Total Posts:50|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Australia's new minister for women

wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2013 12:21:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is a man who once framed a debate about rising electricity prices in terms of the "housewives of Australia" doing the ironing. A man who has described abortion as "convenient" and an "easy way out" for women. A man who once said, and it deserves to be quoted in full: "It would be folly to expect that women would ever approach equal representation in a large number of areas simply because their aptitudes, their abilities and interests are different for physiological reasons."

Not for nothing did the former Prime Minister Julia Gillard denounce Abbott as the face of misogyny in modern Australia in a blistering speech last year. But then she would say that; she and Abbott never really got on. He notoriously ordered the unmarried PM to "make an honest woman of herself", posed in front of placards describing her as a "man"s bitch" and a "witch" and refused to denounce a party fundraiser dinner which included the grossly demeaning dish, "Julia Gillard Kentucky Fried Chicken Quail " Small Breasts, Huge Thighs & A Big Red Box" on its menu.

http://www.independent.co.uk...

Three words - Finger Lickin' Good. =)
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2013 1:27:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Forgive me for asking the obvious, but why isn't the Minister for Women, you know... a woman? Wouldn't that make more sense?

Also, is there a Minister for Men? (not a particularly serious question)
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2013 4:06:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/21/2013 1:27:12 AM, drhead wrote:
Forgive me for asking the obvious, but why isn't the Minister for Women, you know... a woman? Wouldn't that make more sense?

Also, is there a Minister for Men? (not a particularly serious question)

There isn't a Minister for Men because men are mainstream and women are considered a special group. I've even heard women referred to as a "minority" when of course we're the majority.

But while women are so grossly underrepresented in parliament, unfortunately, there does need to be a special ministry to address our needs. It's similar to the Protector of Aborigines, in the olden days. It was never an actual aborigine who held the position. They weren't citizens, so they could hardly hold public office.

I hate to think what Abbott defines as "women's issues".
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2013 4:11:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/21/2013 12:21:16 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
This is a man who once framed a debate about rising electricity prices in terms of the "housewives of Australia" doing the ironing. A man who has described abortion as "convenient" and an "easy way out" for women. A man who once said, and it deserves to be quoted in full: "It would be folly to expect that women would ever approach equal representation in a large number of areas simply because their aptitudes, their abilities and interests are different for physiological reasons."

Not for nothing did the former Prime Minister Julia Gillard denounce Abbott as the face of misogyny in modern Australia in a blistering speech last year. But then she would say that; she and Abbott never really got on. He notoriously ordered the unmarried PM to "make an honest woman of herself", posed in front of placards describing her as a "man"s bitch" and a "witch" and refused to denounce a party fundraiser dinner which included the grossly demeaning dish, "Julia Gillard Kentucky Fried Chicken Quail " Small Breasts, Huge Thighs & A Big Red Box" on its menu.

http://www.independent.co.uk...

Three words - Finger Lickin' Good. =)

You like that, do you, wrichcirw.

And perhaps you share Abbott's "disappointment" that he was only able to place one woman in his 20-person cabinet.

Perhaps you feel that he is under no obligation to put women in government, that to do so would be "affirmative action" that you're so against. Perhaps you agree that women are unsuited to govern because of some undefined physiological quality.
sdavio
Posts: 1,800
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2013 4:25:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/23/2013 4:11:13 AM, rross wrote:
At 9/21/2013 12:21:16 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
This is a man who once framed a debate about rising electricity prices in terms of the "housewives of Australia" doing the ironing. A man who has described abortion as "convenient" and an "easy way out" for women. A man who once said, and it deserves to be quoted in full: "It would be folly to expect that women would ever approach equal representation in a large number of areas simply because their aptitudes, their abilities and interests are different for physiological reasons."

Not for nothing did the former Prime Minister Julia Gillard denounce Abbott as the face of misogyny in modern Australia in a blistering speech last year. But then she would say that; she and Abbott never really got on. He notoriously ordered the unmarried PM to "make an honest woman of herself", posed in front of placards describing her as a "man"s bitch" and a "witch" and refused to denounce a party fundraiser dinner which included the grossly demeaning dish, "Julia Gillard Kentucky Fried Chicken Quail " Small Breasts, Huge Thighs & A Big Red Box" on its menu.

http://www.independent.co.uk...

Three words - Finger Lickin' Good. =)

You like that, do you, wrichcirw.

And perhaps you share Abbott's "disappointment" that he was only able to place one woman in his 20-person cabinet.

Perhaps you feel that he is under no obligation to put women in government, that to do so would be "affirmative action" that you're so against. Perhaps you agree that women are unsuited to govern because of some undefined physiological quality.

What does it matter if there's women or not? To say that it does, because other people, who you disagree with, also care; that is affirmative action, which is immoral because it's just more sexism. My point being that the best way to reduce sexism is to not be sexist; to not care whether it's men or women, if there's no difference in ability between them.. not to adopt sexism on the opposite side of the issue.

For instance, look at this line: "Perhaps you feel that he is under no obligation to put women in government.." The implication there being that he is under an obligation to consider gender.. which is sexist.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2013 4:32:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/23/2013 4:25:13 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/23/2013 4:11:13 AM, rross wrote:
At 9/21/2013 12:21:16 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
This is a man who once framed a debate about rising electricity prices in terms of the "housewives of Australia" doing the ironing. A man who has described abortion as "convenient" and an "easy way out" for women. A man who once said, and it deserves to be quoted in full: "It would be folly to expect that women would ever approach equal representation in a large number of areas simply because their aptitudes, their abilities and interests are different for physiological reasons."

Not for nothing did the former Prime Minister Julia Gillard denounce Abbott as the face of misogyny in modern Australia in a blistering speech last year. But then she would say that; she and Abbott never really got on. He notoriously ordered the unmarried PM to "make an honest woman of herself", posed in front of placards describing her as a "man"s bitch" and a "witch" and refused to denounce a party fundraiser dinner which included the grossly demeaning dish, "Julia Gillard Kentucky Fried Chicken Quail " Small Breasts, Huge Thighs & A Big Red Box" on its menu.

http://www.independent.co.uk...

Three words - Finger Lickin' Good. =)

You like that, do you, wrichcirw.

And perhaps you share Abbott's "disappointment" that he was only able to place one woman in his 20-person cabinet.

Perhaps you feel that he is under no obligation to put women in government, that to do so would be "affirmative action" that you're so against. Perhaps you agree that women are unsuited to govern because of some undefined physiological quality.

What does it matter if there's women or not? To say that it does, because other people, who you disagree with, also care; that is affirmative action, which is immoral because it's just more sexism. My point being that the best way to reduce sexism is to not be sexist; to not care whether it's men or women, if there's no difference in ability between them.. not to adopt sexism on the opposite side of the issue.

For instance, look at this line: "Perhaps you feel that he is under no obligation to put women in government.." The implication there being that he is under an obligation to consider gender.. which is sexist.

This is just messing about with words, sdavio. In a democracy, government is supposed to be representative. Great care is taken with defining electoral regions so that all parts of the country are represented. If 80% of MPs came from Sydney, for example, it would be considered outrageous. This isn't regionalist. It's all about representation.

When, year after year, government after government, half the population is grossly underrepresented, there are two possiblities:

1. the system is unfair
2. one half of the population really is fundamentally different and better at government than the other.

Which do you think it is?
sdavio
Posts: 1,800
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2013 8:30:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/23/2013 4:32:46 AM, rross wrote:
At 9/23/2013 4:25:13 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/23/2013 4:11:13 AM, rross wrote:
At 9/21/2013 12:21:16 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
This is a man who once framed a debate about rising electricity prices in terms of the "housewives of Australia" doing the ironing. A man who has described abortion as "convenient" and an "easy way out" for women. A man who once said, and it deserves to be quoted in full: "It would be folly to expect that women would ever approach equal representation in a large number of areas simply because their aptitudes, their abilities and interests are different for physiological reasons."

Not for nothing did the former Prime Minister Julia Gillard denounce Abbott as the face of misogyny in modern Australia in a blistering speech last year. But then she would say that; she and Abbott never really got on. He notoriously ordered the unmarried PM to "make an honest woman of herself", posed in front of placards describing her as a "man"s bitch" and a "witch" and refused to denounce a party fundraiser dinner which included the grossly demeaning dish, "Julia Gillard Kentucky Fried Chicken Quail " Small Breasts, Huge Thighs & A Big Red Box" on its menu.

http://www.independent.co.uk...

Three words - Finger Lickin' Good. =)

You like that, do you, wrichcirw.

And perhaps you share Abbott's "disappointment" that he was only able to place one woman in his 20-person cabinet.

Perhaps you feel that he is under no obligation to put women in government, that to do so would be "affirmative action" that you're so against. Perhaps you agree that women are unsuited to govern because of some undefined physiological quality.

What does it matter if there's women or not? To say that it does, because other people, who you disagree with, also care; that is affirmative action, which is immoral because it's just more sexism. My point being that the best way to reduce sexism is to not be sexist; to not care whether it's men or women, if there's no difference in ability between them.. not to adopt sexism on the opposite side of the issue.

For instance, look at this line: "Perhaps you feel that he is under no obligation to put women in government.." The implication there being that he is under an obligation to consider gender.. which is sexist.

This is just messing about with words, sdavio. In a democracy, government is supposed to be representative. Great care is taken with defining electoral regions so that all parts of the country are represented. If 80% of MPs came from Sydney, for example, it would be considered outrageous. This isn't regionalist. It's all about representation.

When, year after year, government after government, half the population is grossly underrepresented, there are two possiblities:

1. the system is unfair
2. one half of the population really is fundamentally different and better at government than the other.

Which do you think it is?

It's a sexist distinction to be making in the first place - I would only be interested in the decisions which they end up making.

I realize that goes against the proposed purpose for democracy, but I believe that system is hypocritical right through to it's core. Besides, there's a third option to that dichotomy you've created: Perhaps the system is representing the people, and the people are sexist?
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2013 12:01:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
So I actually heard about this from a friend who's been living in Australia from a long time, and she shared this one article with me. http://www.theguardian.com...

How would you rate the list? One of the problem with trying to have a conversation about the philosophy behind the decision is when you get geography specific 'facts' thrown at your face. Although I have reservations about comparing the merits of various people, objectively, do you think these are good choices? Not just because these are women, merit based reasons.

Personally, I don't really see the point of appointing women if their only merit is the fact they are women, but I see some more issues with Abbott. Particularly some of his remarks heard all the way across the ocean.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2013 12:06:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/23/2013 4:11:13 AM, rross wrote:
At 9/21/2013 12:21:16 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
This is a man who once framed a debate about rising electricity prices in terms of the "housewives of Australia" doing the ironing. A man who has described abortion as "convenient" and an "easy way out" for women. A man who once said, and it deserves to be quoted in full: "It would be folly to expect that women would ever approach equal representation in a large number of areas simply because their aptitudes, their abilities and interests are different for physiological reasons."

Not for nothing did the former Prime Minister Julia Gillard denounce Abbott as the face of misogyny in modern Australia in a blistering speech last year. But then she would say that; she and Abbott never really got on. He notoriously ordered the unmarried PM to "make an honest woman of herself", posed in front of placards describing her as a "man"s bitch" and a "witch" and refused to denounce a party fundraiser dinner which included the grossly demeaning dish, "Julia Gillard Kentucky Fried Chicken Quail " Small Breasts, Huge Thighs & A Big Red Box" on its menu.

http://www.independent.co.uk...

Three words - Finger Lickin' Good. =)

You like that, do you, wrichcirw.

And perhaps you share Abbott's "disappointment" that he was only able to place one woman in his 20-person cabinet.

Perhaps you feel that he is under no obligation to put women in government, that to do so would be "affirmative action" that you're so against. Perhaps you agree that women are unsuited to govern because of some undefined physiological quality.

lol, I was joking. I don't think Julia Gillard tastes very good, really. =)

I think this Tony Abbott development is insulting, and I hope you understand my perspective enough to know why.

On affirmative action, I don't think men need affirmative action, and that's how I view Abbott's self-appointment here.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2013 12:09:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/23/2013 4:25:13 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/23/2013 4:11:13 AM, rross wrote:
At 9/21/2013 12:21:16 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
This is a man who once framed a debate about rising electricity prices in terms of the "housewives of Australia" doing the ironing. A man who has described abortion as "convenient" and an "easy way out" for women. A man who once said, and it deserves to be quoted in full: "It would be folly to expect that women would ever approach equal representation in a large number of areas simply because their aptitudes, their abilities and interests are different for physiological reasons."

Not for nothing did the former Prime Minister Julia Gillard denounce Abbott as the face of misogyny in modern Australia in a blistering speech last year. But then she would say that; she and Abbott never really got on. He notoriously ordered the unmarried PM to "make an honest woman of herself", posed in front of placards describing her as a "man"s bitch" and a "witch" and refused to denounce a party fundraiser dinner which included the grossly demeaning dish, "Julia Gillard Kentucky Fried Chicken Quail " Small Breasts, Huge Thighs & A Big Red Box" on its menu.

http://www.independent.co.uk...

Three words - Finger Lickin' Good. =)

You like that, do you, wrichcirw.

And perhaps you share Abbott's "disappointment" that he was only able to place one woman in his 20-person cabinet.

Perhaps you feel that he is under no obligation to put women in government, that to do so would be "affirmative action" that you're so against. Perhaps you agree that women are unsuited to govern because of some undefined physiological quality.

What does it matter if there's women or not? To say that it does, because other people, who you disagree with, also care; that is affirmative action, which is immoral because it's just more sexism. My point being that the best way to reduce sexism is to not be sexist; to not care whether it's men or women, if there's no difference in ability between them.. not to adopt sexism on the opposite side of the issue.

For instance, look at this line: "Perhaps you feel that he is under no obligation to put women in government.." The implication there being that he is under an obligation to consider gender.. which is sexist.

Personally, I think in the spirit of representation, any politician should feel some measure of obligation to achieve diversity in their administrations that reflect the diversity in their community.

Outside of that point, I agree with your statements.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2013 12:12:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/23/2013 8:30:18 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/23/2013 4:32:46 AM, rross wrote:
At 9/23/2013 4:25:13 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/23/2013 4:11:13 AM, rross wrote:
At 9/21/2013 12:21:16 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
This is a man who once framed a debate about rising electricity prices in terms of the "housewives of Australia" doing the ironing. A man who has described abortion as "convenient" and an "easy way out" for women. A man who once said, and it deserves to be quoted in full: "It would be folly to expect that women would ever approach equal representation in a large number of areas simply because their aptitudes, their abilities and interests are different for physiological reasons."

Not for nothing did the former Prime Minister Julia Gillard denounce Abbott as the face of misogyny in modern Australia in a blistering speech last year. But then she would say that; she and Abbott never really got on. He notoriously ordered the unmarried PM to "make an honest woman of herself", posed in front of placards describing her as a "man"s bitch" and a "witch" and refused to denounce a party fundraiser dinner which included the grossly demeaning dish, "Julia Gillard Kentucky Fried Chicken Quail " Small Breasts, Huge Thighs & A Big Red Box" on its menu.

http://www.independent.co.uk...

Three words - Finger Lickin' Good. =)

You like that, do you, wrichcirw.

And perhaps you share Abbott's "disappointment" that he was only able to place one woman in his 20-person cabinet.

Perhaps you feel that he is under no obligation to put women in government, that to do so would be "affirmative action" that you're so against. Perhaps you agree that women are unsuited to govern because of some undefined physiological quality.

What does it matter if there's women or not? To say that it does, because other people, who you disagree with, also care; that is affirmative action, which is immoral because it's just more sexism. My point being that the best way to reduce sexism is to not be sexist; to not care whether it's men or women, if there's no difference in ability between them.. not to adopt sexism on the opposite side of the issue.

For instance, look at this line: "Perhaps you feel that he is under no obligation to put women in government.." The implication there being that he is under an obligation to consider gender.. which is sexist.

This is just messing about with words, sdavio. In a democracy, government is supposed to be representative. Great care is taken with defining electoral regions so that all parts of the country are represented. If 80% of MPs came from Sydney, for example, it would be considered outrageous. This isn't regionalist. It's all about representation.

When, year after year, government after government, half the population is grossly underrepresented, there are two possiblities:

1. the system is unfair
2. one half of the population really is fundamentally different and better at government than the other.

Which do you think it is?

It's a sexist distinction to be making in the first place - I would only be interested in the decisions which they end up making.

