[ness31]

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph ... /index.php

I'd never heard of Emilys List, but it sounds very Americanesque.

Anyways, what does everyone think of Devines assessment of its influence on the Labor party?

[colliric]

Spot on. It's one reason the Labor party is currently wrecked. McKew also makes a good point. I'm probably going to have a read of her book now.

Emily lister Penny Wong playing the Victim card this week concerning her nomination position was particularly infuriating to me. They didn't want her number 1 at all.

[Swagman]

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/mirandadevine/index.php

I'd never heard of Emilys List, but it sounds very Americanesque.

Anyways, what does everyone think of Devines assessment of its influence on the Labor party?

Emily's List is just anti-male sexism.

"But the more successful they are at pushing extreme feminist policies the less electable Labor will become."

I agree. Extreme anything is electoral suicide.

[Salohcin]

"But the more successful they are at pushing extreme feminist policies the less electable Labor will become."

Name one of these "extreme feminist policies". I'm curious, I am seeing lots of feminism rhetoric, but a big lack of feminist policies.

[colliric]

Name one of these "extreme feminist policies". I'm curious, I am seeing lots of feminism rhetoric, but a big lack of feminist policies.

Full Abortion rights(right up to birth), Pre-nuptual agreements, gay marriage(Specifically Lesbian marriage), set quotas for the employment of female employees/boardmembers(often in Male dominated industries), IVF rights, No-fault Divorce, pretty all the old feminist policies they could think of. Emily's List have supported all of those policies.

My political inspiration in my avatar once(in her autobiography) described such feminists(the suffergettes in particular) as "Women who wish they were born men".

[Salohcin]

None of these are Labor policies. But I see on re-reading that you were talking about policies that a feminist group have mentioned (at some time in the past) and not about actual feminist policies being pursued by Labor.

I was talking about actual policy actions in parliament or policy promises. (Which seem to be lacking).

My political inspiration in my avatar once(in her autobiography) described such feminists(the suffergettes in particular) as "Women who wish they were born men".

Wow, are you suggesting that women shouldn't have got the vote?

[colliric]

None of these are Labor policies. But I see on re-reading that you were talking about policies that a feminist group have mentioned (at some time in the past) and not about actual feminist policies being pursued by Labor.

I was talking about actual policy actions in parliament or policy promises. (Which seem to be lacking).

Wow, are you suggesting that women shouldn't have got the vote?

Firstly these policies have been pursued by Emily List members doggedly WITHIN the Labor Party ITSELF to varying degrees of success. The first in particular.

Secondly, no, it was a comment about their personalities and motives. Eva believed they were leading the feminist movement with views that were quite unrealistic for the majority of the female population(she openly accused them of mostly being lesbians!). Some positive outcomes that were achieved, but for the "wrong reasons".

[Swagman]

Wow, are you suggesting that women shouldn't have got the vote?

Are you suggesting they get 2?

[Salohcin]

Are you suggesting they get 2?

Of course not.

Firstly these policies have been pursued by Emily List members doggedly WITHIN the Labor Party ITSELF to varying degrees of success. The first in particular.

Secondly, no, it was a comment about their personalities and motives. Eva believed they were leading the feminist movement with views that were quite unrealistic for the majority of the female population(she openly accused them of mostly being lesbians!). Some positive outcomes that were achieved, but for the "wrong reasons".

We if we go by the number of items on that list that have become policy then I would say close to zero success.

More broadly, just because there is the right for something doesn't mean it is mandatory. Now days a woman can choose career over family but it is a choice. It doesn't have to always be man=breadwinner woman=raising kids but that doesn't mean a family can't choose that option.

Edit: Just did a bit of reading on it. Looks like Emily's choice is a mostly US thing that has split over to Australian politics. Says they supported John Howard in 2004 (because he was pro child care and they didn't like Latham).

[Swagman]

Are you suggesting they get 2?

Of course not.

Quotas / affirmative action is kinda the same don't you think?

[GandalfTheGrey]

Quotas / affirmative action is kinda the same don't you think?

he wasn't talking about quotas or affirmative action - he was talking about granting women a basic human right.

Swag, do you acknowledge that women have been discriminated against in the past - say for most of the history of mankind? And if so, do you aknowledge that some pretty vigorous action is required to reverse the age-old entrenched attitudes in society that created this discrimination? I'm genuinely curious how anyone with even a casual understanding of the history of male domination, coupled with the demonstrated discrimination that still exists in today's society (if we use things like participation rates and comparative wages as a guage) - can think we have gone too far with women's rights.

[Swagman]

Quotas / affirmative action is kinda the same don't you think?

he wasn't talking about quotas or affirmative action - he was talking about granting women a basic human right.

Swag, do you acknowledge that women have been discriminated against in the past - say for most of the history of mankind? And if so, do you aknowledge that some pretty vigorous action is required to reverse the age-old entrenched attitudes in society that created this discrimination? I'm genuinely curious how anyone with even a casual understanding of the history of male domination, coupled with the demonstrated discrimination that still exists in today's society (if we use things like participation rates and comparative wages as a guage) - can think we have gone too far with women's rights.

I have no problem with equal opportunity where anyone being selected to do any job based upon their ability to to the job.

[colliric]

he wasn't talking about quotas or affirmative action - he was talking about granting women a basic human right.

He was defending a group that DOES support it, and even had it implemented(by Christine Nixon, an Emily's List supporter) in Victoria's Police force amoungst other organizations.

[GandalfTheGrey]

I have no problem with equal opportunity where anyone being selected to do any job based upon their ability to to the job.

Thats the whole point swag - women are *NOT* getting equal opportunity in the workforce.

[colliric]

Thats the whole point swag - women are *NOT* getting equal opportunity in the workforce.

Mandatory quotas are NOT the solution, in particular in a police force that's struggling to reestablish an image of toughness against crime and criminals. That particular previous Commissioner doesn't have a good reputation and they were glad to get rid of her(in the end) and the policy of quotas.

I have to say though that Purana Taskforce was one of the good initiatives that she made.

Mandatory hiring Quotas is just an exceptionally flawed policy.

[Swagman]

What about sport GTG?

So I assume you would then agree that Women should compete equally & openly with men?