by Psyber » Wed Mar 08, 2017 5:26 pm
by Jimmy_041 » Wed Mar 08, 2017 5:32 pm
bennymacca wrote:wikipedia is more accurate than traditional encyclopedias
not saying you should trust everything on there, far from it, but on the whole it is an excellent resource and first port of call.
If you have studied or work in a technical area (such as engineering) you will use it almost daily
by amber_fluid » Wed Mar 08, 2017 6:33 pm
HH3 wrote:Booney wrote:I'm pretty sure I'm 100% correct that one of you is female.
I can be whatever you want for the right price
by stan » Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:17 pm
amber_fluid wrote:HH3 wrote:Booney wrote:I'm pretty sure I'm 100% correct that one of you is female.
I can be whatever you want for the right price
Bend over then b*tch!!
Oh it's probably not the right forum to say that is it......... [emoji38]
by Magellan » Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:37 pm
by MW » Thu Mar 09, 2017 1:50 pm
by The Bedge » Thu Mar 09, 2017 2:10 pm
MW wrote:This is getting out of hand...enough is enough. Not everything in life is because men have it better than women.
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/kids/kate-ellis-shouldnt-have-had-to-resign/news-story/799410cd2cc826bc9c68064c32e1d767
The painful truth is that motherhood and politics don’t mix.
The parliament is still structured the way it was back in 1901 when the Australian states federated. That is, the parliament was designed for men and by men. Men who assumed parenting was the job of someone else. Modern public life remains utterly inconsistent with the realities of new motherhood and our country is the poorer for it.
I feel bad for Kate Ellis. It's another sign of how stacked in favour of men with wives the political system is.
In her brilliant book, The Wife Drought, Annabel Crabb revealed that in the 44th parliament, male politicians had an average of 2.1 children and females only 1.2. Crabb called it a “one-child penalty for women in federal politics”. Forty per cent of female members of the federal parliament were childless.
We cannot think that the stuff of gender equality is done simply because women now make up a significant proportion of the workforce. Equality requires that workplaces accept women and men as whole people, with lives, loves and responsibilities that exist outside the office.
Dolphin Treasure wrote:Your an attention seeking embarsement..
by Booney » Thu Mar 09, 2017 2:14 pm
by Jimmy_041 » Thu Mar 09, 2017 9:26 pm
by Magellan » Thu Mar 09, 2017 10:21 pm
Grenville wrote:Magellan wrote:
Good value Viz magazine.
by HH3 » Thu Mar 09, 2017 10:30 pm
Zartan wrote:MW wrote:This is getting out of hand...enough is enough. Not everything in life is because men have it better than women.
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/kids/kate-ellis-shouldnt-have-had-to-resign/news-story/799410cd2cc826bc9c68064c32e1d767
WTF?!
Kate Ellis resigns to focus on family..The painful truth is that motherhood and politics don’t mix.
The parliament is still structured the way it was back in 1901 when the Australian states federated. That is, the parliament was designed for men and by men. Men who assumed parenting was the job of someone else. Modern public life remains utterly inconsistent with the realities of new motherhood and our country is the poorer for it.I feel bad for Kate Ellis. It's another sign of how stacked in favour of men with wives the political system is.In her brilliant book, The Wife Drought, Annabel Crabb revealed that in the 44th parliament, male politicians had an average of 2.1 children and females only 1.2. Crabb called it a “one-child penalty for women in federal politics”. Forty per cent of female members of the federal parliament were childless.We cannot think that the stuff of gender equality is done simply because women now make up a significant proportion of the workforce. Equality requires that workplaces accept women and men as whole people, with lives, loves and responsibilities that exist outside the office.
by bennymacca » Thu Mar 09, 2017 11:20 pm
by tipper » Fri Mar 10, 2017 8:41 am
bennymacca wrote:he makes a fair point. i dont think there will ever be exactly equal pay for that reason.
I wonder what barriers there were to her spending time with her family, maybe that can be looked at. I know my job has awesome flexibility, and is probably not possible for a lot of other professions.
by Dogwatcher » Fri Mar 10, 2017 9:00 am
tipper wrote: what a load of garbage that article is. "stacked in favour of men with wives"..... who says that the men in parliament all have wives that are live at home mums? who says that the men dont miss their kids? its assuming that somehow men are less in touch, or care less about their kids, which is further perpetuating the gender stereotypes that the author supposedly hates.
by bennymacca » Fri Mar 10, 2017 9:39 am
Dogwatcher wrote:tipper wrote: what a load of garbage that article is. "stacked in favour of men with wives"..... who says that the men in parliament all have wives that are live at home mums? who says that the men dont miss their kids? its assuming that somehow men are less in touch, or care less about their kids, which is further perpetuating the gender stereotypes that the author supposedly hates.
Can't agree with this more. We need fair pay, we need women to have an equal say in our society, but...
We are now at a point where choice comes into play. I choose to work five days a week, so that my wife can spend time at home with the kids. But I have also chosen a career path that allows me to be part of my kids' day-to-day life. In my profession, I could choose the commute-to-city- earn-more-money-and-work-long-hours-because-it's-expected career path, but I have not. Women now, thanks to the advances in our society, have the same choice to make. I'm not going to say that all inequities against women have been absolved, but we have come to a point where, if equity, is to come into the equation, then we all have to consider our working choices.
by HH3 » Fri Mar 10, 2017 9:47 am
bennymacca wrote:Dogwatcher wrote:tipper wrote: what a load of garbage that article is. "stacked in favour of men with wives"..... who says that the men in parliament all have wives that are live at home mums? who says that the men dont miss their kids? its assuming that somehow men are less in touch, or care less about their kids, which is further perpetuating the gender stereotypes that the author supposedly hates.
Can't agree with this more. We need fair pay, we need women to have an equal say in our society, but...
We are now at a point where choice comes into play. I choose to work five days a week, so that my wife can spend time at home with the kids. But I have also chosen a career path that allows me to be part of my kids' day-to-day life. In my profession, I could choose the commute-to-city- earn-more-money-and-work-long-hours-because-it's-expected career path, but I have not. Women now, thanks to the advances in our society, have the same choice to make. I'm not going to say that all inequities against women have been absolved, but we have come to a point where, if equity, is to come into the equation, then we all have to consider our working choices.
agree with both of you
it has certainly been a family decision for us that my wife stayed at home. If she was earning more than me I would have been pushing for her to have a short time off and me stay home.
by bennymacca » Fri Mar 10, 2017 9:51 am
HH3 wrote:bennymacca wrote:
And now your household skews those "gender pay gap" figures we talked about.
There's a 100% gender pay gap at your house, you privileged pig
by HH3 » Fri Mar 10, 2017 9:59 am
by tipper » Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:05 am
bennymacca wrote:
I know you are probably saying this tongue in cheek, but you still are misunderstanding the point that even if you control for all of those factors, there is still a difference in wages.
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |