Sexism in the Senate.
Andrew D
of links:
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/senators/index.htm
Senators Information:
+Senators by State or Territory
+Party Representation in the Senate
+Date of Expiry of Senators' Term of Service
+Senate Office Holders
+Senate Party Leaders
+Senate Whips
+Ministerial Representation in the Senate
+Women Senators
+Senators by date of commencement of service
+Senators by length of service
+Senators by date of birth
+Senators by place of birth
"Women Senators"???
Where's the link for "Men Senators"???
Andy D.
conq...@wantree.com.au
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
DRS
news:wnatives-170...@reggae-17-35.nv.iinet.net.au...
> I was just perusing the Senate web site when I noticed the following list
> of links:
>
> http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/senators/index.htm
>
>
> Senators Information:
> +Senators by State or Territory
> +Party Representation in the Senate
> +Date of Expiry of Senators' Term of Service
> +Senate Office Holders
> +Senate Party Leaders
> +Senate Whips
> +Ministerial Representation in the Senate
> +Women Senators
> +Senators by date of commencement of service
> +Senators by length of service
> +Senators by date of birth
> +Senators by place of birth
>
> "Women Senators"???
>
> Where's the link for "Men Senators"???
It's not needed. Men are not a minority.
--
a sweet young child, brought up in a well-to-do family, sent to an exclusive
school, graduating in law and entering parliament almost invariably turns
into a prick.
Red Symons
Aldis Ozols
news:8ngqeg$ok3$1...@news.ihug.co.nz...
> "Andrew D" <wnat...@omen.net.au> wrote in message
> news:wnatives-170...@reggae-17-35.nv.iinet.net.au...
> > I was just perusing the Senate web site when I noticed the following
list
> > of links:
> >
> > http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/senators/index.htm
> >
> >
> > Senators Information:
> > +Senators by State or Territory
> > +Party Representation in the Senate
> > +Date of Expiry of Senators' Term of Service
> > +Senate Office Holders
> > +Senate Party Leaders
> > +Senate Whips
> > +Ministerial Representation in the Senate
> > +Women Senators
> > +Senators by date of commencement of service
> > +Senators by length of service
> > +Senators by date of birth
> > +Senators by place of birth
> >
> > "Women Senators"???
> >
> > Where's the link for "Men Senators"???
>
> It's not needed. Men are not a minority.
Yes they are. You have ignored the feminists
who periodically scream that women are 54%
of the population (actually, I think the real figure
is 50.4%, but they like bigger numbers).
And before you repeat the old whine that the
majority of men in the Senate supports your
myth of "patriarchy", reflect that those men were
elected by the voters, a _majority_ of whom are
women.
--
How to Lobby Politicians
http://www.zeta.org.au/~aldis/lobby.html
"Reality is whatever doesn't go away after you stop believing in it."
-- Philip K. Dick
brian
wnat...@omen.net.au (Andrew D) wrote:
> I was just perusing the Senate web site when I noticed the following
list
> of links:
>
> http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/senators/index.htm
>
> Senators Information:
> +Senators by State or Territory
> +Party Representation in the Senate
> +Date of Expiry of Senators' Term of Service
> +Senate Office Holders
> +Senate Party Leaders
> +Senate Whips
> +Ministerial Representation in the Senate
> +Women Senators
> +Senators by date of commencement of service
> +Senators by length of service
> +Senators by date of birth
> +Senators by place of birth
>
> "Women Senators"???
>
> Where's the link for "Men Senators"???
I think thats everybody else, Andrew.
Female politicians are still considered fairly exceptional, rather than
the norm...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
brian
"Aldis Ozols" <al...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
> "DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote in message
> news:8ngqeg$ok3$1...@news.ihug.co.nz...
> > "Andrew D" <wnat...@omen.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:wnatives-170...@reggae-17-35.nv.iinet.net.au...
following
> list
> > > of links:
> > >
> > > http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/senators/index.htm
> > >
> > >
> > > Senators Information:
> > > +Senators by State or Territory
> > > +Party Representation in the Senate
> > > +Date of Expiry of Senators' Term of Service
> > > +Senate Office Holders
> > > +Senate Party Leaders
> > > +Senate Whips
> > > +Ministerial Representation in the Senate
> > > +Women Senators
> > > +Senators by date of commencement of service
> > > +Senators by length of service
> > > +Senators by date of birth
> > > +Senators by place of birth
> > >
> > > "Women Senators"???
> > >
> > > Where's the link for "Men Senators"???
> >
>
> Yes they are. You have ignored the feminists
> who periodically scream that women are 54%
> of the population (actually, I think the real figure
> is 50.4%, but they like bigger numbers).
Not in the senate they aren't, Aldis. Get back to us when you're over
your latest bit of misogny, OK?
> And before you repeat the old whine that the
> majority of men in the Senate supports your
> myth of "patriarchy", reflect that those men were
> elected by the voters, a _majority_ of whom are
> women.
Actually I think its there simply because "Senators by Sex" looks a
little bit rude to the more prurient in our society. ;-)
philm
brian wrote in message <8ni42a$bks$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
Exceptional? especially the Labor and Democrat Senators that are there not
necessarily on their ability, but to fill quotas and affirmative action
programs. ;-)
Phil
Tim Jones
> list
> > of links:
> >
> > http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/senators/index.htm
> >
> > Senators Information:
> > +Senators by State or Territory
> > +Party Representation in the Senate
> > +Date of Expiry of Senators' Term of Service
> > +Senate Office Holders
> > +Senate Party Leaders
> > +Senate Whips
> > +Ministerial Representation in the Senate
> > +Women Senators
> > +Senators by date of commencement of service
> > +Senators by length of service
> > +Senators by date of birth
> > +Senators by place of birth
> >
> > "Women Senators"???
> >
> > Where's the link for "Men Senators"???
>
> I think thats everybody else, Andrew.
>
> Female politicians are still considered fairly exceptional, rather than
> the norm...
>
What!?!
There's 22 of them!
That's nearly a third!
Having any form of equality in the Senate is an oxymoron, as you need to
have an uneven number of senators to make sure of no hung votes.
Yes, they are a minority (as far as the definition of the word goes), but
they are hardly exemplorary or special!
They are not breaking new ground!
Tim
brian
Ignorant aren't you? Democrats don't have quotas/affirmative action
programs.
As far as I'm aware, the ALP has one but doesn't abide all that
strongly by it, either.
philm
brian wrote in message <8nilf2$uch$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
Sorry, you are right, they just use the "Lace Curtain" tactic to push white
heterosexual men away from their party.
>
>As far as I'm aware, the ALP has one but doesn't abide all that
>strongly by it, either.
Then you are not very aware of what is happening within the ALP.
Phil
Aldis Ozols
"brian" <brian_r...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8ni47s$buj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
That's because the MAJORITY of voters,
who are WOMEN, voted it that way.
> Get back to us when you're over
> your latest bit of misogny, OK?
Pointing out that women have the majority
of votes in our society is "misogynist"?
You're weird.
> > And before you repeat the old whine that the
> > majority of men in the Senate supports your
> > myth of "patriarchy", reflect that those men were
> > elected by the voters, a _majority_ of whom are
> > women.
>
> Actually I think its there simply because "Senators
> by Sex" looks a little bit rude to the more prurient
> in our society. ;-)
--
Aldis Ozols
>
> Democrats don't have quotas/affirmative
> action programs.
Ironic, isn't it, that the Democrats were the first
party with real power to have both a majority
of female parliamentyarians and a swag of female
leaders?
> As far as I'm aware, the ALP has one but doesn't
> abide all that strongly by it, either.
These two examples illustrate the folly of
discriminatory "affirmative action" policies.
Rob Silva
wrote:
>And before you repeat the old whine that the
>majority of men in the Senate supports your
>myth of "patriarchy", reflect that those men were
>elected by the voters, a _majority_ of whom are
>women.
And that majority has no choice but to select from the predominantly
male smorgasboard placed before them.
Rob Silva
wrote:
So? On a philosophical level, I might have misgivings about the
relative representation of males and females as senators. However
insofar as serving senators are concerned, I find their gender to be
totally irrelevant.
Personally, I think that including a special link for women senators
serves to perpetuate the notion that there *is* a difference.
Aldis Ozols
news:kgcqpscq1c5g0m67t...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 19:04:58 GMT, "Aldis Ozols" <al...@zeta.org.au>
> wrote:
>
> >"DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote in message
> >news:8ngqeg$ok3$1...@news.ihug.co.nz...
> >> "Andrew D" <wnat...@omen.net.au> wrote in message
> >> news:wnatives-170...@reggae-17-35.nv.iinet.net.au...
> >list
> >> > of links:
> >> >
> >> > http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/senators/index.htm
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Senators Information:
> >> > +Senators by State or Territory
> >> > +Party Representation in the Senate
> >> > +Date of Expiry of Senators' Term of Service
> >> > +Senate Office Holders
> >> > +Senate Party Leaders
> >> > +Senate Whips
> >> > +Ministerial Representation in the Senate
> >> > +Women Senators
> >> > +Senators by date of commencement of service
> >> > +Senators by length of service
> >> > +Senators by date of birth
> >> > +Senators by place of birth
> >> >
> >> > "Women Senators"???
> >> >
> >> > Where's the link for "Men Senators"???
> >>
> >
> >Yes they are. You have ignored the feminists
> >who periodically scream that women are 54%
> >of the population (actually, I think the real figure
> >is 50.4%, but they like bigger numbers).
> >
> >And before you repeat the old whine that the
> >majority of men in the Senate supports your
> >myth of "patriarchy", reflect that those men were
> >elected by the voters, a _majority_ of whom are
> >women.
>
> And that majority has no choice but to
> select from the predominantly
> male smorgasboard placed before them.
What ... there were no female candidates?
Or are you saying that women are incapable
of choosing how to vote for themselves?
DRS
news:uHWm5.3034$Kz2....@news1.belrs1.nsw.optushome.com.au...
> "DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote in message
> news:8ngqeg$ok3$1...@news.ihug.co.nz...
> > "Andrew D" <wnat...@omen.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:wnatives-170...@reggae-17-35.nv.iinet.net.au...
[...]
> > > Where's the link for "Men Senators"???
> >
> > It's not needed. Men are not a minority.
>
> Yes they are. You have ignored the feminists
> who periodically scream that women are 54%
> of the population (actually, I think the real figure
> is 50.4%, but they like bigger numbers).
Not in the Senate.
> And before you repeat the old whine that the
> majority of men in the Senate supports your
> myth of "patriarchy", reflect that those men were
> elected by the voters, a _majority_ of whom are
> women.
Acknowledging the existence of the patriarchy is not whining.
DRS
[...]
> > And that majority has no choice but to
> > select from the predominantly
> > male smorgasboard placed before them.
>
> What ... there were no female candidates?
> Or are you saying that women are incapable
> of choosing how to vote for themselves?
Men dominate the political parties. Men dominate the selection process.
brian
"Aldis Ozols" <al...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
> "brian" <brian_r...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8nilf2$uch$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> > action programs.
>
> party with real power to have both a majority
> of female parliamentyarians and a swag of female
> leaders?
How so?
>
> > As far as I'm aware, the ALP has one but doesn't
> > abide all that strongly by it, either.
>
> These two examples illustrate the folly of
> discriminatory "affirmative action" policies.
Mmmm, how, Aldis? Seems that you agree that the Democrats don't have
one so how then do they demonstrate the folly of having one, when they
don't have one? Talk about being weird.
brian
Rob Silva <rsi...@dove.net.au> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2000 01:38:20 GMT, brian <brian_r...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> relative representation of males and females as senators. However
> insofar as serving senators are concerned, I find their gender to be
> totally irrelevant.
>
> Personally, I think that including a special link for women senators
> serves to perpetuate the notion that there *is* a difference.
WHo knows, perhaps the Clerk of the Senate is simply answering a market
need? They keep getting asked, so decided to simply include it on the
webpage, to save them being bothered with being asked all the time.
philm
DRS wrote in message <8njf4a$rn1$1...@news.ihug.co.nz>...
>
>Acknowledging the existence of the patriarchy is not whining.
>
Will you please stop chanting the mantra that comes directly from your
"Women's Studies Little Red Book"
Chairman Mao would be so proud of you, but most are aware that you have
undergone some special brainwashing and indoctrination methods.
Phil
Aldis Ozols
> > "DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:8ngqeg$ok3$1...@news.ihug.co.nz...
> > > "Andrew D" <wnat...@omen.net.au> wrote in message
> > > news:wnatives-170...@reggae-17-35.nv.iinet.net.au...
>
> [...]
>
> > >
> >
> > Yes they are. You have ignored the feminists
> > who periodically scream that women are 54%
> > of the population (actually, I think the real figure
> > is 50.4%, but they like bigger numbers).
>
> Not in the Senate.
That would be because the Senate is chosen
by the voters, the majority of whom are women.
These women clearly care more about the merits
of a candidate than that person's gender, unlike
you with your sexist gender-based whining.
> > And before you repeat the old whine that the
> > majority of men in the Senate supports your
> > myth of "patriarchy", reflect that those men were
> > elected by the voters, a _majority_ of whom are
> > women.
>
> Acknowledging the existence of the patriarchy
What's their address? Phone number? Where
is this "Patriarchy"?
> is not whining.
Any statement becomes whining when you make it.
It's one of your talents.
Aldis Ozols
> > "Rob Silva" <rsi...@dove.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:kgcqpscq1c5g0m67t...@4ax.com...
>
> [...]
>
> > > And that majority has no choice but to
> > > select from the predominantly
> > > male smorgasboard placed before them.
> >
> > What ... there were no female candidates?
> > Or are you saying that women are incapable
> > of choosing how to vote for themselves?
>
> Men dominate the political parties.
> Men dominate the selection process
If there are more women voters, how do
men do this? I'll answer that for you:
Because that's what WOMEN, the
MAJORITY of the voters, WANT.
That's because, unlike the feminists, most
women are not bigots who make political
decisions purely on the basis of gender.
Like most men, most women will support
the candidates who they believe will serve
their own best interests.
That the majority of candidates supported
by women happen to be male is a
real slap in the face for the feminists. They
just can't get any community support for their
idea that everything should be decided on
the basis of sexual discrimination. Most
people of all sexes are just happy being equal.
Aldis Ozols
> In article <9g7n5.3069$Kz2....@news1.belrs1.nsw.optushome.com.au>,
> "Aldis Ozols" <al...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
> > "brian" <brian_r...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:8nilf2$uch$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > >
> > > action programs.
> >
> > party with real power to have both a majority
> > of female parliamentyarians and a swag of female
> > leaders?
>
> How so?
Ironic, in that a party with no affirmative action policy
became the first to emloy a majority of women in
positions of actual power -- and that was many years
ago. Meanwhile, other parties which make a big
song and dance about the supposed "need" to
discriminate against men and others through
"affirmative action", have failed to achieve their
goals using these methods.
> > > As far as I'm aware, the ALP has one but doesn't
> > > abide all that strongly by it, either.
> >
> > These two examples illustrate the folly of
> > discriminatory "affirmative action" policies.
>
> Mmmm, how, Aldis? Seems that you agree that
> the Democrats don't have one so how then do they
> demonstrate the folly of having one, when they
> don't have one?
By demonstrating that a party without an
affirmative action policy achieves the desired
outcome of such a policy more efficiently than
a party which actually has one.
This goes to show that non-discrimination
is better than discrimination. "Affirmative action"
is just a type of class-nepotism, and achieves
no positive outcomes.
>Talk about being weird.
Man, I was so weird the other day ...
but never as weird as ths guy:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/jeffrey/www/loons/conspiracy/dec.h
tml
The Holy Gost
DRS wrote in message <8njf73$roe$1...@news.ihug.co.nz>...
>"Aldis Ozols" <al...@zeta.org.au> wrote in message
>news:fOan5.3090$Kz2....@news1.belrs1.nsw.optushome.com.au...
>> "Rob Silva" <rsi...@dove.net.au> wrote in message
>> news:kgcqpscq1c5g0m67t...@4ax.com...
>
>[...]
>
>> > And that majority has no choice but to
>> > select from the predominantly
>> > male smorgasboard placed before them.
>>
>> What ... there were no female candidates?
>> Or are you saying that women are incapable
>> of choosing how to vote for themselves?
>
Have you ever though about the fact that some women might not
be interested to participate in the childish, stupid, immature and often
nasty game called politics reserved for people who are abusive,
unreasonable and usually good for nothing else?
May be many women are too intelligent for that game.
Have you ever thought that many women do not want positions which
require a lot of headaches, high blood pressure, heart attacks and rather
enjoy life and even their families? May be many women are not in the
decision makers' positions because they are too smart to be stupid
enough to accept the position.
It is the same with women in the Army. A woman said to me at a certain
stage that she can't understand the feminists. She said: "They are now
fighting to have combat rols in the military. These dumb cows are that
stupid that they are fighting for the right to be blown to pieces,
raped and drowned; I always thought only men are stupid enough
to do that."
Ron
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
Modern feminism and the movement for unrestricted equal
opportunities is nothing but an attempt to assure that fat, ugly,
stupid, incomepetent, obnocktious and associal people get the
same access to resources as others.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
DRS
news:8nkksa$cki$2...@news.interpacket.net...
>
> DRS wrote in message <8njf73$roe$1...@news.ihug.co.nz>...
> >"Aldis Ozols" <al...@zeta.org.au> wrote in message
> >news:fOan5.3090$Kz2....@news1.belrs1.nsw.optushome.com.au...
> >> "Rob Silva" <rsi...@dove.net.au> wrote in message
> >> news:kgcqpscq1c5g0m67t...@4ax.com...
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >> > And that majority has no choice but to
> >> > select from the predominantly
> >> > male smorgasboard placed before them.
> >>
> >> What ... there were no female candidates?
> >> Or are you saying that women are incapable
> >> of choosing how to vote for themselves?
> >
> >Men dominate the political parties. Men dominate the selection process.
>
> Have you ever though about the fact that some women might not
> be interested to participate in the childish, stupid, immature and often
> nasty game called politics reserved for people who are abusive,
> unreasonable and usually good for nothing else?
>
> May be many women are too intelligent for that game.
As are many men. So what?
> Have you ever thought that many women do not want positions which
> require a lot of headaches, high blood pressure, heart attacks and rather
> enjoy life and even their families? May be many women are not in the
> decision makers' positions because they are too smart to be stupid
> enough to accept the position.
And maybe a lot of them would like to be but have failed in the face of
additional obstacles not faced by men.
> It is the same with women in the Army. A woman said to me at a certain
> stage that she can't understand the feminists. She said: "They are now
> fighting to have combat rols in the military. These dumb cows are that
> stupid that they are fighting for the right to be blown to pieces,
> raped and drowned; I always thought only men are stupid enough
> to do that."
I'm sure that's all very amusing at a dinner party, but it manages to miss
the point entirely. If we are going to have an army then it must be
representative of the society it serves. The Russians and other armies in
history have shown that women can be as effective combat soldiers as men.
What your woman acquaintance was really arguing against was not women in
combat roles but the nature of warfare itself.
DRS
> "DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote in message
> news:8njf4a$rn1$1...@news.ihug.co.nz...
> > "Aldis Ozols" <al...@zeta.org.au> wrote in message
> > news:uHWm5.3034$Kz2....@news1.belrs1.nsw.optushome.com.au...
> > > "DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote in message
> > > news:8ngqeg$ok3$1...@news.ihug.co.nz...
> > > > "Andrew D" <wnat...@omen.net.au> wrote in message
> > > > news:wnatives-170...@reggae-17-35.nv.iinet.net.au...
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > > > Where's the link for "Men Senators"???
> > > >
> > > > It's not needed. Men are not a minority.
> > >
> > > Yes they are. You have ignored the feminists
> > > who periodically scream that women are 54%
> > > of the population (actually, I think the real figure
> > > is 50.4%, but they like bigger numbers).
> >
> > Not in the Senate.
>
> That would be because the Senate is chosen
> by the voters, the majority of whom are women.
> These women clearly care more about the merits
> of a candidate than that person's gender, unlike
> you with your sexist gender-based whining.
The voters do not get to choose their candidates based on sex. They vote on
party tickets and very occasionally the odd independent. Men control the
political parties and the selection commitees. Acknowledging that is not
whining.
> > > And before you repeat the old whine that the
> > > majority of men in the Senate supports your
> > > myth of "patriarchy", reflect that those men were
> > > elected by the voters, a _majority_ of whom are
> > > women.
> >
> > Acknowledging the existence of the patriarchy
>
> What's their address? Phone number? Where
> is this "Patriarchy"?
You're standing in it.
> > is not whining.
>
> Any statement becomes whining when you make it.
> It's one of your talents.
Acknowledging reality is not whining. Perhaps you should try it some time.
DRS
> "DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote in message
> news:8njf73$roe$1...@news.ihug.co.nz...
> > "Aldis Ozols" <al...@zeta.org.au> wrote in message
> > news:fOan5.3090$Kz2....@news1.belrs1.nsw.optushome.com.au...
> > > "Rob Silva" <rsi...@dove.net.au> wrote in message
> > > news:kgcqpscq1c5g0m67t...@4ax.com...
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > > And that majority has no choice but to
> > > > select from the predominantly
> > > > male smorgasboard placed before them.
> > >
> > > What ... there were no female candidates?
> > > Or are you saying that women are incapable
> > > of choosing how to vote for themselves?
> >
> > Men dominate the political parties.
> > Men dominate the selection process
>
> If there are more women voters, how do
> men do this? I'll answer that for you:
> Because that's what WOMEN, the
> MAJORITY of the voters, WANT.
Er, no. We were all born into a system of power imbalances. Some of us
were born on the right side and some weren't. Redressing these imbalances
requires more than a simple numerical majority. It requires the elimination
of the systemic discrimination which favours one side against the other.
Women in born into a system which in general still favours men.
> That's because, unlike the feminists, most
> women are not bigots who make political
> decisions purely on the basis of gender.
> Like most men, most women will support
> the candidates who they believe will serve
> their own best interests.
And what are their best interests? That which a discriminatory sociey has
taught them from birth is best for them or that which is really best for
them?
> That the majority of candidates supported
> by women happen to be male is a
> real slap in the face for the feminists. They
> just can't get any community support for their
> idea that everything should be decided on
> the basis of sexual discrimination. Most
> people of all sexes are just happy being equal.
The 'majority of candidates' on offer is the product of selection processes
controlled by men. Women are just making the best of a bad lot.
DRS
[...]
> WHo knows, perhaps the Clerk of the Senate is simply answering a market
> need? They keep getting asked, so decided to simply include it on the
> webpage, to save them being bothered with being asked all the time.
That is possible, although it would be the webmaster who most probably
decided that. I once had the downloadable lists of parliamentarians
slightly altered simply by asking that a certain field be included because I
wanted to sort the information in a certain way.
Rob Silva
wrote:
>"Rob Silva" <rsi...@dove.net.au> wrote in message
>news:kgcqpscq1c5g0m67t...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 19:04:58 GMT, "Aldis Ozols" <al...@zeta.org.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote in message
>> >news:8ngqeg$ok3$1...@news.ihug.co.nz...
>> >> "Andrew D" <wnat...@omen.net.au> wrote in message
>> >> news:wnatives-170...@reggae-17-35.nv.iinet.net.au...
>> >> > I was just perusing the Senate web site when I noticed the following
>> >list
>> >> > of links:
>> >> >
>> >> > http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/senators/index.htm
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Senators Information:
>> >> > +Senators by State or Territory
>> >> > +Party Representation in the Senate
>> >> > +Date of Expiry of Senators' Term of Service
>> >> > +Senate Office Holders
>> >> > +Senate Party Leaders
>> >> > +Senate Whips
>> >> > +Ministerial Representation in the Senate
>> >> > +Women Senators
>> >> > +Senators by date of commencement of service
>> >> > +Senators by length of service
>> >> > +Senators by date of birth
>> >> > +Senators by place of birth
>> >> >
>> >> > "Women Senators"???
>> >> >
>> >> > Where's the link for "Men Senators"???
>> >>
>> >> It's not needed. Men are not a minority.
>> >
>> >Yes they are. You have ignored the feminists
>> >who periodically scream that women are 54%
>> >of the population (actually, I think the real figure
>> >is 50.4%, but they like bigger numbers).
>> >
>> >And before you repeat the old whine that the
>> >majority of men in the Senate supports your
>> >myth of "patriarchy", reflect that those men were
>> >elected by the voters, a _majority_ of whom are
>> >women.
>>
>> And that majority has no choice but to
>> select from the predominantly
>> male smorgasboard placed before them.
>
>What ... there were no female candidates?
>Or are you saying that women are incapable
>of choosing how to vote for themselves?
DRS advanced the view that women are the majority of voters and that
the fact that women are under-represented must be because women want
it that way.
It stands to reason that female voters are perfectly capable of
choosing for themselves and that they won't choose a female candidate
simply because of their gender.
Therefore, it also stands to reason that if only 25% of candidates put
forward (for instance) are female, that only something like 25% of
elected candidates are going to be women.
Rob Silva
<spac...@netcentral.com.au> wrote:
>
>DRS wrote in message <8njf73$roe$1...@news.ihug.co.nz>...
>>"Aldis Ozols" <al...@zeta.org.au> wrote in message
>>news:fOan5.3090$Kz2....@news1.belrs1.nsw.optushome.com.au...
>>> "Rob Silva" <rsi...@dove.net.au> wrote in message
>>> news:kgcqpscq1c5g0m67t...@4ax.com...
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>> > And that majority has no choice but to
>>> > select from the predominantly
>>> > male smorgasboard placed before them.
>>>
>>> What ... there were no female candidates?
>>> Or are you saying that women are incapable
>>> of choosing how to vote for themselves?
>>
>>Men dominate the political parties. Men dominate the selection process.
>
>Have you ever though about the fact that some women might not
>be interested to participate in the childish, stupid, immature and often
>nasty game called politics reserved for people who are abusive,
>unreasonable and usually good for nothing else?
>
>May be many women are too intelligent for that game.
So are many men. My observation would be that the only women who
participate in the process are those who are just as childish, stupid,
immature and nasty as the men who participate.
Rob Silva
wrote:
>In article <vmcqpssu8v2nhvfo3...@4ax.com>,
> Rob Silva <rsi...@dove.net.au> wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Aug 2000 01:38:20 GMT, brian <brian_r...@my-deja.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <wnatives-170...@reggae-17-35.nv.iinet.net.au>,
>> > wnat...@omen.net.au (Andrew D) wrote:
>> >> I was just perusing the Senate web site when I noticed the
>following
>> >list
>> >> of links:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/senators/index.htm
>> >>
>> >> Senators Information:
>> >> +Senators by State or Territory
>> >> +Party Representation in the Senate
>> >> +Date of Expiry of Senators' Term of Service
>> >> +Senate Office Holders
>> >> +Senate Party Leaders
>> >> +Senate Whips
>> >> +Ministerial Representation in the Senate
>> >> +Women Senators
>> >> +Senators by date of commencement of service
>> >> +Senators by length of service
>> >> +Senators by date of birth
>> >> +Senators by place of birth
>> >>
>> >> "Women Senators"???
>> >>
>> >> Where's the link for "Men Senators"???
>> >
>> >I think thats everybody else, Andrew.
>> >
>> >Female politicians are still considered fairly exceptional, rather
>than
>> >the norm...
>>
>> So? On a philosophical level, I might have misgivings about the
>> relative representation of males and females as senators. However
>> insofar as serving senators are concerned, I find their gender to be
>> totally irrelevant.
>>
>> Personally, I think that including a special link for women senators
>> serves to perpetuate the notion that there *is* a difference.
>
>WHo knows, perhaps the Clerk of the Senate is simply answering a market
>need? They keep getting asked, so decided to simply include it on the
>webpage, to save them being bothered with being asked all the time.
Just because clients want to perpetuate such differences is no good
reason to do it. Should we have links for married senators? Catholic
ones? Senators over 60? Gay senators?
DRS
[...]
> DRS advanced the view that women are the majority of voters and that
> the fact that women are under-represented must be because women want
> it that way.
Not me, bubba. I dunno what you've been smoking but I want some.
philm
DRS wrote in message <8noolt$jqh$1...@news.ihug.co.nz>...
>The 'majority of candidates' on offer is the product of selection processes
>controlled by men.
How is that? Elaborate please.
Phil
philm
DRS wrote in message <8nomd8$i2j$1...@news.ihug.co.nz>...>news:dDkn5.3104$Kz2....@news1.belrs1.nsw.optushome.com.au...
>> "DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:8njf4a$rn1$1...@news.ihug.co.nz...
>> > "Aldis Ozols" <al...@zeta.org.au> wrote in message
>> > news:uHWm5.3034$Kz2....@news1.belrs1.nsw.optushome.com.au...
>> > > "DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote in message
>> > > news:8ngqeg$ok3$1...@news.ihug.co.nz...
>> > > > "Andrew D" <wnat...@omen.net.au> wrote in message
>> > > > news:wnatives-170...@reggae-17-35.nv.iinet.net.au...
>> >
>> > [...]
>> >
>> > > > > Where's the link for "Men Senators"???
>> > > >
>> > > > It's not needed. Men are not a minority.
>> > >
>> > > Yes they are. You have ignored the feminists
>> > > who periodically scream that women are 54%
>> > > of the population (actually, I think the real figure
>> > > is 50.4%, but they like bigger numbers).
>> >
>> > Not in the Senate.
>>
>> That would be because the Senate is chosen
>> by the voters, the majority of whom are women.
>> These women clearly care more about the merits
>> of a candidate than that person's gender, unlike
>> you with your sexist gender-based whining.
>
on
>party tickets and very occasionally the odd independent. Men control the
>political parties and the selection commitees. Acknowledging that is not
>whining.
How so? Again, elaborate please.
I believe that in electorate after electorate within Labor ranks the "Lace
Curtain" is coming up. Once women reach equal numbers within the ranks, men
are pushed out completely and marginalised. Go to any seach engine and type
in "lace curtain" and see what you get. Labor will be nothing but an arm of
the radical feminist movement well within10 years.
Phil
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Vote in more women - vote out feminists
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>> > > And before you repeat the old whine that the
>> > > majority of men in the Senate supports your
>> > > myth of "patriarchy", reflect that those men were
>> > > elected by the voters, a _majority_ of whom are
>> > > women.
>> >
>> > Acknowledging the existence of the patriarchy
>>
>> What's their address? Phone number? Where
>> is this "Patriarchy"?
>
>You're standing in it.
>
>> > is not whining.
>>
>> Any statement becomes whining when you make it.
>> It's one of your talents.
>
>Acknowledging reality is not whining. Perhaps you should try it some time.
>
Andrew D
<d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
+"Andrew D" <wnat...@omen.net.au> wrote in message
+news:wnatives-170...@reggae-17-35.nv.iinet.net.au...
+> I was just perusing the Senate web site when I noticed the following list
+> of links:
+>
+> http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/senators/index.htm
+>
+>
+> Senators Information:
+> +Senators by State or Territory
+> +Party Representation in the Senate
+> +Date of Expiry of Senators' Term of Service
+> +Senate Office Holders
+> +Senate Party Leaders
+> +Senate Whips
+> +Ministerial Representation in the Senate
+> +Women Senators
+> +Senators by date of commencement of service
+> +Senators by length of service
+> +Senators by date of birth
+> +Senators by place of birth
+> "Women Senators"???
+> Where's the link for "Men Senators"???
+It's not needed. Men are not a minority.
Hmmm, I don't see a link for gay senators, I don't see a link for
aboriginal senators and I don't see a link for pro-family senators...all
minorities without any doubt.
Surely the link should read "Senators by gender" if it is to be
non-sexist? But further down the same page we also find "Women in the
Senate - a brief history". Clearly there is a matriarchal influence in the
department which produces and maintains the website.
Andy D.
conq...@wantree.com.au
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
Andrew D
<d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
+"Aldis Ozols" <al...@zeta.org.au> wrote in message
+news:fOan5.3090$Kz2....@news1.belrs1.nsw.optushome.com.au...
+> "Rob Silva" <rsi...@dove.net.au> wrote in message
+> news:kgcqpscq1c5g0m67t...@4ax.com...
+
+[...]
+
+> > And that majority has no choice but to
+> > select from the predominantly
+> > male smorgasboard placed before them.
+>
+> What ... there were no female candidates?
+> Or are you saying that women are incapable
+> of choosing how to vote for themselves?
+
+Men dominate the political parties. Men dominate the selection process.
Why? Are women banned from joining and voting - even in the ALP and Democrats?
Andrew D
+So? On a philosophical level, I might have misgivings about the
+relative representation of males and females as senators. However
+insofar as serving senators are concerned, I find their gender to be
+totally irrelevant.
+Personally, I think that including a special link for women senators
+serves to perpetuate the notion that there *is* a difference.
One of the more interesting conundrums of feminism is the perpetual
argument that not only is there no difference between men and women, but
also that the world would be a better place if women held more positions
of power!?!?
Andrew D
<d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
+"The Holy Gost" <spac...@netcentral.com.au> wrote in message
+news:8nkksa$cki$2...@news.interpacket.net...
[snip]
+> It is the same with women in the Army. A woman said to me at a certain
+> stage that she can't understand the feminists. She said: "They are now
+> fighting to have combat rols in the military. These dumb cows are that
+> stupid that they are fighting for the right to be blown to pieces,
+> raped and drowned; I always thought only men are stupid enough
+> to do that."
+I'm sure that's all very amusing at a dinner party, but it manages to miss
+the point entirely. If we are going to have an army then it must be
+representative of the society it serves. The Russians and other armies in
+history have shown that women can be as effective combat soldiers as men.
+What your woman acquaintance was really arguing against was not women in
+combat roles but the nature of warfare itself.
And being a man, you would know what she was meaning right? You
patriarchal bastard :)
Andrew D
<d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
+"Aldis Ozols" <al...@zeta.org.au> wrote in message
[snip]
+> That's because, unlike the feminists, most
+> women are not bigots who make political
+> decisions purely on the basis of gender.
+> Like most men, most women will support
+> the candidates who they believe will serve
+> their own best interests.
+And what are their best interests? That which a discriminatory sociey has
+taught them from birth is best for them or that which is really best for
+them?
You mean that which they believe is best for them or that which *you know*
is best for them? You have a very low opinion of women don't you, you
patriarchal bastard! :)
Andrew D
<spac...@netcentral.com.au> wrote:
[snip]
+Have you ever thought that many women do not want positions which
+require a lot of headaches, high blood pressure, heart attacks and rather
+enjoy life and even their families?
"Women", "enjoy" and "families" in the same sentence? How dare you suggest
such a thing.
"Families" are the public face of the patriarchy and the children just a
sad reminder of the submissive nature of women and the all too powerful
dominance of the men who inseminate them and cause them to reproduce.
+May be many women are not in the
+decision makers' positions because they are too smart to be stupid
+enough to accept the position.
Same goes for the nine to five drugery that more than 48% of workers
apparently abhor - according to recent findings.
Andrew D
<a...@toilart.com> wrote:
[snip]
+I believe that in electorate after electorate within Labor ranks the "Lace
+Curtain" is coming up. Once women reach equal numbers within the ranks, men
+are pushed out completely and marginalised. Go to any seach engine and type
+in "lace curtain" and see what you get. Labor will be nothing but an arm of
+the radical feminist movement well within10 years.
10 years?
The leader of the ALP said that he believed the best option for any child
was to have both a mother and a father - but he would ask caucus to
support the feminist view that fathers were irrelevant. He won - well, the
feminists won, the leader lost. When the leader of the party is too scared
to put his own views to caucus I think it's clear he's nothing more than a
spokesperson for the real leaders.
Rob Silva
wrote:
>In article <vmcqpssu8v2nhvfo3...@4ax.com>, Rob Silva
><rsi...@dove.net.au> wrote:
>[snip]
>+So? On a philosophical level, I might have misgivings about the
>+relative representation of males and females as senators. However
>+insofar as serving senators are concerned, I find their gender to be
>+totally irrelevant.
>
>+Personally, I think that including a special link for women senators
>+serves to perpetuate the notion that there *is* a difference.
>
>One of the more interesting conundrums of feminism is the perpetual
>argument that not only is there no difference between men and women, but
>also that the world would be a better place if women held more positions
>of power!?!?
>
Yeah, I know. Crazy world isn't it?
Mind you, I personally think there are in fact differences between men
and women in general terms, just as there are differences between
individuals. To the extent that this is true, there is going to be a
benefit achieved by getting a better gender balance.
Of course the feminists you refer to believe that there is something
*inherently* better about having women in power. Which, in its own
way, demonstrates that women are capable of being every bit as narrow
as the old MCP's (Male Chauvinist Pigs) still out there.
Andrew D
<rsi...@dove.net.au> wrote:
+On Mon, 21 Aug 2000 10:31:56 +0800, wnat...@omen.net.au (Andrew D)
+wrote:
+
+>In article <vmcqpssu8v2nhvfo3...@4ax.com>, Rob Silva
+><rsi...@dove.net.au> wrote:
+>[snip]
+>+So? On a philosophical level, I might have misgivings about the
+>+relative representation of males and females as senators. However
+>+insofar as serving senators are concerned, I find their gender to be
+>+totally irrelevant.
+>
+>+Personally, I think that including a special link for women senators
+>+serves to perpetuate the notion that there *is* a difference.
+>
+>One of the more interesting conundrums of feminism is the perpetual
+>argument that not only is there no difference between men and women, but
+>also that the world would be a better place if women held more positions
+>of power!?!?
+>
+
+Yeah, I know. Crazy world isn't it?
+
+Mind you, I personally think there are in fact differences between men
+and women in general terms, just as there are differences between
+individuals. To the extent that this is true, there is going to be a
+benefit achieved by getting a better gender balance.
+
+Of course the feminists you refer to believe that there is something
+*inherently* better about having women in power. Which, in its own
+way, demonstrates that women are capable of being every bit as narrow
+as the old MCP's (Male Chauvinist Pigs) still out there.
Absolutely - perhaps. The only problem, as you and others have noted
elsewhere, is that the sort of women who are likely to seek powerful
positions in society are probably no better than the sort of men who seek
them.
Another conundrum I've considered lately is that after thirty years of
feminists working to ensure "fathers" are held responsible for the part
they played in producing any child and insisting that men should play a
much more active role in the family rather than leaving women to do all
the child rearing, the same feminists are now arguing that children are
entirely a woman's choice and that human reproduction and family in
general has nothing to do with men. "Crazy" you say? ;-)
DRS
news:39a06d86$0$787$7f31...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
>
> DRS wrote in message <8noolt$jqh$1...@news.ihug.co.nz>...
>
> >The 'majority of candidates' on offer is the product of selection
processes
> >controlled by men.
>
> How is that? Elaborate please.
What needs elaboration?
DRS
[...]
> You mean that which they believe is best for them or that which *you know*
> is best for them? You have a very low opinion of women don't you, you
> patriarchal bastard! :)
Anyone taught since birth that their rightful place is subordinate to
another will be inclined to believe that unless someone from outside teaches
them otherwise.
DRS
news:wnatives-210...@reggae-17-247.nv.iinet.net.au...
No, as you well know. You also know full well that's not the whole story.
DRS
[...]
> Hmmm, I don't see a link for gay senators, I don't see a link for
> aboriginal senators and I don't see a link for pro-family senators...all
> minorities without any doubt.
>
> Surely the link should read "Senators by gender" if it is to be
> non-sexist? But further down the same page we also find "Women in the
> Senate - a brief history". Clearly there is a matriarchal influence in the
> department which produces and maintains the website.
As was pointed out elsewhere, one possible explanation is that the material
on the website is organised at least in part according to requests from the
public. I once had a field added to the downloadable lists of
parliamentarians simply by asking for it.
DRS
news:wnatives-210...@reggae-17-247.nv.iinet.net.au...
[...]
> One of the more interesting conundrums of feminism is the perpetual
> argument that not only is there no difference between men and women, but
> also that the world would be a better place if women held more positions
> of power!?!?
I see you're stuck in the 70's. Feminism has moved on - perhaps you ought
to as well.
philm
Andrew D wrote in message ...
Your right, what I should have said is that it will take up to ten years for
the bulk of society to realise this fact.
Phil
philm
DRS wrote in message <8nrae3$jho$1...@news.ihug.co.nz>...
>"Andrew D" <wnat...@omen.net.au> wrote in message
>news:wnatives-210...@reggae-17-247.nv.iinet.net.au...
>
>[...]
>
>> argument that not only is there no difference between men and women, but
>> also that the world would be a better place if women held more positions
>> of power!?!?
>
>to as well.
Moved on to what, more outrageous and selfish demands?
Phil
Andrew D
<d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
+"Andrew D" <wnat...@omen.net.au> wrote in message
+news:wnatives-210...@reggae-17-247.nv.iinet.net.au...
+
+[...]
+> You mean that which they believe is best for them or that which *you know*
+> is best for them? You have a very low opinion of women don't you, you
+> patriarchal bastard! :)
+Anyone taught since birth that their rightful place is subordinate to
+another will be inclined to believe that unless someone from outside teaches
+them otherwise.
And similarly, anyone taught from birth that being the maternal head of
the family is a subordinate position may well grow up to believe that too
- especially when vocal groups spit out their derogatory, anti-housewife
remarks at every opportunity.
Tim Jones
Do you think there is ever going to be complete equality overall?
I believe firmly in equality of oportunity, but not in affirmative action.
Women these days have roughly the same oportunities men do - but there are
large differences between men and women - a lot more than could be educated
out of people.
There is good reason why traditionally women have been predominantly carers
and responsible for the children, whilst men have had their domain
predominantly in the "bringing home the bacon" category. Things have changed
to allow women to change those roles if they wish to - they can follow a
career if they wish.
Women who wish to stay home with children are now looked down upon by
society - regardless of the good they do. Stay at home men are even more
frowned upon than the women.
There is simply big differences between the sexes - there are some women who
make excellent engineers, and some men who make excellent nurses - and if
that is where their talents lie they have the oportunity to follow their
chosen vocation. These are the exceptions to the rule however.
As the male psyche is more tuned to such things as politics and positions of
power overall, there will always be an imbalance in these areas - unless
affirmative action takes place on an unprecedented scale.
Simily, females outnumber men in vast numbers in many professions - child
care, nursing etc. Should we force child care centres to take on
underqualifed men into their employment to balance up the books?
> > That's because, unlike the feminists, most
> > women are not bigots who make political
> > decisions purely on the basis of gender.
> > Like most men, most women will support
> > the candidates who they believe will serve
> > their own best interests.
>
> And what are their best interests? That which a discriminatory sociey has
> taught them from birth is best for them or that which is really best for
> them?
>
So you know what's best for them, much better than they do?
You have the nerve to state that you and your ilk alone know what is best
for women?
> > That the majority of candidates supported
> > by women happen to be male is a
> > real slap in the face for the feminists. They
> > just can't get any community support for their
> > idea that everything should be decided on
> > the basis of sexual discrimination. Most
> > people of all sexes are just happy being equal.
>
> The 'majority of candidates' on offer is the product of selection
processes
> controlled by men. Women are just making the best of a bad lot.
>
And why then do more men gravitate towards the positions of power?
What is in place is essentially political capitalism - the candidates will
be selected because of their market appeal - the ones that will win
elections for the party.
If a woman in the electorate would get more votes, they would get the
guernsey. If the man would get more votes, they'd be up.
Tim
Andrew D
+ As the male psyche is more tuned to such things as politics and
+ positions of power overall, there will always be an imbalance in
+ these areas ...
and a whole bunch of other very bad things. You heathen Tim!
:)
DRS
In a patriarchy being the 'maternal head' is very much a subordinate
position.
Tim Jones
> position.
>
LOL
You try telling my wife that!
The only people who tend to look down on "house wives" in my experience are
other women who are working.
Tim
Rob Silva
wrote:
>"Andrew D" <wnat...@omen.net.au> wrote in message
>news:wnatives-220...@reggae-13-71.nv.iinet.net.au...
>In a patriarchy being the 'maternal head' is very much a subordinate
>position.
You make Andy's point very nicely I think.
Andrew D
<d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
+"Andrew D" <wnat...@omen.net.au> wrote in message
+news:wnatives-220...@reggae-13-71.nv.iinet.net.au...
