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.

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."

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.

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

By whom?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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 ?

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

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

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


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

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


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?

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

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.

this is a subjective comment

No it is objective. It has been measured.

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).

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.

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.)

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

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.

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.

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


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

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

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


As per the previous posts- Even women can read 

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

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.