Bread and Butter wrote on Mar 28^th, 2014 at 8:50am:


When the entire debate has been reduced to labeling any disagreement with or criticism of FEMINISM as some 'attack on women by some woman hater' - then there is absolutely no ground left for resolution of any real issues.

Thus the entire discussion will degenerate into a war.

As Neville Chamberlain found out, far too late, you cannot continuously appease those who attack you and yours, and then blame you for their doing so.

Where there are REAL issues at stake - name-calling as Gillard did are nothing but a puerile schoolyard attempt to intimidate opposition and stifle dissent and opposition.

When real issues cannot be discussed through a Reign of Terror being inflicted on any dissenters - no resolution is ever in sight.

We have a current episode of a Mayor - in North sydney - seeking to stifle an opposition Councillor via firstly - applying for a 'violence' order - and secondly - seeking to use bullying laws to prevent his commenting or opposing her.

We saw this in the past with Reba Meagher - a darling of NSW Labor who is utterly useless but a strong feminist - in her first campaign for a seat where she did not even live, when she took an AVO against her opponent, Rocky Gattilieri, for his comment that he would smash her in the election (or similar).

This is utter nonsense and is in and of itself violence by the State against the individual - primarily Men, and is one component of that Reign of Terror.

You must ask yourselves why any sane State would pursue such a Reign of Terror primarily against Men - there are very clear reasons for it, but it is preferable that you find out for yourselves first.

GA wrote on Mar 28^th, 2014 at 10:48am:


Yes, indeed - but the question has very much become "to what extent is a FAMILY unit entitled to jobs in a diminishing job market".

Now a family unit is anything from a single person living alone all the way up to the nuclear family (brought to you courtesy of Monty Burns) - so our question becomes - why is it that SOME family units are entitled to 2-3-4 bites at the cherry while others have no entitlement to any?

That is the nub of the issue, and the following issues are the level of income from work at which a family could or should function effectively, and to what extent entitlement should be constrained so as to afford genuine opportunity for all.

Pirates Of The Current Eon

Treasure Of the Hoarder Class

Winston Smith wrote on Mar 28^th, 2014 at 11:51am:


You, sir, like most of the social science challenged, confuse entitlement to work with some absolute right to a job in preference to someone else, based purely on whether or not you belong to a group set aside for 'accredited victim status'.

In seeking to alleviate the conditions for those deemed to have AVS, misbegotten social science has created a new, larger and generational series of true victims.

Now - the fact that a woman or whatever has an entitlement to a job and to work - does NOT mean she/he/it should be handed preference to one, without reference to all other factors.

If you consider that to be sexist or misogynistic - I cannot help you in your dark space.

Now tell me again why anyone in the position Herbert describes should be given preference in earning income over and above someone in real need....

Pirates Of The Current Eon

Social Scientist's Booty

Generations of hard work, dedication and enduring attack and punishment lead this once-great country to the 'single living wage' - on which a Family could prosper and own a home etc.

This has been replaced - under successive 'governments' here, swayed as they are by 'social science' and its pie-in-the-sky precepts - with the current disaster of homelessness, lack of hope, growing poverty, reduction under despotism of zero requirement for proof 'laws', and lack of genuine opportunity on the one side - and on the other side, property hoarding, excessive incomes for zero productive work, favouritism and nepotism, and endless ranting about 'past oppression' that never existed.

So - you think 40% of families are 'entitled' to make as much as they can in any way they can without any civilised constraint - and 60% are not entitled to anything but scorn and reduction under despotism of their 'betters'?

THAT is what it comes down to - so don't try labeling me 'misogynist' when I point out real wrongs.

GA wrote on Mar 28^th, 2014 at 1:57pm:


Sir, you cannot read - the same as all other driven by emotions.  I cite constantly that 'government policies in advancing women OVER others' is the cause - so where in that am I not addressing the issues of piss-poor government?

What part of 'entitlement to work does not mean a RIGHT to be handed work over others' can you not follow?

Women have no problem here - they have all rights and then some right now - and  it is time for that issue - and all the others I cite as being destructive of the fabric of our society - to be addressed in a meaningful way - and not just with petty name-calling.

What has China owning the place got to do with it?

We are addressing the issues of here and now - and I have repeatedly blamed governments for their policies - included among which is the artificial elevation of women and other specified groups at the expense of the majority.  It is the 'social science policies I dispute - and with good reason and fact, and clearly based on the outcomes so vividly obvious to any who choose to look.

What is so hard about seeing that simple issue in context, and not charging off after Julia Gillard's ridiculous 'misogynist' windmill??

What part of 'FAMILY UNIT' do you deliberately confuse with 'women'?

If I were to say the whole thing - and replace women with men - would you have an argument?  Look very carefully at this space before you answer.

GA wrote on Mar 28^th, 2014 at 10:48am:


If they're single ~ Yes.

And if they're married, with their husband working, then certainly not if there are young married couples with neither of them being able to find work.

Rationalisation in the workplace must be practised by government decree sooner or later.

Everyone screams about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, but the upwardly-mobile working class family with their own house and investment properties are the first to scream if their dual-income is stopped so another couple can at least have one job.

There's no greater hypocrite than the working class family once they get onto that ladder of success towards middle class status.

Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 28^th, 2014 at 2:41pm:


So I did the right thing in January by quitting my job?

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 28^th, 2014 at 2:57pm:


Grappler remembers a time when women knew their place in the home.

It was a Golden Age for husbands who would come home tired from work,  when their wives would then bring them their carpet slippers, pipe, and evening newspaper, after which she would scurry off to the kitchen to finish preparing the family supper.