Gender Equality Action Plan

[ferball]

Sure, and I can cite just as many historical right-wing inspirations for good in this world, including most of the basic rights and political systems we have today.

Well that's what I meant via male aggression, it can be good when controlled and shit when it is not.

What do you mean by right wing?


It is a shit term really as is left wing. As an aside. Progressive, conservative, libertarian and authoritarian is a reasonable kind of breakdown imo. Like Tef and maybe one or two others have mentioned right and left wing is a fairly bad way to describe things. Its very one dimensional. That other thing is at least 2 dimensional and probably the basis for those political compass things that have been around for a decade or more. Then there's the difference between collectivism and individualism, which is how a lot of people define it these days..

We all see politics in various hues of those spectrums (and other things) and then usually say "I'm right/left wing/an anarchist," as if those words somehow convey a very nuanced meaning.

A bit silly and very polarising. You can be progressive in some areas conservative in others - "social liberal/libertarian economic conservative" gets bandied about by everyone from KRudd to Josh Homme. Some things are better left to individuals others work better when collectives manage them. I think certain things should be owned by the state/means oif production and distribution specifically. Things like power networks, communications networks, essential infrastructure. Don't really give a **** about economic argumentsEtc etc

Yeah I kind of agree about controlled aggression - being what some males do best. There's lots of men and boys who can't control their aggression and they come from long term "stable" families. (And when everything goes to shit maybe there's a time for uncontrolled aggro, but even that works best when you control how you do it.) There's a lot of shit male "role models" out there.

 

[Sopwiths North]

.. there are constant campaigns against men for domestic violence but as a society we can't even bring up that it is about a 55/45 split and quite often victims of child abuse are abandoned to female abusers because as a society we can't even approach the subject.

There are next to no shelters for male victims of violence, people have the inhumanity to suggest they should toughen up.

Tas, I feel like you've brought this point up before, or maybe it was K4E (or both), but I think you've articulated it really well and succinctly here. Not only is there next to no help for men in abusive relationships (and I define abuse as including verbal and emotional, which can be every bit as damaging to the victim's well-being as physical), I think many men have been conditioned to not allow themselves to consider that they may actually be the victim. The situation becomes particularly heartbreaking if there are children being used as manipulation.

I'm not intending to open up a whole new chapter about gender rights here, but I do think this is a very important and under-addressed issue. There is a plethora of open discussion and support out there for women who are the victims of abuse, but men in the same situation must feel invisible, and at times I'll bet helpless.

My hope is that not only will there be a leveling up of resources, but also more public acknowledgement that it happens. You are correct to say that the cycles won't be broken as long as it remains so disproportionately perceived.

 

[Tas]

Tas, I feel like you've brought this point up before, or maybe it was K4E (or both), but I think you've articulated it really well and succinctly here. Not only is there next to no help for men in abusive relationships (and I define abuse as including verbal and emotional, which can be every bit as damaging to the victim's well-being as physical), I think many men have been conditioned to not allow themselves to consider that they may actually be the victim. The situation becomes particularly heartbreaking if there are children being used as manipulation.

I'm not intending to open up a whole new chapter about gender rights here, but I do think this is a very important and under-addressed issue. There is a plethora of open discussion and support out there for women who are the victims of abuse, but men in the same situation must feel invisible, and at times I'll bet helpless.

My hope is that not only will there be a leveling up of resources, but also more public acknowledgement that it happens. You are correct to say that the cycles won't be broken as long as it remains so disproportionately perceived.

Absolutely.

The last Australian Bureau of Statistics personal safety study was done in 2016 on the prevalence of violence since the age of 15, so this excludes child abuse. It found 2 in 5 people (39% or 7.2m at the time) had experience violence since the age of 15. 37% were women, 42% were men.

41% of men and 31% of women experienced physical violence
18% of women and 4.7% of men experience sexual violence

The study was funded by the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and Children (2010-2022).

While the study showed some basic statistics on violence against men, it was far more in depth on the violence against women.

Currently, this is the primary stumbling block, it is very difficult to get in-depth statistics on violence against men, most of the funding directly by the government on research or via grants to academia is largely overseen by female interest groups and without worthwhile data the government doesn't have enough data to base government action that targets abuse against men or knows what kind of resources they need and where to deliver it.

It sounds like crazy conspiracy shit but you just can't get funding or peer review for studies into violence on men because they are afraid the data is going to be used to attack women's groups or it will impact the funding towards women's groups.

This was painfully evident when Cassie Jaye made a documentary called The Red Pill in which she documented a number of interviews with Mens Rights Activists. She was a feminist prior and during most the documentary and had created feminist influenced documentaries which she had won awards for beforehand, but she was viciously attacked even though the documentary was relatively bland and wasn't aggressive towards women, women's groups or feminists.

Even the attempt to stop dehumanising people who have obviously been asking for help for a long time is enough to have your career threatened. It is not a good environment at present for even an investigation to begin unfortunately and this shouldn't even be a male vs women type of discussion. Equality should exist for everyone and allowing the cycle of abuse to continue on men is only going to result in it impacting women as well.

I think everyone needs to and should be motivated towards helping everyone who needs it and ensuring we have true equality, in this environment that makes you an egalitarian, not a feminist if you judge the movement based on it's actions. That is sad because the bulk of my life time I considered myself to be a feminist. It just doesn't live up in reality to the packaging.

Nothing I have said diminishes that women have problems and we need to remain focused on addressing those issues, we can address more than one problem at a time though and in many instances when it comes to abuse there are related issues.

There is just an idiotic mindset at present.

 

[Snake_Baker]

https://www.researchgate.net/public...gical_Thinking_and_the_Anti-Scientific_Spirit

 

[Tas]

I don't know where else to put this, for Snake_Baker

http://iwf.org/blog/2808066/Personal-Choices,-Not-Vast-Sexist-Conspiracies,-Explain-Unequal-Pay

 

[Snake_Baker]

I don't know where else to put this, for Snake_Baker

http://iwf.org/blog/2808066/Personal-Choices,-Not-Vast-Sexist-Conspiracies,-Explain-Unequal-Pay

This is well established.

There is no gender inequality.

 

[Tas]

This is well established.

There is no gender inequality.

It is a recent study by Harvard university on a heavily unionised source of labour which has very rigid classifications and there being very little difference between the roles of men and women which makes it a very good case study to study the differences between men and women before there are more complex structures involved.

It has also been accepted by a women's group and mainstream media like the Wall Street journal. I think it is a good source when using to debunk the claim of the pay gap and whenever it crops it we need to link to articles and research like this because we need to stop misinformation being spread.

 

[ferball]

It is a recent study by Harvard university on a heavily unionised source of labour which has very rigid classifications and there being very little difference between the roles of men and women which makes it a very good case study to study the differences between men and women before there are more complex structures involved.

It has also been accepted by a women's group and mainstream media like the Wall Street journal. I think it is a good source when using to debunk the claim of the pay gap and whenever it crops it we need to link to articles and research like this because we need to stop misinformation being spread.

When my missus and I worked in the timber industry we both got the same wages when we did the same jobs in the same workplaces.

Pretty much the same pay she got when she was working in a child care centre.

Frankly this amazes me. Child Care is far more important than planting or cutting up trees.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

When my missus and I worked in the timber industry we both got the same wages when we did the same jobs in the same workplaces.

Pretty much the same pay she got when she was working in a child care centre.

Frankly this amazes me. Child Care is far more important than planting or cutting up trees.

Teaching and nursing as well.

 

[Tas]

When my missus and I worked in the timber industry we both got the same wages when we did the same jobs in the same workplaces.

Pretty much the same pay she got when she was working in a child care centre.

Frankly this amazes me. Child Care is far more important than planting or cutting up trees.

Teachers and child care workers would mean more if we just didn't let a quarter of a million people migrate here every year, if the government had to be concerned with maintaining a healthy population without migration, they would have done something about it.

Supply and demand dictates price, not how ideologically worthwhile one job is over another. There is also a pretty big difference between a doctor who travels to third world countries helping them with ailments and someone who implants silicon into the bodies of vain western women, there would be a significant discrepancy between what those two arms of the medical profession make. There were no mechanisms for capitalism to value something over another, that was left to consumers to determine.

Capitalism is a flawed system, it isn't the wisest use or allocation of resources, however, competition and incentive to provide what what consumers demand is a functional system that generates wealth. While people complain that the gap between the richest and everyone else widens, it is widening because the standard of living is improving exponentially over the years. People have a lot more disposable income which they spend on goods and services provided by the wealthy, so they make more and more money. It is much better for the wealthy to be 1000x richer than you if you earn $50k a year than for them to only be 10x more than than you if you only make $5,000. This is something that is lost on the greater leftist community who seem to complain a lot about the distribution of wealth.

At the end of the day, it is a lot safer and easier to teach or look after kids than it is to break your back felling trees. A lot of people want to do the soft jobs, not as many people want to do the dirty jobs, it is why they have to offer more and more money until someone is prepared to do it.

