Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Is Feminism Destroying Men? (Rosie Boycott)

Money, the talisman around which all our ideas of success and failure revolve, causes more marital discord than any other issue.

Two articles by feminist Rosie Boycott…
Money, the talisman around which all our ideas of success and failure revolve, causes more marital discord than any other issue: studies at Arkansas State University by Randall Kesslering, who examined 112,740 women, show that for every £10,000 a wife's earnings rise relative to the family's overall income, the chances of marital break-up rise by 1pc.

So who's driving those divorces? Disappointed women who can't bear to be married to a weaker man, or men who cannot abide being in thrall to a more powerful woman? No doubt we will know in time.
Daily Mail (Britain)
12 December 2006

Feminism was going to liberate both sexes, but instead it destroyed a generation of men?
By Rosie Boycott

The Fist of Feminism

Once upon a time it used to be relatively simple to be a man: your role, as indeed it was my father's role, was to look after your wife and children, provide for them, make major decisions around the house and bring home the bacon.

When I was young and my father was temporarily unemployed after leaving the Army in the Fifties, there was no question that my mother might step into the breach and go out to work. We just went short of money.

I remember my father being depressed and angry during this brief period; later, when we talked about such issues, he told me that much of his unhappiness stemmed from feeling that he was letting down his family.

Thankfully, for him (and for us), the situation was soon resolved and Dad was able to reassert his sense of order and masculinity; he went out to work, Mum stayed at home, he dealt with the bills, Mum dealt with the cooking. It was all very ordered.

Nothing is so straightforward any more. My mother needed my father to keep a roof over her head and food on the table for her children.

Women don't need that now.

Last week, a survey revealed that 39 per cent of women who work full-time believe they earn more than their men.

The word "believe" is important here; work, this last bastion, where men still hold on to the reins of power, is now so fraught with tension and drama that people are unwilling to go on the record about actual earnings.

Translated into numbers, that means 1.8 million women in full-time work across the country now earn more than their partners.

These figures are both important and potentially critical: they indicate a very real change sweeping through the professional ranks of twentysomething men and women.

The one area where men continued to rule the roost - the workplace - where they consistently out-earned women and claimed the lion's share of places at the boardroom table, even that apparently secure male domain has been turned on its head.

So what exactly do women need men for these days?

Evidently, they don't need them to pay bills, to put up shelves, to fix the car, mow the lawn or provide a socially acceptable set-up in which to rear children.

Remember, a munificent benefits system means that single women, with or without children, no longer need a man to provide for them - the state has taken on that role.

Since the Divorce Act of 1969, which made it possible for women to leave a marriage, keep the kids and receive alimony, an increasing number of women are choosing to bring up children alone.

Even the provision of sperm is now something that women can sort out alone, without actually having sex with a man. The internet now boasts several companies which will deliver fertile semen through the mail.

My father's generation defined their wives: nowadays, the role has completely reversed and men are defined by women. As a result, their definition of themselves has faltered and society has been cruel towards their attempts to redefine themselves.

And yet, when the women's movement started in Britain, we all believed it would mean a liberation for men as well as for women.

What could be worse, we argued, than - like most men - working every day from when you left education till you retired at 65, solely financially responsible for your wife and kids, long office hours denying you the chance to spend meaningful time with your children.

That life was as much of a prison as being a full-time wife and mother.

When I co-founded the magazine Spare Rib in 1972, the lot of women was very distant from today's reality.

In those days, a woman couldn't get a mortgage without her husband's or her father's signature. Universities were predominantly for men, as were medical schools and colleges of law.

Women were still meant to be their father's daughters until they became their husband's wives.

But if we started out hoping to bring an improvement to the lives of men as well as women, by the time the Seventies came round, the idea of the women's movement being of possible benefit to men had withered on the vine.

Women's rights became just too urgent and too immediate, and though everyone knew that whenever women change there must be a reciprocal change for men, it was somehow assumed it would all work itself out in the great melting pot of life.

To ensure that women did better at school, committees were formed and studies undertaken and the style of teaching changed.

