http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/New-political-party-for-women-launched/2007/06/28/1182624038705.html

A new political party is set to contest this year's federal election with one clear goal - giving women a voice.

The What Women Want Australia (WWW) party, launched in Brisbane, said it wanted to improve Australian political life and policy by involving more women.

WWW founder, mother-of-six Justine Caines, said there was a lot of talk about women taking a greater role in politics but little was being done.

"The major parties behave like boys' clubs and despite some wonderful female MPs the role of women in Australian life needs to be enhanced," Ms Caines said in a statement.

Ms Caines said women mostly wanted what they needed.

"Issues such as supportive maternity care, paid maternity leave, access to quality childcare and support for carers are seen as 'soft issues' and do not receive the monetary support they deserve," she said.

Sounds good and worth looking into in regard to preference votes.  There are many other issues apart from childcare, maternity etc. - there is still the matter of equal rights as far as wages, glass ceilings and generally having a voice in the way this country is governed at a State and Federal level.

If a women's political party had some power in the Senate - wars and nuclear power certainly wouldn't be on the agenda.

It should be banned for being sexist.
There is wages equality and no glass ceiling. People get paid/promoted on their ability and effort.
Men work harder, longer, in more dangerous conditions. Therefore on average we get paid more.
Everyone gets a say- they vote.

The issues freediver has put forward is they want more money given freely to them.
Nothing new in that.


Will ponder on "The Mens Party."

Sprintcyclist - your post sounded sexist.  Yes men do work in hard dangerous jobs and deserve more pay for those roles, but I'm talking about other work situations where women perform the same duties, but receive less pay under another title.  There is a glass ceiling out there - particularly in Australia where women can't attain the same roles as males because of the "boys club" especially in our parliamentary and corporate sector.

You can't say that men generally work harder - as it is a well known fact that women work far longer hours than men - especially those raising families.  

In fact I think it may be listed in Skeptic's post on the 2006 census.  ::)

The glass ceiling can be explained, at least in part, by differences in the sexes in ability. A small difference in the average intelligence between men and women, or a difference in the standard deviation, will not have a significant impact on the number of women able to perform most jobs to the same ability as their male colleagues. However, when it comes to the top jobs it can have a huge impact. I think that men far outrank women at both ends of the scale.

Quote:

However, when it comes to the top jobs it can have a huge impact. I think that men far outrank women at both ends of the scale.

Comments like this show quite clearly why we need a womens' party.  Australia is renowned for its sexist and in many cases backward thinking males.

Who can argue on equality with a male?  Only another male.

Australia is renowned for its sexist and in many cases backward thinking males.

By whom?

By thinking females who have lived in other Western countries and compared their men to Australian men.



Quote:

This sexist idealogy--namely, agressive masculinity--originated when the first settlers of the British "convict colony" -- 586 men and 192 girls and women ("damned whores") -- landed in Botany Bay and embarked on a run of drunken hellraising, with the male convicts chasing the female convicts. As a result of this night, and many others that followed it, colonial reformers later called for the migration of "good and virtuous women" from Britain to Australia to serve as wives, mothers and, as mentioned before, "God's police--a force for moral improvement." Thus, to this day, women in Australia represent, in the eyes of Australian men, both sex objects and "promoters of morality." In addition to the way in which they perceive their female counterparts, another hinderance in the evolution of sexual roles and masculine behaviour has been the way in which men perceive their male counterparts. The tradition of "mateship"--the reliance of a man on his "pal"--stems from Australia's history of the "lonely, womanless and often dangerous life in the bush or outback." Often, pairs of convicts who settled into the remote bushland to run a farm and raise livestock grew "mutually dependent on one another to the point of homosexuality." As Robert Hughes writes in The Fatal Shore, "The feeling of reliance on one's mate would lie forever at the heart of masculine behaviour in Australia." Other events which contributed to this sense of masculinity, as well as this idea of mateship, include the wars in South Africa, Korea, and Vietnam, in which Australian men gained a reputation as "roughhouse brawlers on and off the battlefields."

Do you disagree with my comments on the statistical distibution of intelligence, or do you not think aptitude matters?

Aptitude and statistical distibution of intelligence are two different matters.

