Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal. Senator Kennedy's endorsement of Hillary Clinton's opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard. Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, and the Family and Medical Leave Act to name a few. Women have buried their anger that his support for the compromises in No Child Left Behind and the Medicare bogus drug benefit brought us the passage of these flawed bills. We have thanked him for his ardent support of many civil rights bills, BUT women are always waiting in the wings.
And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment! He's picked the new guy over us. He's joined the list of progressive white men who can't or won't handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton (they will of course say they support a woman president, just not "this" one). "They" are Howard Dean and Jim Dean (Yup! That's Howard's brother) who run DFA (that's the group and list from the Dean campaign that we women helped start and grow). "They" are Alternet, Progressive Democrats of America, democrats.com, Kucinich lovers and all the other groups that take women's money, say they'll do feminist and women's rights issues one of these days, and conveniently forget to mention women and children when they talk about poverty or human needs or America's future.

This latest move by Kennedy, is so telling about the status of and respect for women's rights, women's voices, women's equality, women's authority and our ability - indeed, our obligation- to promote and earn and deserve and elect, unabashedly, a President that is the first woman after centuries of men who "know what's best for us.

http://www.nownys.org/pr_2008/pr_012808.html

See kids, that is what feminism is about.

Or maybe he chose Obama because he was the candidate he thought was best suited for the job....Wow theres a thought.

Kennedy was supposed to back Hillary because she was a women. That's it. Not because of any other reason than that.

That's stupid. Its embarrassing that some women think that way.

And its also sexist = )

If you object to feminism, then you are sexist...

Or you just object to some of the more radical views that feminism can entail...

a lot of women will vote for her cuz she's a women, but its assinine to demand that others do so as well.
if you are a black woman, who are they going to demand you vote for?

There is nothing radical about the press release that I posted above.

This organization does not represent the entire movement characterized by the word feminism. They certainly have their agenda.

If you object to feminism, then you are sexist...

You are sexist if you mock feminism as well

agreed. Its like saying Rev Phelps represents all Christians.

Too bad there is more to NOW than a single family of nutjobs, else you just might have a point.

This organization does not represent the entire movement characterized by the word feminism. They certainly have their agenda.

They are the most outspoken, and one of the largest, if not the single largest, of the femtard organizations.

NOW stands up for women the way labor unions stand up for workers. While this particular press release is very poorly composed, we see in the objection ("See kids, that is what feminism is about") the tacit assertion that in order for women to be equal, they must answer to a higher standard than men.

I do think it would be interesting to hear Senator Kennedy wax philosophical about why he thinks the presidency has never reflected the statistical majority in the United States. Hell, that's a good question for anyone, but since Kennedy is part of the focus here ... yeah, it would be interesting to hear what he has to say.

I mean, if he just came out and said, "Because no woman can drink me under the table!" well, at least that would be something.

Too bad there is more to NOW than a single family of nutjobs, else you just might have a point.

so you think NOW represents all women? :shrug:

so you think NOW represents all women?

I would think it more fair to say that he seems to assert that one person at a NOW office in New York represents the whole of feminism.

When you can start providing the level of influence on our government that the single family of nutjobs has produced that is on par with NOW, then you can start having a valid opinion instead of simply throwing around bogus analogies.

When you can start providing the level of influence on our government that the single family of nutjobs has produced that is on par with NOW, then you can start having a valid opinion instead of simply throwing around bogus analogies.

Just like your throwing out unsupported giberish that you tout as fact. :D

Not just Ted, either - Caroline Kennedy also endorsed Obama, and is rumored to have lobbied Ted on the matter.

All these Kennedys are betrayers of women. Their previous efforts were jsut for show.

And they have been preceded in their betrayal by people like Molly Ivins, and other fair weather friends of the supposed progressive wings, who have been truying to undermine a Hillary run for the Presidency for years now.

Sad days for progressive feminism, indeed.

Kennedy backs Obama. Looks like Hillary is the second woman he has killed.

Kennedy backs Obama. Looks like Hillary is the second woman he has killed.

http://www.sluniverse.com/php/vb/images/smilies/rimshot.gif

Feminism is about the woman having the right to choose for herself. Should a woman support a candidate who does not represent her own personal best interest, simply because the candidate is a woman? Hell no. If women are feeling pressured or forced to vote for a female candidate because she happens to be a woman, it goes against the grain of what a feminist actually is.

Progressive feminism is about women having the right to choose for themselves. Aggressive feminism is about forcing women to select female candidates even if it is not in their own personal interest to do so.

what is a woman's personal interest, exactly? Bells...ever-knowing

what is a woman's personal interest, exactly? Bells...ever-knowing

$$$$$$$$$$ for 400!

$$$$$$$$$$ for 400!

I want to hear it from a woman.

If women are feeling pressured or forced to vote for a female candidate because she happens to be a woman, it goes against the grain of what a feminist actually is.

Actually, this is very typical of feminists, and their sisterhood crap.


Feminism is the opponent of equality.

Actually, this is very typical of feminists, and their sisterhood crap.


Feminism is the opponent of equality.

:zzz:

:zzz:

I second that ;)

If you object to feminism, then you are sexist...

Actually, this is very typical of feminists, and their sisterhood crap.

Feminism is the opponent of equality.

I get the distinct impression that ABS has had some bad experiences with women - probably women who have been in positions of power over him. It would explain the whining.

what is a woman's personal interest, exactly? Bells...ever-knowing

I am not in a position to answer for every single woman on the planet. Each woman has her own personal interest. Hence why it is called 'personal'. Get it now?

Feminism is the opponent of equality.
No. Feminism is about equality. It is also about freedom of choice. I understand why it may be hard for you to comprehend, but at least try.

Claiming that feminism is about equality is a joke.

Feminism is about promoting discrimination, and taking away the privilege that males have traditionally had without giving up any of the privilege that women have traditionally held. A good example of what feminism is can be seen in the VAWA of 1994 where they denied men any ability to seek shelter from domestic violence.

Claiming that feminism is about equality is a joke.

No, just a fact you don't like.

Looks like James is simply back to cheerleading for the sexists.

ABS:

You can learn some basics about Feminism by reading the article here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism

Here are some quotes about feminism:

Feminism - I myself have never known what feminism is. I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat." -Rebecca West, 1913

"Feminism--the belief that women are full human beings capable of participation and leadership in the full range of human activities--intellectual political, social, sexual, spiritual, and economic." -Pearl Cleage, Deals with the devil, p.28. (New York: Ballantine Books, 1993.)

"Feminism is an assertion that women as a group have been historically disadvantaged relative to men of their race, class, ethnicity, or sexual identity; and a commitment to changing the structures that systemically privilege men over women." Journal of Women's History

"I define a feminist as a self-empowering woman who wishes the same for her sisters. I do not think the term implies a certain sexual orientation, a certain style of dress, or membership in a certain political party. A feminist is merely a woman who refuses to accept the notion that women's power must come through men." -- Erica Jong, Fear of Fifty, p.286

"I define feminist consciousness as the awareness of women that they belong to a subordinate group; that they have suffered wrongs as a group; that their condition of subordination is not natural, but is societally determined; they they must join with other women to remedy these wrongs; and finally, that they must and can provide an alternate vision of societal organization in which women as well as men will enjoy autonomy and self-determination." -- Gerda Lerner, The Creation of Feminist Consciousness, p. 14

Personally, I think the bolded one sums it up well.

Looks like James is simply back to cheerleading for the sexists.

So, let me get this straight. You're allowed to be the cheer leader for oppressed and victimised men everywhere, but nobody is allowed to be cheerleader for women?

Sounds like you're trying to oppress women.

Just so we're clear where you're coming from, ABS, let me ask you some simple yes/no questions:

1. Do you believe women should have the right to vote?
2. Do you believe that women should have the right to own property?
3. Do you believe women should have equal opportunity for job promotion according to ability that men have?
4. Do you believe that women in the same job should be paid the same wage as men?
5. Do you believe that women should have the same freedom of association as men?
6. Do you believe that women ought to be able to control their own reproductive systems?

That will do for a start.

I think things such as the VAWA of 1994 sum it up much better.

The VAWA has recognized domestic assault against men for years now. What's your point?

