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.