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?
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: 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.
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: 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. 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. 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.
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
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.
Asguard: 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. That suggests to me that women's health issues are better publicised, not that there is a conspiracy to make men suffer. The public, of course, includes both men and women. So, no public support tells you... what? 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. I don't think many potential male teachers would have that concern. Bells: 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.
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
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.