I hope that article gets played in the media, it would make Clinton look bad. :o

ABS:

You can learn some basics about Feminism by reading the article here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism

Here are some quotes about feminism:

Feminism - I myself have never known what feminism is. I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat." -Rebecca West, 1913

"Feminism--the belief that women are full human beings capable of participation and leadership in the full range of human activities--intellectual political, social, sexual, spiritual, and economic." -Pearl Cleage, Deals with the devil, p.28. (New York: Ballantine Books, 1993.)

"Feminism is an assertion that women as a group have been historically disadvantaged relative to men of their race, class, ethnicity, or sexual identity; and a commitment to changing the structures that systemically privilege men over women." Journal of Women's History

"I define a feminist as a self-empowering woman who wishes the same for her sisters. I do not think the term implies a certain sexual orientation, a certain style of dress, or membership in a certain political party. A feminist is merely a woman who refuses to accept the notion that women's power must come through men." -- Erica Jong, Fear of Fifty, p.286

"I define feminist consciousness as the awareness of women that they belong to a subordinate group; that they have suffered wrongs as a group; that their condition of subordination is not natural, but is societally determined; they they must join with other women to remedy these wrongs; and finally, that they must and can provide an alternate vision of societal organization in which women as well as men will enjoy autonomy and self-determination." -- Gerda Lerner, The Creation of Feminist Consciousness, p. 14

Personally, I think the bolded one sums it up well.

It seems like there is no consistent definition. I've often heard that anyone who supports the right of women to vote is a feminist.

The VAWA has recognized domestic assault against men for years now. What's your point?

ABS's position is not rational. It is based on deep feelings of being a victim. Thus, ABS has no actual arguments, just rants - mostly one-liners expressing his dissatisfaction with the world he has no choice but to live in.

Claiming that feminism is about equality is a joke.

Feminism is about promoting discrimination, and taking away the privilege that males have traditionally had without giving up any of the privilege that women have traditionally held. A good example of what feminism is can be seen in the VAWA of 1994 where they denied men any ability to seek shelter from domestic violence.

What "privilege" are women taking away from men? The right to equal consideration? The right to equal pay? The right to just being equal in the eyes of the law? Hell, just the right to being equal? Is that the privilege you think women took away from men? Poor you.. you expect women to be tied to the kitchen sink. Must hurt like a bitch that a woman can do your job just as well as you do, eh ABS?

And about 33 of your 50 states still consider marital rape as being a lesser crime. That's a good example of why feminism is not going far enough in some instances. Or do you think removing a man's right to rape his wife is also a removal of his privilege.

What "privilege" are women taking away from men? The right to equal consideration? The right to equal pay? The right to just being equal in the eyes of the law? Hell, just the right to being equal? Is that the privilege you think women took away from men? Poor you.. you expect women to be tied to the kitchen sink. Must hurt like a bitch that a woman can do your job just as well as you do, eh ABS?

And about 33 of your 50 states still consider marital rape as being a lesser crime. That's a good example of why feminism is not going far enough in some instances. Or do you think removing a man's right to rape his wife is also a removal of his privilege.

Ahh poor sexist is trying to put words into my mouth.

Funny that when someone speaks out against sexist legislation such as the VAWA of 1994 that you respond by suggesting that I think that women should be tied to the sink.

Maybe instead of being a 'feminist' why not actually push for equality, which is the foundation of everything that I've stated on here?

Maybe instead of being a 'feminist' why not actually push to abolish privileges that women have traditionally held onto instead of simply the ones that men have traditionally held onto? Oh wait, expecting both men and women to give up their privileges and play with the same rules would be pushing for equality, the enemy of feminism.

How many states still have laws that say that rape only occurs when penetration occurs, thus making it physically impossible for a woman to rape a man, without some forgien object, according to such sexist laws?

Ahh poor sexist is trying to put words into my mouth.

Funny that when someone speaks out against sexist legislation such as the VAWA of 1994 that you respond by suggesting that I think that women should be tied to the sink.

Maybe instead of being a 'feminist' why not actually push for equality, which is the foundation of everything that I've stated on here?

Maybe instead of being a 'feminist' why not actually push to abolish privileges that women have traditionally held onto instead of simply the ones that men have traditionally held onto? Oh wait, expecting both men and women to give up their privileges and play with the same rules would be pushing for equality, the enemy of feminism.

How many states still have laws that say that rape only occurs when penetration occurs, thus making it physically impossible for a woman to rape a man, without some forgien object, according to such sexist laws?

What privileges do women hold that men do not have?

I am all for pushing for rape laws to include male rapes by women. I am also for pushing for equality for both of the sexes. But your griping about women taking away men's rights in the public sphere is amusing. Women have to work twice as hard and have to prove they are better (notice 'better' and not 'equal') than men to be given equal consideration.

There is a strong belief in society that women are somehow less equal to men and they should therefore have to prove their worth to be given equal status. Your posts only reiterate that belief system. If someone calls for equality for women, you instantly pipe up and say 'what about equality for men'. You fail to recognise that it is the men who set the benchmarks to their own standards. Women then have to prove they can go above those benchmarks to even be considered. I am for abolishing the male dominated benchmarks altogether and I am for equal consideration. A person's sex should not factor into the equation.

The question is a simple one. Do you think women should have equal rights to men and vice versa? Do you think women are equal? Or do you think that giving women equal rights automatically amounts to a reduction and removal of privileges for men?

Maybe instead of being a 'feminist' why not actually push to abolish privileges that women have traditionally held onto instead of simply the ones that men have traditionally held onto?

Which privileges? Be specific. Or can't you think of any?

Which privileges? Be specific. Or can't you think of any?

It is astounding that someone, who purports to be educated, can still believe that granting women equal rights automatically means men are denied their own rights and privileges. That it is the male dominated sphere of society that has granted those "privileges" to women appears to have escaped him entirely.

Here is another example of what feminism, err sexism, is about:

The story about gender differences and bias, however, has a good side to it. Since 1971, girls have made definite strides in terms of graduating from high school and attending and graduating college. For instance, in 1971, only about 78% of girls finished high school compared to almost 90% of boys. By 1996, this figure had essentially reversed. Also, in 1971, less than 40% of women had completed one year of college and less than 20% had graduated. In comparison, over 60% of men had completed one year and 30% had graduated. In 1996, almost 70% of women were going to college, compared to 50% of men.

http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?&isbn=0072321644&nsa=1

Sexists encourage the discrimination against males in the education system. In the 1970s they had the chance to undo the gender bias that existed against females, but instead they simply went out of their way to ensure a bias against males of the same magnitude.


Yet more of the feminists in action. I guess this is what you mean when you ask me if women should be given equal consideration.

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED452119

Still your entire post reeks of sexism because of the fact that you don't even want to acknowledge that women have privileges of their own, and only focus on attempting to take away every priviledge that men have traditionally held.

It is astounding that someone, who purports to be educated, can still believe that granting women equal rights automatically means men are denied their own rights and privileges. That it is the male dominated sphere of society that has granted those "privileges" to women appears to have escaped him entirely.

Yet sexists such as yourself don't seem to do much to go after those privileges that were given to women, but only to the privileges that men had held onto.

Moderator note: Thread title changed from "Senator Kennedy Betrays Women".

This thread is not really about Senator Kennedy, and hasn't been about that from the first post. The current title is more informative and indicates what the debate is really about.

ABS:

Here is another example of what feminism, err sexism, is about:

Please educate yourself. Start by reading the wikipedia article I helpfully linked you to above. Feminism is not sexism. By continually repeating silly mistakes, you make yourself look like an idiot, and nobody will take you seriously.

Sexists encourage the discrimination against males in the education system. In the 1970s they had the chance to undo the gender bias that existed against females, but instead they simply went out of their way to ensure a bias against males of the same magnitude.

In what way is this supposed bias implemented? How is favoritism for girls manifested in the way the education system works?

You look at outcomes and assume discrimination, with no evidence. An alternative explanation which is equally valid in the absence of evidence is that girls are naturally smarter than boys, and so tend to do better when given equal educational opportunities.

Still your entire post reeks of sexism because of the fact that you don't even want to acknowledge that women have privileges of their own, and only focus on attempting to take away every priviledge that men have traditionally held.

You haven't been able to name ONE privilege that women supposedly have.

Thought of any yet?

Bell and james i HATE to be associated with ABS but there are policies in place that are discrimitory to EITHER sex

An example of this is the public service hiring code that was in place when my parents both worked for the federal goverment (dad for defence surport, mum for the CES and i think she also worked for hatches, matches and dispaches). When they worked there the offical policy was that in the face of two equal aplicatents they should hire the woman. This DOES breach the anti descrimination act but i dont know if this policy has been revoked.

There IS also an inequality in health care spending. Mens health issues have tended to take a backseat to womens health in Australia. Im sorry if you dont like this but it IS a fact. That ALOT more money is spent each year on breast cancer than prostate cancer is one example.

There is also the problem the goverment has been having finding surport for scholoships into teaching and nursing for men. The universitys want it and so do the industrys but there isnt any public surport for an openly discrimitory policy favoring men (There ARE single sex scholorships for women studying engernering and maths)

I am not stupid enough to belive that there is no descrimination against women either. The former Goverments policy on workplace relations put the issue of equal pay back years but i am also not blind to the discrimination that IS there.

James i dont know why you defend the former goverments anti domestic vilonce campain. The abolision of domestic vilonce and sexual assult IS a worthy cause. I dont however agree that it should have been frased in a gender exsclusive manner. What is wrong with "to domestic vilonce, Australia says no" "to rape and sexual assult, Australia says no". "If you or someone you know has been the subject of sexual assult or domestic vilonce call the domestic vilonce help line on ...." This would have agnolaged the fact that it DOES happen in hedrosexual reationships against men, that it DOES exist in homosexual and lesbian realtionships.

Here is another example of what feminism, err sexism, is about:



http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?&isbn=0072321644&nsa=1

Sexists encourage the discrimination against males in the education system. In the 1970s they had the chance to undo the gender bias that existed against females, but instead they simply went out of their way to ensure a bias against males of the same magnitude.


Yet more of the feminists in action. I guess this is what you mean when you ask me if women should be given equal consideration.

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED452119

Still your entire post reeks of sexism because of the fact that you don't even want to acknowledge that women have privileges of their own, and only focus on attempting to take away every priviledge that men have traditionally held.

HAHAHAAAA!

So because men are choosing to not go to college or choosing to leave college, it is the fault of women? Do you think that allowing women to have equality of access to college and universities automatically excluded men of their "privilege" of an education? Don't you think access to university should be based on merits alone? And if women test higher than men, men lose their privileges?... LOL! You're an absolute hoot ABS. Do you think it would be equality if men were given a requisite number of places at university to ensure their numbers equaled that of female students? Do you think colleges should given males places over female students who tested better?

And if men choose other career paths than teaching, it's the women's faults there are more female teachers? Do you think men should be forced into becoming teachers to help formulate a balanced view of the sexes in early education? My husband's best friend is a primary school teacher and when he was at university, I think he was one of only about 10 males in his year. The reason was that males chose to go into other fields of study. Equality is also about choice ABS. You're a teacher, aren't you? Do you think there should be more male teachers? I do too. But that is up to the individual to choose their profession. Men have equal access to becoming teachers if they so choose. That they choose not to is not the fault of women. The same could be said for the IT industry, where it is a male dominated industry. Is it sexist? No. It becomes sexist if employers are purposefully boycotting females over males. It is no different to the education system.

If schools are deliberately boycotting male teachers in favour of female educators, then yes, that would be sexist. I would be interested in seeing a more recent report on this if you have one handy.

Bells you do realise that one reason that men wont go into teaching is the risk of being falsely accuesed of pedophilia dont you? Im not saying this is descrimination, rather it is a rather unfortunate fact of life. If my mother puts her arm around a kid who has fallen over in the playground she is comferting him\her. Tell me the same judgement would be automatically assumed if it was a male teacher

As i said its not descrimination its just a sad inditment of our sociaty that so many men who want to get into the profession fear that so much

Bells you do realise that one reason that men wont go into teaching is the risk of being falsely accuesed of pedophilia dont you? Im not saying this is descrimination, rather it is a rather unfortunate fact of life. If my mother puts her arm around a kid who has fallen over in the playground she is comferting him\her. Tell me the same judgement would be automatically assumed if it was a male teacher

As i said its not descrimination its just a sad inditment of our sociaty that so many men who want to get into the profession fear that so much

Why is that do you think? Do you think it is just women who view male teachers as being suspected paedophiles? Ask any guy what he thinks of men who choose to work in a room full of 5 year old's. I personally find people who believe that kind of nonsense to be sexist and uneducated boors. My husband has often had his own friends and acquaintances comment and make insulting jokes about the fact he chose to retire to spend time with our children during their early years.

There is a belief in society that it is not what men do... that women are meant to be the caregivers, not men. As a child, the majority of my school teachers (both primary and secondary) have been male. With the exception of one who was a pervert (and after many complaints by female and male students, he was finally caught trying to grope a female student), all the others were the absolute best. I adored them. And they never felt uncomfortable about showing their female and male students affection. That fear has come to the fore in recent times due to the utter fear that people have about sexual abuse. Female teachers are just as likely to abuse a child as a male teacher is. And a minority of teachers (be they male or female) sadly do and it reflects badly on all teachers when they do.

My husband's best friend is a primary school teacher and he does hug his students, be they male or female, if they need a hug. As he says, they're children and children need affection, regardless of their sex. His employers and the parents don't mind at all. I send my 2 year old to a daycare for half a day twice a week so he learns to interact with other children his own age. One of the teachers in his room is a male and the guy is marvelous with those kids. He hugs them and changes them, etc. I'd be more disturbed if he did not and was cold and not affectionate towards those children.

I agree to Asquard as to fear of being wrongly accused is the main reason within community of men.

Asguard:

An example of this is the public service hiring code that was in place when my parents both worked for the federal goverment (dad for defence surport, mum for the CES and i think she also worked for hatches, matches and dispaches). When they worked there the offical policy was that in the face of two equal aplicatents they should hire the woman. This DOES breach the anti descrimination act but i dont know if this policy has been revoked.

I assume it has been revoked, since it would be illegal without an antidiscrimination exemption.

To take a different example, I was surprised to learn a few days ago that until about 1970, or perhaps a bit after that, women who were teachers in Australia had to be single. As soon as they married, they were forced to resign, on the assumption that their husbands would support them and they were potentially taking a man's job. That was the law.

ABS would no doubt like to see that kind of policy brought back, so he wouldn't have to compete on a level playing field with female teachers for a job.

There IS also an inequality in health care spending. Mens health issues have tended to take a backseat to womens health in Australia. Im sorry if you dont like this but it IS a fact. That ALOT more money is spent each year on breast cancer than prostate cancer is one example.

That suggests to me that women's health issues are better publicised, not that there is a conspiracy to make men suffer.

There is also the problem the goverment has been having finding surport for scholoships into teaching and nursing for men. The universitys want it and so do the industrys but there isnt any public surport for an openly discrimitory policy favoring men (There ARE single sex scholorships for women studying engernering and maths)

The public, of course, includes both men and women. So, no public support tells you... what?

James i dont know why you defend the former goverments anti domestic vilonce campain. The abolision of domestic vilonce and sexual assult IS a worthy cause. I dont however agree that it should have been frased in a gender exsclusive manner.

I think any campaign against domestic violence is better than none. Moreover, as I said before, my impression (and I'm happy to be proved wrong about this if I am wrong) is that domestic violence against women is more prevalent in Australia than domestic violence against men.

Bells you do realise that one reason that men wont go into teaching is the risk of being falsely accuesed of pedophilia dont you?

I don't think many potential male teachers would have that concern.


Bells:

And if men choose other career paths than teaching, it's the women's faults there are more female teachers? Do you think men should be forced into becoming teachers to help formulate a balanced view of the sexes in early education? My husband's best friend is a primary school teacher and when he was at university, I think he was one of only about 10 males in his year. The reason was that males chose to go into other fields of study. Equality is also about choice ABS. You're a teacher, aren't you? Do you think there should be more male teachers? I do too. But that is up to the individual to choose their profession.

There is a shortage of good teachers full stop, not just male teachers. What is at issue here is not gender, but the why potential teachers choose other careers. The answer is that teachers are overworked, underpaid and undervalued in the current political and social climate (at least in Australia).

The gender discrepancy might be partly to do with ego and perception of status. Men want to go into what they perceive to be high-status professions. If teaching is considered low status, that will put men off teaching. On the other hand, women tend not to be so egotistical. Other factors may take precedence for them.

bells i didnt say i thought it was women doing it, its sociaty in general and its IDIOTIC. I knew a guy in school who orgionally wanted to be a teacher but was put off by this atitude. Its sad because he would have made a great teacher but this is what the goverment is fighting against, with one hand tied behind its back because its "descrimitory" to have single sex scholorships to get men into nursing and teaching. One of my parters friends calls me "a male nurse" for wanting to be a paramedic (actually i aplied for nursing as a backup). He uses it as an insult which i have never understood.

Did you know that the state goverment in victoria thought about having an offical policy of unequal pay to men as an means of luring men into teaching? Of course mum's (she is a primary teacher) opinion was that if pay was the thing keeping men out it should be raised for both sexes (which i agree with)


In general its these 2 issues that are keeping men out of teaching in my opinon. While i was at school i NEVER herd anyone say "why would you want to get into teaching, its womans work" not once

people...why USA...perhaps it is time to change our lives and change were we live...so that the government no longer bugs us with feminism or anti-feminism.

James i also assume it has been revoked but i dont know because nither of my parents work for the public service anymore. The point was that it WAS public policy.

As for health care policy the goverment should be moving on issues it sees a need for not ones which people have to fight for. If we take your sugestion then what we need is a men's lobby group with as much clout as the femist lobby? That idea makes me sick to be frank. Health spending should be spent by NEED not by who screams the loudest, look at the Mersy hospital. The state goverment had the courage to alocate its resorces acordng to need, surported by proffessional groups and achademics and what did the federal goverment do? They over-rode there dision because it was politically expediant. Is that the sort of health care you want for the country?

As for the campaine against domestic vilonce who cares which way it tilts? stop male drivers for random breath tests because they are more likly to have been drinking? no we stop EVERYONE. Yes your probably right (and i have never fought against the point) that a larger percentage of domestic vilonce and sexual assult is against women. At the sametime however women are MUCH more likly to report abuse. So where should the money be spent? Aiming at the majority who are more likly to report the abuse? the minority who are less likly to report or on BOTH in a gender netural way?

Oh and i sugest you go into a bacholor course for teachers and survey what there fears and expected problems are when they finish there degree. I garentiee that is an issue.

Here is another example of what feminism, err sexism, is about:



http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?&isbn=0072321644&nsa=1

Sexists encourage the discrimination against males in the education system. In the 1970s they had the chance to undo the gender bias that existed against females, but instead they simply went out of their way to ensure a bias against males of the same magnitude.


Yet more of the feminists in action. I guess this is what you mean when you ask me if women should be given equal consideration.

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED452119

Still your entire post reeks of sexism because of the fact that you don't even want to acknowledge that women have privileges of their own, and only focus on attempting to take away every priviledge that men have traditionally held.

what in the holy hell are these privileges your ranting about what are the male ones that are being taken away and what are the female ones not?

Funny that you didn't even read the title of the study that I posted up, but do we ever expect sexists to even get that far?

The Paucity of Male Elementary School Teachers: Discriminatory Hiring Practices and Other Contributing Factors.
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED452119

Funny that you didn't even read the title of the study that I posted up, but do we ever expect sexists to even get that far?

The Paucity of Male Elementary School Teachers: Discriminatory Hiring Practices and Other Contributing Factors.
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED452119

And funny that you failed to read when I said:

If schools are deliberately boycotting male teachers in favour of female educators, then yes, that would be sexist.
At the end of the day, it should come down to whoever is best for the position, regardless of their sex.

At the end of the day, it should come down to whoever is best for the position, regardless of their sex.

thats like saying whoever is smarter in America should be given rights of freedom and such, that why there was racism.

And funny that you failed to read when I said:


At the end of the day, it should come down to whoever is best for the position, regardless of their sex.

I don't think that you read where you said:

Men have equal access to becoming teachers if they so choose.

I'm also sure that you were talking about how there was no bias against women in the 1970s, and that if girls didn't graduate from high school that was because they were dumb and if they didn't attend university that was their choice...

MOD HAT: This has denigrated into pointless bitching and personal atacks. Its ovious that an inteligent debate on this topic is pointless for this site so the thread is closed. Feel free to PM me if you disagree

After a request from james this is reopended

but posts for example:

Funny that you didn't even read the title of the study that I posted up, but do we ever expect sexists to even get that far?


will be deleted

Incase no one saw this is reopened