As for opportunities - since you clearly missed it - in 1986 in NSW the school and marking system was altered to 'more reflect the skills and abilities of girls who are currently oppressed in the schoolroom' - a complete and utter bullshit feminist nonsense pushed through as reality, and based on a single un-peer reviewed 'study done by some feminist in the US with a small group (seven I think) of 'troubled girls'.

Got that - girls who already had trouble, a tiny group that was supposed to somehow reflect the reality for every girl in the education system.

We've had affirmative action for women here since 1982 - I was working for the commonwealth at the time - and the wording was "PREFERENCE will be given to women, those from a non-English speaking background, and Aboriginal and Torres Straits Islanders".

You understand PREFERENCE?  Now tell me how that has changed, given that the public service is now over 70% women in soft jobs and good conditions, while young men languish on the dole queues or dig a day's ditches for casual.

When is it possible, do you think, that this push to 'equalise' women will actually result in equality?  It's been forty years, son, that's two generations at age 20 coming of age, and they still claim to be short-changed despite holding the vast majority of seats in tertiary education and in many job areas ... banking, real estate, public service, teaching, retail, management, and so on - all soft jobs requiring little effort for excellent return.

When will they declare equality and actually tough it out in direct competition with the men who built those social institutions?

Keep coming - your education has just begun for real for a change.

Homework:-  Explain how this blatant discrimination is actually consider not only acceptable, but mainstream and enshrined in our society.

christ on a spike grap... give it a rest. There is no need to make three separate posts every time you reply to me. At least stick to the topic. That should cut down your rants by about 90%.

So you were talking about quotas - after first denying it. Way to win some credibility there grap. And it has precisely what relevance to rape and the justice system? Oh thats right, its relevant because its all part of the grand evil plan of... what did you call it? oh yes, my "feminist masters". Such calm, measured rational arguments you have here.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Nov 10^th, 2021 at 11:20am:


Statistically then, she doesn't have a snowflakes chance in hell of getting him convicted then. I thought that should please you - she will be dragged through the mud, humiliated and forced relive and recount her alleged trauma - and then she gets to be called a liar by people like you - when her case is thrown out. Win win right?

Homework (you will be graded severely on your answers):-

1.  What if the public service, in 1981, had installed a policy that "preference will be given to men, TFANESB, and AATSI."

2.  What if a party today had a policy that "there must be 50% or greater representation by men"... how about we make that "old White men"..?

Gandy - you would not stop screaming.... give it a rest?  When the feminist parasitism is laid to rest will be the time to relax ... until then the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

No - YOU were talking about quotas - I was discussing Preference™ - two totally separate issues.

Clearly your education is lacking...... see comment by Valkie.

Preference™ is unlimited - Quota™ has a definite stop. Neither is acceptable under a Rule of Law that requires/demands that all be treated equally.  It is time that regulation and in-house policy was brought into line with the requirements of Law.

, Smith.  Take a dunce cap - your usual one will do.

.. see how they run like pigs from a gun, when the questions are hard.... see how they fly...

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 10^th, 2021 at 11:58am:



You are so ideologically fixated - I never said anything of the kind and have never called her a liar.  She was drunk, she has a drunken recollection, there is zero evidence that any form of sexual activity took place and she said he was on top of her.. she did not say he penetrated her .... there is no substantial evidence.... she may have been mistaken, he may have had a snuggle without going further ...  but I never once called her a liar, or expected or would appreciate her being 'dragged through the mud', and would slap anyone down who did.

Christ you're slow.

So it's OK to drag the guy through the mud, as you and Smith and others are doing, without a shred of solid evidence - but you figure that in making her complaint someone else is dragging her through the mud?  Well, it ain't me... and I do not permit the Law to be dragged through the mud, either. She DID make a public song and dance about it first.... before allowing any investigation to even begin.... who is dragging her through the mud again?

You would drag him through mud for miles behind two mad horses, then tear him apart in a public square... on the basis of a drunken half-recollection.  And you criticise me.

Get your mind right.... one day I hope, if you get what you wish, that it will be you behind the horses...  I really do. Smith of course, in the same position, would be the ultimate victim and would be screeching about it all the way and screaming about the injustice of it all ...... I'd love to see that.

You know what - I wouldn't step in to help, either.  I'll make an exception to my rule above that I would not permit the Law to be dragged through the mud in your case.  You, sir, are the liar, and have lost all right to humanity.

P.S.  One held in thrall and delusion cannot identify that he is in such a state... blissful ignorance.  Usually life experience sorts that out..... listen to me and you will be a much richer man at the end of your life....

None of you ever imagine it will happen to you, since you are 'good guys' - being a good guy is no protection from guilt by accusation.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 11^th, 2021 at 2:19pm:


Finally you see what I have been saying all along - ergo - everything I've said so far is right.

Nah, then - what about that quota nonsense for women etc?  You still find quotas and affirmative action acceptable, simply because they are not in favour of men?

Fifth Columnist.... We the People will decide who we want to be our political representatives - not some smoke-shrouded and whiskey/wine engulfed back room party meeting.... got that?

If Labor - the party of the sheilas these days - was honest and actually wanted to win an election, they would allow each branch to put up its chosen candidate, and would not have the Central Bureau dictating quotas and inserting outsiders into branches for pre-selection.

IF the chosen party branch candidates happened to be women - so be it - but if they happened to be men - also and EQUALLY so be it.

You're starting to work out why Labor finds it so hard to win unlosable elections.

In the meantime we, the People, are stuck between a rock and a hard place - one form of stupid and petty dictatorship or the other.

And no - you will NOT enshrine in law the right of anyone to have a person convicted on accusation, as you and others have already done with the accused in the Higgins case.  Just because you come from some petty third world dictatorship, and this once proud nation is rapidly descending into just that - doesn't mean you will dictate to others here, Real Australians, what they will accept as 'law'.  There are rules here... and not your rules.... and they will re restored, upheld and reinforced, lest civil war break out for real.

Review finds one-third of staff in parliament experience sexual harassment