"Brettg" <brettg@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3f20a73f$1_1@no-spam
> . . . . . . . why Australian men should be discriminated
> against, when it comes time to decide upon custody arrangements.
> .
> It's because they don't do enough housework apparently.
>
> These articles ALWAYS start popping up whenever talk of making
> the divorce and child-support laws fairer to men. Those feminists
> harpies just can't let the media start talking about things that
> might benefit men, even it would also benefit their children I
> guess.
>
> The worst part is that I'm paying this bitches salary.
>
> Prue Goward is the Australian equivalent of the British EOC,
> but here she is called the "Sexual Discrimination Commissioner",
> a much more apt title IMO, it perfectly describes her function,
> which is to, simply put, design and enforce policies that sexually
> discriminate against men.
I hate it when people who are supposed to be reducing discrimination
actually increase it.
There's a good opinion piece on this in the Sydney Morning Herald:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/28/1059244559445.html
An extract:
Dr Michael Bittman, of the University of NSW, has found that fathers see
their commitment to paid work as the major barrier to being effective
parents, with 68 per cent of fathers unhappy about not spending enough time
with children.
So women are hardly marching in the streets demanding their husbands work
shorter hours. Hell, no. It's clear that most wives feel it is in their
family's interest to keep their husband's nose to the grindstone, even if it
means he misses out on time with children.
And men are also accepting of this arrangement - until their marriages fall
apart. For it is then the crunch comes and breadwinning dads lose out badly.
That's the irony. The married men who once were rated most highly by their
wives - as partners and as fathers - then have their willingness to support
their families count against them.
When it comes to a battle over custody, men who worked those long hours are
least likely to be allowed shared care and usually end up as visiting
fathers with fortnightly contact.
In fact, the divorced father wanting to see more of his children may be
required by the Family Court to keep working those long hours to maintain
his ex-family in the manner to which they are accustomed - a particularly
cruel twist.
Suggesting married men drop back to part-time work to spend more time with
children might set them up for post-divorce custody settlements but it isn't
going to pay the mortgage or allow mothers time to be with their families.
It will be a sad thing for our society if this debate convinces men that
breadwinning is a mug's game and they should look out for number one - just
in case.
"VVVVVVV" <nospam@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3f25fea4$0$11110$afc38c87@no-spam
>
> "Brettg" <brettg@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3f20a73f$1_1@no-spam
> > . . . . . . . why Australian men should be discriminated
> > against, when it comes time to decide upon custody arrangements.
> > .
> > It's because they don't do enough housework apparently.
> >
> > These articles ALWAYS start popping up whenever talk of making
> > the divorce and child-support laws fairer to men. Those feminists
> > harpies just can't let the media start talking about things that
> > might benefit men, even it would also benefit their children I
> > guess.
> >
> > The worst part is that I'm paying this bitches salary.
> >
> > Prue Goward is the Australian equivalent of the British EOC,
> > but here she is called the "Sexual Discrimination Commissioner",
> > a much more apt title IMO, it perfectly describes her function,
> > which is to, simply put, design and enforce policies that sexually
> > discriminate against men.
>
> I hate it when people who are supposed to be reducing discrimination
> actually increase it.
>
> There's a good opinion piece on this in the Sydney Morning Herald:
>
> http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/28/1059244559445.html
>
> An extract:
>
> Dr Michael Bittman, of the University of NSW, has found that fathers see
> their commitment to paid work as the major barrier to being effective
> parents, with 68 per cent of fathers unhappy about not spending enough
time
> with children.
>
> So women are hardly marching in the streets demanding their husbands work
> shorter hours. Hell, no. It's clear that most wives feel it is in their
> family's interest to keep their husband's nose to the grindstone, even if
it
> means he misses out on time with children.
>
> And men are also accepting of this arrangement - until their marriages
fall
> apart. For it is then the crunch comes and breadwinning dads lose out
badly.
>
> That's the irony. The married men who once were rated most highly by their
> wives - as partners and as fathers - then have their willingness to
support
> their families count against them.
>
> When it comes to a battle over custody, men who worked those long hours
are
> least likely to be allowed shared care and usually end up as visiting
> fathers with fortnightly contact.
>
> In fact, the divorced father wanting to see more of his children may be
> required by the Family Court to keep working those long hours to maintain
> his ex-family in the manner to which they are accustomed - a particularly
> cruel twist.
>
> Suggesting married men drop back to part-time work to spend more time with
> children might set them up for post-divorce custody settlements but it
isn't
> going to pay the mortgage or allow mothers time to be with their families.
>
> It will be a sad thing for our society if this debate convinces men that
> breadwinning is a mug's game and they should look out for number one -
just
> in case.
>
It is so obvious what dolt needs convincing.
As others will doubtless point out, this kind of feminist thinking is
by no means peculiar to Australia. Furthermore, it can exist only in
societies where men are unable or unwilling to stand up for themselves
in issues where the interests of the two sexes are in conflict.
In the U.S., there have been several cases where even stay-at-home
husbands were unable to get custody after divorce. I myself had some
marginal involvement in a case several years ago, where a senior woman
lawyer on the Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington "lost" custody of
her children to her husband, who had a far more flexible work schedule
than she had. There was a huge amount of publicity at the time, and the
feminist harpies all started screaming about how unfair it was to
penalize working women in this way.
Ultimately, the rules governing the conduct of Senate staffers were
bent to allow this woman to hold fund-raisers to help her fight the
custody decision. The argument, pushed by a CONSERVATIVE, Sen. Orrin
Hatch (R-Utah), was that the Senate's interests would be damaged if
female staffers thought that, by working hard, they could lose custody
of their children. Not a word about how this was exactly what had
happened to thousands of MALE Senate staffers!
I don't know what ultimately happened in this case. I just ran a check
on the woman's name, and I see that she became a federal judge. The
U.S. organization Mothers Without Custody mentions the custody dispute
on their website, but it is entirely possible that the woman ultimately
DID regain custody. That certainly would be the typical pattern in the
U.S., where the glass ceiling on paternal custody remains firmly in
place.
Brettg wrote:
>
> . . . . . . . why Australian men should be discriminated
> against, when it comes time to decide upon custody arrangements.
> .
> It's because they don't do enough housework apparently.
>
> These articles ALWAYS start popping up whenever talk of making
> the divorce and child-support laws fairer to men. Those feminists
> harpies just can't let the media start talking about things that
> might benefit men, even it would also benefit their children I
> guess.
>
> The worst part is that I'm paying this bitches salary.
>
> Prue Goward is the Australian equivalent of the British EOC,
> but here she is called the "Sexual Discrimination Commissioner",
> a much more apt title IMO, it perfectly describes her function,
> which is to, simply put, design and enforce policies that sexually
> discriminate against men.
>
> She says "shared parenting begins before divorce". Well
> Prue, apparently most women don't realise this fact because,
> quite frankly, they guard the gates of parenting quite
> enthusastically in my experience. What they (and I suspect
> Prue herself) really want is somebody to act as mummys
> "gofer" and psuedo baby-sitter. That all decision making
> regarding the children is to remain the sole domain of the
> mother goes without saying.
>
> And being a typical socialist feminist, she nags at Australian
> men, telling them that they must share the "career sacrifices
> needed to raise families."
>
> That men must do this whilst still maintaining a suitably high
> income to ensure Mommy Dearest is able to enjoy all of the
> creature comforts she so richly deserves goes, again , without
> saying of course.
>
> Listening to the crap that comes out of the mouths of bitches
> like Prue Goward reminds me why I will never marry a
> woman again.
>
> Prue is one part of a three pronged attack that is being waged
> against Australian men today. Being a "friend" of our Conservative
> Prime Minister, she gets to nag at him on his right hand, while
> ACTU President Sharan Burrows has the job of looking after
> the left. In the meantime the AMA president, lesbian Kerryn
> Phelps runs interferance for them both.
>
> There is little wonder that issues such as paid maternity leave,
> free childcare and womens health issues are about the only
> domestic policies ever discussed in the media these days.
>
> ______________________________________________________
>
> Shape up, fathers told
> By Matthew Denholm
> July 25, 2003
>
> AUSTRALIA may be headed for a new gender war unless men take a far greater role in
> raising their children, Sex Discrimination Commissioner Pru Goward said yesterday.
>
> Ms Goward said workplace equality had hit a brick wall and that further
> advancement for women was possible only if men shared the career sacrifices needed
> to raise families.
>
> And she took aim at Prime Minister John Howard's proposed shared custody plan,
> warning children would suffer unless men first became more active parents.
>
> "Shared caring has to start before the divorce," Ms Goward said.
>
> "It could drive exactly the change that the women's movement wants if it's done
> wisely.
>
> "But if it is just seen as parents' rights and children's interests get forgotten,
> it could be very deleterious."
>
> She said men needed to "put in equal parenting" while marriages were intact and
> realise they had to rearrange their lives to be more involved with their kids
> after separation.
>
> She called for men to start using family friendly work entitlements, such as
> unpaid parental leave and more flexible hours.
>
> And she urged bosses to encourage, rather than penalise, men who did so.
>
> "In reality, we do not live in a society which tolerates or venerates men who do
> part-time work or leave work early to pick up a sick child," Ms Goward told the
> Women, Management and Employment Relations Conference in Sydney.
>
> "Our culture is such that these men are more likely to be seen as uncommitted to
> their careers to an even greater extent than women who allow their family life to
> intrude into their working life."
>
> She warned work and family life were on a collision course.
>
> Many women had to work to help pay hefty family mortgages in Melbourne and Sydney,
> while others wanted careers.
>
> And female participation in the workforce was needed to sustain current economic
> growth.
>
> "There is only one discretionary choice area - the number of children we have," Ms
> Goward said.
>
> "No wonder the number of only-child families has increased from one in five
> families in 1981 to one in three families in 2001."
>
> She said national leadership was necessary if men were to be encouraged to share
> housework and childcare duties and make more career sacrifices to do so.
>
> But she complained the men best placed to play this role - political leaders in
> Canberra - did not have family-orientated lives themselves.
>
> The Courier-Mail
>
> http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6805236%255E421,00.html
feminist harpies? do you expect to be taken seriously by anyone WITH brains
here? surely not!
poor, poor, pitifully poor little male babies.....they haven't even a TASTE
of what they've done herstorically to us and they are pissing themselves all
over the place looking for sympathy
like HELL
"Kenneth S." <nimrod@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3F272BEA.1CDA@no-spam
> As others will doubtless point out, this kind of feminist thinking is
> by no means peculiar to Australia. Furthermore, it can exist only in
> societies where men are unable or unwilling to stand up for themselves
> in issues where the interests of the two sexes are in conflict.
>
> In the U.S., there have been several cases where even stay-at-home
> husbands were unable to get custody after divorce. I myself had some
> marginal involvement in a case several years ago, where a senior woman
> lawyer on the Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington "lost" custody of
> her children to her husband, who had a far more flexible work schedule
> than she had. There was a huge amount of publicity at the time, and the
> feminist harpies all started screaming about how unfair it was to
> penalize working women in this way.
>
> Ultimately, the rules governing the conduct of Senate staffers were
> bent to allow this woman to hold fund-raisers to help her fight the
> custody decision. The argument, pushed by a CONSERVATIVE, Sen. Orrin
> Hatch (R-Utah), was that the Senate's interests would be damaged if
> female staffers thought that, by working hard, they could lose custody
> of their children. Not a word about how this was exactly what had
> happened to thousands of MALE Senate staffers!
>
> I don't know what ultimately happened in this case. I just ran a check
> on the woman's name, and I see that she became a federal judge. The
> U.S. organization Mothers Without Custody mentions the custody dispute
> on their website, but it is entirely possible that the woman ultimately
> DID regain custody. That certainly would be the typical pattern in the
> U.S., where the glass ceiling on paternal custody remains firmly in
> place.
>
>
>
> Brettg wrote:
> >
> > . . . . . . . why Australian men should be discriminated
> > against, when it comes time to decide upon custody arrangements.
> > .
> > It's because they don't do enough housework apparently.
> >
> > These articles ALWAYS start popping up whenever talk of making
> > the divorce and child-support laws fairer to men. Those feminists
> > harpies just can't let the media start talking about things that
> > might benefit men, even it would also benefit their children I
> > guess.
> >
> > The worst part is that I'm paying this bitches salary.
> >
> > Prue Goward is the Australian equivalent of the British EOC,
> > but here she is called the "Sexual Discrimination Commissioner",
> > a much more apt title IMO, it perfectly describes her function,
> > which is to, simply put, design and enforce policies that sexually
> > discriminate against men.
> >
> > She says "shared parenting begins before divorce". Well
> > Prue, apparently most women don't realise this fact because,
> > quite frankly, they guard the gates of parenting quite
> > enthusastically in my experience. What they (and I suspect
> > Prue herself) really want is somebody to act as mummys
> > "gofer" and psuedo baby-sitter. That all decision making
> > regarding the children is to remain the sole domain of the
> > mother goes without saying.
> >
> > And being a typical socialist feminist, she nags at Australian
> > men, telling them that they must share the "career sacrifices
> > needed to raise families."
> >
> > That men must do this whilst still maintaining a suitably high
> > income to ensure Mommy Dearest is able to enjoy all of the
> > creature comforts she so richly deserves goes, again , without
> > saying of course.
> >
> > Listening to the crap that comes out of the mouths of bitches
> > like Prue Goward reminds me why I will never marry a
> > woman again.
> >
> > Prue is one part of a three pronged attack that is being waged
> > against Australian men today. Being a "friend" of our Conservative
> > Prime Minister, she gets to nag at him on his right hand, while
> > ACTU President Sharan Burrows has the job of looking after
> > the left. In the meantime the AMA president, lesbian Kerryn
> > Phelps runs interferance for them both.
> >
> > There is little wonder that issues such as paid maternity leave,
> > free childcare and womens health issues are about the only
> > domestic policies ever discussed in the media these days.
> >
> > ______________________________________________________
> >
> > Shape up, fathers told
> > By Matthew Denholm
> > July 25, 2003
> >
> > AUSTRALIA may be headed for a new gender war unless men take a far
greater role in
> > raising their children, Sex Discrimination Commissioner Pru Goward said
yesterday.
> >
> > Ms Goward said workplace equality had hit a brick wall and that further
> > advancement for women was possible only if men shared the career
sacrifices needed
> > to raise families.
> >
> > And she took aim at Prime Minister John Howard's proposed shared custody
plan,
> > warning children would suffer unless men first became more active
parents.
> >
> > "Shared caring has to start before the divorce," Ms Goward said.
> >
> > "It could drive exactly the change that the women's movement wants if
it's done
> > wisely.
> >
> > "But if it is just seen as parents' rights and children's interests get
forgotten,
> > it could be very deleterious."
> >
> > She said men needed to "put in equal parenting" while marriages were
intact and
> > realise they had to rearrange their lives to be more involved with their
kids
> > after separation.
> >
> > She called for men to start using family friendly work entitlements,
such as
> > unpaid parental leave and more flexible hours.
> >
> > And she urged bosses to encourage, rather than penalise, men who did so.
> >
> > "In reality, we do not live in a society which tolerates or venerates
men who do
> > part-time work or leave work early to pick up a sick child," Ms Goward
told the
> > Women, Management and Employment Relations Conference in Sydney.
> >
> > "Our culture is such that these men are more likely to be seen as
uncommitted to
> > their careers to an even greater extent than women who allow their
family life to
> > intrude into their working life."
> >
> > She warned work and family life were on a collision course.
> >
> > Many women had to work to help pay hefty family mortgages in Melbourne
and Sydney,
> > while others wanted careers.
> >
> > And female participation in the workforce was needed to sustain current
economic
> > growth.
> >
> > "There is only one discretionary choice area - the number of children we
have," Ms
> > Goward said.
> >
> > "No wonder the number of only-child families has increased from one in
five
> > families in 1981 to one in three families in 2001."
> >
> > She said national leadership was necessary if men were to be encouraged
to share
> > housework and childcare duties and make more career sacrifices to do so.
> >
> > But she complained the men best placed to play this role - political
leaders in
> > Canberra - did not have family-orientated lives themselves.
> >
> > The Courier-Mail
> >
> > http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6805236%255E421,00.html
Someone who claims to have brains and who can't even spell
"historically?" I rest my case!
THE BEST IS YET TO COME wrote:
>
> feminist harpies? do you expect to be taken seriously by anyone WITH brains
> here? surely not!
>
> poor, poor, pitifully poor little male babies.....they haven't even a TASTE
> of what they've done herstorically to us and they are pissing themselves all
> over the place looking for sympathy
>
> like HELL
>
> "Kenneth S." <nimrod@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3F272BEA.1CDA@no-spam
> > As others will doubtless point out, this kind of feminist thinking is
> > by no means peculiar to Australia. Furthermore, it can exist only in
> > societies where men are unable or unwilling to stand up for themselves
> > in issues where the interests of the two sexes are in conflict.
> >
> > In the U.S., there have been several cases where even stay-at-home
> > husbands were unable to get custody after divorce. I myself had some
> > marginal involvement in a case several years ago, where a senior woman
> > lawyer on the Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington "lost" custody of
> > her children to her husband, who had a far more flexible work schedule
> > than she had. There was a huge amount of publicity at the time, and the
> > feminist harpies all started screaming about how unfair it was to
> > penalize working women in this way.
> >
> > Ultimately, the rules governing the conduct of Senate staffers were
> > bent to allow this woman to hold fund-raisers to help her fight the
> > custody decision. The argument, pushed by a CONSERVATIVE, Sen. Orrin
> > Hatch (R-Utah), was that the Senate's interests would be damaged if
> > female staffers thought that, by working hard, they could lose custody
> > of their children. Not a word about how this was exactly what had
> > happened to thousands of MALE Senate staffers!
> >
> > I don't know what ultimately happened in this case. I just ran a check
> > on the woman's name, and I see that she became a federal judge. The
> > U.S. organization Mothers Without Custody mentions the custody dispute
> > on their website, but it is entirely possible that the woman ultimately
> > DID regain custody. That certainly would be the typical pattern in the
> > U.S., where the glass ceiling on paternal custody remains firmly in
> > place.
> >
> >
> >
> > Brettg wrote:
> > >
> > > . . . . . . . why Australian men should be discriminated
> > > against, when it comes time to decide upon custody arrangements.
> > > .
> > > It's because they don't do enough housework apparently.
> > >
> > > These articles ALWAYS start popping up whenever talk of making
> > > the divorce and child-support laws fairer to men. Those feminists
> > > harpies just can't let the media start talking about things that
> > > might benefit men, even it would also benefit their children I
> > > guess.
> > >
> > > The worst part is that I'm paying this bitches salary.
> > >
> > > Prue Goward is the Australian equivalent of the British EOC,
> > > but here she is called the "Sexual Discrimination Commissioner",
> > > a much more apt title IMO, it perfectly describes her function,
> > > which is to, simply put, design and enforce policies that sexually
> > > discriminate against men.
> > >
> > > She says "shared parenting begins before divorce". Well
> > > Prue, apparently most women don't realise this fact because,
> > > quite frankly, they guard the gates of parenting quite
> > > enthusastically in my experience. What they (and I suspect
> > > Prue herself) really want is somebody to act as mummys
> > > "gofer" and psuedo baby-sitter. That all decision making
> > > regarding the children is to remain the sole domain of the
> > > mother goes without saying.
> > >
> > > And being a typical socialist feminist, she nags at Australian
> > > men, telling them that they must share the "career sacrifices
> > > needed to raise families."
> > >
> > > That men must do this whilst still maintaining a suitably high
> > > income to ensure Mommy Dearest is able to enjoy all of the
> > > creature comforts she so richly deserves goes, again , without
> > > saying of course.
> > >
> > > Listening to the crap that comes out of the mouths of bitches
> > > like Prue Goward reminds me why I will never marry a
> > > woman again.
> > >
> > > Prue is one part of a three pronged attack that is being waged
> > > against Australian men today. Being a "friend" of our Conservative
> > > Prime Minister, she gets to nag at him on his right hand, while
> > > ACTU President Sharan Burrows has the job of looking after
> > > the left. In the meantime the AMA president, lesbian Kerryn
> > > Phelps runs interferance for them both.
> > >
> > > There is little wonder that issues such as paid maternity leave,
> > > free childcare and womens health issues are about the only
> > > domestic policies ever discussed in the media these days.
> > >
> > > ______________________________________________________
> > >
> > > Shape up, fathers told
> > > By Matthew Denholm
> > > July 25, 2003
> > >
> > > AUSTRALIA may be headed for a new gender war unless men take a far
> greater role in
> > > raising their children, Sex Discrimination Commissioner Pru Goward said
> yesterday.
> > >
> > > Ms Goward said workplace equality had hit a brick wall and that further
> > > advancement for women was possible only if men shared the career
> sacrifices needed
> > > to raise families.
> > >
> > > And she took aim at Prime Minister John Howard's proposed shared custody
> plan,
> > > warning children would suffer unless men first became more active
> parents.
> > >
> > > "Shared caring has to start before the divorce," Ms Goward said.
> > >
> > > "It could drive exactly the change that the women's movement wants if
> it's done
> > > wisely.
> > >
> > > "But if it is just seen as parents' rights and children's interests get
> forgotten,
> > > it could be very deleterious."
> > >
> > > She said men needed to "put in equal parenting" while marriages were
> intact and
> > > realise they had to rearrange their lives to be more involved with their
> kids
> > > after separation.
> > >
> > > She called for men to start using family friendly work entitlements,
> such as
> > > unpaid parental leave and more flexible hours.
> > >
> > > And she urged bosses to encourage, rather than penalise, men who did so.
> > >
> > > "In reality, we do not live in a society which tolerates or venerates
> men who do
> > > part-time work or leave work early to pick up a sick child," Ms Goward
> told the
> > > Women, Management and Employment Relations Conference in Sydney.
> > >
> > > "Our culture is such that these men are more likely to be seen as
> uncommitted to
> > > their careers to an even greater extent than women who allow their
> family life to
> > > intrude into their working life."
> > >
> > > She warned work and family life were on a collision course.
> > >
> > > Many women had to work to help pay hefty family mortgages in Melbourne
> and Sydney,
> > > while others wanted careers.
> > >
> > > And female participation in the workforce was needed to sustain current
> economic
> > > growth.
> > >
> > > "There is only one discretionary choice area - the number of children we
> have," Ms
> > > Goward said.
> > >
> > > "No wonder the number of only-child families has increased from one in
> five
> > > families in 1981 to one in three families in 2001."
> > >
> > > She said national leadership was necessary if men were to be encouraged
> to share
> > > housework and childcare duties and make more career sacrifices to do so.
> > >
> > > But she complained the men best placed to play this role - political
> leaders in
> > > Canberra - did not have family-orientated lives themselves.
> > >
> > > The Courier-Mail
> > >
> > > http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6805236%255E421,00.html
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 10:31:39 +0800
In article <3f20a73f$1_1@no-spam>, "Brettg" <brettg@no-spam> wrote:
>. . . . . . . why Australian men should be discriminated
>against, when it comes time to decide upon custody arrangements.
>.
>It's because they don't do enough housework apparently.
That's right - if you leave home at seven thirty in the morning and don't
come home till 6pm then you deserve to not see your children after you get
divorced (divorce seems to be a "given" in Goward's statement) since you
clearly are not a parent. Goward's gone mad with power.
[snip]
>Prue Goward is the Australian equivalent of the British EOC,
>but here she is called the "Sexual Discrimination Commissioner",
>a much more apt title IMO, it perfectly describes her function,
>which is to, simply put, design and enforce policies that sexually
>discriminate against men.
Oddly enough, her policy ideas also discriminate against the majority of
mothers who actually WANT to be homecarers and who appreciate the fact
that in order to do so, their husbands must work fulltime. Goward is
demaniding that couples base their family decisions on the presumption
that the marriage won't last. Next she'll be demanding pre-nuptial
agreements on paid work and domestic duties.
[snip]
>And being a typical socialist feminist, she nags at Australian
>men, telling them that they must share the "career sacrifices
>needed to raise families."
Naturally she assumes men rule the roost in single-income households and
that, if men so desired, they could send their wives out to work (how very
new-age of her). Nowhere in her diatribe does she appear to even
contemplate the remotest possibility that family decisions are made by
both partners in what they believe to be the best interests of all
concerned.
>That men must do this whilst still maintaining a suitably high
>income to ensure Mommy Dearest is able to enjoy all of the
>creature comforts she so richly deserves goes, again , without
>saying of course.
I wouldn't throw this at homecare mums - in most cases they are the
innocent victims of this sort of fundamentalist-feminist bile.
>Prue is one part of a three pronged attack that is being waged
>against Australian men today. Being a "friend" of our Conservative
>Prime Minister, she gets to nag at him on his right hand, while
>ACTU President Sharan Burrows has the job of looking after
>the left. In the meantime the AMA president, lesbian Kerryn
>Phelps runs interferance for them both.
>There is little wonder that issues such as paid maternity leave,
>free childcare and womens health issues are about the only
>domestic policies ever discussed in the media these days.
Yep. The West Australian devoted a page in Saturday's paper to slapping
families with one main breadwinner. Burrow disparingingly refers to the
male breadwinners in these families as "Harvester Man" and says such
families died long ago but refuse to accept it!!! Anyone who got past year
5 reading can see the idiocy of that argument. If the single-income family
still exists (and I understand they represent close to 40% of all couple
families) then clearly, they aren't as dead as Burrow would wish them to
be.
The clear suggestion in the current "debate" is that all families should
be two-income families with both partners sharing all responsibilities
equally. This of course is as ridiculous as demanding that all students
should go on to university then work as doctors or engineers whilst also
fulfilling a role as the local parish priest before winning the 400m in
the next Olympics. It is an overly-idealistic view with no foundation in
reality.
If it were any other minority group being publicly targeted in this way,
you would see an action being taken in the Equal Rights Commission - but
single-income families and the fathers within them are fair game for these
supposed champions of "diversity and tolerance".
Andy D.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
"THE BEST IS YET TO COME"
<doyouknowforsure@overthere.zippydidoodaday@no-spam> wrote in message
news:40GVa.2854$rsJ.1688@no-spam
> feminist harpies? do you expect to be taken seriously by anyone WITH
brains
> here? surely not!
>
> poor, poor, pitifully poor little male babies.....they haven't even a
TASTE
> of what they've done herstorically to us and they are pissing themselves
all
> over the place looking for sympathy
What HAVE pitifully poor little male babies done to you?
>
> like HELL
>
> "Kenneth S." <nimrod@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3F272BEA.1CDA@no-spam
> > As others will doubtless point out, this kind of feminist thinking is
> > by no means peculiar to Australia. Furthermore, it can exist only in
> > societies where men are unable or unwilling to stand up for themselves
> > in issues where the interests of the two sexes are in conflict.
> >
> > In the U.S., there have been several cases where even stay-at-home
> > husbands were unable to get custody after divorce. I myself had some
> > marginal involvement in a case several years ago, where a senior woman
> > lawyer on the Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington "lost" custody of
> > her children to her husband, who had a far more flexible work schedule
> > than she had. There was a huge amount of publicity at the time, and the
> > feminist harpies all started screaming about how unfair it was to
> > penalize working women in this way.
> >
> > Ultimately, the rules governing the conduct of Senate staffers were
> > bent to allow this woman to hold fund-raisers to help her fight the
> > custody decision. The argument, pushed by a CONSERVATIVE, Sen. Orrin
> > Hatch (R-Utah), was that the Senate's interests would be damaged if
> > female staffers thought that, by working hard, they could lose custody
> > of their children. Not a word about how this was exactly what had
> > happened to thousands of MALE Senate staffers!
> >
> > I don't know what ultimately happened in this case. I just ran a check
> > on the woman's name, and I see that she became a federal judge. The
> > U.S. organization Mothers Without Custody mentions the custody dispute
> > on their website, but it is entirely possible that the woman ultimately
> > DID regain custody. That certainly would be the typical pattern in the
> > U.S., where the glass ceiling on paternal custody remains firmly in
> > place.
> >
> >
> >
> > Brettg wrote:
> > >
> > > . . . . . . . why Australian men should be discriminated
> > > against, when it comes time to decide upon custody arrangements.
> > > .
> > > It's because they don't do enough housework apparently.
> > >
> > > These articles ALWAYS start popping up whenever talk of making
> > > the divorce and child-support laws fairer to men. Those feminists
> > > harpies just can't let the media start talking about things that
> > > might benefit men, even it would also benefit their children I
> > > guess.
> > >
> > > The worst part is that I'm paying this bitches salary.
> > >
> > > Prue Goward is the Australian equivalent of the British EOC,
> > > but here she is called the "Sexual Discrimination Commissioner",
> > > a much more apt title IMO, it perfectly describes her function,
> > > which is to, simply put, design and enforce policies that sexually
> > > discriminate against men.
> > >
> > > She says "shared parenting begins before divorce". Well
> > > Prue, apparently most women don't realise this fact because,
> > > quite frankly, they guard the gates of parenting quite
> > > enthusastically in my experience. What they (and I suspect
> > > Prue herself) really want is somebody to act as mummys
> > > "gofer" and psuedo baby-sitter. That all decision making
> > > regarding the children is to remain the sole domain of the
> > > mother goes without saying.
> > >
> > > And being a typical socialist feminist, she nags at Australian
> > > men, telling them that they must share the "career sacrifices
> > > needed to raise families."
> > >
> > > That men must do this whilst still maintaining a suitably high
> > > income to ensure Mommy Dearest is able to enjoy all of the
> > > creature comforts she so richly deserves goes, again , without
> > > saying of course.
> > >
> > > Listening to the crap that comes out of the mouths of bitches
> > > like Prue Goward reminds me why I will never marry a
> > > woman again.
> > >
> > > Prue is one part of a three pronged attack that is being waged
> > > against Australian men today. Being a "friend" of our Conservative
> > > Prime Minister, she gets to nag at him on his right hand, while
> > > ACTU President Sharan Burrows has the job of looking after
> > > the left. In the meantime the AMA president, lesbian Kerryn
> > > Phelps runs interferance for them both.
> > >
> > > There is little wonder that issues such as paid maternity leave,
> > > free childcare and womens health issues are about the only
> > > domestic policies ever discussed in the media these days.
> > >
> > > ______________________________________________________
> > >
> > > Shape up, fathers told
> > > By Matthew Denholm
> > > July 25, 2003
> > >
> > > AUSTRALIA may be headed for a new gender war unless men take a far
> greater role in
> > > raising their children, Sex Discrimination Commissioner Pru Goward
said
> yesterday.
> > >
> > > Ms Goward said workplace equality had hit a brick wall and that
further
> > > advancement for women was possible only if men shared the career
> sacrifices needed
> > > to raise families.
> > >
> > > And she took aim at Prime Minister John Howard's proposed shared
custody
> plan,
> > > warning children would suffer unless men first became more active
> parents.
> > >
> > > "Shared caring has to start before the divorce," Ms Goward said.
> > >
> > > "It could drive exactly the change that the women's movement wants if
> it's done
> > > wisely.
> > >
> > > "But if it is just seen as parents' rights and children's interests
get
> forgotten,
> > > it could be very deleterious."
> > >
> > > She said men needed to "put in equal parenting" while marriages were
> intact and
> > > realise they had to rearrange their lives to be more involved with
their
> kids
> > > after separation.
> > >
> > > She called for men to start using family friendly work entitlements,
> such as
> > > unpaid parental leave and more flexible hours.
> > >
> > > And she urged bosses to encourage, rather than penalise, men who did
so.
> > >
> > > "In reality, we do not live in a society which tolerates or venerates
> men who do
> > > part-time work or leave work early to pick up a sick child," Ms Goward
> told the
> > > Women, Management and Employment Relations Conference in Sydney.
> > >
> > > "Our culture is such that these men are more likely to be seen as
> uncommitted to
> > > their careers to an even greater extent than women who allow their
> family life to
> > > intrude into their working life."
> > >
> > > She warned work and family life were on a collision course.
> > >
> > > Many women had to work to help pay hefty family mortgages in Melbourne
> and Sydney,
> > > while others wanted careers.
> > >
> > > And female participation in the workforce was needed to sustain
current
> economic
> > > growth.
> > >
> > > "There is only one discretionary choice area - the number of children
we
> have," Ms
> > > Goward said.
> > >
> > > "No wonder the number of only-child families has increased from one in
> five
> > > families in 1981 to one in three families in 2001."
> > >
> > > She said national leadership was necessary if men were to be
encouraged
> to share
> > > housework and childcare duties and make more career sacrifices to do
so.
> > >
> > > But she complained the men best placed to play this role - political
> leaders in
> > > Canberra - did not have family-orientated lives themselves.
> > >
> > > The Courier-Mail
> > >
> > >
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6805236%255E421,00.html
>
>
"Chris" <reddd@no-spam> wrote in message news:<bIPVa.46590$zy.7263@no-spam>...
> "THE BEST IS YET TO COME"
> <doyouknowforsure@overthere.zippydidoodaday@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:40GVa.2854$rsJ.1688@no-spam
> > feminist harpies? do you expect to be taken seriously by anyone WITH
> brains
> > here? surely not!
> >
> > poor, poor, pitifully poor little male babies.....they haven't even a
> TASTE
> > of what they've done herstorically to us and they are pissing themselves
> all
> > over the place looking for sympathy
>
> What HAVE pitifully poor little male babies done to you?
Probably refused to root a dingo ugly cold blooded case hardened feminazi bitch.
