I agree and concur. My sentiments exactly Peg. This is also my first political membership. It's the most worthy cause I've ever encountered in the public political sphere. I'm very much looking forward to seeing the disappearance of segregation whereby family or personal issues play second fiddle to public or competitive ones.
May Justine's voice be heard far and wide.
Hel

Yes. That comprises a huge group. Many of whom can't afford the technology to access forums like these. In addition, divorced women, who find themselves retraining at a late age, also have little or no super with no opportunity to save enough before retirement.
Not very long ago, super was not split during divorce proceedings, with the lot going to the 'breadwinner'. So, when it happens, in the very near future, that super is the only way that elderly people can survive above the poverty line, elderly divorced women will be thrown into a desperate situation and will probably die sooner due to the inaffordability of care.

Yes! Young mothers be warned! This is where a women's political party, if it's gutsy enough, can and should seek to clearly identify these particularly less obvious problems before the fact rather than when we start finding women living & dying alone without financial, health & other support. We are talking about a group that has unselfishly done "their bit for the country" in a job that has no personal economic value whilst the usual political patriarchy deems that this is as it should be...??

..

You don't have to do much analysis of policy over the last decade to know that the major political parties are poles apart on matters such as parental leave (paid or not). its convenient to pretend they're not given you are attempting to win support on issues that have already got the suppoort of the broadly based socially progressive parties. One (but by no means the most) damning statistics about AWAs is the stripping of conditions such as parental leave. As someone standing for political office I'd assume you would be aware of the gulf between the parties on these issues.

The gulf is too narrow in my opinion. It has never been the case, that working parents [where both parents work] have been able to access or provide proper care for ill children in general. The problem existed under Labor as well. I haven't heard any specific policies regarding this in the latest run of electioneering statements, although it would be welcome. Unfortunately, over the past decade or so, the biggest gulf has been the difference between stated political intentions and actual political practice.

On the other hand, men have dominated the political landscape...forever. So a bit of discrimination towards females is in order in an attempt to overcome the effects of entrenched patriarchy that many people seem blinded to.
By the way, women aren't guys. We are girls, chicks and babes. Just as men have their implicit clubs that keep us out of power, we have every right to install a female club which keeps men from undermining while stating their support.
I hope this party does not succumb to those sorts of attempts because at some undefined in the recent past, 'Feminism' somehow became a dirty word. Many women decided that the revolution was over and that we didn't need to struggle anymore. That's rubbish of course. The men strive to maintain their power over our bodies and lives politically (in a general sense) constantly.
The personal is political. In so many ways for so many years, our rights to choose are stolen from us, while it is purported that we are supported.
I believe in the stand these women are making. Women comprise just over half the population. We should be heard.

When are people going to start taking responsibility for their own decisions and not expect everybody else to pay for them. If a person or a couple decide to have a baby then it is their choice and no one elses, why sould employers be asked to provide paid and unpayed maternity leave to these people. It was not the employers idea to have the baby and to expect him or her to allow a employee to have 12 months off whilst having to employ another person to fill the vacancy who will have no incentive to contribute to the business or workplace as they know that when the parent returns they will be sacked. A choice has to be made by the people considering becoming parents and that is either live within your means or forget about it. I had a business that employed both sexes and if a woman became pregnat she could work until she considered it time to quit then she would leave and I would hire someone to take her place. If I had to operate under the system that you are advocating I would certainly not employ women of any child bearing age.

Yep. It shouldn't be up to individual small businesses. It should be a matter of Federal government obligation. Costello admits that they want one for Mum, one for Dad and one for the Nation. That's for the sake of their own economic rationalism. A baby bonus doesn't cut the mustard and not having onsite childcare doesn't either. It should be paid for with all of the duties and GSTs we have had to pay. It's community money. It should be spent on the community. Otherwise, women should just go on childbirth strike altogether. If they did this in a united, unanimous way, the government would be negotiable about these things.

I dont believe the Federal or State Govt's should be made responsible for a persons or couples decision to have a baby. Why should the tax payer support those couple that make that decision, it wasnt forced upon them. This idea of the Govt being held accountable for other peoples decisions is ridiculous, the Govt may say they want more children born but that doesnt make it okay to spend other peoples money to support them. Some sort of insurance scheme on a voluntary basis would be a better idea where every person of child bearing age pays a small amount every week into a fund that would provide income for a stipulated amount of time in case of a pregnancy. Those that dont take it out have to rely on their own means to make ends meet and this would eleviate the burden on the tax payer.

Here here!! well said!
It seems out there is a small minority of women who think they are doing women proud, when infact they are demoralising a womens worth by trying to "rally the troops" and in turn, making women feel their "choice" isnt right, as dictated by these feminist groups.
there is so much to say on this subject, but to sum it up.
why are there womens groups at all? is it seriously believed that segregating women from the general population will actually aid in harmony between sexes?
I would love to see a "mens only" group that is for mens rights.
Men are becoming less and less valuable. shouldnt everything be equal? not segregated?
be part of the solution, not aid the problem!
men raise families too...
men dont have it that easy as sometimes portrayed.
tis becoming a sad reality we live in...

What rot!
As if they're aren't implicit 'men's groups' everywhere!
I have nothing against men creating yet more of their own groups. Off you go and do it.
And women can and will have their women's groups. Support groups are for support. If anyone feels undermined when women try to support each other, then what have they got to lose by that?
Feminism is fine. Feminist groups are fine. At least they openly explicate their intent from the start.
Don't try and tell me that there are no men's groups! Indeed, there are some pretty fundamentalist men's groups. You can see one of them loitering about the Family Court from time to time.
Anyone who feels the need to rubbish a support group has a political agenda of their own and they morally ought to come right out and say what that is.
Otherwise, they can keep their negativity to themselves.

Are you serious??

You say 'why are there womens groups anyway' then go on to say "i would love to see a "mens only" club.

Isn't this a contradiction?

If you are so against womens groups then why are you here. Go join the 'black shirts' or whatever the name of those militant so called fathers are if you want to spew such rhetoric.

Not here nor there... I would say! On one hand we are being given financial help in the form of a "baby bonus" to boost our population, and on the other hand we are made to feel worthless for choosing to do do a good job as a mum, with the added pressure of returning to work as and when it suits our politicians.

Also, if the problem with population growth is so worrying, why are the immigration laws so hard. Everybody knows that migrants are generaly hard workers and most of the time unable to access social security or medicare benefits.

I believe it's all about choices, but we are hardly making them ourselves.

The problem is, that not all assets that make our society work, are given an economic value by the powers that be.
So, reproductive work, caring work and volunteer work are all taken for granted in the same way that forests, rivers and oceans are taken for granted.
It is such a short-sighted and selfish way to view the world and results in abuse of nature, mothers and children.
I joined this party today, because, at long last, it seems like this may be a good vehicle for instigating changes into the way society's assets and services are counted when making long term decisions about this nation.
Unfortunately, reproductive work has been unvalued by the powers that be for so long, that women react to a simple baby bonus. When really, the costs involved in reproductive work should command a major investment by those who want to maintain, let alone increase our population.
Go for it women!

fuck y helen

Hola mardena!
falikotrepat