Frances - you are more than aware by now that there is no 'wage gap' here - no woman receives less than she works for in whatever field she is in.

As for health and education - since the 1980's education here has been along the lines of the 'box ticking' mediocrity rather than the dominance of brilliance - and women tend to be better at 'box ticking' than men.  As a result women make up the predominance of graduates these days - meaning they get a shoe in to the well paid and easy jobs.

As for health - vastly more money goes into women's health issues than into men's.  Now you can argue that women have some very different issues in health etc - fine - but let us not try to make suggestions that women are missing out more than men in the health budgets.

Political representation figures?  Go - get elected!  Join the Grappler Party - EVERY candidate will be totally on merit - and not public service merit, and gender has nothing to do with it, especially in terms of some mythical 'need' to create 'equal' numbers.  Election is by vote of the people - not by imposition to suit an agenda.

CEO jobs?  EARN THIS!

Now - show me that horizon - the one where women are doing it harder than men are these days....

Figures trotted out by some silly and obviously slanted body with a clear agenda are meaningless to us here - they may have some reality in India or Faroffistan - but not here - and we have more to concern ourselves with right here and now with the looming disaster this country is set to become than engaging in the luxury item of feminist international communism.

The suffering women of Faroffistan have my sympathies - I would help them if I could - but I'm afraid for far too many Australians them alligators are too thick here at the moment.

I hope men are doing an equal share of having bbaies too.

GA wrote on Mar 25^th, 2014 at 1:04pm:


GA, as always the weakness is in baited strawman fallacy.

Upon reflection, I realise the reason I'm so hard on you Grappler, is because I respect you and feel frustrated that you let yourself down.

Winston Smith wrote on Mar 25^th, 2014 at 1:58pm:



Ye-uzzz... well - I am rather likable - sort of in the tradition of Jack Sparrow.

Once a rogue always a rogue..... but I do like to stick it to the feminist line - though I can assure you I adore women... as women.......



Why is the rum always gone?

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Mar 25^th, 2014 at 2:15pm:


Yes, Jack Sparrow is a good analogy.

Winston Smith wrote on Mar 25^th, 2014 at 2:15pm:


You dumb ASS, what is this thread supposed to be about? Why is it that you narcissists always think a topic is what you decide it's going to be. It's 'The Gender Gap' we are discussing, if you " don't want to get into a debate on this particular subject" then don't post to it, you arrogant sack of sh1t..

Laugh till you cry wrote on Mar 25^th, 2014 at 2:52pm:


Gay marriage will be the legal precedent needed to set the world in a direction that will eventually lead to complete female control, and the elimination of all males.

Why & How:

Why? It's not actually gays that are driving the gay marriage issue for example, they are too small in number to make a real difference by themselves. It takes majority support to make these kind of changes. And the majority is acting out of sympathy, their soft side is making the decision. Logic doesn't get a look in. And because the strength of the left is often represented by 'intellectuals', they don't want to consider the possibility that they might be wrong and that the likes of the late rabid Fred Phelps might possibly be right (heaven forbid no). 

How? Gay marriage as a right will be to the advantage of women who want to marry other women, not those males who want to get married to each other. Women can have children, men can't, men would have to either adopt or arrange surrogate mothers to have their children, either way they can't have the discriminating effect needed to upset the gender balance. Add to that the failure of conventional marriage, which is really a distorted statistic in the sense that failed marriages would be represented by those couples who mutually or equally decided to go their own way. What I mean is that what passes for a failed marriage is in fact more likely caused by the discarding of the husband/father. And then there is the new emerging single parenting parent, who chooses to have no involvement with a man other than to have him father the child. 

And what we have to keep in mind is that women, like men, have a preference for hanging around with each other. Men and women only really come together to procreate, it might look different, but that's only due to a set of rules, the 'boyfriend and girlfriend' rules, and marriage creating a 'partnership' arrangement. But 'marriage' itself isn't 'natural' it's an imposition designed as an enhancement to the survival of 'society' as a whole, not necessarily the survival of the 'species' itself. What I mean is even if society were to fall apart (as it's already doing, but doesn't acknowledge) human beings would still go on existing. 

But why then are women behaving like this? It's because for example motivators such as 'equality', 'independence', 'freedom' etc. are striking a chord with their (and our) soft side. The side of us that registers justice and fairness. And by these 'emotivators' being spread by mass communications like TV, in movies and publications, locally and eventually all over the world.

So if gay marriage is legalized in the US, it might amount to being the point of no return. The 'gender gap' will eventually cease to exist, all that will be left are homo and 'mono' women.

GA wrote on Mar 25^th, 2014 at 2:26pm:


I don't engage with you because I'm not interested. Your lack of comprehension is not my failing. Resorting to personal abuse only diminishes you in my sight.

