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.