Here we are in 2020, and still women are suffering, not just in the home due to growing domestic violence, but also in the workplace because of discrimination, lack of opportunity and stereotyping. In the 1950's women were totally discriminated against when it came to education and employment, given to menial employment, under paid and terminated when it was seen fit. As far as work was concerned it was very much a mans world back then. Seventy years later and many of the old problems and some new ones still exist for women in the workplace.

An edited version on the situation from The Diversity Council Australia published on PRObono Australia.

Pre-work; Women are less likely to enter STEM careers due to gender stereotypes around the types of subjects boys and girls should study and the types of jobs men and women should do.

Mum penalty; Women with children tend to take time off work lacking support to look after their kids, often working part-time, they experience the gender pay gap. On average, women retire with half the superannuation of men.

Exclusive networking; Networking can lead to great career opportunities, but if you’re a woman in a male-dominated industry networking can prove to be a lot harder and lead to less career opertunities.

Respect; One in four Australian women have experienced sexual harassment at work in the past year, and 85 per cent of women have experienced sexual harassment in their lifetime. An old but still an ever present problem for many women.

Gender stereotypes; By the time women make it into the workforce, the idea that they are warm, caring and unassertive actually stops them from taking on, or being picked for, leadership roles.

If you want my respect on this issue, write a similar piece for men so we can look at both sides of the argument.

Actually, this is another issue where you're walking a really fine line to promote fairness as opposed to divisiveness.

All you're doing is promoting a Democratic party platform of "Let's start a fight!"

I don't want to do battle of the bloody sexes.

This is as childish as going around school and telling one kids that another is saying things about him;
- And then you go to the other one and tell him the one you just spoke to has been saying stuff about him;
And then when they come together to discuss the matter you scream
"Fight, fight, fight"

Identity politics is all the Greens know. They have to divide, create victims and twist stats in order to push their twisted narrative. Wake up people. Women are better at some things than men and vice versa. Generally blokes are designed to be much better at maths while women at English. Accept the differences, stop fighting design and reject identity politics and support mums who want to stay at home and mother. Strangely enough the Greens reject the biological sex of a person and then show their foolishness by playing the victim card for whatever group they want to create division among. Go to Pakistan if you want to whinge about how disadvantaged women are.

In the five or sixties things were fare less complicated. Women had an excellent position in life they were home builders and child minders. A position i have believed in all of my life.
They were free and easy going beautiful women.

Today they are separated from life with babies in someone elses' care and the mother working all week to pay for child care.

With what is going on at the moment it could very well revert back to those days of women with a purpose in life.

Mortgages were calculated from one mans wages and now it leaves younger people without a house as the trend is not to marry and live a solitudal life.

Now women are completely out of control and the system has more complications than ever.

We see more and more ladies from other countries here now as they resemble women of days long gone and not for the better. Colour or race has nothing to do with these women as men prefer women that just want a purpose in life as being a mans wife.

I’m heartily sick of the constant reference to gender pay gap. There is no such thing. Jobs don’t pay different wages based on gender. What does exist is an income pay gap, which is a totally different issue.
Many women receive lower wages because they work part time, or jobs that require less training. They also miss work through illness of children, pregnancy, care of aging parents etc.
Until such time as men can actually have children, this is always going to be a disadvantage to any woman who wants a career, unless, like some professional women I knew, she decides to let a nanny raise her children, which is a choice not available or desired by many women.
Clever women have come to understand that they really can’t have it all. They can’t be the mother they want to be and still pursue a demanding career, one that requires their undivided attention and frequently long hours.
And to be perfectly honest, if I owned a business that depended on trained, experienced staff to be successful, even as a woman, I would be reluctant to employ a young childless woman in a job that required extensive training, due to concerns that after gaining the training and experience she would require a lengthy period of time off for maternity leave and frequent missed days with a sick child.
This restricts women to careers that can absorb these breaks in employment, which whilst seeming unfair, is the result of women being free to choose whether to have children or not.

This seems to have been dictated to poor, simple Paul by a mad feminist.

By no means trying to destabilise the argument but hardly any mention is made of those women who incite conflict & even thrive on it until it back-fires. Then, they scream victim as loud as they can. And, yes, many men are morons when it comes to mentality towards good women !
I wonder how many good men have suffered at the conniving tactics of the women who use their looks as a weapon on their climb up the career ladder !

I apologise for the 'poor simple' bit. Uncalled for. But it's pretty pathetic when a male feels the need to carry on with utterly untrue drivel put about by nasty, bitter extremist females who do nothing to enhance respect for their sex. They are a minority - like all trouble makers - and they make quite enough noise without the help off pussy-whipped males.

Hi Paul,

Thank You for this discussion.

I've worked all of my life. Studied, raised a family,
with the support of my husband, parents, and even
friends, and colleagues, as necessary. I did not do it
alone so I can't take full credit for our family
choices.

We all make choices in our lives. I've never thought
much about messages regarding which sex is dominant
and about how men and women ought to behave.
I've managed to ignore the messages of mass media, from
television soap operas, to the lyrics of popular
songs, and what they emphasize.

