevant. Changes will take place despite what we
think - history has shown us.

As Foxy has signed off on this topic I will comment in general with the odd reference to previous posts.
Firstly the thought that we have become a more affluent country does not mean we have become a better or smarter one.
As it has been suggested that we are basing our examples on, of all things, the arts.
I could no longer care about two cowpats as even reckognise anything to do with the 'arts'.
If the 'artsy fartsy' types have taken over then that would explain a lot as to why we are an effluent country, not an affluent one.
It is becoming evident that Australia and more-so Australians are not as smart as they claim to be.
Like art, their thinking is arbitrary, just look at the decisions over the last century or so.
So as to get the full impact of what I am saying, look it up. 'Arbitrary', that is.
One word sums up Australians.
Because the topic is another issue which pretty much is at a level of cowpats and the arts.
Hard liners keep forcing the mantra that we are changing and men are getting neutered into becoming effeminate males, and women are taking over the roles traditionally held by men.
Let me assure those of you still sane, mature and intelligent enough to understand. What a lot of cowpat.
This ridiculous notion, if it exists, is minuscule in the greater scheme of things and in no way represents main stream Aussies.
You guys, guilty of getting neutered, stop thinking with your dicks and man up.
Take back your manhood and tell the arrogant cruella de-vils to go fu(# em selves.
I can not stand these self righteous women who push a selfish agenda based on their personal convictions and beliefs.
Then go looking for the 'experts' for vindication.
This does in no way give any credence or legitimacy to their argument or their topic in question.
So in summary, and by the reasons mentioned, the answer to the topic of Women in Parliament, is a very resounding NO!

Foxy,

" Ireland's recognition of abortion..."

and a good thing too, it'll save all that expense and travel time to London.

Dear Is Mise,

This is such a controversial issue and such
an emotive one.

I want to say word about pollies. For all those people who have an innocent, (it actually means, ignorant) view about pollies and how they are there to do our bidding, you are partly right. Very, very few of them actually think they are going into the big chamber, stand up, say a few words and hey presto, their wish is immediately enshrined in law and they can then go around spruiking their success. Well it's actually nothing like that. In fact it's quite disappointing and frustratingly egregious. Why? Because pollies represent a wide range of people and mind sets. It is not possible to reach consensus in a democracy. Never has been. You've only to follow a forum or two, and there is the evidence. So for a polly to get there way, they have to shmooze any number of other pollies. To do that they have to compromise on something the other pollies want passed. And so the dirty deals begin and this once naive, innocent polly is now turned and become a snake just like the rest of them. They have no choice, if they want to simply remain in their seat. Remember you have to satisfy the rest of your party and demonstrate that you are a 'team' player, so that when the leader says he needs you to vote one way or another, if you don't follow through, you are through. So it goes for a woman to be of any use to the party, she has to 'get down and dirty'. If a woman can do that, then she is no woman. That's a main reason I don't get this folly of women wanting to 'mix it' with the men. I also regard the fact that we have to change our way of interacting with each other, as men, to accommodate, the intrusion of women. I express the same anger as having to take down pictures of naked women in the work place as the Muslims telling us to take down symbols of religion.
If you don't concur then you're the problem not me.

Foxy, I doubt we will ever see anyone of any real worth in the top jobs, simply because those who have their feathers rustled also get to vote and, we now have a situation where they vote for those who annoy them the least. There are so many scams now operating under the welfare banner and as a result we must have close to the oldest students in the world. These so called 'students' in some cases need only complete one module per year in some cases to stay on the public tit. In fact, many are border line unemployable yet we continue to throw money at a broken system. As for pay gender gap, a barrister is worth what they command, regardless of their gender and, if a client chooses a male in favour of a female that's life. I still say the only way you can fairly gage the pay gap is to compare apples with apples. Hours worked, productivity results and performance outcomes. Females are handicapped because of their motherly duties which is I guess unfair, but its life.

rehctub, your right, although you won't get any women to agree because anything that would prove them wrong, will not be entertained. In fact they won't even admit that it was written. It appears that when they speak it is gospel and all they say is the way it is. Anyone challenging them and in fact anyone decrying them is either totally ignored or totally criticised, in the most egregious manner possible and let's not forget how we get vilified, as well. I may differ from the rest of the commentors, in that I object to women in traditional male jobs, period. There are so many reasons, I have only scratched the surface, on this forum. The pro women camp has put up such things as, times are changing. Yes, for the worst. 'Women' and men apparently are 'choosing' to.......who cares? They can choose all they want just because there are a handfull of selfish, self indulgent little fairies, does in no way justifying a major social push/change by a handfull of these nuisances. We must have clear and defined terms of reference, boundaries and limits, in all matters to do with life and people. Simply giving in to these whims of superiority is not the answer. I'll go so far as to draw people's attention to the fact that our problems began when we allowed women to have a say, drive, or vote. They speak in terms of equality and want equal rights to men. Before you can say that, you need to be aware and respectful of men, not just push your way through demanding equality, as if we are not relevant. I reject any and all laws that weaken my position as a man. This is the only way they can get their way. The only way I would consider a woman in a mans role, even then it would not be a physical role, is if, as in during the war, men were scarce back home, so women were used to do certain jobs. In my view, the norm is; the man is the 'front line'.

Sorry, forgot to split my sentences again. My bad.

Dear Rehctub,

I've just read your post addressed to me with interest.

Talking about women being "handicapped." Here's a
joke that you may appreciate:

A woman and a man are involved in a car accident.
Both of their cars are totally demolished but amazingly
neither of them are hurt.

After they crawl out of their cars, the woman says,
"Wow, just look at our cars! There's nothing left
but fortunately we're not hurt. It's a miracle!"

The man agrees.

"And look at this - here's another miracle. My car is
completely destroyed but this bottle of wine didn't break.
Surely we must drink this wine and celebrate our good fortune?"

She then hands the bottle to the man. The man nods his head in
agreement opens the bottle and takes a few very large swigs
from the bottle and then hands it back to the woman.

The woman takes the bottle and immediately puts the cap back
on and hands it back to the man. The man asks,
"Aren't you having any?"

The woman replies, "No. I think I'll just wait for the police."

Foxy,

Reference your joke, I won't comment.

Dear Is Mise,

You just did. (smile).

Foxey, your comments are not a 'joke', nor funny. It is a clear example and indictment of the true colours of women. (thankfully not all women) Deceitful and conniving, just to name two. A dictionary's version uses words like 'serious crime' and 'deserves to be condemned'. The subliminal message here is very clear, that this is the typical mind set of some women. If a woman put this up as a joke, then we have a problem, Houston. It's no use trying to back away from it now. It is on the record. Either Foxy is not aware of the terms of reference describing a joke or she is trying to make a point. Either way, BIG FAIL. What this shows is how naive and pathetic men are to be 'caught out' like this. It also shows we are a more honest and trusting mob than the maggots. Thanks for that 'leg up'

Today I'm sharing a few more jokes dealing with
sexism. Here's another one:

"Managed to stop white van full of men cat-calling by
shoving a big powdery donut into my mouth then
smiling with mouth full."

And -

"How many sexist men does it take to change a light-bulb?"

"None."

"That's women's work!"

"New job. 1st Meeting. Only woman.
Suit asks - "Where's the coffee?
Reply - Don't know but when you find it mine's
white, no sugar."

Here's another -

"I want to speak to your boss."

"My boss is a woman."

"What about her boss?"

"Her too."

And -

"What do you say to a sexist neanderthal who doesn't
get the jokes you found on the web and tells you
that women are devious, et cetera.?"

'That's lucky for me - because you're a bit thick?"

I'll leave it there.

No Foxy YOU don't get to leave anything anywhere.
You have 'left it there' before, and low and behold, your back.
You just can't leave well enough alone.
Here's one;
Have you noticed your 'jokes'? are all feminist bias.
Believe me men are a much more aware mob than you think, unlike women we know our place, because we are capable of much more maturity than women. I said capable.
We have a much broader range of emotions, but choose them carefully depending on the situation.
Women carry on when they are physically abused.
Instead of leaving they choose to stay and all the reasons I've heard, simply demonstrate there is something wrong with some women.
I'm sick of hearing it is the 'man's fault'.
Unless the man is a nut job, then the only other reason is the woman. Like any situation, you push the right buttons, you get the right response.
So why exactly do women complain when her man gets physical?
If you don't want a 'touch up' don't poke the tiger.
What do women think is going to happen when you get in a guys face. I'm talking about a man not some soft cock faggot.
I will never accept that a man has to become more effeminate just so as to accommodate a woman.
The answer you will get by any mature man is fu(& em.
You notice the guys are holding back on the 'crap on women' jokes. Just give it a minute someone might take up the challenge, but it's something most of us don't have to joke about.
The 'jokes' are all around us and every day they make us laugh with some of their 'funny' demands, like equality, HaHaHa. Oh, HaHaHa stop it, HaHa, it's just too funny. OH boy, whew, now that was funny.

Dear ALTRAV,

Accusing me of bias?

Go back and read what you post.

It's anything but classy.

"I'll leave it there"

Thank heavens!!

Dear Is Mise,

Thank heavens (for little girls?)

How apt to this discussion.

Here's the full lyrics - from the film "Gigi"
as sung by Maurice Chevalier.

"Thank heaven for little girls."

Each time I see a little girl
Of five or six or seven
I can't resist a joyous urge
To smile and say
Thank heaven for little girls
For little girls get bigger every day
Thank heaven for little girls
They grow up in the most delightful way
Those little eyes
So helpless and appealing
When they were flashing
Send you crashing through the ceiling
Thank heaven for little girls
Thank heaven for them all
No matter where
No matter who
Without them what would little boys do
Thank heaven
Thank heaven
Thank heaven for little girls.

These are taken from the web but in keeping with the recent direction of the thread
- What’s the difference between a feminist and a gun? A gun only has one trigger.
- How many feminists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? All of them, and the room will remain dark as they all scream about the sexism of the pro-masculine imagery of a lightbulb screwing the socket.
- How do you confuse a feminist? Tell her that you refuse to allow her to make you a sandwich.

- HOW MANY FEMINISTS DOES IT TAKE TO CHANGE THE LIGHT BULB?
12
- One to screw it in
- one to excoriate men for creating the need for illumination
- one to blame men for inventing such a faulty means of illumination
- one to suggest the whole "screwing" bit to be too "rape-like"
- one to deconstruct the lightbulb itself as being phallic
- one to blame men for not changing the bulb
- one to blame men for trying to change the bulb instead of letting a woman do it
- one to blame men for creating a society that discourages women from changing light bulbs
- one to blame men for creating a society where women change too many light bulbs
- one to advocate that lightbulb changers should have wage parity with electricians
- one to alert the media that women are now "out-lightbulbing" men
- and one to just sit there taking pictures for her blog for photo-evidence that men are unnecessary

R0bert

Foxy, you won't get around me or think I'm going to cave in just because you say so or because your a woman.
Your comments attempt to explain that the world is bending to womens demands and they are increasing their numbers in the workplace, not only in general but in taking over men's positions.
This is the bias I speak of.
Typically you make a 'wish' statement then you proceed to find some obscure reference or article that leans your way in an attempt to make your statement appear legitimate and 'factual', when all along it's just another of the womens 'wish list'.
Just because a very few number of women have forced their way into jobs at the expense of others does not mean they are deserving of those jobs.
I suppose it's only natural, you keep pushing womens selfish self absorbed agenda, and I'll keep things on an even keel by pushing back with the correct agenda.
In the interest of keeping this in topic, for every reason you come up with suggesting, women in Parliament, I will counter with one or more as to why they should not.
It doesn't matter, I just don't want women in certain jobs anyway.
As it turns out I don't have to justify why, it's enough that I have given a response, and as long as I can I will stand by this.
Try as you may, you will not move me.
You will have to go around me.
With enough 'men' thinking with their 'big' head and not the other, you will find it increasingly difficult to push this stupid PC agenda for too much longer as the weight of common sense and reason will be overwhelming and overpower it.