+> In article <8nra67$irg$1...@news.ihug.co.nz>, "DRS"
+> <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
+>
+> +"Andrew D" <wnat...@omen.net.au> wrote in message
+> +news:wnatives-210...@reggae-17-247.nv.iinet.net.au...
+> +
+> +[...]
+>
+> +> You mean that which they believe is best for them or that which *you
+know*
+> +> is best for them? You have a very low opinion of women don't you, you
+> +> patriarchal bastard! :)
+>
+> +Anyone taught since birth that their rightful place is subordinate to
+> +another will be inclined to believe that unless someone from outside
+teaches
+> +them otherwise.
+>
+> And similarly, anyone taught from birth that being the maternal head of
+> the family is a subordinate position may well grow up to believe that too
+> - especially when vocal groups spit out their derogatory, anti-housewife
+> remarks at every opportunity.
+
+In a patriarchy being the 'maternal head' is very much a subordinate
+position.
In a patriarchy that may well be the case. However, it is also likely the
case that your belief that our society is a patriarchy is a result of what
you've been taught from birth - and what you've chosen to believe since.
Your argument has now dwindled to the point where in an effort to defend
women you've had to stoop to denigratring them as subservient losers
incapable of making up their own minds without your intervention and
omniscient guidance.
Sad really.
Andrew D
<tall_m...@hotmail.com> wrote:
+"DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote in message
+news:8ntt88$b4l$2...@news.ihug.co.nz...
+> "Andrew D" <wnat...@omen.net.au> wrote in message
+> news:wnatives-220...@reggae-13-71.nv.iinet.net.au...
+> > In article <8nra67$irg$1...@news.ihug.co.nz>, "DRS"
+> > <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
+> >
+> > +"Andrew D" <wnat...@omen.net.au> wrote in message
+> > +news:wnatives-210...@reggae-17-247.nv.iinet.net.au...
+> > +
+> > +[...]
+> >
+> > +> You mean that which they believe is best for them or that which *you
+> know*
+> > +> is best for them? You have a very low opinion of women don't you, you
+> > +> patriarchal bastard! :)
+> >
+> > +Anyone taught since birth that their rightful place is subordinate to
+> > +another will be inclined to believe that unless someone from outside
+> teaches
+> > +them otherwise.
+> >
+> > And similarly, anyone taught from birth that being the maternal head of
+> > the family is a subordinate position may well grow up to believe that
+too
+> > - especially when vocal groups spit out their derogatory, anti-housewife
+> > remarks at every opportunity.
+>
+> In a patriarchy being the 'maternal head' is very much a subordinate
+> position.
+>
+
+LOL
+
+You try telling my wife that!
+
+The only people who tend to look down on "house wives" in my experience are
+other women who are working.
DRS wrote "in a patriarchy.." Clearly your household, like so many others,
is not an active player in this mythical patriarchy to which he repeatedly
refers.
Over the last three years I've had a chance to discuss the various family
issues with a wide range of people and the results, anecdotal though they
may be, are interesting.
In a number of cases where I've spoken to men with "working" wives, they
have scoffed at any suggestion that their wives should be able to stay
home while they "go out to work". The general response from these men was
"if I have to work she can bloody well go to work too". So much for
defeating the patriarchy!
Andrew D
<d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
+"Andrew D" <wnat...@omen.net.au> wrote in message
+news:wnatives-220...@reggae-13-71.nv.iinet.net.au...
+> In article <8nra67$irg$1...@news.ihug.co.nz>, "DRS"
+> <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
+>
+> +"Andrew D" <wnat...@omen.net.au> wrote in message
+> +news:wnatives-210...@reggae-17-247.nv.iinet.net.au...
+> +
+> +[...]
+> +> You mean that which they believe is best for them or that which *you
+know*
+> +> is best for them? You have a very low opinion of women don't you, you
+> +> patriarchal bastard! :)
+> +Anyone taught since birth that their rightful place is subordinate to
+> +another will be inclined to believe that unless someone from outside
+teaches
+> +them otherwise.
+> And similarly, anyone taught from birth that being the maternal head of
+> the family is a subordinate position may well grow up to believe that too
+> - especially when vocal groups spit out their derogatory, anti-housewife
+> remarks at every opportunity.
+In a patriarchy being the 'maternal head' is very much a subordinate
+position.
No need to repeat everything I write.
DRS
That's such a gross distortion of what I've said it's laughable.
Rob Silva
wrote:
>"Andrew D" <wnat...@omen.net.au> wrote in message
>news:wnatives-230...@reggae-16-110.nv.iinet.net.au...
>That's such a gross distortion of what I've said it's laughable.
I'm not laughing. Wasn't it you telling us that female immigrants from
patriarchal societies couldn't think for themselves?
Andrew D
<d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
+"Andrew D" <wnat...@omen.net.au> wrote in message
+news:wnatives-230...@reggae-16-110.nv.iinet.net.au...
+> In article <8ntt88$b4l$2...@news.ihug.co.nz>, "DRS"
+> <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
+>
+> +"Andrew D" <wnat...@omen.net.au> wrote in message
+> +news:wnatives-220...@reggae-13-71.nv.iinet.net.au...
+> +> In article <8nra67$irg$1...@news.ihug.co.nz>, "DRS"
+> +> <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
+> +>
+> +> +"Andrew D" <wnat...@omen.net.au> wrote in message
+> +> +news:wnatives-210...@reggae-17-247.nv.iinet.net.au...
+> +> +
+> +> +[...]
+> +>
+> +> +> You mean that which they believe is best for them or that which *you
+> +know*
+> +> +> is best for them? You have a very low opinion of women don't you,
+you
+> +> +> patriarchal bastard! :)
+> +>
+> +> +Anyone taught since birth that their rightful place is subordinate to
+> +> +another will be inclined to believe that unless someone from outside
+> +teaches
+> +> +them otherwise.
+> +>
+> +> And similarly, anyone taught from birth that being the maternal head of
+> +> the family is a subordinate position may well grow up to believe that
+too
+> +> - especially when vocal groups spit out their derogatory,
+anti-housewife
+> +> remarks at every opportunity.
+> +
+> +In a patriarchy being the 'maternal head' is very much a subordinate
+> +position.
+>
+> In a patriarchy that may well be the case. However, it is also likely the
+> case that your belief that our society is a patriarchy is a result of what
+> you've been taught from birth - and what you've chosen to believe since.
+> Your argument has now dwindled to the point where in an effort to defend
+> women you've had to stoop to denigratring them as subservient losers
+> incapable of making up their own minds without your intervention and
+> omniscient guidance.
+
+That's such a gross distortion of what I've said it's laughable.
You have made it abundantly clear that in your view, any woman who chooses
the family over "the career" does so as a result of her up-bringing in a
patriarchal society that influenced her thinking from an early age and put
barriers in front of any alternative choices. You have gone so far as to
suggest that those women who break from the 'norm' are the exceptions that
prove the rule. You have also made it explicitly clear that in your
oppinion, her role as maternal head of the family is a subservient one in
Australia (which you repeatedly identify as a patriarchy).
To draw any of these conclusions you must first accept that Australia is
patriarchal and that the family home is a degrading, subservient workplace
in comparison to the alternative occupations women could involve
themselves in (where presumably they would be subservient to no one?!)
In short, you entire argument is based on your own perception of the way
things are. But you are as much a product of your own up-bringing and
subsequent self-education as as a dedicated housewife is a product of
hers. So, what makes you better to know what's in her own best interests -
or that of her family - if it isn't your omniscience?
DRS
[...]
+That's such a gross distortion of what I've said it's laughable.
>
> You have made it abundantly clear that in your view, any woman who chooses
> the family over "the career" does so as a result of her up-bringing in a
> patriarchal society that influenced her thinking from an early age and put
> barriers in front of any alternative choices.
I actually made the point about the kind of foreign women Aussie male losers
like to marry and bring home, the submisive kind who know their place in the
'family values' scheme of things. It applies generally, of course, and not
just to women, but Australian woimen obviously are better educated in these
things today than their mothers and grandmothers were.
You have gone so far as to
> suggest that those women who break from the 'norm' are the exceptions that
> prove the rule. You have also made it explicitly clear that in your
> oppinion, her role as maternal head of the family is a subservient one in
> Australia (which you repeatedly identify as a patriarchy).
Blind Freddy can see that Australia is a patriarchy. That things have
improved for women does not necessarily mean that the systemic
discrimination has gone.
> To draw any of these conclusions you must first accept that Australia is
> patriarchal and that the family home is a degrading, subservient workplace
> in comparison to the alternative occupations women could involve
> themselves in (where presumably they would be subservient to no one?!)
The family is not a 'degrading, subservient workplace' per se. Like
everything, it's all in the contextcontextcontext. In the world of 'family
values' women don't get any choices and then it is as you say.
> In short, you entire argument is based on your own perception of the way
> things are. But you are as much a product of your own up-bringing and
> subsequent self-education as as a dedicated housewife is a product of
> hers. So, what makes you better to know what's in her own best interests -
> or that of her family - if it isn't your omniscience?
Knowledge is not omniscience.
Andrew D
<d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
+"Andrew D" <wnat...@omen.net.au> wrote in message
+news:wnatives-240...@reggae-17-250.nv.iinet.net.au...
+> In article <8o0l2i$e7p$1...@news.ihug.co.nz>, "DRS"
+> <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
+
+[...]
+
+ +That's such a gross distortion of what I've said it's laughable.
+> You have made it abundantly clear that in your view, any woman who chooses
+> the family over "the career" does so as a result of her up-bringing in a
+> patriarchal society that influenced her thinking from an early age and put
+> barriers in front of any alternative choices.
+I actually made the point about the kind of foreign women Aussie male losers
+like to marry and bring home, the submisive kind who know their place in the
+'family values' scheme of things. It applies generally, of course, and not
+just to women, but Australian woimen obviously are better educated in these
+things today than their mothers and grandmothers were.
I'm referring to your repeated remarks that Australian housewives are
subservient (made clear by the fact that you state maternal heads in a
patriarchy are subservient and that Australia is a patriarchy) - nothing
to do with foreign brides at all. I assume from these conclusions (and the
fact some women remain fulltime housewives/mothers) that you don't believe
all Aussie women are educated enough to realise that they are oppressed.
+You have gone so far as to
+> suggest that those women who break from the 'norm' are the exceptions that
+> prove the rule. You have also made it explicitly clear that in your
+> oppinion, her role as maternal head of the family is a subservient one in
+> Australia (which you repeatedly identify as a patriarchy).
+Blind Freddy can see that Australia is a patriarchy. That things have
+improved for women does not necessarily mean that the systemic
+discrimination has gone.
Is that the game you want to play? Okay then....Blind Freddy can see
Australia isn't a patriarchy.
+> To draw any of these conclusions you must first accept that Australia is
+> patriarchal and that the family home is a degrading, subservient workplace
+> in comparison to the alternative occupations women could involve
+> themselves in (where presumably they would be subservient to no one?!)
+The family is not a 'degrading, subservient workplace' per se. Like
+everything, it's all in the contextcontextcontext. In the world of 'family
+values' women don't get any choices and then it is as you say.
Why don't women get choices in the worlkd of "family values"? Once again
you assume that women have no self-control, no self-motivation, no
autonomy and no power whatsoever. You continue to insist that without you
to tell them what's good for them, they'll continue to make the wrong
decisions for themselves. Frankly I find your assessemnt of women to be
among the most chauvinistic of attitudes seen in this forum.
+> In short, you entire argument is based on your own perception of the way
+> things are. But you are as much a product of your own up-bringing and
+> subsequent self-education as as a dedicated housewife is a product of
+> hers. So, what makes you better to know what's in her own best interests -
+> or that of her family - if it isn't your omniscience?
+Knowledge is not omniscience.
When it's portrayed as superiority it is an attempt to appear omniscient.
However, that hardly addresses the point that while you belittle
housewives for not having your level of knowledge of how they could better
themselves by abandoning their families and subjecting themselves to the
whims and dictates of an employer, you fail to acknowledge that this view
of yours is only a result of your own beliefs and experiences and
therefore has no more relevance than the views of a woman who believes she
is better off managing her family than bowing and scraping to a "boss".
In other words, who decides your belief of what's right for a housewife is
better than her own belief and who gives you or your feminist colleagues
the right to tell her that her family should run a distant second to her
own 'career' possibilities? Are all housewives just too stupid to know and
therefore unable to get it right without a system of interventionist
penalties?
DRS
Men in Australia dominate positions of power. Women in Australia are
largely ecluded from power. That means Australia is a patriarchy. Stop
avoiding this truth. Work from it.
> +> To draw any of these conclusions you must first accept that Australia
is
> +> patriarchal and that the family home is a degrading, subservient
workplace
> +> in comparison to the alternative occupations women could involve
> +> themselves in (where presumably they would be subservient to no one?!)
>
> +The family is not a 'degrading, subservient workplace' per se. Like
> +everything, it's all in the contextcontextcontext. In the world of
'family
> +values' women don't get any choices and then it is as you say.
>
> Why don't women get choices in the worlkd of "family values"? Once again
Because the world of 'family values' is not about choices. It's an ideology
devoted to denying choice in the name of families.
> you assume that women have no self-control, no self-motivation, no
> autonomy and no power whatsoever. You continue to insist that without you
> to tell them what's good for them, they'll continue to make the wrong
> decisions for themselves. Frankly I find your assessemnt of women to be
> among the most chauvinistic of attitudes seen in this forum.
That's because you're reading your own attitudes into what I'm saying. I
have said more than once that the principle I am describing, that people
born into a system which teaches them that they are inferior will need to be
educated to the fact that this is only so as long as they choose to
subscribe to that notion applies generally, it only so happens that in this
case we're talking about women born into a patriarchy. There's nothing the
slightest bit chauvinistic about this.
> +> In short, you entire argument is based on your own perception of the
way
> +> things are. But you are as much a product of your own up-bringing and
> +> subsequent self-education as as a dedicated housewife is a product of
> +> hers. So, what makes you better to know what's in her own best
interests -
> +> or that of her family - if it isn't your omniscience?
>
> +Knowledge is not omniscience.
>
> When it's portrayed as superiority it is an attempt to appear omniscient.
> However, that hardly addresses the point that while you belittle
> housewives for not having your level of knowledge of how they could better
> themselves by abandoning their families and subjecting themselves to the
> whims and dictates of an employer, you fail to acknowledge that this view
> of yours is only a result of your own beliefs and experiences and
> therefore has no more relevance than the views of a woman who believes she
> is better off managing her family than bowing and scraping to a "boss".
>
> In other words, who decides your belief of what's right for a housewife is
> better than her own belief and who gives you or your feminist colleagues
> the right to tell her that her family should run a distant second to her
> own 'career' possibilities? Are all housewives just too stupid to know and
> therefore unable to get it right without a system of interventionist
> penalties?
That's because you're reading your own attitudes into what I'm saying. I
have said more than once that the principle I am describing, that people
born into a system which teaches them that they are inferior will need to be
educated to the fact that this is only so as long as they choose to
subscribe to that notion applies generally, it only so happens that in this
case we're talking about women born into a patriarchy. There's nothing the
slightest bit chauvinistic about this.
Tim Jones
> > Is that the game you want to play? Okay then....Blind Freddy can see
> > Australia isn't a patriarchy.
>
> Men in Australia dominate positions of power. Women in Australia are
> largely ecluded from power. That means Australia is a patriarchy. Stop
> avoiding this truth. Work from it.
>
As I've said before, men and women are different. There are more men in jobs
that require "hard arses" (or hard asses - like in computing ;-) than women,
because men are mentally predisposed to this sort of personality. It has
recently been conjectured that this is because of hormone levels of estrogen
and testosterone in the womb during the embrionic and feotal growth.
Men and women are different in more than a physical sense. Stop avoiding the
truth. Work from it.
> > +> To draw any of these conclusions you must first accept that Australia
> is
> > +> patriarchal and that the family home is a degrading, subservient
> workplace
> > +> in comparison to the alternative occupations women could involve
> > +> themselves in (where presumably they would be subservient to no
one?!)
> >
> > +The family is not a 'degrading, subservient workplace' per se. Like
> > +everything, it's all in the contextcontextcontext. In the world of
> 'family
> > +values' women don't get any choices and then it is as you say.
> >
> > Why don't women get choices in the worlkd of "family values"? Once again
>
> Because the world of 'family values' is not about choices. It's an
ideology
> devoted to denying choice in the name of families.
>
Like it or not, families are the building blocks of our society - should we
provide choice in denial and in spite of families?
Where exactly does the system educate women that they are inferior?
Men and women are different with separate inate abilities and strengths. The
education should be more in line that it is acceptable and should be valued
to do what is considered traditional roles which are now being frowned down
upon.
There is already the education in place that informs that men and women are
equal in the eyes of the law and in overall importance. There is an equality
of rights and reach (based upon individual merrits).
What further should we be educating society on?
Tim
DRS
news:ueop5.11137$Xg.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> <...>
>
> > > Is that the game you want to play? Okay then....Blind Freddy can see
> > > Australia isn't a patriarchy.
> >
> > Men in Australia dominate positions of power. Women in Australia are
> > largely ecluded from power. That means Australia is a patriarchy. Stop
> > avoiding this truth. Work from it.
> >
>
> As I've said before, men and women are different. There are more men in
jobs
> that require "hard arses" (or hard asses - like in computing ;-) than
women,
> because men are mentally predisposed to this sort of personality. It has
> recently been conjectured that this is because of hormone levels of
estrogen
> and testosterone in the womb during the embrionic and feotal growth.
The fact (for example) that until very recently girls were dissuaded from
pursuing maths/science subjects at school has nothing to do with it, right.
> Men and women are different in more than a physical sense. Stop avoiding
the
> truth. Work from it.
They are more alike than they are different. The statistical spread of
skills is generally such that while the male or female average may be
slightly higher (depending on what you're measuring), they are nevertheless
relatively close together and the averages always fall within the first
standard deviation of the other. That means that while there will probably
be a proportional variation in occupations relying on said skill sets it
does not mean that the current variations can be explained only in those
terms. IOW, the present ratio of men to women in computing (a rather
nebulous word, lets say programming) cannot be put down solely to
statistical differences in the relevant skill sets between the sexes.
Therefore, other factors must be at play and they must be sociological in
nature.
[...]
> Like it or not, families are the building blocks of our society - should
we
> provide choice in denial and in spite of families?
The individual is the building block of society. Families are one way
individuals combine. 'Family values' would have it that families are the
only way, and then there is only one way to have a family.
[...]
> Where exactly does the system educate women that they are inferior?
>
> Men and women are different with separate inate abilities and strengths.
The
> education should be more in line that it is acceptable and should be
valued
> to do what is considered traditional roles which are now being frowned
down
> upon.
>
> There is already the education in place that informs that men and women
are
> equal in the eyes of the law and in overall importance. There is an
equality
> of rights and reach (based upon individual merrits).
>
> What further should we be educating society on?
There is a theoretical equality (more or less) but in practice we've a long
way to go. We are still trapped in the traditional gender roles, and we are
so in no small part because we start teaching our kids how to conform to
them from the moment we (consciously or unconsciously) put them in either
pink or blue baby clothes. We begin with the presumption of difference
where we should begin with the presumption of commonality.
Andrew D
<d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
+"Andrew D" <wnat...@omen.net.au> wrote in message
+news:wnatives-250...@reggae-06-213.nv.iinet.net.au...
[snip]
+> Is that the game you want to play? Okay then....Blind Freddy can see
+> Australia isn't a patriarchy.
+Men in Australia dominate positions of power. Women in Australia are
+largely ecluded from power. That means Australia is a patriarchy. Stop
+avoiding this truth. Work from it.
I'm not avoiding it - I'm suggesting that some women simply don't see the
benefits of filling those positions. Now, while I believe women in
Australia have free will to do largely as they please, you believe women
who avoid so-called postions of "power" are under-educated about their
options and oppressed by family breadwinners.
If less women than men aspire to "positions of power" then who are you to
dictate to them that they are failing their gender?
[snip]
+> Why don't women get choices in the worlkd of "family values"?
+Once again
+Because the world of 'family values' is not about choices. It's an ideology
+devoted to denying choice in the name of families.
Rubbish. You're living in the mythical past - catch up!
+> you assume that women have no self-control, no self-motivation, no
+> autonomy and no power whatsoever. You continue to insist that without you
+> to tell them what's good for them, they'll continue to make the wrong
+> decisions for themselves. Frankly I find your assessemnt of women to be
+> among the most chauvinistic of attitudes seen in this forum.
+That's because you're reading your own attitudes into what I'm saying. I
+have said more than once that the principle I am describing, that people
+born into a system which teaches them that they are inferior will need to be
+educated to the fact that this is only so as long as they choose to
+subscribe to that notion applies generally, it only so happens that in this
+case we're talking about women born into a patriarchy. There's nothing the
+slightest bit chauvinistic about this.
Again you insist that housewives are inferior. Explain how a female
politician or female solicitor is superior to a woman who manages a
family? If you don't believe she's superior, then explain how the family
manager is subservient?
[snip]
+> When it's portrayed as superiority it is an attempt to appear omniscient.
+> However, that hardly addresses the point that while you belittle
+> housewives for not having your level of knowledge of how they could better
+> themselves by abandoning their families and subjecting themselves to the
+> whims and dictates of an employer, you fail to acknowledge that this view
+> of yours is only a result of your own beliefs and experiences and
+> therefore has no more relevance than the views of a woman who believes she
+> is better off managing her family than bowing and scraping to a "boss".
+> In other words, who decides your belief of what's right for a housewife is
+> better than her own belief and who gives you or your feminist colleagues
+> the right to tell her that her family should run a distant second to her
+> own 'career' possibilities? Are all housewives just too stupid to know and
+> therefore unable to get it right without a system of interventionist
+> penalties?
+That's because you're reading your own attitudes into what I'm saying.
So you keep saying.
+ I
+have said more than once that the principle I am describing, that people
+born into a system which teaches them that they are inferior will need to be
+educated to the fact that this is only so as long as they choose to
+subscribe to that notion applies generally, it only so happens that in this
+case we're talking about women born into a patriarchy. There's nothing the
+slightest bit chauvinistic about this.
So you said before. So....
Again you insist that housewives are inferior. Explain how a female
politician or female solicitor is superior to a woman who manages a
family? If you don't believe she's superior, then explain how the family
manager is subservient?
For someone who ordinarily places a lot of faith in the differences
resulting from genetics, you seem here to be placing a great deal of faith
in the suggestion that people are entirely a result of their environment.
DRS
> In article <8o4up4$3vf$1...@news.ihug.co.nz>, "DRS"
> <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
>
> +"Andrew D" <wnat...@omen.net.au> wrote in message
> +news:wnatives-250...@reggae-06-213.nv.iinet.net.au...
> [snip]
> +> Is that the game you want to play? Okay then....Blind Freddy can see
> +> Australia isn't a patriarchy.
>
> +Men in Australia dominate positions of power. Women in Australia are
> +largely ecluded from power. That means Australia is a patriarchy. Stop
> +avoiding this truth. Work from it.
>
> I'm not avoiding it - I'm suggesting that some women simply don't see the
> benefits of filling those positions. Now, while I believe women in
> Australia have free will to do largely as they please, you believe women
In principle. Not so in practice, despite the improvements in recent years.
> who avoid so-called postions of "power" are under-educated about their
> options and oppressed by family breadwinners.
>
> If less women than men aspire to "positions of power" then who are you to
Fewer. Not less.
> dictate to them that they are failing their gender?
If anything I'd say they were failing their humanity.
> [snip]
> +> Why don't women get choices in the worlkd of "family values"?
>
> +Once again
> +Because the world of 'family values' is not about choices. It's an
ideology
> +devoted to denying choice in the name of families.
>
> Rubbish. You're living in the mythical past - catch up!
Er, no. Family values has long been and very much still is code for a form
of authoritarianism which I despise. John Howard is about Family Values.
That's why he's been slowly but surely undermining womem's ability to choose
by doing things like reducing government spending on child care and the
like, ever since he was elected. He can't come out and say that's what he's
doing, but he's doing it nonetheless.
> +> you assume that women have no self-control, no self-motivation, no
> +> autonomy and no power whatsoever. You continue to insist that without
you
> +> to tell them what's good for them, they'll continue to make the wrong
> +> decisions for themselves. Frankly I find your assessemnt of women to be
> +> among the most chauvinistic of attitudes seen in this forum.
>
> +That's because you're reading your own attitudes into what I'm saying. I
> +have said more than once that the principle I am describing, that people
> +born into a system which teaches them that they are inferior will need to
be
> +educated to the fact that this is only so as long as they choose to
> +subscribe to that notion applies generally, it only so happens that in
this
> +case we're talking about women born into a patriarchy. There's nothing
the
> +slightest bit chauvinistic about this.
>
> Again you insist that housewives are inferior. Explain how a female
> politician or female solicitor is superior to a woman who manages a
> family? If you don't believe she's superior, then explain how the family
> manager is subservient?
Contextcontextcontext. Reread what I wrote. It answers your question. I
never once said housewives were inferior. What I said was much, much more
sophisticated than such a simplistic and inaccurate trope.
[...]
> For someone who ordinarily places a lot of faith in the differences
> resulting from genetics, you seem here to be placing a great deal of faith
> in the suggestion that people are entirely a result of their environment.
In what way do I place 'a lot of faith in the differences resulting from
genetics'?
Tim Jones
> >
> > > > Is that the game you want to play? Okay then....Blind Freddy can see
> > > > Australia isn't a patriarchy.
> > >
> > > Men in Australia dominate positions of power. Women in Australia are
> > > largely ecluded from power. That means Australia is a patriarchy.
Stop
> > > avoiding this truth. Work from it.
> > >
> >
> > As I've said before, men and women are different. There are more men in
> jobs
> > that require "hard arses" (or hard asses - like in computing ;-) than
> women,
> > because men are mentally predisposed to this sort of personality. It has
> > recently been conjectured that this is because of hormone levels of
> estrogen
> > and testosterone in the womb during the embrionic and feotal growth.
>
> The fact (for example) that until very recently girls were dissuaded from
> pursuing maths/science subjects at school has nothing to do with it,
right.
>
Until when exactly?
And you admit it's not happening now?
Noone that I know of was dissuaded from going into Maths and Science unless
they had poor grades in the subject.
> > Men and women are different in more than a physical sense. Stop avoiding
> the
> > truth. Work from it.
>
> They are more alike than they are different. The statistical spread of
> skills is generally such that while the male or female average may be
> slightly higher (depending on what you're measuring), they are
nevertheless
> relatively close together and the averages always fall within the first
> standard deviation of the other. That means that while there will
probably
> be a proportional variation in occupations relying on said skill sets it
> does not mean that the current variations can be explained only in those
> terms. IOW, the present ratio of men to women in computing (a rather
> nebulous word, lets say programming) cannot be put down solely to
> statistical differences in the relevant skill sets between the sexes.
> Therefore, other factors must be at play and they must be sociological in
> nature.
>
Why is that. I was just having a conversation here about this very thing - I
have about 100 developers working with me.
Funnily enough, not one of them is a female.
I need a new developer on my team and have received half a dozen
applications - not one from a female.
Could it be that young girls, as a general rule, are more right brain
dominant (thus have a lower incidence of high logic skill required for
programming or high spatial skill required for engineering)?
> [...]
>
> > Like it or not, families are the building blocks of our society - should
> we
> > provide choice in denial and in spite of families?
>
> The individual is the building block of society. Families are one way
> individuals combine. 'Family values' would have it that families are the
> only way, and then there is only one way to have a family.
>
Generically speaking, there is only one way to have a family - that is by
two people having intercourse.
Are you suggesting we should be heading towards a Huxley-esque future?
> [...]
>
> > Where exactly does the system educate women that they are inferior?
> >
> > Men and women are different with separate inate abilities and strengths.
> The
> > education should be more in line that it is acceptable and should be
> valued
> > to do what is considered traditional roles which are now being frowned
> down
> > upon.
> >
> > There is already the education in place that informs that men and women
> are
> > equal in the eyes of the law and in overall importance. There is an
> equality
> > of rights and reach (based upon individual merrits).
> >
> > What further should we be educating society on?
>
> There is a theoretical equality (more or less) but in practice we've a
long
> way to go. We are still trapped in the traditional gender roles, and we
are
> so in no small part because we start teaching our kids how to conform to
> them from the moment we (consciously or unconsciously) put them in either
> pink or blue baby clothes. We begin with the presumption of difference
> where we should begin with the presumption of commonality.
>
It is one of the primary tenents of civilised society that people adhere to
societal norms.
The flouting of societal norms in the long term could lead to the breakdown
of society into anarchy.
Who are you to tell people that they have to treat their children of
different sexes the same?
Children studies have shown time and again that boys and girls play
differently.
As a piece of anecdotal evidence, my nephews are not permitted to have toy
guns. As such, lego, sticks, the toilet brush etc all become guns to play
with.
My niece who has been exposed to exactly the same upbringing does not play
these games and prefers to talk to the adults whilst the boys are doing
this.
Tim
DRS
[...]
> > The fact (for example) that until very recently girls were dissuaded
from
> > pursuing maths/science subjects at school has nothing to do with it,
> right.
> >
>
> Until when exactly?
Exactly? I'm not sure. It was certainly the case, say, twenty years or
more ago, when the current crop of graduates would have been born.
> And you admit it's not happening now?
Current policy is to encourage girls to study the 'hard' sciences. The
female participation rates have currently improved.
> Noone that I know of was dissuaded from going into Maths and Science
unless
> they had poor grades in the subject.
You didn't go to a co-ed school? What was the breakdown when you did your
HSC (or equivalent)?
[...]
> > They are more alike than they are different. The statistical spread of
> > skills is generally such that while the male or female average may be
> > slightly higher (depending on what you're measuring), they are
> nevertheless
> > relatively close together and the averages always fall within the first
> > standard deviation of the other. That means that while there will
> probably
> > be a proportional variation in occupations relying on said skill sets it
> > does not mean that the current variations can be explained only in those
> > terms. IOW, the present ratio of men to women in computing (a rather
> > nebulous word, lets say programming) cannot be put down solely to
> > statistical differences in the relevant skill sets between the sexes.
> > Therefore, other factors must be at play and they must be sociological
in
> > nature.
> >
>
> Why is that. I was just having a conversation here about this very thing -
I
> have about 100 developers working with me.
>
> Funnily enough, not one of them is a female.
>
> I need a new developer on my team and have received half a dozen
> applications - not one from a female.
>
> Could it be that young girls, as a general rule, are more right brain
> dominant (thus have a lower incidence of high logic skill required for
> programming or high spatial skill required for engineering)?
Statistically, not enough to justify the situation you describe.
Visuo-spatial skills have been extensively studied. While the male average
is *slightly* higher than the female average, the distribution is such that
the best females are better than the male average, and most females have
similar skills to most males. You therefore cannot ascribe your 100 male /
0 female environment to biology. The answer therefore must lie in
sociology.
> > [...]
> >
> > > Like it or not, families are the building blocks of our society -
should
> > we
> > > provide choice in denial and in spite of families?
> >
> > The individual is the building block of society. Families are one way
> > individuals combine. 'Family values' would have it that families are
the
> > only way, and then there is only one way to have a family.
> >
>
> Generically speaking, there is only one way to have a family - that is by
> two people having intercourse.
>
> Are you suggesting we should be heading towards a Huxley-esque future?
We are clearly heading towards a future where the so-called traditional
family will continue to decline in numbers and importance. Given that that
model is fundamentally flawed because it overloads to two primary
participants this is a good thing. That is not to say that any or all
alternatives will be acceptable.
[...]
> > There is a theoretical equality (more or less) but in practice we've a
> long
> > way to go. We are still trapped in the traditional gender roles, and we
> are
> > so in no small part because we start teaching our kids how to conform to
> > them from the moment we (consciously or unconsciously) put them in
either
> > pink or blue baby clothes. We begin with the presumption of difference
> > where we should begin with the presumption of commonality.
> >
>
> It is one of the primary tenents of civilised society that people adhere
to
> societal norms.
>
> The flouting of societal norms in the long term could lead to the
breakdown
> of society into anarchy.
Ah, the old slippery slope fallacy.
> Who are you to tell people that they have to treat their children of
> different sexes the same?
Because if you believe in equality you don't start by emphasising
difference.
> Children studies have shown time and again that boys and girls play
> differently.
>
> As a piece of anecdotal evidence, my nephews are not permitted to have toy
> guns. As such, lego, sticks, the toilet brush etc all become guns to play
> with.
>
> My niece who has been exposed to exactly the same upbringing does not play
> these games and prefers to talk to the adults whilst the boys are doing
> this.
Stories of that kind are common. They disguise the reality that those
children have been exposed since birth to a broadly consistent message from
every conceivable source, from parents and friends to television and so
forth. That message is that they *should* be different. I do not deny a
degree of biological predisposition. I dispute that it is as powerful as
you make out, or that we should naively treat predisposition as destiny.
Tim Jones
> "Tim Jones" <tall_m...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Hgpp5.11222$Xg.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> [...]
>
> > > The fact (for example) that until very recently girls were dissuaded
> from
> > > pursuing maths/science subjects at school has nothing to do with it,
> > right.
> > >
> >
> > Until when exactly?
>
> Exactly? I'm not sure. It was certainly the case, say, twenty years or
> more ago, when the current crop of graduates would have been born.
>
So - you disuade females from maths and hard sciences from birth?
I thought that girls and boys entered roughly the same subjects up until
about year 10?
> > And you admit it's not happening now?
>
> Current policy is to encourage girls to study the 'hard' sciences. The
> female participation rates have currently improved.
>
> > Noone that I know of was dissuaded from going into Maths and Science
> unless
> > they had poor grades in the subject.
>
> You didn't go to a co-ed school? What was the breakdown when you did your
> HSC (or equivalent)?
>
Yes - the proportion of girls to boys in HSC for my Maths A, B, Physics and
Chem classes where probably about 3:7.
There was no systemetic propultion of girls to force them into the
humanities however.
Why must it be sociology? I do not subscribe to your idea that the skills
are so evenly distributed, but why is it that women are not interested in
the same sort of stuff that men are?
For example, why is it that nearly every serial killer is a male?
Socialisation?
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > Like it or not, families are the building blocks of our society -
> should
> > > we
> > > > provide choice in denial and in spite of families?
> > >
> > > The individual is the building block of society. Families are one way
> > > individuals combine. 'Family values' would have it that families are
> the
> > > only way, and then there is only one way to have a family.
> > >
> >
> > Generically speaking, there is only one way to have a family - that is
by
> > two people having intercourse.
> >
> > Are you suggesting we should be heading towards a Huxley-esque future?
>
> We are clearly heading towards a future where the so-called traditional
> family will continue to decline in numbers and importance. Given that
that
> model is fundamentally flawed because it overloads to two primary
> participants this is a good thing. That is not to say that any or all
> alternatives will be acceptable.
>
What do you mean by "overloads to two primary participants"?
The act of making a child requires two primary participants.
> [...]
>
> > > There is a theoretical equality (more or less) but in practice we've a
> > long
> > > way to go. We are still trapped in the traditional gender roles, and
we
> > are
> > > so in no small part because we start teaching our kids how to conform
to
> > > them from the moment we (consciously or unconsciously) put them in
> either
> > > pink or blue baby clothes. We begin with the presumption of
difference
> > > where we should begin with the presumption of commonality.
> > >
> >
> > It is one of the primary tenents of civilised society that people adhere
> to
> > societal norms.
> >
> > The flouting of societal norms in the long term could lead to the
> breakdown
> > of society into anarchy.
>
> Ah, the old slippery slope fallacy.
>
So you do not think it at all important that the members of our society are
socially stable?
> > Who are you to tell people that they have to treat their children of
> > different sexes the same?
>
> Because if you believe in equality you don't start by emphasising
> difference.
>
I firmly believe in equality of chance. There are for example excellent
programmer and engineers that are female - and they have it easily in their
power at present to get into their field.
However, men and women are not created entirely equal - they have separate
strengths and weaknesses that should be accepted rather than worked around.
> > Children studies have shown time and again that boys and girls play
> > differently.
> >
> > As a piece of anecdotal evidence, my nephews are not permitted to have
toy
> > guns. As such, lego, sticks, the toilet brush etc all become guns to
play
> > with.
> >
> > My niece who has been exposed to exactly the same upbringing does not
play
> > these games and prefers to talk to the adults whilst the boys are doing
> > this.
>
> Stories of that kind are common. They disguise the reality that those
> children have been exposed since birth to a broadly consistent message
from
> every conceivable source, from parents and friends to television and so
> forth. That message is that they *should* be different. I do not deny a
> degree of biological predisposition. I dispute that it is as powerful as
> you make out, or that we should naively treat predisposition as destiny.
>
Why do male baboons act differently to female baboons?
Why do lions act differently to lionesses?
Why do male black widow spiders act differently to female black widow
spiders?
Differences are built into the sexes - we have evolved from animals, and to
say that there is no role major difference between men and women is just
plain wrong.
Tim
Andrew D
<d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
+"Tim Jones" <tall_m...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
+news:ueop5.11137$Xg.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
[snip]
+> Like it or not, families are the building blocks of our society - should
+we
+> provide choice in denial and in spite of families?
+The individual is the building block of society.
No they aren't. Without reproduction society crumbles rather than builds
and with all due respect to Christian beliefs, it doesn't matter how hard
an individual tries, s/he will not reproduce without some outside help.
[snip]
+> What further should we be educating society on?
+There is a theoretical equality (more or less) but in practice we've a long
+way to go.
Your responses always seem to lack anything resembling detail. "We've a
long way to go" - in what exactly?
+ We are still trapped in the traditional gender roles,
Are we **trapped** or is it that some people just think you don't know as
much about what they want as you think you do? Again we come back to the
question of whether a housewife/mother is a victim or a beneficiary of a
self-supporting family unit? Some of us are not so quick to condemn
housewives/mothers as social failures.
+ and we are
+so in no small part because we start teaching our kids how to conform to
+them from the moment we (consciously or unconsciously) put them in either
+pink or blue baby clothes. We begin with the presumption of difference
+where we should begin with the presumption of commonality.
So we should dress every child in grey neck to knees and ensure they all
have the same hair cuts, the same food, the same education, the same
entertainment and ensure they all grow up completely unaware that there
are two genders in the hguman species just as there are in others....no
thanks. Viva la difference!
As a matter of interest, who indoctrinates male wrens to act as they do -
and who makes female wrens put up with them? Who insists that male
seahorses should incubate the eggs while the female goes on her way? Who
made the rules that state that the biggest anemonefish in a family should
always be the female? Why can a lion lie around while the lionesses hunt
for dinner then put up with the damned kids climbing all over them? Who
decides that one penguin should go off to hunt for weeks on end while the
other incubates the freshly laid egg? Are all these situations the result
of some gender-based plot?
At what point in history did men suddenly become the dominant force you
claim them to be...and why...and how?
Andrew D
<d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
+"Andrew D" <wnat...@omen.net.au> wrote in message
+news:wnatives-250...@reggae-17-17.nv.iinet.net.au...
[snip]
+> If less women than men aspire to "positions of power" then who are you to
+Fewer. Not less.
Perhaps we best put politics to one side then while we debate the more
important finer points of linguistic pedantry. I'll note for now that you
ignored the point being made.
+> dictate to them that they are failing their gender?
+If anything I'd say they were failing their humanity.
So you believe women who dedicate themselves to their families are
failures? Thank you for the admission, I think we call call the discussion
quits here.
+In what way do I place 'a lot of faith in the differences resulting from
+genetics'?
Don't you believe a gay person is genetically pre-disposed to respond
sexually to their own gender rather to the opposite sex and that their
sexual preference is neither a matter of choice nor environment?
If I understand you correctly, then I have to ask why you cannot accept
that a woman who chooses to rear a family does so due to a predisposition
rather than as a result of social influence?
If you argue again that men and women are both *equally equipped* to deal
with things like programming and therefore the differing roles they play
*must* be a result of sociological forces, then I must ask why two men
could have such different sexual preferences when both clearly carry the
same basic tackle? Surely the difference here must also be sociolgical?
Or perhaps I've misunderstood your role in the various gay debates in
which case please correct me.
Andrew D
<d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
+"Tim Jones" <tall_m...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
+news:Hgpp5.11222$Xg.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
+
+[...]
+> > The fact (for example) that until very recently girls were dissuaded
+from
+> > pursuing maths/science subjects at school has nothing to do with it,
+> right.
+> >
+> Until when exactly?
+Exactly? I'm not sure. It was certainly the case, say, twenty years or
+more ago, when the current crop of graduates would have been born.
Rubbish. I was in a public high school twenty years ago and we had girls
doing high-level maths and sciences back then. Not as many as boys but not
an insignificant number.
+> And you admit it's not happening now?
+Current policy is to encourage girls to study the 'hard' sciences. The
+female participation rates have currently improved.
Amazingly, what few people acknowledge is that at some point, many very
successful women turn their backs on their "careers" with the intention of
having or spending more time with their families. We see sports stars and
entertainers do it regularly yet no one seems to ask why these very
successful women would throw away their futures and allow themselves to be
subjected to what you portray as a a past-time for failures?
+Statistically, not enough to justify the situation you describe.
+Visuo-spatial skills have been extensively studied. While the male average
+is *slightly* higher than the female average, the distribution is such that
+the best females are better than the male average, and most females have
+similar skills to most males. You therefore cannot ascribe your 100 male /
+0 female environment to biology. The answer therefore must lie in
+sociology.
Unless lifestyle preferences are biological, not sociological. Do you
*know* which? Is it possible that maternal instinct exists as much in the
human species as it quite obviously does in so many others and that, like
so many other species, the males tend to have different priorities which
together make for a stable, compatible existence? Or does this idea not
fit with your adoption of the feminist teachings that women who perform
traditional roles are simply subservient beings who have failed their
gender, sorry...failed humanity!
I am technically capable of servicing my own car but I choose not to. I am
technically capable of swimming and jogging - yet I choose not to. With a
bit of effort I could probably play a reasonable game of soccer - yet I
gave it away in late primary school. I am also reasonably adept at dealing
with mathematical and scientific issues, I even get some perverse
enjoyment from the challenges involved, and yet I chose a career more
closely related to art and am shifting further in that direction as the
years go by.
Since a number of my classmates with grades no better than mine, DID
pursue "logic-based" careers I guess my non-participation in the
science/engineering industries must be a result of my up-bringing or
school-based influences?
But I was actually "dissuaded" from pursuing an artistic career by a year
nine art teacher who scoffed at traditional realism and insisted I explore
abstract "art" - which I despised. I gave highschool art away at that
point and focussed more on the maths and sciences at which I was also
reasonably competent - enough to end up in drafting or architecture and
possibly engineering if I'd wanted. Yet I am not doing any of those
left-brained things - I'm working with my artistic skills. So much for
sociological influences.
Since you place so much importance on these left-brained occupations I
guess that I must fit into your "subservient" category - and yet I'm here
daily pointing out what a twit I think you are...and winning. Perhaps
there's more to it than "sociology" after all
<theme music to Twilight Zone....do do do - do do do - do do do>
[snip]
+> Are you suggesting we should be heading towards a Huxley-esque future?
+We are clearly heading towards a future where the so-called traditional
+family will continue to decline in numbers and importance. Given that that
+model is fundamentally flawed because it overloads to two primary
+participants this is a good thing.
How the hell does it do anything of the sort unless the government chooses
it to be so?
[snip]
+> It is one of the primary tenents of civilised society that people adhere
+>to societal norms.
+> The flouting of societal norms in the long term could lead to the
+>breakdown of society into anarchy.
+Ah, the old slippery slope fallacy.
Actually it's an argument with a great deal of merit. Once we emphasise
the rights of the individual above all else then we invite anarchy. Our
courts are already showing us the way in this regard by extending
unfathomable rights to those who flout the law and infringe on the rights
of their victims.
+> Who are you to tell people that they have to treat their children of
+> different sexes the same?
+Because if you believe in equality you don't start by emphasising
+difference.
Your denial of the obvious exposes your latent insanity (perhaps not so
latent) - or do you think we should be seeking ways to medically influence
a foetus to possess both sets of genitals?
+> Children studies have shown time and again that boys and girls play
+> differently.
+> As a piece of anecdotal evidence, my nephews are not permitted to have toy
+> guns. As such, lego, sticks, the toilet brush etc all become guns to play
+> with.
+> My niece who has been exposed to exactly the same upbringing does not play
+> these games and prefers to talk to the adults whilst the boys are doing
+> this.
+Stories of that kind are common. They disguise the reality that those
+children have been exposed since birth to a broadly consistent message from
+every conceivable source, from parents and friends to television and so
+forth. That message is that they *should* be different. I do not deny a
+degree of biological predisposition. I dispute that it is as powerful as
+you make out, or that we should naively treat predisposition as destiny.
Oh, I must have had you confused with someone else when I suggested you
believed sexuality was hardwired from birth, and not a lifestyle choice.
Dave Garner
>> > The fact (for example) that until very recently girls were dissuaded
>from
>> > pursuing maths/science subjects at school has nothing to do with it,
>> right.
>> >
>>
>> Until when exactly?
>Exactly? I'm not sure. It was certainly the case, say, twenty years or
>more ago, when the current crop of graduates would have been born.
Bullshit once again. Can you lie stright in bed?
Maths & science were COMPULSORY for all when I was at school.
And guys were doing cooking, and girls were doing woodwork.
In the 70s.
You wanna try maybe 50 years "or more" ago?
d.
DRS
[...]
> failures? Thank you for the admission, I think we call call the discussion
> quits here.
Good, because you're boring me shitless. You're relentlessly misreading me
and after composing a long reply to one of your earlier posts I trashed it
because I realised that you don't have the slightest intention of thinking
beyond your box and it just wasn't worth the effort.
DRS
news:96725657...@bombadil.apana.org.au...
Nope, 20 years ago. Maths and science were not compulsory beyond early to
mid-high school level, at which point girls were dropping out of those
subjects in droves. It took a concerted effort over an extended period of
time to get the retention rates up in senior high school and hence
university.
DRS
[...]
> > Statistically, not enough to justify the situation you describe.
> > Visuo-spatial skills have been extensively studied. While the male
> average
> > is *slightly* higher than the female average, the distribution is such
> that
> > the best females are better than the male average, and most females have
> > similar skills to most males. You therefore cannot ascribe your 100
male
> /
> > 0 female environment to biology. The answer therefore must lie in
> > sociology.
> >
>
> Why must it be sociology? I do not subscribe to your idea that the skills
> are so evenly distributed, but why is it that women are not interested in
> the same sort of stuff that men are?
For you not to 'subscribe' is to ignore the data. Visua-spatial skill sets
are, for the bulk of the population, distributed more or less evenly. It's
only when you start worrying about the extremes of the curve(s) that
anything interesting starts happening.
> For example, why is it that nearly every serial killer is a male?
> Socialisation?
In a word, yes. Any comprehensive answer would require a book.
[...]
> > We are clearly heading towards a future where the so-called traditional
> > family will continue to decline in numbers and importance. Given that
> that
> > model is fundamentally flawed because it overloads to two primary
> > participants this is a good thing. That is not to say that any or all
> > alternatives will be acceptable.
> >
>
> What do you mean by "overloads to two primary participants"?
The nuclear family overstresses the adults by requiring them to fulfil a
number of functions, such as parent, lover, companion, etc. Few people can
cope with those stresses for any length of time. It's a major cause of
marriage breakdowns.
> The act of making a child requires two primary participants.
Yes, we have figured that one out by now.
[...]
> > Ah, the old slippery slope fallacy.
> >
>
> So you do not think it at all important that the members of our society
are
> socially stable?
I do, but norms change. Loss of one set of norms does not equate to
anarchy.
[...]
> > Because if you believe in equality you don't start by emphasising
> > difference.
> >
>
> I firmly believe in equality of chance. There are for example excellent
> programmer and engineers that are female - and they have it easily in
their
> power at present to get into their field.
>
> However, men and women are not created entirely equal - they have separate
> strengths and weaknesses that should be accepted rather than worked
around.
By overemphasizing difference you are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Teach people from birth that they should be different according to their sex
and they will be.
[...]
> > Stories of that kind are common. They disguise the reality that those
> > children have been exposed since birth to a broadly consistent message
> from
> > every conceivable source, from parents and friends to television and so
> > forth. That message is that they *should* be different. I do not deny
a
> > degree of biological predisposition. I dispute that it is as powerful
as
> > you make out, or that we should naively treat predisposition as destiny.
> >
>
> Why do male baboons act differently to female baboons?
>
> Why do lions act differently to lionesses?
>
> Why do male black widow spiders act differently to female black widow
> spiders?
So what? Is biology destiny?
> Differences are built into the sexes - we have evolved from animals, and
to
> say that there is no role major difference between men and women is just
> plain wrong.
By overemphasizing difference you are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Teach people from birth that they should be different according to their sex
and they will be.
Dave Garner
>"Andrew D" <wnat...@omen.net.au> wrote;
>> failures? Thank you for the admission, I think we call call the discussion
>> quits here.
>Good, because you're boring me shitless. You're relentlessly misreading me
[...]
You mean as opposed to deleting or ignoring the questions
you haven't got a hope of answering? Hmmm....
d.
Tim Jones
> As a matter of interest, who indoctrinates male wrens to act as they do -
> and who makes female wrens put up with them? Who insists that male
> seahorses should incubate the eggs while the female goes on her way? Who
> made the rules that state that the biggest anemonefish in a family should
> always be the female? Why can a lion lie around while the lionesses hunt
> for dinner then put up with the damned kids climbing all over them? Who
> decides that one penguin should go off to hunt for weeks on end while the
> other incubates the freshly laid egg? Are all these situations the result
> of some gender-based plot?
>
Don't be foolish Andrew...
It's peer group presure from the other sea horses ;-)
Tim
> At what point in history did men suddenly become the dominant force you
> claim them to be...and why...and how?
>
DRS
I can see that ignoring one particular strawman is going to follow me
around.
Tim Jones
But it is towards the ends of the curves that makes someone good at a
discipline using those skills is it not?
Just as an interpreter would be likely at the top end of linguistic brain
skill?
I think you'll find that people who suceed as engineers do not have an even
distribution of spatial or other inate skill ability.
> > For example, why is it that nearly every serial killer is a male?
> > Socialisation?
>
> In a word, yes. Any comprehensive answer would require a book.
>
Why is it then that *every* culture has had wars and murderers etc?
Some people are hard wired for violence, and the only way to socialise these
wrong ends of the bell curve would be to use a frontal social lobotomy.
> [...]
>
> > > We are clearly heading towards a future where the so-called
traditional
> > > family will continue to decline in numbers and importance. Given that
> > that
> > > model is fundamentally flawed because it overloads to two primary
> > > participants this is a good thing. That is not to say that any or all
> > > alternatives will be acceptable.
> > >
> >
> > What do you mean by "overloads to two primary participants"?
>
> The nuclear family overstresses the adults by requiring them to fulfil a
> number of functions, such as parent, lover, companion, etc. Few people
can
> cope with those stresses for any length of time. It's a major cause of
> marriage breakdowns.
>
So why is it then that marriages are failing at an increasing rate now, as
people have more and more freedom?
Why were not so many marriages failing last century when the stresses were
higher on this - ie there was less help, and more required of the parents -
especially as the families as a rule were much larger than today?
> > The act of making a child requires two primary participants.
>
> Yes, we have figured that one out by now.
>
> [...]
>
> > > Ah, the old slippery slope fallacy.
> > >
> >
> > So you do not think it at all important that the members of our society
> are
> > socially stable?
>
> I do, but norms change. Loss of one set of norms does not equate to
> anarchy.
>
So you want to impose *your* norms on everyone else, in the name of a higher
cause?
> [...]
>
> > > Because if you believe in equality you don't start by emphasising
> > > difference.
> > >
> >
> > I firmly believe in equality of chance. There are for example excellent
> > programmer and engineers that are female - and they have it easily in
> their
> > power at present to get into their field.
> >
> > However, men and women are not created entirely equal - they have
separate
> > strengths and weaknesses that should be accepted rather than worked
> around.
>
> By overemphasizing difference you are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
> Teach people from birth that they should be different according to their
sex
> and they will be.
>
Differences should be cherished and enjoyed - not stamped out and trodden
on.
Should a child found to be gifted at the piano be forced to have the same
lessons as everyone else, in case they grow up different?
This is an extreme example, but the basic fact is that people are
different - I do not see any advantage in the homoginisation of humanity.
> [...]
>
> > > Stories of that kind are common. They disguise the reality that those
> > > children have been exposed since birth to a broadly consistent message
> > from
> > > every conceivable source, from parents and friends to television and
so
> > > forth. That message is that they *should* be different. I do not
deny
> a
> > > degree of biological predisposition. I dispute that it is as powerful
> as
> > > you make out, or that we should naively treat predisposition as
destiny.
> > >
> >
> > Why do male baboons act differently to female baboons?
> >
> > Why do lions act differently to lionesses?
> >
> > Why do male black widow spiders act differently to female black widow
> > spiders?
>
> So what? Is biology destiny?
>
You tell me - should we socialise gays and lesbians to be "straight"? Do
they have a biological destiny or not?
Why do you want to fundemantally alter something that has been successful
for milenia?
> > Differences are built into the sexes - we have evolved from animals, and
> to
> > say that there is no role major difference between men and women is just
> > plain wrong.
>
> By overemphasizing difference you are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
> Teach people from birth that they should be different according to their
sex
> and they will be.
>
Tim
Peter Wiley
wrote:
>"Tim Jones" <tall_m...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:ueop5.11137$Xg.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> <...>
>>
>> > > Is that the game you want to play? Okay then....Blind Freddy can see
>> > > Australia isn't a patriarchy.
>> >
>> > Men in Australia dominate positions of power. Women in Australia are
>> > largely ecluded from power. That means Australia is a patriarchy. Stop
>> > avoiding this truth. Work from it.
>> >
>>
>> As I've said before, men and women are different. There are more men in
>jobs
>> that require "hard arses" (or hard asses - like in computing ;-) than
>women,
>> because men are mentally predisposed to this sort of personality. It has
>> recently been conjectured that this is because of hormone levels of
>estrogen
>> and testosterone in the womb during the embrionic and feotal growth.
>
>The fact (for example) that until very recently girls were dissuaded from
>pursuing maths/science subjects at school has nothing to do with it, right.
Only if you use geological definitions of 'recent;ly'. Which would fit
in with your mental processes, so it's probably a correct usage - from
your point of view.
Peter Wiley
Peter Wiley
wrote:
>"Dave Garner" <dav...@hunter.apana.org.au> wrote in message
>news:96733997...@bombadil.apana.org.au...
>> "DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> writes:
>> >"Andrew D" <wnat...@omen.net.au> wrote;
>>
>> >> failures? Thank you for the admission, I think we call call the
>discussion
>> >> quits here.
>>
>> >Good, because you're boring me shitless. You're relentlessly misreading
>me
>> [...]
>>
>> You mean as opposed to deleting or ignoring the questions
>> you haven't got a hope of answering? Hmmm....
>
>I can see that ignoring one particular strawman is going to follow me
>around.
Actually, by my count it's about one difficult question per thread.
IOW, you classify as 'strawman' anything you have no hope of answering
without demonstrating the fundamental inconsistencies in your
positions.
Peter Wiley
Andrew D
<d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
+"Tim Jones" <tall_m...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
+news:c9qp5.11297$Xg.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
[snip]
+> However, men and women are not created entirely equal - they have separate
+> strengths and weaknesses that should be accepted rather than worked
+around.
+By overemphasizing difference you are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
+Teach people from birth that they should be different according to their sex
+and they will be.
So gays are a result of their environment? Yes, I know -
"contextcontextcontext".
[snip]
+> Why do male baboons act differently to female baboons?
+> Why do lions act differently to lionesses?
+> Why do male black widow spiders act differently to female black widow
+> spiders?
+So what? Is biology destiny?
Nice answer. I guess that explains it all.
+> Differences are built into the sexes - we have evolved from animals, and
+to
+> say that there is no role major difference between men and women is just
+> plain wrong.
+By overemphasizing difference you are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
+Teach people from birth that they should be different according to their sex
+and they will be.
If so, then if you teach them to be the same they will be. Since both
options, if your premise is correct, result from intentional engineering,
why is your preference the better one? Why do you wish to dissuade women
from exercising their maternal instincts?
Andrew D
<tall_m...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
+Some people are hard wired for violence, and the only way to socialise these
+wrong ends of the bell curve would be to use a frontal social lobotomy.
Yeah right! They need a frontal lobotomy like they need a hole in the head.
Andrew D
<tall_m...@hotmail.com> wrote:
+<...>
+> As a matter of interest, who indoctrinates male wrens to act as they do -
+> and who makes female wrens put up with them? Who insists that male
+> seahorses should incubate the eggs while the female goes on her way? Who
+> made the rules that state that the biggest anemonefish in a family should
+> always be the female? Why can a lion lie around while the lionesses hunt
+> for dinner then put up with the damned kids climbing all over them? Who
+> decides that one penguin should go off to hunt for weeks on end while the
+> other incubates the freshly laid egg? Are all these situations the result
+> of some gender-based plot?
+>
+
+Don't be foolish Andrew...
+
+It's peer group presure from the other sea horses ;-)
I'm more concerned about the anemonefish (amphiprion spp.) actually. The
female of this genus can be an absolute bitch to say the least. She is
always bigger than a male and can give a new one a fatally hard time if
she doesn't take an immediate liking to him. Mind you, the males of this
group are far better off than male black widows and praying mantis' I
guess.
I guess once we've achieved a level of androgyny in the human species that
appeases the likes of DRS, we can shift our attention to some of these
more appalling breaches of individual rights and unconscionable gender
imbalances.
For now I'm going to start dressing my kids in grey overalls and tell them
its for their own damned good.
Tim Jones
And don't forget to feed them salted oatmeal for each and every meal. There
is no end of disparaged areas that could use a little homoginisation. You
cannot ascribe the varied diets today fully with the health of our society.
I'm going to have to tell off my three year old son as well - he has a doll
that he calls his "little baby" that he brings to breakfast every morning
with me - and when I ask him what he wants to be when he grows up he says he
"wants to be a Daddy".
What sort of nightmarish generic gender roles am I bringing my children up
in?
I'm pretty sure that "Brave new world" was meant in the same future feeling
as "1984" was: I do not think Huxley wrote it as a blue print for a happy
future.
Tim
Andrew D
<tall_m...@hotmail.com> wrote:
+"Andrew D" <wnat...@omen.net.au> wrote in message
+news:wnatives-280...@reggae-13-100.nv.iinet.net.au...
[snip]
+> I guess once we've achieved a level of androgyny in the human species that
+> appeases the likes of DRS, we can shift our attention to some of these
+> more appalling breaches of individual rights and unconscionable gender
+> imbalances.
+> For now I'm going to start dressing my kids in grey overalls and tell them
+> its for their own damned good.
+And don't forget to feed them salted oatmeal for each and every meal. There
+is no end of disparaged areas that could use a little homoginisation. You
+cannot ascribe the varied diets today fully with the health of our society.
I must confess that over the weekend I pondered to what extent we *must*
go to ensure NO child is raised differently. Every parent must surely work
in an identical job lest they impose an unusual influence on their progeny
by becoming something of a role model. The more I think about it, the less
I can see how DRS will ever be appeased - I just don't think it's possible
to make everyone the same - there will always be that one something that
makes one person act differently to another.
Perhaps genetic cloning holds the only answer?
+I'm going to have to tell off my three year old son as well - he has a doll
+that he calls his "little baby" that he brings to breakfast every morning
+with me - and when I ask him what he wants to be when he grows up he says he
+"wants to be a Daddy".
+What sort of nightmarish generic gender roles am I bringing my children up
+in?
And at five, my daughter insisted that she did not want to have babies! Oh
no Tim, we've obviously fallen victim to political correctness!!! Of
course, I blame my parents and teachers...oh, and men of course, musn't
forget to blame men.
+I'm pretty sure that "Brave new world" was meant in the same future feeling
+as "1984" was: I do not think Huxley wrote it as a blue print for a happy
+future.
Unfortunately, many currently unhappy people seem to have embraced it as a
vision of Utopia...where no one is happy.
Andy D
Tim Jones
> I must confess that over the weekend I pondered to what extent we *must*
> go to ensure NO child is raised differently. Every parent must surely work
> in an identical job lest they impose an unusual influence on their progeny
> by becoming something of a role model. The more I think about it, the less
> I can see how DRS will ever be appeased - I just don't think it's possible
> to make everyone the same - there will always be that one something that
> makes one person act differently to another.
>
> Perhaps genetic cloning holds the only answer?
>
This begs the question - who should we clone?
Who should we base the whole of our new homoginous society on?
<...>
Andrew D
<tall_m...@hotmail.com> wrote:
+<...>
+> I must confess that over the weekend I pondered to what extent we *must*
+> go to ensure NO child is raised differently. Every parent must surely work
+> in an identical job lest they impose an unusual influence on their progeny
+> by becoming something of a role model. The more I think about it, the less
+> I can see how DRS will ever be appeased - I just don't think it's possible
+> to make everyone the same - there will always be that one something that
+> makes one person act differently to another.
+>
+> Perhaps genetic cloning holds the only answer?
+>
+
+This begs the question - who should we clone?
+
+Who should we base the whole of our new homoginous society on?
Alan Fels or Bernie Fraser get my vote.
Andy D.
philm
Peter Wiley wrote in message <39abb813...@news.antdiv.gov.au>...
I am yet to see a feminist win a debate on their ideology. They all
ultimately slink back into their corners to lick their wounds. Most
disappear from debating issues forever, only being prepared to discuss
things with their own kind, continuously egging each other along and
expanding their own warped sense of reality.
Even so, this country has become so apathetic, we have now let our
bureaucracy be turned into a feminocracy.
Phil
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Vote in more women - vote out feminists
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>Peter Wiley
>
Tim Jones
> population on a Bell curve - it is not necessary to be part of the top two
> percent to be good at engineering or computer programming. Useful,
> obviously, but not necessary.
>
> > Just as an interpreter would be likely at the top end of linguistic
brain
> > skill?
> >
> > I think you'll find that people who suceed as engineers do not have an
> even
> > distribution of spatial or other inate skill ability.
> >
> > > > For example, why is it that nearly every serial killer is a male?
> > > > Socialisation?
> > >
> > > In a word, yes. Any comprehensive answer would require a book.
> > >
> >
> > Why is it then that *every* culture has had wars and murderers etc?
>
>
You forgot power - how do you propose we get rid of power from society -
power is the thing which grows the most and draws people to it in all
civilisations.
And you did not mention anything about inbuilt violence below:
> My norms? I advocate diversity.
>
Uniform chaos is also a norm-form.
> I do not advocate the 'homoginisation' of humanity. I do not care what
sex
> the gifted child is. The gift is what matters, not the accident of its
sex.
>
As happens at the moment you mean?
> Yes, we do socialise homosexuals to be straight. It causes huge problems
> for them.
>
So you argue that socialisation against genetic tendancies is bad?
> > Why do you want to fundemantally alter something that has been
successful
> > for milenia?
>
> Because it's only been successful for part of the population at the
expense
> of the rest.
>
Which part of the population has it been bad for?
The natural personalities and abilities of men and women when working
properly work create a harmonious accord.
Dysfunction is never to be sought, and dysfunction can and will be
socialised or treated now and in the future to greater or lesser extents.
An example of this is violent males: it has been shown that without positive
male role models, boys can grow up into violent and dysfunctional men. They
can be socialised with positive role models and positive experiences however
to stop the cycle of abuse, particulary is found at an early age.
There are a lot of cases where men and women can be brought closer together,
not by emulsification of sex traits throughout the population, but by
sharing and enjoying the things that make us different.
Tim
DRS
Not necessarily. Two standard deviations from the mean covers 96% of the
population on a Bell curve - it is not necessary to be part of the top two
percent to be good at engineering or computer programming. Useful,
obviously, but not necessary.
> Just as an interpreter would be likely at the top end of linguistic brain
> skill?
>
> I think you'll find that people who suceed as engineers do not have an
even
> distribution of spatial or other inate skill ability.
>
> > > For example, why is it that nearly every serial killer is a male?
> > > Socialisation?
> >
> > In a word, yes. Any comprehensive answer would require a book.
> >
>
> Why is it then that *every* culture has had wars and murderers etc?
Notions of property, honour, glory, etc. All taught.
> Some people are hard wired for violence, and the only way to socialise
My norms? I advocate diversity.
> > [...]
> >
> > > > Because if you believe in equality you don't start by emphasising
> > > > difference.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I firmly believe in equality of chance. There are for example
excellent
> > > programmer and engineers that are female - and they have it easily in
> > their
> > > power at present to get into their field.
> > >
> > > However, men and women are not created entirely equal - they have
> separate
> > > strengths and weaknesses that should be accepted rather than worked
> > around.
> >
> > By overemphasizing difference you are creating a self-fulfilling
prophecy.
> > Teach people from birth that they should be different according to their
> sex
> > and they will be.
> >
>
> Differences should be cherished and enjoyed - not stamped out and trodden
> on.
>
> Should a child found to be gifted at the piano be forced to have the same
> lessons as everyone else, in case they grow up different?
>
> This is an extreme example, but the basic fact is that people are
> different - I do not see any advantage in the homoginisation of humanity.
I do not advocate the 'homoginisation' of humanity. I do not care what sex
the gifted child is. The gift is what matters, not the accident of its sex.
> > [...]
> >
> > > > Stories of that kind are common. They disguise the reality that
those
> > > > children have been exposed since birth to a broadly consistent
message
> > > from
> > > > every conceivable source, from parents and friends to television and
> so
> > > > forth. That message is that they *should* be different. I do not
> deny
> > a
> > > > degree of biological predisposition. I dispute that it is as
powerful
> > as
> > > > you make out, or that we should naively treat predisposition as
> destiny.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Why do male baboons act differently to female baboons?
> > >
> > > Why do lions act differently to lionesses?
> > >
> > > Why do male black widow spiders act differently to female black widow
> > > spiders?
> >
> > So what? Is biology destiny?
> >
>
> You tell me - should we socialise gays and lesbians to be "straight"? Do
> they have a biological destiny or not?
Yes, we do socialise homosexuals to be straight. It causes huge problems
for them.
> Why do you want to fundemantally alter something that has been successful
> for milenia?
Because it's only been successful for part of the population at the expense
of the rest.
--
Andrew D
<d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
+"Tim Jones" <tall_m...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
+news:b%hq5.20287$Xg.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
[snip]
+> Why is it then that *every* culture has had wars and murderers etc?
+Notions of property, honour, glory, etc. All taught.
So why do ants wage war on other ant colonies and why don't we do anything
about it? And why are they all dominated by one female?
[snip]
+> So why is it then that marriages are failing at an increasing rate now, as
+> people have more and more freedom?
+> Why were not so many marriages failing last century when the stresses were
+> higher on this - ie there was less help, and more required of the
+>parents - especially as the families as a rule were much larger than today?
DRS??
[snip]
+> So you want to impose *your* norms on everyone else, in the name of a
+>higher cause?
+My norms? I advocate diversity.
No you don't. You said that something as simple as dressing children
differently creates difference - and that offends you. In fact you said
"if you believe in equality you don't start by emphasising difference."
[snip]
+> Differences should be cherished and enjoyed - not stamped out and trodden
+> on.
+> Should a child found to be gifted at the piano be forced to have the same
+> lessons as everyone else, in case they grow up different?
+> This is an extreme example, but the basic fact is that people are
+> different - I do not see any advantage in the homoginisation of humanity.
+I do not advocate the 'homoginisation' of humanity. I do not care what sex
+the gifted child is. The gift is what matters, not the accident of its sex.
Is it a gift though - or is it just sociology? I taught myself the
didgeridoo last year and my five year old son likes to copy me - my older
daughter shows far less interest. This weekend my son, who can blow a
good, short single note, wanted to know how come I didn't stop to take a
breath, so I gave him some hints on circular breathing. He went at it with
a vengeance - he didn't get it but he tried damned hard. I have no doubt
that he will have it sussed before Christmas if he persists. Is he gifted,
or is he copying his Dad? (Note that I am not remotely musically inclined
otherwise). If he gets it and my daughter doesn't, is that because of
innate differences or sociological differences?
Meanwhile, my daughter is fascinated by my horticultural forays
(propagating native plants) and enjoys "gardening" and the detailed
knowledge that can go with it, while my son shows little interest in
plants at all.
If I don't force my daughter to learn the Didj and my son to take an
interest in horticulture and botany, am I failing them, or simply building
on their own interests? If they turn out different, is it biology or
sociology? If it helps, my daughter wears dresses occasionally, but my son
very rarely does so.
[snip]
+> You tell me - should we socialise gays and lesbians to be "straight"? Do
+> they have a biological destiny or not?
+Yes, we do socialise homosexuals to be straight. It causes huge problems
+for them.
Then your answer to the question is in fact "no", not "yes"...unless you
want them to have huge problems. Though this contradicts your entire
argument re gender differences.
+> Why do you want to fundemantally alter something that has been successful
+> for milenia?
+Because it's only been successful for part of the population at the expense
+of the rest.
Better to pander to the minority at the expense of the majority?
Tim Jones
"Why men don't iron".
It goes through many differences between men and women in a concise and
entertaining manner.
Tim
(I saw it on the cable Lifestyle Channel, here is the synopsis that goes
through the broad concepts involved: http://www.frif.com/new99/whymen.html)
Andrew D
<tall_m...@hotmail.com> wrote:
+Regarding this debate, I would recommend the documentary series from England
+"Why men don't iron".
+It goes through many differences between men and women in a concise and
+entertaining manner.
Another of the things that consistently fascinates me is the feminisation
of news and current affairs - and the demonisation of men that goes with
it. How many times do we see stories on (supposedly) current affairs type
shows in which men are asked to perform tasks such as shopping, cleaning
etc...and in which, more often than not, the men come off looking pretty
hopeless at these tasks compared to their wives?
Now, how many times do we stories in which women are asked to change the
oil in the family clunker, knock-up a quick bookshelf for the kids room or
climb up and prune the highest branches off a backyard tree? Ever?
While there is no doubt some women would complete these tasks with ease, I
suspect that many would fare no better than the men who are regularly
exposed as domestic incompetents. But we don't see these "women attempting
men's work" stories for some reason. Could it be that any station that
dared to air such a story would be hauled before the courts for sexism?
Rob Silva
wrote:
>In article <JfHq5.22174$Xg.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, "Tim Jones"
><tall_m...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>+Regarding this debate, I would recommend the documentary series from England
>+"Why men don't iron".
>
>+It goes through many differences between men and women in a concise and
>+entertaining manner.
>
>Another of the things that consistently fascinates me is the feminisation
>of news and current affairs - and the demonisation of men that goes with
>it. How many times do we see stories on (supposedly) current affairs type
>shows in which men are asked to perform tasks such as shopping, cleaning
>etc...and in which, more often than not, the men come off looking pretty
>hopeless at these tasks compared to their wives?
Yeah, I've often wondered where they dig up these deadbeats.
>
>Now, how many times do we stories in which women are asked to change the
>oil in the family clunker, knock-up a quick bookshelf for the kids room or
>climb up and prune the highest branches off a backyard tree? Ever?
Well, you ought to know by now that sexism is a one way street :-(
Dave Garner
>>Another of the things that consistently fascinates me is the feminisation
>>of news and current affairs - and the demonisation of men that goes with
>>it. How many times do we see stories on (supposedly) current affairs type
>>shows in which men are asked to perform tasks such as shopping, cleaning
>>etc...and in which, more often than not, the men come off looking pretty
>>hopeless at these tasks compared to their wives?
>Yeah, I've often wondered where they dig up these deadbeats.
Any bloke who can't wash, iron, cook & clean has obviously
led a sheltered existance.
d.
DRS
[...]
> Then your answer to the question is in fact "no", not "yes"...unless you
> want them to have huge problems. Though this contradicts your entire
> argument re gender differences.
That is precisely the kind of thoughtless misreading that gives me the shits
and why I've pretty much stopped answering you. I have consistently argued
for choice, and you only have choices when you have both opportunities and
the knowledge of those opportunities. There is no contradiction. Women and
men are far more alike than they are different. Homosexuals and
heterosexuals are far more alike than they are different. Women and
homosexuals suffer when they are told by society that these minor
differences irrevocably constrain them to a limited range of choices as to
how they can live and what opportunities are available to them. Moreover,
those choices left to them are also devalued by society.
Biology limits our choices, but that is not at all the same thing as saying
that biology is destiny. It limits our choices in as much as it is a
necessary condition of our being beings-in-the-world, and the world as it is
necessarily limits us. We cannot do anything we choose; the world limits
Will. The mistake we have made for thousands of years is to enculture our
biology as if there were a necessary link between what is and what ought to
be. That is to say, it is a mistake to say that because someone is of a
certain sex or sexual orientation that they must therefore Be in certain
constrained ways. The consequential mistake that flows from that is to
confuse our enculturation of biology with the real thing, and thus mistake
our social constructions as essential manifestations of reality. That is
why deconstruction of society causes people so much angst. They think that
reality is in some way being undermined but that is nonsense. Their
internalised reality is suddenly out of synch with the new synthesis. Very
often they deal with this cognitive dissonance by denial, something we see
every day in this news group, for example, which is why we see denial after
denial of the most obvious forms of discrimination that necessitate these
changes, and bitter, often hateful diatribes and slurs hurled at those who
advocate them. Often these diatribes come not from the blatently
pathological but from those who sincerely believe themselves free of
prejudice, but those people are frequently the worst enemy of equality for
while the former are easily dismissed the latter are smug in their delusion
and therefore make little effort to understand (much less sympathise) with
those who say that merely no longer being persecuted is not enough and that
equality is still a long way off.