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.