Dear ALTRAV,

What you don't seem to realise is - that quite frankly
I don't really care what you think. Your opinion
to me is totally irrelevant. I am not trying to
convert you. I am merely providing information
of the changes that are happening out in the real
world. Information is part and parcel of my occupation.
It doesn't necessarily reflect my own opinion on issues.
However when you carry on like a neanderthal - you leave
yourself open to ridicule. And you have to expect that
you're going to get a reaction. Especially in the form
of jokes. And even your own reactions are so predictable.
You can't be taken seriously. You really need to chill
out.

Dear RObert,

As always Thanks for your contribution.
Good to see that you're giving some balance to all of this.

Er, what is Foxy's point. In this stupid current PC mad environment I would not be posting such a thing.
Back in my day this was and still is a quaint little ditty or song. Today, well is no one seeing it.
I'm surprised all the PC faggots and maggots have not jumped on their PC computers screaming 'Pedophile, Pedophile'.
I'm surprised the moronic PC brigade must be on a picket line somewhere, otherwise they would be challenging this little song and it's exposure. Ah well, at least we can enjoy it without any harassment.

Dear ALTRAV,

One sick puppy!

You need to get some help.

Foxy, if you truly don't care what I say, then ignore me.
As for your claim, again you twist the facts.
The changes you profess to be broadcasting in the form of information are bias.
You only report one side of the story.
If you are truly trying to educate, and I believe you are not, you would print both sides of a story.
So don't patronise me and go for the gutter in an attempt to deflect.
I will say it in your stead, as you will never admit it.
You are pushing the womens agenda, and using excuses like educating people only makes you look superior and over bearing.
If you have to over-reach to make your point you have failed.
This might be a good note and time for you to exit this topic as you have been saying for some postings now.

Dear ALTRAV,

Go back and re-read some of my posts.

I have tried to maintain a balance and did try to
present a summary of what kind of behaviour was
acceptable in the past, and the advantages and
disadvantages to the people concerned of that
behaviour. However you found that unacceptable.
No matter what I stated, you chose to reject it
accusing me of all sorts of things. And now once
again - more accusations. And you wonder why I
turned to jokes. Take a good long look at what
you've been posting. You have no one to blame
but yourself. You accuse others of bias - but look
at your own comments. Faggots? Really? Who?
Have you even heard of the film "Gigi" and what's
it about. The film and the song by Maurice Chevalier?
You have no clue have you - to what the song refers.
But you're right. I have wasted enough time on you.

"I learned long ago,
Never wrestle with a pig.
You get dirty, and besides,
the pig likes it."
(George Bernard Shaw).

//You will have to go around me.//

No worries, society has moved on left you behind long ago. Feel free to call me something rhyming with 'aggot' at this point.

//"I learned long ago,
Never wrestle with a pig.
You get dirty, and besides,
the pig likes it."
(George Bernard Shaw).//

http://memecrunch.com/meme/4BA04/arguing-with-an-idiot-is-like-playing-chess-with-a-pigeon/image.png?w=500&c=1

I learned long ago that being polite was a waste of time.
When I KNOW something to be right or wrong I say so.
When I get objections and rejections which are baseless or lacking in facts or just plain not true I don't care to waste my time.
If the opponent persists, it means they are set in their beliefs and will not consider the information put to them.
Now before you say 'that's me', not quite.
I am making a statement by saying I will not accept women in certain roles because they cannot perform as well as men, whatever the job. Hardliners don't want to hear anything which might undermine their push or agenda, so without question they totally reject the premise.
I don't beat around the bush and so say it like it is, and if you think I get offended by being called names, I welcome it.
Can you guess why?
Because the plebs react accordingly and shows them to have a flawed argument.
And Toni, stop sucking up, you are looking needy.
It's not a masculine look.
Agree to a good idea or some worthwhile information by all means but don't just agree for no reason.
Foxy, why do you think I have critiqued you so? because I always read your posts, and guess what? you are the arrogant one for making accusations such as not having seen the film GIGI.
My reference was to the PC maggots and faggots of today who immediately jump on the PC wagon denying us re-runs of 'old' classics like 'Kingswood country' and so on.
It came on then all of a sudden it's gone.
I am not the prude you imagine, I looked forward to all the dialogue especially the parts where he bags the wogs.
If you recall, his son-in-law was a wog.
So don't berate me over stupid people and the stupid PC brigade they have fu(&ed up this country, and my life, so I will keep pushing against these people, and you, if necessary, to ensure they do not get it all their way.