Thus, in recent years, it has no longer been just the single, terrifying three- hour exam that determined your success, a winner-takes-all mentality generally thought to be more applicable to the male brain.

Continual assessment worked better for women, who, it is thought, respond better to a more considered approach to work.

Meanwhile, the nature of the workplace itself changed. As Western countries shifted from land-based to factory-based and then to knowledge-based economies, so the need for brawn and physical strength diminished.

Physically, men no longer have any advantage over women in professional life; their place has now been taken by machines, and the multitasking skills of human interaction which women do better at are precisely those prized by employers.

So what are men to do? While we applaud a woman who takes on a man's world and succeeds, woe betide a man who strays too far into women's territory.

A man who keeps house, brings up the children and does the shopping is more likely to be considered a weedy loser than an individual who has made a considered stance.

Working at home, we all believe, is something men do only because they've been fired or can't get a good enough job to allow them to afford childcare.

In short, men are being squeezed at every turn. Somewhere along the line towards the liberation of women we have stripped them of all their primary functions and made them miserable.

Their subservient position starts in school. Girls have now overtaken boys in public exams to such an extent that educators now question whether the system hasn't swung too far in their favour by using continuous assessment in preference to one-off exams.

Then there is the fact that the whole notion of learning a trade has been abolished in favour of purely academic studies.

Jobs which give satisfaction, especially for poorer white males - who are now the worst-performing group in our education system - have become almost impossible to come by.

Women, meanwhile, are groomed relentlessly to succeed. How did we get into such a predicament? No feminist I ever knew wanted to see a world in which men were beaten by women: a world in which one dominant group was just replaced by another.

Our problem is, I think, largely to do with the fact that our ideas of success are still derived from making money and being top-dog in the office.

Sadly, women's liberation, which ought to have made it easy for both sexes to choose their roles in life, has actually managed to denigrate the role of motherhood and caring.

So when men dip into our pond, we see them as failures, not as individuals who might have made a skilful and necessary adaptation to a new set of rules.

As long as society continues to rate making money so far above running the home, both men and women will think they have failed if they do not succeed in the workplace.

We are already seeing the consequences of this erosion of men's social position. Our jails are overflowing, predominantly with young men who've lost their way. Male suicide rates are up. Alcoholism rates are up. Not only are boys doing less well at school, they're also dropping out with greater frequency than girls.

While their traditional role in society is being ripped from them, young men are losing the social compass which once came naturally. Women now demand that their men not only succeed in business and maintain a fat bank balance: now they're expected to be emotional, open, caring-and-sharing types, too. That may be fine for some, but for others it is clearly not.

The current crop of teenage men's magazines - most of which are openly hostile to women, regarding them as nothing more than sex objects - seem to me to be a confused cry for help.

Unable to find a place in this new world order, the magazines are taking their readers back to a time when men did rule the roost and women were merely chattels. Their message is angry: a brutal and simple-minded response of many men to the alienation they feel from mainstream society.

For many men, the realisation that twentysomething women now outearn them will only add to their bitterness.

Money, the talisman around which all our ideas of success and failure revolve, causes more marital discord than any other issue: studies at Arkansas State University by Randall Kesslering, who examined 112,740 women, show that for every £10,000 a wife's earnings rise relative to the family's overall income, the chances of marital break-up rise by 1pc.

So who's driving those divorces? Disappointed women who can't bear to be married to a weaker man, or men who cannot abide being in thrall to a more powerful woman? No doubt we will know in time.

The truth is that women - from a position of being able to do very little some 30-odd years ago - can now, literally, do it all.

Even many books for toddlers, with the exception of titles like Bob The Builder and Postman Pat, no longer have men in them.

But the fact is that if women choose to have a baby on their own or walk out on their marriage, the state is there to pick up the pieces. Of course, children's books reflect this.

Everyone needs to feel they have a purpose in life, to be challenged and to be useful. Society has bent over backwards to liberate women and to give them equal opportunities - from taking out a mortgage to a woman's legal right to terminate a pregnancy.

But the agenda of women's rights was based on the premise that you can fix equality for women with no reference at all to men.

And so, in the process, we have unwittingly undermined men, making their role very hard to define. Because ultimately if women can look after themselves, we are forced to ask the question: "What are men for?"

We need, urgently, to start reassessing our priorities. We need to start to rate homemaking as highly as money-making. We need to stop believing - erroneously - that happiness derives solely from money. We need to learn to respect and value the crucial role that parents (women and men) play in their children's upbringing.

As someone who has watched the position of women change so dramatically, I cannot help but be thrilled to see just how well we have done. But our success must never be at the expense of men and their own sense of fulfilment. Otherwise, it will not be any sort of success at all.
ERROR: A link was posted here (url) but it appears to be a broken link.
Response from a Reader, John


The article you posted "Is Feminism Destroying Men?" by Rosie Boycott is both arrogant and false. The author apparently senses that something is wrong with feminism, but doesn't have the slightest ideas of what it might be. The over tone is that women have been so successful and dominant in recent years, and now they need to pause and take pity on men.

She makes a number of mistakes. For instance, she credits the success of feminism to women, when it fact it is part of the larger conspiracy you write about so elegantly. (My son tells me that the most ardent feminists are men.) She claims that women no longer need men because machines now do the (brute) work once done by men. She fails to realize that it is men who conceive, design, build, program, operate, and repair these machines. She claims that the state provides the services once provided by husbands and family.

She fails to realize the the government is a very poor service provider, witness Katrina, and still must marshal the labour of men. Who is going to take care of them when the system breaks down, such as in a natural disaster or economic collapse? She thinks that women's so-called multi-tasking ability makes them ideal employees in the modern work force, but in fact it just means an inability to focus. Women have abandoned the roles there are really good as they have tried to beat men at their own game. Men excel in almost every area, even in those traditionally attributed to women, or in jobs you would think women should have and advantage.

The notion that women can get pregnant by mail order is patently absurd - no one should ever even consider selecting the father of one's child by catalogue. Children need to be conceived and raised in love by both parents. It is a statistical fact that single women make the absolute worst parents. In fact, men and women together tend to put each other on their best behaviour.

She writes "Everyone needs to feel they have a purpose in life, to be challenged and to be useful. Society has bent over backwards to liberate women and to give them equal opportunities - from taking out a mortgage to a woman's legal right to terminate a pregnancy." That is, women have the right to enter into a never ending cycle of debt, and to murder they own children so they will have the time to pay for it.

Actually, men are hurt less by feminism than are women. The the title of the article should be "Is Feminism Destroying Women (and Murdering Children)?
The above image can also be sourced from:
ERROR: A link was posted here (url) but it appears to be a broken link.
http://feministing.com/fistingindeed.jpg
http://www.savethemales.ca/femfist.jpg
Daily Mail (Britain)
7 February 2008

Feminism has turned men into second-class citizens, but have women's victories come at a price?
By Rosie Boycott

Women and men are at war over pay, status and freedom.

From the office to the marital bed, millions of men say feminism has turned them into second-class citizens.

Here, one of the movement's high priestesses asks: have women's victories come at too high a price?


What does it mean to be a man in the 21st century?

If you'd asked a man living in the mid-20th century - someone like my dad for instance - he would have breezily given you a quick answer.

It would have gone something like this: "I'm a provider - I look after my wife and children. I go out to work and make money for my family to live on."

From that, he would have derived his sense of self, of who he was in society. What's more it would have been one of the main motivators driving his life; a force, as history shows us, that allowed men to be the dominant sex in our world.

But according to a recent survey, today's young men don't share their forebears' sense of entitlement.

Indeed, 52 per cent of them believe they have to live by women's rules, and a staggering 82 per cent feel they have lost their traditional male role in society.

For most of them, this means feeling undervalued, their voices and opinions unheard.

This is an astonishing reversal, and one that we can no longer ignore, underscored as it is by several facts. For example, for the first time in history a majority of American women are not living with a spouse.

In Britain, the Office of National Statistics revealed recently that the number of marriages taking place in the UK had fallen to an all-time low.

So marriage and being the 'Dad around the house' aren't something a young man growing into adulthood can look forward to as a cast iron certainty.

Furthermore, one of the bastions on which a man could depend in the ongoing tussle between the sexes - earning more than his female counterparts - is also changing.

At the end of last year, a survey revealed that 39 per cent of women who work full-time earn more than their partner.

That means 1.8 million women in full-time work across the country now earn more than their partners.

These figures are both important and potentially critical: they indicate a very real change sweeping through the professional ranks of twentysomething men and women.

And these changes affect men and women in all areas of their life - from the bedroom to the boardroom.

We were once very different: women stayed at home and reared the children, men went out to work and earned the money. It was, in many senses, a simple world.

The sharp differentiation of the sexes that was once so all-pervasive has - as women's roles have expanded into male territory - considerably weakened. What has happened, in effect, is that men and women have become more, not less, alike.

This was brought home to me forcibly the other day when I was talking to a friend in her early 30s.

She's been married for eight years and has two young children, both now at school. Her marriage is far from happy and she was recounting to me a recent argument she'd been having with her husband about who should do the school run in the afternoon when both of them wanted to be at work.

It wasn't the first kind of argument of that sort they'd had. Over the years, there had been rows about who got up in the night with the baby or whose responsibility it was to see to the childcare arrangements.

They both feel an equal right to pursue their careers, and as a consequence, they are, in effect, in competition with each other over pay, job status and their leisure time and personal freedom.

I'm not sure how many times I listened to her tales of woe before one day a thought struck me forcibly. This sort of row would never have taken place between my mum and dad.

The idea of Mum arguing with Dad about who should be looking after my sister or me, or whether he'd done his share of the household tasks, or remembered to buy the milk, is completely unthinkable.

My mother - a clever but unfulfilled woman - would never have entered into such a conflict.

They both knew exactly what their roles were and they lived them out. My mother's passivity and her clear lack of fulfilment were among the spurs that led me to start the feminist magazine Spare Rib 30 years ago.

In those days, the lot of women was very distant from today's reality: a woman couldn't get a mortgage without her husband's or her father's signature. Universities were predominantly for men, as were medical schools and colleges of law.

Women were meant to be their father's daughters until they became their husband's wives.

As a young and enthusiastic feminist, I wanted to change all that (and I am very proud to have been part of a movement that did) but I also felt that men lived in a trap of their own: having to earn the money single-handedly and, as a consequence, being denied the right to spend time with their children and to become emotional beings in their own right.

But if we started out hoping to bring an improvement to the lives of men as well as women, by the time the Seventies came round, the idea of the women's movement being of possible benefit to men had withered on the vine.

Women's rights became just too urgent and too immediate, and though everyone knew that whenever women change there must be a reciprocal change for men, it was somehow assumed it would all work itself out in the great melting pot of life.

I remember thinking that it would be wonderful for men to be able to express their emotions in the way that women traditionally did. It seemed to me that to feminise society in this way must be to the greater benefit of all.

But was it? More than half the young men surveyed in this recent report all think that society has tried to feminise them, to turn them into coiffed metrosexuals, and they do not like having to live according to women's rules.

Of course, it is true that women have become more visible in the past 30 years: there are women in every sphere of life - from the boardrooms of FTSE 100 companies, to the High Court benches - which were once the preserve of men.

Women now often out-perform men financially and especially educationally.

What has actually happened, it seems to me, is that society, far from being feminised, has in fact been made more masculine, as both men and women fight to claim the ground that was once the preserve of men - that of high-flying, well-paid careers and glamorous lifestyles.

The aspirations of today's women are no longer confined to just being wives and mothers - they want (and can have) professional satisfaction as well. No wonder men are feeling threatened and redundant.

The women's movement turned all the old assumptions about men and women's roles in society on their head - and that seismic shift coincided with a fundamental shift in the nature of work itself, as Western countries changed from labour-based to knowledge-based economies, thus eliminating the need for brawn and physical strength.

Indeed, the new demands of the workplace, requiring multi-tasking and human interaction, positively favour women over men.

And during the past 35 years, women have excelled, able to earn their own livings as well as bring up children, coping with lives and situations that my mother would have found wholly impossible.

But where does that leave the men? No longer required to fulfil basic needs like providing food and shelter for a wife and children, they're being forced to fight it out on the same playing field as the girls because, as a society, our perception of success is still so connected with the outward symbols of money and power and prestige.

When I was 21 and writing the first editorials for Spare Rib, I remember thinking that men would leap at the chance to become more involved with bringing up children.

What I failed to understand was that in order for this to happen, society itself needed to make a huge and fundamental shift. Because today, while we all applaud a woman who enters a man's world and succeeds, no such plaudits are afforded to the man who strays too far into the world traditionally thought of as female.

A man who stays home and keeps house, who brings up the children and does the shopping, who lives off his wife's money, is seen in our judgemental times as a loser - not as a pioneer of a new way of living.

Most people believe that blokes who 'work in the home' have only ended up there because they've been fired or can't get a good (ie high-paying) job which would allow the couple to afford childcare.

When I first began to campaign for a woman's right to work and to succeed in whatever profession she chose, I never imagined that one of the casualties would be the status given to those who rear children.

In part, I think, this is the fault of a government which, unlike its equivalent in Scandinavian countries, has never made childcare a priority.

But it is also a product of a society which values financial status over and above the more mundane requirements of providing happy and stable homes in which children can be nurtured.

Our modern world, which often forces new mothers back into the workplace within weeks of giving birth, and which sees the business of raising children as somehow 'second class', has meant that neither men nor women now take the same sort of pride in being Mums and Dads as I think my parents' generation did.

The gradual merging of roles and the subsequent similarities between the ambitions of men and women - which now leave men feeling marginalised in professional life - have left this all too vital task at the bottom of the heap so that it is now something which even the moderately successful farm out to someone lower down the financial ladder.

Much is written about the so-called 'new man' and his commitment to domesticity and active parenthood, but all surveys find that, in fact, men actually perform few household tasks.

Women are still shouldering the burden, although today they - like my young friend - are arguing about it, questioning why the business of running the home and taking on the lion's share of childcaring should always fall to them.

And these sort of arguments represent a deep social dislocation.

In order to deal with them, we have to stop thinking about what men do and what women do and accept that, in fact, we no longer live on Mars and Venus, but in fact we all live together, here on Earth.

No one wants to return to the days when women, like my mother, lived deeply unfulfilled lives, but nor do we want to live in a world where both sexes try to claim a narrow central ground, one defined solely by money and outward status - and which scorns women who dare to stay at home with their children.

For the feminist movement, this is not the sort of victory we envisaged at all.
Hi matrix.

This stuff is really good and quite interesting.

I think that these article make good points and show that some people are thinking about roles of men and women. There is no doubt that feminism has been one of the most powerful influences on our current systems and its good to see some people are thinking about whether this was the right thing  to do.

I am not sure we have this sort of debate and whether this country is ready for it.

As a matter of interest I was looking at the AIFS site the other day and came across some research where they asked man and women about their priorities when deciding on having children. It showed the importance of money, age of the women, stability etc. - as people's concerns. Interestingly men rated love higher than women, but the main point was that many people were concerned about money; money (and where it comes from) was the big issue.

One women was quoted along the lines of "for me to have 5 children I would have to marry a millionaire".

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
matrix said
Two articles by feminist Rosie Boycott…
Money, the talisman around which all our ideas of success and failure revolve, causes more marital discord than any other issue: studies at Arkansas State University by Randall Kesslering, who examined 112,740 women, show that for every £10,000 a wife's earnings rise relative to the family's overall income, the chances of marital break-up rise by 1pc. So who's driving those divorces? Disappointed women who can't bear to be married to a weaker man, or men who cannot abide being in thrall to a more powerful woman?
I think a number of factors are involved, one quite possibly as the article suggests, is the loss of identity by the man as provider and head of the house. All too often though a woman in todays society not only works but is also still responsible for much of the family "domestic" life.

There needs to be real discussion on sharing the roles, tasks and responsibilites involved in marriage and parenting so that neither person feels that their contribution is less or more than the other.

It is when this balance is off that you will find women walking - feeling under appreciated or having to bear the most of lifes burdens, or men walking as they feel they don't get enough attention, or also under appreciated.

In the days of yore people didn't have a choice - you married, had your roles and were happy. These roles are now blurred, and people have choices and the power to enable those choices. Divorces are really the result of people voting with their feet.

When you are swimming down a creek and an eel bites your cheek, that's a Moray.
Jadzia I agree money seems to be very important to feminism and destroying men. All too often too many women associate men with giving them money or financially supporting the household

I agree that roles discussions are important and have advised young people thinking of getting married to have discussions before they get married rather than after divorce.

One thought about women walking - I thought there were some figures which actually backed that up as well ie women tend to be the instigators of separation. I submit that this was one of the intentions of feminism (as opposed to liberation) - allowing women the physical safety and economic capability to escape any relationship whenever they feel the need. Its a very powerful position to be in - to be able to escape and be supported.

Money seems to be a central theme in the article above as well although the idea of getting people to think and re-evaluate things is also there.

It's my experience that providing information like this, articles and having discussions in forums like this can help people start to form new ideas and look at things differently (was this the authors intent?) - but it's a huge challenge and actually can cause intense and volatile personal interaction. Some people are not ready to actually read new ideas  - let alone explore the issues in discussions. Yet this represents the VERY HEART of successful relationships (eg between a man and a woman) - and is the thing two people who love each other should be able to do with kindness - no matter how difficult the topic and the issue discussed (as per the article above).

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough

It is the nature of Society to avoid CHANGE

The idea that discussion within our society about the ongoing roles of men and women is going to cause stress for some is definitely not a valid reason not to have the discussion. WE MUST have the discussion because all the indicators are that we face many pressing and critical problems as a society.

A few of the indicators I recognise.

The breakdown of the family - It is rapidly approaching the stage where 50% of children will NOT complete the transition from Child to Adult in their Parents Home. Their parents will separate somewhere along the way. Yet the children, especially small chidren believe their parents should be together. They demonstrate this in small ways, through their behaviour. Sometimes even before the ability to express complete thoughts. As the children get older, they learn to ACCEPT, I am not so sure they approve.

Family Violence - The statistics are showing an increase in the reported violence pepetrated by women. At the same time our society is running a well funded campain to eradicate violence against women. When challenge about the figures some leaders of the Feminist movement simply blame blokes. When challenged about the relatively high incidence of violence in Lesbian Relationships, they become lost for words, unable to provide valid explanations, simply "These relationships are too complex for normal people to understand".

Child Abuse and Neglect - Right across our country, the percentage of children needing intervention in an attempt to protect their right to having their needs met and to a suitable education, is increasing. The figures also show that only a tiny proportion of the reports of abuse actually recieve any intervention. The rest can wait till it is URGENT.

I can't help but think of Grandma's old adage - A stich in time will save 9.

Assuming the FAMILY is important, To repair the fabric of our society now is probaly going to take 5 stiches. If we wait longer, the task will become more difficult and even more complex.

For me - Shared Parenting is a Reality - Maybe it can be for you too!
Racism, Patriachy, Femisim - these dogmas or practices are based on putting one group down, in order to elevate another group within society.

I think the reason that feminism has failed so badly is that it was based on a premise that if you were worthy/good enough/tried hard enough you could have it all. You could have a great job, look great, have a baby, travel, have a fantastic house and a wonderful partner who treated you like an equal.

This is a myth. Even in the 50's, when men were returned from the war and things were relatively affluent they didn't have it all. No one ever has it all. And that's the failure of feminism.

It sold women a dream, but dreams aren't real and when you can't realise your dream you become very disappointed. Very few people are rational about disappointment. People internalise it (if only I were better looking, was thinner, was smarter etc) or externalise it. By externalising it, I mean they find someone else as their focus for their disappointment. Usually, this means a spouse or partner.

I think people have higher expectations of what life should be like.

I think people find it harder to keep promises and commitments these days. There are too many distractions.

I think feminism has failed and is lashing out in it's death throws.

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. 
ALRIGHT HERES MY CURRENT WHINGE

Awful death , suicides an disaster in nsw, sydney and other places.

Prime minister says 'its all about protecting children'

AS IF we all expect men to COLLAPSE, KILL, DIE, ETC

WHO CARES ABOUT THE FACT THAT SOME MEN ARE OFF THE RAILS???

They are like the untouchables - not only are they not involved are engaged with - they are not even part of the DEBATE.

ITS BAD THAT SOME MEN DO WHAT THEY DO

WHY IS IT HAPPENING??

ITS NOT Normal

ITS NOT Acceptable

ITS NOT WHAT MEN DO

SO Why doesn't someone
  1. Acknowledge the issue
  2. Seek to address it


Rudd by saying its about children is (by default) saying he expects men to be violent killers - AND HE DOESN'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH THAT (nor natasha, et all))


 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
natasha has retired from today, home duties i hear,  Rudd is still at it - what a man! :lol:

Whoa big fella - who wouldn't do home duties for a while when you've lost your senate seat?

Lotsa working mum's on this site and I think you owe them a sorry.

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 an sorry, i don't understand? is it her retirement or home duties you find offensive please elaborate.

Off topic but….
Whoaa - little red terrified myself, Monti and Verdad at the SPCA conference, she is just as likely to use that new tie to try to throttle you.

I think it was the home duties bit. I for one am very glad that Tash Despot is out of the Senate. Those Democrats kept putting some nasty obstacles in the way of the changes to the Act.

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

The demise of the Democrats

The Democrats were originally founded by Don Chipp, resigning from the Liberal party to do so. His stated goal for the democrats was "To keep the bastar(d)s honest!". The democrats quickly became a force in Australian politics. Then they lost the plot, promoting narrow agenda based policies and the Australin people decided they were irrelavent.

Don Chipp's other great saying (refering to politics) was:-

Don't leave it to someone else, get involved!

For me - Shared Parenting is a Reality - Maybe it can be for you too!
 :offtopic: It was the "Rudds still at it - what a man" part, somehow diminishing what Stot Destroyer has done (whether you agree with her politics or not), as not being able to keep up with the big boys and she was best off at home barefoot and pregnant.

Sorry, I snapped. You pressed a bit button. I Was done over on the career ladder for being "the mum" who couldn't do the job and probably, really should be at home.

I can see you may have meant something else (not sure what  O_o ).

Oh, and Agog, pantyhose would be better for garrotting than FLWG ties :)

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. 
Whoa there, Artemis
you certainly took this the wrong way, you approached this with a feministic wiew - certainly not like you.
I was replying to Jon's thread, in no way what so ever was it a compliment to Rudd,
hyde park, remember

Agog, pantyhose would most certainly do the trick -  in responce to the new laws passed in presence of Rudd, when i see a women take her pantyhose off i run, not in fear of being strangled, but rather in being f#@% over by the law
  

Yup, it pressed a big button. I was having a moment.

Alexander Downer is resigning, no doubt taking his fishnets with him. Gotta love a private school boy  :cool:

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. 

Deleting Posts

A member has had issues deleting their OWN posts in this forum

The permissions are set as:

Group 1 default

    * Submit lowrange (low visibility content) = Y
    * Bypass validator for low range content = Y
    * Edit own lowrange (low visibility content)  = Y
    * Edit lowrange (low visibility content)  = N
    * Delete own lowrange (low visibility content) = N 
    * Delete lowrange (low visibility content)  = N
    * Submit midrange (medium visibility content) = Y
    * Bypass validator for midrange content  = Y
    * Edit own midrange (medium visibility content) = N 
    * Edit midrange (medium visibility content)  = N
    * Delete own midrange (medium visibility content) = N 
    * Delete midrange (medium visibility content) = N

This means a member cannot delete their own posts in this forum. I will extend the permissions to all MODERATORS so you can whisper any moderator and they can delete for you. Other than that I suggest you post a well worded post in the forum "Site enhancements" and discuss why we should make delete rights available in all forums or some forums for OWN posts. This is possible.

Site Director
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets