ADD YOUR POST FOR INTERNATIONAL WOMENS DAY

Her daughter also won a Nobel Prize

Girl Power!!

Aung San Suu Kyi

Fantastic woman!

Our country is a bloody disgrace!

We woman are not always friends. We are not always nice to eachother and we are not always united.
But we all have one thing in common:
We rock!!!

the pay gap thing is not relevant

Ours gap is going up because IF given a choice some women choose to be stay home mums (which they have a right to be) So the average pay is going to be less because these women lower the average.
More woman are choosing family having seen that work life sucks it was never something to be jealous of.


Personally I am sick of this over abundance of women's everything.. it has been My whole life, constantly been told that if a man can do a women can do it better (spice girls era)
and that it is always man's fault and never that her fault, it has been so one sided with women gaining men's rights but losing none of the old women's rights that denied to men.

I believe in Equal rights but I am just sick of the whinging. too many women think that the right to do something means you can just choose it not that you have to work FUCKING hard, sacrifice everything else in life to achieve it, they think they should be able to just get the high paying job while taking time off for kids and having a great work/life balance
MEN don't and have NEVER had that!!! to get those top jobs has always meant sacrificing family life and work/life balance.

In Australia if women cant get a head it is her own fault, plenty of women do. But it is HARD and competitive and you can't have your cake and eat it too. But that is what applies to everybody.

Unfortunately Veya, that isn't the situation here.  I wish it was.

And here most women have to work a bloody sight harder than the men to get to the same position.

I'll add Julia Gillard and Julia Bishop
Proving women Should be in politics
One from either side and both competent politicians (Which for Politicians is a complement, competence is uncommon amongst pollies)

Absolutely agreed. You don't have an 'old boy network', lucky you. Here is a very different story to Australia.

risingsun wrote:Unfortunately Veya, that isn't the situation here.  I wish it was.

And here most women have to work a bloody sight harder than the men to get to the same position.

I bet you they have to work no harder than every man with no connections, this is the problem they see ONE very limited group of rich white boys getting EVERYTHING and say men get everything while the Majority of us DO NOT GET ANYTHING EITHER!
yes there is the 1% and as we can see if the 1% have no sons than, look at that, we have female billionaire from inherited wealth

the old boys network is really just old rich families, Rinehart and others have shown a woman will do exactly as a man.

Sorry Veya, but you are wrong.

Britain ravaged by sexism: women know your place!
Nearly four in 10 Brits believe women should not work in a range of jobs including soldier, pilot, mechanic or surgeon, suggesting sexism is still "prevalent" in the workplace, a study has revealed

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-business/10490727/Britain-ravaged-by-sexism-women-know-your-place.html

and what do you want to bet 4 in 10 brits think men shouldn't be house husbands, preschool workers
Flight attendants, nurses etc..
the point is that it goes both ways.. these people are conservatives they have and will always exist and resist change

First part of the article you posted

Some 40 per cent of the UK population also believe men should not do jobs such as midwife, nurse, nanny or beautician, the study of 2,026 adults found.

Although I don't doubt we are still more egalitarian than the UK.

The majority of Brits (66 per cent) surveyed think men make better plumbers than women, as well as better mechanics and better electricians. Just 3 per cent think women are better pilots, with a further 3 per cent believing women make better surgeons.

There is also a presumption that men are worse at certain traditionally female jobs. Just 3 per cent think men make better primary school teachers, while 48 per cent say women are better. The majority (64 per cent) say women are better florists, nannies and nurses.

the thing is that it is TRUE that on average one gender is better than another at certain traits, the problem is the fact that people are too dumb to understand that average doesn't mean an individual can't be the Best regardless of gender. and that IF a woman has gotten into a 'male' profession she is probably not a statistically average woman.

In both World Wars, women very happily went and did all the jobs that men had done before they had to join the forces. Women in the air corps were not allowed to fly, except to ferry aircraft from one place to another. At the end of the wars they were told to leave their engineering, plumbing, electrical, farming etc etc jobs and give them back to the men. There ain't no such thing as an 'average' woman, there are just women who, from school age have been pointed in directions of subjects and jobs that are not 'male' orientated. I know, I fought like a demon at my school to take metalwork, woodwork and technical drawing as well as maths, physics, chemistry etc. Girls were expected to do cooking, needlework etc. It's changed, but not that much. Tell a tiny girl she can do anything, and give her the skills to do it, and she will, no matter what gender it is normally attributed to.

risingsun wrote:In both World Wars, women very happily went and did all the jobs that men had done before they had to join the forces.  Women in the air corps were not allowed to fly, except to ferry aircraft from one place to another.  At the end of the wars they were told to leave their engineering, plumbing, electrical, farming etc etc jobs and give them back to the men.   There ain't no such thing as an 'average' woman, there are just women who, from school age have been pointed in directions of subjects and jobs that are not 'male' orientated.  I know, I fought like a demon at my school to take metalwork, woodwork and technical drawing as well as maths, physics, chemistry etc.  Girls were expected to do cooking, needlework etc.  It's changed, but not that much.  Tell a tiny girl she can do anything, and give her the skills to do it, and she will, no matter what gender it is normally attributed to.

And that is the exact crap I'm talking about YES there is an AVERAGE women just like there is an AVERAGE man. Average Dog, average house average anything. it is merely a process of statistics.
Deny reality and your cause becomes laughable.
Some women might be excellent at metal work doesn't change the average doesn't even enjoy it.
Some men are excellent at knitting but the average does not even enjoy it.

And it has 100% changed, it was changed when I was at school in 90's Girls were encouraged into science and maths. cooking, needlework were not even subjects when I was in high school (yes we were taught about the bad old days when they existed) and I graduated in 2000.
I'm 32 the world your talking about is 'Old peoples world' that hasn't existed since the Cassette tape.

World wars so some historical time literally before the information age in different era of human development before some of the largest technical revolutions in human society, communications, sharing of information, politics, business, economics, globalisation, robotics. The entire world has changed since then. The World war era is as relevant now as pre industrial era because like that it no longer exists.

Sorry Veya, but the only place that 'average' exists in, is statistics. If you even out the statistics for absolutely anything you will get an 'average', that doesn't mean they exist in real life.

What you say about it being historical is probably true in Australia, however, here is most definitely isn't.

Girls and science: why the gender gap exists and what to do about it

Study finds 15-year-old girls outperform their male counterparts around the world – except in the US, Britain and Canada

There was bad news from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development on Tuesday, which found that 15-year-old girls around the world, outperform boys in science – except for in the United States, Britain and Canada.

Once again the cause for poor performances is said to be environmental. This is nothing new. The last round of math test results from the Program for International Student Assessment (Pisa) had similar results. In a number of countries 15-year-old girls matched or outnumbered their male counterparts at the top. Genetically, the tests showed, girls are extremely capable mathematicians. Researchers then found that "countries with the poorest degrees of gender equality also have the widest gulfs between male and female mathematical performance".

The US Department of Education has found that girls "who have a strong self-concept regarding their abilities in math or science are more likely to choose and perform well in elective math and science courses and to select math and science-related college majors and careers".

The department emphasizes that: "improving girls' beliefs about their abilities could alter their choices and performance … particularly as they move out of elementary school and into middle and high school."

If it's nurture not nature that affects your daughter's ability what can you do? Here are some tips from the experts:
Emphasize that we live in a scientific world

"Science" is not just something taught at school. Teachers at a science conference in New York a couple of years ago said that while girls are increasingly resistant to the idea of "science" as a standalone subject when they reach middle school, they are invariably receptive and energetic students when the same scientific principles are presented to them as "social studies".

The weather forecast, climate change, what we eat, illnesses and allergies, methods of transportation, the electronics that fill your house – are all areas of science that surround your daughter. Scientific theory fires her imagination when connected to current or domestic affairs, or when she can empathize.
Understand that girls generally begin processing information on the brain's left, or language, side

So, girls deconstruct math concepts verbally. Looking at something on a board or screen is not enough. They need to unpack the problem using language. They need to "talk it through".
Girls are more responsive to color than boys

Color-code toys and blocks for sorting and patterning beginning at an early age. Buy colored blocks and when you build with them make patterns. Buy the patterned coloring-books (stained glass windows, flowers etc) or color-by-number books for travel.
Don't just use color-coding as a math activity either

Integrate it into how your family keeps things organized. Use different colored boxes or containers for specific items. Talk about what you are doing, so you use language to provide a narrative for a visual experience. As your daughter gets older, color-code folders and files for school by subject so that she can grab them easily. Color-code your family calendar (easily done if you use Apple or Google calendars).
Have her read instructions and recipes aloud

When she eventually performs science experiments this will help her break down the steps involved. It also helps with deconstructing more elaborate math problems down the road.
Once she graduates beyond the simple patterning of blocks, buy her kits (like Lego) that involve building according to instructions

Even when the project is relatively easy, have her read the steps aloud to you. It's amazing what girls skip when they don't slow themselves down for this step.
Encourage her to learn things by heart

Sometimes girls who don't understand a concept can get by – or get there – by committing solutions to memory. This isn't ideal, as you want your daughter to understand what she is reciting. But sometimes learning by rote (a multiplication table, for example) is a useful step towards internalizing a pattern.
Have a younger girl copy a picture from a drawing book or describe something to her that she has to draw

Tell her to look at a picture that you can't see and describe it so that you can draw it. In this way you strengthen the connection between words and pictures, or language and visualization.
Keep doing jigsaw puzzles, even when she seems to lose interest

Puzzles are a great, soothing, brain-stretching family activity. And – added bonus for parents! – stave off Alzheimer's disease. The same goes for crossword puzzles and card games.
Never tell her the answer. Ever

The point of math is not so much to get the answer but to figure out how to get it. The more you do for your daughter the more you short circuit her self esteem. If she is stuck on something, keep asking questions. Ask her questions all the time in every context, especially domestic ones. "How do you think we should do this?" "Could there be another way?"
Cooking – especially following a recipe – uses both math and science

Weighing, measuring and timing are all mathematical exercises. Baking in particular, where the action of X on Y causes Z, is a scientific activity. If you encourage your daughter to experiment in the kitchen, she will be more comfortable experimenting at school.
Research shows that as girls get older they retain their mathematical and scientific abilities when applied to domestic scenarios

So make your domestic scenario more mathematic and scientific. Shopping is filled with math problems, particularly if your daughter wants something that is too expensive.
Never accept language such as "I can't do this" or "I'm bad at math"

And so on. She can do it. MATH IS MEANT TO BE HARD. Tell her that. It stretches her brain, just as physical activities stretch her body. The more she stretches the easier it gets.
Have the right tools

The Department of Education says the more educational resources you have in your home, the better your daughter will do - at math. Girls who have a dictionary, a computer, and a study desk or table for their use perform better than those who don't.
More books, less TV

The more books you have lying around, the better she will do – at math.

The more TV a girl watches, the worse she will do – at math.

At puberty girls move from self-confidence to self-consciousness. At this point they start to censor themselves and become increasingly silent in class. They deny their intelligence. 31% of girls in elementary school say they are good at math. In middle school that number drops to 18%. The greatest drop occurs among the brightest girls. Girls who work collaboratively are less likely to suffer this kind of setback. A pilot high school is being tried out in girls' schools across the country. The Pogil project, (Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning) puts girls to work together in small groups on topics like "How would you prevent the levees breaking?" with assigned roles while the teacher is present as a facilitator.

Encourage the same kind of collaboration in your sleepovers or birthday parties. Have the girls cook dinner, or bake cookies or tie dye t-shirts together. You can be the "facilitator."
Present your daughter with positive role models

Find a female pediatrician. Girls often say they hate science but they love medicine. (The numbers of females entering medicine is increasing every year with women attracted by the empathic nature of medical science.) And never put down your own ability. Don't tell your daughter that you "suck" at math, or anything else along those lines. Do you really need me to explain why?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/us-news-blog/2013/feb/05/girls-science-gender-gap-fix

"I really don't think I need buns of steel. I'd be happy with buns of cinnamon." - Ellen DeGeneres

I love her!

risingsun wrote:I love her!

me too.

pfffft...but they cant read maps, OR reverse park....

whats the difference between a woman and a sat nav??

A sat nav says in a clear calm voice..."in 400 yards turn left"

A woman shrieks....."you should have turned left 400 yards back there"

But they can handle a C17 no problem. Meet the crew



Airman 1st Class Summer Toney, 1st Lt. Ashley Guthrie Capt. Kate Bufton, Capt. Emily Nelson, Tech. Sgt. Lori Tascione and Staff Sgt. Krysteena Scales make up an 816th Expeditionary Airlift Squadron flight crew about to depart on a C-17 Globemaster III mission March 19 at an air base in Southwest Asia. Airman Toney is a loadmaster from Long View, Texas. Lieutenant Guthrie is a pilot from Tulsa, Okla. Captain Bufton is a co-pilot from Charleston, S.C. Captain Nelson is the aircraft commander from Orange, Calif. Sergeant Tascione is a loadmaster from Waddell, Ariz. Sergeant Scales is a flying crew chief from Flint, Mich.

I am not a big fan of these days, even if the intention is all for the right reasons, because they further make a view of seperation between genders.
There is even an international man's day, when both should be incorporated into an interntaional equality day.
Inequality of women is not a woman's issue but a human issue we all have to help bring about a change to have equality for all.
This is why I think we are approaching this problem from the wrong angle.
You best serve and champion a cause by making the day based on the issue itself, equality. The issue is equal rights which then incoorporates all inequalities faced by groups of people from race, gender, sexuality etc.
Why seperate the causes when many different groups suffer inequality?
We should tackle inequality as a human problem.

Brasidas wrote:I am not a big fan of these days, even if the intention is all for the right reasons, because they further make a view of seperation between genders.
There is even an international man's day, when both should be incorporated into an interntaional equality day.
Inequality of women is not a woman's issue but a human issue we all have to help bring about a change to have equality for all.
This is why I think we are approaching this problem from the wrong angle.
You best serve and champion a cause by making the day based on the issue itself, equality. The issue is equal rights which then incoorporates all inequalities faced by groups of people from race, gender, sexuality etc.
Why seperate the causes when many different groups suffer inequality?
We should tackle inequality as a human problem.

Agree
real equalist are like this



BUT the Hypocrisy of Buzzfeed
woman say men have no right to talk about her body should not think she is prize
the goes on to belittle men saying they cant 'have her unless they play the game of saying what she wants to hear.... in order to claim her as a prize
this is the problem with modern feminism is just women talking shit and saying they should not be held accountable for it, they should be free to voice what ever opinion they have no matter how stupid and it should be respected no matter how stupid and their is nothing wrong with her judging a man by money and height and appearance but if a man suggests that see is pretty or looks nice in that outfit He is a sexist arrogant pig... she can rank sportsmen by attractiveness but we shouldn't judge female models even though their sole career is being physically attractive ????


All women are special unique snow flakes but suggest all men don't fit a narrow negative stereotype and you get.



also this is acceptable

but suggest a man's only need of a woman is sexual and apparently that is sexist... as opposed to saying that they are not needed at all.


I think this will see a backlash as it is being pushed too hard and as said above 30 year old guys have literally had is pushed on them their whole life, we are raised being taught that men are doofuses that cant do house work, can't look after kids, can't not do something silly if a woman isn't there to correct them.

Today this concept makes cell phone signals and wi-fi possible.

International Women's Day: Five female scientists you probably haven't heard of



All week I’ve been intrigued and inspired by posters appearing in my department that depict truly great scientists, mathematicians and engineers. Few of them were known to me or my fellow students, yet their achievements include revolutionising algebra, developing the first treatment for leukaemia, and discovering fundamental processes in physics.

Their only common characteristic? They are women, and their appearance on the walls marks International Women’s Day. Try to recall a woman scientist and Marie Curie may be the first and perhaps only name that springs to mind. This is a shameful state of affairs, when for more than a century scientists who happen to be women have reached great scientific heights, despite the many barriers they faced on account of their gender.

So here are five women whose amazing discoveries and contribution to science should be as well-known and respected as those of Marie Curie:

Lise Meitner – nuclear physics

Austrian physicist Lise Meitner (Bettmann/CORBIS)
Lise Meitner (1878-1968) was an Austrian physicist and the second woman to obtain a doctorate in physics at the University of Vienna in 1906, and the first woman in Germany to assume position of a full Professor of Physics in 1926. The annexation of Austria by Nazi Germany in 1938 forced Meitner to flee Germany due to her Jewish descent.

Meitner and Otto Hahn discovered nuclear fission in 1939, yet the 1944 Chemistry Nobel Prize was awarded only to Hahn who downplayed Meitner’s involvement. This was later described in Physics Today as “a rare instance in which personal negative opinions apparently led to the exclusion of a deserving scientist”.

Mary Anning – paleontology


Mary Anning was a leading fossil collector (Richard Gardner/REX)
Mary Anning (1799-1847) was a self-educated palaeontologist from a poor background in Lyme Regis in the southwest of England. Her discoveries of the first complete Ichthyosaur in 1811 and a complete Plesiosaurus in 1823 established her as an expert in fossils and geology, which she played a key role in establishing as a new scientific discipline.

Her expertise was much sought-after by educated male contemporaries even though, as a woman, she was ineligible to join the Geological Society of London. However, by the time of her death from breast cancer aged 47, Anning had gained the respect of scientists and the general public for her work.

Gertrude Elion – pharmacology


Gertrude Elion, 1988 Nobel Prize winner for medicine (Karl Schoendorfer/REX)
Gertrude Elion (1918-1999) graduated from Hunter College in New York in 1937 with a degree in chemistry. Unable to complete a postgraduate degree due to the Great Depression, undeterred she spent time working as a lab assistant (for US$20 a week) and as a teacher until she obtained an assistant position at the Burroughs-Wellcome company.

Here she developed Purinethol, the first treatment for leukaemia, anti-malarial drug Pyrimethamine, and acyclovir, a treatment for viral herpes still sold today as Zovirax. Later Elion oversaw the adaptation of Azidothymidine, the first treatment for AIDS. In recognition of her achievements she was presented with the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1988, despite having never completed her PhD.

Jocelyn Bell Burnell – astrophysics


Northern Irish astrophysicist Jocelyn Bell Burnell, pictured at the Edinburgh International Book Festival (Colin McPherson/Corbis)
With a PhD in astrophysics from Cambridge University, Jocelyn Bell (1943-) built and worked on a radio telescope during her graduate studies. Here she discovered a repeating radio signal which, though it was initially dismissed by her colleagues, she traced to a rotating neutron star, later called a pulsar. For Jocelyn’s discovery of radio pulsars, described as “the greatest astronomical discovery of the 20th century”, her supervisor and his colleague were awarded the 1974 Nobel Prize in Physics.

Burnell was completely omitted as a co-recipient, to the outrage of many prominent astronomers at the time. However Burnell has gone on to receive many subsequent awards and honours, was President of the Royal Astronomical Society and the first women president of the Institute of Physics, and was appointed Dame Commander (DBE) of the Order of the British Empire in 2007.
Rosalind Franklin – crystallography

Only now is Rosalind Franklin’s (1920-1958) reputation recognised: a chemist, she was responsible for much of the X-ray crystallography research that was critical to the discovery of the famous double helical DNA structure.

She worked in a climate that was far from inclusive to women; her fellow scientists' attitude towards her are typified by James Watson’s book The Double Helix in which he is condescending throughout and refers to her as “Rosy”, a nickname she was known to dislike. Tragically, Franklin died from ovarian cancer in 1958, aged just 37. Four years later Francis Crick, James Watson and Maurice Wilkins, were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine and famously omitted Franklin from their acceptance speech.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/international-womens-day-5-female-scientists-you-probably-havent-heard-of-10094053.html

45 years after the Equal Pay Act, there’s still a long way to go

I was 10 when the Equal Pay Act was passed. It was pretty inspiring stuff. So much so that when, as a member of the girls’ choir at St Mary’s church in Guildford, I heard that the boys in another local church were getting at least twice as much as us, my friends Bryony, Lesley and I wrote to the rector and complained. He didn’t take it well. In his next school assembly he condemned us in an address about “greed and avarice”.

If only we young girls had known that, 45 years later, this inspiring piece of legislation would have got so bogged down that women would still be paid almost 10% less than men on average if we work full time and over 19% for all employment, full time and part time combined. The time has come for a new Equal Pay Act. Frankly, women have been waiting long enough!

The principle behind the Equal Pay Act is that if an individual woman finds a man doing similar work and being paid more she can take her employer to a tribunal and get paid equally and compensated. Sounds simple enough. But in reality this law has been hamstrung by a series of stupid loopholes that have developed over the years.

Did you know that if a man takes your job and is paid more than you, you can’t rely on that as evidence of discrimination? Did you know that if the man you find who is paid more than you for similar work for the same boss, works in another building, there can be a serious argument that he is not “a fair comparator”? Clearly, we need to sweep these away for a start.

But even if the current law worked as intended, there is something actually wrong with the system. Our current law relies on individual victims of discrimination bringing change by enforcing a form of contract on a piecemeal basis. If they win a case they only win it for themselves and sometimes there is a settlement where the woman is bought in exchange for a gagging clause. There is no power to read across to all women treated in the same way by the organisation, or to look at the company to see if discrimination is systemic. What we really need is profound culture change and radical legislation.

We should not have to rely on individual women chipping away. First, it should be accepted that it is all our responsibility to drive this change. We should treat women taking complaints as whistleblowers and a valid complaint should trigger a requirement on organisations to audit how they pay people, look again at the skills required to do the jobs and do proper evaluation studies. This should be done externally by people properly accredited to do the task and their work and plan for change should be overseen by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. Tribunals should be able to order these reviews as part of their findings at the end of the hearing or even at the start as part of the pre-litigation negotiation.

We should encourage organisations to change themselves through proper skills audits, but the other important driver is to encourage negotiation. However, there has been a spate of cases recently where trade unions have come to an equal pay settlement with the employer, only to find themselves sued by disgruntled women. Any new Equal Pay Act should have a code of conduct that will inspire confidence in collective agreements and there should be additional guidance from ACAS where necessary.

Tribunals should have their procedures streamlined. Cases frequently take years and the more complex ones can take five years just to deal with a preliminary point. Complex cases should attract senior judges to ensure that they move quickly through the system.

A new Equal Pay Act is also urgently needed as the old one never envisaged an employment market as we have today, with its fractured employment practices and insecure working. We need a fresh act to restore and strengthen guarantees on terms and conditions for public sector workers transferred to the private sector, close loopholes in agency worker regulations and create statutory rules against sham self-employment.

Radical though a new act along these lines would be, we have to be honest and accept it won’t deal with two of the major causes of inequality: in my opinion, we still have not done anything like enough to allow people to work flexibly to balance their work and home lives; nor have we dealt with one of the most entrenched causes of the pay gap between men and women, which is the type of jobs that women do. Nearly two-thirds of women are employed in 12 occupational groups, most of which relate to their traditional family role (caring, catering, cleaning, teaching, nursing, clerical work, etc.). To misquote Annie Lennox and Aretha Franklin: “We’re coming out of the kitchen, but we just haven’t got very far as yet.”

But that should not hold us back from making the changes we need. In fact, we should kickstart the move towards a new system by having a set of rules that will last five years – time-limited provisions to accelerate progress. We should waive fees for those taking equal pay claims; they are our whistleblowers and should be encouraged. Companies that do a full skills audit and act on it should have a defence to any claim during those five years. And for this five-year period, compensation for failure to pay equally should be limited to two years back pay, as stated in the original act.

This deep-seated problem needs focus, political will and an acceptance that this is a problem we all have responsibility to tackle. This choirgirl is now middle aged – and is impatient to see the problem resolved before she hits retirement.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/08/emily-thornberry-equal-pay-act-overhaul?CMP=share_btn_tw

Irn Bru wrote:
But they can handle a C17 no problem. Meet the crew



Airman 1st Class Summer Toney, 1st Lt. Ashley Guthrie Capt. Kate Bufton, Capt. Emily Nelson, Tech. Sgt. Lori Tascione and Staff Sgt. Krysteena Scales make up an 816th Expeditionary Airlift Squadron flight crew about to depart on a C-17 Globemaster III mission March 19 at an air base in Southwest Asia. Airman Toney is a loadmaster from Long View, Texas. Lieutenant Guthrie is a pilot from Tulsa, Okla. Captain Bufton is a co-pilot from Charleston, S.C. Captain Nelson is the aircraft commander from Orange, Calif. Sergeant Tascione is a loadmaster from Waddell, Ariz. Sergeant Scales is a flying crew chief from Flint, Mich.

    DOESN'T take muscles to fly modern jets, no matter how big they are...

NOR drive big dump trucks ==



POWER everything, left, right and centre, makes a huge difference..
AND "finesse" and a more gentle hand is valued more than 'machismo' or bravado in both those jobs these days.

HOWEVER, both are in very small supply ~ and as veya succinctly pointed out earlier, these kinds of exceptions simply aren't numerous enough as to sway the AVERAGES..    

darknessss wrote:whats the difference between a woman and a sat nav??

A sat nav says in a clear calm voice..."in 400 yards turn left"

A woman shrieks....."you should have turned left 400 yards  back there"

Brave, brave, brave man you're going to be in big trouble Quick, down here, hide Victor

Pat O’Shane, barrister, magistrate and activist. In 1976, O’Shane became the first Aboriginal barrister, and five years later, the first Indigenous person and woman to be the permanent head of an Australian ministry.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rossalynwarren/this-kick-ass-all-female-unit-are-protecting-rhinos-and-taki

To tackle the rhino poaching crisis in South Africa, the world’s first all-female patrol unit – the Black Mambas – was formed to try to protect the species.
The Black Mambas operate unarmed within the Balule Nature Reserve and protect not only rhinos, but lions and other species that are under threat from poachers.

I'm siding with the women and you guys would be well advised to do the same or your lives will be hell.

Irn Bru wrote:I'm siding with the women and you guys would be well advised to do the same or your lives will be hell.

Promoting inequality.

There is no need to side with any side, when we are all equal, only those who create inequality see sides and differences between people.

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:I'm siding with the women and you guys would be well advised to do the same or your lives will be hell.

Promoting inequality.

There is no need to side with any side, when we are all equal, only those who create inequality see sides and differences between people.

Tell that to your mentor.

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Promoting inequality.

There is no need to side with any side, when we are all equal, only those who create inequality see sides and differences between people.

Tell that to your mentor.

He agrees with me, read what he said lol

Bru right but Live dangerously I say
Stand up for what is right not what the sheeple demand you say

Earlier, Ms Bishop had spoken about why she rejects the word “feminist”, saying: “The more people demand I describe myself as a feminist, the more I say let me describe (myself) how I wish.”

Ms Bishop said she doesn’t want to be “stereotyped”.

“I don’t want to be stereotyped and I don’t want to be pigeonholed,” Ms Bishop said on ABC TV.

“And if I want to self-describe in a particular way, I will, and if others want to self-describe, that’s great.”

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Promoting inequality.

There is no need to side with any side, when we are all equal, only those who create inequality see sides and differences between people.

Tell that to your mentor.

He agrees with me, read what he said lol

There is inequality for women - correct?

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


He agrees with me, read what he said lol

There is inequality for women - correct?

100% agreed, hence why you failed to read my point, here it is again:

 only those who create inequality see sides and differences between people.

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


He agrees with me, read what he said lol

There is inequality for women - correct?

100% agreed, hence why you failed to read my point, here it is again:

 only those who create inequality see sides and differences between people.

And these are the people that need to be exposed and an International Women's day is an ideal opportunity to highlight these injustices just as Sam is doing. Correct?

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

100% agreed, hence why you failed to read my point, here it is again:

 only those who create inequality see sides and differences between people.

And these are the people that need to be exposed and an International Women's day is an ideal opportunity to highlight these injustices just as Sam is doing. Correct?

Many people face inequality, is the point women, or equality for all?
The point is equality for all, you do not achieve that based off fighting for one group, but fighting for equality for all.
Do you not agree?

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


He agrees with me, read what he said lol

There is inequality for women - correct?

100% agreed, hence why you failed to read my point, here it is again:

 only those who create inequality see sides and differences between people.

Nah, I think you mean only those who believe in differences between people create inequality.

I see plenty of differences in the treatment people receive based on the differences some perceive between them

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

100% agreed, hence why you failed to read my point, here it is again:

 only those who create inequality see sides and differences between people.

Nah, I think you mean only those who believe in differences between people create inequality.

I see plenty of differences in the treatment people receive based on the differences some perceive between them

Are you asking me tomato or tomatoo?
You have basically said the exact same thing I have just said.
Inequality is created by those who see differences.