The market has determined that you have to pay as much a teacher to get someone with no real skillset or training to chop trees. If people were more prepared to chop trees then it wouldn't be the case. In essence, those prepared to do the dirty jobs that are in demand get rewarded if we as a society feel those jobs are below us or too hard. There are people all over the world that would kill to do the jobs that people here don't want to do.

When people don't go hungry, they become very picky.

 

[ferball]

Teachers and child care workers would mean more if we just didn't let a quarter of a million people migrate here every year, if the government had to be concerned with maintaining a healthy population without migration, they would have done something about it.

Supply and demand dictates price, not how ideologically worthwhile one job is over another. There is also a pretty big difference between a doctor who travels to third world countries helping them with ailments and someone who implants silicon into the bodies of vain western women, there would be a significant discrepancy between what those two arms of the medical profession make. There were no mechanisms for capitalism to value something over another, that was left to consumers to determine.

Capitalism is a flawed system, it isn't the wisest use or allocation of resources, however, competition and incentive to provide what what consumers demand is a functional system that generates wealth. While people complain that the gap between the richest and everyone else widens, it is widening because the standard of living is improving exponentially over the years. People have a lot more disposable income which they spend on goods and services provided by the wealthy, so they make more and more money. It is much better for the wealthy to be 1000x richer than you if you earn $50k a year than for them to only be 10x more than than you if you only make $5,000. This is something that is lost on the greater leftist community who seem to complain a lot about the distribution of wealth.

At the end of the day, it is a lot safer and easier to teach or look after kids than it is to break your back felling trees. A lot of people want to do the soft jobs, not as many people want to do the dirty jobs, it is why they have to offer more and more money until someone is prepared to do it.

The market has determined that you have to pay as much a teacher to get someone with no real skillset or training to chop trees. If people were more prepared to chop trees then it wouldn't be the case. In essence, those prepared to do the dirty jobs that are in demand get rewarded if we as a society feel those jobs are below us or too hard. There are people all over the world that would kill to do the jobs that people here don't want to do.

When people don't go hungry, they become very picky.

There are real issues with the expontential wealth increase that are coming to fruit now. The housing market in Australia is a classic example. We are between tipping points - our economy is working for everyone at the moment but increasing numbers of people are under financial stress.

Also - forestry is far more complicated than chopping trees.

Tree felling is a skill. I don't do it. I'd employ one of two people I know for anything over 100 feet or more than a metre girth. It probably requires more skill and experience or training than most office jobs.

It is much better for the wealthy to be 1000x richer than you if you earn $50k a year than for them to only be 10x more than than you if you only make $5,000. This is something that is lost on the greater leftist community who seem to complain a lot about the distribution of wealth.

Why? So you can buy more useless crap? When Darryl Kerrigan brought his house, holiday house and all the things he had to make his life great he was closer to earning $50 than $5000. Meanwhile you lose access to things you once had access too.

This increase in wealth in Australia has mirrored the increasing difficulty of owning your own home.

That might sound like a sentimental form of nostalgia for "the great Australian Dream" with all its suburban stiltedness, after all widespread home ownership is a relatively new thing, but sufferage without land ownership is as well.

I'm all for less materialism too. We don't need more shit to make us happy. How many people on this thread would give up buying unnecessary stuff for all of next year if it meant we won the flag?

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

There are real issues with the expontential wealth increase that are coming to fruit now. The housing market in Australia is a classic example. We are between tipping points - our economy is working for everyone at the moment but increasing numbers of people are under financial stress.

Also - forestry is far more complicated than chopping trees.

Tree felling is a skill. I don't do it. I'd employ one of two people I know for anything over 100 feet or more than a metre girth. It probably requires more skill and experience or training than most office jobs.



Why? So you can buy more useless crap? When Darryl Kerrigan brought his house, holiday house and all the things he had to make his life great he was closer to earning $50 than $5000. Meanwhile you lose access to things you once had access too.

This increase in wealth in Australia has mirrored the increasing difficulty of owning your own home.

That might sound like a sentimental form of nostalgia for "the great Australian Dream" with all its suburban stiltedness, after all widespread home ownership is a relatively new thing, but sufferage without land ownership is as well.

I'm all for less materialism too. We don't need more shit to make us happy. How many people on this thread would give up buying unnecessary stuff for all of next year if it meant we won the flag?

What’s the alternative though, all the criticisms that Tas mentioned are very true. Best of the worst comes to mind when describing capitalism.

Like Churchill saying:
Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…

 

[ferball]

What’s the alternative though, all the criticisms that Tas mentioned are very true. Best of the worst comes to mind when describing capitalism.

Like Churchill saying:
Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…

That's a great question.

I dunno the answer. Unless its simply more regulation at times and less at others and constant re assessment and adjustment of what's happening around you (ie your situation) and how you respond to it. But that is the general solution to everything - the specifics are the bugger of it.

Australia pre (and post) Keating was genuinely a "workers paradise" compared to say ... the USSR. So obviously some sort of protectionism and Govt ownership in combination with a relatively free market. Personally I'd have nationalised every mine in the country decades or more ago. Mining should always be nationally owned in this country (and probably elsewhere) if nothing else its the very bones of home we are digging up and selling for a profit. But that horse bolted long ago.

So ... more of the same?

Markets will always happen. (For example - in Australia, pre invasion, there were coast to coast trade networks, some of which are being mapped by anthropologists I know. But its hard to do with so much gone.) Do we want a market where people use spare cash to buy houses so they can air b'n'b them to tourists instead of renting them to Australians in need of a house? The ideology of individual freedom would say those people have the right to do what they want with the money they earned and to a point fair enough, but denying people housing when housing stress is such an issue could have longer term effects on society.

As I said I don't know the answer. One thing I do know is that as a society we are no longer capable of these debates (and I blame the right for this - specifically the 20 year dummy spit about not dealing with global warming is where this started - but that is beside the point,) truth is out of style as some genius wag told us decades ago.

So before we can even get an answer we need a public discussion that is not full of shit. But there is way too much self interest in the way. Most of it coming from people protecting their ridiculous extremes of wealth.

You mentioned way upthread how, considering the topics, this thread is actually pretty reasonable and we are trying to discuss this stuff with some level of respect for each other. Before we (as a society) can come up with any answers to the problems we face we need to rediscover how to communicate with people we disagree with and then do it in public so other people can see it happen.

So if there is an answer that is probably the first part of it.

 

[Tas]

There are real issues with the expontential wealth increase that are coming to fruit now. The housing market in Australia is a classic example. We are between tipping points - our economy is working for everyone at the moment but increasing numbers of people are under financial stress.

The housing issue is a complex one, because there are many economic factors involved. The biggest issue (imo) is that there is a lack of work outside of our major cities and even within our major cities it can be difficult to find work in the outer suburbs, this is what primarily causes the squeeze because you have more and more people who move to the major cities and particularly to Melbourne and Sydney.

You can buy a house in Donald, Victoria, where the median price for 3 bedroom houses is $144k, but very few want to live 280km away from Melbourne because there isn't a lot in terms of variety or quantity of jobs in the region and there isn't the infrastructure there that most people desire. A house is relatively inexpensive to build, it is the land that is the obstacle and why the market determines that it's value is what it is.

The Labor government has proposed to make capital gains and negative gearing changes in the next election, so you can only negative gear new rental dwellings. They are not making it retrospective because they want to get elected and they wont if they make it retrospective.

I think if the government did more to make regional centres more attractive to corporations and there was a lot more work in regional areas then more people would be tempted to move there for work opportunities and cheaper housing. I think trying to **** with housing prices has the potential to do a lot of harm to the state of our economy. Manipulating an economy successfully isn't a precise or easy task.

Also - forestry is far more complicated than chopping trees.

Tree felling is a skill. I don't do it. I'd employ one of two people I know for anything over 100 feet or more than a metre girth. It probably requires more skill and experience or training than most office jobs.

I was just referring to any job people in general do not want to do, even driving a garbage truck requires education and training. Everything is relative. We don't want to do it now because we are well educated and spoilt, that causes inflation due to a lack of supply.

Why? So you can buy more useless crap? When Darryl Kerrigan brought his house, holiday house and all the things he had to make his life great he was closer to earning $50 than $5000. Meanwhile you lose access to things you once had access too.

Standard of living isn't about buying useless crap, it is about the quality of your life. We take it for granted here but the vast majority of the world's population lives in places where the quality of life is poor and they would kill to live here to do jobs we don't want to do because this is paradise by comparison.

We can't even get people to go out and pick some fruit for $21.6 per hour minimum, that is right, nobody can be arsed to earn $45k because of the inconvenience of having to go over to where the fruit actually grows, if it wasn't for illegal working backpackers, we would have to import fruit from another country because we as a nation can't be arsed getting out of bed for $45k, that is what privilege looks like. That is how tough we are doing it. We would rather pay some people in third world nations to ship over fruit at $10 a kilo.