I realize that goes against the proposed purpose for democracy, but I believe that system is hypocritical right through to it's core. Besides, there's a third option to that dichotomy you've created: Perhaps the system is representing the people, and the people are sexist?

This goes back to a prior discussion I've had with rross. Does simply mentioning race racist? Is mentioning demographics based upon certain characteristics merit the charge of being "-ists"?

Is saying that women do better in school sexist?

Is saying that African Americans have higher rates of incarceration per person racist?

Where do you draw the line? At what point does such a characterization cross the line of appropriateness and either becomes nonconstructive or insulting?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2013 12:23:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/23/2013 12:12:09 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

This goes back to a prior discussion I've had with rross. [Is] simply mentioning race racist? [Does] mentioning demographics based upon certain characteristics merit the charge of being "-ists"?

Dyslexia fixed. =)
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
sdavio
Posts: 1,800
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2013 12:38:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/23/2013 12:12:09 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/23/2013 8:30:18 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/23/2013 4:32:46 AM, rross wrote:
At 9/23/2013 4:25:13 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/23/2013 4:11:13 AM, rross wrote:
At 9/21/2013 12:21:16 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
This is a man who once framed a debate about rising electricity prices in terms of the "housewives of Australia" doing the ironing. A man who has described abortion as "convenient" and an "easy way out" for women. A man who once said, and it deserves to be quoted in full: "It would be folly to expect that women would ever approach equal representation in a large number of areas simply because their aptitudes, their abilities and interests are different for physiological reasons."

Not for nothing did the former Prime Minister Julia Gillard denounce Abbott as the face of misogyny in modern Australia in a blistering speech last year. But then she would say that; she and Abbott never really got on. He notoriously ordered the unmarried PM to "make an honest woman of herself", posed in front of placards describing her as a "man"s bitch" and a "witch" and refused to denounce a party fundraiser dinner which included the grossly demeaning dish, "Julia Gillard Kentucky Fried Chicken Quail " Small Breasts, Huge Thighs & A Big Red Box" on its menu.

http://www.independent.co.uk...

Three words - Finger Lickin' Good. =)

You like that, do you, wrichcirw.

And perhaps you share Abbott's "disappointment" that he was only able to place one woman in his 20-person cabinet.

Perhaps you feel that he is under no obligation to put women in government, that to do so would be "affirmative action" that you're so against. Perhaps you agree that women are unsuited to govern because of some undefined physiological quality.

What does it matter if there's women or not? To say that it does, because other people, who you disagree with, also care; that is affirmative action, which is immoral because it's just more sexism. My point being that the best way to reduce sexism is to not be sexist; to not care whether it's men or women, if there's no difference in ability between them.. not to adopt sexism on the opposite side of the issue.

For instance, look at this line: "Perhaps you feel that he is under no obligation to put women in government.." The implication there being that he is under an obligation to consider gender.. which is sexist.

This is just messing about with words, sdavio. In a democracy, government is supposed to be representative. Great care is taken with defining electoral regions so that all parts of the country are represented. If 80% of MPs came from Sydney, for example, it would be considered outrageous. This isn't regionalist. It's all about representation.

When, year after year, government after government, half the population is grossly underrepresented, there are two possiblities:

1. the system is unfair
2. one half of the population really is fundamentally different and better at government than the other.

Which do you think it is?

It's a sexist distinction to be making in the first place - I would only be interested in the decisions which they end up making.

I realize that goes against the proposed purpose for democracy, but I believe that system is hypocritical right through to it's core. Besides, there's a third option to that dichotomy you've created: Perhaps the system is representing the people, and the people are sexist?

This goes back to a prior discussion I've had with rross. Does simply mentioning race racist? Is mentioning demographics based upon certain characteristics merit the charge of being "-ists"?

Is saying that women do better in school sexist?

Is saying that African Americans have higher rates of incarceration per person racist?

Where do you draw the line? At what point does such a characterization cross the line of appropriateness and either becomes nonconstructive or insulting?

Well it depends entirely on definition I guess, the definition seems to vary from hatred, to dislike, to simply saying that some type of person is different in any way. However my point there was that considering sex in order to reduce sexism is only going to make things worse. It's also an effect, though, of an overall system which I think is dishonest, where some select group of people is supposed to 'represent' everyone else, in the first place. So the question then becomes - do we make it so it has to be exactly half men and half women? And then exactly equal amount of every race, every hair colour, etc? Instead, we could just focus on the choices they end up making, rather than the people making those choices.. seems like the real way to reduce bias in any situation.

My intention wasn't to accuse anyone of being racist - or even to say racism / sexism is a bad thing, necessarily, but more of a statement about cause / effect. If the goal is to reduce sexism in politics, trying to reach that goal by 'getting more women in power' seems hypocritical.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2013 1:58:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/23/2013 12:38:52 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/23/2013 12:12:09 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/23/2013 8:30:18 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/23/2013 4:32:46 AM, rross wrote:

Where do you draw the line? At what point does such a characterization cross the line of appropriateness and either becomes nonconstructive or insulting?

Well it depends entirely on definition I guess, the definition seems to vary from hatred, to dislike, to simply saying that some type of person is different in any way. However my point there was that considering sex in order to reduce sexism is only going to make things worse. It's also an effect, though, of an overall system which I think is dishonest, where some select group of people is supposed to 'represent' everyone else, in the first place. So the question then becomes - do we make it so it has to be exactly half men and half women? And then exactly equal amount of every race, every hair colour, etc? Instead, we could just focus on the choices they end up making, rather than the people making those choices.. seems like the real way to reduce bias in any situation.

My intention wasn't to accuse anyone of being racist - or even to say racism / sexism is a bad thing, necessarily, but more of a statement about cause / effect. If the goal is to reduce sexism in politics, trying to reach that goal by 'getting more women in power' seems hypocritical.

I agree with everything here except the underlined. I think that precisely looking at cause and effect would highlight exactly why I disagree with the underlined.

What caused affirmative action in the first place? Pronounced racism and sexism. What is the solution? Well, yes, the main solution is to recognize that race and sex have nothing to do with ability and achievement...however, in order to get to that point, one has to recognize that there has been pronounced and institutionalized discrimination that caused such resentment to occur.

To recognize such discrimination is not "only going to make things worse"...rather, it is identifying the problem, and begging for a solution to it. One proposed solution is affirmative action, which has its flaws, for sure. However, if you take it away and do not replace it with some substantive solution, you are essentially advocating the status quo then, which would be a regression to pronounced racism and sexism.

The question then becomes "is pronounced racism and sexism a problem?" Obviously a lot of people think so.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2013 2:43:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/21/2013 12:21:16 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
This is a man who once framed a debate about rising electricity prices in terms of the "housewives of Australia" doing the ironing. A man who has described abortion as "convenient" and an "easy way out" for women. A man who once said, and it deserves to be quoted in full: "It would be folly to expect that women would ever approach equal representation in a large number of areas simply because their aptitudes, their abilities and interests are different for physiological reasons."

To be fair, that line is actually accurate.


Not for nothing did the former Prime Minister Julia Gillard denounce Abbott as the face of misogyny in modern Australia in a blistering speech last year. But then she would say that; she and Abbott never really got on. He notoriously ordered the unmarried PM to "make an honest woman of herself", posed in front of placards describing her as a "man"s bitch" and a "witch" and refused to denounce a party fundraiser dinner which included the grossly demeaning dish, "Julia Gillard Kentucky Fried Chicken Quail " Small Breasts, Huge Thighs & A Big Red Box" on its menu.

http://www.independent.co.uk...

Three words - Finger Lickin' Good. =)
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 8:58:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/23/2013 2:43:48 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 9/21/2013 12:21:16 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
This is a man who once framed a debate about rising electricity prices in terms of the "housewives of Australia" doing the ironing. A man who has described abortion as "convenient" and an "easy way out" for women. A man who once said, and it deserves to be quoted in full: "It would be folly to expect that women would ever approach equal representation in a large number of areas simply because their aptitudes, their abilities and interests are different for physiological reasons."

To be fair, that line is actually accurate.


Oh Muzebreak, you're so coy. To agree with Abbott's college gaffe without giving reasons. Don't be shy. Which physiological qualities of womanhood are a barrier to our participation in government? Do tell.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 9:14:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/23/2013 12:01:53 PM, Cermank wrote:
So I actually heard about this from a friend who's been living in Australia from a long time, and she shared this one article with me. http://www.theguardian.com...

How would you rate the list? One of the problem with trying to have a conversation about the philosophy behind the decision is when you get geography specific 'facts' thrown at your face. Although I have reservations about comparing the merits of various people, objectively, do you think these are good choices? Not just because these are women, merit based reasons.

Personally, I don't really see the point of appointing women if their only merit is the fact they are women, but I see some more issues with Abbott. Particularly some of his remarks heard all the way across the ocean.

What is this "merit" anyway? It's a genuine question. I really don't know what you mean.

What's Abbott thinking when he selects his cabinet? I suppose he wants people who conform to his political program and who will support him.

I read an article about Kelly O'Dwyer (liberal politician, very good media presence) and it had an insider reporting she wasn't promoted to the ministry because she was a bit too "lippy". Apparently she confronted Abbott over his ridiculous parental leave scheme. How does this fit in with "merit"?
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 9:35:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/23/2013 2:43:48 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 9/21/2013 12:21:16 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
This is a man who once framed a debate about rising electricity prices in terms of the "housewives of Australia" doing the ironing. A man who has described abortion as "convenient" and an "easy way out" for women. A man who once said, and it deserves to be quoted in full: "It would be folly to expect that women would ever approach equal representation in a large number of areas simply because their aptitudes, their abilities and interests are different for physiological reasons."

To be fair, that line is actually accurate.

Ayy. Can't get rid of the italics. I'll post my reply separately below.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 9:43:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Suppose, for the sake of argument that you and Abbott are right. Presumably the difference you're referring to is pregnancy, childbirth and rearing children. That women are more engaged with it than men, that it takes up all their time, interest and energy and leaves them less time to watch soccer or be politicians.

This argument got a lot of support earlier in the year when Nicola Roxon, our first female Attorney-General, quit to sit on the backbench. Of course, it could be a cover up for other reasons, but her official reason was

"The life we lead as politicians is not always family friendly... There are a lot of very early mornings and late nights and the travel can be onerous especially when you have family commitments. In the end, I just felt that it was time I spent more time with my husband and daughter....I needed to redress the balance in our lives. Foremost in my mind was the fact that if I stayed then my daughter would be in high school before I could retire. It's just the right time to go."

http://aww.ninemsn.com.au...

So. What if you and Abbott are right? What if women feel more compelled to stay home with their children than men do?

IF that's the case, then the fault is with the government structure. In a democracy, to have a system which makes representation much more difficult for half the population is appalling. The system of government should be changed so that women can more easily participate. WHY should being a politician mean that you can't spend time with your children? It's ridiculous. If indeed women are physiologically restricted by child-bearing then this is indirect discrimination and it needs to be addressed.

This is a far more serious situation, requiring a far more drastic remedy, than if there are no such differences between men and women. I'm actually inclined to agree with you, muzebreak.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 10:11:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/23/2013 1:58:10 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/23/2013 12:38:52 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/23/2013 12:12:09 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/23/2013 8:30:18 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/23/2013 4:32:46 AM, rross wrote:

Where do you draw the line? At what point does such a characterization cross the line of appropriateness and either becomes nonconstructive or insulting?

Well it depends entirely on definition I guess, the definition seems to vary from hatred, to dislike, to simply saying that some type of person is different in any way. However my point there was that considering sex in order to reduce sexism is only going to make things worse. It's also an effect, though, of an overall system which I think is dishonest, where some select group of people is supposed to 'represent' everyone else, in the first place. So the question then becomes - do we make it so it has to be exactly half men and half women? And then exactly equal amount of every race, every hair colour, etc? Instead, we could just focus on the choices they end up making, rather than the people making those choices.. seems like the real way to reduce bias in any situation.

My intention wasn't to accuse anyone of being racist - or even to say racism / sexism is a bad thing, necessarily, but more of a statement about cause / effect. If the goal is to reduce sexism in politics, trying to reach that goal by 'getting more women in power' seems hypocritical.

I agree with everything here except the underlined. I think that precisely looking at cause and effect would highlight exactly why I disagree with the underlined.

What caused affirmative action in the first place? Pronounced racism and sexism. What is the solution? Well, yes, the main solution is to recognize that race and sex have nothing to do with ability and achievement...however, in order to get to that point, one has to recognize that there has been pronounced and institutionalized discrimination that caused such resentment to occur.

To recognize such discrimination is not "only going to make things worse"...rather, it is identifying the problem, and begging for a solution to it. One proposed solution is affirmative action, which has its flaws, for sure. However, if you take it away and do not replace it with some substantive solution, you are essentially advocating the status quo then, which would be a regression to pronounced racism and sexism.

The question then becomes "is pronounced racism and sexism a problem?" Obviously a lot of people think so.

Nah. Sexism has several slightly different meanings, but the relevant one here is discrimination based on sex, and discrimination in this context means unjust or prejudicial treatment.

That means, the treatment has to be UNFAIR. So if we have 19 men and one woman in cabinet, and there is overwhelming evidence that this difference is part of a larger, systematic lack of participation of women in a democratic system, then it is not sexist to call for greater female participation in politics. Because any disadvantage that men suffer as a consequence would not be unfair. However, if there were 19 women and 1 man in the cabinet, then it would be sexist to try and replace that one man with a woman. Because it's unfair. See?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2013 1:16:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/24/2013 10:11:12 PM, rross wrote:
At 9/23/2013 1:58:10 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/23/2013 12:38:52 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/23/2013 12:12:09 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/23/2013 8:30:18 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/23/2013 4:32:46 AM, rross wrote:

Where do you draw the line? At what point does such a characterization cross the line of appropriateness and either becomes nonconstructive or insulting?

Well it depends entirely on definition I guess, the definition seems to vary from hatred, to dislike, to simply saying that some type of person is different in any way. However my point there was that considering sex in order to reduce sexism is only going to make things worse. It's also an effect, though, of an overall system which I think is dishonest, where some select group of people is supposed to 'represent' everyone else, in the first place. So the question then becomes - do we make it so it has to be exactly half men and half women? And then exactly equal amount of every race, every hair colour, etc? Instead, we could just focus on the choices they end up making, rather than the people making those choices.. seems like the real way to reduce bias in any situation.

My intention wasn't to accuse anyone of being racist - or even to say racism / sexism is a bad thing, necessarily, but more of a statement about cause / effect. If the goal is to reduce sexism in politics, trying to reach that goal by 'getting more women in power' seems hypocritical.

I agree with everything here except the underlined. I think that precisely looking at cause and effect would highlight exactly why I disagree with the underlined.

What caused affirmative action in the first place? Pronounced racism and sexism. What is the solution? Well, yes, the main solution is to recognize that race and sex have nothing to do with ability and achievement...however, in order to get to that point, one has to recognize that there has been pronounced and institutionalized discrimination that caused such resentment to occur.

To recognize such discrimination is not "only going to make things worse"...rather, it is identifying the problem, and begging for a solution to it. One proposed solution is affirmative action, which has its flaws, for sure. However, if you take it away and do not replace it with some substantive solution, you are essentially advocating the status quo then, which would be a regression to pronounced racism and sexism.

The question then becomes "is pronounced racism and sexism a problem?" Obviously a lot of people think so.

Nah. Sexism has several slightly different meanings, but the relevant one here is discrimination based on sex, and discrimination in this context means unjust or prejudicial treatment.

That means, the treatment has to be UNFAIR. So if we have 19 men and one woman in cabinet, and there is overwhelming evidence that this difference is part of a larger, systematic lack of participation of women in a democratic system, then it is not sexist to call for greater female participation in politics. Because any disadvantage that men suffer as a consequence would not be unfair. However, if there were 19 women and 1 man in the cabinet, then it would be sexist to try and replace that one man with a woman. Because it's unfair. See?

1) There are many things in life that are "unfair", yet are deemed appropriate anyhow. For example, children are not treated "equally" vis a vis adults. They receive "unfair" treatment, at times biased for them, at times biased against them. Regardless, society at large deems such treatment to be appropriate due to demonstrably different circumstances.

2) "Systemic lack of participation in a democratic system" could stem from at least two reasons:

a) Systemic and pronounced discrimination and persecution of women, demeaning their intelligence and aptitude, thus discouraging their active participation in activities involving intelligence and aptitude, (which is what I want to believe) or

b) An actual lack of interest by women in the political system. IMHO (and it is only opinion at this point, as I have absolutely no data on Australian elections) this is what is actually true, because if women were actually interested in the political system and saw the possibility that someone of Abbott's alleged character would ascend to the highest position in Australian government, then the "women voting bloc" would have made their apprehension exceptionally apparent at the voting box, as much so as blacks make their almost blind and universal approval of Obama via the voting box in America (I believe over 90% of blacks voted for Obama in both elections). Blacks are discriminated against rather heavily in America, yet that did not deter them from voting in droves for Obama.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Had Abbott received only 10% of the "women voting bloc" and Rudd received the other 90%, and had voter participation rates been relatively even on a gender basis, then no way would Abbott have won the election. That Abbott somehow won the election points to an almost anemic display of interest by women either in politics in general, or in Abbott's alleged sexism. It does not point to anything else, given the scenario I have described so far.

3) "To call for greater female participation in politics" is extremely different from what I see you advocating here (and I may be wrong in interpreting your intent), which is to discriminate via gender in making appointments to un-elected political positions. This is gender-based discriminatory employment, no matter how you spin it.

The question becomes, was there discrimination in the appointment process, where women who were as capable or better than the men who eventually got appointed were shunned by the Abbott administration? (this goes to Cermank's article, which I confess to not reading because I am quite unfamiliar with Australian politics) If so, then the Abbott administration would be guilty of gender-based discriminatory employment, and the deserving women should be appointed to the appropriate positions. If not, then regardless of the male-female ratio of Abbott's administration, it would be appropriately based upon merit, as Abbott claims.

Personally, I think it is highly questionable, as demonstrated by Abbott's self-appointment to the ministry in question. You would think any educated female would be a better "minister for women" than Tony Abbott.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2013 1:26:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Bottom line:

Is Australia a democracy, where women can vote as freely as men can? If so, then the electorate has spoken. Women "obviously" do not have that big of a problem with Abbott, because if they did, they would have voted him out of office a long time ago.

That Abbott is where he is today despite the existence of a non-discriminatory election process damages the credibility of proponents who forward arguments alleging Abbott's misogyny and sexism. This is my assessment from an outsider's standpoint.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Fractals
Posts: 38
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2013 2:18:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/20/2013 11:47:44 PM, rross wrote:
Anyone think he's an appropriate choice?

Not even close to being appropriate. :/
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2013 8:07:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/24/2013 9:43:10 PM, rross wrote:
Suppose, for the sake of argument that you and Abbott are right. Presumably the difference you're referring to is pregnancy, childbirth and rearing children. That women are more engaged with it than men, that it takes up all their time, interest and energy and leaves them less time to watch soccer or be politicians.

Neither one of us, to my knowledge, made that comment in reference specifically to government positions.

It is a fact that women are biologically and sociologically different to men, which results in them having different interests and aptitudes. For instance, I don't know the exact statistic, but college attendance is much higher among females. And certain college courses have higher average males to females, and vica versa. This is due to many factors, including societal pressures.


This argument got a lot of support earlier in the year when Nicola Roxon, our first female Attorney-General, quit to sit on the backbench. Of course, it could be a cover up for other reasons, but her official reason was

"The life we lead as politicians is not always family friendly... There are a lot of very early mornings and late nights and the travel can be onerous especially when you have family commitments. In the end, I just felt that it was time I spent more time with my husband and daughter....I needed to redress the balance in our lives. Foremost in my mind was the fact that if I stayed then my daughter would be in high school before I could retire. It's just the right time to go."

http://aww.ninemsn.com.au...

So. What if you and Abbott are right? What if women feel more compelled to stay home with their children than men do?

IF that's the case, then the fault is with the government structure. In a democracy, to have a system which makes representation much more difficult for half the population is appalling. The system of government should be changed so that women can more easily participate. WHY should being a politician mean that you can't spend time with your children? It's ridiculous. If indeed women are physiologically restricted by child-bearing then this is indirect discrimination and it needs to be addressed.

This is a far more serious situation, requiring a far more drastic remedy, than if there are no such differences between men and women. I'm actually inclined to agree with you, muzebreak.

Are you fvcking serious? You are joking, right? Did you seriously just say that female politicians having to work long hours is discrimination?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2013 2:30:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/25/2013 8:07:29 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 9/24/2013 9:43:10 PM, rross wrote:

This argument got a lot of support earlier in the year when Nicola Roxon, our first female Attorney-General, quit to sit on the backbench. Of course, it could be a cover up for other reasons, but her official reason was

"The life we lead as politicians is not always family friendly... There are a lot of very early mornings and late nights and the travel can be onerous especially when you have family commitments. In the end, I just felt that it was time I spent more time with my husband and daughter....I needed to redress the balance in our lives. Foremost in my mind was the fact that if I stayed then my daughter would be in high school before I could retire. It's just the right time to go."

http://aww.ninemsn.com.au...

So. What if you and Abbott are right? What if women feel more compelled to stay home with their children than men do?

IF that's the case, then the fault is with the government structure. In a democracy, to have a system which makes representation much more difficult for half the population is appalling. The system of government should be changed so that women can more easily participate. WHY should being a politician mean that you can't spend time with your children? It's ridiculous. If indeed women are physiologically restricted by child-bearing then this is indirect discrimination and it needs to be addressed.

This is a far more serious situation, requiring a far more drastic remedy, than if there are no such differences between men and women. I'm actually inclined to agree with you, muzebreak.

Are you fvcking serious? You are joking, right? Did you seriously just say that female politicians having to work long hours is discrimination?

I object to rross's comments here for completely different reasons than muzebreak's.