Regarding my salary and job opportunities.
I've been very lucky. I've had tremendous help and
encouragement from my superiors and the organisations
I've worked for. In fact, I've been pushed to apply for
promotions and jobs that I would not otherwise have gone
for. So I really can't complain.

My husband and I have shared our roles and duties in
our family. We've been a team. And this has allowed
me to work outside the home, I've not felt any
constraints in my employment because of my gender.
I can only speak from my own experience. And, I
admit I have been very fortunate. I realise that
there are many out there not as fortunate.

Some women do find that "having it all" like the
rigors of pursuing their careers, maintaining intimate
relationships, and raising children, are difficult to
balance.

Some who put their career before marriage often find
that they have hit the "invisible ceiling" and face
the prospect of never finding a husband or having
children.

Also many women are dubious about the burdens of
being the perfect wife, mother, executive.
For these women - for the time at least, many feel
themselves stuck midway in a revolution that has run
out of steam.

I think today - people are exploring a wide variety
of roles in their personal relationships.
Today a person's individual human qualities,
rather than his or her biological sex is the primary
measure of a person's worth and achievement.

One of the biggest problems that couples have is the cost of child
care and that problem is the result of borrowing for a house on both incomes.
Back in the 70s the government made it compulsory for lending organisations
to lend on both incomes for a house loan.
That was thought to be a good idea.
Well all that happened was the price of houses rose to meet the amount
of money in the market.
Well why was everybody surprised ?
So now both incomes are flat out paying for the house but they now
have large bills for child care. No wonder the country can only survive
on high immigration rates. The third child is a no no !

sounds to me Foxy that you and your husband found/fell upon the right formulae for a happy life together.

What a pile of garbage Paul.

In the country towns where I was schooled in the 50s, the higher grades had a higher percentage of girls than boys with about 50% more girls than boys. In a town like Young, 6000 population in town, & 30,000 in the district, only 18 students in 4Th year, & just 14 through to 5Th year. Only 6 boys in each.

More girls made it to Uni, & many more to teachers college, about the only higher education available when education cost money.

Every country school had to go down to 3Rd year to recruit players for "senior" football, cricket & hockey teams.

The same applies today. More girls are going to Uni than boys. If those girls don't then take advantage of the education provided by the tax payer, it is no ones fault but the girls. Many people of both sexes decide there are things more important to them than the corporate ladder. No one is entitled to start whinging if their choices did not lead to great wealth, or were disappointed when the expectation was not matched by the realisation.

I think many women are disillusioned when marriage, home & kids does not provide the complete fulfillment they were led to expect in their youth. At the same time many men do not find marriage the bed of roses they may have expected. Fortunately most men do not then blame the world for their lack of bliss.

Personally I chose to sail the south seas, rather than chase my billion dollar fortune. The south seas were not quite as romantic as I had been led to believe either, but I did see a way of life that no longer exists. That I now can't have a a mansion by the sea does not worry me at all. Pity more ladies can't be satisfied with where their choices led them.

It is a pity, but I believe far too many ladies end up with "is that all there is" syndrome later in life, due to girlhood indoctrination.

Dear runner,

I feel blessed. Truly blessed. My parents taught me
the importance of family. And to take responsibility.

Dear Hassie,

Because my family lost so much as a result of WWII.
They stressed the importance of education to all of
us kids. Well it worked with me and one of my brothers,
not so much with another brother. About whom I still
worry to this day.

Dear Hassie,

Some ladies don't settle for "is that all there is"
at all. They keep right on dancing! (smile).

Foxy,

Your life story is fairly typical. Paul and the diversity council make the fundamental error of assuming that men and women are identical in what they want out of life.

That only 13% of those studying STEM subjects are women are more because women given the choice prefer not to. I have worked with quite a few female engineers and all of them were extremely capable and fitted into the business seamlessly. Most of them by their late 20s were in senior positions, but all of them when they eventually started a family and came back to work opted to take lesser roles that could accommodate flexible hours and did not have 60 hr weeks even though their previous positions were still open to them.

Idiots like the diversity council assume that all women want high pressure full time jobs and that any difference in pay or promotion is solely due to discrimination.

While I am sure that discrimination exists I don't believe that in today's work places that it is the major factor in advancement.

I see this topic creates a degree of hostility from a certain section of the forum. A rather large mob still hold onto the notion that the best place for a woman is "barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen". Lads take it from me, this is 2020, not 1950, and the world, and women, and all thinking people have moved on from there.

Woman are not in the workplace for the amusement of men, unless its a brothel or strip club, and these are little more than places of exploration, often operated by men for gratification, amusement, along with the usual profit motive! Women work for a variety of good reasons, that does not include being seen as the play things of men. This attitude still exists,and is clearly demonstrated by the behaviour of the friend of the Liberal Party, and former High Court judge Dyson Heydon. Heydon's wild exploits at his work shows that even the best educated, most responsible man are not necessarily exempt from some very bad behaviour when it comes to female coworkers. More on the Heydon behaviour syndrome later.

Again we are too dismissive of the real problems of women, which are all our problem. In many households today two incomes are an essential, not a luxury. For paying mortgages, rents, education and other expenditure both partners have no choice other than to contribute financially. Too many women are trying to juggle home and work. We need to stop putting barriers in the way of women trying to deal with modern living as society demands they do. The recent federal government debacle on financing the cost of providing early childhood centres shows we still have a long way to go on that issue alone. More on that later.

Too many women are trying to juggle home and work
Paul1405,
Well, you'd better tell those progressive females who pushed for that to happen !

I think that each of us can only speak from our own
experiences. I certainly do realise that there are women
out there that do have problems in their work situations.
I've encountered that but of course that does not mean
that these problems don't exist for other people. That
has to be acknowledged. We don't all have the same
experiences. And our situations are different and varied.

I had tremendous support from various people. I did not
cope alone. So I was able to balance things out. Plus
I have terrific bosses who gave me so much encouragement.
I don't mean to sound like a Polyanna - only to acknowledge
that I have been extremely lucky.

Not everyone has been

And on the subject of - not everyone has been or
is as fortunate as I've been --

I do have to acknowledge that the WGEA - Workplace
Gender Equality Agency has estimated that Australian
women earn, on average 15.3% less than men - $1,387
per week compared with - $1,638 - and that this gap
has remained largely unchanged for 20 years.

Also we're told that top-tier female managers earn on
average 26.5% less than their male counterparts, with
nearly $40,000 of that difference coming from
additional remuneration including bonuses. And women
still make-up a small percentage in leadership positions.

There's a number of reasons why women earn less than
men. The two key ones are that women are more likely to
work part-time (around 75% of part-time workers are female)
and they are more heavily employed in lower-paying
occupations (such as healthcare and social assistance).

Also while gender pay gaps seem to be lower in organisations
with more female managers, the pay gap at the managerial
level rises sharply in favour of men. This suggests that
where men are few, they are more highly valued.

For women - lower lifetime earnings means less independence,
less security, and of course less power.

For the economy, it means less capital potential and
investment, which can impair economic growth, and increase
the burden on current and future governments as diminished
earnings mean more reliance on welfare.

According to analysts the median supperanuation balance of
women is just over half of that of men. Which means that a
nest egg that's expected to last 30 years or more, given
rising longevity of people's life-spans, won't make it.

Hi Foxy, thanks for joining in, not all on here are so understanding of the problems facing working women. I always seem to cop it on the forum from the 'Usual Suspects' for being male and willing to highlight the problems facing our sisters. I don't want to be a member of the 'Old Boys Club' so I don't have to follow their rules.

Look at the pay rates in traditionally female dominated professions, child care and nursing. The levels of remuneration and conditions are well below those of more traditional male occupations, why is that? The building industry and policing are examples of well paid jobs that previously were male dominated industries.

Hi Paul,

Many women have also reported being sexually harrassed
in the workplace. It appears to even be common in
professions like law and medicine.

I've got a niece who's a lawyer - and she has to cope with
it all the time. Apparently it's considered normal.
And you're expected to put up with it and not complain.

cont'd ...

I watched Q&A last night. A young law student
asked the panel what could be done to stop
harrassment in the workplace as she felt that all
of us should feel safe in our work environments.

Zero tolerance was the answer. Feeling safe should
be everyone's concern. Male or female.

Paul, Foxy, and you wonder why you get picked on.
You both want us to perceive you as progressive and the voice of the future, well I've got news for you both, we have been, so called, "progressing", since we were created, and I can say confidently, that the record will show that we have in fact been "regressing".
You complain as if 2020 is a better time than 1950.
Well the only response to that is bullsh!t.
All the things you have gone on about, were all much better in 1950 than today.
You complain that women were oppressed and men were overbearing.
Where the hell do you people get off, I don't know where you grew up but that's not the life and environment I remember, in fact as I got older, this place got more rancid and began smelling of so many wrongs, that today it literally stinks.
You go on and on boringly about the poor down trodden women, when in fact you are the problem not what you bleat on about.
As I recall women were if not happy, at least content, satisfied, settled and generally knew where they stood and what to expect and what was expected of them.
Today, who the hell knows WTF is going on.
The women, want this and that and the other thing and more, but in the end they are still not satisfied or happy or content or settled and definitely don't know where they stand or what to expect and what is expected of them.
Your portrayal of a 1950 woman or man for that matter, is at the very least disingenuous and an affront to our forebears or that generation of which we all experienced and I can tell you that what you are going on about is a pathetic attempt at elevating women to a position they are incapable of navigating.
As for the stupid joke of workplace harassment, unless the guy is dragging you by the hair into the toilets and rapes you, anything else is normal and quite harmless.
Think before you type.