//I am making a statement by saying I will not accept women in certain roles because they cannot perform as well as men, whatever the job.//

Do you think if you keep repeating that crap long enough, people will start pretending to agree just to keep you quiet?

Toni, do you think people are going to call it crap, just because you say so?
When you demonstrate to the good people that you have a conviction and proof to back it up with, you can then only 'think' about making such comments, not actually making them.
Until then by your own words and attitude you are not in a position to sit in judgement over anyone.
I would suggest you stick to topic and tell us why you think women are equal to men, especially in Parliament, and not promote such an idea for no good reason other than your say so.
It would be more appropriate and productive to engage in 'why' women are not suitable for certain jobs than making inane comments about an inane topic.
There are so many reasons why women should not be in certain jobs, only someone refuting the truth or the facts would dis-agree.
Just because women say they are equal to men does not make it so.
Look at the facts, don't just look for the things that help your agenda, but ALL the facts, and you will see, they are pushing sh!t up hill, to put it mildly.

A victory for the emancipation of women was scored in the NSW Parliament yesterday with the passage of the Public Health Amendment (Safe Access to Reproductive Health Clinics) Bill 2018 being pass in the Legislative Council. The Bill seeks to establish a 150m safe access zones outside reproductive health clinics in NSW. For too long anti abortion groups have from close proximity (outside), intimidated, harassed, abused and threatened physical violence to those already vulnerable women seeking the services of these clinics, which was disgusting behaviour by the group. Greens NSW Spokesperson for the Status of Women, Dr Mehreen Faruqi said "This is a victory for the fundamental right of women to access a medical service in safety, dignity and privacy."

Personally I am not a supporter of abortion on demand, but I do not believe the "anties" have the right to abuse women as they do.

//I would suggest you stick to topic and tell us why you think women are equal to men, especially in Parliament, and not promote such an idea for no good reason other than your say so.
It would be more appropriate and productive to engage in 'why' women are not suitable for certain jobs than making inane comments about an inane topic.//

Whatever, dude. I'm not the one seeking a change to the status quo here: women can sit in Parliament. If you want the laws changed to prevent that from happening, you're the one who needs to convince enough people that that change is warranted. If you can't manage that, then things will stay as they are.

Crapping on the board and strutting about like you've won is highly enjoyable, and I'm sure it makes you look really macho and clever and all that, but it's not a very fruitful strategy if you're actually trying to effect change. But it's up to you, I guess: if you really want to things to change, you're going to have to convince people why they should change. Of course, if you just want to rant and rave and call people names that rhyme with 'aggot', carry on as you are.

//A victory for the emancipation of women was scored in the NSW Parliament yesterday with the passage of the Public Health Amendment (Safe Access to Reproductive Health Clinics) Bill 2018 being pass in the Legislative Council.//

Small potatoes, Paul. The Irish voted overwhelmingly to repeal the 8th Amendment :)

Paul,

"Personally I am not a supporter of abortion on demand, but I do not believe the "anties" have the right to abuse women as they do"

With you there, except the distance ought to be at least 1 kilometre.

Toni,

What the Irish achieved is less travel time to have a safe abortion and removed the necessity of the ferry ride, which can be quite trying in stormy weather; or the plane which is rather expensive.
Of course, the well to do have always been able to enjoy the luxury of a home visit, albeit illegal.