Of course I believe in aptitude - but there are many highly intelligent beings who have little aptitude in matters beyond their specific interests.

As far as statistical distribution of intelligence - are you trying to say that statistics say that men are more intelligent than females and have greater aptitude?

thanks mantra.  yep, any guy that stands up for mens rights generally gets called a sexist.

taking into account all the home work. ie the stuff outside the house as well as inside, the figures are remarkably similar for house work. men do do a slight bit more, also the more dangerous stuff.
At work, we do much more.

sexistsprintcyclist

As far as statistical distribution of intelligence - are you trying to say that statistics say that men are more intelligent than females and have greater aptitude?

No. That is the sort of generalisation a sexist (or ignorant) person would make.

The remarks weren't meant to offend you Sprintcyclist - but I think we have to agree to disagree.

I can imagine this debate getting out of control.

Quote:

Do you disagree with my comments on the statistical distibution of intelligence, or do you not think aptitude matters?

You've inferred that males outrank females in intelligence - so how is my comment supposed to be ignorant?
 
You made the statement.

You've inferred that males outrank females in intelligence

No I haven't.

The glass ceiling can be explained, at least in part, by differences between the sexes in ability. A small difference in the average intelligence between men and women, or a difference in the standard deviation, skew or other characteristic of the distribution, will not have a significant impact on the number of women able to perform most jobs to the same ability as their male colleagues. However, when it comes to the top jobs it can have a huge impact. I think that men far outrank women at both ends of the scale.

You women already have a bloody voice- what else do you want? abo treatment as well?

I'll say this again - due to the above comments from only a small proportion of the male population, though representative of many - I for one will welcome a Womens Party.

---

But do you disagree with my comments mantra?

Good on you mantra .
I was not offended, we are quite mature enough to agree to disagree.

Even from the piccie you posted, shows women want control over everything.
They don't want equality, they want to win and every unfair advantage they can get helps.

Some women are avaricious and shameless enough to just keep asking and asking and asking.
Why go out and work for it, when you can connive, lie, grovel and weedle for it ?  Much less effort.

The women got a killling through the divorce courts.  That injustice has gone now.
Us men get a fraction of the health care budget women get. And we live 7 years less.
Afraid the sympathy for women cause they are women has all gone.  

have fun in the womens party. Whatever they want will be at us mens expense.
You don't expect any real guy to support that, do you ?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 28^th, 2007 at 2:07pm:

The women got a killling through the divorce courts.

yeah, i know, Greg Norman's ex-wife had to settle for a tiny $100 million.  ::)


Quote:

have fun in the womens party. Whatever they want will be at us mens expense. You don't expect any real guy to support that, do you ?

the woman's party doesn't need support from men, since according to the latest census stats women outnumber men in Australia.

No doubt all those male suicides contributed. Better get more funding for women's mental health while they have the upper hand....

If I understood you correctly I disagree with your comments Freediver.  You sound quite cynical sometimes - but then you would have your reasons.

Sprintcyclist - I can see where you are coming from - I could also cite almost exactly what you have written from a women's perspective.

Not all men are badly done by - neither are all women.  Unfortunately either sex who ends up having a bad deal feels as though the opposite sex has the advantage.

mantra - Your'e a good woman.   I'm happy to agree to disagree with a good woman.

I don't think you understand them correctly mantra.

There are some high paying jobs where women are actually preferred, but where men far outnumber them simply because there aren't enough women willing to do the job.

freediver wrote on Jun 28^th, 2007 at 2:41pm:

There are some high paying jobs where women are actually preferred, but where men far outnumber them simply because there aren't enough women willing to do the job.

can u give examples of such jobs where woman are preferred?

Driving the large haul trucks on mines.

freediver wrote on Jun 28^th, 2007 at 3:00pm:

Driving the large haul trucks on mines.

And there is nothing wrong with that. I am applying for a heavy rigid license soon too..so i can apply for jobs at Mines in WA.

If a woman can do the job why not?

so i can apply for jobs at Mines in WA.

God forbid!

How to lower the average IQ of Western Australia in two easy steps  ::)

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 28^th, 2007 at 11:52am:

It should be banned for being sexist. There is wages equality and no glass ceiling. People get paid/promoted on their ability and effort. Men work harder, longer, in more dangerous conditions. Therefore on average we get paid more. Everyone gets a say- they vote. The issues freediver has put forward is they want more money given freely to them. Nothing new in that. Will ponder on "The Mens Party."

Mantra says

If a women's political party had some power in the Senate - wars and nuclear power certainly wouldn't be on the agenda.

mantra very true..a woman would do things very differently, especially on environmental and humanitarian issues.

FD says

I think that men far outrank women at both ends of the scale.

this is a subjective comment. Men and women are equally intelligent in their own ways. men have a more logitisical and calculating brain ansd some see this as a calulated cool and masterful mind. Women are more driven by hormones, which gives them ,as perceived by some men, a hysterical edge. Not so..just different ways of doing the same job. Men and women are no doubt more superior in some feilds which are inherently innate to their fields of natural  expertise.

IQSRLOW wrote on Jun 28^th, 2007 at 3:24pm:

so i can apply for jobs at Mines in WA. God forbid! How to lower the average IQ of Western Australia in two easy steps  ::)

Is this the Liberal stooge power that keeps idiots like Howard in office..it figures.!!!

get a job IQ..see you at the mines.

this is a subjective comment

No it is objective. It has been measured.

by whom and or what Freediver?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_intelligence

Most studies unambiguously find that men as a population are more varied than women in g (i.e. they have a higher variance and therefore there are more men than women at the extremes of ability).

freediver wrote on Jun 28^th, 2007 at 4:05pm:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_intelligence Most studies unambiguously find that men as a population are more varied than women in g (i.e. they have a higher variance and therefore there are more men than women at the extremes of ability).

1- your link doesnt work

2- and also without reading your link..why just focus on the extremes, even if there were something in what you say?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_intelligence

Because it is the extremes that are relevant to the 'glass ceiling' debate.

---

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Boys-and-girls-learn-differently/2007/07/02/1183229020651.html

Boys and girls are different by nature; their brains are different, and they learn in different ways.

But that's no reason for parents to rush out and switch their kids from co-educational to segregated schools, or vice-versa.

The key lies in teaching their teachers about the differences, says American educator Michael Gurian, keynote speaker at a conference this week at Newcastle University in NSW.

The parenting and family expert said the old "nature versus nurture" argument was over.

"What we really need to do is nurture the nature," said Mr Gurian, founder of the Colorado-based Gurian Institute for training and researching how gender affects learning.

"New brain scanning technology clearly illustrates differences in the ways boys and girls react to stimuli, activity and rest, and debunks talk that these differences are simply the result of nurture.

I wonder what the party thinks of this proposal:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Call-to-give-dads-paternity-leave/2007/07/09/1183833357405.html

All dads should be paid two weeks paternity leave to improve wellbeing and work productivity, a leading group of policy researchers recommends.

The idea was announced in Sydney at a forum on work-family policy.

Eleven policy leading lights from across Australia made a range of suggestions including allowing workers to choose part-time over full-time work, more work-from-home options and restricting long or unsocial hours.

"A growing body of international research shows that giving workers more say over their work-time arrangements improves the wellbeing of workers and their households," said University of Sydney Work and Family Policy co-convener Dr Elizabeth Hill.

---

No need to legislate paternity leave: Hockey

http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,22043317-31037,00.html

WORKPLACE Relations Minister Joe Hockey has rejected research showing unsocial work hours are imposing on family life and the suggestion all fathers should have two weeks' paid parental leave.

He says the Federal Government has been making improvements that have eased the pressure on working parents and there is no need to legislate paternity leave.

"The answer is to encourage businesses and encourage employees to look for flexibility, to negotiate flexible arrangements at the workplace and not to go back to the bad old days, which the Labor Party wants where these working relationships are controlled out of the Industrial Relations Commission in Melbourne," he told Sky News.

"It would be unfair to small business in particular to say that they have to pay the money.

"In the last Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) report, 47 per cent of all female employees and 40 per cent of all male employees have access to paid parental leave.

"That's a massive increase over the only other data collected, which was in 2000."

If women controlled the world....

http://www.ozpolitic.com/funny/if-women-controlled-the-world.html

http://www.ozpolitic.com/funny/

---

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21777884-12274,00.html

IF one more person says the world would be a better place if it was ruled by women, I'll scream. Loudly, with lots of unladylike grimaces and flying spit.
Feminists are right to say chicks should fill about half the planet's leadership positions. But claiming this will result in a better, kinder, gentler globe is unmitigated crap, right up there with "I don't usually do this sort of thing on a first date" and (from Brazilian waxers) "it won't grow back for at least six weeks".

Contrary to popular mythology, women are not the fairer sex.

The harsh truth is that they can be as devious, vindictive and violent as the next man.

One of history's most prolific killers was Erzsebet Bathory, a Hungarian countess who tortured and murdered hundreds of girls on her family estate in Transylvania in the 16th century.

Bathory's modus operandi was to slit her victims' throats and bathe in their warm blood, sometimes after setting their pubes on fire.

Very feminine.

No doubt she would have loved a cup of tea and a little chitchat with Katherine Knight from rural NSW. This former abattoir worker was jailed for life in 2001 after stabbing her de facto partner 37 times and then skinning him, boiling his head and baking pieces of his buttocks with vegies.

Very Country Women's Association.

New research shows women are taking a leading role in terrorist attacks and blowing themselves up more often in suicide bombings.

They're also stepping up their involvement in sex crimes, with a disturbing increase in the number of women teachers arrested for inappropriate relationships with kiddies.

(If you're one of those sniggerers who reckons no sexual attention from a woman is ever unwanted by a bloke, put yourself in the place of the teenage boy gang raped with a rolling pin in Sydney in 2005 and imagine how you'd feel about the two girls charged over the attack. My guess is that it wouldn't be hubba-hubba.)

There may be a few violent extremist women - but overall it's men who commit the violent sexual crimes.  Just by referring to 2 women who were notorious doesn't mean women are basically violent.

I notice that German gay bloke who used to cut up and eat people after sex wasn't mentioned, nor any of the serial killers who are picked up  on a regular basis.

The reason why notorious women are found shocking is because they are outside the norm - whereas it's just expected that males are generally aggressive.

But new research shows women are taking a leading role in terrorist attacks and blowing themselves up more often in suicide bombings.  

freediver wrote on Jul 12^th, 2007 at 12:59pm:

But new research shows women are taking a leading role in terrorist attacks and blowing themselves up more often in suicide bombings.

that may be to escape from the kitchen and the nagging hubby Habibby and the 25 kids~~ he just goes on and on.,..wont wear his burka and and just cries all the time cos he has to change a few nappies and cop a few gratutitous beatings with a stick.

MEN!!!!


http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:egBX7xEi5ZfaWM:http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/rth0555l.jpg

There is an interesting article in the weekend Australian magazine lamenting the stresses and pressures young girls are under and the unexpected results of equal rights and fast communication (internet, mobiles etc). It claimed that young girls were more tribal than ever before, relying more heavily on their peers for guidance and less on adults - they get a narrower source of information on important issues (including suicide). From 1960 to 2004, the ratio of young men to young women appearing before the NSW children's courts narrowed from 14-1 to 4-1. In a shorter time, official rates of delinquancy for girls rose 4 fold. Violent crime used to make up less than 10% of cases where girls appear before the court. Now it is 30%.

The article also claimed that girls got their first period on average at 16 a century ago and it has dropped to twelve. Is this right, and if so, is it a response to dietary problems, hormonal suppliments in our food chain and water, or stress? I always thought that it used to be younger, due to a poorer diet, and has been increasing.

As far as the early physical development of girls - this is correct.  It is just taken for granted now that girls reach puberty far quicker than their mothers did.  I always assumed it was the antibiotics in chicken, but perhaps they are fed better from birth than their mothers, grandmothers etc. were.

I'm not sure about the peer group pressure thing - perhaps in very young teens but have seen no sign of this with older teenage girls - they are too busy thinking about boys, working or studying to worry about what their friends may or may not think.

In fact I find teenage girls outwardly far more confident than my generation were - although it's obvious that many of their emotions are in turmoil, but kept fairly well hidden from the public gaze.

They are under a lot of pressure though.  Males these days are usually resignedly accepted if they get into trouble or appear to be hopeless, but young females are expected to be responsible, ambitious, attractive, polite and strong.  There's no acceptance if a female goes off the rails.

Looking at those statistics Freediver, in regard to crime, is very worrying.  All I can put it down to is lax parenting or the parents are too busy to give their children boundaries - but if they are correct - the children of these children will be a huge burden to our society as they will probably grow up without guidelines to being a   healthy and responsible adult.

I put it down to the fact that females are now being held responsible for their own actions.

The assumption ued to be that "girls" were good, whatever they did.
people are now moreso judged on what they do, not how rapidly they can lie and decieve.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking-news/alp-lets-women-down-on-maternity-leave/2007/07/22/1185042924658.html

Labor's admission that paid maternity leave is too expensive to legislate means both the opposition and the coalition government are letting women down, the Greens say.

Labor's human resources spokeswoman Tanya Plibersek said her party had looked at measures for young families but found them too expensive to turn into policy.

"We'd love to do as much as possible for families with young children but we're looking at something that is potentially extremely expensive," Ms Plibersek told the Ten Network.

freediver wrote on Jun 28^th, 2007 at 11:33am:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/New-political-party-for-women-launched/2007/06/28/1182624038705.html A new political party is set to contest this year's federal election with one clear goal - giving women a voice. The What Women Want Australia (WWW) party, launched in Brisbane, said it wanted to improve Australian political life and policy by involving more women. WWW founder, mother-of-six Justine Caines, said there was a lot of talk about women taking a greater role in politics but little was being done. "The major parties behave like boys' clubs and despite some wonderful female MPs the role of women in Australian life needs to be enhanced," Ms Caines said in a statement. Ms Caines said women mostly wanted what they needed. "Issues such as supportive maternity care, paid maternity leave, access to quality childcare and support for carers are seen as 'soft issues' and do not receive the monetary support they deserve," she said.

I understand they are anti-Nuclear and so therefore I will put them one for the chance!

mantra wrote on Jun 28^th, 2007 at 1:46pm:

I'll say this again - due to the above comments from only a small proportion of the male population, though representative of many - I for one will welcome a Womens Party.

Breaking things up for a sec.

What will this What Women Want party do about pornography and prostitution?

Careful, they also reserve the right to change their minds and act irrationally once every 28 days or so  :D

freediver wrote on Jun 28^th, 2007 at 3:50pm:

this is a subjective comment No it is objective. It has been measured.

How?

keithy wrote on Jul 29^th, 2007 at 11:34pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 28th, 2007 at 3:50pm: this is a subjective comment No it is objective. It has been measured. How?

As per the previous posts- Even women can read  ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_intelligence

IQSRLOW wrote on Jul 29^th, 2007 at 11:33pm:

Careful, they also reserve the right to change their minds and act irrationally once every 28 days or so  :D

He He too true! ;D

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Breastfeeding-protection-bill-launched/2007/08/03/1185648107410.html

Mothers will be able to breastfeed their children without fear of discrimination under new laws to be introduced by the NSW government.

Attorney-General John Hatzistergos has announced the laws, saying he was concerned some mothers, especially those returning to work, stopped breastfeeding because they feared discrimination.

---

Mum cuts off 61-year-old son's allowance

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Mum-cuts-off-61yearold-sons-allowance/2007/08/03/1185648104257.html

A Sicilian mother took away her 61-year-old son's house keys, cut off his allowance and hauled him to the police station because he stayed out late.

Tired of her son's misbehaviour, the pensioner in the central Sicilian city of Caltagirone turned to the police to "convince this blockhead" to behave properly, La Sicilia, one of Sicily's leading newspapers, reported.

Most Italian men still live at home late into their 30s, enjoying their "mamma's" cooking, washing and ironing.

---

Govt to consider baby formula ad ban

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Govt-to-consider-baby-formula-ad-ban/2007/08/09/1186530529510.html

The federal government should ban the advertising of infant formula in a bid to improve breastfeeding rates, a Liberal-led inquiry has recommended.

The major parliamentary inquiry into breastfeeding found the current voluntary advertising code was not tough enough, and the government should adopt a code backed by the World Health Organisation (WHO).

The WHO code, according to the inquiry, "bans all advertising and promotion of products to the general public", and also stops free samples.

Australia was one of the early signatories to the international code, but in 1992 the government instead introduced its own voluntary code.