I honestly feel at times so called Socialists want to send us back to the dark ages, it is like you guys have completely forgotten about all the horrendous shit of times we prefer to forget. In the mid 60s when my dad bought his house for 10,000 pounds they delivered milk by horse and ****ing cart. We forget this shit.

We suffer first world problems. That doesn't mean they aren't problems, ie it would be more desirable to make it cheaper for people to have kids, there is shit we can do to fix that.

This increase in wealth in Australia has mirrored the increasing difficulty of owning your own home.

That is because we are spoilt. We have an aversion to living in apartments which is very impractical for a large city.

Tokyo has an area of 2,187 square km and a population of 13.8m people with a density of 6,224 per square km.
Beijing has an area of 4,144 square km and a population of 21.45m people with a density of 5,176 per square km.
Seoul has an area of 4,519 square km and a population of 25.5m people with a density of 5,645 per square km.

Melbourne has an area of 9,993 square km and a population of 5m people with a density of 500 per square km.

lol we can't keep going fitting 500 people per square km unless Melbourne is going to reach Sydney at some point. When my dad bought his house here, 12km away from the CBD was considered an outer suburb, the population here was just a tad over 2m people but most of it was centred around the inner suburbs. We had a far higher population density back then. Have you seen the size of houses around Fitzroy, Richmond, Middle-Park, etc?

People want to live in an estate by standards almost everywhere else. The present is the pinnacle, those desires and choices we have come at a price. We could increase accommodation exponentially and prices come down dramatically if a significant portion of the population lived in apartments.

That might sound like a sentimental form of nostalgia for "the great Australian Dream" with all its suburban stiltedness, after all widespread home ownership is a relatively new thing, but sufferage without land ownership is as well.

Housing wasn't like that a long time ago but it turned into that about the turn of the 20th century, because we were always a very agricultural based country, the Australian dream became the quarter acre block that had room for households to grow their own food and a lot of people still do derive a substantial amount of their fruit and vegetables from their own gardens.

This originated from an era where the country had a lot of vacant space and was rapidly expanding, oil and petrol was dirt cheap. It was a time when communism and socialism was seen as a threat and at the forefront of it was land rights, politically, the governments promoted home ownership as something desirable and was a clever way to protect against revolution, people living in estates do not rise up against the state. Socialists were then painted as thieves of prosperity who want to come take your home from you.

Thus, the great Australian dream was just propaganda to ward off communism, but it attracted a lot of people to the country who greatly desired to own large property, all the wogs I know who migrated here treated the house like a small farm plot, any surplus produce they just gave to eachother, it was an informal type of bartering, it wasn't common to trade but they felt compelled to give stuff to people who gave them other stuff.

I'm all for less materialism too. We don't need more shit to make us happy. How many people on this thread would give up buying unnecessary stuff for all of next year if it meant we won the flag?

I mean, large plots are practical for some people. Our problem is that the type of apartments we make are a shambles, they are too small, you can hear people fart in the next apartment, there is no real attempt to dampen sound. I think we need to re-envisage comfortable home-like lifestyle in apartments with new age designs which make them feel less like prison blocks and more like homes.

I've seen some nice looking apartments, but I would hate to live in them. I do think we need to look at our own attitudes/expectations though.

 

[Groin guru]

Fighting for equality!

 

[Snake_Baker]

 

[Groin guru]

Sure. Now it's the prison system. How to get clicks:

Discuss event...add gender equality issue AND a minority population = viola.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Sure. Now it's the prison system. How to get clicks:

Discuss event...add gender equality issue AND a minority population = viola.

View attachment 594914

WTF?

She is mentally unhinged.

 

[Snake_Baker]

"Engaging in coercive social engineering to balance the sex ratios may actually be the worst kind of discrimination" - Dr Doreen Kimura

 

[Del191229]

Oh look, robots replacing brickies.

Australian homes could be constructed by robots, after Australia’s largest brickmaker, Brickworks, signed a deal with robotics group FBR.

Under the tie-up between the two companies - dubbed Fastbrick Australia - Brickworks would have the exclusive rights to supply masonry blocks to FBR’s Hadrian X machine, which is mounted on a truck and uses lasers to feed materials into the correct position during housing construction.

A three bedroom, two-bathroom home was built in under three days using the Hadrian X, FBR said in December, with the robot capable of laying one block every 20 to 30 seconds.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/bu...l/news-story/fcf98d8aeded14e6e9d18548f6423c59