I think it's easy to confuse a backward world view with a hate of women. Tony is a Catholic, and a lot of catholic views on women are in direct conflict with feminism and it's views.

Calling Tony a woman hater, is the same as saying all women who are Catholics are self hating or hate other women. It merely reflects the diversity among women, on what a woman should or should or should not do.

I'm not a Catholic or a fan of Tony Abbott - but i think calling him hater of women is inaccurate, he is just a guy who subscribes an (in my opinion) an outdated world view, that is subscribed to by women the world over.

(This post is to be read in the context of Tony and the abortion drug)

Yes, indeed. Megan in Wonderland here is a bit confused on this point. She does not need to push and pull at the definition of 'misogyny' to frame her misandrist musings. We already have the word she needs, and have had for nearly 2.000 years - Roman Catholic. Problem is, she'd have to rant at hundred of millions of women that they too are 'misogynists'.

Ehhh I sort of agree but the problem is that not all Roman Catholics adhere to the beliefs expressed by the church, I know it has an ingrained culture but Roman Catholic is not the right way to phrase.

Presbytarians have sermons and teachings of Patriachy, that the man should be the head of the house and all final decisions rest with him, that the women are their to serve men, etc, etc and that this will all create a harmonous household, blah blah blah

Also a lot of muslim teachings and many many other religious teachigns

So Sexist seems more appropriate - although I get the jist of your comment was more colloquial

The point is, even though I totally support the right to abortion-on-demand, I would never be so vulgar to deny that the issue contains a minefield of moral and logical traps, and should never be dismissed as one whose answer is 'obvious.' When asked why I am so 'pro-abortion' my answer calls on a great deal of thinking, debate, reading, and personal experience over the years. But ultimately, the issue demands a 'Yes/No' answer, as time is ticking as that fetus grows. Tony Abbott's position on abortion is the position not a 'misogynist', but of a "Roman Catholic'. That position itself reflects 2,000 years of disputation. That doesn't make it right (indeed I reject it), but to misunderstand or conflate the 'No' answer to the abortion question with a simplistic 'misogynist' interpretation reveals a barren and narcissistic imagination that feeds in the dark, hidden knowledge, critical thinking, and moral seriousness.

"The term “misogynist” was applied to the Leader of the Opposition, when that person is married to a woman and has three daughters" - Hmmmm Stick to the climate denial Dale, you jst stepped in it

You know muslims have wifes and daughters too?

You know the guys who denied women the vote had wives too right?

You know the guys who campaigned against womens rights stating that women cannot own land because they are not capable of the mental faculty to make hard decisions or being responsible....you know those guys had wives and daughters as well

Do you consider yourself a MRA?

" but to misunderstand or conflate the 'No' answer to the abortion question with a simplistic 'misogynist' interpretation reveals a barren and narcissistic imagination that feeds in the dark, hidden knowledge, critical thinking, and moral seriousness"

Agreed??? not sure what your getting at but nice rant about how you are really thoughtful and Im a jerk - really helpful there.

What you have done is known as straw-manning, it is either deliberately or accidently mis-characterising your opponents position and then attack your misunderstanding.

I never conflated anti-abortion with sexism

What I said was that imposing your views on others for no other reason than your own prejudice is bigotry and doing it specifically against women is sexist

Opposing the availability of abortion or any other form of contraception is YOU trying to make decisions on a WOMENS behalf

Thats called sexist - whether you come at it from a sexist angle or not, its descriminatory against a particular gender

Also, you can hold a sexist view without thinking its sexist.

for instance, I'm sure there were many men that thought women were incapable of critical thinking but who also loved and respected women

They still hold sexist views - their position is still sexist even though they dont know its sexist, even though they are not sexist in any other way and they honestly believed what the medical professionals at the time told them.

If abortions is legal - which it is

If abortion is medically is not killing a baby - which it isnt

if it is safe and nessacary at times - which it is

Then the only reason you can have to outlaw abortions is your own personal prejudice - and thats not good enough

there is a difference between your choosing not to have an abortion and decideing for someone else

Michael

Whooooaaahhhhh!!! Calm doen tiger. I was talking about Megan's view, not yours. :)

In that case, my apologise.

Your comment was in rseponse to mine and you didnt indicate at all that it wasnt directed at me - hence the confusion but thanks clearing that up

Yeah, sorry. Reading it again, I can see how you would have thought I was referring your views.

Abbott's views are definitely sexist, but then my sister thinks men should open car doors for her when they take her out for a date! :)

"but then my sister thinks men should open car doors for her when they take her out for a date! :)" - Lol, I hear yah, I think we can live with that, it seems that does little to no damage and did you know that many men expect their date to laugh at their jokes? those oppressive seixst bitches

We can go through a whole list of expectations of both genders when on dates - most of which you would be stretching to label this stuff as sexist

Matthew K. Mupfanochiya

So now this is to be ignored:

“The term “misogynist” was applied to the Leader of the Opposition, when that person is married to a woman and has three daughters. Further the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is a woman, and his Chief of Staff is a woman.”

As for Tony Abbot being Catholic, there has been a long history of misinformation and vilification launched at the Catholic church by feminists and abortionists.

Perhaps it is best read about in “Confessions of an Ex-Abortionist” by
Bernard Nathanson

“The Second Key Tactic was to Play the Catholic Card. We systematically vilified the Catholic Church and its “socially backward ideas” and picked on the Catholic hierarchy as the villain in opposing abortion.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-lKqwdz9h0

oh god Michael... why don't you get down to the lab and design a nice app for politicians, so they can control their sexist / hatred behaviours.

I'd like to see evidence of the "misinformation" whereof you speak.

The Nathanson quote says that the Catholic Church was criticised for its opposition to birth control. The Catholic Church is very much on the record in its opposition to birth control, so in what way is this "misinformation"?

Yes you are right, I should have been more specific as Islam, like christianity, is a very broad tradition with many different interpretations

To not be specific about which sect of Islam and to group all muslims together is wrong - I dont think that way and I was reffering to fundamentalists but it was sloppy on my part. Thank you for the correction there, I do appreciate it.

I see what you are saying that the fundies we are reffering to think they are acting morally and are not beign opressive to women but the fact remains that the results of their actions are sexist and oppresive regardless of their intention.

Most morally incorrect behaviour is not done out of malice but done out of good intentions. This, however, does not automatically exclude it from being oppresive, sexist, racist, homophobic.

Where actions have consequences and those consequences are oppresive and target a specific race or gender then it is descrimintory - thats jst a fact. Descriminating against women is sexist regardless of why you do it

This goes back to whether objectivity is possible when everything is described and analysed through the cultural lens of language ... that long thread from yesterday :-)

"My only point is that we should be careful in labelling people based on our perception of their motives" - Yeah, I agree but thats not whats happening here. you are straw manning

It is the outcome of their actions that mean earn the label

"Well-intentioned people have done terrible things thinking they were doing right" - Yes but if the consequences of their actions result is descrimination or bigotry based on race or gender then they have acted in a sexist or racist manner

You are straw manning me here mate, you are actually repeating what I wrote to you

Julia Gillard carried out verbal abuse of Tony Abbot by labelling him a “misogynist”. She has identified herself as a feminist, and the word “misogynist” is repeatedly said by feminists about anyone who questions feminism.

In fact, if someone hasn’t been called a “misogynist” by a feminist, they probably haven’t lived, and have no brain of their own.

There are many religions that want no form of contraception at all.

For example:
http://islamiclearningmaterials.com/islam-birth-control/

Noted that feminists and abortionists have singled out the Catholic church, and not other religions as well.

I wonder why?

I'm sorry Dale, did you actually read the article you linked? It lists Islamically-acceptable and unacceptable methods of birth control. It explicitly endorses non-permanent contraception if husband and wife agree.

But this is not a canonical document. Unlike the Catholic Church, there is no single authority on modern Islamic doctrine. Islam, like Christianity, is a "broad church". Some Muslims do indeed forbid any form of contraception.

On the other hand, when speaking specifically about "the hierarchy of the Catholic Church", we do indeed have a canonical authority. Here is what it has to say:

"The Church has always maintained the historic Christian teaching that deliberate acts of contraception are always gravely sinful, which means that it is mortally sinful if done with full knowledge and deliberate consent (CCC 1857). This teaching cannot be changed and has been taught by the Church infallibly."

From http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control

Now again, which religions "want no form of contraception at all"?

Now if feminists had indeed singled out the Catholic Church, maybe that document might justify it. I'm aware of no parallel in any other religion.

But they haven't, actually. There is a mountain of feminist criticism of Islam regarding reproductive rights (and MUCH more on other matters of women's freedom).

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=islam+reproductive+rights
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=feminist+criticism+of+islam+-%22islamic+feminism%22

Now we've dismissed that non-sequitur, would you answer my original question and supply us with evidence of "misinformation" in the criticism of the Catholic Church's stance against birth control?

There is no tangible evidence the opposition leader is a misogynist, when his deputy leader (Julie Bishop) is female, his Chief of Staff (Peta Credlin) is female, and he is married to a woman and has 3 daughters.

Statements that he is a misogynist have been made up by a feminist, but it appears some people accept it because of his opposition to wholesale and unpoliced abortion, and the indiscriminate use of drugs to induce miscarriage.

As for opposition to the Catholic church, feminists could form their own church, and see how many attend.

Is this a reply to my comment, Dale? In my comment disproved one assertion you made about Islam referring to the very document you supplied, showed that it was actually true of Catholic Church instead using a document published by the Catholic Church itself, and asked you a specific question about another assertion you made about feminist criticism of the Catholic Church.

You appear to have dropped both topics.

As to whether Abbott is a misogynist, this is not disproven by his clear affection and respect for some individual women. Nor is the case that he is prejudiced against women as a class exclusively based on his stance on abortion and abortifacient drugs, though these clearly speak to his opposition to women's reproductive choice.

As for the term "wholesale and unpoliced abortion", I suggest you think carefully before using such terms again. Abortion is legal in this country only when carried out by approved means and registered practitioners. It is policed closely as is every other activity of the health professions, none of which is "wholesale".

Nobody, but nobody, is pro-abortion. Abortion is physically and emotionally traumatic for the prospective mother. It is only right that she should have the sole choice to make the regrettable decision to terminate a pregnancy. If she is in a supportive relationship, she will make the decision in consultation with her partner.

Being pro-choice is a matter of asserting a woman's right over what goes on inside her own body. In no way is it actual promotion of abortion.

If a feminist or abortioist were to read the legislation closely, they would see that abortion can only be given if the mother is at significant risk.

However, a woman can get an abortion in every state except WA without referal by a doctor.

Abortion in this coutry is wholesale and unpoliced, and there are even abortion clinics that advertise that a women does not need a doctor's referal, just money.

You changed the subject again.

Tony Abbot does not like certain women it appears. In the case of Nicola Roxon, why should he?

However, this does not make him a misogynist.

"Abortion is legal in this country only when carried out by approved means and registered practitioners."

The legislation says that the woman has to be at risk for an abortion to occur. Most religions agree with this also, but due to the uselessness of our system of feminism/social science, it is not known just how many women who had an abortion were at risk, or what type of risk.

Nicola Roxon! That explains everything.

"And apparently objecting to killing babies is misogynist" - You do not get to impose your morality on others

As a secular nation we recognise that legally and medically an abortion is not baby killing.

You are free to deciede otherwise but neither you nor tony abbott have the right to deny any australians medical treatment or coverage that you personally disagree with.

Yes, telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies is sexist.

It would be like making viagra unavailable on the market because you personally disagree that old men should have sex (It is disgusting) - But thats not a choice that you nor Abbott get to make

This is a circular argument. Something being legally enforced by statute doesn't make it fair or just.

The decision to make love may be entirely independent of the intent to have children. If that is the case, why is the man bound by the woman's decision to proceed, if he wishes not to be a father?

Telling men that they must support the offspring of such liaisons or face punitive legal consequences is sexist.

"Telling men that they must support the offspring of such liaisons or face punitive legal consequences is sexist." - Do you re-read before you post?

Like are you proud to be expousing these views?

"why is the man bound by the woman's decision to proceed, if he wishes not to be a father?" - Because its her body

What dont you understand about Wear A Condom

I am not disputing her right to keep the child if she wishes, merely her right to assume that he must pay for her decision.

You still haven't explained why that is ethical.

I'm afraid your descent into abuse and illogic says much more about you than me. Your opinion is allow and your expression of it is offensive and empty of reason.

"You still haven't explained why that is ethical." - Jesus, alright as quickly as I can

Beliefs inform Actions > Actions have consequences > Consequences have more Consequences and my right to swing my fist stops at your nose

You know how legally children are not convicted like adults?

Well thats because they are not capable, not fully developed mentally, physcially and emotionally to be able to completely understand their actions nor their consequences

Therefor we have to have a legal gaurdian for children until they are old enonugh to take care of themselves

The child is here through no fault of its own - In fact its here because of your actions

You are the person responsible for his and her actions - Unless you want to pass the consequences of your actions onto the state

Unfortunately as a fact of life in the human species the females carry the offspring in their bodies

You are still responsible for impregnating that women but you dont get to deciede whether or not she has an abortion

You are still responsible for your actions, you still have to accept the consequences of your actions

If you dont want to have kids - do not have unprotected sex

If you choose not to use appropriate protection- then thats it, your oppertunity to make a decision is over

You keep saying that you didnt choose to have kids - Yeah somteimes your actions have unintended consequences - thats life, deal with it, take responsibility for your actions

None of that has anything to do with the issue, Michael, it's simply a rant.

I did not say I didn't choose to have kids, I have two of them, both conceived quite deliberately after some period of time trying with my (now ex) wife.

however, I have also experienced precisely the situation I have described above, prior to those children. In that case, the foetus didn't properly develop, fortunately and the woman was compelled to have a late-term induction (effectively an abortion) on medical grounds.

If that had not happened, I would have been bound by her decision to proceed with a pregnancy that I had expressly told her I was not interested in being a party to before having sex. I did not use a condom because she assured me she was on the Pill and that she was up to date. I found out afterwards that she had not in fact been on the Pill for some 3 months prior to that encounter.

Now, try again, this time without the abuse, if you're up to such a task, which seems unlikely.

"that I had expressly told her I was not interested in being a party to before having sex. I did not use a condom because she assured me " - Dude....fail

Dude, dodging the issue...

Dodge what issue?

Michael, you're doing yourself no favours with your perspective of logical argument. Stick to opinions, you're safer.

Hi Robin, I note with interest the recent research into several different genes controlling sperm motility, including work beng done at Monash. Hopefully this will yield some useful contraceptive within a fairly short time-frame, but as I understand it that may not be for another generation. A law to address the imbalance in equity can be made within a few months and I believe it is necessary in the short term.

One of the consequences of the female control of contraception and the poor statute around Family and Child Support Law has been an explosion in the number of children who barely know their father. This is another separate issue of equity that would be addressed by such a legal change, as I am of the view that few women would willingly become pregnant to an unwilling man if they knew they would not be able to pursue him via the CSA/Family Court for financial support.

At present, despite the silly polemics of feminists like the author, women hold all the cards and yet they still want to add a couple of extra aces to their hand. They rely on an unquestioning audience and they have arranged that by viciously attacking en masse anyone of stature who dares to disagree, all the while loudly proclaiming themselves to be "victims", thus appealling to the sense of decency that most men have toward women in distress.

It is dishonest and it has lead to very bad outcomes in all sorts of ways. These people are not mainstream and they do not represent mainstream interests. They are at best narrowly self-interested and at worst psychopathic. It is a sad indictment on our Western civilisation that we have allowed them so much control over our society.

"you're doing yourself no favours with your perspective of logical argument" - How so?

my point is that after you have decieded that you are going to have sex with a female - you chance to prevent a pregnancy is over and it is the womens choice after that because its her body. If she does have kids, you have to take responsibility for your actions and provide for those children.

Thats it, what is so lacking from this?

I dont understand, I mean further advancements in science are good but Men already have contraception in the form of condoms and can have vasectomy's and beyond that there are a number of other ways to have pleasurable sex without the risk of getting pregnant

How are we not liberated right now?

The man's "action" is to have sex, it may or may not involve the "action" of conception. The two "actions" are related but separate. The first is a mutual decision for mutual bebenfit, the second is a unilateral decision that has binding consequences on the other party.

What is lacking is a recognition that a man is not "responsible" for the second action.

We've had non-vaginal intercourse forever, condoms since the 15th century (at least, probably much longer) and vasectomies since the 19th. There's nothing exclusive to women about contraception. "The pill" is just convenient, no more. To complain of discrimination because you can't take a pill to stop your ejaculate from impregnating a fertile woman when you put it in her vagina is something of a stretch.

Okay, I see what your saying.

Your saying that we are not fully "Free" or "Liberated" until we have a pill.

I can see that, we would 100% garrunteed no pregnancy where as at the moment condoms are only 99.99999% effective

I'm not sure that extra .00001% is hurting anyone too much.

As for condoms being lost inn the heat of passion - yeah I understand, unfortunately thats life and at the moment that was the males last chance to make a decision.

In the same way that jumping into a car with a mate that has been drinking was your last chance to make a decision, there is a known risk involved and the only way that you can ensure that you dont have an accident is to not jump in the car else accept the consequences

We know that putting your penis in a vagina can result in pregnancy - if you are prepared to take this action then you must be prepared for the consequences of that action even if that involves paying child support for the rest of your life.

If you know the risk going in then you have to accept the consequences whatever they may be.

Not getting someone pregnant is actually very easy but you cant control others actions, you can only control your actions and the time to control your actions is before having sex with a girl.

I see what your saying about being 100% free but I also feel many people look at this as if its the women that got pregnant rather than recognising that it is the man who got the women pregnant and the argument seems to be focused around "Well you cant expect men to be responsible for birth control - men dont get pregnant, its the womens job to ensure she doent get pregnant"

if people are soo concerned about child support and unwanted pregnancy it is entirely within the mans control not get the women pregnant and if he does get the women pregnant then he has to take responsibility for that action and accept the consequences

"What is lacking is a recognition that a man is not "responsible" for the second action." - You know the potential consequences going into this situation

You know putting a penis in a vagina can result in pregnancy

There are several methods to have sex that does not involve PIV

But if you do want to have PIV you can also wear a condom - but you still know the risk going in

The risk is that if you put your penis in a vagina you may impregnant this women

You may impregnant this women - you are the one that are responsible for this action

You have to take responsibility for this action

The discrimination is not in the lack of a pill, it is in the way the law creates an imbalance in the rights of both parties once conception occurs in the absence of male consent.

I have never heard a more ludicrous argument.

There is no separate "action" of conception, unless you consider sperm and egg themselves to be acting (responsibly?) on behalf of the people whose bodies produced them. Or do you think once you put your sperm in a woman's body, she's responsible for what they get up to in there?

The relevant action is sexual intercourse.

Taking steps before or during intercourse to prevent pregnancy are also actions.

Nobody consents to conception specifically. You consent to have sex. Conception is a probable consequence.

The responsibility for the action ends at the time of performing the action, since the woman has the authority to determine what happens next without reference to the man.

This is not equitable.

Nobody is opposed to medical contraception for men! Strawman!

(I think I'd be quite reluctant to use it myself for fear of side-effects and/or permanent effects -- I've never encouraged my partner to use the pill for the same reasons -- but I'm all in favour of its development).

It's exactly as equitable as it is that only women can bear children. Live with it.

No, conception is actually a very IMprobable consequence, which is readily minimised by the use of contraception.

However, that's not the point. The point is that a contract to have sex with no intent to have children is quite readily made and if conception occurs it is even more readily broken by the woman.

Why must the man be bound by her decision, while she cannot be bound by his?? Try not to digress onto the sex act, concentrate on what happens after conception, given that neither party contracted to have children prior to the sex taking place.

The second action is the decision to proceed with the pregnancy once conception occurs. It is that action that binds the man, despite his having no part in it. That is inequitable.

Some couples have great difficulty conceiving, I grant you that, but you should never assume this will be the case. A great many pregnancies DO result from single inseminations.

Children aren't born from a contract, they're born from the human body. Contract law is utterly irrelevant.

Continuation or termination of a pregnancy is the woman's decision because it's HER BODY. What part of that don't you understand?

As for child maintenance, that's a separate question entirely. Feel free to debate that, but don't talk about binding a woman's choice to bear a child, or to terminate a pregnancy, to a man's whim.

I'm afraid your thinking is very narrow, Jonathon. Presumably you can't imagine ever conceiving a child unintentionally and not wanting to have any part of either the child or the mother.

If there is a contract to have sex that doesn't involve children, then it is inequitable to allow one party to have the right to opt-out of that contract without allowing the other party the same right.

You are simply supporting the right of women to blackmail men who they have sex with.

So presumably you use a condom every time you have sex?

Here's a simple explanation of the rate of conception

"Research has shown that women under the age of 25 stand a 20-25% chance of conception occurring in each cycle for those actively trying.* By the time a woman reaches 35, her chances of conceiving drops to 15% each cycle. And by age 40, it plummets to a mere 5% per cycle. "

www.thebabycorner.com/page/1368/

Contract law is very relevant. I have already shown why in an earlier post.

Child support would be irrelevant if the situation was equitable. As it is not, then CS is very relevant.

Nobody is suggesting anybody should be compelled to terminate a pregnancy, that's a nasty strawman which is simply insulting.

How much more personal can you get?

But yes.

We have one child. He was conceived in a single act of deliberately unprotected intercourse (we know it was just once because it was right before we parted company for a couple of months). In the years we were together before then, we did occasionally "withdraw", but we knew and accepted the possibility of pregnancy. Since we got lucky the one time we deliberately tried to conceive, we haven't risked withdrawal since. So YES, in the nine years since our child was born, we've used a condom every time penis entered vagina.

Enough information? Sheesh!

I didn't need the "simple explanation" thanks, I told you not to assume that you can't get someone pregnant in one go. Trust me, it happens.

You haven't "shown" that contract law is relevant, you've claimed that it is.

Child support is the only way in which "the situation" is arguably inequitable. If you supply your semen to a woman's uterus, she and nature can conspire to produce a baby incorporating your genetic material. You gave up dibs over those genes the moment you came.

Actually, Jonathon, it was a rhetorical question...

That's yet another strawman, Jonathon. My argument is quite clear, why do you seek to try to misrepresent it?

It's not clear what you're saying, because you replied to the wrong comment (you already replied to the one this is a reply to).

Now you're just trolling, Jonathon.

Obviously you have nothing further to say. Thanks for the discussion.

Proceeding with a pregnancy is an inaction.

Consenting to unprotected vaginal intercourse with a woman is what binds the man to fatherhood. Her actions (or accidents of nature; many abortions are spontaneous) might release him, but they don't bind him.

If your beef is with the obligations of fatherhood, say so. There might be a useful discussion to be had there.

What's it with you and "contract to have sex"?

If you don't want kids, don't hand over your semen.

I hate to break your bubble, but the pill sometimes fails.

If they both made it clear before doing the deed that children were not an object of the exercise and she gave him to understand that was her view, then she changed her mind, the change of mind is an action, leading to her proceeding with the pregnancy.

It is that action that he is bound by, despite his desire to stick to the original intent.

Moreover, if he changes his mind and decides he really does want a child, she is not bound by his action in so doing.

That is an inequity.

I'm wracking my brains here how this inequity could possibly be rectified, unless you mean to give control over the woman's body to the man. That's not acceptable any more, because it's the route to a myriad historical abuses.

I've already discussed how to rectify the inequity several times, but let's go through it again.
1. Both parties agree that recreational sex is the only purpose of the interaction, with children not a part of the expectations of either party.

If the parties cannot agree at this point, then that is the end of it - no sex for them. Both have the option of opting out.

2.If agreement is reached, sex takes place. Contraception is employed, whether by the man or the woman or both.

3. Contraception fails and a conception occurs. At this point the woman can decide to terminate, or not. If not, the man can opt out of being a party to her decision and voluntarily forego all rights and responsibilities of fatherhood.

4. Woman can now proceed to have the child as she wishes, free of the encumbrance of an unwilling father. Man can now get on with life, free of the encumbrance of an unwanted child and its mother.

You will note that at every step each party has complete autonomy and is not bound by the decisions of the other party.

That is equitable.

Thanks David, much appreciated man. so I can safely write off this whole argument that

"men are not liberated until we have a male contraception pill"

I can write this off as nonsense, it did sound like nonsense

So you're wanting a man to be able to opt out of "all rights and responsibilities of fatherhood" at a later time than intercourse, if the following conditions apply:

1. Consensual sex took place with an agreement that no child is desired by either party
2. Contraception is employed
3. Pregnancy occurs in any case
4. The mother decides to carry the child to term against the father's wishes.

It's good that you've made it clear that you're talking about paternity issues after birth, and not the reproductive choice of the mother. Maybe you're a feminist after all.

There may be room for legal reform in this direction. There are precedents (sperm donations, etc.).

I am NOT a lawyer, but I think this would require new legislation.

Craig I would suggest that before you consent to a sexual act with a woman of childbearing age, you get a signed and witnessed, written contract, or at least a witnessed verbal agreement that you will not be held responsible for any issue from that sexual act. (The more credible the witness the better, and more than one credible witness is better still).

This would be the responsible course of action under contract law, and provide you with some material evidence if the matter goes to court. Otherwise you are simply left with a he said/she said argument, which doesn't hold much clout in the legal sense.

I think that the man's intent could be taken as read in the context of a short-term relationship such as a one-night stand, however you have highlighted an important issue that is becoming more prominent, which is the whole vexed question of consent generally.

It may well be useful for a pro-forma to be developed to take care of the matter for those concerned about it, which really should include any man who doesn;t want to face accusations of assault in the first place and paternity in the second.

I believe that under contract law there have been some tests that have failed due to the interest of the third-party - the child of the union, but that needn't be a stumbling block in our system which provides social security to such children. The real issue to be faced is that of the Governmental desire to have someone cover some of the cost, and the obvious target for that is the father, whatever his intent in terms of paternity prior to the sex taking place.

Why would you make the assumption that the man's intent could be taken as read? The whole idea of having a contract, written or verbal, that is witnessed, is to prevent the problems that come from making assumptions about consent.

There is no third party consideration under contract law, unless there was provision in the contract for consideration of any third party at a later date, if there is no third party, or even possible third party in the contract, a third party will not be considered. If the contract was in place, and duly witnessed, and could be proven in court that the woman consented to the man taking no responsibility for issue as a result of the sexual act, both parties consented to, then that man is unlikely to be expected to shoulder the burden of financial support of any issue resulting from said sexual act.

For those that are worried that they will be expected to financially support a child which they did, and do not want, I would strongly suggest that they look into contract law, and never have sex unless they have a firm legal contract in place before engaging in sexual acts with anyone.

For most people this would not be necessary, or indeed the preferred way to begin a sexual act with anyone, but for those like yourself Craig, it is probably the only way that you can be sure you will not be held responsible for your failure to use contraception, or the failure to choose a sexual partner that you are able to trust to take responsibility for contraception.

Thank you for the extensive comment Judith, but you seem to have a couple of ...erm...misconceptions...

There is an implied contract at present which obliges the man but not the woman. If a pregnancy occurs, he is bound by whatever decision she makes with respect to proceeding, with no option. There are many men who are paying for children that they did not intend to father and many women who have had no intent of bearing a child prior to the pregnancy, but have decided to do so once it occurs. Essentially, she has rescindable rights and he has non-rescindable obligations. This was not the case when abortion on demand was not readily available, so it was reasonable in that case to have both parties held to be responsible for the offspring, whatever the intent.

It is not a problem that affects only a few people. Anybody who has sex is potentially affected, which is presumably most of the adult population at some time or other.

I say that a short-term (one night stand) is implicitly a recreational activity, not a procreational one for men in all cases, while a single woman may have several such one-night stands with the intent of conceiving. Moreover, there have been several well-publicised cases in which men have been accused of rape or assault by women which have subsequently been demonstrated to have been consensual sex acts. I am simply extending the consensuality to the next point of decision-making.

You are no doubt right that most people would not bother to take the trouble to ensure their contract for such recreation was properly constituted, just as many people fail to use contraception.

There is no need for complex process. With the current smart-phone technology a process of formalising a contract could be easy and fast.

It's not merely a matter of failing to use contraception, either. Failure of contraception is not uncommon and it should not necessarily bind either party to a long-term commitment if the intent of the activity was clear - that should be optional for both parties.

The third party is relevant to the matter because they are an indirect participant and their interests are also needfully considered. For example, as I said above, if the child's only hope of support is to be the resources of both parents it is reasonable to make law to ensure that support, but as that is not the case today, the reasonable necessity recedes.

I disagree, there is no "implied contract" at all. There may be, under our current laws, an implied understanding that if you have sex, and there is a child from this union, that both parties, (if there is consent from both parties to engage in sexual intercourse), that both parties understand that pregnancy is a risk of this action. It is also understood that if there is a child from this union, that both parties will be jointly responsible, regardless of the intent to conceive or not. By engaging in sexual intercourse it is presumed you understand this risk.

If you want to avoid this risk, or the risk of being falsely accused of rape or assault, then it is your individual responsibility to avoid the activity where the risk is inherent. Basically if you don't trust the other person, don't have sex with them. If in doubt, don't get it out.

I also disagree about one night stands, you are presuming to speak on behalf of other men and women, when you can only speak for yourself. You have no idea of the intent of another person so your statement can be dismissed.

I would suggest that if you think that a pre-intercourse contract is necessary for you, then you should go ahead and have one drawn up. There is nothing stopping you Craig. However I doubt very much this will become common practice.

Personally, If someone I was thinking about having sex with, presented me with a contract that stated that as a woman I would be entirely responsible for any child conceived during sex, regardless of whether contraception failed, or the man didn't want to use contraception, and the man was not willing to share the risk, I would tell the guy to take a hike.

The point is that the trust should not be required. At present the woman does not have to trust that the man will fulfil the obligations set for him by law, they are enforceable, while he has no reciprocal enforceable rights.

Why should a person be put in the position of having to trust the goodwill of someone when that person's considerations may be changed by the very act in which they decide mutually to engage?

The FLA and CS Acts were formulated to remove the necessity of the woman having to rely on such trust. All I am suggesting is that the man should be able to rely on similar protections.

Given the existence of such statutes, reliance on the law of contract would be unlikely to succeed, which is why I suggest legislatory action.

If such legislation were passed you would have every right to refuse to engage in the activity. That was my point: it preserves autonomy for both parties, not just the woman. That is equitable, whereas the present situation is not.

I can think of other situations as well. For example, it is not uncommon for a cohabiting couple to have an understanding that children are not a part of the deal and that the woman will be responsible for contraception as female contraception is on the whole less intrusive and doesn't require either surgery or prophylaxis. If the contraception fails or she fails to be assiduous in its use, the man has no right to enforce the pre-existing understanding and pre-nuptial agreements won't help. There have been many cases where women have decided unilaterally to seek to conceive and the man is bound by that decision, which is essentially a deception.

Look, I'm not suggesting in any way that any of this is a desirable situation, merely that it is necessary to preserve equity in the face of current law that badly skews that equity. I would much prefer that my son, when he becomes sexually active, is able to find a partner he loves and that the relationship is both fruitful and harmonious, but that isn't the way to bet in our current social milieu.

Do you have any alternative options to present?

Not to spoil anyone's fun, but there's no 100% certain contraceptive:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_methods#Comparison_table
Of course, celibacy might work - or castration.

"there's no 100% certain contraceptive"

Quite right David, hence this discussion.

" castration:"

Give it a go and report your findings.

Craig, under the law, whoever is not the primary carer of the child, pays child support, whether that is the male or female parent, grandparent, or guardian. So in fact the man has as much right as a woman to apply for the non primary care giver to bear equal financial responsibility for any child of a sexual union involving both parties. So I disagree with you that the system is not equitable.

It is up to the individual if they wish to risk either getting pregnant, (in the woman's case), or fathering a child, (as in the man's case). Again, if you aren't prepared to take that risk, don't have sex, whether you are male or female this applies.

Biologically, women bear the greater risk, because they are the ones that carry a foetus, and give birth, which carry far greater risk to the woman's health than the act of intercourse itself. Our law reflects this fact.

I don't believe that the government can or should even try to legislate for what is basically personal responsibility. A government cannot force people to be honest and trustworthy with each other, it can only provide a system where an aggrieved party can have some recourse if things go wrong. The need to show material evidence would apply as well. It is not enough that on finding out you have fathered a child, that you then claim that wasn't part of the deal, you would need to prove that this was indeed the case. The laws regarding what is considered material evidence, or proof of your claim, would also apply.

If you have sex with someone you are indeed trusting in their goodwill, and if you are not prepared to do that, get a signed contract prior to having sex, or don't engage in sexual activity. It really isn't that difficult to understand.

should read, "whether it is the male or female parent, grandparent, or guardian, that is the primary carer for the child". The biological parents have the joint responsibility for the child, or adoptive parents, whatever the case may be.

Judith, you're being disingenuous.

I would go so far as to say that the default position should be that the inrent of sex is recreational. In my experience, sex for the purpose of procreation is the exception rather than the norm.

Therefore, in the absence of specific expression of the intent to procreate,the legal assumption should be that such intent is not present.

"legal PREsumption"...

Not at all Craig. I think you are simply having a whinge because you think that men should be able to have risk free sex, and if the woman gets pregnant she should be solely responsible for any child.

Unfortunately for you, the majority of people in this country think differently, and our laws reflect the way the majority of people think, as it is the majority that are responsible for the election of those representatives that propose and enact legislation.

In a democracy, which is the system we have in this country, if you wish to lobby for changes in the legislation, you are free to do so. You are also free to try and persuade others to your point of view, which would then give you a more powerful voice with which to lobby your government representative.

There was a perceived need in the community that men and women were not pulling their weight as far as taking responsibility for the children they had, this is why we now have the Child Support Agency. The legislation did not come out of thin air, it was a response to community concern.

There is not the corresponding community concern for men who wish to opt out of any responsibility for any children they father, to have the right to do so. The current community consensus is that if you engage in sexual activity with a woman of child bearing capability, you knowingly accept the risk of pregnancy, and the responsibility for any child resulting from this. If this wasn't the case, then there would be a push for legislation to reflect this view.

Whether you regard sex as recreational or not, there is still the risk of pregnancy if you engage in heterosexual intercourse. This is simply a biological fact that you cannot legislate away.

Then feel free Craig to lobby for changes in the legislation.

Circular reasoning, Judith,mixed with some rather nasty and uncalled-for ad hominem and a pretty basic argumentum ad populum.

I have been specific in my premises and my reasoning. Please stick to the argument.

Do you hold to the view that equity matters, or are you of the view that men have only obligations? If so, what is your basis for that position?

I note with approval that you are supportive of the concept of biological determinism.

Jonathan, there would be no need for new legislation, if an agreement had been reached, before the sexual act took place, and both parties understood the agreement, and the consequences of the agreement, and it was verifiable that this agreement took place, then under current contract law, the agreement would stand.

This would require material evidence that the agreement had taken place, which could mean a signed and witnessed contract, or a witnessed verbal agreement. This evidence would need to be strong enough to stand up in court.

Without verifiable proof that the agreement had in fact taken place, there would be no way of knowing whether this was the case or not, and it would simply be a he said/she said argument, which holds little weight under our current legal system.

If our legal system did not work on the grounds of material evidence, then we would have a system where people are convicted for crimes simply on the say so of someone else.

"If our legal system did not work on the grounds of material evidence, then we would have a system where people are convicted for crimes simply on the say so of someone else."

You mean it would take the Family Law model?

I was stating how I viewed your argument Craig, nothing nasty at all.

Equity does matter, and men have the same rights as women do, to not engage in sex, with the risks inherent in that act. It is very simple.

I have addressed your argument, and have disagreed with your argument.

Your argument is that the only option people who wish not to be parents have is abstinence. I reject that as Victorian and retrograde.

It's time to discuss the reality of the 21st century, Judith, not the aspirations of the 19th.

No Craig, that is not my argument at all. There is contraception, although currently there is no contraception that is available that is 100% , so the only way that people who wish to have no risk at all of becoming parents, is to abstain from having sex.

I think it would be fantastic if sex were risk free for everyone involved, but that is simply not the reality today, and by today I mean right now, 21st century.

We are not discussing risk, Judith, but rights and obligations that obtain once the hazard of pregnancy eventuates.

You are of the view that the female partner should enjoy full self-determination, while the male partner should be obliged by virtue of having taken part in the mutual satisfaction of both party's biological drives.

How do you support this view?

There seems to be a level of discretion employed by magistrates in the Family Law Court, that is not used in Civil or Criminal Court. This is something that I disagree with. I would like to see the same laws regarding evidence apply to all areas of our judicial system equally.

The FLA specifically provides that an allegation is to be treated as a proven fact, in the absence of a disproof. It is not the judges, it is the legislators who are responsible.

The reversal of the onus of proof is a dangerous aspect of much of modern statute, from tax law on down.

I was indeed discussing risk, and have been throughout my posts. Both male and female take the risk of the woman becoming pregnant if they choose to have sex. Both are obligated to support any child resulting from that union.

As I said before, if you want to mitigate the risk of being obligated to support a child, either have a contract, (one that will stand up in court), that stipulates your intentions prior to sex, or don't participate in the sexual act that may result in pregnancy.

You may have been discussing risk, Judith, but we have already stipulated that the hazard has been expressed and the woman is pregnant. The risk is no longer important - we are discussing what should happen next.

Should the woman, having decided to proceed with a pregnancy resulting from a recreational sexual encounter have an automatic right to oblige the man, or should his obligation be rebuttable?

Contract won't work. I'm sure. Tort might if fraud can be shown.

I reckon the legislative path is the surest and simplest.

What sort of legislation do you propose Craig? It would need to reflect some way of proving that before the sexual encounter occurred and the woman became pregnant, that it was agreed by both parties that there would be no obligation expected of the man if a pregnancy were to occur, and the woman intended to carry said pregnancy to term, and a child was the result.

Unless that agreement can be proven in court, the current obligations would apply.

Until you have a way of proving agreement, everything else is moot.

A more practical way of dealing with the situation, would be to prevent it before it occurred, hence the contract or agreement that meets the standards of evidence set by the court, or not having sex, with its inherent risk of pregnancy. This is an issue of personal responsibility, and trust in the person you are wanting to have sex with. You cannot legislate for people to be honest about their intent, or be trustworthy with one another. You cannot control the behaviour of others, only your own behaviour. I tend to lean towards the action of declining sex if you are in doubt about the other person's intent or trustworthiness.

As I said before, if you want to see a change in the current legislation, then you are free to lobby your government for that change. I would suggest though that it would not have much support.

Please provide a link to your assertion Craig, as I do not believe this to be the case at all, not in my own experience or in anything that I have read regarding the FLA.

I think legislation would require amendments to the CS (Registration and Collection) Act, the Family Law act, State legislation around registration of births.

I've already suggested that a smartphone app could be readily developed to meet compliance requirements. That would make the process pretty straightforward. No need for complex paperwork, just a photo, simple statement of intent with explanatory notes relating to consequences and a signature or voice signature. These things are trivially accomplished and would meet the standard of evidence.

It would simply need to record the participants' intent as recreational, which would allow the legislation to be triggered if a pregnancy occurs. It wouldn't make such a trigger mandatory, since both parties have autonomy at each step and the man may well choose to be part of the child's life once the situation is presented to him. If he doesn't, however, then the pre-existing intent should be primary., leaving her free to self-determine from that point on and him wiped from the picture, in the same way as any sperm donor might be.

Enforcing honesty in expressing intent is at the heart of contract. If I make an offer that induces you to do certain things and I renege, you have remedies under contract. If you assure me that you don't want kids and that induces me to make love with you, then I should have remedies if you then do proceed with a pregnancy, just as you have remedies if you fall pregnant in the absence of such agreed understanding.

You are essentially saying "no one night stands" and "if your patner decides to get pregnant without telling you, suck it up". I say this is not a tenable position. People do have sex with people they have just met and one partner can decide to try to get pregnant without discussing it with the other. Trust is not a given, so I am proposing a method of establishing the bounds of responsibility.

I should say that such equity is claimed to be a principle of feminism. Do you agree that feminism claims to be at heart about equality in society and before the law?

I agree that such legislation would not be well-regarded by the quasi-feminist Emily's List Government of Gillard, but let's face it, that Government is very much a caretaker and an LNP Government may well be receptive to such reforms. Apart from anything else, I think they would like the potential for reducing the number of single mothers of children of casual liaisons, since I suspect that if the typical young woman is made aware that she has full and sole responsibility for her decision to become a mother, then many would choose not to do so. It compels a genuine decision-making process that perhaps is less likely if both parties are bound by her failing to make a decision and allowing the pregnancy to proceed by default.

There are very few single parents as a result of casual liaisons now, the vast majority of single parents are people who had children in what they thought was a stable, long term relationship. So your idea, while interesting, would do little to reduce the numbers of single parents as a result of one night stands.

There would have to be a way of also making sure that each participant in the sexual act was capable of agreeing to it being purely for recreation, and not impaired by alcohol, drugs, or coerced in any way. The agreement would need to also be fully understood by both parties, with no ambiguity. All of the above circumstances could be used as mitigation if the case came before the courts.

I don't think any government would be receptive to your ideas, I think they are pretty much unworkable.

Good luck with your lobbying.

And the basis for your assertion with respect to single parent origin?

The issue of informed consent is already present. Having a means of verifying it makes it much easier to demonstrate.

You haven't shown why they would be unworkable. Electronic verification is already used for many transactions. What specifically would not work?

If the law is changed to make recreation the default intent, then if people do want to have a baby it's a simple matter of recording that fact. That way, it really does make the arrangement explicit.

Craig Minns: "... hence this discussion." Is it really a discussion, or just your attempt to validate you perverse world view? It seems to me that you're trying to impose certainty in an uncertain situation.

Entering your fantasy for a moment; if there is any "contract", when two people have sex, I'd say that conception nullifies it. The change in circumstances puts the woman in total control. Given that there's no absolutely certain contraceptive, every act of intercourse carries a risk. If you can't or won't bear the responsibility, then don't take the risk.

Craig Minns: "... an LNP Government may well be receptive ...". Craig, you're dreamin'. No political party would touch it with a barge pole.

"hand over your semen." For that image, thanks very much. :p

I might be a bit old fashioned - indeed I am - but I grew up in a world where "if you made your bed then you have to lie in it". If you want to engage in sex and you don't want any issue then the responsibility is yours to prevent it. And if prevention fails then the consequence is yours, shared with the other partner. To me that applies in both directions. So pardon me if I admit to struggling with the logic of the discussion on this and other threads in this conversation.

And if children are the consequence of our actions then ours is the responsibility to protect and sustain them. After all, they have no responsibility at all for their creation. They are the innocent parties, not their parents.

Many have experienced situations where they have been duped into taking responsibility for children they have not fathered. But surely again the primary consideration should be for the child and what he/she requires. As far as I am concerned there can be nor should there be sex without responsibility for the consequences on the part of both parents.

My isn't all this moralising exhausting!

Very true Judith. This type of evidence can be used to rebut the presumption held by the court, that social/domestics agreements have no intention to be legally bound (Wakeling v Ripley).

Craig Minns: "... conceiving a child unintentionally and not wanting to have any part of ... the child ...". Which, if I recall correctly, is the reason for the legislation to which you object; too many deadbeats were fathering children, then evading their responsibilities. The community expects fathers to support their offspring and the law reflects that. What the father wants is irrelevant to the community and to the law. If you can't live with that, then go to another community.

"What the father wants is irrelevant to the community and the law"

Thank you for making my point clear David.

That is precisely the reason for suggesting this equity-based amendment to existing laws that disenfranchise half of all parents.

The point is to make the act of becoming a parent a specifically intentional action, not merely what happens when you aren't being careful.

Then, if either parent decides not to fulfil their obligations, they really are a deadbeat, not a victim of circumstance and they would deserve our opprobrium.

The problem is, the mother can decide to terminate the pregnancy even if Dad wants the child. Dad has to just take pot luck on what her decision might be.

That is not equitable.

So what are you saying Craig, that men should be able to force a woman to either bear a child, or terminate a pregnancy? Or are you just whining that it isn't fair?

Craig, sometimes becoming a parent is what happens when you aren't being careful, or contraception fails for whatever reason. If you engage in sexual intercourse there is a risk that you will become a parent, whether that is your intention or not. You can lessen the risk by being responsible for contraception on your own part, but as contraception is not 100% effective, you are still left with a risk, although a small one.

You cannot legislate away the risk, it is there regardless, and if you want to have sexual intercourse with women of child bearing capability, you either accept that risk, and any possible responsibilities, or you don't engage in the act.

The vast majority of people engaging in heterosexual acts seem to be able to accept the risks inherent in this activity, and accept their responsibility if things go wrong and they end up being a parent. For those that think they should be able to push all the risk and responsibility onto the other partner, there are laws to prevent this.

Life is messy, and its not always equitable, that's just the way it is.

Don't be an idiot, Judith, it's beneath you.

We've had an extensive discussion on the subject, perhaps you should lay off the funny cigarettes if you're having trouble recalling it.

Peter, I think that you are simply stating the obvious truth, and stating what the majority view is.

Even now, with DNA testing, it is quite possible for men to know for certain whether they have fathered a child or not, so even the issue of men being duped has been removed.

I agree with you, in regards to the interests of the child, the child's care and welfare should come first, which is why our courts are biased to the interests of the child/children in any family dispute.

Then what are you advocating, apart from expecting there to be legislation that presumes that all people have sex for recreation, and assigning responsibility to the woman if she gets pregnant from that sexual act?

As for the nasty little dig about funny cigarettes, I don't use drugs Craig, I would say this comment is beneath you, but that would be a lie, you have shown you are prepared to use personal abuse, particularly when you have no other logical answer to a question.

Of course you can't legislate away the risk, but you can legislate to make the situation more equitable.

The fact that the sexual drive is strong enough to accept the grave risk that is presented at the moment isn't reason to maintain the status quo if it's unfair.
I thought you feminist types were into fairness? Or are you only into fairness when it makes women better off?

I suspect the birth rate will decline significantly when men have readily available oral or implant or patch chemical contraception and so will the number of single women with children.

The woman already has responsibility, Judith, as you've pointed out before. She also has choices and I believe that everybody should have choices, so if she decides to proceed with the pregnancy, he should have the option of running away, but that doesn't mean he will. I suspect most men would stick around, but some would not, possibly for good reasons.

Lighten up, Judy, the thing about the wacky baccy was a joke. sheesh, you're as touchy as a pothead with no weed...

<ducks>

I don't see the issue as unfair Craig. Both parties, when deciding to have sex, understand that there is a risk of pregnancy, and that both parties will be responsible for any child that results from them having sex. Seems very fair to me.

I think that any advances in contraception will lessen the risk of pregnancy and that is a good thing for those that do not wish to become parents. Its also a good thing that men will have more choice of contraceptives available. If a male contraceptive could be 100% effective, all the better. Although I suspect it will not suit all men, just as the contraceptive pill/implant/IUD for females don't suit every woman.

As the vast majority of births in Australia today, are planned, I doubt another form of contraception will make much of a dent in the birthrate. I also doubt another form of male contraception will make any appreciable difference in the number of single women with children, as most single parents become so after having planned children in what they believed to be a committed long term relationship.

BTW, my name is not Judy, please at least show me the respect of getting my name right.

Judith it was my intention to state the obvious because frankly I am struggling to understand where Craig is going with this. And it is so very far from the topic of Megan's paper.

Human relationships are complex and very different from case to case. Yet we being subject to arguments about equity where in fact the situations are inherently inequitable. After all, where a pregnancy results, the male is not carrying the child. Hence in my mind the inherent inequitableness of the situation.

As a scientist I well understand the power of DNA analysis. My point about fathers being duped about parentage was really intended to emphasise the rights of the child in such situations. I have personal experience of that but the child's interest was always a prime determinant of the actions that needed to be taken.

Personally I think Craig is playing the role of the classic troll - which is why I won't respond directly to him. I suspect he is deriving a great deal of pleasure from stirring with the proverbial spoon and watching and responding to the reaction. Take care.

I think you could be right about the trolling Peter, and trolling in the classic sense, it may be time to leave the discussion, for me anyway, it doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

I totally agree with you about the rights of the child in these situations.

"conception nullifies it. "

On what grounds? It is common for contractual arrangements to encompass what should happen in future circumstances.

"The change in circumstances puts the woman in total control"

And I'm happy for her to remain in control, except that in terms of equity, the man should also have the right to opt-out of being a parent in accord with the contracted expectations, or as set down by law if it could be got up.

"every act of intercourse carries a risk."

That;'s trivially irrelevant. We're discussing what to do when the risk eventuates. I've posited elsewhere that the majority of sex is for recreation, not procreation. If conception occurs there is no reason for that intent to be challenged, per se. If the woman decides to use an abortifacient or to wait for a surgical abortion, then it's as if the conception never occurred. However, if she decides to carry it to term, she reneges on the recreational intent.

Why should she not have any penalty for choosing to break her implied contract and why should she have any right to an effective reward(child support) for doing so?

I'm not interested in red herrings about the potential offspring at this point, I'd be happy to talk about that after we get through this first step.

Your view may well be defensible, so please try to do so.

I have a serious problem with your use of the words "implied contract" here.

Sex does make babies, this is a well-established fact in law and science.

Any "implied contract" must necessarily take account of that possibility. If you want it excluded, do so formally, on paper, notarised, etc. etc.

Yes, sex does make babies, but most sex acts don't make babies and most sex acts are motivated entirely by recreation, with procreation an unwanted side effect that most people go some way to avoid. If they are nonetheless unable to avoid it for some reason, despite best efforts, then there needs to be consideration of what happens next. It's not good enough to say "accidents happen, live with it". We don't do this in any other aspect of life that I can think of.

If recreation results in conception in the absence of intent, and the woman decides to proceed, having changed her mind, it seems unreasonable to bind the man to her and the child he doesn't want for the next 18 years. By all means, she can proceed, but he should have the option of saying "I didn't sign up to be a Dad", just as she would have the option of aborting if he changed his mind.

The implied contract is for recreational sex, no more, therefore consequences that are in all terms reversible should not be binding on the party who cannot make the decision to reverse them or otherwise. The implied contract does take into account the consequences, I'm simply suggesting the terms should be fairer.

"The implied contract is for recreational sex, no more."

The world disagrees with you, Craig. There is no implied contract. Neither party is absolved of the consequences.

If you want a contract, make it explicit, on paper, signed, witnessed, notarised, etc. etc.

I seem to be repeating myself. And some other people. I don't think we'll achieve consensus on this one.

I don't think consensus is Craig's aim Jonathan.

It is an interesting topic though. I was discussing this issue with friends, both male and female, and a couple of interesting points came out.

What Craig seems to want is for the man to be absolved of all responsibility for any pregnancy or child resulting from sex, and for the woman to bear all the risk to her health and future life. Ignoring the biological fact that she does not make herself pregnant. If the woman falls pregnant, despite contraception or intention not to, she must bear the responsibility of either terminating the pregnancy, (a risk to her health), or giving birth and assuming full responsibility for the child, (a big risk to her health). The man simply gets to walk away, even though they both understood the risk of pregnancy when they had sex.

There also seems to be little agreement from anyone I've discussed this issue with, that sex is just some sort of recreational pass time. This ignores the emotional aspect completely, which is very important to many men and women.

For the women I've spoken with, they have said that if they had to bear all the risk and responsibility, they would not bother to have sex with a man that expected this. The consensus being that any man that expected this does not care about the woman in the first place, and who would want to have sex with someone who doesn't care about you. The women I spoke to saw this attitude as wanting to use a woman's body for recreation, without thinking of the woman as a person. Objectification of women, in other words.

Judy, what you think Craig seems to want is simply not relevant. Craig has been specific and detailed.

Posting your detailed desires here is not going to make them a reality, and you seem smart enough to realise that, so your motivation for posting must be something else.

Frankly nothing is going to make your detailed desires a reality in the present milieu. You are a throwback.

So I'll take that rather silly and emty-of-content ad hom as a tacit admission that you agree with my proposition, shall I?

If I'm wrong, all you have to do is show why...

My ad hominem was to the point and expresses the opinion I've formed of you while trying to have a rational discussion. Not to say that you aren't rational, but that your understanding of social and material facts is outdated.

Enlighten me ... why are you making the effort to post here? Is it for entertainment value?

If by your "proposition" you mean the idea that legislation should be passed such that all sex acts should be presumed recreational unless explicitly agreed otherwise, and that nobody wants children out of such recreational sex, and that fathers should be under no obligation to support children of such sex acts, no, your proposition does not have my support. I only repeated it above to show that I finally understood you, because some of your earlier comments did seem to imply that you actually wanted fathers to be able to demand their casual sex partners comply with their wishes as to whether or not the couple became parents. Not to show that I agreed the law should be changed.

I don't think I have to show why I disagree.

I was just wondering whether the SA ALP has again voted to assert that even two Wongs doesn't make a senate white?

I don't think you CAN show why you disagree, which has been my point all along.

To this point there has been little but fallacious, illogical argument from you that comes down to "suck it up, that's the way it is, you're a horrible person, so there".

So far you have come up with ad homs, appeals to popularity, appeals to authority, secial pleadings, appeals to common practise, appeals to belief, apeals to spite, appeals to tradition (amusingly), the list of fallacious arguments goes on and on.

I post my thoughts here because I am unable to falsify the propositions myself, given the axioms that apply in our modern society. We claim to be a society dedicated to equity, yet I can easiyt point to many inequities that our current system of laws perpetuates, including the one we are discussing here. If we are indeed, as a nation, committed to enhancing equity, why is there such heated rejection of propositions that go directly to issues of inequity that affect men? I say it's because the nature of feminist discourse, which has become the primary informant of social policy, is such as to exclude axiomatically any possibility that men can be subject to gendered discrimination. Basically, if a woman feels bad about something we have to act to fix it, but if a man can show genuine bad outcomes for him or other men it must mean he hates women! It's a dishonest "religious" position, not a reasoned approach that might actually lead to better laws and improved equity in the country. By failing to examine your assumptions and denigrating those who do you are acting as the worst kind of conservative might.

Now, you don't have to show why you disagree, you can simply say you're happy with your state-ordained role as second-class citizen. It will be interesting to note how your views change as you mature. A genuinely intellectually engaged person's views evolve over time, while those who are just acting on "belief" often maintain rigid adherence to that belief all their life, actively avoiding examination of it the whole time. I wonder which group you belong to? You obviously like to think about things, even if you eventually take refuge in the flimsy castle of belief when the thinking doesn't go in the direction you hoped.

I am in no way a second-class citizen, and nor are you.

I didn't say you're a horrible person, I said you're behind the times.

I also said you aren't facing facts when you said division of labour was "demanded by the sexual dimorphism of the species". That actually made me laugh.

I haven't been after a mathematical proof of anything, I've just been telling you how the world is. I suppose I'll have to own up to appealing to authority and popularity, but I've been doing that because Australia is run by its authorities and its people.

Our society has indeed been informed by feminism in recent decades, but it's hardly "the primary informant". The doctrine of "economic rationalism" has also been a major influence over the same period, for instance, and your focus on "productivity" metrics derives from that school of thought.

The example of discrimination against men that you keep coming back to, the obligation of both parents to care for a child even if one parent did not want the child to be born, is not framed legally in discriminatory terms. There are examples, though few, of men who have raised their children while their mothers left the family and became liable for child support payment. The only thing that makes child support "discriminatory" is the fact that the pregnancy happens inside the woman's body and that we -- oh dear, here I go again, special-pleading and appealing to authority and popularity -- afford the right to terminate a pregnancy only to the pregnant person.

Other inequalities remaining inherent in the laws of our country discriminate on the basis of wealth and (yes, even now!) race, but in both directions at once, both controlling and supporting indigenous people and the poor. I think those inequities are beyond the scope of this particular discussion.

I have a bottom line reason for being a feminist : women are human beings and deserve all the rights, powers, freedoms and privileges afforded to their male peers. Women have historically suffered greatly from the repression inherent in patriarchy, in a thousand ways. In some parts of the world they still do, horrendously. In this country, discrimination against women in the legal structures is a thing of the past. Discrimination against women in social structures and in everyday interaction clearly isn't.

So yes ... there's a "religious belief" on my part if you like that women *are* equal to men, which I hold axiomatically in the face of the plain evidence that women, unlike men, have breasts, vaginas and wombs and are on average shorter and less well-muscled.

Craig, I have asked you to show respect by not using the diminutive form of my name, when replying to my posts. You have chosen to ignore this request, why is that Craig?

Of course you're a second-class citizen. You're a little shielded because you have chosen a profession which is male-dominated and you are married with a child, which puts your family in the sweetspot for Government handouts. However, that doesn't change the reality, it just makes you a happy (for the moment) second-class citizen. Your status derives from your association with a woman and participation in a workforce in which there is, for the moment, little effort being made to force genderist employment policies, not from your own value as a citizen.

Of course human sexual dimorphism compels certain ways of dividing labour. The fact that we live in a time of plenty has allowed less efficient ways of doing things, but once again, it doesn't alter the underlying reality. The fact that we are incidentally rich enough to waste some of that wealth on doing things that are basically whimsical doesn't mean that we should or that we will be able to continue to do so into the future.

Already we are hearing Hockey, as the likely next Treasurer, saying things about having to "reduce people's expectations of entitlement" and that people must come to realise that entitlements have to cut out at a much younger age than they do now. These are encouraging signs that the problem of affordability is being recognised and that there is some hope that a future Government will begin to wind back some of the very costly supports that have been allowed to proliferate. If women can compete for work without being subsidised then I am happy to have them. I suspect that the female participation rate will decline significantly if there are fewer subsidies, however, as they realise that they are actually in a zero-sum situation. Why bother working and paying taxes if you don't actually end up better off because you are having to pay somebody else to do the things you used to do yourself and still have spare time to enjoy your children?

I see no discrimination against women in any aspect of Australian life, while discrimination against men at structural and legal levels is entrenched. Education, healthcare, legal matters (not just Family Law, but Criminal and some civil as well) are all significantly skewed in favour of women. Professional employment is the same, with Government programs designed to make it mandatory for firms to hire women in preference to men. At Government level there is enormous disparity in the attention paid to men's issues compared female-specific matters. Offices for Women in every State and Federally, an Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency, millions of dollars in grants to female-specific interest groups and a small fraction of that to groups that cater for men (except Men's Sheds, of course, which is a Uniting Church dominated program, not that you'd ever know that from the advertising). Even our children are not spared the discrimination, with the "Girls can Do Anything" campaign funded in every state, while a similar "Boys can do Anything" program defunded and the resources that had already been produced put into storage rather than being distributed. No wonder boys are doing so badly at school: they've already worked out that they're second-class citizens.

I also believe women are equal to men, but I don't think that means they're men with vaginas, any more than I think a cow is a dog with horns. In my view your perception of what constitutes equality is badly flawed. I support equality of opportunity, which we do not have in this country. I do not regard it as a worthwhile exercise to discriminate against men today, to the detriment of all, because some women suffered a lack of opportunity in some aspects of life in the past. Nor do I see how it can be a good idea to try to make people fit into social roles they don't want to be in and don't choose without some form of external influence, especially if doing so requires enormous expenditure and produces minimal returns.

Despite what you are trying to imply, my wish is that both women and men are given every opportunity to do the things that come naturally to them. That is genuine equality, not the socially-engineered abortion that feminism has produced and makes almost nobody happy.

It still amuses me that for some people "rationality" is a pejorative...

We've missed out on pretty much all of the government handouts we might have been eligible for due to timing, income status and particulars of our employment situations, thanks. I never told you I was happy. Would I be sitting here arguing like a grumpy old man if I was happy? LOL

While I do work in a male-dominated industry and there's no institutional pressure for affirmative action, our particular business has made a habit of hiring impressive female candidates and I feel in no way threatened by this. Women *do* compete for work without being subsidised, there is no question there.

As far as I'm concerned, my status does flow from my intrinsic value as a citizen, just as it did when I was a student and during various periods between-jobs. A lot of my self-satisfaction, such as it is, flows from my value to my son as a father.

I agree with you 100% on this rhetorical question :

"Why bother working and paying taxes if you don't actually end up better off because you are having to pay somebody else to do the things you used to do yourself and still have spare time to enjoy your children?"

This is why my sister + her husband chose to work part-time, BOTH of them, for over ten years.

I don't think that subsidies to childcare in order to increase women's workforce participation are good for families. I think they're an attempt to leverage low-income work in childcare to extract high-value work from people who are keen to return to paid work providing it's relatively hassle-free. The problem with that is that childcare itself is a demanding occupation which, if done properly, deserves much better remuneration than most childcare workers can command, even with the subsidies. For the subsidies to be really beneficial, they would have to be much *higher*, and I won't argue that case here!

I do think more families should divide domestic responsibilities more equally between the parents and that maybe other public policy measures (besides childcare subsidies) might usefully be taken to encourage that.

The cancellation of the boys' self-esteem program is indeed regrettable. There is such a thing as going too far.

But I take issue with your resentment for governments funding "female-specific matters". Historically and still today for reasons related to "sexual dimorphism", women have been severely disadvantaged socially and financially, especially when not under a man's protection -- and binding a woman to a man simply isn't acceptable any more. Women remain disadvantaged in male-dominated workplaces because of men's natural aggression and in many places thanks also to an ingrained discriminatory culture. *This* is the structural sexism we talk about, not the occasional government initiative. There's a reason for the existence of an Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace agency and for women's shelters and the relative absence of such institutions for men : it's because old, bad habits die hard and are in some cases, regrettably, hard-wired.

Structural discrimination against women continues to this day -- some of it is plain as the nose on my face, some of it subtle and possibly even still unconscious. We, as a nation, have taken steps to address it not by suppressing opportunities for men but by making sure that women receive protection when they need it and fair consideration when they deserve it -- this, you call legal and structural discrimination against men. Sorry, that's not good enough. That would only be a valid criticism if you could demonstrate that old discriminatory habits are gone for good.

I don't know about your claims of "enormous expenditure" on these measures. The big-ticket items like childcare subsidies and paid maternity leave are probably zero-sum in the long run (ie. the nation gets back as much as it puts in, even if the action does appear to be more profitable because it increases currency circulation). But I think it's probably a highly profitable expenditure wherever it increases opportunities for expression and development.

I'd be delighted to hear "my wish is that both women and men are given every opportunity to do the things that come naturally to them." if it weren't in the context of your assertion above that sexual dimorphism demands the sexual division of labour. Men and women are different. It comes naturally to men to be promiscuous, hubristic, violent and clannish. It comes naturally to women to be co-dependent. That doesn't mean we should encourage or endorse those behaviours. We can do better.

I do not use the word "rationality" as a pejorative. The mindset which in Australia has come to be known as "economic rationalism" (known elsewhere by other names, eg. Thatcherism) is a debasement of reason in favour of bean-counting.

I'm sorry to hear you're not happy, Jonathan. What would make you happier and is it something that Government policy can provide? If so, how much should Government spend on it?

It's my opinion that we, as a group of individuals who form this nation, have abrogated our personal obligation to do our best to make the most of what we've got in favour of a sort of cargo cultist approach that sees no end to the obligation of Government to provide. We've allowed that to blind us to the fact that what is being provided is neither what we need, nor what we really want.

Educated women identify as "feminists" because that's the special code word that unleashes Government cargo, while educated men convince themselves that their share of the cargo is still to come and all they have to do is learn the proper word. To each it's obvious that those who don't have the right words will and should miss out on cargo.

As a result, just as happened with the original cargo cultists, anybody who points out that the cargo is based on a fantasy and what we should all be doing is getting on with real life is demonised and vilified as destroying everyone's chances. Sadly, just as with the original cargo cultists, the time of plenty has to end and people have to get on with their lives or suffer. I believe that time has come for the cult of feminism. The gardens need tending and the pigs need feeding and no amount of coaxing will make cargo appear when there is no cargo to be had.

I'm no supporter of economic rationalism as practised by Thatcher and pretended to by Howard, but I do recognise that continuing to do things that don't work will lead to bad outcomes. Time for a change of direction.

Patronising comments and more straw men. And I thought we were getting along so well.

'misandry' is a silly word. What's wrong with good old-fashioned 'man-hater'?

Well said, Dennis.

Dictionaries are generally intended to document current language usage, not to regulate it.

Actually Dennis, "misandry" was a coinage of the 19th century. I'm fascinated that Ms Butler doesn't conflate it with sexism.

Apparently, in the view of the Macquarie disctionary, there is only one sex which can be a victim of sexism. I'd be interested in the reasoning...

The Oxford English Dictionary online has already extended the definition of the word 'misogynist' to reflect common usage. The word was used by Hilary Clinton during the 2008 primary and the word's meaning was discussed by the late William Safire in the NY Times ON LANGUAGE column.

"When I looked up the word she chose in the Oxford English Dictionary online, however, I noted that the meaning of misogynist had changed slightly but significantly. In 1989, the definition was “hatred of women”; in the 2002 revision, the definition was broadened to “hatred or dislike of, or prejudice against women.”

Thus, sexist and misogynist are now in some respects synonymous. Because sexist has been so widely used, apparently misogynist — in the same sense of “prejudice” rather than “hatred” — now carries more force with those who are familiar with the word."

http://www.theglobalmail.org/blog/word-of-the-day/421/
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/08/magazine/08wwln-safire-t.html?_r=1&fta=y

http://www.theglobalmail.org/blog/word-of-the-day/421/

The thing, the word's current usage has not changed from the meaning it has had for centuries.

What nonsense. Misogynist is a much more hateful term than sexist. Hence its adoption by those who seek to attach labels to others in pursuit of hateful denigration.

Misuse of language is never a justification for its redefinition.

Starting with your bottom line, sorry no, English has always been defined by usage. Gay *does* mean homosexual now, and awesome *does* mean good. The new meaning has become the primary one through deliberate or inadvertent misusage becoming near-universal.

Even so, "misogyny" is still, in all usage I'm aware of, a much stronger term than "sexism", even if it describes almost the same phenomenon (which indeed it always did).

Sexism is a pretty hateful thing in principle, but it was so prevalent when the word was coined and the struggle against it began that almost anything could validly be described as sexist, so it took on a fairly banal connotation among people not directly involved in the feminist struggle. Even today sexism remains traditional and endemic (one might even risk saying it's instinctual), so it's a very rare person who has never demonstrated inadvertent sexism in their words or actions. On the other hand, it's also something many of us are aware of today and that we try to correct, even as we forgive ourselves for minor indiscretions.

Misogyny is more explicit and directed. It may mean actual emotional hatred of women as a class of people (conscious or, in the traditional psychological sense, subconscious) but it also means explicit prejudice -- not just the sexual discrimination of habit and thoughtlessness, but the attempt to justify traditional sexism by denigration of women and undue emphasis on differences between the sexes.

Dictionaries seem to disagree with you.

Peter Sommerville: "Misuse of language is never a justification for its redefinition." Isn't the use of a word the justification for its definition?

Sexism can refer to prejudice against either gender; misogyny is gender specific.

This is true; but our historical prejudices (and thus those which dominate the language) are all one way. Hence the term "reverse sexism".

"reverse sexism" is a feminist coinage, based on the idea that only females can suffer from prejudice on the basis of gender.

That is obviously not correct. Megan makes a clear case for the existence of prejudice against males and there are many other examples going back some time.

A local example was the New Idea's "Mere Male" page, which predates my birth and continued at least up to 2010.

I don't believe any male-oriented magazine ever had a "mere female" page...

Nobody ever said "only females can suffer from prejudice on the basis of gender". It just so happens that our culture (and many others) have historically had a patriarchal structure which makes females explicitly subordinate to men.

And "reverse sexism" is a backlash coinage, not a feminist one. It travels in a pack with terms like "feminazi" and "gender studies mafia". At its most polite, it refers to the gentle ribbing of New Idea or to affirmative action policies.

And come off it. Until very recently *every* page in a "man's magazine" was a "mere female" page.

"Check your privilege."

http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/06/03/faq-arent-feminists-just-sexists-towards-men/

I have no "privilege", Jonathan, I have "responsibilities" and "obligations" and a some minor "talents" and "capacities".

These differ markedly from the female equivalents, but that does not imply they are better or worse, just different.

And just for the record, a feminist advocacy website that relies on circularity of logic doesn't cut it as a reference, sorry.

Just because they say it's so, doesn't make it so.

I've never seen the women in men's magazines as "mere" anything and I'd be prepared to bet that few of the men who buy them would believe they were potentially able to attract one as a mate.

What they are is exemplars of a the "ideal", not figures of ridicule.

I also don't buy the whole patriarchy as oppression of women construct. My dad was born in 1915 (I was a late arrival) and he was very definitely an "alpha" male, having been a high-achiever all his life. He spent the first half of his life married to one woman, with whom he had 6 daughters. The last 7 years of that marriage he spent working as a cook at the Peat Island mental asylum, which is situated in the Hawkesbury River, because he wanted to be close and able to care for his wife, who had suffered diabetes pre-insulin and had gone mad as a result.

Following her death he married my Mum and had to go through another traumatic loss when she became ill with bowel cancer. I never saw him in any way patronise women or behave in any way other than deferentially and with respect. I try to do the same, athough in our age of equality I am less deferential than he was.

I say to you that the men who are described by the standard feminist deconstruction of that period are outliers on the normal curve and they will persist despite any social constructional efforts. It is dishonest to accuse me and you and other decent men of being tarred with the same brush and deeply offensive. It was that sense of offense that first got me thinking about the premises of the feminist model and I have found them considerably wanting.

No man is an island.

You have male privilege.

I had no wish to cause any offence, nor disrespect to your father or yourself. My father too is a patriarch and most respectful of women, and (unusually) very much aware of this structure and the inequality it creates.

Patriarchy is a description of structure and institution, not (necessarily) a bunch of wilfully disrespectful oppressors. The laws, expectations, manners and assumed behaviours of a society can be extremely sexist, and indeed those of our society were (and to a much smaller extent still are), with no oppression intended.

I refer to unequal pay for equal work; the old assumption that a woman would give up paid work after marriage; the impossible "ideals" of men's magazines and advertising which you so admire; the judgement of a woman's character based on dress and deportment; the list is not endless but it is very very long.

Sexist behaviour on the part of dominant or authority figures (male and female), whether unconscious or sufficiently explicit to call it "misogynist" (in the newer sense of course) remains rife. Women as a class are indeed oppressed thereby, and as long as men in general can choose to overlook it, they have "male privilege".

Male privilege exists, not only for sexists but for any male living in a patriarchal society. Ours is one of the least patriarchal societies in the world, but it still has some way to go.

I do understand the concept of patriarchy as a repressive rather than oppressive social arrangement, but I have come to the view that trying to replace that with an artificially-imposed quasi equality that replaces that incidental repression with a deliberate repression of men is doomed to failure because it does not recognise the natural differences that obtain between the genders. Let's face it, if the "patriarchy" is as bad as all that, how did feminism get such a hold? Do you think that a "masculist" movement would prosper under a feminist matriarchy? I laugh to scorn...

On another thread I had a quite lengthy discussion with a couple of people on the issue of women and work. It may or may not surprise you to learn that women on average are significantly less productive than men in a working environment, both here and in every other place the issue has been studied, as far as I can determine. Moreover, they really don't WANT to be more productive, because their focus is, on average, to do with their domestic situation and making that more comfortable and workable. As a result, many women are considerably unhappy about their work-life balance and many men are being prevented from doing jobs held by women which would be on average more productively undertaken by those men

I am of the view that we need to abandon the failed social experiment of feminism before it creates more serious problems that may not be easily rectified and look for a model that complies with the intrinsic drives of people of both genders.

Sorry Johnathan, but what you are arguing is nonsense. Sure, language changes with common usage. But misogynist is not a word in common usage. It is a word used loosely to denigrate by a relative few. Hardly a justification for its redefinition.

It depends upon the extent of its usage. I am reasonably confident that 97% of the Australian population, let alone the English speaking world's population could even define its meaning. It is hardly a word in the common parlance so its redefinition is illogical and possibly sexist in itself.

I read that discussion. It doesn't surprise me to "learn" that women are less productive, because I don't believe it to be true in the general case for one second. It's completely contrary to my personal and professional experience and to anything else I ever read on the subject; not to mention counter to academic performance which is meticulously measured (that's not "productivity" but certainly many of the qualities which feed into it).

But since I don't have a paper to wave back at you, that conversation is going nowhere until/unless I make time to read the paper you referenced and search for other material on the subject.

Many dictionary words are used by relatively few people. They're still documented according to actual usage, not according to non-usage.

The non-use of a word by a large number of people does not speak to its meaning in any way.

No it isn't.

Jonathan, "belief" is no substitute for data.

I urge you and anyone else who has an interest in the subject to read the reports I referenced there and to take off their glasses of "belief" in the feminist paradigm that has created the lousy situation they depict.

I'm just off to work, but I'll collate a list of links to the reports referenced in that thread when I get back.

There is no suggestion that women don't work hard, just that their priorities are significantly different and that impacts on their productivity in paid work.

Feminist theory suggests this is a patriarchal cultural phenomenon, I say it is a hard reality that cuts across all cultures and it is both futile and destructive to try to change it.

Here's that list, Jonathan.

Report by Goldman Sachs 2009
http://www.eowa.gov.au/Pay_Equity/Pay_Equity_Information/Australias_hidden_resource.pdf

Report by Australian Medical Workforce Advisory Committee
https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2003/179/4/medical-workforce-issues-australia-tomorrow-s-doctors-too-few-too-far

Report by KPMG
http://www.ahwo.gov.au/documents/NHWT/The%20health%20workforce%20in%20Australia%20and%20factors%20influencing%20current%20shortages.pdf

Report from German Institute forcthe Study of Labor (IZA)
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2019413
You'll need to click through on that one.

Report from UniSA on work-life imbalance
http://w3.unisa.edu.au/hawkeinstitute/cwl/documents/AWALI2012-National.pdf

There are others, but these give a fair summary of the issues and cover the productivity gap well.

Enjoy your reading, I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

I have skimmed all of the documents and read some parts closely. I also went and looked up various definitions of "productivity". It seems that I had not correctly understood the term.

But I'm still not quite clear on how "product" is measured for industries or occupations whose product is not tangible or traded. Is the value of the product determined based on the expense of obtaining it, perhaps? And therefore related directly to the pay of the workers?

It would appear that labour-intensive industries and occupations inherently have low labour productivity. An example would be cleaning, childcare or medicine (despite the far higher pay in medicine).

Industries and occupations appear to have high labour productivity where the economic value of the "product" is multiplied not over the amount achieved by the workers, but by the number of consumers. An example would be advertising.

The gender imbalance amongst more and less labour-intensive occupations may be sufficient to explain the majority of the "gender productivity gap". It seems also that the "productivity" measure is driven down by the choice of individuals to work fewer hours or years, though it isn't clear to me how this works, mathematically speaking. Perhaps it is because the pay rates get higher for people who work longer?

In any case, despite my incomplete understanding of the economic terminology, I'm now perfectly prepared to concede that the average "labour productivity" measure is lower for women than for men.

I am not in any way prepared to concede that this is a consequence of women achieving less while working than men in equivalent jobs.

If "productivity" suffers when someone leaves at 5pm to be with their family instead of working an unofficial 9.5-hour day when an 8-hour full-time day is assumed, the measurement is skewed. If a "productivity" measurement for an occupation is lower if it is based on costs and not a sale value of the product because no product gets sold (eg. in social work or cleaning), the measurement is near meaningless.

"I am not in any way prepared to concede that this is a consequence of women achieving less while working than men in equivalent jobs."

That was the very point of the AMWAC and KPMG medical resourcing studies. They showed in the first case that women have a working life on average 60% that of men and in the second that women work approximately 80% f the hours on a weekly basis that men do. The OECD quote in the KPMG report was unequivocal and the German IZA report was just as firm.

The point is not that women CAN"T do as much as men, it's that they choose not to, or they are subject to biological constraints.

My reason for raising this is not to diss women, it's to try to get a discussion going about the genuine efficacy of spending the majority of the education budget and a large subsidy budget to get women into work when it seems pretty clear that the money would be better spent, in terms of economic efficiency, on men in the first instance.

It seems to me that if our nation is to prosper into the future, then choosing women as workers over men is not the way to go. They already have too much on their plates with doing things that men can't do, so why do we insist they must also (at great expense to the nation) do the things that men do better?

You seem to have missed the qualifier "while working".

In fact I cannot see how a shorter career can possibly feed into a lower productivity measurement, nor how a shorter working week can do so with any mathematical validity. If an hour is not spent working in the paid job, that hour surely does not feed into the denominator of the productivity ratio for the job! I think here you're talking just about the numerator, the *product*, not productivity.

You would have a point that the education budget is less effective spent on people with shorter careers and working weeks, if the purpose of education were solely to turn out professionals who work long hours and long careers in exactly the discipline for which they trained. It isn't. Many, many people change careers over their lifetime, with or without retraining. Many, many people work long and productive careers without any professional training whatsoever. Many others qualify for a learned profession then go on to do something else entirely without ever working in that profession. Our freedom to choose for ourselves what work we do, and when, underpins our collective prosperity.

You and all the people advocating getting women into the workforce and improving their productivity metric are making the same mistake, of undervaluing the activities people undertake outside the paid workforce. Prosperity depends very heavily on unpaid activity. The attempt to "grow the economy" by encouraging the populace to pay each other for things we once did free of charge for ourselves or for our families is largely a futile zero-sum game -- at best, it allows measurements of monetary economic activity to reflect more of the real physical economy, but at the same time it impoverishes the intangible economy by alienating us from each other. If we do everything for money and nothing for love, we have lost something vital.

I shouldn't have to say this explicitly, but I will. Rearing children is one of the most important things many of us will ever do. The biggest investment you ever make in your country is when you raise one of its future citizens. This work has always fallen disproportionately to mothers, and while fathers are becoming more engaged over time (no doubt at the expense of their "productivity" at work), it probably always will. Often those mothers are often highly-trained professionals -- and the quality of the mother's education feeds directly into the quality of her child(ren)'s crucial early development, for a dozen reasons.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/oct/17/children-youngpeople
http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/chronicle/home/archive/issues2010/empoweringwomen/educategirlserradicatepoverty

I would tend to agree with you, ever so slightly, that trying to inveigle more women into the workforce is counter-productive, if having a satisfying independent working life was not *also* a contributing factor to the quality of the childrearing, if only for its effect on the mother's mental health.

But nothing could be further from the truth than your suggestion that "the [education] money would be better spent, in terms of economic efficiency, on men in the first instance".

Jonathan, I'm saying that women have the right of it in prioritising children and other aspects of a rounded life over the fruits of full-time work.

It makes sense to divide the labour in such a way that women have the time to be nurturing mothers, rather than the less-satisfying valued employee. That means that the men have to be able to earn sufficiently well to support a family. It makes sense to ensure he is sufficiently well educated to gain work that will enable such earnings.

I have no problem at all with women taking time to be mothers -- nor anything else that takes their fancy.

But Craig, *I* want to have the time to be a nurturing father, and have my partner go out and be a well-paid professional and support the family, whenever it suits us for her to do so.

My sister and her husband have raised three kids while each working a three-day week. Both of them have two degrees.

I want my friend S to be able to choose to stay childless as long as she wishes, support her disabled husband, and earn as much as she likes in her chosen highly-qualified profession (second degree -- her first did not lead her to the kind of work where she was happy), until such time as she feels secure enough to start a family. Or not, if that is how things work out for her.

My mate G dropped out of school after Year 10 and now earns three times what I do in a trade, but he's doing a part-time university course. He is single and intends to stay that way, despite a string of girls throwing themselves at him. He has a very large shed.

My mate A did three degrees and spent a long time penniless, but she is now a special-ed teacher (neither well rewarded nor poorly) and owns her own home. She's single and intends to stay that way, but she touches the lives of scores of disadvantaged kids.

All these career and lifestyle choices are equally valid. Yet you would prefer women to be subordinate to men once more : encouraged less to educate themselves, paid less in the workforce, and utterly dependent on a breadwinning man in their lives when raising children.

Sexual division of labour eliminates the ability of women to choose how to live their lives. It's anathema to equality and a scourge on individual freedom.

Sexual division of labour is demanded by the sexual dimorphism of the species.

I'm not sure what your personal anecdotes are intended for.

The discussion is about the relative productivity of the genders, it has nothing to do with "wants". You could "want" the earth to be flat, yet it persists as round. Your "want" is no more than a fantasy. In the case of the social construction that says women are equally as productive as men, it's a very expensive and remarkably inefficacious one.

"Sexual division of labour is demanded by the sexual dimorphism of the species."

WHAT?

This applies to pregnancy and breastfeeding only, these days, not to paid workforce labour of any kind. You're not just a throwback, you're blind to the world around you!

I think that you have conflated productivity ratios and absolute production. A shorter working career or working week does not mean lower productivity per hour worked.

I suspect -- though I do admit I'm still not on top of the definitions and methods -- that "productivity" is at best a relative measure for comparing like production with like in the same industry or profession over time. Indeed one sees the use of "productivity growth" over time (often from a 1.0 value in a base year) more often than one sees "productivity" alone. It seems to me that there is no objective way to compare production in dissimilar activities where the "product" is not traded for a cash value.

My personal anecdotes are real-world observations and my "wants" expressed above are for the world to persist as it already is, moving in the direction it's already moving in.

Craig, let's assume for argument's sake that the reports you cite are correct and that women are on average less productive than men in the workplace. It still doesn't necessarily follow that the overall productivity of the workplace is increased by decreasing the proportion of working women. That deconstructionist view neglects the possibility (for which there is some evidence by the way) that diversity in the workforce enriches the overall effectiveness of an enterprise. In other words, the whole is more than the sum of the parts.

"Group think" is a serious ailment in companies and diversity of views is valuable. Even if a woman works less hours on average than a man (not that I'm convinced that's even true) in the same job, if she makes a creative contribution in that time it could easily outweigh the lowered direct "productivity".

Thanks for the considered response, Paul.

The Geman IZA study which was referenced above (with thanks to Fred Pribac for pointing it out), makes the point that while some companies with high proportions of female staff are slightly more profitable despite having lower labour productivity, this is probably because they are paying lower wages to those women.

It goes on to suggest that affirmative action positive discrimination rules along with equal wage laws will lead to both reduced productivity and reduced profitability, potentially leading firms to reject hiring female candidates.

I have looked for evidence that adding women to the working mix enhances the enterprise's effectiveness and I challenged others to find it as well and I have been unable to find any of substance to date. Do you have any references I could have a look at? The common theme is that there is correlation between more women in decision-making roles and firm success, but there is no evidence of causation. The same firms were doing better than average BEFORE women were selectively added to their boards and management. In other words, they did it because they could afford to and it plays well politically, not because it made them better operations necessarily.

Moreover, the AMWAC and KPMG reports both make the point that the reluctance of female staff to work overtime has a deleterious effect on the motivation of their male peers to do so, reducing productive output generally. I suspect this would be true in many industrial settings, although I've not found any credible research on the topic other than the medical example.

The issue of "group think" is a really interesting one. From my observation a group of men is far more likely to have a robust discussion of issues and to canvass uncomfortable ideas than a group of women or a mixed group. In a group of women there is a drive to social dominance that usually involves trying to show that one is more strongly committed to the group than the rest and when one leader becomes apparent the rest fall into place behind her, albeit often in little cliques that may be engaged in internecine power struggles. For a really good example of group-think in an all-female group have a look at Emily's List. They won't even admit women who won't commit to the group's 5 articles of faith. No chance of any robust discussion there, when everyone is in competition to demonstrate their furious agreement! In mixed groups the male wish to not offend can mean that some ideas are simply not raised, while robust objections are muted, potentially leading to decision-making that is not completely informed. The women members can use offence-taking and passive-aggressive disengagement as weapons to prevent discussion of issues they would rather have uninvestigated and the men are in competition to be "nice guys" to avoid that. Lots of time-wasting affirmation of commitment to women's issues and tiptoeing around less comfortable subjects

Even on this and other similar topics I have not had any women seriously try to discuss the issue, leaving it to a few men to try to be champions of their honour.

Several women have taken the time to tell me my expression of my views is not wanted, however, then never contributed again. I don't regard that as a useful way to arrive at a meeting of minds and a better understanding, it's just an attempt to censor and a dog-whistle designed to let others know I am an "outsider" and hence not to be dealt with.

What evidence do you have to disagree with the reports I referenced above? I do understand that you don't like the implications and to be honest, nor do I.

My view is that we are only able to run this feminist social experiment because we have had an unprecedented run of good fortune economically on the back of the rivers of money brought in by resources, which allows redistributions to exceed personal tax contributions by a considerable margin, a large part of which is devoted to subsidising women in work. The rapidly reducing cost of imported manufactured goods has also allowed lifestyles to be cheaply enhanced. It seems clear that the dream run is not going to last forever. We should not be entrenching systems that are expensive props to an ideological drive to a utopian vision that is not actually functional.

The AWALI report from UniSA makes it clear that women on the whole would refer to be working part-time, or if full-time, at reduced hours and workloads compared to men. Some women are exceptions, but they are few - around 25% of the female population at most and concentrated in women under 30 and over 50 - outside the average childbearing age.

There was a report in the News Limited press recently that made the very interesting point that the fastest-growing cohort of new mothers is women over the age of 45! This is disturbing for several reasons related to the health and well-being of the child of such births.Older parents are associated with lower fertility and as a result many such women have to use expensive (and taxpayer funded) assisted reproductive technologies; they are also associated with many different potential genetic defects in their offspring, including ASD and Downs; as aged people they are less able to participate in some of their children's activities, especially when the kids are teenagers and their parents are already of retirement age; they will die whilst the kids are still young, leaving them bereft of the parental assistance that is so valuable. Having been the child of elderly parents who lost both my parents in my early 20s to disease I am all too aware of the void that is left and the opportunity cost of that loss.

The reason this is occurring is that the women concerned have prioritised careers over family and have finally felt their biological clock ticking away. They are often professional women who are leaving the workforce to have their very expensive children at the very point in their career that they are most valuable as employees.

The only "good" aspect of this ideological push to get women working is that it means there is more money for retailers. Women typically control about 80% of all spending decisions whether they work or not and women like to buy things that men would simply not bother with. This has spawned a proliferation of retailers (employing women almost exclusively) that cater to the desire to buy "stuff", rather than the need to acquire things of utility. Frank Lowy loves working women...

Jonathan, it makes sense for the person who bears the child to be the one doing the caring in an intact family. In a split family this is regarded by the Courts as the norm in about 80% of cases. Dad gets weekends if anything at all and mum gets the rest, which is much the division of labour that I recall from my childhood.

It doesn't make sense to hobble both horses when one could be left in harness while the other is in the foaling paddock, especially when the one in harness has already shown willing to keep working hard long after the other one has packed it in.

Labour productivity is not relative, it measures the amount of output per unit cost of labour. For individual firms women are simply much more expensive to employ, all things being otherwise equal, which in the past has meant that women have attracted lower wages. In order to get female productivity up our country has decided to create the notion of women as professionals and men as trades and other blue-collar workers, thereby giving women the higher earnings of professionals. The trouble with this model is that on average we need to train 2 women to replace one man, making higher education costs blow out and reducing productivity. On top of that, a large part of the increase in professional women has come by redefining traditional female trades, such as teaching and nursing, whilst not actually changing the roles. Since the majority of employment in those fields is paid for by government, either directly or in the form of subsidies to private providers, this has required enormous increases in tax expenditure. This has meant that government is looking for ways to increase revenue, so we have silly taxes and regulations imposed on business that make it more expensive again for them to operate. On top of the issue of such artificial stats-raising, the monetisation of household services such as childcare has added still more costs to Government, since there is little point in women working if all their earnings go into paying someone to do what they would do themselves otherwise. All of that does add to the GDP figure and it does allow for more tax to be collected, but GDP simply tells us how much money is going around in circles, it doesn't tell us anything about how much of the money was doing useful work and how much was just being wasted paying for things that used to be free to the family. Nor does it tell us how much of the additional tax receipts went straight back into the pockets of those who paid it in the first place.

I realise you think your view is the consensus, but that doesn't make it right, just popular among people who don't want to lose their entitlements to a share of the handout pie, or who are reluctant to speak against it for fear of offending women. Let's face it, I've been called all the names under the sun here for simply pointing out a well-referenced reality. I can't imagine the courage it would take to criticise the current situation as of a member a group of your peers. Groupthink can't abide dissent...

I say that if the world continues in the way it has been then there will be a very heavy and painful dose of economic reality to face in the near future. It is neither affordable nor does it add to the sum of happiness. All it does is give you a bit of extra cash, either through your wife working or through Government handouts and that cash is largely used to pay for things you could do yourself. I suspect you're quite a bit younger than me, so that's a fairly typical attitude, but in the absence of some compelling reason, such as the need to service a mortgage (which now usually requires 2 average incomes rather than the one worker's income as it did 25 years ago), I suspect your wife will find herself less and less interested in giving the child up to others to raise and will likely reduce her work hours accordingly. I also suspect your own attitude will evolve over time.

Australian citizens are not draught animals, we are free agents. We choose when to put ourselves "in harness". And spending time with our children most certainly does not equate to being "hobbled".

You define labour productivity here as "the amount of output per unit cost of labour".

This is not the correct definition. This is a clearer one : "Labour productivity measures the amount of real GDP produced by an hour of labour".

As we have both pointed out, productive work only gets measured as GDP if money is being passed around.

Honestly, it's impossible to put a clear equivalence value on "output" across all occupations. If the "output" can be sold for a profit, its monetary value is clearly higher than its monetary cost. Yet most people's labour product is not sold directly and cannot be readily given a GDP value that isn't related closely to its cost (with or without a multiplier related to the overall profitability of the enterprise). It seems to me that wages and profits contribute to the numerator, but not the denominator. This means that low-paid workers in a not-for-profit enterprise inherently have a low productivity, and this is why productivity *is* a relative measurement. What matters to businesses and whole-industry analysts is how productivity changes over time, not the absolute numbers in the first place.

The cost of labour and the cost of pre-employment education do not appear in the denominator of the productivity ratio, only the amount of labour (either "full time equivalent" or "hours worked").

Societal overheads such as education costs (as opposed to on-the-job training where people are deemed to be working as they ) SIMPLY ARE NOT A FACTOR when calculating labour productivity. The GDP associated with the education system feeds into the productivity of the paid workers in the education system, not the students who are not considered "labour" at all whilst studying.

Your notion that women are more costly to employ than men, for a business, seems to be based primarily on these misunderstandings of the notion of labour productivity. While on-the-job training costs and paid maternity leave exist, they are modest compared with whole-of-life education costs.

Funny you should suggest tradesmen get lower wages than professionals. This has not generally been the case for quite a long time. Many professions remain male-dominated, and there are gradual incursions into the trades by women.

Decline in the wages share of gross income and housing inflation quite separate matters from increasing employment of women. Yes, it's true, you need two typical incomes to service a typical mortgage these days, but that's a consequence of several decades of perverse government policy subsidising "first home buyers" with a one-off grant towards a housing purchase which, in the typical case when it is put towards a mortgage deposit, translates immediately into a leveraged figure ten times higher for the vendor. The subsidy has inflated the market to the overwhelming advantage of those who already owned property and the permanent disadvantage of those who don't, whether or not they'd be eligible for the grant themselves. Of course the subsidy has not been the only inflationary pressure, but it's telling.

Your comments about monetisation of childcare and GDP are spot on. However much the same argument applies to your labour output metrics. If what someone is doing is productive and useful to society, the fact that they're doing it outside of one paid job or another is quite irrelevant to the real prosperity of the nation. Outside of clearly-defined leave allowances, employers are not obliged to pay people for time they don't spend working -- and they don't. Still, they hire women. Depending on the industry structure, women may still be paid less than men on average, but this too is changing. And I'll note there are plenty of self-employed women and female business owners, who surely know their own worth.

Your anecdotes and experiences are different to mine. In all-male decision making groups I see a tendency for a focus on performance metrics (frankly a little like your focus) over how people might feel about decisions. I think a balance of personality types (e.g. Myers-Briggs) in decision making groups is beneficial to high performance, and there's lots of supporting literature for this. Obviously you can get all personalities in white men, but it's more likely that you would end up with a Board room full of alpha males.

You mentioned that having a diverse workforce might play well politically. I think that's true. And you also said that women typically comprise 80% of the purchasing decision makers. Surely then a wise company would ensure that it's biggest customer base would be happy with its progressive hiring practices.

Finally, I concede it is difficult to prove causation between a gender- and race-balanced workforce, and high performance. The issue is just too complex, and as you say some firms were doing well before adding women to their Boards and management. But I would argue that such firms probably had an enlightened and progressive attitude to human resource management in general, and hence have a happier and more productive workforce. All conjecture, to be sure, but the competitive advantage of workplace diversity is built on sound research. I don't have time to dig out primary literature but there's a large body of research in the HR literature you could easily find with Google Scholar. At the very least, a progressive company would realise that discriminating against women effectively cuts access to the talent pool in half. Your arguments may be on sounder ground for unskilled and menial occupations, where hours on the job is a good surrogate for productivity. But for knowledge-economy occupations it's clear that productivity is a much more complex interplay of talent and ideas, which cannot be measured numerically by "working hours".

The purpose of Directors is to enhance shareholder value, which means a focus on those performance metrics. People's feelings are only relevant to the extent that they interfere with performance broadly measured. In lower-level groups it is even more important, especially in commercial organisations. For example, if I am having a meeting to discuss what's going to happen during the next shift, I'm interested in whether the production targets can be achieved, not whether the operators think I'm a bastard for asking them to work to capacity or do a couple of hours of overtime. Ditto if I'm involved in forward-planning to work out workforce requirements, or spending on maintenance, or a myriad other operational matters. How people feel is only relevant to the extent that an unhappy workforce is less productive, all things being otherwise equal. However, I've worked for both good and bad employers and a boss has to be pretty lousy before it becomes an issue for most people, while a good boss tends to get taken for granted after a while.

The point about the productivity gap is that it means discriminating in favour of women doesn't double the workforce capacity. If the workforce size remains the same, then as the OECD says, the capacity will be reduced. If there are insufficient men to do the work, then adding women will be better than leaving the work undone, in terms of productivity, but it will probably not be as good as it would have been if men had been able to be used. This is not in menial jobs, but across the workforce, including such knowledge-economy work as medicine.

If less hours is to produce the same output, then either the worker is more skilled/talented, or they have some advantage in work practise. It seems unreasonable to assume that women are significantly more or less talented, on the whole, while skill is largely a function of practise so those who work more hours should be more skilled, all things being equal. That leaves work practises, which would presumably also be available to their male peers, so I can't see how it can be achieved. Edison, the epitome of a knowledge-economy worker, famously said that genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. I reckon he knew a thing or two.

I note our esteemed Treasurer and PM are telling us that we need to improve national productivity. I look forward to announcements of additional funding for male students at tertiary level and programs to boost the performance of boys at school. It's obvious and would also improve equity.

Interesting discussion, Jonathan, thanks.

1. National labour productivity is measured by GDP effect, while the impact on individual firms is measured by the effect on the firm's productive output, as measured by its financial performance. The two things are not necessarily directly equivalent, because the national measure, as a GDP effect, counts extra costs of employing labour that are paid by individual firms as a contribution to GDP. It is possible for national productivity to increase, whilst firms go broke because they are not making any money because of the costs of employing labour! Economists recognise this effect and use variously-adjusted figures to make the two measures somewhat relevant to each other.

2. For the purpose of the discussion, we are indeed beasts of burden. We cannot choose not to work unless we want to experience a pretty poor life, therefore the analogy is apt. The Government is very much in the business of husbanding its resources, just as a drayman had to decide when it was appropriate to put animals in the traces and when doing so was going to slow down the whole team. He knew the difference and acted on his knowledge. The Feminist model insists that the least willing animals have to be harnessed before the ones that actually enjoy doing the work are used. Then they insist that if the team isn't pulling as well as it might, then the solution is to unharness the willing ones and find a few more of the less willing. Sheer stupidity.

3. I agree that productivity is not a complete measure, but from the POV of measuring the economic effects of workers it is probably the most useful. It can be used across industries and across sectors, with the only point of contention being the relative value of the goods and/or services being produced. As a measure of comparative performance within the same industry across time that point of contention disappears, meaning that things like changes in the gender mix within an industry can be usefully assessed for their economic effects. For measuring effects other than economic ones it is not useful at all, which is why I've confined my discussion to that on this thread. The interesting thing is that measures of happiness have declined along with productivity over the past few decades.

4. The cost of education is a direct cost to the nation that has to be justified by a concomitant return on that investment. Educating women does not return as well as educating men. The GDP contribution of providing the education is the same, but the GDP contribution of the worker produced by that education is lower, therefore it is a bad investment to preferentially educate women over men. For companies it means they have to pay additional tax to support that investment, when they will receive little benefit from doing so. I'm afraid you haven't properly thought that aspect through.

5. For a business, especially a small to medium business, providing maternity leave and covering the cost of replacement staff is a significant burden when compared to the cost of hiring a man who will not incur these costs. When added to the increased level of sick leave and other absenteeism, these are considerable imposts that make hiring women less attractive. The traditional mode of dealing with this, as the IZA study points out, is to pay women at a reduced rate. The influence of Feminist ideology on policy means that this is not permitted by law in our country. This means that it makes more sense for business to offer women part-time positions in general.

6. Trades are lower paid than professions. Some tradesmen earn exceptional money because they become self-employed and they work the hours required to do the work that pays the money. A young tradesman will be earning before a uni student has finished study, but within a few years that uni graduate will be out-earning their trades counterparts. A carpenter with say 10 years in his trade will be able to command at best around $40 an hour as wages and he will only be paid when he works, in most cases. That is a wage of about $90k for a 40 hour week. He can earn more by doing overtime and hence getting the jobs done faster, assuming there is work to support that. If it rains for a week he gets nothing, or a limited "base" wage. A professional with the same time in their profession will be on a salary of at least the same and probably a great deal more if they are good at their job. They will earn that each week regardless of how many hours they work. The professional can continue in their profession all of their working life, barring catastrophic illness or injury, while a tradesman has a limited working life in the trade before having to seek some other form of work, simply because it becomes physically too demanding. There are few tradesmen working in their trade at retirement age. Some move to self-employment or management, but the majority work out their lives in lower-paid work that may be tangentially-related to their trade. Basically, becoming a tradesman suits some young men who are full of energy and don't much like academic pursuits, but it won't make them as wealthy as a peer who chooses a profession, on average.

7. Government policy has certainly had a role to play in driving housing costs up, but it was the fact that women were working full-time that allowed them to continue to be able to be purchased at the increased price. If the capacity to pay had not existed thanks to that female participation, then the banks would not have lent as much and prices would have remained at lower levels. The policy was designed to soak up that spare cash so that it was held by banks, rather than being allowed to be spent on imported goods and thereby bugger the terms of trade even more. The policy was well-supported, because women tend to identify their status with their home presentation: a bigger, "better" home means the woman is of higher status. A man tends to obtain his status by other means and a house is just a house - "women's business". Howard bought his popularity with women by the policies that drove house prices up and he lost it when prices rose to the point that even two incomes was barely enough.

8. I agree that the work of women within the home adds to the prosperity of both the nation and the household. Monetising it simply means that some of the work goes to pay the Government via taxes, whereas if it remains a personal good all of the benefit accrues to the family. The Government is very keen to eliminate all forms of transaction that do not involve that payment to the Government, or at the very least, allow the Government to monitor the fact that the transaction has taken place. Women have bought into the silly equality argument without considering what they are losing in terms of personal autonomy and personal benefit from the work they do.

I have never disputed that some women are excellent performers. My point is that the distribution of women vs work productivity has a long, narrow tail and a large, fairly broad hump that is significantly offset to the left of the equivalent hump in the distribution for men. If we are to make policy decisions, they should be based on the hump, not the tail, since those talented and motivated women will be very able to make their own opportunities in the same way that the cream of the male crop rises. Trying to pretend that Fiona Stanley, for example, is representative of women is as doomed to failure as trying to pretend that Einstein was a typical man.

You know, I actually agree with most of what you write here. But still I find myself vehement in opposition to plenty of it.

Starting with trades vs. professions -- I know tradies making $60 or $70 per hour with ten or fifteen years' experience, and plenty of professionals whose salaries do not better $100k after ten years in the field. In my field at least, employment is fickle; retraining expenses, such as they are, are incurred repeatedly as businesses "rationalise" and grow again, fold entirely or set off in new directions. Often the only opportunity for a better than token salary increase is when starting with a new employer. Employers cost employees far more in terms of job insecurity than employees cost employers by spending time with their families. Of course that's not a valid criticism of more stable enterprises like hospitals, schools and law firms, but it applies to much of the corporate sector and many corners of the public service.

You set up an elaborate strawman with this "Feminist Model" of yours. There certainly exist people and organisations which talk about improving women's workforce participation as though this were going to improve all economic measures. But even the studies you've laid out above, while using such words, are still quite explicit about the desire and opportunity to improve workplace productivity of women, including by increasing their ability to focus on the job, as opposed to (your strawman) "unharness the willing [men] and find a few more of the less willing [women]."

But even this is a vaguely feminist-coloured bean-counter mentality and most certainly not what the feminist project as a whole has ever been about. Feminism is about granting women the rights and opportunities that men have always enjoyed -- that *does* mean equal education, and equal wages for equal work, but it never meant "the least willing animals have to be harnessed before the ones that actually enjoy doing the work are used." Feminism is perhaps most importantly about women having the ability to support themselves and their families if required.

I am sure the "broad hump to the left" you mention exists; ie. that women workers collectively contribute less directly to GDP than their male peers, and that therefore the investments society has made in ensuring educational and employment opportunities for women have perhaps not DIRECTLY increased prosperity so much as might have happened if there were a sufficient number of equally adept male students available to substitute for all the female ones. Note that this is already an exercise in fantasy.

But -- confining the discussion to economic measures -- this neglects utterly the demographic benefits of having a well-educated cadre of women in or out of work. Better-educated women, with the option of moving in and out of the workforce as they need to, and perhaps more importantly with the option of becoming independent of a husband if they need to, make themselves, their families and the society as a whole more flexible and responsive, than women who are stymied in their youth and dependent on male patronage for their economic, mental and social wellbeing. Educated women are a vital insurance policy for a society.

Educated women tend to raise smaller families later in life : their children are raised in more prosperous and secure surroundings than those of uneducated women, they are likely to achieve more highly in education themselves, and population growth is more measured than with a younger, more naïve cohort of mothers (I'm not trying to start a population debate -- my own views on population are complex).

I certainly have thought through the economic benefits of women's education to society, and I think those benefits vastly outweigh any perceived excess in costs to employers and taxpayers. That's a matter of bean-counting alone.

I take umbrage to "Women have bought into the silly equality argument without considering what they are losing in terms of personal autonomy and personal benefit from the work they do."

Weren't you the one talking about happy slaves? There is no personal autonomy for a woman if she is economically bound to men. If she *chooses* to work in the domestic economy rather than bring money in from outside, that's fine and good. But if she *cannot* work for a living wage, earn her own keep and her own self respect, then she has no "personal autonomy". If her relationship -- whether with father or husband -- turns sour her only choices are to remain his chattel, find another man to take her on, or become a "fallen woman".

In a feminist-informed society, women can stand tall with or without men. They can walk away from abusive or neglectful partners and not be driven to poverty by the necessity of raising children without support.

THIS is the whole point of feminism. Even if it did cost society more on the whole -- and I'm sure it doesn't -- it would be worth it.

http://content.mycareer.com.au/salary-centre/trades
The wages aren't what you might think. The only way people make the sort of money you're talking about is to work overtime or to be self-employed, in which case they have to be paying lots of overheads that the boss would cover for a wage-earner.

Depending on the profession, a graduate could earn more than the average ordinary-time trade wage.

The feminist model we have to deal with is the one that is entrenched in law. It has been informed and implemented by people who see women in full-time work as a part of a larger socio-political picture. The cost of implementing this change, which is considerable, is wished away by airy proclamations that it is all going to pay for itself, but the evidence is that is not true. The reason there is concern in those reports about improving female productivity is that it has remained low despite the subsidies and special treatment. This is a real problem when our prosperity is dependent on achieving good productivity, since we already have high costs of doing business, both intrinsically and imposed. The mantra is that education of women will solve the problem, but if even those who are bright enough and committed enough to obtain a medical degree can't be counted on to be as productive as their male peers, this is obviously a seriously flawed assumption and it is leading to bad outcomes.

I don't see late childbirth as a positive thing. Older parents, both men and women, are correlated strongly with lots of health problems in the offspring, yet the figures reported recently tell us that the fastest-growing cohort of new mothers is the over-45s, who have now outstripped teenagers. I haven't seen any figures on the health outcomes for the babies, but it seems likely they'll be poorer than for the children of younger parents. The kids will also have to deal with having parent(s) who are elderly and cannot do the things the children would like them to do. It's also a reality that the kids will be relatively young when the parents die. I'm not sure that increased wealth is a decent trade-off.

I'm not disputing that educating women is a public good, I'm suggesting that prioritising it over the education of men under the pretence of improving productivity s a public harm. It's not about bean-counting only, but the economic aspect is vitally important in my view. We can only do things that are desirable if they are also affordable and I do not see that reducing our national capacity to produce goods and services of value is affordable, nor do I see how denigrating men, as professional feminists do as a matter of routine, is necessary to give women the opportunity to participate in work if they want to.

I disagree that working for a wage = personal autonomy. Despite the feminist rhetoric I have known far more families in which a non-working wife controls every aspect of the family's finances and activities than those in which the woman is a domestic slave, tied to the kitchen sink. The feminist model that we have had foisted on us and you are influenced by takes it as axiomatic that women are oppressed and controlled by their husbands, when this is the exception, not the rule. A great deal of feminist rhetoric is about such exceptionalism and generalising from extremes, and it drives bad policy as a result. The fact that some women in low socio-economic areas suffer certain kinds of disadvantage doesn't make men from those areas masters of the universe, nor does it make middle-class women victims too. There is an essential dishonesty and illogic in the argument that inevitably creates bad policy outcomes.

As McKew says and has been pointed out by others, this is about creating classes where there have been none and using the resultant division for political purposes. It's about stopping people from being able to comment meaningfully and participate in a discussion among peers designed to reach a meeting of minds. After all, "he's one of those misogynists" and "right-thinking" people know that means he must be bad and bad people have no place in a decent society...

Never mind that what he's saying is that people should be freed from the weight of imposed social expectations that go against their grain and produce both unhappy people and less work; never mind that he is supportive of women's right to compete as equals within the limitations of biology (that one is especially dangerous - women must be seen as victims); never mind that he is simply saying that the purpose of society is to enable the maximal number of people to be as happy as possible, he "hates women", don't listen to him...

As a slight digression, I have long been fascinated by the success of Zionists in creating a wave of public support for the creation of the State of Israel. The movement had been going for many years with little success until the Nazi atrocities. Clever Zionists who lived n the US and Britain and had never experienced such atrocities used the revulsion of decent Gentiles at the horror perpetrated on German and Slavic Jews to create an urgent sense that something must be done to prevent this happening again and within just a couple of years Israel was declared and all the trouble began in the Middle East that continues today. The motives of all concerned were essentially good, but the outcome was obviously not ideal, since it created a new and highly intractable problem. Any effort to address the problem is met with an orchestrated outrage that relies heavily on the events in the 1940s and the one trying to address it is called "anti-Semitic", which means "Jew-hater", but has been broadened to mean "critic of Zionism".

It is highly instructive that the most influential Feminist author of "first-wave" feminism, Betty Friedan, was a Jewish girl who cut her teeth on the Zionist issue. Along with Bella Abzug, a lifelong commited Zionst, she founded the Us National Organisation for women. She wrote a very interesting tract called "Anti-feminism as a political tool:it's congruence with anti-Semitism".

The parallels between the sense of urgency that the Zionists created around their desire to have Israel declared and the sense of urgency that professional feminists have used to implement their social agenda are many and deep. I am of the view that while both causes have some justifications they need examination and they both work hard to avoid that examination by taking "offence" and labelling critics as "haters".

It will end badly.

Some good points here but it seems to me you didn't get the point about autonomy at all.

Working a waged job is not autonomy in and of itself, especially if it's paid so poorly as to be nothing more than a supplement to a primary family income. Economic autonomy consists in having the choice to go out and get a decently-paid job when you need or want to.

The clincher is when a family needs to split up. All too often in the past, economic considerations put the mother and children entirely under the thumb of an abusive or neglectful male breadwinner. This is no longer the case in this country, and it is equal pay and equal opportunity laws which we have to thank for that.

Spare me "axiomatic that women are always victims of violence, never perpetrators." It's not an axiom, it's a "left-leaning hump". Of course some abusive partners are women. Of course some victims are men. But the vast majority of cases involve male violence and female victims. For this reason it's vital that *women* have the ability to ensure safety and economic security for themselves and their children, independently of their partner.

That safety net, in and of itself, is a huge economic boon to society at large.

In the cases where domestic abuse is perpetrated by a female partner, men have always had the economic power to walk away. All the same legal protections afforded to women and their children are also available to men and their children. If (as I seem to recall you or someone like you mentioning) male complainants are laughed off by police instead of being afforded the protection the police are obliged to provide in cases of male-on-female domestic violence, that's a serious institutional problem which needs to be addressed at a cultural level within the police force -- and it wouldn't be the only such problem.

As for attempting to shut down arguments by crying "misogyny" in the same way as Zionists often assume they can do by crying "anti-semitism" -- your complaint would be valid if it worked. Thankfully, it doesn't. Sane intelligent human beings are very much able to see that criticism of the policies of Israel does not equate to anti-Jewish racism or even anti-Israeli nationalism. Calling critics "anti-semites" or (worse) "self-hating Jews" does not silence them and only serves to highlight the blinkered Zionist allegiance of the speaker. Much the same applies to the (few) feminists who reflexively describe every criticism of women or of feminism as misogyny : people just stop listening. However in neither case does this mean that the terms sexist, misogynist, racist and anti-semite don't have genuine application to certain people or behaviour. To the extent that feminists refrain from using the words "sexist" and "misogynist" where they simply don't apply, they don't

Politically speaking, feminism and Zionism are in very different positions. Feminism is about affording equality to people who are inside *every* society and have no desire or ability to separate themselves from other nations. Zionism as a movement began with a plan to create a separate, independent nation for Jews and since the resounding success of that mission its role has transformed into one of protecting Israel's interests, right or wrong, even as Israel wields enormous power and suppresses a nation of people (a nation formerly fluidly blending into its neighbours as a part of a much broader ethnic grouping, now clearly delineated solely by its "special relationship" with Israel itself). Feminism's success has been great, but always gradual and never complete. Criticisms of feminist policy are not criticisms of violent systematic oppression, for unlike Zion there is no Feminaziland and never can be.

Paul, your views on management reflect your background in a Government sheltered workshop rather than having a great deal of application to a real word in which profitability determines survival.

In the "real world", none of the other aspects that you so proudly proclaim as "modern" can happen if the firm goes out of business. As you have spent your career within the CSIRO it's perhaps not surprising that this simple fact has escaped you, nor is it surprising that as an aspirant senior bureaucrat within the organisation you'd be espousing public service policies.

I have been in management at both the functional unit level and more senior group management roles, as well as running my own businesses. I can assure you that the principal concern of boards I've had to report to is profit and that other aspects are only as important as their impact on that profitability. Employee satisfaction is measured against its impact on productivity, not as an absolute. High dissatisfaction can be tolerated if productivity is also high. Of course, in Government that rule does not apply, since dissatisfied employees take the generous "stress leave" entitlements and leave the workplace short-staffed. It's funny how public servants are so much more prone to being stressed than those of us who aren't in such a sheltered working environment, don't you think?

If labour is short, then it makes sense to use whatever is available, as you say, but my point is that labour is short in your industry because women have been preferentially selected for at tertiary level and "management" has been prioritised over productive endeavour. As the OECD said in regard to medical staffing: "all things being equal, an increase in female participation WILL lead to a reduction in capacity". In other words, we have failed to properly resource our nation because of silly ideological decision-making and a desire to be "modern" instead of productive. It's instructive, but depressing, that the paper this morning tells us we are awash in "business and finance" graduates while science and technology grads are declining in number.

The fact is that our national productivity has not dramatically improved despite huge advances in technology and a massive increase in female workforce participation over the past 30 or 40 years. I say to your that this is because of the focus on extraneous factors that you so proudly tell me are "modern", but which are essentially counter-productive. We do not exist in a vacuum and that lack of productivity is a real problem that all the enlightenment in the world won't wish away.

As for Edison, I could as usefully have picked any number of outstanding thinkers who were all famously driven by their work, including some outstanding women, such as Rosalind Franklin or Marie Curie (yes, both dirty-handed experimentalists, but nonetheless knowledge workers who have influenced their fields generations later). It's hard to imagine either of them arguing that less time at work produces equivalent output. I think that's one of the most bizarre arguments I've ever seen. It might be a reasonable proposition if people were being worked into the ground and given inadequate breaks, but I don't think there's much of that sort of thing going on at CSIRO.

There is no substitute for putting in the time, no matter what you are doing. All things being equal, the one who does will always do better than the one who doesn't.

Dude, you are picking one of examples to justify a label

IE> you are doing it backwards

If it walks like a duck - talks like a duck - and looks like a duck

Gillard listed multiple situations, direct quotes, and displayed that there was an ongoing attitude towards women that were disrespectful and offensive directly related to her gender....thats a little different than what you jst did

BTW the chaplincy is prejudice against everyone who is not a christian, it invites christians into the school but not hindu's not muslims not jehova witness, not quackers, not atheists and not agnostics - so yes you are right about that, it is bigotry and special treatment for a few

aare you on JG's payrole?

Dear Michael (dude?)
You (and Megan) may be entirely justified in your views and history may judge me harshly as an "appeaser" or a "collaborator" for my failure to speak up loudly in this forum to condemn certain people and their views. But my points were two-fold: (1) There are plenty of fora in which to throw around names - e.g. the tabloid press, commecial talk radio, houses of parliament - without bringing the practice onto a site that purports to foster "conversation" based on "academic rigour" (of which I don't see much in this article) and (2) I believe that what this country needs more than name-calling (and the labelling and pre-judging of our opponents) is reasoned dialogue and debate - whether it be on RU486, same-sex marriage, climate change, constitutional recognition of indigenous people, welfare reform etc.

I agree with much of what you said but I didnt call you names? I didnt insult you at all

I agree that name calling is not useful but unless you are implying that gillards speech was baseless accusations then I am not sure what you are reffering to

Actually, "dude", I believe he was referring to your own penchant for childish abuse...

"women refugees off to rot just ' -Its terrible but not sexist - it happens to both genders fairly equally

"wonder if stripping women and kids of income just because they are single" - Im sorry but what are you refferring to here?

Marilyn is talking about forcing single parents onto the Newstart allowance when their youngest child turns 8 years old, rather than paying them the parenting payment they receive now. This will mean that many single parents will be worse off financially. This applies to both male and female single parents, but as the majority of single parents are female, some people believe this is a policy that targets women. This policy is the continuation of the policy originally proposed and enacted by the Howard government, which this government has continued to implement.

i concur - as far as i know misogyny is not a verb. if anyone knows a passage where misogyny is used as a verb, and does not result in a grammatical howler, i'd like to see it. i'll forward it to the oxford philologists - if such a usage exists anywhere, they need to know. -a.v.

"There is no noun in English that can’t be verbed"

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/conversion

(It may be done artfully, or conversely it may result in an idiotic neologism, but it's true all the same)

In that case, it's the verb form of the word that would be a verb - e.g. to mysogynise / mysogynize.

Dictionaries usually state the different grammatical forms of the word.

I was speaking specifically of "zero derivation". "To mysogyny" might be a linguistic abomination, but there's no rule that forbids you from coining it in English just because there's a more appropriate form. Worse things have been done ("to trial" and "to mouse" are my pet hates).

my least favourite zero derivation is "to example"
unfortunately for the/us pedants, zero derivation and back-formation and other derivations and misapplications can be applied to pretty much any word class except articles and then gain acceptance through usage: viz, editors now allow "could of" in place of "could've" or "could have".

you're right, Jonathan Maddox. but my challenge is to find a citation in contemporary australian usage of misogyny as a verb. i don't think its out there. yet. but as you say its feasible & i have no problem there..

the author, though, wants macquarie to "note" (her word) that misogyny is a verb as well as a noun when there is no evidence of it being used in the australian speech community as a verb.

so ,what is the author asking for in wanting macquarie to "note" misogyny is a verb as well as a noun, when it clearly isn't a verb? i don't know, but it betrays a poor understanding of how dictionaries work. it is, figuratively speaking, putting the cart before the horse. dictionaries follow usage & its not the job of dictionary compilers to just "make it so" at anyone's urging.

if the author wants macquarie to "note" misogyny as a verb, as well as a noun, then she needs to "make it so" herself. that is, she & other like minded writers & speakers, need to start using misogyny as a verb in their own writing & speaking. and, if they want to move the process along, they should also send citations showing their use of misgyny as a verb to macquarie. and macquarie will file it. and, when there's enough evidence that others in the australian speech community are using misogyny as a verb, too, then macquarie will "broaden" its definition to account for that fact if & when it comes to pass.

and, finally, sue butler did not, as misleadingly asserted in the caption under her picture, "redefine" misogyny. the australian speech community "redefined" misogyny, through its repeated (mis) use of the word in the sense now documented in macquarie. sue butler (belatedly?) "broadened" (see the press release) the definition in the macquarie dictionary to account for that fact. -a.v.

and what is the correct plural today? is it "mediums" or is it "medias". -a.v.

Agreed. Nobody uses the verb "to misogyny". I think the author's choice of words was quite poor, actually.

I had an interesting discussion on this subject once when someone whose words and manner were called out as sexist defended himself on the grounds that he was being accused of a "thought crime" and no-one but he knew just what he was thinking, therefore there was no evidence, and indeed he was only thinking respectful things about the women he was insulting.

No-one judges Tony Abbott, or anyone else, on their thoughts. All we judge them by is their words and their actions, some of which in Abbott's case as a Minister in the federal government affected millions.

Misogyny can therefore be described as an *action*, it is not a mere emotion (though it would equally be valid to catalogue a list of acts to which misogyny applies as an adjective or adverb). Perhaps this is what Megan Clement-Couzner meant when she asserted that the word is a verb.

Classically, "media"; commonly, "mediums".

i agree David Boxall. it was late last century i first read "mediums", outside theosophy, in a microsoft office manual. back when they still packed a printed & bound manual with the product. how times have changed. i first heard "medias" this year on a panel show. i guess they'll have to duke it out in pit of popular usage to see which eventually prevails and makes it into a future edition of macquarie. personally, i've completely given up on helping medium/media, datum/data (rare, but), criterion/criteria, &c., to survive. except in my own writing. they're doomed. -a.v.

alfred venison: "... first heard "medias" this year ...". Let's see; that would be the plural of a plural or more likely a sign of of deficient education. Now to tackle those who regularly confuse "than" with "then".

Friends,

Much as I like to be a grammar pedant myself, and sort of enjoyed learning many elegant prescriptive rules when corrected by my dad at the dinner table (I certainly didn't learn them at school), I think Stephen Pinker makes a marvellous case here that anyone setting themselves up as a "grammar maven" is setting themselves up for a fall ... or at least, for potential gross misunderstanding, not only of people speaking with "deficient education" but also of real poetry.

http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/1994_01_24_thenewrepublic.html

Craig this one is obvious brotha,

So a man deciedes what to do with his body by putting his penis in a vagina

A women gets pregnant and deciedes what to do with her body by keeping the children

We hold adults responsible for their children in this country - everyone involved had complete control over their bodies and the decisions they made - if you dont want to get a women pregnant then you can wear a condom, you can try to pull out in time or you can jst masturbate at home by yourself or with friends and family

I dont see where anyone was not in control of their bodies or their person

You argue that the man has no say in whether she has an abortion - Wear a condom, get a vasectomy (Actually really safe), do it in the anus, mutaully masturbate, ensure you have confidence in your partner why dont you take responsibility

No matter how you slice this cake it doesnt end with you getting to deciede whether someone else has an abortion or not

Nobody is suggesting anyone should be forced to have an abortion, simply that the man should have the choice to opt-out of being a part of the woman's new family if he had no intention of being a party to founding it.

There is no way for a man to verify if a woman is indeed fertile, or if she is assiduously taking her contraceptive medication. If she assures him that she is and she decides to proceed with allowing sex without a condom (remember, "no means no", implying the power is all hers) why must he face the consequences of her decision?

It's not "obvious" at all, Michael, it's simply "how it is". Would you agree that since Aboriginals have historically been at the low end of the socio-economic scale then it is "obvious" that they must always remain that way, or would you say it's an obvious unjust situation that should be addressed?

Sorry I get it now, What you are saying is that you dont want to be held accountable for your actions if the consequences are not to your suiting

No Michael, I am saying I don't want to be held accountable for HER actions...

"No Michael, I am saying I don't want to be held accountable for HER actions..." - It takes 2 to tango

If you impregnate a women and it results in kids - you acted in this, you played your part

You have to take responsibility for your actions, females do not get pregnant on their own mate

Michael, "obtaining benefit by false pretences" is a criminal action.

Why must a man be bound by the decision of a woman who commits a criminal action to obtain his consent?

Is this a big concern of yours? that women are going around lying to men and then getting pregnant in order to be a single mother

Again, take responsibility for your actions - Use appropriate protection

Yeah....life is complex and yeah, it doesnt always go the way you want it to.

You have to take responsibilities for your actions

If you are this concerned about impregnating someone - abstain, vasectomy, condoms, non PIV sex, etc

Take responsibility for your actions

Sorry mate, this is the English language, we are barbarians and we DO change the meanings of our words over time. Not that "misogyny" ever didn't imply "prejudice against women". Think about it.

I am sorry, I did not appreciate your self confessed bastardness.

She states she is a femenist at the top and also this information is freely available on this website

Also being a feminist is not a conflict of interest when dealing with sexism, its more of a qualification if anything

In the same way that being a humanist isnt a conflict of interest when talking about human rights

It's not the fact that she's a feminist, it's the fact that she is a feminist who has a working relationship with an organisation that benefits from espousal of feminism. The disclosure of that relationship should e part of the statement, just as disclosure of one's affiliation with (say) a political party would be reasonable and failure to do so would leave one open to accusations of seeking to mislead.

You are fond of throwing around the label "MRA", what is your point with that?

" it's the fact that she is a feminist who has a working relationship with an organisation that benefits from espousal of feminism. " - Wow...who would of thought

I dont see the problem

Commenting as a humanist on human rights whilst belonging to a humanists society isnt a conflict of interest

But somehow being a feminist and commenting on sexism whilt belogning to a feminist organisation is?

Why the double standard?

Nobody is discussing conflicts of interest, Michael, we are discussing confluence of interests.

Speaking of double standards, I note you dodged the question about your references to "MRA"...

"Nobody is discussing conflicts of interest, Michael, we are discussing confluence of interests." - Right....this information is clearly available on this website and her being a feminist is stated against her name on the top of this page and to be shocked that someone who identifies as a feminist is also part of a feminist group is silly

As for MRA - no I do not identify as a mens right activist

You are entirely right. The definitions of misogyny and misandry are dissimilar because the words are used differently. If relations between the sexes in English-speaking societies were perfectly symmetrical, the words would probably have perfectly complementary meanings.

Dictionaries are under no obligation to enforce symmetry of meaning between different but complementary-sounding words. The job of dictionaries is to document usage.

The definitions do not "reveal a deeper more entrenched sexism", the reflect it. They document the changing usage of the words throughout a long history of feminism and the backlash against it, and a much, much longer history of sexism before that.

The Prime Minister is not dividing Australia along gender lines. She is uniting it against sexism. I'm proud to be a man and proud to stand with Julia Gillard on this subject, though I differ with her on most others.

I call Godwin.

"To argue that one who takes a moral position is therefore a misogynist is descending into the same pit" - A Moral position can be misogynistic - and if you hold that position then you hold a misogynistic position

For instance, the taliban's view that keeping half the population in cloth bags because of their gender is morally correct according to them, in the same way that anti-abortion is morally correct according to Abbott.

both are anti-women, anti-choice positions

I think where you are getting confused is there is a difference between you not having an abortion because of your morals....its another thing entirely to prevent others from having an abortion because of your morals

In both cases you are making decisions on behalf of women and these are not your choices to make

Preventing women from having control over there bodies is descrimination based on gender - regardless of your motivation

Your actions will end up affecting females the most, it will affect females of lower socio economic backgrounds harsher than anyone else

You could be in fact ruining someones life or multiple peoples lives, with out access to abortion there will be some women who cant finish Uni or high school, there will others that have to drop out of their job or find other work. There will be females that have to change the entire course of their lives because of some politicians personal belief - It is in essence removing the rights of women to have control over their bodies

You dont have to have an abortion but Voting against a womens right to make that decision is sexist

"based on discrimination in favour of one disadvantaged group ("unborn babies") " - Whenever people claim knowledge they either do not know or could not possibly know we get into trouble

Heres the thing - medically a featus is not an unborn baby

If it was then our laws would reflect this but its not

Do you have any evidence that a featus is an unborn baby or is it jst your personal belief?

To replace facts with opinions or personal beliefs is not the right way to govern.

Medically and Legally an Abortion is not killing an Unborn Baby and to claim that it is is fine.....believe what you want

However to legislate on your personal beleifs which contradict our current understanding from scientific evidence is wrong

You cannot replace facts with opinion and then legislate based on your own personal veiws

There are no valid "interests" of other people besides the prospective mother who would "want a baby to be born". It's her body; she is responsible for the foetus until it is born; she will be the primary and possibly only person responsible for the child if it is born; the decision to bear it to term is hers.

While one would hope she will consult with her partner, her other immediate family, and other people she respects and might hope for support from, the decision to do so and the ultimate decision to bear a child, or not, rests with her.

Attempting to impose any restriction on her choice may rightfully be considered extremely reactionary, given the progress made in the last half-century in assuring women's reproductive rights.

Jonathan Maddox,
If one replaces "airline pilot" with "mother" there would appear to be some flaws in your logic.
According to your logic, a heroin-addicted mother or an alcoholic mother are perfectly entitled to give birth to babies who share their problems and society must deal with their complete lack of responsibility.
There is an argument that the child has a right to be born, and that the foetus should be harvested from dysfunctional creatures before they are condemned to a lifetime of both biological and social abuse.
I would be interested to read a response.

Wow; does anybody have a mop to clean up the bile?

David,

That would be the job of those who are foolish enough to continue supporting this mendacious hatemonger.

You know, the ones who encourage her instead of calling her out over her putrid abuse.

Your passion amazes me. You evidently hate Gillard and hatred is generally a manifestation of fear. I think Abbott's barking mad, but I don't fear him as you evidently fear Gillard.

David,

It isn't that I hate Gillard, it is that I hate the lies, dishonesty, smear and hatemongering which are the defining characteristics of her approach to politics.

If she is unable to justify herself without taking this approach then her approach quite clearly cannot be justified at all.

To paraphrase: I will not take lessons in honesty, probity or integrity from that woman.

The sooner public life is relieved of her malign influence the better.

Actually David it is possible on the facts available to have a profound disrespect or Gillard, not only based on her political incompetence but also upon her character - as is becoming increasingly clear. This has nothing to do with fear. It is about her record as a politician and as a professional. Time of course will tell - but the murky waters are becoming clearer as each day passes.

Chris Harper: "... I hate the lies, dishonesty, smear and hatemongering ...". And the difference is ...?

I don't see much to differentiate one mob of liars from the other. Where's your evidence that the alternative would be better? Where's your evidence that it wouldn't be worse?

A comedian once compared governments to babies' nappies; both must be changed every now and then - and for the same reasons. I'm not convinced that the alternative isn't crappier than what we have.

I don't particularly like Gillard, but I've been impressed by the strength and courage she's shown in the face of Abbott's vicious attacks. Abbott hasn't shown up as favourably.

To be honest, neither of the majors has convinced me that they deserve to govern in their own right. If justice is served, the next parliament will hang higher than the current one. If that happens, then the coalition will need a leader who's capable of negotiating it into government.

Judith,

"but I've been impressed by the strength and courage she's shown in the face of Abbott's vicious attacks."

I'm sorry, but I really do believe that this claim is baseless. There have been no such vicious attacks by Mr Abbott, but an unding stream of lies, abuse and smear from the government benches. Earlier this year the Prime Ministers office even went so far as to incite a race riot and then did a swan dive right into the sewer by attempting to smear Mr Abbott with the blame.

I am aware that progressives tend to have a loathing of any criticism at all, they being on the side of the angels and all, but criticising Ms Gillards policies and capability as Prime Minister is quite within the role of Leader of the Opposition.

David,

Can you give specific examples of any vicious attacks by Mr Abbott which compare with the hate mongering which is the constant refrain spewed by this government?

Hell, have the Opposition even mentioned the fraud she helped a former boyfriend to perpetrate? The number of marriages she helped wreck by shacking up with married men? How feminist was comparing married women with prostitutes? You think Mr Abbott would have been allowed to live down anything like her history?

Ms Gillard has had the easiest ride imaginable. Strength? Courage? Pah, she hasn't even been tested yet.

David,

Still waiting for details of these vicious attacks by Mr Abbott on Ms Gillard that you referred to. Are you willing to demonstrate that your comment was more than just a baseless smear?

Examples on a par with the abuse the government delivers to Mr Abbott on a regular basis are all that's necessary.

David,

You allege vicious attacks by Mr Abbott on the Prime Minister, but you fail to provide evidence of a single one. let alone evidence of anything similar to the putrid campaign of abuse, smear and defamation under parliamentary privilege which has been the approach of this rotten government, let by a rotten leader. Am I to assume, at this point, that your silence is an acknowledgement that your comments were just another of the dishonest and baseless smears which have become one of the defining characteristics of the progressive approach to politics?

Such an artless troll! The wise don't answer such questions.

Meanwhile, Abbott has made a spectacle of himself internationally - again (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/abbott-gives-birth-to-another-faux-pas-20121023-283k4.html). Seems he can't help himself.

Charles Brown: "The wise don't answer such questions." I don't claim to be wise, but I did spot the troll (though I first interpreted it as mere sophistry) and resist the temptation to answer. Anyone reading will make up their own mind about Abbott.

Charles Brown: "... an artless troll!" An artful troll could bully an answer from a bowling ball. Chris' persistence might qualify as artful, if it succeeded.

Charles Brown: "... Abbott has made a spectacle of himself ...". It does seem that gender bias is so fundamental to Abbott that it will express, no matter how hard he tries to suppress it. Would he benefit from professional help, I wonder?

I'm amused that Chris tacitly acknowledges that an Abbott government could well be worse than what we have. For what it's worth, I reckon the Liberals' choice of leader shows that they haven't learned the lesson that the electorate sent.

The elephant in this room is Chris' passion. It smacks of frustration, for which there's no sense in the absence of a sexual element. Could it be that Chris has the hots for Julia? For Tony?

Peter Sommerville: "... it is possible on the facts available ...". As it's possible to infer Abbott's mentality.

Charles,

You said: 'Meanwhile, Abbott has made a spectacle of himself internationally - again...Seems he can't help himself."

Seriously? You actually wrote this?

You do know it is the job of the opposition to point out the failings of the government don't you? It is no part of the role of the Leader of the Opposition to give the Government free passes what they demonstrate themselves to be incompetents? As they have done in their latest example of their failings as financial managers?

It is not that he can't help himself, but it is actually his job (true, it truly is - shocking isn't it?) to hold the government to account and to take the p**s whenever they give him the opportunity? As they did with their latest b**ls up with the nations finances.

You are aware of this bit of his job, aren't you? Or do you seriously think that he should be as sycophantic as Fairfax and the ABC? Although I notice that the Age has FINALLY started to report a little on the AWU fraud that Julia is linked to.

You do know how our system of government works don't you? Or is it that you just don't believe that this morally bankrupt shower should be held accountable on a day to day basis? Or is it that Ms Gillard is a girl and you don't think that girls should have to put up with being held to account? Poor Julia, delicate petal that she is, seems to get an attack of the vapours whenever she is subject to the slightest criticism. This from someone who has reached the premier position in Australian politics having struggled through the snakepit which is labour politics, and emerged triumphant.

Chris, with his snide reference to Gillards childlessness, Abbott was not doing his job. He revealed that he's a low animal who's not fit for decent company, let alone high office. The electorate and the international community recognise that, even though you willfully blind yourself to it.

David I have deliberately refrained from commenting on the thread that descends from your initial comment. Until now.

We all have different views based on our personal biases. I accept that.

What I can't accept is the absolute hypocrisy of the ALP's attack on Tony Abbot. I am not a fan of Abbot but the ALP's vindictiveness on this issue is reprehensible.

Julia Gillard is known to have opposed increases in age pensions on the basis that old age pensioners don't vote Labour. Is this ageism? There are numerous examples of her intolerance and bias.

It is very easy to throw labels around. You seem to accept the labels being attached to Tony Abbot. In which case are your also prepared to ignore the serious questions being raised about our PM's integrity as a practicing lawyer( a profession from which she was sacked and which she never resumed) and indeed her behaviour as a politician - as described by a labour stalwart, in a book about to be released.

Your personal prejudices seem to be blinding you to the facts. McTernan was assigned to Gillards staff for only one purpose - perhaps you should seriously consider the ethics of his performance, as demonstrated so clearly by the use of Emily's listed politicians to traduced the leader of the opposition. Take off your blinkers for a while and look at the reality.

Peter Sommerville: "... I have deliberately refrained from commenting on the thread that descends from your initial comment." The initial comment was Chris Harper's, characterising Gillard as "... a vile and hate filled person ...".

As for the rest; mate, they're politicians. As the comedian said, like babies' nappies. I just judge Abbott as totally unfit to lead the nation. Too aggressive; probably psychopathic; gender biased to the point of unbalance.

Gillard's actually done pretty well with the whole sh!t sandwich. I wouldn't leave Labor in government for too long, but the coalition hasn't spent long enough in the wilderness. Their behaviour is still far too arrogant.

As I see it, the next election looks like resulting in another hung parliament. I can't see any of the established parties increasing their representation. My guess is that there will be more independents. The best negotiator will end up in government.

Charles; Abbott is a bit of a worry, but "low animal" might be somewhat harsh. Abbott can't help behaving like a sexist prat; gender bias seems to be woven into every fabric of his being. It oozes out no matter how hard he tries to conceal his basic nature.

You've made the mistake of responding to the troll. That's just given it an opportunity to regurgitate more bile. Best to resist the temptation. It whines about not getting answers, but I'll take this opportunity to point out that I've answered Chris' questions no less than he's answered mine.

As for Abbott, I've said before that I reckon he's unfit to lead the nation. Apart from his extreme gender bias, his aggression and liking for violent sports don't impress me as statesmanlike. As I've said before, taking everything into consideration, I consider his personality psychopathic. The "Action Man" persona he cultivates is far too redolent of Vladimir Putin for my liking.

David,

You said: “Gillard's actually done pretty well with the whole sh!t sandwich.”

The Rudd/Gillard governments were handed rivers of gold. In the last five years we have experienced the best terms of trade in many a decade, government revenues have increased by over 5% per annum, and are now over one hundred billion dollars higher, per year, than they were under Mr Howard.

Rudd/Gillard were handed an economy without debt, but in the five years of one of the greatest booms in Australian history they have been unable to deliver a balanced budget, let alone a surplus, even once. In the middle of a boom this lot have been so utterly incompetent, so spendthrift and profligate, without a care for even the short term, that it has taken them only five years to run out of money. They have really and truly run out of money – yet they keep announcing new spending.

Look at the mining tax, revenue from the Minerals Rent Tax, which its originators acknowledge is a short term tax on a booming but fluctuating industry, have been allocated to pay for structural benefits…..

In other words, when the boom ends and the money ceases flowing, the year on year liability will continue – albeit without the revenue to fund it. How smart was that? Putting aside the minor point that the sodding tax has already failed in its aim, however much Mr Swan prevaricates.

There is no one living left to tax, so they are now garnisheeing the incomes of children yet unborn to pay for current waste. It will take decades to clear the debt and they aren’t doing anything more than pretending concern.

Sorry, but if there is a sh!t sandwich involved anywhere, it is one entirely of their own manufacture, without any help from anyone bar their buddies on the front bench.

To call them incompetent is praise indeed. What a shower this lot are.

David,

Great comment I just read elsewhere and thought I might share.

Basically you would have us believe that:
“The average Aussie is that dumb that they believe a man who is a volunteer lifesaver, firefighter, teacher’s aid in remote Aboriginal communities, runs marathons for charity, competes in Iron Man triathalons and has a wife and three kids is less fit to be Prime Minister than an unmarried childless trollop who has had at least two affairs with married men, has been involved in setting up union slush funds which were used for criminal activities, lied about her involvement in setting up the fund, used legal tactics to stop investigation of that fund which, by the way, has had all files go missing on both sides of the country, who stated she had full confidence in the member for Dobell, promoted a sleazy individual to the second highest position in the lower house and had the chutzpah to call Abbott a misogynist.”

Except that there were at least three, not two, affairs with married men, and she fought to keep the sleazy individual in the highest position in the lower house, not the second highest.

Nice type of person you admire there.

Given the way she plays on her sex, incessantly, the gender specific term ‘trollop’ is probably acceptable as a description of this amoral individual. Of course, if Ms Gillard were truly a feminist and eschewed the “You can’t criticise me because I am a girl” argument, if she followed the approach used by Margaret Thatcher for instance, and argued her position in the issues instead of holding up her girl bits as a shield against any well-deserved criticism, then any gender specific terminology would have been inappropriate. Although, on that basis, the entire Anglospheric left must have been rampantly misogynist in those days, given the gender specific abuse Mrs Thatcher received not just in her time, but continues to receive even today.

Another comment I read:
“It is quite possible to dislike Gillard, hate Gillard, loathe Gillard, and all her incompetent ministers – be they male or female – and not have a hatred of women or entrenched prejudice against women. Gillard is just not good enough to hold the high office that she occupies and should be treated with the contempt that she has earned.”

The problem you, and many others, have is you confuse a loathing of amoral incompetence in a specific and individual woman with a loathing of women in general. Very questionable intellectual linkage there.

"The average Aussie is that dumb that ":
- they don't recognise propaganda when it's shovelled at them,
- they don't realise that politics doesn't attract saints,
- they don't see that history reveals those who try hardest to appear saintly are anything but.

" there were at least three, not two, affairs with married men, " Is that true? If it was true and Gillard was a male member of the Liberal party, would you be so offended?

Charles Brown: "... politics doesn't attract saints". I know of no politician that I wouldn't classify as Machiavellian. It's on record (http://david.boxall.id.au/abbott.html) that I regard Abbot as Diabolic. So, between Gillard and Abbott, we have a choice between Machiavellian and Diabolic Machiavellian.

Charles Brown: "... history reveals those who try hardest to appear saintly are anything but." Chris Harper: "[Abbott] ... is a volunteer lifesaver, firefighter, teacher’s aid in remote Aboriginal communities, runs marathons for charity, competes in Iron Man triathalons ...".