Paul, Foxy, and you wonder why you get picked on.
You both want us to perceive you as progressive and the voice of the future, well I've got news for you both, we have been, so called, "progressing", since we were created, and I can say confidently, that the record will show that we have in fact been "regressing".
You complain as if 2020 is a better time than 1950.
Well the only response to that is bullsh!t.
All the things you have gone on about, were all much better in 1950 than today.
You complain that women were oppressed and men were overbearing.
Where the hell do you people get off, I don't know where you grew up but that's not the life and environment I remember, in fact as I got older, this place got more rancid and began smelling of so many wrongs, that today it literally stinks.
You go on and on boringly about the poor down trodden women, you are the problem not what you bleat on about.
As I recall women were if not happy, at least content, satisfied, settled and generally knew where they stood and what to expect and what was expected of them.
Today, who the hell knows WTF is going on.
The women, want this and that and the other thing and more, but in the end they are still not satisfied or happy or content or settled and definitely don't know where they stand or what to expect and what is expected of them.
Your portrayal of a 1950 woman or man for that matter, is at the very least disingenuous and an affront to our forebears of that generation of which we all experienced and I can tell you that what you are going on about is a pathetic attempt at elevating women to a position they are incapable of navigating.

Ooops'I still have trouble entering posts.
I thought I had not posted, because somehow I could not see it come up, but for some reason it was there as it is quite obvious now.
Sorry about the second posting, that's me off air till the my posting time clicks back.

I go along with that ALTRAV. Women had it made in the late 40s & 50s, at least those who's men came home from WW11 did. It has been all down hill since then.

Picture this Townsville 1949. Dad managed a shoe store, & my mother was a house wife. Not exactly high society. She played Bridge Wednesday afternoon, & tennis Friday afternoon, & they both played on Saturday. Tuesday the washer woman came & did the washing, & some ironing. Many of the neighbors had house boys or Marys.

We had one of those new luxury gadgets called a fridge, great mum could make ice cream, something not yet often available in the shops. Before that the ice man delivered ice to the ice box every day bar Sunday.

A soft drink truck called weekly as did the Chinese fruiterer, the baker & milkmen called daily. Mum walked to town weekly to place our order which were delivered Tuesday. I walked a mile to school, as did all kids.

It was too soon after the low wages for service men for most to afford a car, so dad cycled to work, usually with the bank manager next door. In the wet season they rode in just a pair of shorts, with their work clothes wrapped in ex army waterproof ground sheets. No plastic bags yet.

In those days we had pay packets. Many times I saw dad, the bank manager next door, & other kids fathers hand their unopened pay packets to the little lady, who usually handled the family budget. She would hand the man his pocket money, about 10 bob back then, & me my 9 pence pocket money.

Yep late 40s, early 50s most women had it about as good as it could get. It's been all down hill since then, & with womens libbers it is only going to go further down.

Paul, why are you currying all this favor with your lady? Have you been up to no good, & are trying to get back into the good books?

Paul, Hassy has a point.
I am rather curious and somewhat confused by your continual blind adoration of women.
I am truly curious, and I'm not being facetious, you display a very intense and passionate concern for the welfare or well being of women.
If there is one thing I can assure you of is that women, like the blacks and other groups, are more than well represented and looked after extremely well.
It's the men that need backing now, I would have thought you might have kept a little of that female concern for the men.
But upon reflection, I cannot recall you ever standing up for men.
In fact, I find it sad that there is little to no attention given to the men's plight.
I believe it's time that the men started to regain their rightful place on that throne of authority once more, thereby restoring the balance of power in the all the right places.

ALTRAV,

1) I have always been supported and encouraged in
whatever I wanted to do by my husband, family,
colleagues, and my bosses at work. I have never
felt oppressed and my husband is certainly not
overbearing. I've actually never known any
overbearing men.

2) Labels like "progressive" don't interest me.
Labels in general belong on jars not people.

3) I'm not in the habit of complaining.
I'm more into solving.

4) I didn't say women were oppressed and men
were overbearing.
You did.

5) Your knowledge of today's women is sadly lacking.

6) You appear to have no understanding,
of what Paul and I were discussing.

7) You appear to be clueless how normal men and women
in today's world inter-act and live.

8) You appear not to understand some of the problems
that some women face in their work environments.

9) The world has moved on from the 1950s.

ALTRAV,

In today's world - men don't insist on their place
of "authority" as you put it.

They are working together as a team sharing
responsibilities.

Today a person's individual human qualities rather
than his or her biological sex are the primary
measure of a person's worth and achievement.

Men being the dominant sex and women being subordinate
to them, today is not the "natural"state of affairs
that it once was, passing it down from generation to
generation of their culture.

Things today have changed. And whether you recognize that
or not - nobody really cares.

But if you want to be taken seriously you need to stop
sounding like a dinosaur - and educate yourself to
the realities of how real people live.

Foxy, NO!
YOU need to wake up to the real world, all that you said was YOUR take on the world today, and not so at all.
You don't get to pontificate and predicate to me or anyone else either on this forum or else-wear for that matter.
Your attempt at pushing your agenda is as usual moot.
You don't want to hear it but there are still some men out there who have not had their stones ripped off them and whether you like it or not, what gets your goat is that men ARE still the dominant sex and the women subordinates.
The fact that you have this particular arrangement with your husband only means you have an arrangement specific to you two.
Your marital arrangements have no bearing and are not typical of a "normal" marriage.
I never understood what was wrong with being a woman, and yes I refer to 1950.
If your example is typical of today's marriages, then I suggest you do what you do best and research the amount of divorces.
Not even touching on the un-married couples, and those who had to get married because they got pregnant, and all because of a provocative and slutty lifestyle.
The evidence is out there for all to see, if you want to see it.
You speak as if 1950's was a bad era, well your wrong.
Do not profess to know or speak of something you know NOTHING about.
Where were you in the 50's?
I was there, I lived it, I remember it as if it was yesterday.
I lived through it and it was far better than today.
I have learned one thing, when debating with you, and that is, you are fixated on something and no end of discussion convinces you to consider ALL sides of a debate.
All that you have said and have yet to say is only your opinions and beliefs, they do not represent the truth about what you might be debating or discussing, or what is the "real" world, only the world in YOUR head.

This has nothing to do with what altrav said. His words were very pointed.

With this covid blunder going on women should be prepared to stand back and let jobs fill with men first, unless you are a lone worker.
If women push the boundaries men of today will stand back and stay at home. The male of today are not as astute as they used to be years ago. Marriage has gone out the window, casual shacking up is the new norm as they don't like the idea of being tied to one place.
How will the country ever make soldiers out of this lot.

The idea of femininity pushing stupid ideas of babies not having a sex relegated until they are 4 years of age is right out there.

Abortion is something else i am not a human baby expert but i am a pig expert. When piglets are born it takes 7 days for the nervous system to be connected, that is why we castrate within that time without anesthetic. Is there a difference between babies and piglets.

Don't worry Foxy, Il Duce is only firing up in his usual style.

ALTRAV said; "that's me off air" more like off the planet!

You bunch of Rip Van Winkle's need to realise the world has moved on from your idyllic 1950, Australia has moved on, yes its the 20th year of the 21st century, unbelievable as it is. Hassy with the silver spoon (full of home made ice cream) in his mouth. I know you can't have no more Aunt Mary's to do the washing, no coolie to scrub the floors, no old Chinaman to bring you vegies. Nah! no more black and yellow fellas to wait on you hand and foot! It really is a shame.

Hi Foxy, this is what the retro brigade see for women. Not sure if its Old Mr and Mrs Hassy or the old ALTIE folks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB5TOsS5EyI

Hassy you ask; Paul, why are you currying all this favor with your lady? Have you been up to no good, & are trying to get back into the good books? Nah no need Hassy, I'm always in the good books, cause I understand women better than most males. I can see things from their perspective, as well as my own.

"Is there a difference between babies and piglets." yes there is Riely, but its all hogwash!

Paul, sorry but you failed once more.
My reference to "that's me off air" was regarding that particular thread, as I thought I was close to using up my posting allowance, so calm down go take your meds, I will abstain when I feel the need to, in the meantime your not going to get away with "man slaughter" or "female over adoration" while I'm around to bring you back into line.

Hi Paul,

All any one of us can do is speak from our own
experiences in life. Which as I have pointed out for me
have been very positive with few problems thanks to the
support of my husband, family, friends, and colleagues,
including bosses at work.

I've gone on to acknowledge the fact that not every
woman's experiences has been as positive as mine and that
there are problems in our society that still need to be
addressed.

What will the final shape of Australian gender roles be?
Sexual equality does not necessarily mean gender similarity
or a "unisex" society. It does not necessarily 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 what's currently happening
now - in which many alternative lifestyles and roles are
acceptable for both men and women. My husband and I are a
team. We work together for the good of our family. We
always have. We support each other.

In any case as I've stated earlier - what seems to matter
more to most couples today is - not a matter of whose
gender is in control but working together as a team for
the good of the family.

Today men are 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. Like the female role, the
masculine role is now more ambiguous, more flexible, more
subject to interpretation by the individual.

Resolving this kind of ambiguity is part
of the challenge of social and cultural change.
The " ME BOSS - YOU OBEY!"
syndrome does not bode well today with most people - except
perhaps in some traditional cultures and religions.

Today a person's individual human qualities, rather than his
or her biological sex is the primary measure of that person's
worth and achievement.

Foxy, all that we can say to your vague attempts at validation is;
We are all mindful of the fact that your comments are totally and completely of your creation and beliefs.
The small amount of neuters who even closely resemble your fantasy of the "modern" family man, are absolutely NOT the norm or the future.
If you got your head out of your books and computer for a change and took it out the door into the "real" world, you would find that things may not be as in the 50's, but they are certainly not as you describe today and the few that are, are just that, few.
When women decide that their life was much better in the 50's than today, they will return to it, with vigour.
They will come to learn that being a woman has certain advantages and that attempting to force themselves into jobs and lifestyles clearly not suited or designed for women is definitely not the way to go or worthwhile.
Women have destroyed what was a natural family environment by choosing to be selfish and self centered.
They have disrupted what was once a well oiled team, not this wussy rubbish you describe.
They have destroyed the natural order, such as, having given birth it is a matter of nature, that the mother nurtures and rears the child and slowly the father steps in to get involved more as the child then grows up on the way to being an adult.
There is no value to the purpose of life, (the family) if we have this dysfunctional mess of today's example of what you call a "family".
Anyway, from your own comments you confess that you had the assistance of friends and family to enable you and your lifestyle to succeed.
So by your own admission, your idea of marriage is a failure without external support, of ALL the factors involved to make it work.
People like you and Paul prattle on about how good things are today and maligning the "good ole days", ever stop to notice the word, GOOD?

ALTRAV,

I am not answerable to you in any way.

And, I suggest that you are the one out of touch here.

You have made a lot of statements. You are doing a
lot of demonizing. And how much is based on evidence?
All you are doing is merely giving your beliefs and
opinions which in most cases are less relevant
to the rest of us
than the ones you choose to brush aside.

Hi Foxy, Don't forget we have to tell our daughters, granddaughters, great granddaughter etc how much better their life was back in 1950's. Got that from ALTRAV, aka Methuselah himself; "When women decide that their life was much better in the 50's than today" Wow, have to tell the 14 year old granddaughter that one next time she's around, she may have forgotten. Might even play her favourite Perry Como record just for the nostalgia, she'll love that one!

Dear Paul,

As I've said previously - it's often best not
to argue with some people. Just let them be
wrong. Especially when they demonize everything
you say. It's like watering dead plants.

Foxy, Paul, you know I'm right.
I won't rub it in because I think you're both having enough trouble coping with your true beliefs, versus your ideological beliefs.
Foxy you ask for evidence, clutching straws are we?
I gave you the evidence, it is you who can NEVER respond with anything resembling a true account of what IS, instead of your flowery version of either what it should be or could be.
YOU choose to use the word demonising, I cannot recall EVER using it.
I choose to tell the truth, the true situations, and not cherry pick and fantasize.
Anyway, it matters not what you opine, because it is just that YOUR opinion.
Oh, and here's something else you don't want to hear let alone acknowledge; my comments are based on reality and are real, yours are based on a perception of marriage and life of a very narrow mind, life and experience, and I would emphasize experience!

ALTRAV,

Your posts continue to display signs of insecurity.

Self-praise may give you a warm and fuzzy feeling
but to most people kisses on the mirror are
signs of an insecure person looking for approval.
Self-love may be admirable where you live, but it
does not bode well with most people. It's rather
narrow and limiting to an audience of one.

Some things sound better if they don't come from you.
Self-praise is no recommendation.

You need to tone things down a bit if you want people
to listen. If not, continue to talk to yourself.
I'm sure you'll always impress.

Some things sound better if they don't come from you.
Self-praise is no recommendation.
Foxy,
Is that why you so heavily rely on links & quotes by others & keep telling us how right you are ?

So hows the gender wars working out?
Did everyone here get what they wanted?
Did we reach any consensus?

No.

That's because this shite is 100% divisive.
It causes arguments that go around and around in circles.
- With no chance of resolve.

You people are idiots that can't see the bigger picture in things.

This thread proves the human race is doomed.
Humans all across the planet will act this way and argue over the same stuff endlessly everywhere without any foundation or hope of rising above it.

Males and females fighting with each other...
It's kind of like saying the human race has developed a split personality.

You people need to stand back and look at the pro's and cons of every argument, and judge things on merit.

Many arguments on both sides hold merit.

In the bigger picture 'empowering women' is code word for 'emasculating men' which is useful when you want to destroy a nations national sovereignty for the purposes of globalism.

Turn on the ABC news channel 24 and tell me the ratio of men to women
You're trying to say a problem exists when it doesn't.
Most of the leaders on TV - are women.

2020 is The Muppet Show.
You've mostly all got someones hand up your dates, the sad part is none of you realise it.
How much of the stuff between your ears was original thought based on reality and experience rather than some crap you read that someone else put there?

Or maybe should I just go back to:
"Fight, fight, fight!!" ?

Might as well...

AC, my reasons and justification for continually commenting or responding to others, is because I find that when I read a comment which clearly is not true or promotes a wrong view or opinion, I can't just sit back and let it go unchallenged, for fear of it being taken as fait-accompli, when I know it just is not so, or there is another version of events which paints a completely different picture, and in some cases exposes the complete opposite to what someone is trying to promote as fact/true.
I confess I abhor untruths and hate anyone lying to me or attempting to push a very bias or unrealistic agenda, view or opinion.
Ideologies are also a fallacy, they are not made of real and tangible things, but based on fantasy.
Someone speaks of their idyllic marriage.
That may be the case for them, but it is not typical, it might be for some even in the future, but I say with conviction and concern for the couples of the future, that is/will not be the status-quo in the future, just another minority of air head groups forcing their narrow view and agenda on others as if theirs is THE best way and the future of marriage.
Your comment about 'empowering women' is a very poignant and accurate description of these types of marriages.
A marriage is not a partnership in the way some here describe or wish.
A marriage is a partnership with each having a very distinct and pre-set set of rules and duties.
In any partnership, like a marriage, (including business), they only succeed when each party does what they do best according to their physiological, psychological, natural, historical programming and disposition, and switching roles is only entertained when the other party is not able to perform their part of the 'contract' or duties.
And even then, there are physical and other limitations to what they can do.

Hi Foxy,

Its my perception that you are the only regular enlightened female poster on the Forum these days. We had a couple of others previously, but they seemed to give it away debating the Old Fart Brigade of crusty old men. Unfortunately being the "one and only", I can see the difficulty and the frustration in making your point against so much stick in the mud opposition, with their "things were so much better in the days of the dinosaur". Its one thing to grow old, it quite another to only think old.

Dear Paul,

Thank You for your concern. However, I'm learning not
to take things personally. How can I when in some
cases with some people - it takes all of my self-
control (although I do lose it at times) not to react.
The mental gap between myself and these people is way
off the planet. I often have to ask myself - "Where
do they get these people?" "What planet do they live in?"
But of course we know the answers. Mentally they're stuck
in the twilight zone. Not today's reality.

Luckily I don't come across these kinds of people very often
in my daily life - very few of u s live under the "old system"
where everyone had their assigned roles, and knew what they
were, and where most people unquestioningly behaved as they
were supposed to. The system constrained people, but it
freed them from the need to make choices. Hence why some
still prefer this way of life.

Today there are fewer constraints, but the individual now has
the liberty (or the burden) to choose their own path to
self-fulfillment. Times change, but apparently not for some.

Hey Big Nana, it looks like you are of the wrong political hew to be considered enlightened by Paul.

Hope this doesn't spoil your day too much.

Hassy old chum, as one who once suggested on the Forum, nuking 200,000,000 Pakistanis, (think I forgot) men, women and children, on the grounds of "get them before they get us" you are hardly in a position to suggest anything. I have mentioned the above to you several times since the first instance, but like the skunk you fail to acknowledge the smell. Want to repeat that idea of yours?

BTW, you are mentioned in my above post, not by name, but by attitude.

Foxy, Paul, so you both foolishly believe that today's world is a better one than the past.
I now know you are both locked away and live in a world between your ears.
Do you ever read a newspaper, watch any of the news on TV, just to mention two, sources of current affairs and information, not to mention what is actually happening outside your doors?
You criticise and bag my input, either in comment or question form.
You cannot be so set in your ways that you are both incapable of considering another point of view, other than yours, MIGHT be right, or at least, worth consideration.
Have you not wondered why I don't bother responding to or comment on some of the MANY boring comments you both bore us with?
And your continual patting each other on the back, as if you both need validation.
It does not bode well for you both in the way you praise each other for little or no worthwhile contribution to this forum, other than one takes pleasure in mocking people and the other takes pleasure in patronising them.
I am not so magnanimous towards those who will not admit when they are wrong, or at least consider it.

I'll bet the poms now wish they had let the Japs have Pakistan, rather than let the Pakistanis have their capital city, London.

Of course you need foresight in this world, something so many lefties are missing, or they would not generate so many disastrous unforeseen eventualities.

ALTRAV,

Are you for real?

Sorry, but I can't take you seriously any more.

Go back and re-read your post.

And then tell us that you seriously expect an answer.
And for us to inter-act with you.

Dear Paul,

Is this guy for real?

The cheek - God talk about being delusional!

Foxy, in response;

Yes, I am for real, more real than you both can imagine!

Stop lying, you have NEVER taken me seriously, so why start now?

I went back and re-read my post, and it is concise and very clear.

Err, NO I have NEVER expected an answer or for you to interact with me, because I knew you were incapable or unwilling to do so.

As for being " for real", I have not only answered that question already, even though it was not directed at me this time, but felt compelled to enlighten Paul so he won't have to think to answer your question.
Now the last point, you accuse me of being delusional, well I know for a fact I am not.
But what I am is sick of people who think they have something worthwhile to say, but instead are delusional themselves when it is revealed that they don't have a thought or opinion of their own creation but have to refer to others or other mediums to enable them to interact with others.
It bears a stunning resemblance to a very petulant and disturbed child we have been forced to endure by her arrogant attacks on world institutions and generally the people of the world.
I believe I have covered your concerns and more.
Thank you for your response, I know it must have been difficult.

Dear Paul,

If ALTRAV doesn't like what we post and he still watches
everything we do. Obviously he is an admirer. (smile).

Hi Foxy,

As real as the bloke who once claimed on the Forum to be a millionaire Bentley owner, then recently claimed to be a "blue collar worker" Hummm. I think of him as Il Duce, bald head, chiselled jaw, arms folded, head nodding in recognition of his supreme greatness. He could be a budding Julius Caesar for all we know. Every now and then I like to rattle his cage, just to read his next post to see him go berserk.

Hi Paul,

He probably had a very domineering mother or Nona.
I suspect the women in his family were very
controlling - hence his discomfort with women
not only in position of power - but in general.

Dear Paul,

I've just found a link that may explain a great deal:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/worst-treatment-of-women-in-europe-1.587100

It's worth a read.

Paul, it really isn't!

Is ALTIE taking a leaf out of good old Silvio's book? Yep, me thinks that Silvio could be the roll model behind ALTRAV's problem, two peas in a pod you could say.

Good one Hassy, by any chance did you charge up San Juan Hill with Teddy Roosevelt? July 19th 1898? Its right in your time scale.

Hi Paul,

So many things make sense now.

On a positive note:
I caught this on Landline last night -

http://www.abc.net.au/landline/are-you-bogged-mate:-a-life-saving-mental-health/12423196

I thought it was a step in the right direction.
A step away from the 'All men are rapists and abusers' narrative anyway.

Hi AC,

Thank You for the link.

Truly positive.

Thanks AC.

Foxy, Paul,

I did not respond to your last childish quibs and slurs as I felt it best for the readers to see what kind of people we are dealing with.
Also when I am expelled from OLO I will have recourse for redemption and the cause of my more questionable behaviour and comments.
Paul, in response to your drivel about me being a "millionaire blue collar worker".Apparently I was wrong so, I have decided to take you seriously, and in the interest of truth and clarification, I'll explain yet again.
From a very young age I worked on projects and designs of my own creation, evenings and weekends, based on the mantra, "I LIVE TO WORK and not "I WORK TO LIVE'.
And I loved it!
So if you have a focused and mature mindset to succeed at something and you are born with a particular talent, it isn't very hard to profit from it, without ripping people off as is the norm today.
So Paul if my wealth and success is bothering you, it's not bothering me, in fact I'm quite happy and settled seeing as how I am not reliant on the govt for anything, (and yes I paid my taxes as per the tax laws) How about you?
So to further refresh your memory, I live in a rather unnecessarily large house with too many bedrooms and oh yes, even kitchens.
We live on the coast near a very prominent marina, (sold my last boat, as I did not use it much and I don't much like the ocean)
although I still own a 30 odd foot Scarab (you know like Miami Vice) that's been parked up because I can't be bothered to put it in a out of the water, might get around to selling it too one day, if I can be bothered, or I could give it to one of the boys if they want it.
Now let me not forget the aircraft, plural, fixed and rotary wing (helicopter to the plebs), got bored with flying so got rid of the
last one.

cont...........

Now as to the cars you find so irritating, yes your right I have had too many cars to mention, mind you I could not keep them all for lack of storage space, although the new house I speak of on the coast has a approx 400sqm garage comprising of the footprint of the house as it is built on a sloping block, obviously sloping towards the coast.
It can park ten cars comfortably.
Unfortunately I have a few more than that, not all Rolls Royce's and Bentley's of course.
I won't bother elaborating as I feel you've already left or gone to sleep.
But suffice to say, Yes I have done well, and of my own doing.
If you find that confronting or feel threatened or sidelined, that is of your doing and opinion, just the same as your rancid opinion of my so called hate speech.
I hope I have clarified yet another misnomer you both suffer from.

ALTRAV, how "pleased" you must have been to see a young progressive Aboriginal woman, Tara June Winch, take out the prestigious 'Miles Franklin Award' with her "fictionish" book 'The Yield'. Alas with only 50 copies and 150 holds at Brisbane City Library it might be some time before I get to read it. Then again I could borrow your copy when you have finished with it. Fat chance!

BTW, a good read is Melissa Lukashenko's, 'Too Much Lip' last years winner, and another outstanding female Aboriginal writer. Another fat chance!

Can't say I have ever watched this program of yours 'Miami Vice', sounds like trashy rubbish watched by mindless morons. BTW, what channel do you tune in to get this program for yourself?

Paul, I looked up the names you have mentioned so as to be better informed.
Sorry mate, but get back to me when you find a REAL ABORIGINE and not a GREY WANNABEE!
I can and more importantly or relevantly, be proud of the fact that I am an Italian Aborigine.
Why?
Because both my parents were Italian or pure bloods.
There is nothing more to say or add to this fact.
I have come to realise the absolute futility of trying to convince those who choose to live and propagate a lie or mis-representation.
But there you have it, truth is what someone wants it to be!

Altrav,

"Italian or pure bloods ... ?

No Greek, Arab, Maltese, North African, Goth, Lombard (i.e. Saxon) or Hun ancestry ? Yeah, right.

Yonks ago, I found a copy of a passage from Machiavelli's 'The Prince' written in the sixty-or-so dialects of Italian, with obvious influences from everything from Slovenian to French, Catalan to German, Albanian (cf. 'Albanese') and Greek.

Like the rest of us, all Europeans are mongrels. If a European country had an empire, then it's got a mixed population, that's how empires work. The Roman Empire lasted for a couple of thousand years, and spread from Scotland well down into Africa, and from Morocco across to Persia.

Many sold off into slavery: "Non Angli, sed angeli", as one bloke said about English (or maybe Irish?) children in a slave market.

So don't kid yourself, Altrav :)

Joe

Loudmouth,

I know you know better.
My point is based on the true and current status of someone.
I am going to take your explanation as if you do understand the difference between races.
No one is challenging or proposing that there is not foreign blood in the history of a nation, through wars and invasions.
What I speak of is that that the current generation is not of pure blood in that time has diluted any foreign blood, many times over and the current offspring are clearly NOT of pure blood when we see that they present as anything but BLACK!
I refer you back to Bropho as but one of the blacks who agree with me.