okay so instead of raging I'm going to address a brain-dead left feminist like a human being
How very kind of you. Instead of passing you off as a complete misogynistic jerk-face idiot who doesn't realise how privileged he is (assuming you're a man) I'm going to actually tackle your arguments and put forward my opinion.
I agree that this is incredibly stupid, but so is your assumption that this is how every single person deals with a rape case. The people that do assess such things in this way are often uneducated or of a very low level of education or are devoutly religious. These are usually intertwined.
I don't assume that this is how
every single person deals with rape cases. I'm merely pointing out the fact that (although this has been said and is kind of annoyingly reductive) no one ever blames the murder victim. And how unfair it is that a victim of rape will have their sexual history questioned. Or that a Canadian policeman (yes I realise he has retracted his statements, but this is not an isolated case) still tells women that, if they want to avoid rape, they should think about how they're dressing. I'm not saying that everyone thinks this - that's absurd. I'm just saying that it's terrible that this is still an issue.
No there is really a negligible gap between men and women in this country in both business and politics. Just because there is a lower representation within a specific group you like to cherry pick to support your agenda doesn't mean anything at all. I'm sure there are thousands of women willing to work for a several million dollar salary, but they are not qualified enough according to the people who appoint them there. The same goes for politics. This has nothing to do with "social stigma" when there are actually still women (and even homosexual women) being appointed to the highest positions available. We have a female Prime Minister. If this doesn't tell you that we've moved a fuckload in the right direction when leaders of conservative parties are willing to appoint women at their head, I don't know what does.
OK, I'd really love to seem some figures and references to back up those assertions, since I have listed a couple of websites that I found my information from. And regarding "cherry picking" or whatever, I think that the fact that there is a severely unequal representation of women on the ASX 200 boards is important, since these are the some of the most powerful/wealthy companies in Australia. Likewise, there is still a gap of representation in parliament - this has improved, and I'm not denying that, but these are the people supposedly representing us. How the hell can they properly represent the whole of Australia if parliament is mainly made up of white, middle-class, baby-boomer men? I'm not just talking about more women here, either. We should have more Indigenous Australians in parliament, more Australians born overseas or with migrant families. Again, I'm not pushing for affirmative action. I'm pushing for a shift in social attitudes, a recognition that we do need to change our thinking and support for women who do want to go into business or politics or whatever.
Furthermore, your assertion that they are not "qualified" is flawed. Again, I'd love to see some facts to back up your reasoned argument, but I'll just deal with what I've got. As I've already said, I'm not saying we should be giving positions away - that's dumb and counter-productive. But you can not tell me that there are more men qualified than women for leadership roles across the board. i don't even see how that is statistically possible. Interestingly, university enrolments and graduates are made up of a majority of women, in Australia (as well as throughout other parts of the world). Clearly, something is going wrong if more women are graduating (it's about 55%-45% female/male at the moment) with university degrees but FAR more men are gaining better employment opportunities.
Now, regarding your point about women in politics, particularly the fact that we have a female prime minister. Again, I'm not stupid. I do see that we have got women in some leadership roles, which I think is fantastic. I point you though to the fact that only 30% of MPs are female. More importantly (I think) is the fact that female politicians are still judged on their gender. Let's just take Julia Gillard as our example. We've seen truly spectacular displays of sexism in protests against the carbon tax - "ditch the witch". Even if you go, ok, the protesters are an extreme minority (which I would disagree with), I point you towards Tony Abbott's reaction, supporting these protesters and cheering their signage. Now he is of course allowed to (and should, as opposition leader) protest and argue against the carbon tax. He should not be supporting sexist cries of "ditch the witch". Speaking of Tony Abbott, I love how he refers to Gillard as "Julia", while Gillard refers to Abbott as "Mr Abbott". Also, let's not forget the criticism Gillard received when she was appointed PM, regarding the fact that because she had no children, she was therefore unable to lead our country.
Now, I do agree that we've moved a "fuckload" in the right direction. But just because things are better, but not completely equal, does not mean we should stop pushing for total equality, which will be better for everyone.
That's not entirely true. There are many women such as yourself (assuming you're a woman) that are more than happy to give women extra privilege based purely on gender, which is discrimination, especially if higher qualified men would be passed up for a "woman only" position. There are ministers who propose quotas for women in specific fields and levels of employment, which is fucking horseshit. This doesn't assist women, it degrades them.
I'm not "more than happy" to give women extra privilege. As I've explicitly stated a number of times, I disagree with affirmative action. This is what you're saying when you say "men would be passed up". I don't think that is the right way to tackle this situation, just so we're clear. In terms of "degrading" women, I agree and disagree with you. Look, this is a tricky situation. While quotas/affirmative action/whatever you call it does have some benefits, it is, as you put it, discriminatory in itself. That's why I (and many other people looking at this problem) see one positive action in mentoring and support. This means forming groups of likeminded business or political women who support each other to achieve their goals, and mentoring programmes with younger women (particularly in middle management positions) and higher-paid successful women. While you could pettily argue that this is discrimination because men wouldn't be included, I think we should weigh up the fact that women have been discriminated against for centuries in terms of the law, while these would not negatively affect men. Furthermore, men often do form these types of alliances and groups informally, while women don't seem to.
That's a total fabrication and you should be ashamed of yourself for believing it.
I'm confuse what the "total fabrication" is. I'm not a man hater, if that's what you're referring too. I am jealous. And, as a woman, I am steps behind my male counterparts, purely because I have a vagina rather than a penis. I don't see how this is a fabrication, since I've just shown you all the differences above, as well as linked a few sites in other posts... I'm not ashamed of being a feminist. I'm proud to be one, and I think that men can (and should) be feminists too. Feminism isn't about hating men, or sabotaging their success. Rather, third wave feminism (which we are currently in) is about making men and women equal, socially. It's about destroying gender barriers, and not just for women - why are boys who play with dolls considered weird, for example?
http://econrsss.anu.edu.au/Staff/abooth/pdf/EducHistoryFinalJune09a.pdf
