Just now, watchtheeyes said:

It's clear you're more read up on the topic than I, so I won't venture too far here. I recall that article you're referring to and I rejected it at the time. As I mentioned in my initial post, I have often wondered if my aversion to her writing is based in an inherent sexism. Not that I'm sexist, but rather a product of the society we live in. However I choose to believe that's not the case.

It's easier for her to make that claim. She can rail and rail about sexism under the guise of challenging societies perceptions but when someone calls her up on being a bit militant or aggressive she can hide behind her initial assertion.

I agree there is a problem in society, however the best way to address it in my opinion is to bring people along with her rather than make them uncomfortable. When it's the latter, people will revolt, call her a 'feminazi' and never read her again. Eventually all she'll have left are those already converted, thereby rendering her efforts redundant.

Fair enough.

4 minutes ago, Choke said:

I guess that's just a different of opinion then I guess. I find her writing accessabile enough and don't detect the undertones of hate or spite others seem to.

I think she would argue that altering her writing style to be more accessible by men is precisely the kind of action she shouldn't take, as it assumes their primacy.

She should keep doing what she does. If people read and understand, fine. If they don't, they can move on. There's no need to go calling her names (I acknowledge you didn't, but others have) or denigrating her because she presents a different view of society.

I remember reading an article she wrote about this a while back. I think she wrote something along the lines of her being interpreted as angry or spiteful often stems from her advocating for societal change that would negatively effect those who society benefits through privilege. I think she's right. Gender equality can't be achieved unless men give something up. Power, stature etc. If there is so be equal representation, then by necessity there will be less representation by men because we currently occupy more positions of power than women. That rubs a lot of readers the wrong way, because third wave feminism was very light on the removal of power of men. It was more about "bringing women up" than "bringing men down". But I think feminism has been around for long enough to now show that it's not going to work that way. Some of the power needs to actually be taken away from men in order to equalise society. It's not going to 'self-equalise' as third wave feminism advocated.

Clementine's fourth wave feminism makes a lot more sense to me, more so than second or third.

I disagree wholeheartedly. We should not be aiming to bring men down, this is divisive and will get the whole ideal no where. What we should be aiming for is to get the men in power to open the doors and allow women in if they are up to the task (i.e. quotas are also counter productive).

One of the things that puzzled me with many feminists was their attack on Abbotts PPL scheme. Here was a scheme designed to allow families to be structured with the women as the bread winner, while still allowing her time to recover from birth and feed and care for her child while not being disadvantaged against families with the man as the bread winner. Perplexing in the extreme, although I guess it is all too capitalist and right wing for them to even consider the merits of what he was trying to do. To date it is one of hte greatest policies for empowering women in society yet they all shot it down in flames. 

5 minutes ago, Choke said:

I've never actually seen her engage in debate, only read her columns.

I have seen a lot of the comments on her pages though, and I would describe many of them as vile. As you say, they deserve to be pulled up.

I'll have to look for some more conversational stuff on her to see how she responds to more constructive criticism.

It is in published blogs in the age, she goes on spiteful hateful rants without actually looking at what the person was saying. This is probably a reasonable response to many of the comments she gets but she brings in the sensible comments to and rants about male privilege etc even when the bloke has made a good point. Very counter productive, as I said I was interested but got sick of the rage against me as a man, just like I used to enjoy Q&A until I got sick of Tony cutting off every Right wing person on the show before they could really answer the question just so the lefties could ramble on and on and on.  

1 minute ago, Chris said:

I disagree wholeheartedly. We should not be aiming to bring men down, this is divisive and will get the whole ideal no where. What we should be aiming for is to get the men in power to open the doors and allow women in if they are up to the task (i.e. quotas are also counter productive).

One of the things that puzzled me with many feminists was their attack on Abbotts PPL scheme. Here was a scheme designed to allow families to be structured with the women as the bread winner, while still allowing her time to recover from birth and feed and care for her child while not being disadvantaged against families with the man as the bread winner. Perplexing in the extreme, although I guess it is all too capitalist and right wing for them to even consider the merits of what he was trying to do. To date it is one of hte greatest policies for empowering women in society yet they all shot it down in flames. 

Western societies have been trying this for 30 odd years. It doesn't work because our whole society is built upon benefiting men (when men in particular) more than others. Men will always have the subconscious societal advantage. My old boss even said to me "I'll never hire a woman under 40 again" after 2 of his employees took maternity leave. That's the sort of crap that keeps women down.

Abbott's paid parental leave scheme was attacked because it favoured rich mothers over poor ones. It was a wealth issue, not a gender one. It worth noting that the current system doesn't discriminate between a dad or a mum - either can take or share the leave. I myself used a month of our PPL when our son was born, my wife used the other 5 months.

I'll have to read the comments more then Chris.

12 minutes ago, Choke said:

If the T-shirt said "[censored] men", then yeah I'd agree with you.

But Abbott made himself a target by being a horrible PM and self-appointed "minister for women". I really can't blame feminists for being angry at that.

But I bet you think it is mysoginist to look at your watch when a hopelessly out of depth PM made a hopelessly out of depth speech?

And vile was to do with the use of the word [censored]. 

Edited February 16, 20169 yr by Wrecker45

Just now, Wrecker45 said:

But I bet you think it is mysoginist to look at your watch when a hopelessly out of depth PM made a hopelessly out of depth speech?

Sorry I don't get that reference. I assume someone looked at their watch while Gillard was talking or something?

1 minute ago, Choke said:

Western societies have been trying this for 30 odd years. It doesn't work because our whole society is built upon benefiting men (when men in particular) more than others. Men will always have the subconscious societal advantage. My old boss even said to me "I'll never hire a woman under 40 again" after 2 of his employees took maternity leave. That's the sort of crap that keeps women down.

Abbott's paid parental leave scheme was attacked because it favoured rich mothers over poor ones. It was a wealth issue, not a gender one. It worth noting that the current system doesn't discriminate between a dad or a mum - either can take or share the leave. I myself used a month of our PPL when our son was born, my wife used the other 5 months.

The current system is crap and doesn't actually address the problem. I am in a family where my wife is very successful in her job and is in a highly paid industry, I am also reasonably successful but in a low paid industry, so we rely on her wage more than mine. If we are to have a second child the offerings form the government are all but irrelevant and don't actually really help. If our wages were reversed we would have no issue and could afford to have a child tomorrow, as it stands we can't yet as we are at a disadvantage because we have the gall to have the wife as the bread winner. It may actually mean we do not have a second child as we wont be able to afford for her to be off work for that long without meaningful support. Again, if our wages were reversed we have no issue.

I think a lot of people confuse the PPL with a baby bonus, the PPL is not about helping people have children and paying for the extra expense (which is what the bonus is all about). The PPL was all about supporting families realistically set them selves up with the female as the bread winner and suffer no real consequence against their counterparts with the male as the bread winner. Yes people that earnt more got paid more, that was the point! It was all far to far from the communist ideals of many in society.

Can't wait for the first bounce of the ball.

6 minutes ago, Chris said:

The current system is crap and doesn't actually address the problem. I am in a family where my wife is very successful in her job and is in a highly paid industry, I am also reasonably successful but in a low paid industry, so we rely on her wage more than mine. If we are to have a second child the offerings form the government are all but irrelevant and don't actually really help. If our wages were reversed we would have no issue and could afford to have a child tomorrow, as it stands we can't yet as we are at a disadvantage because we have the gall to have the wife as the bread winner. It may actually mean we do not have a second child as we wont be able to afford for her to be off work for that long without meaningful support. Again, if our wages were reversed we have no issue.

I think a lot of people confuse the PPL with a baby bonus, the PPL is not about helping people have children and paying for the extra expense (which is what the bonus is all about). The PPL was all about supporting families realistically set them selves up with the female as the bread winner and suffer no real consequence against their counterparts with the male as the bread winner. Yes people that earnt more got paid more, that was the point! It was all far to far from the communist ideals of many in society.

I'm not sure what point you're making here Chris.

Your wife earns more money, so if she takes the leave, this leaves you worse off? Is that correct?

Why don't YOU just take the leave?

The PPL is gender agnostic. Your wife will need recovery time, but after that you can look after the kids. Why assume she'll be the primary caregiver AND primary breadwinner?

This was actually our (my wife and I) plan, as in the time leading up to the birth of our first child she was earning more than I was. Then I was promoted and the roles reversed, so she ended up with the leave and I stayed working.

Edit: I have to go pick up the kids now, so can't reply further. Don't take my silence as an indication that I'm running away! I'll come back on tomorrow for more debate. I loves me some debates.

Edited February 16, 20169 yr by Choke

19 hours ago, picket fence said:

 

Why did I get censored???? with this post? 

All ok for others to discuss with specific comments made about private lives but as soon as I have something to say I get Censored!

Double standards here mods.

5 minutes ago, picket fence said:

All ok for others to discuss with specific comments made about private lives but as soon as I have something to say I get Censored!

Double standards here mods.

most of us can't comment picket, because we didn't see your post 

49 minutes ago, Chris said:

The current system is crap and doesn't actually address the problem. I am in a family where my wife is very successful in her job and is in a highly paid industry, I am also reasonably successful but in a low paid industry, so we rely on her wage more than mine. If we are to have a second child the offerings form the government are all but irrelevant and don't actually really help. If our wages were reversed we would have no issue and could afford to have a child tomorrow, as it stands we can't yet as we are at a disadvantage because we have the gall to have the wife as the bread winner. It may actually mean we do not have a second child as we wont be able to afford for her to be off work for that long without meaningful support. Again, if our wages were reversed we have no issue.

I think a lot of people confuse the PPL with a baby bonus, the PPL is not about helping people have children and paying for the extra expense (which is what the bonus is all about). The PPL was all about supporting families realistically set them selves up with the female as the bread winner and suffer no real consequence against their counterparts with the male as the bread winner. Yes people that earnt more got paid more, that was the point! It was all far to far from the communist ideals of many in society.

Sounds like some kind of socialist/communist idea 'Chris'...

Garry was a great player.

nothing has changed.

14 minutes ago, Biffen said:

Garry was a great player.

nothing has changed.

Garry is an ordinary bloke, nothing has changed.

16 minutes ago, Biffen said:

Garry was a great player.

nothing has changed.

 

1 minute ago, Baghdad Bob said:

Garry is an ordinary bloke, nothing has changed.

I doubt whether these are sufficient to recuperate this thread.