Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

EMILY's List

a clear slap in the face

I have come across this site
ERROR: A link was posted here (url) but it appears to be a broken link.
www.emilyslist.org.au/candidates/candidates.asp?id=fed]

 Their motto is  WHEN WOMEN SUPPORT WOMEN, WOMEN WIN.

This translates to me WHEN WOMEN SUPPORT MEN, WOMEN LOSE!….. can anybody see feminism at work here?

I don't know that I would call this feminism. Maybe call it a grab for the "purple" dollar. Similar to the "pink" dollar in marketing, when the gay community was discovered as an important market segment.

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. 
I am a supporter of equal rights, this will never be as long as such groups as these exist.
 Pushing one gender or the other is in no way equality, emilys list is clearly for womens rights, one only needs to read the caption - "women support women" let alone enter the site.

 One wonders why the labor govt entertains such laws as the removal of father from the birth certificate or rape laws or the domestic violence laws  - votes off course as seen in RUDD'S speech on WOMENS domestic violence !


                                                    WHAT A LOAD OF PIZZLE ROT !!!!

Monaro I believe in equality as well.

Unfortunately any debate involving gender issues tends to be (from my experience and shall I quote the numerous examples from this site?) characterised as 'invalid' when coming from a man and 'important and fair' when coming from a woman. One of the patterns on this site (and you may have experienced it as I have) is the general personal abuse and censorship one suffers when raising the debate.

I can't even argue that there is a natural bias without it being a 'gender' debate - hence you cant even debate the debate. There is no end of people who believe that they are 'right' and some of them think they are even 'fair' and 'balanced'. Its natural for people to think that. Even politicians.

The sign that they are evil is when they use censorship and personal attacks when someone raises a real and important issue. In politics when someone goes on the personal attack is because they are hiding something.

Obviously this site is not a gender debate site - yet there are clearly issues when a gender perspective is important. e.g. csa and family law, parenting and so on. the moderators on this site are very keenly attuned to anything which may drive women (mainly) away from this site and I think their view is to dumb down and silence any contentious or 'inflamatiory' (as they define it) discussion.Their site - they can do anything they like.

Hence the sites stats go up.

I have greater respect for people's abilities to understand discussion and debate and their ability to participate in it withOUT hostility. One can only hope that with practice we can all get better at being able to discuss important issues - not just the predetermined agenda.

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
Jon Pearson said
Monaro I believe in equality as well.

Unfortunately any debate involving gender issues tends to be (from my experience and shall I quote the numerous examples from this site?)

And those examples are?
In fact one recent topic concerned male suicide. Very clearly when the responses are read it was the ladies on the site that were the most vociferous in denouncing the posters attitudes. It is this openess and engagement that distinguishes the FLWG.

Jon Pearson said
characterised as 'invalid' when coming from a man and 'important and fair' when coming from a woman. One of the patterns on this site (and you may have experienced it as I have) is the general personal abuse and censorship one suffers when raising the debate.

Some of the moderators may argue the same about some of the posters abuse to moderators. You are confusing censorship with 'editorial control'. In your opinion 'you are' experiencing it, that is your personal opinion and it not validated by many of the responses to the moderators by male members of this site.
Jon Pearson said
I can't even argue that there is a natural bias without it being a 'gender' debate - hence you cant even debate the debate. There is no end of people who believe that they are 'right' and some of them think they are even 'fair' and 'balanced'. Its natural for people to think that. Even politicians.

You have argued very extensively with a moderator and wasted a great deal of his time and seem unable or unwilling to grasp what he was saying. There is a distinct difference between labelling sexes as 'all' and not differentiating between between the various pressure or downtrodden groups.
Jon Pearson said
The sign that they are evil is when they use censorship and personal attacks when someone raises a real and important issue. In politics when someone goes on the personal attack is because they are hiding something.

An important issue to who? the poster or the members in general?

Jon Pearson said
Obviously this site is not a gender debate site - yet there are clearly issues when a gender perspective is important. e.g. csa and family law, parenting and so on. the moderators on this site are very keenly attuned to anything which may drive women (mainly) away from this site and I think their view is to dumb down and silence any contentious or 'inflamatiory' (as they define it) discussion.Their site - they can do anything they like.

If you mean a site when all men are bastards and all women are bitches - the answer is NO. If you mean a site where there can be positive engagement and reasoned gender perpective the answer is YES.
If you follow carefully the threads on Family Law and CSA you will see an great deal of positive engagement and cross advice by both sexes. It is this very engagement that is important.
Jon Pearson said
Hence the sites stats go up.

The site stats go up because the portal is reflecting a range of issues that ultimately apply to children and engagment of both sexes without the rhetoric of simplisitic and jingoistic views .

Jon Pearson said
I have greater respect for people's abilities to understand discussion and debate and their ability to participate in it withOUT hostility. One can only hope that with practice we can all get better at being able to discuss important issues - not just the predetermined agenda.

The only pre determined agenda on this site is to work towards the goals of its Community members.


I trust the Secretary of the SPCA may repeat some of the Deputy Chief Justice's very positive comments about this site that were made at the weekend conference. The very fact that he and the CJ visit this site is because blatantly extremist views are not allowed much space, that space goes towards working with both sexes for positive outcomes for children.





 Senior Site Moderator and Administrator
Sisyphus said
I trust the Secretary of the SPCA may repeat some of the Deputy Chief Justice's very positive comments about this site that were made at the weekend conference. The very fact that he and the CJ visit this site is because blatantly extremist views are not allowed much space, that space goes towards working with both sexes for positive outcomes for children.

Are you really saying the CJ and DCJ are site visitors? Who else are you aware of and who is registered on this site?

Conan said
Sisyphus said
I trust the Secretary of the SPCA may repeat some of the Deputy Chief Justice's very positive comments about this site that were made at the weekend conference. The very fact that he and the CJ visit this site is because blatantly extremist views are not allowed much space, that space goes towards working with both sexes for positive outcomes for children.

Are you really saying the CJ and DCJ are site visitors? Who else are you aware of and who is registered on this site?

Wait for an announcement from the site admins in the next few weeks about who is registered and will participate on the site.

The DCJ has spent time on the site particularly the SRL area (an area close to the 'SRLs A Challenge' project he ran)


Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
No doubt they visit the site - either registered or un-registered. I maintain a healthy debate is important - with fair and balanced comment and allowing people to express themselves. Its natural for some people to be defensive when confronted by challenging ideas - some people have not even got the intellectual framework or experience to begin understanding but just because we are different with different backgrounds doesn't mean we have to be overly defensive or abusive.

Essentially there has to be a debate that includes gender because there are clearly VAST differences in so many issues this site deals with. The only question is how to have the debate without constantly labling people are sexist when they raise an issue (male that is) and softly berating using logic a female who expresses her gender view. eventually we will all get better at it.

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
Just to let you know Jon, my rebukes are in proportion to how much the person is repeat offending/annoying/offending/being inappropriate….not to their gender.

Debates will always get a little heated where people are passionate, goodness knows I do. The important thing is to capitulate when wrong or agree to disagree and respect that someone is very wedded to the other view.

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. 
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets