Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

2020 Debate - Gender Inbalance

I loved that bit where one of those feminists piped up and said 'What about the women" - complaining that women were underrepresented.

Of course if you use the test of "best and brightest" it is easy to demonstrate that having 7 women in the leadership groups is an OVER REPRESENTATION.

I would suggest SPORTSMEN seem under represented - they are on TV more than Blanchett.

The feminists are so laughable now - they go for equal numbers not equality - YET they failed to stand up for anyone else like - the elderly, youth, disadvantaged, migrants, disabled etc. (i.e all the other groups covered under the Discrimination (against white males) ACT).

Must laugh - there are a few left now who have been trained to speak up and grab media attention - no one checks to see if their brains in gear - just their mouths and self rightousness.

The media love them - for entertainment value. I must admit the prime minisiter showed a complete lack of guts when he did not put them in their place. Of course Gillard could have said something sensible but girls can't criticise girls - no matter how bad or stupid they are.

Feminists are a miserable lot - lacking insight and completely self centered and selfish. Is there anyone left who calls them selves one of these?

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
I agree feminists can be a bit hard to take but I think this forum is a great example of gender imbalance. I see the women that post here talk about their experiences in relation to their issues, and men the same but there is a huge slant towards articles that are anti women. What would happen if we started posting similar articles that showed the same bent? I think women would be howled down for anti menism.

When you are swimming down a creek and an eel bites your cheek, that's a Moray.
I agree, I think Jon's post is gratuitous and adds nothing to the discussion.

If you are talking about affirmative action - discuss that and the problems associated.

Junior Executive of SRL-Resources

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (Look for the Avatars). Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
You both missed the point.

The government announces a forum - who is the only "group" claiming a right to be represented?

Was it the churches, the disabled, the aborigines, the immigrants, the children, the foreign language people, the people in dentention centres, mothers, fathers, parents. NO

The only group that stood up, and the media grabbed on to, was one of the many feminists in organisations scattered around the country saying "what about me"?

They didn't say "what about fair representation for all"

Nor did they say "what about "balance"

Nor did The Prime minister of Gillard respond with anything menangful.

This is not an ant- feminist observation. Its a REAL THING. It would be the same if the NAZI's stood up.

Here is the major THINK TANK for this government and ONE GROUP wants to hijack it claiming the VICTIM CARD.

I don't think that''s "right" (I am not ashamed of this view) or they should be listened to BUT IF YOU ALL think that's OK that's fine with me. I am just observing the facts.

Whats on TV?

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
This did pass by me fleetingly one night when I was watching the news and Rudd did say that the sub members were greatly represented by females and I believe through invite some thousands may attend.

It is hard to say if someone was ask to comment or someone put up their hand crying "what about me".

If spun in the right way this could be news worthy for two days and even longer if reaction was received, all that can be concluded is that it made it on the news that night not for the possible positives that may be created but rather to represent lack positions for females. Simply put it fell flat due to lack of interest.
How do you know only feminists only said "what about me?" The media only reports slants it thinks can cause a stir and probably failed to mention other groups.

Of course a reporter could have always asked a loaded question that only leads to that response then quoted it out of context.

Personally I am fed up with the media misrepresenting all sorts of stuff just for a byline that sells.

When you are swimming down a creek and an eel bites your cheek, that's a Moray.
Thats my whole point Jadzia.

Much of the time I don't think it's about issues that are of concern but rather issues that sell advertising space, which of course is bought by ratings and sales.

I enjoy watching media watch as well as the chaser especially when it exposes how many times certain stories are aired with similar issues or same issues.

Also notice I did not use the word feminist.

You have to wonder if it was an issue before the reporters got hold of it ? or infact if the reporters were contacted by a group that trawls for issues that can be exposed for their cause.

Still it was short lived.

After living through the media circus via a family tragedy it would not surprise anyone to know even the most respected do not report but rather assemble a story to incite controversy.

   
I must say that I am leaning to Jon's argument in this debate
Jon said
The government announces a forum - who is the only "group" claiming a right to be represented? Was it the churches, the disabled, the aborigines, the immigrants, the children, the foreign language people, the people in dentention centres, mothers, fathers, parents. NO

The only group that stood up, and the media grabbed on to, was one of the many feminists in organisations scattered around the country saying "what about me"?

They didn't say "what about fair representation for all" Nor did they say "what about balance" Nor did The Prime minister of Gillard respond with anything menangful.
The issue is that whenever we come up against equal participation and equal parenting it is the leftist feminist that seems to spoil it for the rest. (One of the execs in another group refers to these sorts as femo nasty's being femnisits who are quite nasty people) There are feminists who support heavily the fundemental right of every child to have the love and affection of both a mum and a dad. They are on the forums here and stand as equals. We have no problem with feminists (Some posters have said they are not here and the site does not welcome equality in the debate, but I disagree) Then there are the wingers and the feminist nasties, who are always hard done by. Nothing is ever right for these sorts. They are the sorts I think Jon has refered us to.

In relation to 2020. How many of us sent in applications today to sit on any of the forum panels. (They closed at 5:00pm) How many groups, affiliates and members sent in submissions to nominate any of their executive officers of any of the groups to sit in on the future debate? I managed to get my application in a few minutes late but at least it went in.

Nominate up to 3 working groups you would like to participate in, in order of preference. If you are nominating another person, we would ask that you discuss their areas of interest with them prior to filling out this section. Please note that delegates will be allocated to only one working group. Enter preference numbers in the boxes provided

Future directions for the Australian economy including education, skills, training, science and innovation as part of the nations productivity agenda

Economic infrastructure, the digital economy and the future of our cities

Population, sustainability, climate change, and water —> YES

Future directions for rural industries and rural communities

A long-term national health strategy - including the challenges of preventative health, workforce planning and the ageing population —> YES

The future of Australian governance: renewed democracy, a more open government (including the role of the media), the structure of the Federation and the rights and responsibilities of citizens

Options for the future of indigenous Australia

Towards a creative Australia: the future of the arts, film and design

Strengthening communities, supporting families and social inclusion —YES

Australia's future security and prosperity in a rapidly changing region and world

Executive Secretary - Shared Parenting Council of Australia
 Was my post helpful? If so, please let others know about the FamilyLawWebGuide whenever you see the opportunity
 
Perhaps bitting and scratching gripping on to an ideal that has been turned into an industry that by now should be losing it's grip stands the femo nasty who is a true man hater and is as vocal as possible and thrives on hate unaware that they are only puppets being used by others perhaps even more unscrupulous than them. Rather i would inject that much of the time they are nothing but tools being used as a way of keeping pressure on for others causes.

I do not disagree that opinions are exposed but who is introducing the exposure and for what purpose, remember funding to womens groups is determined by it's need, this also includes government departments and the obvious sale of news and other media property.

The lost souls who lay claim to this extent of feminism that allows them to be used in such a manner whilst burying their heads in the sand and who religiously follow the beliefs of the leaders are simple sheep who refuse to accept their reality may be wrong. But this happens both sides of the fence.

Others take advantage of these beliefs for the only reason of furthering their own selfish desire.

I understand and even agree with what is said although I think the femi nasties are little more than a convenient puppet for others who often take the heat because they will always put their hand up with out thinking.

The summit is a little out of my reach in too many ways but hope you manage to get in good luck.  

It's the same in any organisation but generally you get to temper the radical ones with those who have a bit more stability.

It's great to be passionate about an issue, but all too often that passion becomes an obsession. In all reality the media should have the sense to temper the extremes. I also agree that it is these extremes that become puppets by other groups used to damage genuine causes for their own purposes by ridicule again promoted by media.

When you are swimming down a creek and an eel bites your cheek, that's a Moray.
Heres an idea.

The greatest examples of human existence sometimes include people who have suffered enormously - but rather than whinge and complain for the rest of their lives - they rise above it seeking a greater society for all - not vengance, not personal gain, not attention, not validation, not therapy.

NONE of the feminist groups or their representatives fall into that category.

Moreso that take ATTENTION AWAY from what is important to everyone (or could be). But then again Australian Idol does that as well. :)

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
I'm sorry Jon what was that I wasn't listening  O_o.

Good point in two ways, the second way is simply attention is only short lived so an impact must be made, and my original pun seems to be that of the public amass, we are so use to horror stories being shown in the nightly news we do become unmoved by them as they appear cereal and disjointed and not part of our lives. Not much holds our attention more than 3 seconds these days unless it has importance to us personally.

Although I'm not sure about the womens groups all being as you have suggested but I do believe there are many groups who work for good causes that concentrate on women but this is not their fault.
So here again we have the media beating up an issue.

So we have a Female Australian Governor General.
Heres what Rudd could have said " In this day and age making a song and dance about the gender of a person appointed to a position is irrelevant - even discriminatory - quite simply the best person got the job.

Heres what the feminists should have said "No comment"

But theres seems to be a smug political correctness coming from this government.
First the apology, then the 2020 best and brightest (mostly women) then the save the whales, then the Chinese diplomacy (adopted straight out of Love Actually).

It all points to a complacent & smug approach to "Correctness" rather than merit or anything else (at best). At worst its a cynical ploy driven by an agenda not yet fully exposed.

What next from the boys from Nambour (near the heart of one nation)? Happy families? Sainted mother? Free church for all?

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets