I think there is an ongoing undercurrent. I don't know about war.
I heard a discussion the other day and I was really struck by what one of the women guests said about women having been the butt of sexist jokes in Australia ever since the first fleet. She quoted a typical one: that a woman is something for a bloke to lie on when he is having sex.
I laughed. Well it's a funny line. But underneath does it mean something more? Is it a statement that men have no respect for women as people?
And equally there are women about who definitely have it in for men (no pun intended). I was watching the Drum the other night and there was a woman - I think her name was Jane Caro - who sent out definite man-hating signals to me. And of course we all remember Germaine.
Have things not really improved, just gone underground, since the days when the men used to gather at one end of the room and the women at the other?
What do people think? Do we have a problem relating to one another across the "gender divide" . . .sounds like a mountain range doesn't it.

Is there a real gender war in Australia?

yes .... I think washing the dishes is my wifes job and she seems to think i should do it ... we fight over it all the time. Women should learn their place.

bogarde73 wrote on Jun 18^th, 2013 at 3:27pm:

I think there is an ongoing undercurrent. I don't know about war. I heard a discussion the other day and I was really struck by what one of the women guests said about women having been the butt of sexist jokes in Australia ever since the first fleet. She quoted a typical one: that a woman is something for a bloke to lie on when he is having sex. I laughed. Well it's a funny line. But underneath does it mean something more? Is it a statement that men have no respect for women as people? And equally there are women about who definitely have it in for men (no pun intended). I was watching the Drum the other night and there was a woman - I think her name was Jane Caro - who sent out definite man-hating signals to me. And of course we all remember Germaine. Have things not really improved, just gone underground, since the days when the men used to gather at one end of the room and the women at the other? What do people think? Do we have a problem relating to one another across the "gender divide" . . .sounds like a mountain range doesn't it.

The gender divide is just natural.

The jokes are mostly banter and not hate or mysogeny / misanthropy.

Yeah there are the men / woman haters but they are just mentally deranged or homos (or both  ;) ).

There is a gender difference.

Women like men who like women.
Men like women who like men.

Hence, gillards perceived misandrist drift rightly led to men deciding against her.

John Smith wrote on Jun 18^th, 2013 at 3:33pm:

Is there a real gender war in Australia? yes .... I think washing the dishes is my wifes job and she seems to think i should do it ... we fight over it all the time. Women should learn their place.

Now, do the right thing. (put a TV in the kitchen for her to watch)

GA wrote on Jun 18^th, 2013 at 4:36pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 18th, 2013 at 3:33pm: Is there a real gender war in Australia? yes .... I think washing the dishes is my wifes job and she seems to think i should do it ... we fight over it all the time. Women should learn their place. Now, do the right thing. (put a TV in the kitchen for her to watch)

;D ;D

I'll have to try that one.

I don't think there is to be honest.

People can find a war or a conflict if they look for it, but often everyday modern families have incredible equality.

Until she went on mat leave, my wife out-earned me every single year. Did it bother me?
Not really.

Now transport us back to my grandfather's day and he would have died of shame, out-earned by his wife.

Being a father of 2 girls I am as keen as anyone that there be no gender barriers for them to be whatever they like.
I am though disappointed that, should they choose to live in Australia, their role model would be held as Julia Gillard??

bogarde73 wrote on Jun 18^th, 2013 at 3:27pm:

I think there is an ongoing undercurrent. I don't know about war. I heard a discussion the other day and I was really struck by what one of the women guests said about women having been the butt of sexist jokes in Australia ever since the first fleet. She quoted a typical one: that a woman is something for a bloke to lie on when he is having sex. I laughed. Well it's a funny line. But underneath does it mean something more? Is it a statement that men have no respect for women as people? And equally there are women about who definitely have it in for men (no pun intended). I was watching the Drum the other night and there was a woman - I think her name was Jane Caro - who sent out definite man-hating signals to me. And of course we all remember Germaine. Have things not really improved, just gone underground, since the days when the men used to gather at one end of the room and the women at the other? What do people think? Do we have a problem relating to one another across the "gender divide" . . .sounds like a mountain range doesn't it.

There is a war and feminists started it. And in as little as 150 years it may well end when the last male of the species dies. Thru the processes of natural attrition and the termination of male fetuses, males would eventually be eliminated. The aptly named 'post nuclear family' (it looks likes it's taken a direct hit from a H-bomb) would be replaced by the Bull-dyke and her harem.  Males, being more inefficient than are females would be the justification needed, for the man who has been raised to accept that he is sacrificial, to accept that he no longer has the right to exist. If we look around we will notice, even now, that the first planks in this ideological battle are being put in place. Abortion as a fundamental right would have been step 1, step 2 would be gay marriage, which will, by default, favor female offspring.  Step 3 would be the elimination of 'parents'. (we see this happening now with Gillard's enforcement of the 'self sufficient' single parent). Single parents, being capable of producing male offspring will no longer have the freedom to have as many children as they would have while on the single parenting payments. And to accelerate the process, some time in the future, the 'compulsory euthanasia age' will be lowered. (Age, being an often painful, always terminal illness).

No - there is no real gender war here - only a trumped up one similar to that in the United States, with the 'war against women's reproductive rights' that was a tea in a stormcup over giving out the pill to students and getting Catholic employers to sign up (as they already had) to their women employees being 'permitted' to access contraception at other providers of health insurance.

About as meaningful as a Gillardism such as 'Misogyny... Misogyny... Misogyny"......

Frankly if any political figure can't take the pressure he or she should stand down, not whine they are being picked on because they are a Salgumpian with a live-in Follagandist boy/girlfriend.

No take-a da heat - you leave-a da kitchen!  No complain!

As for the other gender war issues - there remain the extremely stupid EEO (Affirmative Action) that deliberately favours women, plus the distorted 'education' system that favours the way girls 'study' and so forth, biased employment and promotion, undue political influence to impose unelected swill on the electorate, divorce and custody equality for men as well to attain, abolition of 'domestic violence' "laws" that violate human and legal rights, replacement of the women's and other select group's offices with a single office with teeth to oversee a Bill of Rights with TEETH (maybe hang a few magistrates, judges, and politicians for show), and so forth.

Not a war - just an endless round of stupid policies that have set Australia against itself while the farm first burns down, then goes into liquidation, then is dug up for minerals - and fortunately against its political masters (deliberate use of that term)..... ;)    :P

*conference time for the Real Australian Republic coming up...

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 18^th, 2013 at 4:57pm:

I don't think there is to be honest. People can find a war or a conflict if they look for it, but often everyday modern families have incredible equality. Until she went on mat leave, my wife out-earned me every single year. Did it bother me? Not really. Now transport us back to my grandfather's day and he would have died of shame, out-earned by his wife. Being a father of 2 girls I am as keen as anyone that there be no gender barriers for them to be whatever they like. I am though disappointed that, should they choose to live in Australia, their role model would be held as Julia Gillard??

It always saddens me when people attempt to make the false connection between totally different social times and conditions pre-1950's - and then use that to somehow justify ongoing rape of men's rights as above...

The moment you even permit the existence of corporate punishment for some purported past wrong (that did not exist in reality - what did your grandfather do for a living?  Well-heeled was he.. laird of the manor?  Or just a serf who had his lungs killed off in the industries?) - you accept absolute and unmitigated discrimination as the way things are done.

That is perhaps the greatest act of violence against a social group within a country/society, and is rightly viewed as a Crime Against Humanity by the same United Nations that makes such play about 'women's rights' and 'empowering women' and so on.

Talk about Left hand/Right hand......

When you are ready to discuss affirmative action by another name, and its abuse as nothing more than an employment route for those less capable of hard work - we can talk again.

I have no objection to Disabled people getting some AA - but women these days?

For what Earthly reason do they NEED affirmative action here?

And please - no discussion of the plight of women in Longoffistan and the Faraway Islands.... we don't control those and have no right to try to do so under international law.

ADDS:-  My daughter has not a single barrier to her - she has every right to do what she wants and can.  Why do people somehow 'fear' that things like the vote and education will be suddenly ripped from women and thus these need to be 'guarded' and 'defended' and 'enhanced' against that dire future?

That is the most absurd paranoia I've ever heard.

I'm a middle-child who goes the reverse of my siblings and sees my mother in the name of money and my father in the name of relationships.
Does this mean I have to be 'Gay' and have sex with men?
NO! ::) ya fools!

COMMON SENSE of the COMMON PEOPLE of the COMMONWEALTH of OZ.

With Julia Gillard as POWER(monger?)
Gina Rinehart as GOLD (digger?)
Bryce Courtney as CULTURAL (traitor?)

...the idea that Australia is a nation of Women still subjugated to being nothing more than 'inferior' houswives and breeders is absurd!
Although the above 3 mentioned probably think such women as 'inferior' themselves.

What we have here, especially in Gillard is FEMINISM gone bad. Took a short cut and gone 'wrong way' (turn back, do not collect $200!).

Talking with school kids today who told me that the 'sandwich throwers' were suspended - the vibe I got was that children hate Gillard. :-?
You wouldn't think that in a woman.

I dislike how Gillard is trying to feed and EXPLOIT any sexism in regards to her being a female PM.
WHO CARES! ::)
The NOVELTY of Obama was pathetic because he was 'Black'. So what! Khoffi Annan went further and before Obama because he just got on with being POLITICAL.

I think Kate Ellis (Pentberthy?) would be a far more sincere and 'authentic' female PM than Gillard has shown.

GILLARD IS A FRAUD.

Sorry, but she deserves all the sexist remarks she gets because she is asking for it to solicit SYMPATHY upon the 'NOVELTY' of her being a Female, rather than a Polititian.

Theres always been a degree of enmity between the sexes, but deep down we all know that we can't live without each other, and thus it is in all of our best interests to find some sort of social agreement that all can be happy with. 

What you see now is just ongoing, dynamic renegotiation of that agreement, as has been constantly occurring since time immemorial.  Only now "the machine" is getting involved, and trying to fan the flames of rivalry for their own reasons. 

Intersexual relations are a zero-sum game, so without coercion by an external force, both parties get precisely the outcome they earn and deserve.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 18^th, 2013 at 4:09pm:

There is a gender difference. Women like men who like women. Men like women who like men. Hence, gillards perceived misandrist drift rightly led to men deciding against her.

I was wondering how long it would take for some rightwing ranter to turn this into a "I hate Gillard" thread.

My money was on Swag, but he proved a let down. Not for the first time.

Peter Freedman wrote on Jun 18^th, 2013 at 8:39pm:

I was wondering how long it would take for some rightwing ranter to turn this into a "I hate Gillard" thread. My money was on Swag, but he proved a let down. Not for the first time

I don't hate Julia Peter I just don't care for the ideology of her party.

I've got plenty of friends that are (well used to be that is) rusted on Labor voters.

:D

Swagman wrote on Jun 18^th, 2013 at 9:59pm:

Peter Freedman wrote on Jun 18th, 2013 at 8:39pm: I was wondering how long it would take for some rightwing ranter to turn this into a "I hate Gillard" thread. My money was on Swag, but he proved a let down. Not for the first time I don't hate Julia Peter I just don't care for the ideology of her party. I've got plenty of friends that are (well used to be that is) rusted on Labor voters. :D

The "ideology" isnt any different from abbotts party except its more organised.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 19^th, 2013 at 4:43am:

The "ideology" isnt any different from abbotts party except its more organised

Ok Borg, explain why you believe the ideology of the ALP is the same as the Liberal Party? :-?

Come on girls, your opinions are needed here . . .pansi? kat? emma? frances? whoever

Swagman wrote on Jun 19^th, 2013 at 10:09am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 19th, 2013 at 4:43am: The "ideology" isnt any different from abbotts party except its more organised Ok Borg, explain why you believe the ideology of the ALP is the same as the Liberal Party? :-?

No gay marriage, kick more ppl into poverty, give money to ppl that dont need it and big business,  etc . . . . .

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 19^th, 2013 at 11:42am:

Swagman wrote on Jun 19th, 2013 at 10:09am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 19th, 2013 at 4:43am: The "ideology" isnt any different from abbotts party except its more organised Ok Borg, explain why you believe the ideology of the ALP is the same as the Liberal Party? :-? No gay marriage, kick more ppl into poverty, give money to ppl that dont need it and big business,  etc . . . . . SOB

Sorry I thought you knew what 'ideology' meant.

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jun 18^th, 2013 at 6:55pm:

It always saddens me when people attempt to make the false connection between totally different social times and conditions pre-1950's - and then use that to somehow justify ongoing rape of men's rights as above...

Mens rights are not being raped. Post a citation of a law being changed specifically to disadvantage men, or bugger off with your bullshit.


Quote:

I have no objection to Disabled people getting some AA - but women these days? For what Earthly reason do they NEED affirmative action here?

Its because of assholes like you. You ignore the facts and twist the figures to show that women are not being suppressed and its all just a big misunderstanding and the womenfolk dont know what they are talking about.

Its a fact that women are paid less for doing the same job.
Its a fact that women are more likely to be raped. I think the figure was 1/4 women will be sexually assaulted. 1/4. Do you know 4 women? If so, one of them has probably been raped, or will be raped. Because of assholes like you who enable assholes who cant control their asshole urges. Stop it.
Its a fact that there are less women on boards of companies.
Its a fact that there are less women in positions of power all round the country.
Its a fact that women, on average, retire with less superannuation than men.
Its a fact that women suffer more in terms of careers when they give birth.
Its a fact that the decks are stacked against them because of assholes such as yourself.


Quote:

That is the most absurd paranoia I've ever heard.

Are you sure? You should just scroll up a bit, there is some dude who is so paranoid he thinks that women are trying to wipe out men.

^^^There's one in every crowd. 

::) ::) ::) ::)

... wrote on Jun 19^th, 2013 at 2:56pm:

^^^There's one in every crowd.  ::) ::) ::) ::)

One of what exactly?

Let me guess - you consider yourself a 'free thinker'?

... wrote on Jun 19^th, 2013 at 3:06pm:

Let me guess - you consider yourself a 'free thinker'?

In that I am free to think about whatever I want, yes.

What were you trying (and failing ineptly at btw) to infer?

I would have thought a sharp, critical thinker like yourself would be able to figure it out.

... wrote on Jun 19^th, 2013 at 3:06pm:

Let me guess - you consider yourself a 'free thinker'?

Absolutely not. We're all determined by our hormones.

Scientific, innit.

... wrote on Jun 19^th, 2013 at 3:34pm:

I would have thought a sharp, critical thinker like yourself would be able to figure it out.

Sure, but I find it avoids ambiguity if you just come out and say what you mean.

Also, answer the question. One of what exactly?

donincognito wrote on Jun 19^th, 2013 at 3:11pm:

What were you trying (and failing ineptly at btw) to infer?

That you consider yourself a "free thinker" just because you've done a BA in something like 'Women's Studies' or 'Sociology', and that Honky is the real free thinker because he started a BA course but quickly realised that Universities don't make you a free thinker at all - quite the opposite.

:-/


Of course, I could be wrong.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 19^th, 2013 at 3:49pm:

Of course, I could be wrong.

Yep.

Never done an arts or humanities degree.

donincognito wrote on Jun 19^th, 2013 at 3:53pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 19th, 2013 at 3:49pm: Of course, I could be wrong. Yep. Never done an arts or humanities degree.

I meant that I could be wrong about Honky: he might not be thinking that.

I certainly wasn't thinking that (well ... maybe a little bit).   ;)

I think the problem starts at an early age in schools.
Girls & boys should wear the same clothes - shirt & trousers - & be treated the same.
We treat girls & boys differently & then wonder why women are down trodden
when they get into the workforce.

Bobby. wrote on Jun 19^th, 2013 at 4:11pm:

I think the problem starts at an early age in schools. Girls & boys should wear the same clothes - shirt & trousers - & be treated the same.

Why not dresses, or skirts and shirts?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 19^th, 2013 at 4:14pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 19th, 2013 at 4:11pm: I think the problem starts at an early age in schools. Girls & boys should wear the same clothes - shirt & trousers - & be treated the same. Why not dresses, or skirts and shirts?

To make everyone look the same - you could hardly expect a bloke to walk around in a tutu -
you idiot.

Bobby. wrote on Jun 19^th, 2013 at 4:11pm:

I think the problem starts at an early age in schools. Girls & boys should wear the same clothes - shirt & trousers - & be treated the same. We treat girls & boys differently & then wonder why women are down trodden when they get into the workforce.

That's because they ARE different you bonehead.  Why is it a "problem"?

... wrote on Jun 19^th, 2013 at 4:35pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 19th, 2013 at 4:11pm: I think the problem starts at an early age in schools. Girls & boys should wear the same clothes - shirt & trousers - & be treated the same. We treat girls & boys differently & then wonder why women are down trodden when they get into the workforce. That's because they ARE different you bonehead.  Why is it a "problem"?

Girls are turned into sexual objects at a young age with skimpy dresses at school
showing plenty of leg.
School kids should be dressed in shirts & trousers & their gender differences ignored.

why?

Bobby. wrote on Jun 19^th, 2013 at 4:28pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 19th, 2013 at 4:14pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 19th, 2013 at 4:11pm: I think the problem starts at an early age in schools. Girls & boys should wear the same clothes - shirt & trousers - & be treated the same. Why not dresses, or skirts and shirts? To make everyone look the same - you could hardly expect a bloke to walk around in a tutu - you idiot.

I said a dress, or a skirt.  Nobody said tutu.

To "make everyone look the same" (your insane idea, not mine) why couldn't we "expect a bloke to walk around in a" dress or skirt, or kilt etc. ?

Why did you go for trousers?

http://www.kiltrental.com/Prom%20Black%20Watch%20kilt.jpg

http://photos1.blogger.com/hello/232/8900/640/My%20Fijian%20Brothers,%20Kalokolevu,%20Fiji.jpg

http://media.emirates247.com/images/link/SiteLists/ArticlesEditedPhotos/7_25_2008/ArtclDtaPg_2321732585c44ba0bb1e6da4de0c40de_0.2.jpg

   

... wrote on Jun 19^th, 2013 at 4:40pm:

why?

So that women are treated as equal & with respect & not shown off as sexual objects.
It's no wonder we have all these problems.

Bobby. wrote on Jun 19^th, 2013 at 4:39pm:

School kids should be dressed in shirts & trousers & their gender differences ignored.

Shave their heads too?

http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2012/09/07/1226467/457996-china-education-quadruplets-with-numbers-on-heads.jpg

Just in case?

Bobby. wrote on Jun 19^th, 2013 at 4:43pm:

... wrote on Jun 19th, 2013 at 4:40pm: why? So that women are treated as equal & with respect & not shown off as sexual objects. It's no wonder we have all these problems.

I've got a better idea - treat people based on the content of their character, not their group identity.  Many people are quite happy to be shown off as sexual objects.

http://files.sharenator.com/image002_the_woman_s_role-s600x471-54803-580.jpg

... wrote on Jun 19^th, 2013 at 4:49pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 19th, 2013 at 4:43pm: ... wrote on Jun 19th, 2013 at 4:40pm: why? So that women are treated as equal & with respect & not shown off as sexual objects. It's no wonder we have all these problems. I've got a better idea - treat people based on the content of their character, not their group identity.

Well Honkey,
I think my idea is good - it would start off on the right track -
you dress the same & get treated the same.

Bobby. wrote on Jun 19^th, 2013 at 4:51pm:

... wrote on Jun 19th, 2013 at 4:49pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 19th, 2013 at 4:43pm: ... wrote on Jun 19th, 2013 at 4:40pm: why? So that women are treated as equal & with respect & not shown off as sexual objects. It's no wonder we have all these problems. I've got a better idea - treat people based on the content of their character, not their group identity.  Well Honkey, I think my idea is good - it would start off on the right track - you dress the same & get treated the same.

What about hairstyles bobby?

All short back & sides?

... wrote on Jun 19^th, 2013 at 4:49pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 19th, 2013 at 4:43pm: ... wrote on Jun 19th, 2013 at 4:40pm: why? So that women are treated as equal & with respect & not shown off as sexual objects. It's no wonder we have all these problems. I've got a better idea - treat people based on the content of their character, not their group identity.  Many people are quite happy to be shown off as sexual objects. http://files.sharenator.com/image002_the_woman_s_role-s600x471-54803-580.jpg

True, Honky, but how would we be able to discriminate on people's race and gender if we did that?

Bobby. wrote on Jun 19^th, 2013 at 4:51pm:

... wrote on Jun 19th, 2013 at 4:49pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 19th, 2013 at 4:43pm: ... wrote on Jun 19th, 2013 at 4:40pm: why? So that women are treated as equal & with respect & not shown off as sexual objects. It's no wonder we have all these problems. I've got a better idea - treat people based on the content of their character, not their group identity.  Well Honkey, I think my idea is good - it would start off on the right track - you dress the same & get treated the same.

But they're not the same.

... wrote on Jun 19^th, 2013 at 4:58pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 19th, 2013 at 4:51pm: ... wrote on Jun 19th, 2013 at 4:49pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 19th, 2013 at 4:43pm: ... wrote on Jun 19th, 2013 at 4:40pm: why? So that women are treated as equal & with respect & not shown off as sexual objects. It's no wonder we have all these problems. I've got a better idea - treat people based on the content of their character, not their group identity.  Well Honkey, I think my idea is good - it would start off on the right track - you dress the same & get treated the same. But they're not the same.

Then how can we treat them on the basis of their character? Tell me that.

Karnal wrote on Jun 19^th, 2013 at 5:02pm:

... wrote on Jun 19th, 2013 at 4:58pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 19th, 2013 at 4:51pm: ... wrote on Jun 19th, 2013 at 4:49pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 19th, 2013 at 4:43pm: ... wrote on Jun 19th, 2013 at 4:40pm: why? So that women are treated as equal & with respect & not shown off as sexual objects. It's no wonder we have all these problems. I've got a better idea - treat people based on the content of their character, not their group identity.  Well Honkey, I think my idea is good - it would start off on the right track - you dress the same & get treated the same. But they're not the same. Then how can we treat them on the basis of their character? Tell me that.

Fck off karnal, you disingenuous cnt.

I'd never speak to my grandmother like that - I treat you differently becasue of your differnt character.

So you're discriminating against me based on the superiority of my white genes. That explains it.

You're a tinted race hustler - a troublesome Paki.

You should be deported for that sort of behaviour.

Karnal wrote on Jun 19^th, 2013 at 5:09pm:

So you're discriminating against me based on the superiority of my white genes. That explains it. You're a tinted race hustler - a troublesome Paki. You should be deported for that sort of behaviour.

No, I discriminate against you based on your being a disingenuous cnt. 

Bobby. wrote on Jun 19^th, 2013 at 4:51pm:

... wrote on Jun 19th, 2013 at 4:49pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 19th, 2013 at 4:43pm: ... wrote on Jun 19th, 2013 at 4:40pm: why? So that women are treated as equal & with respect & not shown off as sexual objects. It's no wonder we have all these problems. I've got a better idea - treat people based on the content of their character, not their group identity.  Well Honkey, I think my idea is good - it would start off on the right track - you dress the same & get treated the same.

And hair, bobby?

You're avoiding that question.

Boys and girls these days have quite different hairstyles.

A #1 for all of them or, bobs all around?

... wrote on Jun 19^th, 2013 at 5:12pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 19th, 2013 at 5:09pm: So you're discriminating against me based on the superiority of my white genes. That explains it. You're a tinted race hustler - a troublesome Paki. You should be deported for that sort of behaviour. No, I discriminate against you based on your being a disingenuous cnt.

And now you're lying about disrespecting the white race. You know what you are?

You're a black person-lover.

Being a race traitor, criticizing your own culture, propagating Blank Slate Theory - guilty.

Get this one out of the country, leftards. He’s dangerous.

He's getting more loony the closer Sept 14 gets.

Bobby. wrote on Jun 19^th, 2013 at 4:28pm:

To make everyone look the same - you could hardly expect a bloke to walk around in a tutu - you idiot.

Why not? Back it up with reasoning and logic, not empty assumptions.



Karnal wrote on Jun 19^th, 2013 at 5:20pm:

And now you're lying about disrespecting the white race. You know what you are? You're a black person-lover.

I smacking knew you were a racist piece of poo. Get the bugger out of here.

Karnal wrote on Jun 19^th, 2013 at 5:33pm:

Being a race traitor, criticizing your own culture, propagating Blank Slate Theory - guilty. Get this one out of the country, leftards. He’s dangerous.

No, its you. You are the one that is dangerous and wrong and bad and disgusting and pathetic and fearful and ignorant and just an all round sloppy asshole.

Dogcogito, you've missed Karnal's "humour". He's an international socialist.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 19^th, 2013 at 6:21pm:

Dogcogito, you've missed Karnal's "humour". He's an international socialist.

Traitor.

Is there a real gender war in Australia?

_____________

dunno,

but footy is on,

straya mate

- : )

donincognito wrote on Jun 19^th, 2013 at 2:13pm:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jun 18th, 2013 at 6:55pm: It always saddens me when people attempt to make the false connection between totally different social times and conditions pre-1950's - and then use that to somehow justify ongoing rape of men's rights as above... Mens rights are not being raped. Post a citation of a law being changed specifically to disadvantage men, or bugger off with your bullshit. Quote: I have no objection to Disabled people getting some AA - but women these days? For what Earthly reason do they NEED affirmative action here? Its because of assholes like you. You ignore the facts and twist the figures to show that women are not being suppressed and its all just a big misunderstanding and the womenfolk dont know what they are talking about. Its a fact that women are paid less for doing the same job. Its a fact that women are more likely to be raped. I think the figure was 1/4 women will be sexually assaulted. 1/4. Do you know 4 women? If so, one of them has probably been raped, or will be raped. Because of assholes like you who enable assholes who cant control their asshole urges. Stop it. Its a fact that there are less women on boards of companies. Its a fact that there are less women in positions of power all round the country. Its a fact that women, on average, retire with less superannuation than men. Its a fact that women suffer more in terms of careers when they give birth. Its a fact that the decks are stacked against them because of assholes such as yourself. [quote] That is the most absurd paranoia I've ever heard.

Are you sure? You should just scroll up a bit, there is some dude who is so paranoid he thinks that women are trying to wipe out men.[/quote]

Ooooh - the classical ploy of the ignorant and the incompetent... just suck on affirmative action then, flea brain ... oh, sorry - 'equal employment opportunity' which stipulates that women will receive preference.. that enough for you about a rape of the right to be treated equally as LAW stipulates?  Equality begins and ends with treating people equally - not handing people things at the expense of others.

I won't bother to challenge and refute all your bullshit - women in power is enough - they are either elected or chosen or they are not - same as the rest of us dickhead.  who ever said they or anyone else had any right to be handed power?  What are you - some sort of back door
Fascist?

SHOW me ONE example of a woman under WAGES who is paid less for the EXACT same job?  That is a LIE!

A rape rate of 8 per 10,000 annually requires that a woman be 1250 years old to be guaranteed of being raped - and most rapists have multiple victims or many are victims of gang rape.  Even 1 in 4 would require her to be 312.5 years old to be in the ball park.  Stop telling lies.  Across the West the rate is 5 in 10,000 annually - that means she would need to live to be 500 to be raped one in four, you idiot.

You can take your equality of numbers and shove it - people are equal when they are treated equally, not force fed on us in a social group while the other is excluded - I demand equality of real outcomes - for country and business... and a bit less violence from government to attain it.

Meet me 'neath the church steeple near the graveyard at dawn - bring your seconds...... and leave YOUR bullshit behind!  And keep your lying propaganda to yourself!  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 19^th, 2013 at 5:19pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 19th, 2013 at 4:51pm: ... wrote on Jun 19th, 2013 at 4:49pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 19th, 2013 at 4:43pm: ... wrote on Jun 19th, 2013 at 4:40pm: why? So that women are treated as equal & with respect & not shown off as sexual objects. It's no wonder we have all these problems. I've got a better idea - treat people based on the content of their character, not their group identity.  Well Honkey, I think my idea is good - it would start off on the right track - you dress the same & get treated the same. And hair, bobby? You're avoiding that question. Boys and girls these days have quite different hairstyles. A #1 for all of them or, bobs all around?

I said treated equally so if girls can grow their hair long so can boys.
It's the right plan for our schools - where the problems start.

Ahhh - donincognito...I'd remain incognito if I even began to think that way....

Where did you cut and paste all those feminist lies anyway?  Not one of them holds water, and each has been refuted time and time again.

I think you need to get a life...

If you like - when I can be bothered - I'll refute each one for you - especially the last one - never held a woman back in my life and always helped them along - so.. well - I wont say it...I don't let men do that!

Maybe you could try to hold on to your stupid and vitriolic tongue and actually discuss - ever heard that word? - FACT - REAL FACT!  Such as certain rates are guaranteed for certain jobs - again - show me ONE woman who is paid less than that guaranteed rate - you can't.

If someone's boss chooses to pay him or her above that rate - TOUGH TITTIES for the other....as long as that rate is met, there is ZERO argument.

Can you actually give an example or are you just hot air and vilification, as per feminist fascithink?  I can almost hear you screaming 'misogynist' from here - I dare to disagree and prove you wrong.

Oh - and cuntface - you started the name calling...

;D    ;D     ;D     ;D     ;D     ;D       

ADDS:- SEE YOU AT THE NEXT ELECTION - THAT'LL BE FUN!   You can scream misogynist all you like then!


(why doesn't this place have a ROFL emoticon?)

Bobby. wrote on Jun 20^th, 2013 at 12:16am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 19th, 2013 at 5:19pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 19th, 2013 at 4:51pm: ... wrote on Jun 19th, 2013 at 4:49pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 19th, 2013 at 4:43pm: ... wrote on Jun 19th, 2013 at 4:40pm: why? So that women are treated as equal & with respect & not shown off as sexual objects. It's no wonder we have all these problems. I've got a better idea - treat people based on the content of their character, not their group identity.  Well Honkey, I think my idea is good - it would start off on the right track - you dress the same & get treated the same. And hair, bobby? You're avoiding that question. Boys and girls these days have quite different hairstyles. A #1 for all of them or, bobs all around? I said treated equally so if girls can grow their hair long so can boys. It's the right plan for our schools - where the problems start.

Back in the 70s boys did grow their hair long but they got called 'hippies' by the conservatives and so its still not really accepted.

SOB

http://spotofborg.com/files/persecution5.jpg

Who cares about the length of someone's hair?

It's whether students are learning to their full potential that matters.

Bobby. wrote on Jun 20^th, 2013 at 12:16am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 19th, 2013 at 5:19pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 19th, 2013 at 4:51pm: ... wrote on Jun 19th, 2013 at 4:49pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 19th, 2013 at 4:43pm: ... wrote on Jun 19th, 2013 at 4:40pm: why? So that women are treated as equal & with respect & not shown off as sexual objects. It's no wonder we have all these problems. I've got a better idea - treat people based on the content of their character, not their group identity.  Well Honkey, I think my idea is good - it would start off on the right track - you dress the same & get treated the same. And hair, bobby? You're avoiding that question. Boys and girls these days have quite different hairstyles. A #1 for all of them or, bobs all around? I said treated equally so if girls can grow their hair long so can boys. It's the right plan for our schools - where the problems start.

You said they should be dressed the same.

Have you forgotten your insane suggestion already?

You want them to all look the same (even though they aren't the same).

So, what about their hair then?

Bobby. wrote on Jun 20^th, 2013 at 8:54am:

Who cares about the length of someone's hair? It's whether students are learning to their full potential that matters.

Exactly!

So why did you make the insane suggestion that girls and boys should be dressed the same?

::)

(continues to roll like a juggernaut)....

Women's superannuation is lower than mens.  Name me ONE public servant woman who gets on cent less of entitlement than a man.  Not only that, but many of these women you cite haven't worked all their life, AND they 'inherit' not only their own, but also their old man's when he passes on earlier than she does!

How else explain the clubs filled with little old ladies with bandaged hands from pulling pokie levers or pushing buttons at $1+ a pop?

There are vastly more men in hostel type accommodation than women - there are vastly more men homeless - REAL homeless as in living under a bridge or in the park or on the street.

How else explain the over-supply of little old widows in nursing homes and retirement villages and men in caravan parks?

FACTS speak louder than feminist rhetoric, I'm afraid.

And here is a link or two on the 'wage gap' that never was since 1972.....NO woman earns less than the prescribed rate for the same job - NO WOMAN!  There is an EARNINGS gap that is miniscule based on actual work input - and women are clustered in the easy, well-paid jobs WITH superannuation that many men never had EVER!

https://sites.google.com/site/grappleruniversitypublications/home/department-of-irreverent-revolutionary-thought-dirt/gender-wage-gap-myth-exposed

https://sites.google.com/site/grappleruniversitypublications/home/department-of-irreverent-revolutionary-thought-dirt/updated-gender-wage-gap-2012

Argue over the figures and calculations as you like - the figures on which these are based come from the horse's mouth - your own shevernment, which somehow still fails to do figures accurately, demonstrating that the feministed cannot do maths - or choose not to!

;D  :D   :o

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 20^th, 2013 at 9:36am:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 20th, 2013 at 8:54am: Who cares about the length of someone's hair? It's whether students are learning to their full potential that matters. Exactly! So why did you make the insane suggestion that girls and boys should be dressed the same? ::)

because he wears a dress himself. I thought that was obvious!

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 20^th, 2013 at 10:08am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 20th, 2013 at 9:36am: Bobby. wrote on Jun 20th, 2013 at 8:54am: Who cares about the length of someone's hair? It's whether students are learning to their full potential that matters. Exactly! So why did you make the insane suggestion that girls and boys should be dressed the same? ::) because he wears a dress himself. I thought that was obvious!

Piss off Longweekend,
I said that girls & boys should both wear shirts & trousers.
You wear a tutu so you wouldn't understand.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 20^th, 2013 at 9:36am:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 20th, 2013 at 8:54am: Who cares about the length of someone's hair? It's whether students are learning to their full potential that matters. Exactly! So why did you make the insane suggestion that girls and boys should be dressed the same? ::)

I think it's insane that girls walk around in skimpy dresses at school.

(*KampfGruppe Grappler rolls on to Moscow).....

"Women lose out on career from having children".  Well - let's stop up the supply then!  They can do a Gillard and not have any, just go around chucking them on the cheeks at schools and telling all these little girls how they could succeed just like her.  (No wonder we need a popularly elected head of government and no farken G-G).

Feminist Policy #5,126,849 -part 1 - "No more children for women - it's oppression!"

Also - may I humbly add - while these MARRIED women are having their children - they are fully supported by their husband or whatever - and thus HE is earnng half of what he was before she dropped out.  Capisce?

It's not a one way street - unless a woman is stupid enough to 'CHOOSE' that it be so.  Her choice - her responsibility - no handout for choices today - not enough money in the till any more.  Sorry!

"Not enough women in Power"

Well - (takes aim)... trouble with that is this - MEN in politics for example have ALWAYS taken care of women's issues.  If they had not - there would be no hospitals for women, no child endowments, no massive medical/research inputs into women's health issues, a still high death rate from childbirth, and so on.

Capisce?

So - now we have the spectre of '40% women in Parliament' imposed on us without asking the electorate or the sub-branches (well - I never!  To Julia's credit she DID speak out agaisnt 'parachuted in' candidates - like herself - but that is now a dead issue, it seems, with an election coming up).)

Lessee now - say 75% of those women vote on women's issues first (and there is not one iota of proof to show they do not - watch Q & A sometime or any polticospeech in Parliament from a woman and the way they promote one another first), out of 100 pollies that's 30 votes already.  Out of the remaninging 60 - let's assume they are all men - if 50% vote along Party lines or on what sounds like a good thing - that's 30 votes again - OK?   DFE!  Carried 60-40!

Take the eample of 'stop men's violence against women' (ignore the facts first - women initiate 62% of DV incidents and only 1% of callouts to police result in a charge being laid, with 50% of those charges being the 'usual suspect' ones of 'insult police' or WTF - thus 99%+ of such callouts are violence against the one accused) - PASSED by an overwhelming majority!

Put the opposing view - 'stop women's violence against men' - silence of the lambs apart from screams of 'misogyny'!

How many of those 60 men have the balls to vote 'against' women?  OK.. OK - first off - 40 women will vote NO - only takes 20% of the men to vote NO and she fails.  Capisce?

Now - ask me again why I no longer vote for a woman unless and until she has proven herself to me first as a genuine political representative of ALL equally.

:D   ::)   :P   ;D

Bobby. wrote on Jun 20^th, 2013 at 10:12am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 20th, 2013 at 9:36am: Bobby. wrote on Jun 20th, 2013 at 8:54am: Who cares about the length of someone's hair? It's whether students are learning to their full potential that matters. Exactly! So why did you make the insane suggestion that girls and boys should be dressed the same? ::) I think it's insane that girls walk around in skimpy dresses at school.

not when you are a teenage boy!!

Peter Freedman wrote on Jun 18^th, 2013 at 8:39pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 18th, 2013 at 4:09pm: There is a gender difference. Women like men who like women. Men like women who like men. Hence, gillards perceived misandrist drift rightly led to men deciding against her. I was wondering how long it would take for some rightwing ranter to turn this into a "I hate Gillard" thread. My money was on Swag, but he proved a let down. Not for the first time.

peter - had Tony Abbott organised a demonstration called "Men for Tony" and it was comprised of just men demonstrating against our oppression, the women voters would have sided with Julia en masse.

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jun 20^th, 2013 at 9:56am:

(continues to roll like a juggernaut).... Women's superannuation is lower than mens.  Name me ONE public servant woman who gets on cent less of entitlement than a man.  Not only that, but many of these women you cite haven't worked all their life, AND they 'inherit' not only their own, but also their old man's when he passes on earlier than she does!

MRA spotted. I wish you assholes would just stay over at reddit so when the time comes and the virus is released, you lot will be done first.

http://theconversation.com/the-reality-of-the-gender-wage-gap-5168

The gender wage gap is real. You are an asshole. These are undeniable facts.


Quote:

How else explain the clubs filled with little old ladies with bandaged hands from pulling pokie levers or pushing buttons at $1+ a pop?

Very easily, but its pointless because you are an asshole and will believe what you want to believe and no amount of logic, reason or facts is going to change that.


Quote:

There are vastly more men in hostel type accommodation than women - there are vastly more men homeless - REAL homeless as in living under a bridge or in the park or on the street.

Women over 60 is the fastest growing homeless population.


Quote:

How else explain the over-supply of little old widows in nursing homes and retirement villages and men in caravan parks?

Very easily, but its pointless because you are an asshole and will believe what you want to believe and no amount of logic, reason or facts is going to change that.


Quote:

FACTS speak louder than feminist rhetoric, I'm afraid.

Well, when I hear any from your diatribe of bullshit, I will pay attention. Still waiting.


Quote:

And here is a link or two on the 'wage gap' that never was since 1972.....NO woman earns less than the prescribed rate for the same job - NO WOMAN!

Yeah this is pointless. If this is what you think then just bugger off back to the 1950s


Quote:

There is an EARNINGS gap that is miniscule based on actual work input - and women are clustered in the easy, well-paid jobs WITH superannuation that many men never had EVER!

Staggering displays of wilful blindness to evidence and the facts.

https://sites.google.com/site/grappleruniversitypublications/home/department-of-irreverent-revolutionary-thought-dirt/gender-wage-gap-myth-exposed

https://sites.google.com/site/grappleruniversitypublications/home/department-of-irreverent-revolutionary-thought-dirt/updated-gender-wage-gap-2012


Quote:

Argue over the figures and calculations as you like - the figures on which these are based come from the horse's mouth - your own shevernment, which somehow still fails to do figures accurately, demonstrating that the feministed cannot do maths - or choose not to! ;D  :D   :o

Why bother? They are stupid numbers pulled from your stupid head and ignore many facets of the problem, which is much more nuanced than your pathetic little brain can handle.


Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jun 20^th, 2013 at 10:17am:

(*KampfGruppe Grappler rolls on to Moscow)..... "Women lose out on career from having children".  Well - let's stop up the supply then!  They can do a Gillard and not have any, just go around chucking them on the cheeks at schools and telling all these little girls how they could succeed just like her.  (No wonder we need a popularly elected head of government and no farken G-G).

So your solution is what?


Quote:

Feminist Policy #5,126,849 -part 1 - "No more children for women - it's oppression!"

This is bullshit that noone is arguing.


Quote:

Also - may I humbly add - while these MARRIED women are having their children - they are fully supported by their husband or whatever - and thus HE is earnng half of what he was before she dropped out.  Capisce?

No, you cant because its bullshit.


Quote:

It's not a one way street - unless a woman is stupid enough to 'CHOOSE' that it be so.  Her choice - her responsibility - no handout for choices today - not enough money in the till any more.  Sorry!

What is wrong with you? Seriously.


Quote:

"Not enough women in Power" Well - (takes aim)... trouble with that is this - MEN in politics for example have ALWAYS taken care of women's issues.

I mean really. What the bugger. There is no way anyone can actually think that, can they?


Quote:

If they had not - there would be no hospitals for women, no child endowments, no massive medical/research inputs into women's health issues, a still high death rate from childbirth, and so on.

We have just blasted past "ignorance" and are now reaching new stratospheric heights of stupidity.


Quote:

Capisce?

Oh if only you did.


Quote:

So - now we have the spectre of '40% women in Parliament' imposed on us without asking the electorate or the sub-branches (well - I never!  To Julia's credit she DID speak out agaisnt 'parachuted in' candidates - like herself - but that is now a dead issue, it seems, with an election coming up).)

Jesus christ look at this guy. Pretty sure women make up more than 40% of the population, so why shouldnt they have equal representation?

To Julia's credit she DID speak out agaisnt 'parachuted in' candidates

If she did, and I didn't hear her, but if she did then It's hypocrisy statement number 2376. NT senate candidate Neva Boneless whatever?

donincognito - I'ld appreciate it if you did now swear when answering.
It does not prove you right or wrong. It just proves you swear.

Women get paid less than men because we work longer hours in more dangerous jibs.

Women spend more money then men because they spend our hard earned money

women get well over 50% of the health budget, despite living for 8 years more than men.

We are discriminated against.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 20^th, 2013 at 1:06pm:

donincognito - I'ld appreciate it if you did now swear when answering. It does not prove you right or wrong. It just proves you swear.

Choadgobbler, I would appreciate it if you would not be a bigoted asshole. It doesnt not prove you right, it just means you are a bigoted asshole.


Quote:

Women get paid less than men because we work longer hours in more dangerous jibs.

Nope. Wrong in multiple different ways in the one sentence. That takes a reasonable amount of ignorance. Well done.

(1) Women get paid less for doing the same job and (2) Dangerous or difficult jobs are generally not paid the most. Unless you think being in the finance industry is particularly dangerous.


Quote:

Women spend more money then men because they spend our hard earned money

Ramping up the levels of smacking stupidity quite nicely here.


Quote:

women get well over 50% of the health budget, despite living for 8 years more than men.

(1) Prove your claim, otherwise you are full of poo (you are full of poo anyway)
(2) Prove that pregnancy doesnt account for the majority of these discrepancies.
(3) You are even more pig buggeringly stupid if you dont see that people who live longer take up more money in health care. Are you advocating for killing all women 8 years early, just to even up the balance?


Quote:

We are discriminated against.

If by "we" you mean "assholes suffering from extreme amounts of ignorance and hate" then yes. Happy to say i will discriminate against you at every chance.

If by "we" you mean men, then no, no you are not.

donincognito wrote on Jun 20^th, 2013 at 1:36pm:

(1) Women get paid less for doing the same job ...

If that's happening in Australia (i.e. a different hourly rate based on one's sex), it's unlawful.

Where, specifically, do you believe it is happening?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 20^th, 2013 at 2:44pm:

donincognito wrote on Jun 20th, 2013 at 1:36pm: (1) Women get paid less for doing the same job ... If that's happening in Australia (i.e. a different hourly rate based on one's sex), it's unlawful. Where, specifically, do you believe it is happening?

http://www.businesschicks.com.au/articles/featured/the-gender-pay-gap


Quote:

The pay gap is consistently higher in the private sector than the public. According to EOWA, the average pay gap for the public sector was 13.2%, compared to the average 20.8% gap in the private sector (May 2012). And despite higher education and a series of campaigns and initiatives, it’s especially high in the professional industry, with EOWA finding an average 27.1% pay gap in 2012, down 1.3% from 2011. If you work in the financial sector, you can expect an even bigger pay gap. In August 2012 the Financial Services Institute (FINSIA) reported the pay gap in the finance sector is one of Australia’s largest, and widening. “When you look at financial services, it is actually over 30%. These are the facts,” FINSIA’s chief executive Russell Thomas told ABC reporters. “There’s no doubt that there’s been a tremendous commitment from financial services and in particular the big institutions, notably the big four banks. But the pay gap really is an indication of how significant the problem is and how important it is to maintain resolve and commitment to these policies.”

Everywhere.

donincognito wrote on Jun 20^th, 2013 at 3:16pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 20th, 2013 at 2:44pm: donincognito wrote on Jun 20th, 2013 at 1:36pm: (1) Women get paid less for doing the same job ... If that's happening in Australia (i.e. a different hourly rate based on one's sex), it's unlawful. Where, specifically, do you believe it is happening? http://www.businesschicks.com.au/articles/featured/the-gender-pay-gap Quote: The pay gap is consistently higher in the private sector than the public. According to EOWA, the average pay gap for the public sector was 13.2%, compared to the average 20.8% gap in the private sector (May 2012). And despite higher education and a series of campaigns and initiatives, it’s especially high in the professional industry, with EOWA finding an average 27.1% pay gap in 2012, down 1.3% from 2011. If you work in the financial sector, you can expect an even bigger pay gap. In August 2012 the Financial Services Institute (FINSIA) reported the pay gap in the finance sector is one of Australia’s largest, and widening. “When you look at financial services, it is actually over 30%. These are the facts,” FINSIA’s chief executive Russell Thomas told ABC reporters. “There’s no doubt that there’s been a tremendous commitment from financial services and in particular the big institutions, notably the big four banks. But the pay gap really is an indication of how significant the problem is and how important it is to maintain resolve and commitment to these policies.” Everywhere.

That isn't a difference in hourly rates based on one's sex.

You haven't answered my question.

You seem a little confused on the whole "gender gap" myth: women are not actually paid lower hourly rates for doing the exact same job as a man.

It is unlawful to do so.  It has been in this country for many, many years.

donincognito wrote on Jun 20^th, 2013 at 10:40am:

[quote author=The_Grappler link=1371533226/64#64 date=1371686170](continues to roll like a juggernaut)....

Hmm - not a single solid refutation with fact but a lot of hyperbole and vilification - and you are STILL having difficulty coming to grips with the FACT that there are EARNINGS gaps all over the planet in every sphere - but NOT ONE WAGE gap against women.  All women are paid at least the minimum for the job under discussion and they EARN less for their hours worked - according to your own Australian government, dickhead.

Can't you read the figures?  I said you may argue with the math - you may NOT argue with the figures from your own government.... unless you are saying that the same feminised government is lying to you............(let me repeat that several times for you)...

As for equal representation - sorry to hole your boat again - but we live in a DEMOCRACY - and in OUR democracy your right to equal representation is made up of the Right to vote and the Right to stand for election - NOT to be shoe-horned into a seat in Parliament to suit an agenda.

Please - do us all a favour and go out and Stand for Election this time around - lay it all out for us bumpkins so we can vote for or against you!

You seem to have a serious problem with Democracy here - and I can assure you that up to 95% of the population of Australia do not agree with you, and if proportionate representation comes in it will ONLY be as a direct result of a Plebiscite - which WILL be rejected.  If it is forced on The Peopl - I predict the outbreak of The Civil War.

BTW - I am not an 'MRA' - I am an Equalist and a realist - I worked for free for a woman candidate in the 2007 election - and will do so again for The Right Woman - not The Right Stuff-Up - - and in fact will be discussing this with a Party head this week....

I also will be discussing a full and enforceable Bill of Rights with TEETH - and the melding of all the current special interest bodies into one organisation to cover Rights for ALL - not just special interest groups.

As a matter of interest - who do you think will lose more-   Men or Women - by having genuinely equal rights enforced? No more AA, no more preference, no more handout jobs, no more special treatment in court, no more extra scholarships, no more 'best interest of the child', - just a nice, enforced, level playing field...

What are YOU doing other than ranting and abusing and trotting out lies to support ongoing and never-ending myths of 'women's victimhood'??

I'm working for a better future for my grand-children - and putting myself on the line for it by, in some ways, opposing 'city hall' - and anyone can tell you who is on the inside that being a dissenter in THIS country is a very dangerous place to be.

Australia Needs Real Men and Women - NOT you!

;D    :D    ;)     :o    ::)

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 20^th, 2013 at 1:06pm:

donincognito - I'ld appreciate it if you did now swear when answering. It does not prove you right or wrong. It just proves you swear. Women get paid less than men because we work longer hours in more dangerous jibs. Women spend more money then men because they spend our hard earned money women get well over 50% of the health budget, despite living for 8 years more than men. We are discriminated against.

can anyone find a single example where men are paid more than women for doing exactly the same job?  sex discrimination in the remuneration of work has been gone for many decades.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 20^th, 2013 at 5:45pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 20th, 2013 at 1:06pm: donincognito - I'ld appreciate it if you did now swear when answering. It does not prove you right or wrong. It just proves you swear. Women get paid less than men because we work longer hours in more dangerous jibs. Women spend more money then men because they spend our hard earned money women get well over 50% of the health budget, despite living for 8 years more than men. We are discriminated against. can anyone find a single example where men are paid more than women for doing exactly the same job?

Nope.

Kampfgruppe Grappler closes in on Red Square - raise the Black Flag, my children - no prisoners!.......

Sorry - too much background noise here to do figures... news reports of rapists and killers and faulty parole systems...yardle... here we go.. same system.....

Let me try this again for uncogniscenti:-

Based on Australian government figures (again):-

In July 2010, full-time men worked 41.0 hours compared with 35.8 hours for full-time women..

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/featurearticlesbyCatalogue/67AB5016DD143FA6CA2578680014A9D9?OpenDocument

If men work 41.0 hours each at $10 an hour = $410 ** NO PENALTY RATE


If women work 35.8 hours at $10 an hour - $358

The % of men’s incomes that women should receive for hours worked at the same rate of pay = 358/410 x 100



= 87.32%


or a ‘gap’ in EARNINGS (NOT WAGES) of 12.68%

Got that? Women in that period EARNED for hours worked at the same rate 12.68% less than men - for the simple reason that they WORKED less hours at the same rate.

Now if you wish to continue to argue that is some wage gap - please - put some figures on the table.

If we take the difference in earnings =

$1,186.90/ $1,437.40 x 100

= 82.57%

ERGO

The true wage gap on earnings is 87.32% - 82.57%

= 4.75% on hours worked.

Even allowing 3 hours at penalty rate - giving men an extra $5 (time and a half) for three hours after 38 hours worked:-

Men EARNED $380 + $45 = $425 

Ergo - the real Earned Rate for Women is 358/425 x 100 =  84.24%

ERGO - the real gap is 84.24 - 82.57% =  1.67%

OK - there IS a wage gap - for which I do not understand the reason - and it is 1.67% - nowhere near 13-17% as quoted all the time by feminist and self interested government types. **If you can enlighten me as to the reason for a 1.67% wage gap - I'd be interested.

Argue with my figures if you wish - you cannot argue with their source - and these figures are 2010 - there are undoubtedly more up-to-date ones - you may offer those for the mill...

:o

https://sites.google.com/site/grappleruniversitypublications/home/department-of-irreverent-revolutionary-thought-dirt/updated-gender-wage-gap-2012

Grappler's Third Army.. rolling like a juggernaut... closes in on Rape Statistics.....

(*flings down a dead fish)....

"Is Campus Date Rape; 1 in 4 or 1 in 1877?
or possibly 1 in 188 after adjusting for the feminist 'claim' that 90% of the victims do not report the assault?

See the link:


http://communityvoices.post-gazette.com/%E2%80%A6

This journalist tested this out by examining sexual assault statistics at Pittsburgh's three largest universities. Quick Summary:

If you combine all of the crime statistics for Pitt, CMU, and Duquesne — again, the city’s three most populous urban campuses — and run an average for 2009 (which, as we’ve already seen, is above the most recent three-year average), here’s what you get:

# of Female Students: 24,400
# of Reported Sexual Assaults: 13
Chances of Being Sexually Assaulted: 1-in-1,877.

If you accept the claim that 90% of college sexual assaults are not reported, you get:

# of Female Students: 24,400
# of Reported Sexual Assaults: 130
Chances of Being Sexually Assaulted: 1-in-188.

To get to 1-in-4, you still need 47 times — not 47 more, but 47 times more — sexual assaults.

See the link for his full methodology. Very interesting. "

Now - is there anyone with substantive figures that can refute this comment -

http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AhH_7gOf8o7ebm.Cq1ZdbdTh5gt.;_ylv=3?qid=20130617074448AAqBEdL

**My apologies - the young man who posted that did not link the exact article - it's there somewhere... I think.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 20^th, 2013 at 5:53pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 20th, 2013 at 5:45pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 20th, 2013 at 1:06pm: donincognito - I'ld appreciate it if you did now swear when answering. It does not prove you right or wrong. It just proves you swear. Women get paid less than men because we work longer hours in more dangerous jibs. Women spend more money then men because they spend our hard earned money women get well over 50% of the health budget, despite living for 8 years more than men. We are discriminated against. can anyone find a single example where men are paid more than women for doing exactly the same job?  Nope.

this supposed inequality is one of opportunity not remuneration. and even then it fails to understand he dramtically different societal rols of women regarding work force participation.

Nice work, Grappler.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 20^th, 2013 at 8:01pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 20th, 2013 at 5:53pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 20th, 2013 at 5:45pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 20th, 2013 at 1:06pm: donincognito - I'ld appreciate it if you did now swear when answering. It does not prove you right or wrong. It just proves you swear. Women get paid less than men because we work longer hours in more dangerous jibs. Women spend more money then men because they spend our hard earned money women get well over 50% of the health budget, despite living for 8 years more than men. We are discriminated against. can anyone find a single example where men are paid more than women for doing exactly the same job?  Nope. this supposed inequality is one of opportunity not remuneration. and even then it fails to understand he dramtically different societal rols of women regarding work force participation.

Exactly.

Good post.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 20^th, 2013 at 8:01pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 20th, 2013 at 5:53pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 20th, 2013 at 5:45pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 20th, 2013 at 1:06pm: donincognito - I'ld appreciate it if you did now swear when answering. It does not prove you right or wrong. It just proves you swear. Women get paid less than men because we work longer hours in more dangerous jibs. Women spend more money then men because they spend our hard earned money women get well over 50% of the health budget, despite living for 8 years more than men. We are discriminated against. can anyone find a single example where men are paid more than women for doing exactly the same job?  Nope. this supposed inequality is one of opportunity not remuneration. and even then it fails to understand he dramtically different societal rols of women regarding work force participation.

Spelling - from our resident illiterate - Longweekend.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4vf8N6GpdM

           ;D

ADDS:-  I'd like 1/10th of the free opportunity that girls/women have these days - if it's being passed around, here I am!  Point is - passing it around is not kosher in a democratic, egalitarian society governed by the rule of Law that stipulates that all must be equal, as does the will of the People...

(*Astronaut's March from The Right Stuff)......

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 20^th, 2013 at 8:02pm:

Nice work, Grappler.

Aye, thankee, Guv'na!  Now you know why the FemGuv won't employ me - I used to work in Stats, and they don't like the way I do their figures for them - Reality..... created one of their systems used to track businesses.... first year there.. straight  to Coventry, Guv.. no' a team playah!!

Then they AA'd me to teach me a lesson - slipped an 18 yo girl into a job I set up....

In my books.. now they wonder why I am their best enemy and Leader of Her Mjesty's Unelected, Permanent, and Most Loyal Opposition,..

                       ;D

Bobby. wrote on Jun 20^th, 2013 at 8:11pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 20th, 2013 at 8:01pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 20th, 2013 at 5:53pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 20th, 2013 at 5:45pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 20th, 2013 at 1:06pm: donincognito - I'ld appreciate it if you did now swear when answering. It does not prove you right or wrong. It just proves you swear. Women get paid less than men because we work longer hours in more dangerous jibs. Women spend more money then men because they spend our hard earned money women get well over 50% of the health budget, despite living for 8 years more than men. We are discriminated against. can anyone find a single example where men are paid more than women for doing exactly the same job?  Nope. this supposed inequality is one of opportunity not remuneration. and even then it fails to understand he dramtically different societal rols of women regarding work force participation. Spelling - from our resident illiterate - Longweekend.

Shlt post - from our resident troll - bobbythebat1

Hi Quantum,
you've got the greatest number of votes - now 100
as the greatest troll on Ozpolitics -
what irony that you call other's trolls

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 20^th, 2013 at 5:53pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 20th, 2013 at 5:45pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 20th, 2013 at 1:06pm: donincognito - I'ld appreciate it if you did now swear when answering. It does not prove you right or wrong. It just proves you swear. Women get paid less than men because we work longer hours in more dangerous jibs. Women spend more money then men because they spend our hard earned money women get well over 50% of the health budget, despite living for 8 years more than men. We are discriminated against. can anyone find a single example where men are paid more than women for doing exactly the same job?  Nope.

Yep

The country's top female cricketers can now earn up to $80,000 in the next 12 months.

While that figure isn't comparable to their male counterparts, who will pocket anything from $200,000 to $2 million over the same period, it's a step in the right direction.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/cricket/cricket-australia-hikes-pay-for-our-top-women-players/story-fni2fnmo-1226647696435

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jun 21^st, 2013 at 12:15am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 20th, 2013 at 5:53pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 20th, 2013 at 5:45pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 20th, 2013 at 1:06pm: donincognito - I'ld appreciate it if you did now swear when answering. It does not prove you right or wrong. It just proves you swear. Women get paid less than men because we work longer hours in more dangerous jibs. Women spend more money then men because they spend our hard earned money women get well over 50% of the health budget, despite living for 8 years more than men. We are discriminated against. can anyone find a single example where men are paid more than women for doing exactly the same job?  Nope. Yep The country's top female cricketers can now earn up to $80,000 in the next 12 months. While that figure isn't comparable to their male counterparts, who will pocket anything from $200,000 to $2 million over the same period, it's a step in the right direction. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/cricket/cricket-australia-hikes-pay-for-our-top-women-players/story-fni2fnmo-1226647696435

hehehe well done.

However, didyu know that hundreds of thousands of australian men don't get paid a cent for playing cricket?  It's an outrage!!!!  It's discrimination!!!!  It's outrageos discrimination!!!!

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jun 20^th, 2013 at 9:30pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 20th, 2013 at 8:02pm: Nice work, Grappler. Aye, thankee, Guv'na!  Now you know why the FemGuv won't employ me - I used to work in Stats, and they don't like the way I do their figures for them - Reality..... created one of their systems used to track businesses.... first year there.. straight  to Coventry, Guv.. no' a team playah!! Then they AA'd me to teach me a lesson - slipped an 18 yo girl into a job I set up.... In my books.. now they wonder why I am their best enemy and Leader of Her Mjesty's Unelected, Permanent, and Most Loyal Opposition,..                        ;D

Of all the different groups I've witnessed and encountered, the feminists are the most emotional, vengeful, and devoid of logic.

Disagree with them on any of their points and 99% of the time their first reaction is emotional, vengeful slander.

And these people run the academe.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 21^st, 2013 at 10:22am:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jun 20th, 2013 at 9:30pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 20th, 2013 at 8:02pm: Nice work, Grappler. Aye, thankee, Guv'na!  Now you know why the FemGuv won't employ me - I used to work in Stats, and they don't like the way I do their figures for them - Reality..... created one of their systems used to track businesses.... first year there.. straight  to Coventry, Guv.. no' a team playah!! Then they AA'd me to teach me a lesson - slipped an 18 yo girl into a job I set up.... In my books.. now they wonder why I am their best enemy and Leader of Her Mjesty's Unelected, Permanent, and Most Loyal Opposition,..                        ;D Of all the different groups I've witnessed and encountered, the feminists are the most emotional, vengeful, and devoid of logic. Disagree with them on any of their points and 99% of the time their first reaction is emotional, vengeful slander. And these people run the academe.

That means they're your boss, Mistie. A little respect for authority would not go astray, you know.

We don't want any criticizing of our own culture here, thanks.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jun 21^st, 2013 at 12:15am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 20th, 2013 at 5:53pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 20th, 2013 at 5:45pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 20th, 2013 at 1:06pm: donincognito - I'ld appreciate it if you did now swear when answering. It does not prove you right or wrong. It just proves you swear. Women get paid less than men because we work longer hours in more dangerous jibs. Women spend more money then men because they spend our hard earned money women get well over 50% of the health budget, despite living for 8 years more than men. We are discriminated against. can anyone find a single example where men are paid more than women for doing exactly the same job?  Nope. Yep The country's top female cricketers can now earn up to $80,000 in the next 12 months. While that figure isn't comparable to their male counterparts, who will pocket anything from $200,000 to $2 million over the same period, it's a step in the right direction. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/cricket/cricket-australia-hikes-pay-for-our-top-women-players/story-fni2fnmo-1226647696435

Women cricketers don't do 'exactly the same job' as male cricketers.

Women cricketers play women's cricket.

Men cricketers play men's cricket.

I'm not a cricket fan at all, but I'm pretty sure that is the case, right?

We don't have a mixture of men and women playing in the current Test do we? 

