Society/Culture Feminism part 1 - continued in part 2

[Bosun]

+1
I guess he had to find something to write a paid piece for the AFR about to supplement his meagre parliamentary pension

I can't get my head around that he wrote this with serious conviction. I thought he was sending himself up, obviously not.

"I’m sure I’m just as busy as her: looking after a huge native garden at home, cooking gourmet meals for my family, pursuing a few business interests, writing books and The Australian Financial Review columns and, most crucially, preserving time for my children’s homework, conversation and love. When I explain this reality to my male friends, they are incredibly envious. Each of them wants to swap places."


He should give Lisa a proper handshake.

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

I can't get my head around that he wrote this with serious conviction. I thought he was sending himself up, obviously not.

"I’m sure I’m just as busy as her: looking after a huge native garden at home, cooking gourmet meals for my family, pursuing a few business interests, writing books and The Australian Financial Review columns and, most crucially, preserving time for my children’s homework, conversation and love. When I explain this reality to my male friends, they are incredibly envious. Each of them wants to swap places."

He should give Lisa a proper handshake.

Yeah, I would have thought being at a childrens hospital in Latham's much loved Western Sydney five days a week would make one a little busier than farting around in the garden and kitchen.

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

Interesting response by Alicia Wood:

Unlike Mark Latham, this inner-city feminist does not have the benefit of earning $70,000 a year for doing ab solutely nothing. So naturally, if I ever have the good fortune of getting knocked up and married, becoming a working mum will be a reality that I will not be able to escape.

The man who stripped MPs of generous pension schemes but felt obliged to keep his own, felt it was his place to lecture young women about their reproductive choices in an opinion piece yesterday.

The fact it was published at all is a disgrace. Who better to opine on the joys and trials of motherhood than a middle-aged man?
He made a number of ridiculous points, not least, this one: "A major part of left feminist campaigning has involved the demonisation of children."

And then this: "You know the refrain: men have rigged the rules of society by dominating the workforce, while women are left with the agony of domestic duties, the nightmare of raising kids."

Where to begin?

The reason some women find it heartbreaking and "agony"-inducing to raise kids is that, unlike Mr $70,000-a-year Latham, children represent a life-changing choice for women in a way that he could not possibly appreciate. Some of the Western Sydney mums he paraphrases in his column gave up on their careers to be at home with their children.

Others, especially single mothers who do not have the benefit of a dual-income household, juggle sleeplessness, full-time jobs and the guilt of missing out on some of their child's milestone moments, just so they have enough money to feed and clothe them.

The fact only 2 per cent of men are the primary carers of children, a statistic he gladly repeats, is not proof of "left feminist orthodoxy" dominating the debate. It is proof women carry the burden and the joy the two being not mutually exclusive of raising children.
Instead of attacking women for showing vulnerability and emotion in the tough choices they make for our future generation, maybe Latham can donate his generous lifetime pension to the Western Sydney mums who are juggling much more than their own ego.

But then again, I am probably just writing this because I hate all children.

 

[Richard Pryor]

The one thing that I got from reading Latham's article that seemed somewhat reasonable was that choosing to work instead of stay at home parenting is also giving something up, and the gender roles and stereotypes in our society that lead to people choosing what they feel expected to choose lead to them resenting those choices, which is the problem. Not that one of the partners has to do so (or neither, case-by-case basis). I don't think she really addressed that in her response.

It is proof women carry the burden and the joy the two being not mutually exclusive of raising children.

This is a pretty ridiculous statement if you ask me. She brings up the pain of missing childrens milestones sleeplessness and full-time jobs due to a single income as though this is a problem for single mothers. Of that 98% of men who aren't primary carers, how many work fulltime and go through the same thing?

children represent a life-changing choice for women in a way that he could not possibly appreciate.

This is also something that annoys me (probably less reasonably). Why is it that a father could not possibly 'appreciate' what having kids is like? Is there just no man on earth who could possibly understand what raising a child on a single income/while working could be like?

Others, especially single mothers who do not have the benefit of a dual-income household, juggle sleeplessness, full-time jobs and the guilt of missing out on some of their child's milestone moments, just so they have enough money to feed and clothe them.

Due to the statistics, in my opinion there's nothing wrong with her using single mothers as an example here, but the pedant in me would like to point out money troubles and single parenting are not a gender specific issue.

The points she makes about single mothers not having the option to choose not to work and mothers not necessarily wanting to give up their careers to parent are sound, but the whole vibe of 'career always >>> parenting' and 'only women are affected by having kids' discredits what she's trying to say and just gives MRA nuts something to whinge about where it could have been avoided.

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

The one thing that I got from reading Latham's article that seemed somewhat reasonable was that choosing to work instead of stay at home parenting is also giving something up, and the gender roles and stereotypes in our society that lead to people choosing what they feel expected to choose lead to them resenting those choices, which is the problem. Not that one of the partners has to do so (or neither, case-by-case basis). I don't think she really addressed that in her response.

This is a pretty ridiculous statement if you ask me. She brings up the pain of missing childrens milestones sleeplessness and full-time jobs due to a single income as though this is a problem for single mothers. Of that 98% of men who aren't primary carers, how many work fulltime and go through the same thing?
This is also something that annoys me (probably less reasonably). Why is it that a father could not possibly 'appreciate' what having kids is like? Is there just no man on earth who could possibly understand what raising a child on a single income/while working could be like?
Due to the statistics, in my opinion there's nothing wrong with her using single mothers as an example here, but the pedant in me would like to point out money troubles and single parenting are not a gender specific issue.

The points she makes about single mothers not having the option to choose not to work and mothers not necessarily wanting to give up their careers to parent are sound, but the whole vibe of 'career always >>> parenting' and 'only women are affected by having kids' discredits what she's trying to say and just gives MRA nuts something to whinge about where it could have been avoided.

Good post with valid points.

 

[fleabitten]

Not only that, but what about fathers who are the primary breadwinners (in two parent households)? They miss out on a lot of the good stuff and are often under enormous pressure to keep that money coming in. Having kids doesn't just change the life of the mother. It can lock a man into a job he hates for the next 15-20 years of his life. It's life changing for him, too, and I think a lot of men would happily let their wife go off to 40 hours of drudgery while they got to bond more closely with their children.

It's really a middle-class argument in a lot of ways. Most of us (men and women) don't have careers, we have jobs. Jobs generally aren't all that rewarding, at least not compared to watching your child grow.

 

[cartwright]

Not only that, but what about fathers who are the primary breadwinners (in two parent households)? They miss out on a lot of the good stuff and are often under enormous pressure to keep that money coming in. Having kids doesn't just change the life of the mother. It can lock a man into a job he hates for the next 15-20 years of his life. It's life changing for him, too, and I think a lot of men would happily let their wife go off to 40 hours of drudgery while they got to bond more closely with their children.

It's really a middle-class argument in a lot of ways. Most of us (men and women) don't have careers, we have jobs. Jobs generally aren't all that rewarding, at least not compared to watching your child grow.

It can be life changing for both parents, yes.
There are still some who don't realise they're fathers until the kid is about 2, but yeah ... I agree with your comments.

I guess the point is having a family is hard, yet rewarding work. And if you don't have kids for whatever reason, it doesn't automatically mean you hate them. What a stupid position for him to take.

 

[kfc1]

Interesting response by Alicia Wood:

Unlike Mark Latham, this inner-city feminist does not have the benefit of earning $70,000 a year for doing ab solutely nothing. So naturally, if I ever have the good fortune of getting knocked up and married, becoming a working mum will be a reality that I will not be able to escape.

The man who stripped MPs of generous pension schemes but felt obliged to keep his own, felt it was his place to lecture young women about their reproductive choices in an opinion piece yesterday.

The fact it was published at all is a disgrace. Who better to opine on the joys and trials of motherhood than a middle-aged man?
He made a number of ridiculous points, not least, this one: "A major part of left feminist campaigning has involved the demonisation of children."

And then this: "You know the refrain: men have rigged the rules of society by dominating the workforce, while women are left with the agony of domestic duties, the nightmare of raising kids."

Where to begin?

The reason some women find it heartbreaking and "agony"-inducing to raise kids is that, unlike Mr $70,000-a-year Latham, children represent a life-changing choice for women in a way that he could not possibly appreciate. Some of the Western Sydney mums he paraphrases in his column gave up on their careers to be at home with their children.

Others, especially single mothers who do not have the benefit of a dual-income household, juggle sleeplessness, full-time jobs and the guilt of missing out on some of their child's milestone moments, just so they have enough money to feed and clothe them.

The fact only 2 per cent of men are the primary carers of children, a statistic he gladly repeats, is not proof of "left feminist orthodoxy" dominating the debate. It is proof women carry the burden and the joy the two being not mutually exclusive of raising children.
Instead of attacking women for showing vulnerability and emotion in the tough choices they make for our future generation, maybe Latham can donate his generous lifetime pension to the Western Sydney mums who are juggling much more than their own ego.

But then again, I am probably just writing this because I hate all children.

She couldnt resist throwing in a "how dare a man talk to women about parenting" :lol:

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

She couldnt resist throwing in a "how dare a man talk to women about parenting" :lol:

where did she say that?

 

[kfc1]

where did she say that?

"Who better to opine on the joys and trials of motherhood than a middle-aged man?"

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

"Who better to opine on the joys and trials of motherhood than a middle-aged man?"

So, nowhere.

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

Another interesting piece

http://www.womensagenda.com.au/talk...mark-latham-s-words/201411204930#.VG6-Z00cRdg

But the reintroduction of stigma surrounding PND – during PND Awareness Week, you clown — is a dangerous activity. Imagine: a woman with a month-old baby, who is sitting on her couch and feeling nothing. Maybe she realises she needs help. Maybe she's even thinking about getting some. Then she reads something from someone in the national media that tells her she's got it all wrong. That if she were an even half-decent person, she would find child-rearing a joy. That the author of that piece is a strong and real parent because he doesn't need any help. That the only kind of parent you can be is an able, capable, joyous one.

Suicide is the leading cause of maternal death.

In contributing to stigma surrounding mental illness, you're endangering these women, the ones who are on the cusp, who haven't started a conversation yet. You're endangering their families.
... and bond with the most important people in their lives, their children.

 

[Tas]

“We must reclaim and retake feminism from our fellow idiotic women.”

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/a...cussing-the-real-war-on-women/article/2556419

A powerful message there which I hope hits home to those in the community who think the direction radical left wing feminism is going is a good thing.

Things like employment quotas which promote inequality are just abusing the system, the movement needs to go back on course to address the macro issues of equality of rights and opportunity, not as a militant arm of the ultra left welfare system.

 

[The Coup]

More stupid clickbait, stop reading it if it makes you angry.

 

[BORK]

Latham has won the troll of the week award. Probably laughing in the back garden right now.

 

[blackcat]

evo your Clementine Ford <3 this thread

notorious boner killer, bookworm and bon vivant. From the comfort of her local caff

 

[fleabitten]

Interesting take on the "misogyny in video games" issue.

http://thespectacularspider-girl.tu...resentation-of-women-in-video-games-the-cause

 

[clogged]

Suicide is the leading cause of maternal death.

Wait a sec, I read in another thread that women get depressed when they aren't fulfilling their biological roles.

 

[tandino]

I don't know if Mark Latham should be giving anybody advice about how to run their lives to be honest.

 

[Pie eyed]

Here's a myth - That Germaine Greer is helpful in promoting their cause

You're too young to remember when Germaine was a steaming hot firebrand and wore a big floppy hat.....
Now she's just a silly old bag with a touch of dementia, but without her, feminism would have happened at least a decade or two later...it does not really matter whether you or I agree with her or not, millions and millions of others did.
Just as you probably had no idea what a huge impact that old bugger Gough had on your country, you have equally as little on the old bat Germaine.

 

[Slax]

You're too young to remember when Germaine was a steaming hot firebrand and wore a big floppy hat.....
Now she's just a silly old bag with a touch of dementia, but without her, feminism would have happened at least a decade or two later...it does not really matter whether you or I agree with her or not, millions and millions of others did.
Just as you probably had no idea what a huge impact that old bugger Gough had on your country, you have equally as little on the old bat Germaine.

Nice try, but I can remember a time when Germaine was rightly held in high esteem as a pro-feminist activist, she was also an activist on other issues too. But for well over a decade she has been a nut job making stupid comments and appearing on any show that will have her.

I am well aware of Gough's legacy as well as Menzies, I also remember how bad a Treasurer Howard was during the Fraser years. When you look at what Menzies and Whitlam stood for and cross it over to the current political sphere, Menzies is with the Greens, Whitlam is a socialist (although he always was, Labor no longer anywhere near there).

Be careful of what you say because some of us have far more grey hair than we'd like.

 

[cartwright]

Apparently the myth has been taken up by the federal government

http://www.theage.com.au/national/workplace-gender-gap-is-still-too-wide-20141124-11svpd.html

"For the first time we have a baseline – comparable, standardised, broad-based data and it's transparent.

"If we can get this data out there and work with organisations when they get their individual benchmark reports, we believe that we can make change."

 

[kfc1]

" are paid 24.7 per cent less than men who perform the same work."

Did lol

 

[Lester Burnham]

" are paid 24.7 per cent less than men who perform the same work."

Did lol

Don't you love it when journalists make things up. What the report actually says is

Women’s average total remuneration across all industries and occupations is 24.7% less than men’s.​

https://www.wgea.gov.au/sites/default/files/2013-14_summary_report_website.pdf