To say that women wanting to spend more time with their families is the GOVERNMENT's FAULT is nothing short of delusional and absolutely and utterly ridiculous. That's like saying that solar flares are also the government's fault. Maybe so is the Big Bang.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2013 2:36:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/24/2013 9:43:10 PM, rross wrote:
So. What if you and Abbott are right? What if women feel more compelled to stay home with their children than men do?

IF that's the case, then the fault is with the government structure. In a democracy, to have a system which makes representation much more difficult for half the population is appalling. The system of government should be changed so that women can more easily participate. WHY should being a politician mean that you can't spend time with your children? It's ridiculous. If indeed women are physiologically restricted by child-bearing then this is indirect discrimination and it needs to be addressed.

This is a far more serious situation, requiring a far more drastic remedy, than if there are no such differences between men and women. I'm actually inclined to agree with you, muzebreak.

Your position makes some odd assumptions. In Democracy, you elect the officials you want to represent you, not the officials you should want. You get to choose who you want to represent you, not some made up standard of equality. If females are half the population and they assist in electing male politicians, then Democracy has occurred.

To second guess their choices is a form of condescension. They didn't really want those elected representatives. The system made them do it.

By your argument a black man should never be the president of the United States because everyone should elect representatives that represent them only and the whole system is based on race/sex, etc.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2013 3:13:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/25/2013 2:30:56 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/25/2013 8:07:29 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 9/24/2013 9:43:10 PM, rross wrote:

This argument got a lot of support earlier in the year when Nicola Roxon, our first female Attorney-General, quit to sit on the backbench. Of course, it could be a cover up for other reasons, but her official reason was

"The life we lead as politicians is not always family friendly... There are a lot of very early mornings and late nights and the travel can be onerous especially when you have family commitments. In the end, I just felt that it was time I spent more time with my husband and daughter....I needed to redress the balance in our lives. Foremost in my mind was the fact that if I stayed then my daughter would be in high school before I could retire. It's just the right time to go."

http://aww.ninemsn.com.au...

So. What if you and Abbott are right? What if women feel more compelled to stay home with their children than men do?

IF that's the case, then the fault is with the government structure. In a democracy, to have a system which makes representation much more difficult for half the population is appalling. The system of government should be changed so that women can more easily participate. WHY should being a politician mean that you can't spend time with your children? It's ridiculous. If indeed women are physiologically restricted by child-bearing then this is indirect discrimination and it needs to be addressed.

This is a far more serious situation, requiring a far more drastic remedy, than if there are no such differences between men and women. I'm actually inclined to agree with you, muzebreak.

Are you fvcking serious? You are joking, right? Did you seriously just say that female politicians having to work long hours is discrimination?

I object to rross's comments here for completely different reasons than muzebreak's.

To say that women wanting to spend more time with their families is the GOVERNMENT's FAULT is nothing short of delusional and absolutely and utterly ridiculous. That's like saying that solar flares are also the government's fault. Maybe so is the Big Bang.

To be fair to me, I object to a lot more than just what I mentioned, but I felt it was the most absurd thing, so I just wanted to get it out of the way first.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2013 11:50:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/25/2013 8:07:29 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 9/24/2013 9:43:10 PM, rross wrote:
Suppose, for the sake of argument that you and Abbott are right. Presumably the difference you're referring to is pregnancy, childbirth and rearing children. That women are more engaged with it than men, that it takes up all their time, interest and energy and leaves them less time to watch soccer or be politicians.

Neither one of us, to my knowledge, made that comment in reference specifically to government positions.

Oh. How did you interpret "representation"? Represent implies doing something on behalf of others. So we speak of politicians in this way. I don't know of any other field which would use "representation" rather than "participation. So I assumed the comment was referring to politics. After all, Abbott is a politician.

It is a fact that women are biologically and sociologically different to men, which results in them having different interests and aptitudes. For instance, I don't know the exact statistic, but college attendance is much higher among females. And certain college courses have higher average males to females, and vica versa. This is due to many factors, including societal pressures.

So?

This argument got a lot of support earlier in the year when Nicola Roxon, our first female Attorney-General, quit to sit on the backbench. Of course, it could be a cover up for other reasons, but her official reason was

"The life we lead as politicians is not always family friendly... There are a lot of very early mornings and late nights and the travel can be onerous especially when you have family commitments. In the end, I just felt that it was time I spent more time with my husband and daughter....I needed to redress the balance in our lives. Foremost in my mind was the fact that if I stayed then my daughter would be in high school before I could retire. It's just the right time to go."

http://aww.ninemsn.com.au...

So. What if you and Abbott are right? What if women feel more compelled to stay home with their children than men do?

IF that's the case, then the fault is with the government structure. In a democracy, to have a system which makes representation much more difficult for half the population is appalling. The system of government should be changed so that women can more easily participate. WHY should being a politician mean that you can't spend time with your children? It's ridiculous. If indeed women are physiologically restricted by child-bearing then this is indirect discrimination and it needs to be addressed.

This is a far more serious situation, requiring a far more drastic remedy, than if there are no such differences between men and women. I'm actually inclined to agree with you, muzebreak.

Are you fvcking serious? You are joking, right? Did you seriously just say that female politicians having to work long hours is discrimination?

I'm saying that IF you are right and there are physiological differences between men and women that make it difficult for women to stay in the political system (and this is your argument not mine) then this is the fault of the system, not of women. A democracy is based on the idea of fair representation.

For instance, if half the population were in wheelchairs and the chamber of representatives was at the top of a long flight of stairs, then there would be a problem with the building, not the people in wheelchairs.