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 21^st, 2013 at 11:12am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jun 21st, 2013 at 12:15am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 20th, 2013 at 5:53pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 20th, 2013 at 5:45pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 20th, 2013 at 1:06pm: donincognito - I'ld appreciate it if you did now swear when answering. It does not prove you right or wrong. It just proves you swear. Women get paid less than men because we work longer hours in more dangerous jibs. Women spend more money then men because they spend our hard earned money women get well over 50% of the health budget, despite living for 8 years more than men. We are discriminated against. can anyone find a single example where men are paid more than women for doing exactly the same job?  Nope. Yep The country's top female cricketers can now earn up to $80,000 in the next 12 months. While that figure isn't comparable to their male counterparts, who will pocket anything from $200,000 to $2 million over the same period, it's a step in the right direction. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/cricket/cricket-australia-hikes-pay-for-our-top-women-players/story-fni2fnmo-1226647696435 Women cricketers don't do 'exactly the same job' as male cricketers. Women cricketers play women's cricket. Men cricketers play men's cricket. I'm not a cricket fan at all, but I'm pretty sure that is the case, right? We don't have a mixture of men and women playing in the current Test do we?

Why not? And why should womens cricket be worth less than mens cricket?

SOB

http://spotofborg.com/files/persecution5.jpg

Who wants to see girls playing cricket?

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 21^st, 2013 at 11:14am:

Why not?

Why aren't women playing in the current Test?

Because it's a men's Test match.

Men don't play in women's Test matches do they?



Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 21^st, 2013 at 11:14am:

And why should womens cricket be worth less than mens cricket?

I'm not a fan, but I'm assuming it has something to do with it being less entertaining and not having the ability to attract as much sponsorship as men's cricket.

Cricket fans may wish to comment on that though.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 21^st, 2013 at 10:22am:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jun 20th, 2013 at 9:30pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 20th, 2013 at 8:02pm: Nice work, Grappler. Aye, thankee, Guv'na!  Now you know why the FemGuv won't employ me - I used to work in Stats, and they don't like the way I do their figures for them - Reality..... created one of their systems used to track businesses.... first year there.. straight  to Coventry, Guv.. no' a team playah!! Then they AA'd me to teach me a lesson - slipped an 18 yo girl into a job I set up.... In my books.. now they wonder why I am their best enemy and Leader of Her Mjesty's Unelected, Permanent, and Most Loyal Opposition,..                        ;D Of all the different groups I've witnessed and encountered, the feminists are the most emotional, vengeful, and devoid of logic. Disagree with them on any of their points and 99% of the time their first reaction is emotional, vengeful slander. And these people run the academe.

good on you mistie,  you are on the right course.  emotional women become more and more histrionic and derailed when confronted with cold icy calm logic ;) ;)

one needs just witness gillards melt down
"i will not be lectured by this man" ;) ;)

keep pushing their hot buttons.
push them all day long.

amongst rampant feminists with poor control of their emotions, i would include david marr and adam bandt. ;) ;)
i'm sure david marr has a vagina down there ;) ;)

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 21^st, 2013 at 11:12am:

Women cricketers don't do 'exactly the same job' as male cricketers. Women cricketers play women's cricket. Men cricketers play men's cricket. I'm not a cricket fan at all, but I'm pretty sure that is the case, right? We don't have a mixture of men and women playing in the current Test do we?

Is this you taking the piss by intentionally and ironically being a huge buggerhead again? Or is this a smacking stupid opinion that you actually believe?


Quote:

Who wants to see girls playing cricket?

I do. I can appreciate skills in most games, and make no mistakes, women cricket is highly skilled. I saw one player, from NZ I think, sprint 30m-40m round the boundary and take a one handed left handed catch at full pace and full stretch.

I cant do that poo, you cant do that poo, and its fukcing impressesive. Its cockheads like you who think they cant play as well as men that ruin it for them.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 21^st, 2013 at 11:18am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 21st, 2013 at 11:14am: Why not? Why aren't women playing in the current Test? Because it's a men's Test match. Men don't play in women's Test matches do they? Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 21st, 2013 at 11:14am: And why should womens cricket be worth less than mens cricket? I'm not a fan, but I'm assuming it has something to do with it being less entertaining and not having the ability to attract as much sponsorship as men's cricket. Cricket fans may wish to comment on that though.

greg, why are you responding to spot in this thread.  all responses to spot should be kept quarantined in the "spot of troll" thread.  like the oil spill from BP in the gulf of mexico, we have to try to limit the spread of this toxic waste ;)

aquascoot wrote on Jun 21^st, 2013 at 11:19am:

good on you mistie,  you are on the right course.  emotional women become more and more histrionic and derailed when confronted with cold icy calm logic ;) ;) one needs just witness gillards melt down "i will not be lectured by this man" ;) ;) keep pushing their hot buttons. push them all day long. amongst rampant feminists with poor control of their emotions, i would include david marr and adam bandt. ;) ;) i'm sure david marr has a vagina down there ;) ;)

And people say we dont have a sexism problem in Australia.

They should spend some time on this forum. See all the nations evils laid out bare and proud.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 21^st, 2013 at 11:14am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 21st, 2013 at 11:12am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Jun 21st, 2013 at 12:15am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 20th, 2013 at 5:53pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 20th, 2013 at 5:45pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 20th, 2013 at 1:06pm: donincognito - I'ld appreciate it if you did now swear when answering. It does not prove you right or wrong. It just proves you swear. Women get paid less than men because we work longer hours in more dangerous jibs. Women spend more money then men because they spend our hard earned money women get well over 50% of the health budget, despite living for 8 years more than men. We are discriminated against. can anyone find a single example where men are paid more than women for doing exactly the same job?  Nope. Yep The country's top female cricketers can now earn up to $80,000 in the next 12 months. While that figure isn't comparable to their male counterparts, who will pocket anything from $200,000 to $2 million over the same period, it's a step in the right direction. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/cricket/cricket-australia-hikes-pay-for-our-top-women-players/story-fni2fnmo-1226647696435 Women cricketers don't do 'exactly the same job' as male cricketers. Women cricketers play women's cricket. Men cricketers play men's cricket. I'm not a cricket fan at all, but I'm pretty sure that is the case, right? We don't have a mixture of men and women playing in the current Test do we?  Why not? And why should womens cricket be worth less than mens cricket? SOB http://spotofborg.com/files/persecution5.jpg

You are a smacking idiot.

Sports stars are like film stars. They don't get paid just on their skill, instead they also get paid by how much money they can make.

Now usually these two things are closely related. Good actors are usually popular actors hence why they get the big money for films. But sometimes you get crap actors who are will liked, so they still get big money because they are film sellers.

Sport is exactly the same. Sports teams have sponsorship. Sponsors want a return for their investment. Some sports stars are fan favourites and a worth big money. They may not be the best players, but they attract the fans and the big sponsors, hence why they are often paid more than better players.

Men's cricket has much more media exposure than women's. It is simply more popular, hence why it cost big money to sponsor it. Those cricket players get big money because they bring in the big crowds. Women's crickets does not have the fans to bring in the big sponsors so there is less money to pay the players. It is simply maths. 

donincognito wrote on Jun 21^st, 2013 at 11:20am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 21st, 2013 at 11:12am: Women cricketers don't do 'exactly the same job' as male cricketers. Women cricketers play women's cricket. Men cricketers play men's cricket. I'm not a cricket fan at all, but I'm pretty sure that is the case, right? We don't have a mixture of men and women playing in the current Test do we?  Is this you taking the piss by intentionally and ironically being a huge buggerhead again? Or is this a smacking stupid opinion that you actually believe?

It's me stating the facts:

Women cricketers don't do 'exactly the same job' as male cricketers: they play women's cricket, not men's cricket.   Fact.

If you have an example of a woman playing in a men's Test match and being paid less than her male team mates, I'll certainly take a look and reconsider my position.

And, if a man plays in a women's cricket team are they paid the same or more than the female team members?

I'm not taking the piss, and this is not my 'opinion': women's cricket is not men's cricket. Simple.

An apple is not an orange.  Simple.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 21^st, 2013 at 11:31am:

donincognito wrote on Jun 21st, 2013 at 11:20am: Is this you taking the piss by intentionally and ironically being a huge buggerhead again? Or is this a smacking stupid opinion that you actually believe? It's me stating the facts: Women cricketers don't do 'exactly the same job' as male cricketers: they play women's cricket, not men's cricket.   Fact.

What is the functional differences between mens cricket and womens cricket? What are the rule changes? Different equipment? Is the field different?

donincognito wrote on Jun 21^st, 2013 at 11:37am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 21st, 2013 at 11:31am: donincognito wrote on Jun 21st, 2013 at 11:20am: Is this you taking the piss by intentionally and ironically being a huge buggerhead again? Or is this a smacking stupid opinion that you actually believe? It's me stating the facts: Women cricketers don't do 'exactly the same job' as male cricketers: they play women's cricket, not men's cricket.   Fact. What is the functional differences between mens cricket and womens cricket? What are the rule changes? Different equipment? Is the field different?

Not sure actually, as I'm not a fan.

I'm guessing these aren't used so much in women's cricket:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Cricket-Abdominal-Guard.png

I know one thing for sure: women's cricket involves women, and men's cricket involves men. Thus, not 'exactly the same job'.  Women aren't facing male fast bowlers in women's cricket, are they?  Thus, not 'exactly the same job'.

Are there women playing in men's Test matches being paid less than the men in that same team (based on their sex)?

And, staying on the sports theme, are all the members of male AFL teams paid the same?   :-/  If they aren't, what sort of 'discrimination' is that?

donincognito wrote on Jun 21^st, 2013 at 11:37am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 21st, 2013 at 11:31am: donincognito wrote on Jun 21st, 2013 at 11:20am: Is this you taking the piss by intentionally and ironically being a huge buggerhead again? Or is this a smacking stupid opinion that you actually believe? It's me stating the facts: Women cricketers don't do 'exactly the same job' as male cricketers: they play women's cricket, not men's cricket.   Fact. What is the functional differences between mens cricket and womens cricket? What are the rule changes? Different equipment? Is the field different?

Skills differences, competitive levels, crowd drawing appealand sponsor drawing apeal (you may argue sponsorship per se in another vein - I discuss the ability to DRAW sponsorship, crowds etc) that funds it.

Can't remember the last time I went to a women's Rugby match - or the first time, either.

Pushing for 'equality' by demanding that you be treated the same in a commercial environment based on market forces is fine - you ARE treated to equal opportunity - you just happen to miss out when you are not as good.

                                           :)

ADDS:-  I played First Grade Rugby in a large town... why was I not approached for a Wallabies contract?  for the simple reason that there were players bigger, more fit, and maybe more dedicated. 

The world runs like that....

"Third day of the Test here between the Australian Women's Crickets and the Men's Team, and the seagulls are taking a well-earned break on centre pitch.....the crickets are indeed chirping, just not the cricket team .. AW all out in five overs for 29, sent back in to redeem themselves, and scoring a magnificent 52 in their second innings, only to be run down by the Men in ten overs.  It seems that size, fitness, speed between wickets and ball skills do count in this great game.. and next week we see the Crickets hard up against the British team at the MCC in a series opening one-day match"....

donincognito wrote on Jun 21^st, 2013 at 11:37am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 21st, 2013 at 11:31am: donincognito wrote on Jun 21st, 2013 at 11:20am: Is this you taking the piss by intentionally and ironically being a huge buggerhead again? Or is this a smacking stupid opinion that you actually believe? It's me stating the facts: Women cricketers don't do 'exactly the same job' as male cricketers: they play women's cricket, not men's cricket.   Fact. What is the functional differences between mens cricket and womens cricket? What are the rule changes? Different equipment? Is the field different?

I haven't read these, but there does seem to be different playing conditions (at least 4 for women that I can see):

http://www.cricket.com.au/about-us/rules-and-regulations

I played cricket for 20 years and never got paid at all!!!

:o

Bobby. wrote on Jun 21^st, 2013 at 11:16am:

Who wants to see girls playing cricket?

Not me.  Women's sport is boring as hell imo.  Never watch it, can't stand it and switch it off

Sponsors know that's how the majority feel, but they're pressured into sponsoring women's sport by bully factions

If a vote were taken, 80% plus would state they dislike and are bored by/uninterested in women's sports.  Fact

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jun 21^st, 2013 at 11:52am:

Skills differences, competitive levels, crowd drawing appealand sponsor drawing apeal (you may argue sponsorship per se in another vein - I discuss the ability to DRAW sponsorship, crowds etc) that funds it.

All of these are attributable to the lack of support for womens sports over the years. Because womens sports have been neglected by the majority of the public (thanks guys, sexism yay) they do not have the base grass roots level of players and spectators that the well established mens sports clubs do. So, you guys are saying "well, because they are not at the same level, they are clearly inferior and its all their fault"


Quote:

Can't remember the last time I went to a women's Rugby match - or the first time, either.

Yes, but we have established that you are an asshole, so who gives a bugger what you think?


Quote:

Pushing for 'equality' by demanding that you be treated the same in a commercial environment based on market forces is fine - you ARE treated to equal opportunity - you just happen to miss out when you are not as good.

As evidenced by statements like this. You must be a colossal buggerstain to think that women have the same opportunity as men.


Quote:

ADDS:-  I played First Grade Rugby in a large town... why was I not approached for a Wallabies contract?  for the simple reason that there were players bigger, more fit, and maybe more dedicated.

I am completely unsurprised to hear that you are a failed meathead.

PZ547 wrote on Jun 21^st, 2013 at 1:18pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 21st, 2013 at 11:16am: Who wants to see girls playing cricket? Me. Athleticism and skill and not the sole domain of males. Males tend not to realise that they are so advantaged due to decades and centuries of entrenched sexism. Quote: Not me.  Women's sport is boring as hell imo.  Never watch it, can't stand it and switch it off See. Anything that has a women playing sport means is bad. Bet you are the type who will watch womens beach volleyball though. [quote]If a vote were taken, 80% plus would state they dislike and are bored by/uninterested in women's sports.  Fact

80% of who? Of the population? So most women think womens sport is dull and boring? How sexist do you want to be? Im sure you can throw in a few more bullshit comments and really round out your assortment of bullshit.

Female employers are some of the most treacherous in the world, imo

Some of the most vicious, violent killers, too

donincognito wrote on Jun 21^st, 2013 at 1:27pm:

PZ547 wrote on Jun 21st, 2013 at 1:18pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 21st, 2013 at 11:16am: Who wants to see girls playing cricket? Me. Athleticism and skill and not the sole domain of males. Males tend not to realise that they are so advantaged due to decades and centuries of entrenched sexism. Quote: Not me.  Women's sport is boring as hell imo.  Never watch it, can't stand it and switch it off See. Anything that has a women playing sport means is bad. Bet you are the type who will watch womens beach volleyball though. [quote]If a vote were taken, 80% plus would state they dislike and are bored by/uninterested in women's sports.  Fact 80% of who? Of the population? So most women think womens sport is dull and boring? How sexist do you want to be? Im sure you can throw in a few more bullshit comments and really round out your assortment of bullshit.

No, stupido.  I'm female and women's sports is boring as hell imo as a female

So shut-up.  You sound like many low-IQ wharfies over their pie and beer

You've got your 'equality' going flat out, judging by your aggressive mouth

PZ547 wrote on Jun 21^st, 2013 at 1:29pm:

No, stupido.  I'm female

How does that stop you from being sexist?


Quote:

and women's sports is boring as hell imo as a female

Sweet, do I get to make sweeping generalisations that are almost guaranteed to be false as well?

Lets give it a shot.

All forums posted named PZ547 are dim witted assholes.

Oh hey, it does work. I should keep doing this. Its fun, I see why you do it.


Quote:

So shut-up.  You sound like many low-IQ wharfies over their pie and beer You've got your 'equality' going flat out, judging by your aggressive mouth

Well, I certainly dont treat all people as equal, if thats why you are trying to implicate. Those buggerstains, such as yourself, who hold fairly bullshit opinions that are wrong tend to get a bit of abuse hurled their way.

Dont worry though, its because they are buggerheads, and have clearly demonstrated that fact, not due to any genital configuration.

donincognito wrote on Jun 21^st, 2013 at 1:38pm:

PZ547 wrote on Jun 21st, 2013 at 1:29pm: No, stupido.  I'm female How does that stop you from being sexist? Quote: and women's sports is boring as hell imo as a female Sweet, do I get to make sweeping generalisations that are almost guaranteed to be false as well? Lets give it a shot. All forums posted named PZ547 are dim witted assholes. Oh hey, it does work. I should keep doing this. Its fun, I see why you do it. [quote] So shut-up.  You sound like many low-IQ wharfies over their pie and beer You've got your 'equality' going flat out, judging by your aggressive mouth

Well, I certainly dont treat all people as equal, if thats why you are trying to implicate. Those buggerstains, such as yourself, who hold fairly bullshit opinions that are wrong tend to get a bit of abuse hurled their way.

Dont worry though, its because they are buggerheads, and have clearly demonstrated that fact, not due to any genital configuration.
[/quote]




Look, it's clear you're bankrupt when it comes to reasonable discussion

If you're remotely functioning in society, you cannot fail to be aware that women are good at some things, as are men

When either sex attempts to ape the other, it's frankly ODD

I refuse to conform to agendas formulated by the Dividers

I was refusing way back in the late 60s and all through the 70s.  I was around at the same time as Greer who imo is and was a sell-out and neurotic member of the tribe

As a kid, I was leader of our local gang (we're talking kids here, swimming, roaming the sandhills, having mock 'wars' etc --- not 'gang' as they're known today).  I was a girl.  A pretty little girl.  Obviously a born leader thus respected by the boy members of our gang.  They deferred to me, yet they were bigger and stronger.  Neither they nor I needed constant prodding by the whoring sexist-mongers.  I was better at strategy, at getting us out of hot-water and tight corners.  I didn't set out to become leader - it evolved naturally.  And yes, a lot of those boys had a crush on me, and me on them

Today I'm a 'normal woman' just as they are 'normal men'.  I don't want to be a man any more than the men I've known have wanted to be women.  Maybe we're normal because we weren't subject to artificial estrogens in our water, food, air and medications, who knows

We didn't have anywhere near the levels of gender confusion back then.  When we girls reached puberty, our bodies changed and so did our attitudes, ambitions, realisation of our limitations, etc.  Same with the boys

Men are not my enemy, never have been.  Don't give me tripe about 'men rule the world' because clearly they do not.  We women run rings around them without trying and decent women acknowledge we have natural advantages which should not ordinarily be exploited.  Just as males recognise they are bigger and stronger than women and should not, ordinarily, exploit that advantage

Of course, there exist women and men who do exploit their advantage.  This has always been the case.  The average man is decent as is the average woman and both recognise that men and women complement each other and are most successful when they work together rather than in opposition

People like you would like to see a war between men and women.  You tried it in the 60's, 70s and 80s and I thought you'd acknowledged your failure and disappeared into the woodwork.  Apparently not.  Here you are again, trying it decades later

As for you, I suspect you're either a troll trying to make your boring Friday a bit more fun -- or are Paid to Post

Are a few shekels really worth it ?  Are you that broke ?

Gee, for the paltry sum paid to those who post for pay, you'd do better to volunteer your time to something worthwhile.  After all, life's short and you only get one chance to lift off this planet once your body's rotting in a box

PZ547 wrote on Jun 21^st, 2013 at 1:59pm:

donincognito wrote on Jun 21st, 2013 at 1:38pm: PZ547 wrote on Jun 21st, 2013 at 1:29pm: No, stupido.  I'm female How does that stop you from being sexist? Quote: and women's sports is boring as hell imo as a female Sweet, do I get to make sweeping generalisations that are almost guaranteed to be false as well? Lets give it a shot. All forums posted named PZ547 are dim witted assholes. Oh hey, it does work. I should keep doing this. Its fun, I see why you do it. [quote] So shut-up.  You sound like many low-IQ wharfies over their pie and beer You've got your 'equality' going flat out, judging by your aggressive mouth Well, I certainly dont treat all people as equal, if thats why you are trying to implicate. Those buggerstains, such as yourself, who hold fairly bullshit opinions that are wrong tend to get a bit of abuse hurled their way. Dont worry though, its because they are buggerheads, and have clearly demonstrated that fact, not due to any genital configuration.

Look, it's clear you're bankrupt when it comes to reasonable discussion

If you're remotely functioning in society, you cannot fail to be aware that women are good at some things, as are men

When either sex attempts to ape the other, it's frankly ODD

I refuse to conform to agendas formulated by the Dividers

I was refusing way back in the late 60s and all through the 70s.  I was around at the same time as Greer who imo is and was a sell-out and neurotic member of the tribe

As a kid, I was leader of our local gang (we're talking kids here, swimming, roaming the sandhills, having mock 'wars' etc --- not 'gang' as they're known today).  I was a girl.  A pretty little girl.  Obviously a born leader thus respected by the boy members of our gang.  They deferred to me, yet they were bigger and stronger.  Neither they nor I needed constant prodding by the whoring sexist-mongers.  I was better at strategy, at getting us out of hot-water and tight corners.  I didn't set out to become leader - it evolved naturally.  And yes, a lot of those boys had a crush on me, and me on them

Today I'm a 'normal woman' just as they are 'normal men'.  I don't want to be a man any more than the men I've known have wanted to be women.  Maybe we're normal because we weren't subject to artificial estrogens in our water, food, air and medications, who knows

We didn't have anywhere near the levels of gender confusion back then.  When we girls reached puberty, our bodies changed and so did our attitudes, ambitions, realisation of our limitations, etc.  Same with the boys

Men are not my enemy, never have been.  Don't give me tripe about 'men rule the world' because clearly they do not.  We women run rings around them without trying and decent women acknowledge we have natural advantages which should not ordinarily be exploited.  Just as males recognise they are bigger and stronger than women and should not, ordinarily, exploit that advantage

Of course, there exist women and men who do exploit their advantage.  This has always been the case.  The average man is decent as is the average woman and both recognise that men and women complement each other and are most successful when they work together rather than in opposition

People like you would like to see a war between men and women.  You tried it in the 60's, 70s and 80s and I thought you'd acknowledged your failure and disappeared into the woodwork.  Apparently not.  Here you are again, trying it decades later

As for you, I suspect you're either a troll trying to make your boring Friday a bit more fun -- or are Paid to Post

Are a few shekels really worth it ?  Are you that broke ?

Gee, for the paltry sum paid to those who post for pay, you'd do better to volunteer your time to something worthwhile.  After all, life's short and you only get one chance to lift off this planet once your body's rotting in a box

[/quote]

great post, i'd join your gang

PZ547 and her gang.  ;)

http://www.newvideo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/NNVG2534.jpg

donincognito wrote on Jun 21^st, 2013 at 1:27pm:

Athleticism and skill and not the sole domain of males. Males tend not to realise that they are so advantaged due to decades and centuries of entrenched sexism.

Maybe you would be happy if we got rid of such sexist ideas as "women's" sport altogether. Why have a sport that only women can play? How sexist!

Instead, lets just have sports; Cricket, Football, Golf, Tennis, Boxing, etc. That way everyone competes together, only the best will become professional, and the best of the best will get paid the most. That would work for you, right? Kind of like Motorsport...

....wait a minute, how is that working for women? Yes that's right. Despite sponsors paying millions to try and get a top women driver into the cars, most of them are still men. Why? because there is yet to be women able to beat men from race to race.

This is why we get drivers in america like Danica Patrick, that despite driving for one of the top teams continues to come home in last place most races, yet still gets more money than most of the other male drivers finishing ahead of her! No one can complain that she isn't getting fair support because she is a women, but instead, she gets ridiculous levels of unfair support simply because she is a women. More money, more media coverage, better equipment in which to win in... still sucks! 

What can we conclude from this? The amount an athlete gets paid is based on how much sponsors are willing to pay them.

Male sports are popular = sponsors want to throw money at it = male atheist get paid a lot.
Women sports are not popular = sponsors wont get much in return so give little support = women get paid little.
Mixed sports are mostly men because men get better results = any women competing will get a fortune just because of the media attention she will bring by being a women = women get paid better than men for their performance.

Sponsors control the salaries. Not "sexist" men. Sponsors only care about their returns. e.g. How much do male netball players get paid compared to women?

Thanks, Honk and Aquascoot 

LOL.  Had to out myself

That illustration isn't far from the mark, believe it or not.  Except we didn't have such great bikes.  The beach and surf in the background with the Norfolk pines is just RIGHT, though

brings back so many great memories.  Gee we had fun   :)

PZ547 wrote on Jun 21^st, 2013 at 2:32pm:

Thanks, Honk and Aquascoot  LOL.  Had to out myself That illustration isn't far from the mark, believe it or not.  Except we didn't have such great bikes.  The beach and surf in the background with the Norfolk pines is just RIGHT, though brings back so many great memories.  Gee we had fun   :)

Manly.

http://www.sydney-australia.biz/photos/northern-beaches/pictures/manly-corso.jpg

Nice.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 21^st, 2013 at 2:42pm:

PZ547 wrote on Jun 21st, 2013 at 2:32pm: Thanks, Honk and Aquascoot  LOL.  Had to out myself That illustration isn't far from the mark, believe it or not.  Except we didn't have such great bikes.  The beach and surf in the background with the Norfolk pines is just RIGHT, though brings back so many great memories.  Gee we had fun   :) Manly. http://www.sydney-australia.biz/photos/northern-beaches/pictures/manly-corso.jpg Nice.

Nice  :)

Main Beach, the Spit and Burleigh --- also nice, back in the day

PZ547 wrote on Jun 21^st, 2013 at 1:59pm:

Look, it's clear you're bankrupt when it comes to reasonable discussion

Reasonable discussions do not start out with statements such as "and women's sports is boring as hell". Im bang up for a reasonable discussion. Care to start one?


Quote:

wanky trip down memory lane

Great for you.


Quote:

Today I'm a 'normal woman' just as they are 'normal men'.  I don't want to be a man any more than the men I've known have wanted to be women.  Maybe we're normal because we weren't subject to artificial estrogens in our water, food, air and medications, who knows

Again, great for you. Completely and utterly unrelated to any point I was trying to make, but hey, its good that you are secure in your identity. More people should strive to be.


Quote:

We didn't have anywhere near the levels of gender confusion back then.  When we girls reached puberty, our bodies changed and so did our attitudes, ambitions, realisation of our limitations, etc.  Same with the boys

This is where you start to veer off the rails into cuckoo town.

There was the same levels of gender confusion back then, its just that it was swept under a rug and not talked about because men were men and acted like men and women were women and acted like women.

[quote
Men are not my enemy, never have been.  [/quote]
Never said they were. Doesnt mean you arent sexist.


Quote:

Don't give me tripe about 'men rule the world' because clearly they do not.

Agreed 100%


Quote:

We women run rings around them without trying and decent women acknowledge we have natural advantages which should not ordinarily be exploited.  Just as males recognise they are bigger and stronger than women and should not, ordinarily, exploit that advantage

I will let you tell Ronda Rousey that men are bigger and stronger than her.


Quote:

The average man is decent as is the average woman and both recognise that men and women complement each other and are most successful when they work together rather than in opposition

Agreed 100%


Quote:

People like you would like to see a war between men and women.  You tried it in the 60's, 70s and 80s and I thought you'd acknowledged your failure and disappeared into the woodwork.  Apparently not.  Here you are again, trying it decades later

Nope, people like me recognise that there is a war on, and the men are winning. They hold the power, they have the keys, they control the locks. Its slowly changing, but to assume for a second that the two sexes have equal opportunity is so profoundly wrong I feel a little bit sorry for you.


Quote:

As for you, I suspect you're either a troll trying to make your boring Friday a bit more fun -- or are Paid to Post

Annnd we are back to stupid town, despite what was a nice sort of detour.


Quote:

Are a few shekels really worth it ?  Are you that broke ?

Pretty sure I earn more than you.


Quote:

Gee, for the paltry sum paid to those who post for pay, you'd do better to volunteer your time to something worthwhile.  After all, life's short and you only get one chance to lift off this planet once your body's rotting in a box

You assume I dont volunteer for stuff. You keep making these mistakes. Maybe you should stop.

@donincognito


I loathe the format of your responses

the cut and paste

the scattered quotes

the interspersed responses



Therefore, I haven't bothered to read your latest offering apart from the final line


and really, even that's pathetic


Go your way

I'll continue on mine

donincognito wrote on Jun 21^st, 2013 at 2:56pm:

Quote: We women run rings around them without trying and decent women acknowledge we have natural advantages which should not ordinarily be exploited.  Just as males recognise they are bigger and stronger than women and should not, ordinarily, exploit that advantage I will let you tell Ronda Rousey that men are bigger and stronger than her.

Don't bother - she already knows.

Have you heard of Fallon Fox?  Well in case you haven't he she it is a 'transgender' fighter who has been smashing the toughest MMA chicks with ease. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O63KAKFPC7g

Here's what Ms rousey said about her him it:


Quote:

"I don't think you should be able to compete as a woman. ... Just the bone density and bone structure you have after you've gone through puberty as a man, it's just an advantage over a woman."

http://www.mmajunkie.com/news/2013/04/ronda-rousey-transgender-fighter-fallon-fox-has-an-advantage


Quote:

“She can try hormones, chop her pecker off, but it’s still the same bone structure a man has,” Rousey told The Post. “It’s an advantage. I don’t think it’s fair.”

http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/the_main_event/ufc_women_champ_weighs_in_on_transgender_3x7mCaaXn27HVq1QtuO5lN#ixzz2Wp9yvvoX

Quantum wrote on Jun 21^st, 2013 at 2:31pm:

Maybe you would be happy if we got rid of such sexist ideas as "women's" sport altogether. Why have a sport that only women can play? How sexist!

Nope. This is classic argument used by dipshits the world over "Wah wah wah your positive discrimination is discrimination wah wah that must mean its bad wah wah wah"

What the muppets fail to realise is that positive discrimination attempts to redress the imbalances inherent in our society by supporting the repressed population until they are equal. As clearly demonstrated by this thread, women are not considered equal, and so should have positive support until they are.


Quote:

Instead, lets just have sports; Cricket, Football, Golf, Tennis, Boxing, etc. That way everyone competes together, only the best will become professional, and the best of the best will get paid the most. That would work for you, right? Kind of like Motorsport...

Nope, that wouldnt work for me at all. Im not surprised to hear a dimwit propose it though.


Quote:

....wait a minute, how is that working for women? Yes that's right. Despite sponsors paying millions to try and get a top women driver into the cars, most of them are still men. Why?

Some would point towards a grassroots issue where there aren't enough females coming up through the ranks to support top level drivers yet. Others might point to the different culture in grassroots sports as opposed to top level sports, which result in less women competing. You though, you are different, you go straight to the fact that women are poo.


Quote:

because there is yet to be women able to beat men from race to race.

See.


Quote:

This is why we get drivers in america like Danica Patrick, that despite driving for one of the top teams continues to come home in last place most races,

http://racing-reference.info/driver/Danica_Patrick

Lets just go on the NASCAR stuff. Her rookie year ended with her beating men in the final standings, which, if you arent a complete smacking moron, means she was beating men from race to race. Seeing as you are a complete smacking moron, I have to spell this poo out for you.

Her second year is still in season, and she is ranked 27 / 55 in the ladder, meaning that she is beating men from race to race.

Why would you bring up a successful female racing star in an attempt to prove there are no successful female racing stars.

Oh wait, you are a smacking moron. Thats why.


Quote:

yet still gets more money than most of the other male drivers finishing ahead of her!

Luckily for you, you can sort the drivers by race winnings.

Oh wait, whats that, she is massively down the list and people she is ahead of on the ladder are earning more than her. Well, that certainly boosts your argument, doesnt it?


Quote:

No one can complain that she isn't getting fair support because she is a women, but instead, she gets ridiculous levels of unfair support simply because she is a women. More money, more media coverage, better equipment in which to win in... still sucks!

This is all a productive of your deluded mind.


Quote:

What can we conclude from this? The amount an athlete gets paid is based on how much sponsors are willing to pay them.

That you are a sexist buggerhead and so are a lot of other people.


Quote:

Male sports are popular = sponsors want to throw money at it = male atheist get paid a lot.=

ok

Quote:

Women sports are not popular = sponsors wont get much in return so give little support = women get paid little.

Why do you think womens sports arent as popular?


Quote:

Mixed sports are mostly men because men get better results = any women competing will get a fortune just because of the media attention she will bring by being a women = women get paid better than men for their performance.

You are just always assuming that women are poo aren't you.


Quote:

Sponsors control the salaries. Not "sexist" men.

This has to be statement of the year for complete lack of awareness.


Quote:

Sponsors only care about their returns. e.g. How much do male netball players get paid compared to women?

How about you do some actual research and get back to me with those figures?

donincognito wrote on Jun 21^st, 2013 at 3:13pm:

As clearly demonstrated by this thread, women are not considered equal at sports

Fixed it for you.  I don't care - some of my best friends are sh.t at sports.


donincognito wrote on Jun 21^st, 2013 at 3:13pm:

Quote: Women sports are not popular = sponsors wont get much in return so give little support = women get paid little. Why do you think womens sports arent as popular?

Because not as many people want to watch it(?).
If they're not interested, who are you to say they should be?


donincognito wrote on Jun 21^st, 2013 at 3:13pm:

Quote: ....wait a minute, how is that working for women? Yes that's right. Despite sponsors paying millions to try and get a top women driver into the cars, most of them are still men. Why? Some would point towards a grassroots issue where there aren't enough females coming up through the ranks to support top level drivers yet. Others might point to the different culture in grassroots sports as opposed to top level sports, which result in less women competing. You though, you are different, you go straight to the fact that women are poo.

Some would point towards females just not wanting to do these sort of activities as much as men do.  If they're not interested, who are you to say they should be?

@ disinfocognito



I think you're supposed to paraphrase the instructional manual provided all Paids to Post

not cite it verbatim


You're going to be 're-educated' by your supervisors, you know.  As a disinfo Paid to Post, you're pretty useless

Advanced Paids to Post are required to post under a raft of minimum 10 IDs simultaneously

yet here you are

unable to post convincingly as just one


;D

PZ547 wrote on Jun 21^st, 2013 at 3:00pm:

@donincognito I loathe the format of your responses the cut and paste the scattered quotes the interspersed responses Therefore, I haven't bothered to read your latest offering apart from the final line and really, even that's pathetic Go your way I'll continue on mine

Wait wait wait a minute here. I take the time to individually respond to the points you are making, in what I thought was a fairly reasonable manner. There was not one expletive. There is a minimal amount of disparagement. I completely agreed with you on several points.

Then you dont even have the decency to read what i write.

And you are the one asking for a reasonable discussion.

Its nice to know you consider volunteers to be pathetic though. Hope you need some help one day, and no-one volunteers.

PZ547 wrote on Jun 21^st, 2013 at 3:22pm:

@ disinfocognito I think you're supposed to paraphrase the instructional manual provided all Paids to Post not cite it verbatim You're going to be 're-educated' by your supervisors, you know.  As a disinfo Paid to Post, you're pretty useless Advanced Paids to Post are required to post under a raft of minimum 10 IDs simultaneously yet here you are unable to post convincingly as just one ;D

You are the first person to say im a paid shill.

Which begs the question, who is paying me? And once you have found the, can you let them know that I havent received any of my money and I want it now.

donincognito wrote on Jun 21^st, 2013 at 3:32pm:

PZ547 wrote on Jun 21st, 2013 at 3:22pm: @ disinfocognito I think you're supposed to paraphrase the instructional manual provided all Paids to Post not cite it verbatim You're going to be 're-educated' by your supervisors, you know.  As a disinfo Paid to Post, you're pretty useless Advanced Paids to Post are required to post under a raft of minimum 10 IDs simultaneously yet here you are unable to post convincingly as just one ;D You are the first person to say im a paid shill. Which begs the question, who is paying me? And once you have found the, can you let them know that I havent received any of my money and I want it now.

I'll pay you....

$35.60/hr if you're male.

$15.25/hr if you're a lazy chick.

:)

I like to watch women’s golf – especially if Natalie Gulbis is playing.

;)

FriYAY wrote on Jun 21^st, 2013 at 3:47pm:

I like to watch women’s golf – especially if Natalie Gulbis is playing. ;)

I'm an avid fan of women's tennis - nothing to do with those short skirts at all....

(Task Force Grappler closes in on the lowering coast of Normandy,... guns are laid and prepared, all communications shut down......suddenly in the early morning, HMS Arethusa opens fire with the first shots of the naval bombardment, followed by every ship in the fleet with a gun to bear)....

BTW - women have had the commanded 'right' to apply for Infantry, SAS, Armour and so forth for a year now - thus far I have yet to see one report of a successful application.

Just saying...my daughter recently mooted the idea of joining the Australian armybut she had no desire to engage in combat - just do a solid job. 

Read in what you like....

BQ:-  Is don incogniquixote a paid shill?  I heard a rumour somewhere.... ;D

donincognito wrote on Jun 21^st, 2013 at 3:13pm:

Why do you think womens sports arent as popular?

Well, for example:

" ... at the elite level of sports (and, really, at all levels of sport except pee-wee), men are, on average, simply faster and stronger than women. Why the hell would anyone of sound mind want to watch a gimped version of his favorite sport when a more electrifying version already exists? This elementary logic escapes the feminist hivemind."

http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/08/07/why-womens-sports-get-less-primetime-coverage/

http://heartiste.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/r.jpeg

donincognito wrote on Jun 21^st, 2013 at 3:13pm:

Quantum wrote on Jun 21st, 2013 at 2:31pm: Maybe you would be happy if we got rid of such sexist ideas as "women's" sport altogether. Why have a sport that only women can play? How sexist! Nope. This is classic argument used by dipshits the world over "Wah wah wah your positive discrimination is discrimination wah wah that must mean its bad wah wah wah" What the muppets fail to realise is that positive discrimination attempts to redress the imbalances inherent in our society by supporting the repressed population until they are equal. As clearly demonstrated by this thread, women are not considered equal, and so should have positive support until they are. Quote: Instead, lets just have sports; Cricket, Football, Golf, Tennis, Boxing, etc. That way everyone competes together, only the best will become professional, and the best of the best will get paid the most. That would work for you, right? Kind of like Motorsport... Nope, that wouldnt work for me at all. Im not surprised to hear a dimwit propose it though. [quote] ....wait a minute, how is that working for women? Yes that's right. Despite sponsors paying millions to try and get a top women driver into the cars, most of them are still men. Why?

Some would point towards a grassroots issue where there aren't enough females coming up through the ranks to support top level drivers yet. Others might point to the different culture in grassroots sports as opposed to top level sports, which result in less women competing. You though, you are different, you go straight to the fact that women are poo.


Quote:

because there is yet to be women able to beat men from race to race.

See.


Quote:

This is why we get drivers in america like Danica Patrick, that despite driving for one of the top teams continues to come home in last place most races,

http://racing-reference.info/driver/Danica_Patrick

Lets just go on the NASCAR stuff. Her rookie year ended with her beating men in the final standings, which, if you arent a complete smacking moron, means she was beating men from race to race. Seeing as you are a complete smacking moron, I have to spell this poo out for you.

Her second year is still in season, and she is ranked 27 / 55 in the ladder, meaning that she is beating men from race to race.

Why would you bring up a successful female racing star in an attempt to prove there are no successful female racing stars.

Oh wait, you are a smacking moron. Thats why.


Quote:

yet still gets more money than most of the other male drivers finishing ahead of her!

Luckily for you, you can sort the drivers by race winnings.

Oh wait, whats that, she is massively down the list and people she is ahead of on the ladder are earning more than her. Well, that certainly boosts your argument, doesnt it?


Quote:

No one can complain that she isn't getting fair support because she is a women, but instead, she gets ridiculous levels of unfair support simply because she is a women. More money, more media coverage, better equipment in which to win in... still sucks!

This is all a productive of your deluded mind.
[/quote]

You have never watched a NASCAR race have you? Instead you go to a website and now think you know what you are talking about.

There are not 55 full time NASCAR drivers. There may have been 55 drivers competing so far this year, but not all of them race every week (There are only 43 cars!). That means that if you only do one race and win it, you will still be nearly last in the championship compared to those who race ever week. The fact that she is coming 27th is pathetic considering she is driving a Stewart-Haas car. Her main team mate is 10th with nearly double the points. She is driving one of the best cars and she has only 1 top ten finish.

If you had any understanding of motorsport you would see how average she is.    


Quote:

Why would you bring up a successful female racing star in an attempt to prove there are no successful female racing stars.

Because she is not just a successful female racing driver.... She is the most successful female driver in the world at the moment! The problem is that she is accomplishing nothing compared to most of the men, especially her team mate. But despite this the media frenzy and the money she gets is massive. She is simply no where near as fast as the main drivers. If she was a man she would never have got a seat in a car because she is too slow. You can call it sexism, but the timing clock at the race track doesn't lie.   

donincognito wrote on Jun 21^st, 2013 at 1:38pm:

PZ547 wrote on Jun 21st, 2013 at 1:29pm: No, stupido.  I'm female How does that stop you from being sexist? Quote: and women's sports is boring as hell imo as a female Sweet, do I get to make sweeping generalisations that are almost guaranteed to be false as well? Lets give it a shot. All forums posted named PZ547 are dim witted assholes. Oh hey, it does work. I should keep doing this. Its fun, I see why you do it. [quote] So shut-up.  You sound like many low-IQ wharfies over their pie and beer You've got your 'equality' going flat out, judging by your aggressive mouth

Well, I certainly dont treat all people as equal, if thats why you are trying to implicate. Those buggerstains, such as yourself, who hold fairly bullshit opinions that are wrong tend to get a bit of abuse hurled their way.

[highlight]Dont worry though, its because they are buggerheads, and have clearly demonstrated that fact, not due to any genital configuration.
[/quote]

Hmmm!

Couple of points here:

*  While you admit that you, yourself, don't treat all people as equal, you are incensed about the self-perceived 'problem' of female inequality.  :)

*  The 'buggerstains' here, as you so eloquently put it, are as entitled to their opinions as you are yours. Sound fair and equal?

* And, as this thread is about a supposed gender war in this country, am I entitled to comment that I detect a whiff of misandry?

I, myself, celebrate the differences between the sexes but am totally opposed to the subjugation of any individual's rights or potential, regardless of gender. You, on the other hand, seem to imply that simply being born female is destined to limit one's potential or predicate a future of exploitation.

One considers that a twelve-month sabbatical in Pakistan would do wonders for your attitude. Perhaps things in Australian society are not quite so dire as you imagine.

Just sayin'.

vote 1 porn king!

Quantum wrote on Jun 21^st, 2013 at 5:57pm:

Because she is not just a successful female racing driver.... She is the most successful female driver in the world at the moment!  ...

http://www.troll.me/images/obama-meh/meh-id-hit-it-thumb.jpg http://fantasysportscheats.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Danica-Patrick4.jpg

Quantum wrote on Jun 21^st, 2013 at 5:57pm:

You have never watched a NASCAR race have you? Instead you go to a website and now think you know what you are talking about.

I have. I find them boring, but I prefer rally driving. More interesting.


Quote:

The fact that she is coming 27th is pathetic considering she is driving a Stewart-Haas car. Her main team mate is 10th with nearly double the points. She is driving one of the best cars and she has only 1 top ten finish.

She is in her second year. Can you point out all the second year drivers who consistently finished top 10 please.


Quote:

If you had any understanding of motorsport you would see how average she is.

Quote:

She is the most successful woman in the history of American open-wheel racing—her win in the 2008 Indy Japan 300 is the only women's victory in an IndyCar Series race and her third place in the 2009 Indianapolis 500 the highest finish ever there by a woman. She competed in the series from 2005 to 2011. In 2012 she competed in the NASCAR Nationwide Series and occasionally in the NASCAR Sprint Cup Series. For the 2013 season, Patrick drives the #10 GoDaddy.com Chevrolet SS for Stewart-Haas Racing in the Sprint Cup Series, and a limited Nationwide Series schedule for Turner Motorsports. In 2013, she became the first female NASCAR driver to win a NASCAR Sprint Cup Series pole, turning in the fastest qualifying lap since 1990 in qualifying for the Daytona 500.[3]

Yep. uh huh, sorry, what were you saying, i got distracted when I proved you wrong.


Quote:

[quote]Why would you bring up a successful female racing star in an attempt to prove there are no successful female racing stars.

Because she is not just a successful female racing driver.... She is the most successful female driver in the world at the moment! The problem is that she is accomplishing nothing compared to most of the men, especially her team mate. [/quote]
Except for the whole pole position at daytona 500, though to my knowledge noone really cares about that. Oh that and staying in the top 10 for most of the arvo, also leading the race for a few laps, not too bad for a 2nd year newbie.


Quote:

But despite this the media frenzy and the money she gets is massive. She is simply no where near as fast as the main drivers. If she was a man she would never have got a seat in a car because she is too slow.

Bullshit


Quote:

You can call it sexism, but the timing clock at the race track doesn't lie.

No, but you do. Often. Maybe you should stop that, especially when its so easy to prove you wrong.

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jun 21^st, 2013 at 6:32pm:

Hmmm! Couple of points here: *  While you admit that you, yourself, don't treat all people as equal, you are incensed about the self-perceived 'problem' of female inequality.  :)

I am really struggling to see how you can think the whole issue of female inequality is self perceived. Its a fact. I wish it wasnt, but it is. And its the buggerheads on this forum, and their ilk that promote and prolong this fact.


Quote:

*  The 'buggerstains' here, as you so eloquently put it, are as entitled to their opinions as you are yours. Sound fair and equal?

Sure. Im still going to yell abuse if they are crappy opinions.


Quote:

* And, as this thread is about a supposed gender war in this country, am I entitled to comment that I detect a whiff of misandry?

Misandry isnt a thing, so no.


Quote:

I, myself, celebrate the differences between the sexes but am totally opposed to the subjugation of any individual's rights or potential, regardless of gender.

Thats lovely.


Quote:

You, on the other hand, seem to imply that simply being born female is destined to limit one's potential or predicate a future of exploitation.

Because, right now, it does. On average, if you are a woman, you will earn less money over your lifetime. I can bust out other stats if you want, or you could do some research for yourself.


Quote:

One considers that a twelve-month sabbatical in Pakistan would do wonders for your attitude. Perhaps things in Australian society are not quite so dire as you imagine. Just sayin'.

Ahhhhhh, that ol chestnut.

So because there is someone somewhere in the world that has it worse than women in Australia, sexism isnt a problem and we should just ignore it.

No. it doesnt work like that.

Sure, women in pakistan dont have the best of times. That does not take anything away from the fact that women in Australia, while not quite as bad off as the women in pakistan are still worse off then the men of Australia.

Just saying.

donincognito wrote on Jun 21^st, 2013 at 6:46pm:

Misandry isnt a thing, so no.

;D

Who told you that?

It certainly wasn't Valerie Solanas.

Donnoncomprende

http://devilsfoe.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/punch-ball-bag-gif.gif

Oh dear! I had hoped to avoid this whole cut-paste dissection of one's posts. It makes for some very long quotes in reply and usually descends into an argument about semantics.

As it is yourself that is pushing this view of the supposed inequalities between women and men in this country, it is up to yourself to prove your opinion. You certainly have the right to dismiss any other viewpoint by derogatory comments but that does not necessarily make an opposing opinion invalid. Nor does it make your own opinions valid.

Women, on average, will earn less money over their lifetimes because, on average, they do less paid work less during their lifetimes than men. Bust out all the statistics you want.

I had thought the comparison to Pakistan to be relevant. if you consider yourself hard-done by in this country, there are plenty of alternatives - all you have to do is pick another and move there. That's always an option.

Life is tough for many in this country - if you find yourself under duress, my suggestion would be to suck it up and toughen up. The homeless in Brisbane this week have been moved out from their squats and have had their meagre possessions, including their bedding, thrown out - what do they do when they're released, as they will be?

Count your blessings.

Misandry, BTW, is the antonym of misogyny - a regrettable miasma that has perfused civilised society in recent years.  8-)

@ Honky

And haven't we seen a lot of that in recent times! It's alright for some - WE can't do it, it's against the RULES! ;D

donincognito wrote on Jun 21^st, 2013 at 1:22pm:

[quote author=The_Grappler link=1371533226/107#107 date=1371779520] All of these are attributable to the lack of support for womens sports over the years. Because womens sports have been neglected by the majority of the public (thanks guys, sexism yay) they do not have the base grass roots level of players and spectators that the well established mens sports clubs do. So, you guys are saying "well, because they are not at the same level, they are clearly inferior and its all their fault" [quote] Yes, but we have established that you are an asshole, so who gives a bugger what you think? As evidenced by statements like this. You must be a colossal buggerstain to think that women have the same opportunity as men. I am completely unsurprised to hear that you are a failed meathead.

a. So... er - with all the artificial pumping of women's sports these days - how IS the sponsorship going?  As well as the quality etc of the games?  I note that Auntie ABC has a plethora of women's sports - damn - just when commercial TV had gone to the dogs we are force fed this?
Note:-  All I said was that the money follows the attraction of the game - I didn't say women were inferior - they are fine in their own grade.

ADDS:- "womens sports have been neglected by the majority of the public" - you said it yourself - all those people are just plain sexist?  You have no other possibilities there at all for ALL those people of the majority of the public.  Did you (LMAO) take a vote on that?

b. You are laughable but it's nice to know that one person on Earth thinks I better than an ankle (three feet lower)...you must be eleven years old to argue like that, and using the American term instead of the good old Australian one..

c. That IS opportunity - women failed it - you CANNOT enforce outcomes unless you are a fascist (socio-fascist in the feminst mold will do).  Seig Heil to you too!  Demanding equality of outcomes is the province of the incompetent and incapable.

d. So - playing Rugby makes you a 'failed' meathead?  Tell that to the doctors, lawyers, dentists and pharmacists and politicians who played Rugby... well - leave the politicians out....I forgot to tell you I played one International - had to hand back the fullback reins, though....

I suppose you think this art work takes no brains and skill:-

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=rooting+for+the+wallabies+pictures&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=nSHEUYHTJtGhiAfX-ICACQ&ved=0CCwQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=606#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=vb_Tv8JTtk0bHM%3A%3BE5jzNOzrrJOh1M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fimages.theage.com.au%252F2013%252F06%252F21%252F4508989%252Fwallabies320.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.theage.com.au%252Fvictoria%252Fhuge-betting-ad-not-a-good-look-20130621-2omxv.html%3B320%3B214


Ahhhhhhhhhh... ha, ha ha, ha ha, ha, ha......  ;D

I have an IQ estimated by DVA at 160+ and a history that would amaze you.....you are a laughable child in an adult's body (I suspect - though I have doubts).  You sound like a petulant fourteen year old girl with an attitude problem towards her parents who say she can't run off and live with her bikie boyfriend, do drugs at 100 mph on the back of his bike, and have a bunch of user kids suffering from foetal drug syndrome......... ;D

... wrote on Jun 21^st, 2013 at 7:25pm:

Donnoncomprende http://devilsfoe.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/punch-ball-bag-gif.gif

Wow - that seems familiar, somehow.. stay clear of don incomprehende.. she's a man-beater.....

Is it true she's a paid shill?   ;D

donincognito wrote on Jun 21^st, 2013 at 6:40pm:

Quote: She is the most successful woman in the history of American open-wheel racing—her win in the 2008 Indy Japan 300 is the only women's victory in an IndyCar Series race and her third place in the 2009 Indianapolis 500 the highest finish ever there by a woman. She competed in the series from 2005 to 2011. In 2012 she competed in the NASCAR Nationwide Series and occasionally in the NASCAR Sprint Cup Series. For the 2013 season, Patrick drives the #10 GoDaddy.com Chevrolet SS for Stewart-Haas Racing in the Sprint Cup Series, and a limited Nationwide Series schedule for Turner Motorsports. In 2013, she became the first female NASCAR driver to win a NASCAR Sprint Cup Series pole, turning in the fastest qualifying lap since 1990 in qualifying for the Daytona 500.[3] [quote] Yep. uh huh, sorry, what were you saying, i got distracted when I proved you wrong.

.......


Quote:

Except for the whole pole position at daytona 500, though to my knowledge noone really cares about that. Oh that and staying in the top 10 for most of the arvo, also leading the race for a few laps, not too bad for a 2nd year newbie.

[/quote]

All you have shown is that she is the most successful female driver in both Indy and NASCAR. I already said she is the most successful female driver in the world at the moment. So what exactly are you proving here except for your ignorance of Motorsport? Oh that's right... you thought a pole at Daytona was impressive? A restrictor plate race where they are flat throttle for the whole lap and whoever gets sent out at the right time gets pole. Also known as pure luck! Or maybe you meant the win in Japan, when the leader and several others ran out of fuel a couple of laps from the end and she inherited the win having done nothing for the entire race. Is this what shows women performing as good as men?

It is pretty obvious you have no idea what you are talking about. You're reading stats and thinking they are impressive when they are anything but. Was there something in there that you think puts her in the same league as Jimmy Johnson, Dario Franchitti, and the other greats of her generation? 

She's obviously very good to even get a shot at driving at the top level.  Good on her, but remember she is 1 out of....a lot. 

It says a lot about her skill and determination, but it doesn't say anything about females as a collective.  It's not like women are beating down the door by their thousands to pursue careers as race car drivers.   

Women in motor sport has been an interesting topic for several decades as it is one of the few mixed sports out there. There is simply no female league for most major motorsports. What is most interesting is the fact that there are actually a lot of women trying to get into motorsport, but they don't seem to have what it takes.

Despite the myth, in go karting there is actually as many girls as there are boys, and they are very fast! There is actually no obvious male advantage at that age. In fact many of the great drivers (Mika Hakkinen, Micheal Schumacher, Fernando Alonso, etc) have been beaten by girls! oh the horror!!!! However, they were only kids at the time. At about 13-14 years old the boys seem to go to another level and the girls get left behind. Put a;

A) 10 year old girl.
B) 10 year old boy.
C) 15 year old girl.
D) 15 year old boy.

in go karts, and A, B and C will be about equal in speed. D, the 15 year old boy, will simply smoke the lot of them. Why? Who knows. But there is an obvious speed advantage that adolescent boys seem to find that girls don't. In general, girls don't seem to get faster with age hence why they never make it big time. The boys seem to just keep getting faster right into the twenties, usually hitting their prime at about 25-28. 

In regards to Danica, there is no doubt she has a lot of talent. But she is really a bit of a freak. An exception to the rule mentioned above. But her presence in the sport kills the argument of donincognito about women being over looked. If anyone looks at her record it is simply nothing special. There are hundreds of men who could show similar results, but no one could remember their names. There are even hundreds of men that have accomplished a lot more than she has, yet most of their names are never spoken of. When the news starts by saying "Danica Patrick finishes in 22nd and Jimmy Johnson wins the race" you know that she is not being over looked because she is a women. In fact her career is being sustained because she is a women. Any man with her results would have some serious question marks about their future. Not that anyone would remember their names though...

Serious question:  What do women like to do when they're not horning in on things men have invented and enjoy? 

It's no secret men generally enjoy sports and cars and competition and adventure and success etc etc but save a few isolated cases, women generally aren't interested in the same things.  Why don't they pursue and take pride in their own fields of endeavour, whatever they may be, rather than moaning about "boys clubs" and "exclusion" when men pursue theirs?

I can't believe how you men don't get how oppressed women are and how disadvantaged they are. I have turned down jobs because they paid more than my honeybuns was making.

How do you think I am supposed to live with that? Every smacking day coming home to a sookylala who feels hard done by because she has a vag, and payday? Jeezus, not only does she spend it, she moans every smacking week on the same day!

I even took her to Thailand and paid for everything and it was still piss and moan the whole two weeks. I would have been better of getting one of those cheap Thai girlfriends. They would have spent less of my money there, got laid more and I wouldn't have to put up with being done up the backside with a strap on from a bitch with penis envy not to mention the complaining...always complaining about everything.

Women have it so bad if they have to complain like my woman. Don't ever play beach cricket with her.

all of you  so-called men who have posted on this in disagreement are so full of sh.t  you can't see real stuff/ your tiny little male minds are so confident in your assumption of superiority ..you make fools of yourselves.

Yep  .. get this fellas...  In fact.. you are fools. You resort to Nascar.!???   ;D ;D ;D

Doincognito has made many good points on this topic...  and has my general agreement.
I have read early posts altho I confess I got sick of the slime after page something or other...  but

doincognito.. these fwits are a  bit of a plague of morons,,, always hapy to slag off women,.. or anyone else THEY THINK  are weaker than themselves.

Its pretty clear they collectively have the brains of Eddie Maquire.  ;D ;D ;D

Perhaps they missed the recent release of data which shows women receive 17.5% less wages for THE SAME WORK.

OHH NOOOO can't acknowledge THAT... it'd show what fheads they really are.  :)

Spot of Bog wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2013 at 12:44am:

I can't believe how you men don't get how oppressed women are and how disadvantaged they are. I have turned down jobs because they paid more than my honeybuns was making. How do you think I am supposed to live with that? Every smacking day coming home to a sookylala who feels hard done by because she has a vag, and payday? Jeezus, not only does she spend it, she moans every smacking week on the same day! I even took her to Thailand and paid for everything and it was still piss and moan the whole two weeks. I would have been better of getting one of those cheap Thai girlfriends. They would have spent less of my money there, got laid more and I wouldn't have to put up with being done up the backside with a strap on from a bitch with penis envy not to mention the complaining...always complaining about everything. Women have it so bad if they have to complain like my woman. Don't ever play beach cricket with her.

HERE YOU GO 

see above.... the typical Oz ahole misogynist fhead who can think above his .....

I think your wife would be enraptured if you f'd off  (permanently) with a thai ... girl OR boy...or anyone else for that matter  ... to  see the end of you must be a dream for her.

YOU are a creep... a coward and a scuzzball,  a typical whining Oz male who things his b,lls ought to be licked.  YUK

Emma wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2013 at 1:00am:

all of you  so-called men who have posted on this in disagreement are so full of sh.t  you can't see real stuff/ your tiny little male minds are so confident in your assumption of superiority ..you make fools of yourselves. Yep  .. get this fellas...  In fact.. you are fools. You resort to Nascar.!???   ;D ;D ;D Doincognito has made many good points on this topic...  and has my general agreement. I have read early posts altho I confess I got sick of the slime after page something or other...  but doincognito.. these fwits are a  bit of a plague of morons,,, always hapy to slag off women,.. or anyone else THEY THINK  are weaker than themselves. Its pretty clear they collectively have the brains of Eddie Maquire.  ;D ;D ;D Perhaps they missed the recent release of data which shows women receive 17.5% less wages for THE SAME WORK. OHH NOOOO can't acknowledge THAT... it'd show what fheads they really are.  :)

My girlfriend sold herself and got $200 for the hour. I tried the same thing to prove a point and ended up blowing a homeless guy in an alley for a Maccas voucher.

Oh the disparity  :-/

Why the double standards from you womyn?

Emma wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2013 at 1:06am:

Spot of Bog wrote on Jun 22nd, 2013 at 12:44am: I can't believe how you men don't get how oppressed women are and how disadvantaged they are. I have turned down jobs because they paid more than my honeybuns was making. How do you think I am supposed to live with that? Every smacking day coming home to a sookylala who feels hard done by because she has a vag, and payday? Jeezus, not only does she spend it, she moans every smacking week on the same day! I even took her to Thailand and paid for everything and it was still piss and moan the whole two weeks. I would have been better of getting one of those cheap Thai girlfriends. They would have spent less of my money there, got laid more and I wouldn't have to put up with being done up the backside with a strap on from a bitch with penis envy not to mention the complaining...always complaining about everything. Women have it so bad if they have to complain like my woman. Don't ever play beach cricket with her. HERE YOU GO  see above.... the typical Oz ahole misogynist fhead who can think above his ..... I think your wife would be enraptured if you f'd off  (permanently) with a thai ... girl OR boy...or anyone else for that matter  ... to  see the end of you must be a dream for her. YOU are a creep... a coward and a scuzzball,  a typical whining Oz male who things his b,lls ought to be licked.  YUK

A testicle in your mouth will be a welcome event for the ears

yep
scuzzball
everytime you open your whining whinging gob... you spew out the real you... a filthy depraved sexist racist dirt-bag...  just like all your friends ...  all creeps.. all morons... all doomed to die a sad and lonely death. ;D ;D ;D ;D

is there a real gender war in Australia..?

NO... not a real war.

A long hard cold war...  ??  perhaps

a hit and run guerrilla war ??  again perhaps :-?

No it isn't a war... it's a cultural inheritance...  long past its use by date. Time for you fellas to grow up into full rounded human beings and acknowledge women are equal in all respects to you men, as human beings..this IS the 21st Century after all. Put your clubs away.

Male supremacy shouldn't even be an issue...  it seems irrelevant to me ... but some men don't think so. Obviously. They cling to their imaginary authority.. out of fear of failure.

I'm happy to acknowledge males as fellow human beings, who, although different,  are worthy partners... ( sigh ..here I show the idealistic wishes of women for their men).

:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

Emma wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2013 at 1:18am:

yep scuzzball everytime you open your whining whinging gob... you spew out the real you... a filthy depraved sexist racist dirt-bag...  just like all your friends ...  all creeps.. all morons... all doomed to die a sad and lonely death. ;D ;D ;D ;D

How does it feel to go through life wishing you were as good as a man? It must grate on you to be one of the weaker sex, yes? Living your whole life knowing you will never be as strong, as fast, as intelligent, hold positions of power etc...it must be quite galling for you that the only reason for this is not society, but that you never developed testicles. Yet strangely enough, there are women out there who have excelled themselves and reached the top of the tree by themselves without a handout from the vag brigade.

This must make you feel even worse, knowing that its not because you are a woman that you're a failure, its because you are just a failure but think blaming it on your vag makes you being a failure ok...because it isn't really your fault.

Your penis envy is so great even your vagina hates you  :D