GA wrote on Mar 26^th, 2014 at 12:33pm:


Labelling others to attack only lessens you.

miketrees wrote on Mar 26^th, 2014 at 7:26pm:


... and health care expenditure.. and affirmative action for those in real need... and educational opportunities for those with talent and who had a harsh upbringing... and one year 'enlistments' in the Army to learn to drive a forklift and claim the kudos... and equitable outcomes in political positions and CEO jobs... and so on and so on.

But I suppose those realities make me a misogynist...

I think it's about time for everyone to drop these ridiculous emotive epithets and start dealing with facts and realities.

Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 4:58am:


Have to agree, Sir Herbert, but please - no ethnic slurs.

I've advocated a priority list for employment - those already in a family situation with an income above a certain level etc are set aside to allow employment of the unemployed first - then the under-employed and so forth.

Such a system could be and will be inevitably installed by a 'strong, centralised government' of one 'side' or the other - and of course , such a proposal will draw the inevitable screams of 'fascist/communist' etc.

Well it IS totally socio-fascist - but what options are left when those out there who handle the jobs market are as unruly and stupid and selfish as a bunch of kids?

You rightly see a growing social and economic divide - I just read an article elsewhere that said that 40% of kids in their twenties now would never marry - how then achieve the Nirvana required today of the MADIF?

ONLY by an unceasing demand for upward movement of INCOME for the individual - an inevitable step that will defeat the whole process and create more and more problems of 'cost of living' and 'excessive wages'.

So - as before - either the employers get their shlt together and start to employ the unemployed first and put on the back burner those who already have their basic life - totally socialist there!! - or the government will one day soon step in and 'make that hard decision' for them.

It's either that or a revolution.

ADDS:-  For those gain-sayers - the inevitable result is a lowering of the cost of labour - also a reduction in the cost of homes etc due to a lowered investor market - and consequently a beginning - along with considerable angst - of the return to some form of sanity in our economic and social models, and the restoration of some hope for the young ones these days of a decent life and retirement.

I've done every hard yard and more - I can take it - but I did not do those things so my children and their children would do it hard.

And be advised - a society pays for its mistakes such as these in some way or other .  Harken unto the ceaseless whining here about 'dole bludgers', who should ' get a job'... as if there are jobs out there waiting for them to step into.

when a society deliberately sets out to create a permanent underclass - as did this one starting in the 1980's - then it must be prepared to pay for the development of an 'underworld', a black market, and all that goes with it.

Put simply - people have to eat and prosper somehow - if they cannot do so by the sweat of their brows - they will do it off the fat of the oppressors.

Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 28^th, 2014 at 8:15am:


Is trolling a recognised art form?

Winston Smith wrote on Mar 28^th, 2014 at 8:30am:


Ooops.

Excellent post, Grappler.

GA wrote on Mar 28^th, 2014 at 9:58am:


Well if you want to put it like that, they're to blame for 3/4.  Personally I think thats' a bit harsh, but it leaves only one option - ban women.

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.

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



And where precisely did I say women should resign?  I merely advocated the rationalisation of the FAMILY unit as being the holder of work at a certain level so as to enable other family units equal opportunity.

On that last - you now see the absolute lie that 'equal employment opportunity' for specified 'accredited victim status' groups is - it means that those thus 'equalised' can earn - in a FAMILY unit - for more than other FAMILY units - and are in fact given preference to do so.

If anything every created social and economic divide sin this country - that was it.

IF it so happens that women should be the ones to be withdrawn from jobs so as to approach genuine equal employment opportunity - then so be it - but at no time did I say this was mandatory.

Kindly do not allocate to me statements I did not make.

Frances wrote on Mar 28^th, 2014 at 3:35pm:


If you worked for the government - certainly.  You were betraying your honour in doing so due to their inability to see further than personal monetary advancement.

In terms of your personal situation - from what you have said - perhaps so.  In doing so you offered an opportunity to someone else to do the job you had - however - that job will almost certainly go to someone else who has no NEED for it - but rather a WANT for it.

That's the way it works now.

On the other hand - in the desperate dog eat dog scrabble for anything at all generated by piss poor government policies in the hands of socio-fascist scientists and their ilk - coupled with the innate fascist leanings of people handed 'power' - and the inevitable ongoing decline in real standards of living and value of money etc that will result.....

...You May Well Have Been Better to Remain At Dog Eat Dog Level and Keep Your Job.

You may need it to survive.

THAT is a clear indication of how desperate these insane policies have made the whole situation.

Speaking of being shunted up the food chain ~ a couple of years ago the NSW government forcibly retrenched a whole rats-nest of several hundred who had somehow risen to the top in various occupations to do with public transport.

It was like dropping a smoke-bomb into a subterranean sewer beneath the city, and then watching as hordes of rats came squeaking and scrambling out of various vents and gratings in a desperate panic.

The question was: How the hell did all these people manage to find little niches for themselves as petty managers and assistants to assistants to assistants so gradually that no one in government noticed it until a serious audit was done to find out how to minimise costs.

GA wrote on Mar 29^th, 2014 at 1:10pm:


You are slow but you are getting there, Grasshopper.

Keep trying - you will leap ahead in your life studies once you drop the ideological rants.

GA wrote on Mar 29^th, 2014 at 1:10pm:


I tend to agree with this, there's no excuse for that bloated beurocracy called government not to fulfill this basic role. Australia has a relatively small population and an abundance of resources. There are no other reasons I can think of outside of corruption for this not to be the case. I think if we followed the money trail it would go back through insider networks as far back as you care to look.

I'm interested to know to what degree that has something to do with the relative nature of reality. I think of people and institutions rather like props in the overall drama. There are these various players that manifest throughout the information history we can examine. But just like we are perfectly placed in space and time to exist and observe, these faceless groups could be just a complex part of that illusion.

GA wrote on Mar 29^th, 2014 at 1:10pm:


What makes you think I was "browbeaten into submission"?

... wrote on Mar 28^th, 2014 at 10:14am:


XX is a representation of humanity, so women it can be argued are 'completely' human. So we can't be blaming them, besides men too are bearers of the X chromosome along with the Y. So what can we do if an 'imbalance' is the problem, well we could make the male vote worth more than the female one, but even then this has it limits (and problems). Or we could do what American political commentator Anne Coulter has sarcastically (but not seriously of course) suggested: "If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president" (As a way of countering 'our' left bias).

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter

Now (as a theist) I'm obliged to accept that there is no real imbalance, the God doesn't make mistakes kind of thing. What instead is happening I believe is that the normal balance, the natural 'symmetry' that exists, has been upset. Logic is being left out, and that's because what sells in the media is 'emotion' more than does rationality. So the actual 'blame' factor all come back to thinking people like us instead, who fail to act to rectify the problem.

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 11:23am:


Couldn't be. I'm not a virgin 

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Mar 29^th, 2014 at 5:53pm:


Does the use of effective intelligence constitute an ideology? It looks to me like you are the one who's not taking things in. Patriotism, logically defined, cant really be labelled an ideology. And I'm not going to be learning much from you Grappler, unless it's by (poor) example. I mean chauvinism is self defeating, you chauvinists are a dying breed.

U.S. — President Donald Trump has officially beaten yet another woman, remaining undefeated against women.

"Another woman, totally beaten," said Trump. "They keep bringing women and I keep beating them. Not like Doug! What a terrible guy. So sad, what he did in Paris. Keep a high guard tonight, Kamala!"

At publishing time, President Trump had announced that he had beaten a third woman, Timmy Walz.

tallowood wrote on Nov 8^th, 2024 at 10:54am:




EDEN — According to reports, tensions escalated in the Garden this week after Adam, the world's only man, was seen wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with the message "There is only one gender."

Sources believed the man was protesting several ongoing problems that had arisen in the wake of the Creator introducing a second gender.

"There's only one gender! That's what God intended!" said the man to several nearby animals. "Not two — just one! We have too many genders now! It's ridiculous! Just pure chaos! What's next? Three genders? Four? Where does it end? We can't keep going like this!"

Eyewitnesses said the sole member of the newly created second gender rolled her eyes at the statement. "The man would be a mess without me," she protested. "You should've seen the state of the Garden when I showed up. He was living under a log. Yeah, that's it. A log. And he was totally content just living under a log. It was disgusting. If it hadn't been for me, there wouldn't have been anyone to tell him to build this beautiful treehouse by hand. If you ask me, this world really needed a second gender."

"You're welcome, Adam!"

At publishing time, the man threw up his hands in frustration after the second gender told him to please pick up his dirty "There is only one gender" t-shirt off the ground.

GA wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 12:39pm:


... now I want you all to just join me... join hands.. and march quietly down to the Capitol building and let them all know that The Tides Have Changed, and that what they used to call 'chauvinists' are now the leading hands once again and are entitled to not only equal treatment all round, but to some afirmative action of their own to make up for the terrible harm done to a generation or two of noble men - the Handmen of this world....... I want you to tell them that thing... as we proceed together to release the swamp water out of their heads.... we all know that women only work 78% of the hours men work... and then in the comfy positions first and foremost.... so they've got nothing to complain about...... in Australia - not Austria as Joe said... Australia... one of our finest allies.... the latest figures show that men - per hour actually worked - are being short-changed 9.43% on the dollar compared to women... for that same hour....

Let's just make that all plain to those people in the Capitol building... we're gonna drain that swamp!!