stoush.net

International Women’s Day is sexist.

Thanks for that contribution Evil. Any serious comments?

That was a serious comment. I even edited out about 80% of it just to keep it on topic.

Do you deny that a day dedicated solely to one gender is sexist, in the absence of a day devoted to the other?

Would you feel better if someone bought you flowers, EP?

Past violations of women’s rights?

What about the great Gaels of Ireland which speak of the pre-Anglo invasion where women were sometimes leaders and respected throughout Celtic society. How about a day to celebrate this?

Or is this just another example of left-wing liberal racism where they deny that Ireland was the nucleus of modern society and the aspects of equality within it?

As comical as this day was in the old Chekoslovakia

” ”’celebrated as the communists did, which meant that men got drunk and women got flowers.”’ “

What is its purpose but to function as an anti-white male demonstration when it was Celtic men throughout the world who first allowed women their equality within society?

International Men’s Day should be celebrated with gifts of beer, Anna.

But wouldn’t it be sexist to have a different gift for the men, Evil?

Fair enough, women can have beer too.

Are you two closet lovers?…

Patrick, please don’t be patronising. As I’ve warned you before, if you’re trying to be funny, you’ve got to work a bit harder on your humour.
…
Evil, your suggestion of gifts of beer would be welcomed by most of the women I know. Your suggestion of gifts of beer the other way for IWD places you firmly on the side of the old Czech men—soon to be swept aside by the forces of history.

it was Celtic men throughout the world who first allowed women their equality within society?

If they were truly equal they wouldn’t have had to rely on a man to provide it, but that’s just semantics and I get your gist.

I don’t get EPs. Never have.

Liam, your misreading of my suggestion for gifts of beer on International Men’s Day as a suggestion for International Women’s day places you firmly on the side of the comprehension-challenged – soon to be swept into teaching positions by the forces of an incompetent Education Department.

Here is my contribution to the commemoration of past and present violations of women’s rights.

Sexist and sectarian and paranoid, I commend you Evil, three kinds of offensive for the price of one click of the [post comment] button.
Would it be OK, though, if from now on we didn’t make this thread all about you?

Hey, since us blokes run the world (well except for you EP) every day is International Man’s Day! Mine’s a whiskey, thanks darling.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. EP doesn’t have a girlfriend.

David, I repeat my warning to Patrick. Don’t be patronising, and if you’re trying to be funny, succeed or don’t bother

It isn’t about me, Liam. It’s about Western feminists getting into bed with Islamic misogynists, to the detriment of women everywhere.

Of course, I can understand why leftists wouldn’t want to think about that.

International Women’s Day is about recognition.

If it hurts your brain or strains your gut to think of ways that women are disdvantaged in Australia, purely because of their gender, then think about this. Australia is a rich country. Almost everybody has enough to eat. Women are entitled in the same way that men are according to the law. We have never had an official civil war. We have never, in our history as “Australia”, been invaded (although as a nation we were formed upon an invasion). Domestic violence is the subject of community and Government initiatives. Rape is looked upon as a terrible crime, rape of a child is looked upon as a heinous and indecent act.

In Sudan, there has been a civil war for a long time. Hundreds of thousands of people are dead. Hundreds of thousands of people are in refugee camps. Social norms have broken down; often the male head of the family is dead or incapacitated and unable to protect the women of the family, as they would in a normal social situation in that country. There is not enough food, and it is not free; sex becomes currency, and shame becomes survival. Rape and mutilation and humiliation of women and girl-children is an everyday occurance, both in conflict and in the camps. Amnesty International puts it quite succinctly:

Custom, culture and religion have built an image of women as bearing the ‘honour’ of their communities. Disparaging a woman’s sexuality and destroying her physical integrity have become a means by which to terrorize, demean and ‘defeat’ entire communities, as well as to punish, intimidate and humiliate women

Women in these situations have almost no power over their lives and certainly very little hope of security, safety and prosperity. They bear the brunt of terrible situations in ways that men simply do not, because of the way they are positioned within their circumstances, purely because of their gender. Around the world, in every conflict situation, this common theme exists.

And in every nation without internal armed conflict, there is a common theme of criminalised gendered violence, and institutionalised disadvantage for women in the spheres of social power too, and that’s the situation I live in and it’s one I seek to change. But IWD is about more than that.

It’s great news that just before IWD the LHMU in New South Wales got a huge pay equity victory in the NSW Industrial Relations Commission for low-paid child care workers.

Also good to see this victory just before the iron jaws of WorkChoices takes a huge bite into workers rights.

Nonsense, Arleeshar.

In nations suffering civil strife, men are at as much, or greater, risk than women. Women mey be raped, but men are murdered.

And in societies such as the US, UK and Australia, women have huge systematic, institutional advantages over men. In law, education, health and family areas, women are doing better than men. It is simply untrue to claim that women are disadvantaged in spheres of social power here.

The very fact that there is a Women’s Day here, and no Men’s Day, is an example of this privilege that Western women have. Feminism here is nothing but a power grab based on a fraud.

EvilPundit said:

No! I won’t let go of my remote control, and I don’t like it when you get up to change the channel and block the infra-red! Get me another beer, woman!

Your comments are not serious enough to engage with. Get some evidence, then we’ll talk.

men throughout the world who first allowed women their equality (My emphasis)

Patrick, the fact that you can say that without a hint of irony shows that you don’t understand the notion of equality in the first place. Here’s a hint: the use of the word “allowed”.

It’s great news that just before IWD the LHMU in New South Wales got a huge pay equity victory in the NSW Industrial Relations Commission for low-paid child care workers.

It is great news, and I don’t want to take any of the glory away from the LHMU, good on them. I just have a major problem with professionals employed in the child care area (which is actually partly early education), being classed as “Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous”. As if they were bloody bar staff. I don’t mean to diss any bar persons either, but it does show the esteem in which child care workers are held in this country. This has got to change.

I see that you can’t engage with my actual comments, Arleeshar, and instead have to make up a lie about what I said.

That’s telling.

Yeah, that’s right, it’s actually me who is guilty of that.

I am weary of responding to statements which not only have no factual basis, but do not even cite concrete or factual examples to back up their contentions. I myself do not make these sorts of contentions without providing a few sources and doing a little research. So why should I engage in debate with you, when you’re unwilling to do me the common courtesy of justifying your own point of view?

You only provided one source for your assertions, Arleeshar – a link to a page at the partisan organisation Amnesty International.

Here’s an overview of men’s issues (PDF) for a general idea of the discrimination men face in the United States.

Here’s some analysis of the overwhelming suffering of men in areas of conflict:

We offer case-study treatments of gendercide against men in political, military, and ethnic conflicts over the last century-and-a-quarter. If the case-studies numerically outweigh those of mass killings of women in wars and other conflicts, this reflects our conviction that men are, indeed, generally the victims of the most severe gender-selective atrocities in such situations.

Women outlive men in Australia by about eight years, yet they receive more health funding. Femeles outnumber males in graduation from high school, university studies, and university graduation. Women are favoured over men in family law. If you’re not aware of the last three factys, you aren’t paying attention.

Yet there is no men’s department in government to address these issues, nor is there an International Men’s Day to raise awareness. This is discrimination.

I agree with EP about family law. Women are overwhelmingly favoured in this instance.

However, for goodness sakes! Just look at how under represented women are in business and government. I think until there is a fairer representation of gender within government and business, women have every right to highlight the inequality.

Allowed.

I am afraid that that is a fact Helen, women were allowed their equality through society by forward thinking men.

Even in the ancient Celtic societies, it came through respect of Christianity and was granted at the mercy of men.

How can equality be allowed? By giving the same oppurtunities and giving the same respect.

There was nothing to stop men in modern society maintaining the status quo except their proud celtic traditions.

In fact all women should be out celebrating St Patrick’s Day because it was the beginning of their liberation. St Patrick introduced Christianity to Ireland and had many female acolytes.

In fact it is becoming very clear that St Patrick’s day should be a day that all women thank St Patrick by giving gifts to and thanking those with the name Patrick who carry on this proud tradition.

Mostly agree with EP however, but I think those things will even themselves out in time once abortion is banned and children are recognised as the responsibility of the whole family and from there society.

I do not see the point of having a man’s day. Having a women’s day is good enough to see how silly these types of events are.

“Women outlive men in Australia by about eight years, yet they receive more health funding. Femeles outnumber males in graduation from high school, university studies, and university graduation. Women are favoured over men in family law.”

Says it all right there, EP. Women outnumber men in graduation from both high school and uni, yet men still manage to make more money regardless, and there are still a lot more men in the higher reaches of power in politics, business and law.

Women use more health funding because they have the babies.

Women more often are granted custody of children, but they are also the ones who take most of the responsibility for caring in intact families as well. Single mothers are also more likely to be poor than child-support paying fathers.

Patrick, Helen is not disputing your use of the word allowed, she asking you to consider what the word means. Anyone who has to be “granted” equality is at the wrong end of the power stakes.

I attended a women’s day party last night in Pakse in Lao PDR. I had trouble explaining to my hosts that in Australia it is primarily students and activists who recognise International Women’s Day.

After dinner the men sat and drank Beerlao and laughed at me while I helped the women with the dishes. Even on IWD it is a woman’s role to keep the home. And yes, I acknowledge that (as EP and others will no doubt point out) the men here work bloody hard and for long hours. Yet so do the women. As in many less developed countries. Then they keep the home, prepare the meals, raise the children, and often represent the family at the community level.

What critics of IWD and modern feminism fail to understand is that the burden of poverty and conflict falls harder on women. In somewhere like Lao PDR, it could easily be considered a double or triple burden. No amount of colour documentaries or website articles will change this fact. Nor will any amount of armchair or keyboard preaching from the comfort of a western home.

For those who are genuinely interested, Relief Web has published some statistics regarding women in Afghanistan. The Afghan situation is unique, but the trends seen here can be found right across the global South.

http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/ABES-6MNSTH?OpenDocument&rc=3&cc=afg

Beer or flowers? Irrelevant.

Don’t be patronising, and if you’re trying to be funny, succeed or don’t bother

Liam, I’m sure I don’t need to point out to you the contradiction. Just sayin.

David and others, no correspondence will be entered into about what constitutes appropriate stoushing. Please keep further comments pertinent to the thread subject.

Women outnumber men in graduation from both high school and uni, yet men still manage to make more money regardless, and there are still a lot more men in the higher reaches of power in politics, business and law.

Maybe it’s because men are more dedicated to their careers. Maybe it’s because men are better at some things. Maybe it’s because there are mopre men at the extremes of the talent distribution curve.

The fact is that society has been rearranged to give women advantages in many areas, yet men still dominate the top positions. Eventually you might need to change some of your assumptions to accommodate reality.

Even so, it’s the wives and daughters of those high-achieving men who benefit. They inherit the money, or gain control of it through the Family Court. So even the prevalence of men in high positions is an advantage for women, who gain the rewards without having to work for them.

However, men also dominate the bottom positions in society. There are a lot more homeless men, imprisoned men, and dead men than there are women. Yet we never hear feminists demanding equality in those areas.

It is a simple fact that the education system is designed to suit women. Most teachers are women. Most women design the courses. The simple fact is that there are not alot of rich women when there is nothing stopping women from being a self made billionaire like Bill Gates. I blame feminist culture for it. The oppurtunities are there for women so why are they not being taken?

Speaking of rich women, for some years now there have been more female millionaires in the UK than male millionaires.

Where did they get the money? From rich men, through marriage, divorce and inheritance.

There is a huge wealth transfer from males to females that is ignored by feminists who dwell on the so-called “pay gap”.

On every March 8th almost every woman got a flower and a small gift (typically soap or a towel) from her employer.

so the fact that women who attended the IWD breakfast in sydney the other day received Crabtree & Evelyn giftpacks should be seen as entirely ironic, right?

‘The fact is that society has been rearranged to give women advantages in many areas…’

EP, I guess by this you mean Australian society. The merits of this generalisation aside, remember that we are discussing International Women’s Day. The majority of the world’s women do not live in Australia and have not benefitted in any way from this rearrangement you claim has occurred. Or are you suggesting that they have? Surely not.

Evil, unless you are suggesting that we completely redefine marriage and what it means, then it is a partnership and wives are entitled to half of the income that comes into it.

It’s not bias, it’s traditional conservative values.

These are great questions. Is it ‘better’ to have the ability to earn your money in an equal fashion to a male, or to rely on your male partner’s ability to profit from the current situation (where women are not as equal as men in many areas outside of legislation) and make out like a bandit for the 5 or so years average difference in life expectancy between his death and yours?

Our society is not arranged so as to empower women, and that’s why activities that seek to do so are so prominent. All of the points of advantage that you have made EP are hangovers from a system where women were the ‘weaker sex’, chattels by law, judged to be supreme in maternal instincts and homemaking and not much else. So, laws were made to ‘protect’ these economically disabled people. ‘Womens complaints’ became and in many forms continue to be a lucrative area in health care; and women’s reproductive and sexual function is heavily funded (breast cancer, ovarian cancer, although there is a cost-saving shift towards private funding of maternity and the idea that having a child is a choice). Women are cast as better carers but worse providers (in many cases the truth, again often to structural inequality), and given preference in the family courts. You have chosen to highlight the fact that male diseases like prostate cancer are underfunded, and that fathers miss out in the family court. These things are terrible and should be remedied too, but they don’t negate the fact that gendered structural disadvantage exists and predetermines our interactions with society in these cases and others. This is the case for men as well as women. It’s just that men’s status is weighted towards a presumption of independence, arising from a history and contemporary assumption of economic and social power. Women’s isn’t.

As for your shameful contention that our attention should be drawn to the deaths of men in war yet not to the lives (and deaths) of women:
ANZAC day. Commemoration Day. VE Day. Remembrance Day. Armistice Day. Independence Day. National days, symbols of patriotism and sadness, unquestionably focussed on the glory and loss of young manhood, the diggers, the diggers. Where is the female equivalent?

The oppurtunities are there for women so why are they not being taken?

I think that’s the point.

I think we all should be worried about an advance in women’s reporductive rights being crushed in South Dakota in order to bring reproductive freedoms to the US Supreme Court and try out Dubya’s newly stacked (and male) Supreme Court bench on reversing Roe v Wade.

Women have not achieved equality, and what gains they have won are in danger of being wound back by the patriarchal backlash. Why? The power of the patriarchy has not been eliminated, and until this happens women cannot be truly equal.

Nonsense, Arleeshar. Those leftovers from earlier times that give women advantages over men are being strongly defended by feminists, even as they seek ever greater discrimination in favour of women.

And of course, no feminists are demanding equality at the bottom end of the scale, in homelessness, imprisonment, legal dispossession and early death – all of which are dominated by men.

Women have all the reproductive rights in our society, while men are forced to bear all the responsibilities and costs for women’s choices. Yet feminists oppose any attempt to provide equal rights for men, or indeed any rights at all.

The power of the matriarchy dominates our society, and until it is eliminated, the sexes cannot be equal.

Women have all the reproductive rights in our society, while men are forced to bear all the responsibilities and costs for women’s choices.

wow, are you stupid? single mums, deadbeat dads, takes two to tango… any of these concepts ringing a bell there, flossy?

I liked your previous post much better EP. In this one it’s not clear exactly what you’re saying .

I don’t know any feminist women who want ANYBODY to be homeless, down and out, disposessed, imprisoned in inhumane conditions, or dying early. To the contrary, every feminist woman or pro-feminist man I’ve ever met is very sensitive to notions of inequality, and actively cares about those people who society has forgotten. One of the formative experiences of my life was volunteering at the Matthew Talbot hostel, in fact it was the reason that I became interested in social policy. What are you trying to say, EP? Do you believe that a movement that was constituted at its core to advance the status of women should be advocating that more women should be homeless? How bizarre of you. Or are you arguing that feminists should work towards helping men out of the poverty trap too? Well, many of them do. Are you arguing that organisations, NGOS and government bodies constituted specifically to raise the status of women should be working on this particular social problem as a priority? That’s like arguing that Greenpeace should refocus its energies towards promoting needle exchanges. Useful, but there are other bodies that do it and better. It’s not really what Greenpeace does.

And again, a movement constituted to raise the status of women is hardly going to advocate decreasing funding to women’s health. Is that what you are doing? How strange and utterly uncompassionate of you. Or are you advocating increasing funding to men’s health? Well, I don’t know any feminist women who would argue against that. I am with you all the way, raise the banner and I’ll march on that one.

Of course women don’t live in a vacuum. Almost every woman has at least one man in her life that she cares very much about, be it family member or friend. Why would you possibly suggest that “the feminists” do not care about the plight of their friends, fathers, brothers, sons, lovers?

Sorry, Arleeshar. I was losing interest at that point.

Dibo, You’re not thinking. Try harder.

the thing is that the quality of debate at this site isn’t as high as it could be sometimes - whenever a ‘contentious’ issue is raised there are responses mainly ranting abd occasionally degenerating into personal insults, adding nothing to the discussion. It’s a bit of a problem. Maybe we need to make some new forum rules about structuring comments to raise the quality of debate?

Arleeshar, if a man and woman were both sharing child-rearing and home duties exactly evenly, then the family court forced a change after separation to make one parent the full-time custodian at the expense of the other, then that would be preferential treatment. If dad were a full-time stay-at-home dad before the divorce, then mum was granted full custody afterwards, then that would be bias towards women.

If both parents were earning an equal amount of money, and doing an equal amount of home-care, yet one parent got half of the other’s assets while not being required to give them half of theirs, then that would be bias.

When a court makes decisions that reflect the situation of a family before they separated, that is not preferential treatment, or bias – it is sensible, it is fair and it is usually the only workable solution.

Marriage is a partnership, and even when only one person is earning income, it is earned for all the members of the family. The other members of the family make their own contributions, which makes the life of the income-earner easier. For both partners to receive an equal share of that money is called fairness. For the non-custodial parent to be expected to continue to support their children financially as they had been doing (or should have been doing) before separation is also fairness.

There is no bias in the family court system that doesn’t also exist in society at large.

yes

How is home-care considered any more indicative of care for a child?

That really is an outdated prejudice.

The simple fact is that men are rorted by the system, look at the statistics.

Woman do not have any more right to care for a child than a man, nor does a home carer have any more right than a working parent to have sole care of a child.

If the two groups were working on the children’s interests than it would never go to court. If one is than even so, an equitable arrangement can be made without a court.

Thank you so much for that sensible(!) response Patrick!

“If the two groups were working on the children’s interests than it would never go to court. If one is than even so, an equitable arrangement can be made without a court.”

Well, duh! If both parents have come to an arrangement there’s no need for the Family Court. If they cannot, then the most logical response for the Court is to leave things as close as possible to how they were prior to separation. So if one parent spent a majority of their time caring for children, then leaving things the same is the only sensible solution for a couple who cannot make their own decisions.

The couples that go all the way to the Family Court are those least likely to make joint custody a success.

I wasn’t talking about home care as a measure of suitability for custody – that was in response to the claim that women “take” half their ex-husband’s money, which is bollocks. If they provided all those unpaid services during that time then it’s only fair that they receive a fair share of the income that came into the marriage - marriage is a partnership, that partnership is a financial one in part.

No it is not the only sensible solution. It is a pre-judiced solution as women do not work as much as men and it makes no sense for the child.

Oh and it is mostly women who do take half of their husband’s money. For those unpaid services, the homekeeper is given free board and occasional pocket money. A very heartless way to look at it and any person should halve it most of the time, but it is essentially another prejudice.

Patrick said
look at the statistics

What statistics?

There is no bias in the family court system that doesn’t also exist in society at large.

Quite correct.

Both the Family Court, and Australian society at large, are extremely biased against men.

Let’s look at non-fianncial contributions to the marriage. What would the wage earner have to do so that their children are looked after if there wasn’t a stay at home spouse? They would have to pay for childcare. Non-financial contribution recognises that a marriage is based on more than money.

And Australian family law does not decree a 50/50 split of assets between the husband and wife - it is considered on a case by case basis. As mentioned above, the Court gets involved in a small minority of marriage break ups - alternative dispute resolution has been vigorously promoted to avoid the cost and emotion of contested court hearings.

We should never lose sight that if we did have equality in society we would have equality of women in positions of power, as well as equality of perceptions of women compared to men. The truth is, if women were in a femocracy surely they would be the majority gender in senior positions in corporations, government, the judiciary and so on. Surely women would not be turned into sex objects by marketing and advertising on a regular basis (to be fair, more men are being objectified as advertisers have realised that men can have botox and fake tans sold to them on materialistic grounds). Surely as a society women would not be subject to shocking levels of sexual violence, and it would be taken more seriously than it is now (by memory so I could be wrong - a despicable 1% of all sexual assaults result in the perpetrator being gaoled, only 10% of sexual assaults have a perpetrator taken to court, only 25% of sexual assaults are even reported). What if this happened to men - what would be the response?

Equality? Women are still struggling for it, and rightly so. They deserve the support of all pro-feminist men because an injustice to some is an injustice to all.

The truth is, if women were in a femocracy surely they would be the majority gender in senior positions in corporations, government, the judiciary and so on.

That’s rubbish. And it’s rubbish based on sexist assumptions.

The gender makeup of people in positions of power is irrelevant – it’s their policies and actions that matter. When those policies and actions favour women over men, then it’s men who suffer, regardless of the tiny minority at the top.

If you’re going to base voting decisions and the like on the gender of the candidates, that is pure sexism.

“The gender makeup of people in positions of power is irrelevant – it’s their policies and actions that matter.”

…which of course is why amanda vanstone is derided not merely for her weight but for her fashion sense, why julie bishop’s (apparently impeccable) fashion sense is referred to before her policy acumen, and why julia gillard’s childlessness is mentioned any time she is discussed as a potential labor leader.

who have been the primary policy drivers for the coalition government?

• the prime minister, of course
• peter costello with the GST, and the multitude of middle class welfare payments designed to keep women at home and out of work (FTB part B, i’m looking at you), baby bonuses, first-home buyers grants etc.
• the ir ministers, peter reith, then tony abbott, then kevin andrews; with the 10 year campaign to cut workers’ ability to bargain collectively
• mark vaile’s FTA’s
• brendan nelson’s multiple broadsides at education, and his predecessor, david kemp’s incredible generosity with our money to private schools with rifle ranges.

i dunno, there’s a lot of blokes there… maybe they’re to blame for the plight of men in modern age? :P

nevertheless, the family court (which i’m sure you’re more alluding to) was established under the watch of the attorney-general of the day, Labor’s Lionel Murphy. an i’m sure you’re aware, another bloke. can’t blame the womenfolk for that one eh?

… it’s sexist to assume that if, as you say, women have the power, then they should actually be in positions of power? How’s that? How can you exercise power without being in a position to exercise it?

Are you saying that women have some kind of evil Mme Mao “behind the throne” power which is so thoroughly pervasive that they don’t need the trappings? Wow, you wanna talk sexism, there’s a whole world of it right there.

Sexism?

The Indians(real Indians not the fakes) in some tribes used to allow women to be braves if they could meet the standards. Now in the modern defence force, the fitness requirements are lower for women than for men. What is that?

Feminists should be off their head over that for the assumption that women cannot be just as fit in requirement as men. But no, some meaningless day.

Once again, dibo, you miss the point.

The gender of the Prime Minister or any other decision-maker is totally irrelevant. All that matters is what they do, not what they are. In fact, such things only matter to people who discriminate on the basis of sex – that is, sexists such as yourself.

Speaking of women’s power, Arleeshar, I suggest that you familiarise yourself with the democratic system of government. This is a system in which the majority of voters have power – and a majority of those are women. Who do you think those male politicians will try to satisfy with their policies – the majority, or the minority?

The leftist social analysis here is extremely superficial. It’s based entirely on external characteristics, not on power realities.

Some meaningless day what? Real and fake Indians? The Army as a feminist institution?
This thread is getting odder and odder.

I always thought PC was an exaggerated and politically used term until I read this. http://www.scu.edu.au/admin/equity/publications/watch_language.html
What the hell are these Orwellian perversions of language?

So sexist it is funny….