A few years ago there was a funny little survey funded by fruitgrowers which spoke volumes about the relationship between men and women, particularly on the vexed question of domestic chores.

A pensive Lynne Kosky at her last press conference of 2009, under pressure over the Melbourne ticketing system.

The survey found that the overwhelming majority of men refused to eat fruit, but said they would be prepared to eat fruit if someone could peel it, cut it into small pieces and hand it to them on a plate.

The survey has at its centre a kind of male patheticness which many blokes seem to regard as endearing, and which most women probably cannot stand.

I was reminded of this survey tangentially while reading about the resignation of Victoria’s Transport Minister Lynne Kosky for family reasons, and started thinking about the extent to which men and women have resolved the question of sharing all the responsibilities of adult life, from keeping the house clean, dropping the kids off at school, feeding the dog, remembering that it’s bin night – the myriad stuff that makes up our day to day.

Perhaps more problematic is the extent to which men and women have worked out how they feel within themselves about whether they are keeping up their end of the bargain on the home front

My suspicion is that men are much more inclined to feel good about themselves for playing a modest or occasional domestic role, wheras women will do as much stuff as they can and still not feel like they’re not doing enough.

The problem becomes more acute, obviously, where the woman works part-time, and even more pronounced when she works full-time.

And when it comes to politics – where every single aspect of your behaviour is held up to constant public judgment, media scrutiny and criticism by both your opponents and your so-called colleagues – I really wonder how women get through it at all when they have family to think about on top of such an inescapable, high-profile job.

This week we saw the departure from public life of a woman who seems to have been eaten up inside by that sense of guilt at being so busy at work that she had not been able to take care of things on the home front.

It might not be a peculiarly female condition. But it would be most common – and most debilitating – among women, as men have a hard-wired rationalisation for being out of play on the home front.

We work as hard as we do because we’re blokes. That’s what blokes do.

But for women, whatever the gains of feminism, there is still a very strong and widespread sense that work is something that they choose to do, and that it’s subsequently up to them to juggle their chosen career with the domestic requirements of their husband and their children.

Victorian Premier John Brumby had some kind and thoughtful words for his troubled transport minister when she announced her resignation from the frontbench and from politics on Monday.

About half an hour after Kosky tearfully bowed out, citing health issues within her family, Brumby held a compassionate press conference where he declared that politics is harder for women than it is for men.

“You’ve got all of the normal responsibilities that go with being a cabinet minister and a public figure but for women there are often additional responsibilities in the home and in the family as well, and I think it’s often more difficult and demanding,” Brumby said.

If you got through the recent roll call of women in politics, most of them have suffered fates which have rarely befallen their male colleagues, or scrutiny which male politicians never experience.

There’s that trio of women who have been slotted in at the death-knell of doomed governments – Joan Kirner in Victoria, Carmen Lawrence in Western Australia, and most recently Kristina Keneally in New South Wales, treated by the male-dominated factions like their careers were expendable in a last-chance bid for victory.

Without discounting the role of her own vanity in her demise, so-called star Labor recruit Cheryl Kernot oscillated between presenting herself as a credible political thinker to caving into demands for absurd photo shoots in the womens’ mags, draped in a feather boa, to enduring the appalling slur from Liberal MP Don Randall at having “the morals of an alley cat on heat” for having a consensual relationship with a male student who was over the age of consent while working as a school teacher.

This at a time when a few of the younger male MPs in Canberra were holding a competition to see how many female staffers they could put away. 

Our deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard is the best example this country has ever seen of how women are damned if they do and damned if they don’t when it comes to their private arrangements.

While women such as Kosky grapple with and eventually succumb to the fear that they have neglected their domestic responsibilities, Gillard has faced strong attacks for not having any domestic responsibilities at all.

Her private arrangements have attracted a degree of attention which at times has been almost creepy. The fact that she was photographed at home without any fruit in her fruit bowl – at the time she had no-one to cut it into small pieces for – sparked a wave of tittle-tattle with Liberal Senator Bill Heffernan blasting her for being “barren by choice”, as if her childless status rendered her unfit for public office.

Tony Abbott gave her another tickle-up before the 2007 election where he described her as a “one-dimensional political animal” which was a nudge-nudge reference to her disinterest in motherhood – which to his credit Abbott withdrew immediately, and apologised for.

But had Gillard gone down the path of marriage and motherhood she would obviously now be required to bowl up for endless profile pieces about how she juggles the twin demands of family and work, a line of questioning which no male politician ever has to face.

This isn’t a piece about politics but a piece inspired by politics, because it’s politics which provides the most powerful worst-case scenario of the twin pressures women face as they deal with a sense of duty and obligation which men for the large part are hard-wired to ignore.

126 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Margaret Gray says:

      05:31am | 20/01/10

      Is having an abundance of X-chromosomes a free pass for gross incompetence and dereliction of duty?

      Lynne Kosky’s record as Transport Minister is a total train wreck (pun intended).  Beyond the myki disaster, here’s another example of her failing to do her job:

      Herald-Sun, 13 November 2009:
      Too hot?  Open a window says Transport minister.  No money to put AC in trams.

      It is then with no sense of irony that her former boss wheels out the bread & circus caravan yesterday promising ANOTHER stadium sunroof for the annual two week Croatian choir recital at a cost of $360+ MILLION while Melbourne transport uses will continue to suffer 24/7/365.

      Kosky’s departure was demandingly spun by Brumby to save his political skin (as was the new stadium).  The reason as to why was left up to the minister to fill in for the press.

      Either way - woman or not - she had to go.

    • Just wondering says:

      10:37am | 20/01/10

      Any reason you had to mention Croatians in your response to this article? You weren’t trying to get a “two-fer” in a comment section, were you? Leave Croatians alone, we had enough over the course of two millenia, alright?

    • Anthony says:

      05:01pm | 20/01/10

      “Just wondering” at 11:37am seems a little overly touchy…Margaret Gray did not criticize the Croats in any way, just mentioned a choir that happened to be constituted of them, and somehow that’s persecuting them? That is the kind of the excessively defensive nationalism that gets ethnic communities socially sidelined…

    • Just wondering says:

      07:58am | 21/01/10

      Hello Anthony,

      I thought we could get touchy, it’s a forum.  This blog was about women in politics re: difficulty of “having it all”, as it were.  Margaret did not address this per se, but had to insert a “social commentary” about her thoughts about Croatians at Tennis matches…No trouble yesterday with Tomic v Cilic, but other “ethnic groups” made the news last night….

      Please read some history books about the area or any troubled area and perhaps you’d understand why stupid comments make some “ethnic communities” feel “socially sidelined”.....

    • Chris L says:

      10:15am | 21/01/10

      Margaret didn’t give any “social Commentary” about Croatians. She mentioned their existence, is that insulting or degrading in some way? There are some people that just don’t seem to be happy unless there’s something to be unhappy about.

    • Just wondering says:

      02:24pm | 21/01/10

      Dear Chris,

      Yes, it bothers me because she felt the need to mention it, though it was not required, that’s my issue.  If this were a forum about that, then we debate accordingly.  Please refer to other blogs and fora from news.com.au.

    • Bec says:

      05:51am | 20/01/10

      Great article, but disagree on one point: Kernot’s relationship with a student, even one of legal age who consented, was wildly inappropriate and a great abuse of the power imbalance in the teacher-student relationship. I don’t see why this is more acceptable just because the student was male.

      Otherwise, yes, entirely. If a male politician can’t change a nappy or throw together a stirfry, what basis do I have to think he is competent at global diplomacy and domestic policy-making?

    • Eric says:

      08:13am | 20/01/10

      And if a female politician can’t debug a computer or fix a carburettor, what basis do I have to think she is competent at global diplomacy and domestic policy-making?

    • Sam says:

      03:45pm | 20/01/10

      @Bec “throw together a stirfry”? Last night’s dinner took me a little more than an hour to prepare and in the end my wife swore she’d never eat at a restaurant again. There must be some real deadbeats out there to scar your view of men so much.

      That house you sleep in, a few men made that. The city you love, a few more men. The iPod you listen to, the mobile you’re addicted to, the internet you can’t live without, the makeup you prefer, the shopping centres you visit, the security and rights you enjoy in this country… all men’s doing. Even that measly stirfry, men toiled the earth.

      In a world where women say “jump”, and men say “how high”, how did you come to think so lowly of us? You’re suppposed to care but all you do is take. It’s really not OK. It’s really not OK. grin

    • bec says:

      06:04pm | 20/01/10

      Waaah, Sam and Eric. Let me plant a bed of roses for you to sprinkle your emo tears onto.

      I don’t have a low opinion of men. 50% are above-average, and 50% are below. Same as with women.  If all the men I know were like you, I sure as hell would be scarred. Fortunately, they are far better human beings than you. Too bad, I guess.

      And Eric, seriously, you can’t be for real: feeding and clothing yourself requires FAR less skill than carburettor or computer care (both of which I can do, btw).

    • Mistress D says:

      07:14am | 21/01/10

      @Sam, while I respect what men did in the past (I quite like the house I have now)  the reason they were building cities and houses and women weren’t,  was because women were generally thought to have smaller brains than men and unable to do ‘mens work’.

      I hardly consider myself to be in a position of power because I’m a woman, at least, no more power than women in modern history have been in. I could use sex, tears and manipulation…But what I want is to be able to just ask for what I want.

      I don’t think men, overall, are chauvinistic pigs (though there’s enough bad ones out there to give you all a bad name) but majority of you still see women as the default carer and homemaker despite any other roles we might have.

      For instance, my partner told me he didn’t think children should be put in daycare, that a parent should be there to look after them at home. I told him he had my full support to leave his job to be there for our future children. He hadn’t even considered that it would him staying at home with the kids.(Daycare, by the way, is now an option)

    • Sam says:

      11:31am | 21/01/10

      @Mistress D, I respect that it’s *your* life and you may have a different outlook on your place in this world, but I think you’re running away from motherhood. I just hope that the daycarers aren’t negligent towards your kids, and that later in life when you come to the realisation that a career is just a means to an end and not an end in itself, it won’t bring too many regrets about all that time you could have spent playing with your kids in the park. I understand that there are financial restrictions for families with stay at home mothers, and I understand that your career is an important aspect of your life, but simply put - you’ve chosen your career over your kids, and it’s my opinion that’ll come back to bite you. My wife and I are delaying having kids so that we can build some wealth to offset the need for her to work when the kids do arrive, but I guess not everyone has that option. It’s your life, best wishes anyway.

    • Sam de Brito says:

      06:08am | 20/01/10

      Great piece. Well said

    • Marina Go says:

      08:24am | 20/01/10

      I first read this piece in today’s Daily Telegraph and was encouraged by your stance on the subject. Many career women have sacrificed brilliant jobs they worked hard to get in order to put more ‘balance’ into their lives. I’ve done it myself. One of my best friends has a chemical engineering degree and an MBA but works as a teacher so that her children will have a parent at home in the evenings. Another has a communications degree and an MBA but has taken a low-demanding job (and therefore a salary half her worth)  that allows her to be at home to cook dinner so that her husband can work very long hours and travel the world for his brilliant career.
      It’s what happens. And would I have it any other way? Of course. I’ll put my hand up for any Board or committee that wants to try and bring about long overdue change. Until such change, my philosophy has been, and will continue to be, to do the best with what I have - and I wouldn’t trade being a scrambler (career mother) for the editorship of American Vogue (although I admit it would give me cause to think twice, much as I adore my two sons).

    • Adelaide says:

      07:40pm | 20/01/10

      Yes, I thoroughly enjoyed the article too, and have to agree that when it comes to an income earning career, women all to often get the short straw. However, to be honest as a stay at home mum (currently), I consider my unpaid “career” a privilege and when eventually I go back to work, to the career I have put on hold, I’d rather be the one cooking the dinner for my kids (btw my husband is a talent in the kitchen and very domesticated) than not be there at all ‘while I worked long hours as I travel the world for my brilliant career’. It’s what work best for you.

    • Craig Mc says:

      06:17am | 20/01/10

      Former premier Steve Bracks resigned in similar circumstances, so I don’t think it’s a gender-specific issue anymore.  Attitudes to work/family priorities are changing, and somewhat for the better - at least for those with the luxury of choice.

    • Eric says:

      07:16am | 20/01/10

      Brave Sir Penbo the White Knight, defending the damsels in distress!

      Women live seven years longer than men. Women make up the majority of graduates in university and high school. Women get more health care than men, and receive special scholarships as well.

      Women are under-represented at the lower tiers of society, among the homeless and the jailed. Men commit suicide four times as often as men.

      Men are discriminated against at law, and in the workplace. Men are vilified in the public media, as this article demonstrates. Who’d be a man?

    • Lexi says:

      08:51am | 20/01/10

      Good to see you’re committed to your old band wagon there, Eric. Women are also vastly under represented per capita in politics, on boards, in senior management positions; they are over represented in positions of low pay rates and menial labour (eg cleaners, factory workers); positions in which women are the majority of employees (nurses, teachers, childcare etc) are much lower in pay when comparing to roles requiring similar educational standards but which are primarily occupied by men (accountancy, engineering, town planning etc).  Women are at much higher risk of domestic violence and rape - I’m sure I could fill a page with other examples of risks women face with a few mins of research.

      Indeed, both sides can cry poor - as can every ethnicity, every religion, every sexual orientation, every generation, every disability, every sporting group… but Penbo’s not saying ‘poor women’ at all.  Rather, he is making observations based on examples he’s seen played out by the fourth estate.

      In reference to Penbo’s article, unfortunately, I don’t see that working for (most) women is a choice any more.  Particularly in Sydney, households need two incomes just to pay the mortgage.  That said, I think my generation is somewhat different to those who’ve come before us.  My husband is quite proactive in terms of housework, so no complaints here.

    • Margaret Gray says:

      10:02am | 20/01/10

      “...Steve Bracks -  former Premier of Victoria resigned for family reasons…”

      True…and shortly thereafter announced he had signed a lucrative consultancy that required him to undertake extensive travel away from his family.

    • DG says:

      01:54pm | 20/01/10

      @Lexi 09:51am | 20/01/10
      “I don’t see that working for (most) women is a choice any more.”

      Of course it is a choice - just don’t expect to be able to afford to purchase land in the CBD, have a plasma TV,separate rooms for each of the kids, two cars, nights out on the town etc, if you aren’t earning enough to do it. If Josh and Jane are both willing to work long hours to buy that inner city terrace you can either compete or look for something else. You’ll have to move to a suburb that you can afford to live in, and downsize to a smaller place. You just have to choose what standard of living you are going to work for.

    • Leah says:

      02:58pm | 20/01/10

      Actually DG, not true. My husband and I have very modest aspirations for our first family home, however realise that we will both have to work to cover the mortgage, given housing prices in Western Australia. We currently live in a tiny flat and could afford the mortgage on that on one salary, but couldn’t raise a family in it. We’ve looked at moving further from the city but the houses would still be out of our price range.

    • Tim says:

      03:05pm | 20/01/10

      Leah,
      who said owning your own home was a right?
      It is your choice to become a homeowner.
      You could just as easily have one parent at home while renting.

    • DG says:

      11:09pm | 20/01/10

      Leah:

      Firstly, it’s not just Western Australia - it’s a global phenomenon.

      The situation is simple you want X, but if you get the X you can’t do Y. You have to decide which is more important - X or Y.

      I standby my original comment “You just have to choose what standard of living you are going to work for”.

      If you want to live in a bigger house get a second job, work nights at the local supermarket, get a cleaning job at a local hotel. Do whatever you are willing to do to make more money. After all, that’s what the people you are competing with are doing.

      So it all comes down to personal choice - what are you willing to do to get what you want? What will you settle for? Sure, the thing that you really want isn’t one of the options, but that doesn’t mean that you don’t have a choice.

      If having a family is more important don’t buy real estate. If having a house is more important don’t have a kid. There is a third option you and try to have both and just hope that things work out - it may be reckless and risky, but its a choice,

    • Lexi says:

      09:51am | 21/01/10

      @DG, I’m afraid the only part of your descriptor that fits my household was that we own a plasma TV wink

      Unfortunately, your “choose your standard of living” concept doesn’t apply in Sydney, which is one of the developed world’s most expensive property markets - comparitive to average wages, Sydney’s housing market is more expensive than London’s.  In Sydney, renting is almost as expensive as paying a mortgage - only problem is, you’re paying for someone else’s mortgage and have nothing to show for it.

      On top of that, my generation also has rather large HECS debts to pay off.  However, all this really is rather off topic.

      Please also consider, @DG, those women I referred to in my earlier post above, who work in menial and lowly paid positions and live in low SES locations.  Some may not have partners or family members to help - and those who do, may have partners who face the same hurdles:  lack of education, poor English, etc.  While us bourgeoisie may have more choices than we are willing to admit, there are others whose only choice is between low-paid, physically demanding jobs and welfare.  And bless ‘em if they choose the first.

      And, yes, Eric, there are some blokes out there doing that AND paying maintenance for the kids they aren’t allowed to see.

    • hmm says:

      10:38am | 21/01/10

      DG

      I think the comment Leah is trying to make is valid.  Why shouldn’t someone on an average income be able to buy an average house in an average suburb?  I also think it’s irresponsible for someone in Leah’s position to start a family without firstly buying a house.  House first, then kids.  There is no choice when starting a family and buying your first home these days.  Both parents must work.  It places enormous stress on the family and hence society as a whole.  The social implications for the housing affordability crisis are enormous.  Women lose big time, they get vilified in the media and by the stay at home brigade.  Women, by and large, don’t have a choice anymore.

    • DG says:

      09:09am | 22/01/10

      @hmm (11:38am | 21/01/10)

      “Women, by and large, don’t have a choice anymore. ”

      They have the same choice as men. Work and afford a house, don’t work and go without a house. What could be fairer than that? How is it unique to women? This is my point - the housing affordability issue is not one of gender - it is one of wealth. Those that work and earn money buy what they want, those with less money can buy less.

      Personally I don’t think that people have a “right” to buy houses. They can buy one if they can afford it. If not we pay taxes so that the state will put a roof over their head - if they dot like the freebies they are offered - suck it up, get an extra job and buy your own house.

      Secondly, you don’t need a house to have kids. That’s a choice. There is no causal relationship between having a house and having children. If you don’t believe in having a child before owning a house, that’s fair enough, but accept responsibility for your own beliefs - you choose to believe that. There are plenty of people that choose to have children without having a house - that’s their right.

      @Lexi (10:51am | 21/01/10)

      I never denied that it was expensive to buy a house. It takes a lot of sacrifice to be able to purchase one of the most sought after assets in modern Australia. Having said that my 3 bedroom house cost about $150,000 below the average house price in Sydney because I chose to live in a less salubrious suburb, with no public transport, with a long commute to work.

      Just last night a couple were complaining that the $400,000 that they could borrow wouldn’t buy them a house. I pointed out that I would do them a deal and sell them my house for less than that - that’s when they added all of the caveats - must have a double garage, must have this, must have that must have the other and be close to work. They still didn’t appreciate that it came down to choice.

      The real complaint was that they couldn’t afford to buy what they wanted. If that’s a ground for complaint, particularly a gender complaint - we all have cause for complaint. I can think of plenty of things that I would like to purchase that I simply can’t afford.

      For the record, I am of the HECS generation (in the 25-30 age bracket), I worked my way through uni to pay my debts as they fell due. Working 30+ hours a week, in various jobs (retail, call center, mowing lawns, basically anything for a few dollars) and studying full time. It was my a choice - it meant that I didn’t have as much time for study, going to the beach or going out with friends but it paid for my car, board, phone bill and the likes and set me up to pay things as they fell due rather than just living on credit (whether its from a bank or the Gov’t - it’s still credit).

      Meanwhile I have female friends who work in these “low paid” professions (i.e nurses and teachers) and they have managed to purchase their own houses (well, purchased their own mortgages) so it is clearly possible. Ultimately, it is not a gender issue but one of choice.

      However, I will admit that some women look down on “stay at home mums” and vice versa - but this is hardly an issue that men can fix of for which men can be blamed. It’s a simple case of people looking for validation of their own behaviours by criticising any one who choose to do things differently. I admit that I have a preference for stay at home parenting, but I know that I can only do that if my wife is willing to work and pay pay our debts and I accept that I have no right to tell others how to (or if they should) have kids. It’s their life, their choice.

      As I said in my first post, if Penbo thinks this is a problem of media representation he can start asking male politicians how they balance work and life.

    • hmm says:

      12:25pm | 22/01/10

      DG , my comment “Women, by and large, don’t have a choice anymore” means they don’t have the choice to stay home vs work.  It’s work, work, work just to pay half the household expenses, rent/mortgage, food on the table, you name it.  Men, as a whole (but not always) haven’t moved with the times and refuse to take on 50% of the household chores.  Why it’s a specific gender issue is because women get vilified by the likes of the media and public for returning to work, like they’re some sort of materalistic woman who only cares about the latest and greatest and what their money can buy, not what the money can do for security for their family.  As for whether we, as Australians, have a right bo buy a home.  As I said earlier, average person, average wage = average home in average area.  That’s not rocket science.  I am unsure if you’re a parent, or if you intend being a parent, but it’s irresponsible to have your family then buy a house.  It is just so much more difficult, but saying that I think these days couples have little choice because it takes so damn long to save for a deposit and it’s quite often too late to start the family you always wanted.  All I am saying is the housing affordability crisis affects everyone, including those on the other side of the great divide.  However, there are unique problems women face, such as their purported choice to return to work and there is no choice at all.  You’re entitled to your opinion that home ownership is not a right, but I think you will find yourself in the very small minory there.  The option to rent is also rubbish, as it’s quite often more expensive to do so, and certainly far more expensive in the not too distant future, as rents rise and mortgage payments decrease (relative to income).  Please think before you type and submit next time.

    • DG says:

      02:23pm | 22/01/10

      This is a domestic issue (the housework point) - to be determined in each household by the people in that household. If Person A refuses to do their share Person B has a choice: pick up the slack or end the relationship. Which ever choice they make, accept responsibility for their decision and get on with life.

      A person (regardless of gender) has no entitlement to have the other person ‘do their bit’, or even keep the promises they make, I’ve learned that the hard way. Ultimately it comes down to a personal decision whether that person is going to pick up the slack or look for a partner that will contribute. If they believe the promises of that partner that’s their choice, but they, and they alone, are responsible for their decision to stay in such a relationship. This is a universal truth for every man and woman out there that chooses to remain in a relationship where the “other half” doesn’t do their bit.

      Why do they need to own a house to raise a kid? You claim it’s irresponsible without any explanation as to “why”. So I ask straight out - why is it irresponsible to have a child when you don’t own a house? Why buy a house at all? Sure renting is expensive, but that’s why you work, work as many jobs as you have to to pay the bills. If you can’t earn enough, down size, move to a cheaper suburb.

    • hmmm says:

      02:44pm | 22/01/10

      DG, you’re right that housework is a domestic issue.  I do not believe however we just make a choice to not do housework, or to do housework.  There are bare minimums as to what is expected when it comes to basic hygiene in the house.  I have seen on countless occasions women coming home from doing a full days work only to find she has to do the childcare pick up, make dinner, wash up and yet more still.  I have seen some fantastic men, but am yet to see more than 2, maybe 3, who truly contribute to the running of the household.  This rule only applies when both the man and woman work.

      As for people starting a family prior to owning a home.  This is the ideal and should be aspired towards.  Do we really want people who can’t even plan ahead to procreate.  DG you forget the basic structure of our society, that is based on values, fair go for others etc.  If people who don’t plan ahead are having children, and yet more children, without security of tenure, without building an asset base which contributes towards their collective wealth (as a family), wearing the stigma that long term renting involves etc.  Although it may not be possible to buy a house and have a family these days, it’s still something we should aspire to and for once, do things in the right order (for the sake of our children).  This last comment is not topical to the article, however does play a part in why so many women feel hammered, at work, at home and by society at large.  They are working full time in 2 jobs!

    • Old Clive says:

      07:17am | 20/01/10

      The hand that rocks the cradle rocks the world, old saying but somehow I think it is true.

    • Sam says:

      03:11pm | 21/01/10

      @Old Clive, thanks, I wasn’t aware of it. BTW, it’s “rule the world”. We are a sick people if we don’t appreciate our mothers. Somehow, motherhood is not good enough anymore for many girls. If that’s not spitting in the face of God I don’t know what is. That’s probably got something to do with it too, the prevalent apathy towards our relationship with God. Some people just can’t be *bothered* anymore. That’s the *action*... the *reaction* is just around the corner. A generation of elderly people in nursing homes without a relative in sight even on Christmas day. Can you see it happening to us people?

    • T.Chong says:

      07:28am | 20/01/10

      Sad that anyone,or any people in a relationship live their lives as a stereotype.
      Author Dave, disagree with your statements that men are hard wired to ignore duty and obligation. Any decent person, male or female is committed to both,  who do you actually speak for, or about?

    • Pete says:

      02:38pm | 20/01/10

      Yes Dave, I second that

    • Margaret Gray says:

      07:29am | 20/01/10

      Penberthy,

      Good to see you won’t acknowledge the ministerial incompetence on Kosky’s part.  Nothing to do with her gender.

      The Punch only interested in maintaining the spin it seems.

    • Chris says:

      07:45am | 20/01/10

      Couldn’t agree more Margaret Gray.  She has been labelled a “lightweight” that would believe anything put in front of her. She wanted to be “left alone”.  These comments came from within the PT departments.

      She was obviously completely uninterested in the PT portfolio. I would have expected a bit more than a puff piece.

    • Bruce says:

      07:41am | 20/01/10

      Don’t go into the kitchen if you can not stand the heat !!

    • Eric says:

      08:15am | 20/01/10

      That is a very sad story indeed. Some people can’t even be allowed to die in peace because of others’ greed.

    • Paul Horn says:

      01:12pm | 20/01/10

      Bec I think Eric is playing with you in the sandpit sort of way that is. He has just kicked sand in your face! Nasty bad boy Eric!

    • DG says:

      07:55am | 20/01/10

      Interesting - not one male politician has ever stepped down for family reasons.

      And, for the record, the daily telegraph has gallery of a number of teachers who have had relationships with students above the age of consent. The issue isn’t about the gender of the teacher nor the age of consent, it’s about their role as a member of staff with responsibility for the care of students. It is worth noting that this is substantially different to the relationship between people who have association by means of their employment.

      Mr Penberthy,

      If you seriously think this is an issue a male politician how they balance their commitments in the home with their commitment to the electorate. If you really believe that this is an issue, rather than just a chance to put in a piece about gender stereotypes, accept that you are in a position to drive change. The question is this: will you?

    • marie says:

      08:02am | 20/01/10

      Steve Bracks -  former Premier of Victoria resigned for family reasons.

    • Belle says:

      08:08am | 20/01/10

      Lynne Kosky was a good, interested and compotent education minister.  Transport is a poisoned chalice for whoever gets it.

      The issue women having extra pressures is true.  This is made even clearer by some of the sexist comments above.  There are a number of men who are threatened by women (see Eric above). 

      The only way to deal with this ‘fear’ is for woment to have the numbers.

    • Eric says:

      04:41pm | 20/01/10

      Boo hoo Belle, so you’re threatened by the idea of men having equal rights?

      Grow up.

    • Anthony says:

      05:08pm | 20/01/10

      The line that any man who opposes the advancement of privileges for women is “threatened by women” is irritating and puerile. For all of his exasperating persistence, Eric has not actually said anything sexist - he has only pointed to the facts of the situation, nor has he ever indicated that he is threatened by women.

      It is thoroughly sickening to see ardent feminists accuse anyone who opposes their agenda of being “sexist”. Just because someone does not share your view does not make them a “sexist”.

    • Rover says:

      08:14am | 20/01/10

      @Bec - this came up with a link to a story about Dennis Hopper…

    • ChrisG says:

      08:14am | 20/01/10

      DG, you may recall Tim Fisher, an outstanding politician, who gave up politics and being Deputy Prime Minister for his child and wife

    • WorkingMum says:

      08:29am | 20/01/10

      it’s time to stop focussing on women’s balancing careers and family and encouraing more men to step up and do the same. Once it’s normal for any parent to work and care then work life balance will be standard instead of corporate lip service.
      Both me and my husband work part time, we both have careers important to us and both get 1-1 time with our kids. Family balance

    • DG says:

      10:40am | 20/01/10

      If men don’t want to balance a career and family why should they be encouraged to? Surely women who want a career would just refuse to have a relationship with such a person and instead would seek to have a relationship with a person that considers family time to be a priority? Of course if they haven’t had this discussion should they really be creating a family together?

      Why not just recognise that people (regardless of gender) have the right to seek a balance between the things that they want in their lives - it’s called prioritising.

      If that means that men are choosing to work rather than have families so be it, if that means that women choose careers rather than having children so be it. After all a person has only so many hours in a day and they should be free to prioritise as they choose.

      Rather than trying to get people to conform to some preconceived ‘balance” why not acknowledge that it is a simple matter of competing interests and people simply need to prioritise. If you put family above work, don’t be surprised when it hurts your career, if you put career above family, don’t be surprised when family life suffers.

      If I were an employer I would rather have employees who put career above family than vice versa. Why would I want to employ people who are committed to things that will compete with their commitment to their job? This has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with the priorities of the potential employee.

    • Paul Horn says:

      11:42am | 21/01/10

      Thanks Mistress D for the lecture. Bit like the oil in the family car does’nt magically change itself or the lawns simply cut themselves or the walls don’t simply change colour of their own accord or the tap washers self renew every time a tap leaks. Household maintenance is constant much like clothes washing. Difference is the army of stupid blokes such as myself who take on this responsibility every weekend don’t whinge and complain incessantly like carstrated martyrs and then calculate how much they would get paid if only their work was “valued” as it is in their normal jobs.

      Help me I’m crying a river here!

    • Julia says:

      08:41am | 20/01/10

      I don’t agree. Bracks stood down for family reasons too.

    • Elaine says:

      10:49am | 20/01/10

      Then why did he accept a job that requires he travel around the world ona regular basis??

    • Calli Brown says:

      08:46am | 20/01/10

      This is a vexed issue, and I believe that the situation will not change until women negotiate with their (male) partners to take on more responsibility for ‘parenting’ . Yes, shock horror, I am advocating more men ask for flexible work hours. (even if it means a slight loss of income) Afterall, aren’t parents suppose to be working together?

    • Paul Horn says:

      01:09pm | 20/01/10

      Yes Calli I have been asking for exactly that - to change roles with my wife. More than happy for her to bust her guts working twelve hours a day 6 days a week while I enjoy rising at 8:30am in the morning, invite mumsy over for a coffeee, visit mothers group in the park and then off to go shopping!!!! Yippeeeee!!!!  You know what she says - in fact she doesn’t say anything she just laughs her head off!!! She makes a disparaging comment about my male anatomy and the responsibilities of owning such a cursed appendage!! She works part time. As it is women who are doing all the complaining you are the ones that must set the boundaries in relationships. It is quite simple really. Once the children are born the woman takes the first two or three years off and then the bloke takes over full time duties for the same time period or longer if he gets lucky!!! How I would Iove that. But there is not a damned woman out there who will take sole financial responsibility to support a man and children!!!! My wifes “mothers” group consists of all women. All of them have full time working jerks I mean partners and they are mostly professional ladies (accountants, lawyers etc etc).  Then they sit around whinging about how hard it is for them until I offer to swap roles and they simply screw their pampered little noses up and berate me for being so ridiculous!!!  Why is it though that it is I that must accomodate my wifes whims and aspirations? She wants to work part time so I must change my working hours to accomodate her “needs”! But why can’t I demand that she gats off her butt, find a full time high paying job and support me and the children at the same lifestyle standard? She gets the best of both worlds! Oh I get it being sensitive only relates to the needs of the woman. Man be damned!

    • Becca says:

      06:14pm | 20/01/10

      There are many women who support their husbands and children; I know this because I am one of them. I stopped work for 6 months after our child was born, after that time my partner and I evaluated how we could be in the most secure position financially (based on the lifestyle we both wanted) and I went back to work and my partner opted out of the workforce. We love and respect each other so we agreed to review the situation whenever one of us felt like their situation was no longer palatable.
      I have been the primary “breadwinner” for just over 2 years now and neither of us feels like we are alone in our situation, there are numerous couples whom we have met over the last 2 years, or who we have always known, who are doing similar things (with the woman in the relationship in full time paid employment or the primary wage earner, while her male partner works from home or part time).
      My point is that the crucial factor (as mentioned in the odd post above) is communication and co-operation from both the parties in the relationship, then neither of you need feel you are being “used”. The point is not that women or men are any harder done by than the other. If you are an adult in an adult relationship you can choose what works for you (and your family), the fact that your wife seems not to care about your outraged sense of justice seems to indicate not that women in general are lazy and selfish when it comes to the perks of staying home with children, while their loving partners slave away, but that you might have married one who is.
      Oh and I never make the mistake of underestimating how important my partner’s role in the home is, I never kid myself that he is at home sipping lattes while I work hard, we’re in it together and I respect the sacrifices he has made (and will continue to make) to be at home with our son.

    • Glockers says:

      08:46am | 20/01/10

      A couple of points.

      1. Anyone that thinks Kosky wasnt sticking to an agreed script/agenda/budget has rocks in their heads. Dont expect things to change much without some kind seismic shift in political winds.
      2. Dont give Abbott too much credit for withdrawing his comment. That is the oldest and dirtiest trick in the book. Throw your mud then hastly apologise - usually a day later and buried several pages deep. The damage is done.
      3. For those of you who carry on about"it being unfair to men - why do you insist on these sorts of dialogues being a zero sum game. We dont have to redress all issues in the one article, do we? Or cant you cope? .

    • Glockers says:

      09:50am | 20/01/10

      I forgot to add that the survey findings are a little bit too close for comfort. I, for one, admit to a lifetime of liking my fruit cut up for me. First my mother, now my wife. God love’m both.

    • SM says:

      10:31am | 20/01/10

      @Glocker

      what is a “zero sum game”?  Is it anything like a zero sum gain?

    • Down To Earth says:

      09:20am | 20/01/10

      Perhaps if women didnt spend so much time sitting feeling sorry for themselves they might achieve something. Do you think people like Donald Trump, Bill Gates and Richard Branson played the blame game the first time they failed, did they say ‘oh hark, it’s a womans world’or ‘i’m not attractive enough’? No ! They went straight back to it trying harder. Grow Up , Take some responsibility.

    • Micko says:

      09:20am | 20/01/10

      Pembo—maybe it is tough being a female pollie—but the women who get into it can do very well for themselves.  Arguably Kirner, Lawrence and Keneally would never have made it as far as they did if they were blokes with an equal amount of talent.  Furthermore, affirmative action policies, particularly of the Labor Party, have favoured women.

      At best affirmative action has brought a gender balance to the parliament, but at worst it has substituted talented blokes for mediocre women.  Interesting that despite the massive increase in female representation in Parliaments across the country, we have not witnessed the change in political culture that was originally promised.  Rather most women in politics seem to have absorbed the existing male oriented political culture.  The level of disengagement and disgust with politics has never been greater.  Maybe we need affirmative action for female political journalists and media owners too!

      I also think there is also a flip side to your argument – society can mostly accept women who choose career over domestic duties, but (in my experience) is highly unaccepting of men who make the opposite choice.  Any intelligent feminist with a vision for society would see this as a neglected, but vital, component.  Since surely feminism is about choice: how can we have a society that allows choice for women to break out of gender defined roles; but does not do the same for men.  Unfortunately this issue doesn’t gain the profile it deserves.

    • Old Tory says:

      09:27am | 20/01/10

      As a man, I will know that full equality has been reached when an incompetent female minister resigns and is not eulogised or excused because of her gender.

    • Grim Reba says:

      10:12am | 20/01/10

      @Old Tory -
      REBA MEAGHER.

    • bloke says:

      09:47am | 20/01/10

      Men (some who were only young boys) by the hundereds of thousands have died to secure the freedoms and liberties we enjoy in this country. Men have built all that surrounds you, your house, the roads you drive on everything ! Men have to do all the hard dangerous dirty work, minning etc.
      Why do so many females whinge and whine about thier lot in life, they for the best part have had it easy AND continue to do so.
      How many females have advocated for equal rights to be able to fight in the Armed forces to secure our future ?, not too many, how many females have died in minning and other heavy industry ?, how many females have done any really heavy dirty dangerous work for the “entire” duration of thier working lives ???, NONE.
      As far as I am concerned, females have NOT earnt the right to be equal to males, nor have they earnt the right to constantly whinge and whine about thier misconcieved views that males have it easy !
      Wake up ladies, you have it too easy, and whine too much.
      I wonder why males don’t live as long as females !!

    • Rover says:

      10:08am | 20/01/10

      @Bloke - what kind of work do you do? Are you in the defence force, or do you work on the roads or in mining? Because if you work in an office, or even a hospital or a shop, by your standards you have not earnt the right to be equal to men who do dirty dangerous work for the entire duration of their working lives.

    • kel says:

      11:02am | 20/01/10

      Well said Rover!! Amen to that.

    • yas says:

      11:15am | 20/01/10

      Many women work in the mining industry, as well as the police force and the army. There are many women who have dies in military service or in wars in general. there are also many female construction workers, mechanics, builders, engineers and such. some of the first builders of our roads happened to be convicts, a great deal of them women. around the world, 70% of the worlds poor are female. more than half of illiteracy occurs in females, the majority of human rights violations happen to women and even in our modern society we still make about 80% of mens wages. Maybe not many women died in The battle of the Somme but many did trying to get the vote. some of the greatest leaders in history (Elizabeth I for one) were women, and they did a great deal of heavy lifting too.

    • Paul Horn says:

      10:04am | 20/01/10

      Total tripe Lexi. Men are 1000% more likely to suffer industrial accidents and to work in far far far riskier occupations often resulting in ongoing delibilitating injury as a result of their career choice. You also forgot to mention the main deciding factor in the gender division of labour - choice!!! Women choose the easier and simpler jobs which are generally Government funded. If that is not the case then why aren’t they lining up in their hundreds of thousands to work in the higher paying mining, petrochemical, aviation, transportation industries etc etc etc.?? Why should we continually bang on about womens perceived injustices when it is their choice to work in these fields.  And personally as a professional Engineer I consider it a gross insult to consider a teacher to have anywhere near my educational qualifications.  Four years of hard slog at University with 40 contact hours per week with double that expected study time on top just to get through!  That’s why only about 25% of those who commence the cursed course make it!!  So please think a little bit before making ridiculous assertions.

      Lets face it women campaigned for equal pay and the right to work as many hours as men, now they are campaigning about the right to work part time and now for the right to access “affordable” childcare. Their rights infested demands never stop. The social discourse is only ever about WOMEN and I am sick and tired of it. We have a women obsessed media, Government funded womens organisations that sprout continuous lies and foster misandrist legislation and of course don’t get me started on the academic elite and “gender” studies programmes all supported overwhelmingly by the male tax dollar. 

      The solution to that old chestnut relating to division of labour in the home is for women to become more responsible for the home finances by getting off their derrieres and working full time so allowing their male partners to ease off and take on greater household duties. But alas it is almost always the womans choice / demand to go part time. Men never get a chance to enjoy this privelige!  Where are the hordes of women seeking stay at home partners??? I’ve never met one! However I’ve been out with plenty of “graspers” who make it very plain that they would like nothing more than to quit full time employment or work part time once they marry. And yet it would seem that their choice is really a patriarchical plot to deny them economic equality and consign them to years of oppression in the kitchen. How I wish some woman would indulge me in the privelige of suffering from some of this so called patriarchical oppression!!! It will ever happen!!!

    • Martin G says:

      11:42am | 20/01/10

      Hear, hear, Paul Horn.

      To add to that, I am tired of my tax dollars supporting Government offices such as the Office for the Status of Women. Get rid of this blatantly sexist organisation.

    • marley says:

      07:35pm | 20/01/10

      Wow.  Women trying to get affordable child care.  How dare they?  It’s not as if that will benefit their husbands/partners - you know, those guys who won’t have to support the family on a single income because their wives have been freed up to work at least part time.  And of course, women are only asking for child care for the daughters and not the sons, right?  Geesh.

    • DG says:

      10:04am | 20/01/10

      Maybe I do need that sarcasm icon after all.

      My point was the both men and women leave their jobs for family reasons while Mr Penberthy’s article suggested that this reason for leaving a job is a gender issue.

      There are plenty of males that have left their employment for family reasons or “to spend more time with family”.

    • BT says:

      10:32am | 20/01/10

      @bloke, you may also look at the flip side to your arguement. Men also created the wars in which those thousands of men died, and more women and children die in war than do soldiers. I was in the armed forces, and there were many more women than you may think there. Women have not been engaged in the majority of employment that you mention as they weren’t legally allowed to be until the 1970’s, and even now they would not be given equal pay for the same work. Women do not have it easy - they just do different, more menial work for little to no pay.  There is a degree of equality coming through in some private sectors , however, unlike Scandanavian countries, the state will not provide childcare so women are left with part time options which are few and far between, lower paid and lower status. Who are you to say who deserves equality? Further to that, why does the sort of job you have have any bearing on your right to live your life as you wish?

    • Tim says:

      10:47am | 20/01/10

      Why should the state provide childcare for the personal life choices of a couple?
      If you want kids then you have to look after them. If that means one half of a couple staying home or working part time then that is the couple’s choice. It is not discrimination that women make up the majority of this choice.

    • DJ says:

      10:59am | 20/01/10

      Tim, unfortunately mothers can’t win either way. We have Einstein a few comments above telling us we should work full-time (as I do, with a young child) so as to ease the burden off our poor ever so hard working husbands, and yet others telling us we made the choice, we shouldn’t work!!

      Life simply isn’t that easy. Life costs money. And as annoying as it is, children actually cost a lot of money and it’s not always practical to have one parent working and one at home.

      I work full-time because we simply wouldn’t be able to afford my son’s medications, future schooling and house if we didn’t both work.

      After I pay child-care, I am left with a grand total of $200. Yay for me.

      Before anyone has a dig at me why am I working full-time for next to no profit - I need to keep this job for our future. While it may be only $200, that $200 is important to us.

    • yas says:

      11:47am | 20/01/10

      For women in my age group (under 25), the road ahead is full of career/relationship/family life hurdles. One of my friends is fluent in four different languages, has taught English in third world nations,has studies law and politics, is a human rights activist, has worked as a project manager for a large bank, is currently an events producer and manager in a multi national company. she is 21, single with no children. i imagine her exponential life trajectory will falter when she finds a partner too pathetic too peel oranges for himself, and when she’s busy screaming discipline at her kids in four languages. a man of similar abilities and achievements would be a CEO somewhere before thirty…  a woman has to choose if she wants children before thirty five, when the choice to be barren is no longer such.
      this article is not about whether or not a particular individual is good at the work they do and how gender may factor into that. it’s about that extra level of scrutiny faced by females in what has normally been regarded as a mens only profession. its like, we don’t think Obama is better than Bush because his black, or African or better looking- but we acknowledge the achievement of his attaining office, despite the extra level of difficulty society places on non whites.

    • Paul Horn says:

      12:50pm | 20/01/10

      My God Ms Yas your 21 year old friend must be absolutely exhausted!!! What with being a human rights producer, speaks four managers, projects languages for a large bank, events producer bla bla bla!!! Can she fly?? Fantastic to see the myriads of opportunities available to women today isn’t it? You can’t see it but you are actually defeating your own argument!!! At 21 I was busting my guts just to get through a damned Engineering degree and working part time just to survive. Oh if I only had the same opportuniites as Ms Fantastic up there but alas I am nothing but a crass ugly northern suburbs working class git! 

      Oh but if she is ever in the market for a stay at home male who will willingly support her stellar career and happily peel oranges for her all day I am more than happy to offer my services. Methinks though a woman of that calibre would settle for nothing less than a perfect full head of hair, celebrity looking, 6ft plus, bulging bank account type that of course shares her inclinations for elitist causes and lives in the inner city. That’s it may I introduce your friend to the very handsome Mr Penberthy! He ticks all the right boxes!

      And believe me the scrutiny of women in predominantly male professions is the biggest lie since piltdowm man. Female engineers enjoy working part time in my company but this privelige is not extended to thier male counterparts. The fact that they enjoy unarguable advantages over their stupid male colleagues means that there is even more pressure for blokes to work full time to pick up the slack!!!

      And just another thing Ms Yas as you obviously have never spent much time in the workforce there are millions of extremely talented males out there that never get past a middling management position for lack of “It’s not what you know but who you’re knowing”!!! For every female that has fallen victim to the curse of her gender there are hundreds of men that have similarly suffered!!!!     

      You really need to open your eyes a little more and look at the big picture!! From where I am looking it looks pretty damned cosy for those that are not cursed with a penis!!  You have yourself a nice day now!

    • yas says:

      02:44pm | 20/01/10

      “Oh if I only had the same opportuniites as Ms Fantastic up there but alas I am nothing but a crass ugly northern suburbs working class git! “

      maybe your right; Ms fantastic is very pretty… maybe i didn’t articulate my point properly, but i seem to have touched a nerve…. its obvious the only reason you are where you is because your “cursed with a penis!!”.

      theres no need to get so emotional about it

    • Sam says:

      03:51pm | 20/01/10

      @Paul Horn, thanks for making me laugh so hard. Loved it.

    • Paul Horn says:

      09:00am | 21/01/10

      Exactly Tim. It’s a womans issue as they are the ones doing all the screaming and shouting. What they are screaming and shouting about is the right to force men mainly to pay higher taxes to supplement their incomes so that it becomes affordable for them to work!!!  Effectively the male taxpayer is paying women to enjoy their right to work. We pay for everything because we are morons!!!

      Quite simply one works because the income exceeds the outgoings. If that is not the case then either work longer or don’t work! Chilcare is seen as a womans rights issue and it stinks to high heaven.

      The funny thing about it is though feminists are more than happy to allow hundreds of thousands of single mothers to suck off the welfare system and oppose any attempt by the Government to get them back into paid work. They are more than happy for single mothers to screw the system because they are not dependent on any man only the Government - defacto daddy! Socialist feminism at work.

      But the minute the Government introduces any taxation rebate that encourages the lower earning partner in a relationship to stay at home as Howard did the womens groups scream and shout that this is disadvantaging working women!! There is nothing more disgusting and repulsive to the feminist philosophy than a happily married couple where the wife is dependent on her husbands income.  They loathe it!

    • Calli Brown says:

      10:40am | 20/01/10

      Mate, you are actually proving Pembo’s point. These men did not have the responsibility for looking after their kids when they made these great achievements.

    • EJ says:

      10:42am | 20/01/10

      No amount of feel-good articles about Kosky can hide the fact that she was out of her depth totally in her port folio. Brumby should have removed her ages ago but as with all politicians they twist the facts to suit themselves then get their PR people to clean up after them. The myki thing is a disasater that’s set to bring this inept givernment down, and THANK GOD!!! Our hospitals are in desperate need of huge upgrades & what does Brumby do? He gives hundreds of millions to tennis instead. Time to go!!

    • DJ says:

      10:47am | 20/01/10

      Many women work in “unsafe” jobs http://www.dailymercury.com.au/story/2009/12/05/80000-fine-for-workers-death-80000-fine-for-worker/

      Just one example of many.

      More women used to die in childbirth than soldiers died at war, but we have no commemorations, nobody seems to care!

      I’m so over being told I’m not good enough. This article was about women in politics, not the mining industry.

      My husband doesn’t have a ‘dangerous’ job, why does he deserve more credit than me?

    • the trickster says:

      11:20am | 20/01/10

      More women “use” to die in child birth but not any more. Interesting it wasn’t until blokes got involved in childbirth that mortality figures plunged, prior to that in most cultures it was an all woman affair. Your argument is completely wrong.
      It is really boring always listing to womens complaints all the time. This pandering to women does not solve anything but encourages an entitlement, non-responsibility and narcissistic outlook amongst women. Behind any blame game is a lack of personal responsibility.
      The root of this argument appears to me women trying to men then wondering why they fail. They look over to the male gender and only focus on what they perceive as to the benefits and opportunities but ignore the responsibilities and costs, but then want to have access to the benefits but not pay the costs. A strategy doomed to failure and unhappiness.

    • Max says:

      12:54pm | 20/01/10

      Over half million women die in childbirth each and every year.
      It is the leading cause of death in young women ages 15-24 worldwide.
      For every woman who dies, there are 20 to 30 others who survive childbirth but suffer debilitating lift long injuries from the birthing process.

      Don’t let facts get in the way of your ignorance on the topic Trickster.

    • Paul Horn says:

      01:36pm | 20/01/10

      Well DJ if that’s the case then why were millions of women left widowed following the first world war??? Why did so many millions of children grow up without a father???? You really need to check your facts before you make stupid inaccurate statements! In many towns following the First War the entire young male population had been wiped off the face of the Earth. The gender imbalance was extreme with many suitable ladies unable to find a mate and consigned to spinsterhood!
      This was never the case for chilbearing women otherwise many major towns and cities would have been bereft of their female population! 
      And a far far far bigger killer than the rather insignificant female mortality rate from childbirth was the flu pandemic that followed the first world war claiming over 20 million lives. 

      And Max tens of millions die from Aids every year and countless more from malaria. So whats the go there?  Your chidbirth statisitics are rather piddling by comparison. Any woman that suffers from childbirth should consider herself damned lucky to have escaped the major aflictions that wipe out many of her kin before they even get the opportunity to procreate!!

      Your ignorance is astounding if not disgraceful !

    • DJ says:

      02:20pm | 20/01/10

      Paul Horn female death rates and suffering as a result of child birth may be insignificant to you but it’s not insignificant to others. I have never said anything bad about people with malaria and the HIV epidemic, I’d appreciate it if people had the same respect for women who died and suffered trauma from their birth, as I did.

    • T.Chong says:

      11:01am | 20/01/10

      BT : the old misandry argument that “men create wars” The male politicians may launch wars, but they dont do it in the name , or cause of “men”.
      Most wars are launched because a country or alliance percieves that its populace and society is under some type of threat, and guess what , the society in question is composed of , men AND women.
      Plenty of women will support aggressive policies (newsreels of hysterical women at Nuremburg rallies, for example)
      Not all men are pro war, not all women are anti war. Australias own history records plenty of women taking it upon themselves to send white feathers to men they believed were shirkers.
      Hilary Clinton, like Condi Rice before her show that some women are just as militaristic as some men.
      Many men have been imprisoned for draft evasion, something no woman has ever been subject to.
      This isnt an anti woman rave, just trying to show aggression or pacivity is not gender specific.

    • Aitch B says:

      11:04am | 20/01/10

      Bracks didn’t leave politics for family reasons at all. It was part of an agreed succession plan to get Brumby into the top job after failing to lead the ALP to a previous election victory. Bracks had the job long enough to gain the maximum ‘after politics’ benefits…... so too will Brumby.

    • marie says:

      11:34am | 20/01/10

      Must not be the same television interview that I saw where Bracks son had been given the family grief.

    • Aitch B says:

      12:06pm | 20/01/10

      Yes….. saw that Marie, but unless there were other issues I’m not sure that having a son caught drink driving and smashing up the family car qualifies as ‘family reasons’. Unless the kid had psychological issues and needed careful supervision….. which Bracks didn’t give him anyway, as he spent a lot of time overseas immediately after quitting.

    • SD says:

      11:07am | 20/01/10

      Kosky quit due to her incompetence - nothing more, nothing less.

      Otherwise some good points - but Kosky is a poor example of a female politician’s family obligations, because we all know that in this case, Kosky didn’t quit for her family.

      She was a career politician with the “Kosky Touch” (opposite of the Midas Touch) - everything she touched turned to shit.

    • Shane says:

      11:07am | 20/01/10

      My wife does that fruit thing, for the record.

    • Miles says:

      11:08am | 20/01/10

      There’s nothing preventing women ‘winning’ in politics or business - except for their own choices.  If they choose to have more family time, choose to not work the incredibly long hours, choose not to sacrifice many other areas of their lives, then they can’t expect to have the same outcome as someone who does.

    • David says:

      01:25pm | 20/01/10

      This is true, but if all women “choose incredibly long hours”, and “choose to sacrifice many other areas of their lives” and focused soley on their careers, rather than having children, how would the human race survive???

    • DG says:

      01:45pm | 20/01/10

      David (02:25pm | 20/01/10)

      Survival isn’t mandatory. It is a choice.

      Any way, the human race is growing at an ever increasing rate - there are more humans on the planet now than there were 5 years ago - have no fear that the race will die out. There are plenty of people choosing to have children.

    • Ian G says:

      11:28am | 20/01/10

      Why is everyone following the spin - Kosky was clearly told to resign to save Brumby and the party the embarassment of publicly sacking her

    • Micko says:

      11:48am | 20/01/10

      Because otherwise we are simply penalising people for having a job and kids—don’t we want the most productive people in our society to reproduce.  Not just those on unemployment benefits!

    • Colin says:

      11:49am | 20/01/10

      The lack of accountability for the Labour party is costing this state heavily.
      Ms Koski should have been sacked by non elected Brumby years ago.
      Gender is not the issue , incompetency is.
      Private enterprise would not tolerate this level of underperformance - neither should the Victorian public !

    • Groundskeeper says:

      12:09pm | 20/01/10

      All I can say is, thank god she is gone.

    • Damo says:

      12:15pm | 20/01/10

      (In best Connex/Metro voiceover): “Lynn Kosky will resign today, due to a defective approach to transport…”
      This had NOTHING to do with her gender, or her family. She was removed because transport has been so completely and utterly stuffed up. In fairness to her, the whole government is to blame, she is just the head on the chopping block.

    • TakesControl says:

      01:02pm | 20/01/10

      Puhlease . . .

      Your gender stereotypes are so outdated.  According to you, women have it so hard, men have it so easy.  Reporting along gender lines like this is equivalent to other gross generalisations based on race, age etc.  Somebody call the Wahmbulance.

      TC

    • Ray says:

      01:05pm | 20/01/10

      Typical female comments of the victim mentality. When we take accountable action for educating boys the same as girls and with the same outcomes get back to me. We condemn Muslim cultures for supposedly doing the reverse by under educating females. I am thoroughly sick of women and their edless bleating. It’s a tried and proven path which has produced women huge dividends at huge cost to men and society. We celbrate any female achievement and condemn male achievement as the outcome of discrimination. Feminism is the greatest hoax of recent decades and history will judge us poorly for the resultant discrimination. While society has a love affair with women that is causing a huge desparity in life towards men, who it is true have limited choices, no recourse and are subjected to social denegration as a matter of course through the media and entertainment. Example the New Zealand airline add referring to young males as cougar ‘meat =. No recourse. Muslim cleric refers to Aussie women as ‘meat’. National meltdown and condemnation from the Prime Minister.

    • Jason says:

      01:10pm | 20/01/10

      Kosky used her family as a pathetic excuse - she isnt single, she has a husband so deal with family stuff like everyone else. She knows Aircraft station ( in her electorate) will be closed. She knows the Altona line is the least reliable in melbourne. She was facing a big embarrasment in her own electorate.

    • James says:

      01:18pm | 20/01/10

      David can I ask you something? Why is it that with virtually all your articles that feature in the Herald Sun your trying to pander to feminist groups? Your articles become a little patronizing after a while. To suggest that Lynn Kosky was let go for any reason other than her lack of competence, especially when you insinuate that a male in that exact position would have escaped the sort of scrutiny that she was subject to, is nothing short of a joke. It’s funny how people like you apparently take such a staunch stance against sexism, and yet you only ever focus on issues (and often non-issues) that involve women (apparently) being hard done by. And no, i’m not one to cry foul over things like this, just merely pointing out the truth. And how dare you even suggest that Cheryl Kernot was victimized for the criticism she received for her affair with her student. To say that he was of the legal age and therefore there was ethically nothing wrong with what she did is an absolute cop-out and blatantly wrong. Your biased point of view on this matter wouldn’t happen to have anything to do with her being a woman, would it? You really do contradict yourself in this article. You argue that there are apparently different standards for men and women in the workforce and that this is such a terrible thing, but when you use examples such as Lynn Kosky (an opportunistic, but terrible example) and Cheryl Kernot, you only enforce the fact that we live in a society full of pretentious do-gooders who will often insist that women be excused of responsibilty for their actions when they’re so clearly at fault. Double-standards if i’ve ever seen it.

    • AndoNeo says:

      01:37pm | 20/01/10

      As a male I think there isn’t enough support for family in society full stop.
      The fact that these pressures aren’t talked about in the case of male politicians is more the problem if you ask me.  I’m not “hard-wired to ignore” these pressures as they put it.
      Apparently I’m supposed to feel sorry for these woman because they feel guilt for not being with their family.  Who’s feeling sorry for the men?
      I think theirs a huge double standard here.  Feminists want their cake and want to whinge about it too and when they do I’m supposed to empathize….only I don’t even have the option to be a stay at home dad.  The system won’t support me.

      D

    • Micko says:

      01:51pm | 20/01/10

      Nice one James a very strong analysis, I agree completely.  Pembo—it would be nice to see a braver article from you that cuts through some of the bullshit—rather than a safe article that isn’t going to disturb the politically correct left.

      You have the intellect—but maybe not the motivation.

    • Anne says:

      02:03pm | 20/01/10

      I love how articles like this always bring a certain type of male out of the woodwork, snivelling that they’re being discriminated against and it’s all so unfair. I’d be sympathetic if women’s rights meant that you were no longer allowed to vote, to go to university or work in any career you chose, but that’s not the case, so how exactly are you being discriminated against? Anyway, to get to the point of this article. I agree that there is a double standard here. Men are rarely questioned about whether their job affects their family life, but a woman is hung out to dry if it is perceived - rightly or wrongly - that she spends more time on her job than with her kids. And if she doesn’t have kids at all, well then - she’s just a selfish, barren b**ch who cares more for her career and / or figure than about having children.  When did you last hear of a man being accused of vanity or selfishness for not having a family?

    • Tim says:

      02:11pm | 20/01/10

      Hilarious Anne,
      oh the irony.

    • James says:

      02:30pm | 20/01/10

      I see. So Anne, your essentially saying that because over half a century ago, women were denied the right to vote, had less opportunity to go to University or work in any career you chose, we should be all be sympathetic to women like you who never actually experienced that sort of oppression yourself? Likewise, women for decades have had these basic rights, therefore according to your logic, is it safe to say that women have not suffered any form of discrimination since then? Because that’s really what your trying to argue here when you say that men shouldn’t have the right to feel discriminated against because we’ve always had these basic rights. Are you so naive to think that these are the only forms of discrimination that exist? And I love the hypocrisy and double standards of your accusation that any man who simply points out any facts contradicting your one-sided point of view is coming ‘out fo the woodwork’ and feeling sorry for himself. All you need to do is re-read lines 7-14 of your post to realize what i’m talking about. There would be no point in continuing this argument with you because if you’ve already convinced yourself that the world revolves only around women and their issues then you wouldn’t be capable of seeing things from anybody else’s point of view.

    • Margaret Gray says:

      02:46pm | 20/01/10

      “...When did you last hear of a man being accused of vanity or selfishness for not having a family?...”

      Most of the heckling comes from the sisterhood, Anne.

      Do you disagree?

    • John says:

      12:18am | 21/01/10

      And how many men can you name that have become Prime Minister or president without having a family? Just a fine example of the invisible nature of some types of discrimination that never get a mention.

      As for women being hung out to dry, who does that the most? Women or men? Who condemned Lindy Chamberlain the most? Women or men? 

      Yes, there are double standards everywhere and increasingly what is becoming obvious is that women don’t want to eliminate them, they want to control them. To become the sole owners of one way when it suits, and the other way when it suits.

      For example, in 1995 women traveled to Yale university from all over the world for a feminist synposium. On the topic of how can women demand EQUAL rights and SPECIAL priviledges at the same time they decided that this was only contradictory if you were RATIONAL and rationality was a MALE CONSTRUCT oppressive to women and it was better for women to contradict themselves to get what they wanted.

      Yet at the same time don’t women want to forward RATIONAL arguements when it suits? Ah! but that’s not contradictory because the fault is RATIONALITY itself and this is a male conspiracy against women. Oh, but of course!

      The whole gender thing really was about heads women win, tales men lose. It is good to see the Increasing awareness here of what is really going on. 

      In the end the biggest gender argument is not against the other but within. This applies to both genders equally.

    • Grant says:

      02:35pm | 20/01/10

      Ahh Penbo,

      You certainly are dusting off some good old polarising issues (people do notice that you do that) to get things moving again on the Punch.

      Are your numbers down, maybe Crikey’s have gone up?  who knows…

      P.S.  We all had a giggle whilst watching the 7pm Project as the panel owned you for that piece on Australia Day.

    • bec says:

      09:40pm | 20/01/10

      I tried to respond to Eric and Paul earlier today, but none of my comments got through. Suffice to say, I wasn’t actually intending to link to a story about Dennis Hopper’s divorce (which doesn’t interest me in the slightest), but this sad little piece:

      “The youth leader of Zambia’s ruling party has threatened to “gang rape” a female politician unless she stops criticising President Rupiah Banda’s leadership ahead of next year’s elections.

      The Movement for Multiparty Democracy (MMD) youth chairman Chris Chalwe singled out Forum for Democracy and Development (FDD) leader Edith Nawakwi for attacking Mr Banda’s leadership.

      “We are going to gang rape Nawakwi if she continues attacking the President,” Mr Chalwe said.”

      Female politicians in developing countries have an especially hard time. It’s worthwhile remembering this.

    • Paul Horn says:

      08:38am | 21/01/10

      Whoa well said Eric!! Got ya there madam! Love it. How do you feel now???
      And just for the record were it a male politician he would have been hacked to death with a machete and it would never have been reported by the western press as he was simply a male. Anyway you should know Africa has a penchant for that type of behaviour its part of their tribal way of life.

    • bec says:

      08:04am | 22/01/10

      Don’t feel much. Bernhard’s comments are pretty disgusting too. But given that Chalwe is currently standing trial for arranging the bashing of his opponents, I’d say his threat has more credence than hers.

      I don’t think that male lives are any less valuable than women’s and I don’t imagine that the reporting would have been any different. The number of women murdered in countries like Zambia and the Congo aren’t exactly publicised either. It’s not a zero-sum game here - nobody deserves to be murdered.

    • Paul Horn says:

      10:51am | 22/01/10

      Could you imagine though if Jay Leno or even worse Rush Limbaugh had said the same thing about Barack Obama s wife?? Just imagine the stinking press howlings, the black marches and civil unrest in the streets,or the racial tension!!! It would’nt warrant even thinking about. So why is the rape of a white REPUBLICAN woman by black men less abhorrent than the rape of a black DEMOCRATIC woman by a white man?? Where were all the idiot black activists such as the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons banging on their pulpits about this disgraceful travesty of justice. Their sense of justice must be very selective but then they are very left wing and very black . In fact the rape of black women by white men in the States is virtually unknown whereas rape of white women by black men of course is much much more common so her statement could be construed as being an act of attempted assault.

      Good reason to get an extreme Government funded right wing white male group if ever there was one. I mean every other damned “minority” enjoys one so in the interests of equality it makes sense.

    • Mistress D says:

      07:59am | 21/01/10

      DG, what’s the point of having children if you can’t give them the same standard, if not a better one than you were given?

      But this isn’t about being able to afford things, it’s about who ends up cleaning the toilet when you get home from work.

      I asked a working mother once how she did it all and she replied “Because I know I have to” she’d just accepted that she would always do more work, that her day didn’t stop when she got home. Her husband is a lovely guy, but most men I know just don’t get it.

      Dinner doesn’t magically appear, the shower doesn’t clean itself and your clothes don’t make their own way into the machine, nor do they iron themselves.

    • DG says:

      10:51pm | 21/01/10

      You’re right of course.

      What is the point of having children if you can’t provide for them - If you can’t provide for them don’t have them.

      But having said that what is the ‘point’ of having children at all? Ultimately it is just a choice of what you want in your life. You don’t need to have kids, you have no legal obligation to have kids, there are plenty of people that life full and happy lives without kids. I only ask because you suggest that there is some purpose to having kids.

      Anyway I digress - In my household (the one I occupy not one I control or possess)  I clean the bathroom, I tend the yard, I wash and Iron my clothes, I cook dinner (not every day but probably 5 days a week), I do the dishes, I walk the dog all that on top of working full time. It doesn’t magically happen, I do it. Someone has to go to work to pay the mortgage and the bills so I do. I suppose I should mention that my partner is unemployed and we don’t have kids.

      Ultimately I do it because I choose to… the gender of the person doing the work is irrelevant. If you are in a relationship without someone who wont pull their weight - end the relationship or just accept it . Don’t pretend that it is some obligation and weight that falls to you because you have a uterus - it falls to you because you choose to do it.

      If you want your life to change -  Stop doing all of the work and playing happy families, tell them they they have to pick up the slack or it’s over. If you aren’t willing to do that accept responsibility for your decision and get on with life.

    • Chris says:

      10:01am | 21/01/10

      (Whew! I’m exhausted after reading all of that. It reminds me of a massive playground fight when I was in Grade Two between the boys and the girls as to who was ‘best’. It started with some insults and taunts and ended with real sticks and stones and everyone in disgrace).
      The Apple Story… aah, love it! It’s so true in our household, both figuratively and literally! However, it’s not the full Apple Story. It doesn’t start with the apple already in the fruitbowl. It starts with someone having to propagate and plant the seedling, with someone having to care for and nurture the growing tree, with someone harvesting the fruit and sorting it, packing it, transporting it, earning the money to pay for it, all before it even hits the fruitbowl. And I’d be pretty confident in saying that both men and women were involved all along the way. For a variety of reasons men would be more involved in some of those steps and women in others. However, none of them are exclusively the domain of either gender and both men and women could and should be able to choose to be be part of the Apple’s journey at any time. And none should be castigated or ridiculed for wanting to be involved in any step just because they are male or female (only if they’re c*#p at it).

    • jim says:

      10:42am | 21/01/10

      what a laugh - is this author trying to get lucky with the ladies or something by pandering this nonsense.

      the facts are men have known for a long time the corporate treadmill is a crapshoot.. now we just sit back and laugh at women who fought for the right to climb this treadmill and are now seeing what its like (and as usual moaning about getting what they wanted the whole time)...

      women will also often bat an eyelid, cry or any other trick in their arsenal to get further up the corporate ladder than most men do without any of those tricks..

    • Sam says:

      11:43am | 21/01/10

      @WorkingMum, I wish I could replace Julia Gillard with you. Best wishes to your family.

    • Grumbles says:

      04:59pm | 21/01/10

      These are the facts of men and women I Know.

      If the bin isnt put out, a male says oh well, a female says oh hell
      If the bench is messy, a male says oh well, a female says oh hell
      If clothes are a bit dirty, a male says oh well, a female says oh hell

      These are not responsibilities of adult life, they are your wants. If you want the bench clean, clean it, if you want the bins out, put them out, if you want clothes clean, clean them etc.  Men and women do not share the same wants and it is both arrogant and rude to make your wants the responsibility of others.

    • Emma says:

      09:10pm | 21/01/10

      Thankyou for an honest article that address and issue which none of us have the answer for. When I talk about women being unable to get ahead in politics and business most men just roll thier eyes and say ‘equal work should get equal pay’ as if women are not even trying.

      Our society only works when someone takes care of the kids, the elderly parents, the household bills and the washing up. Here’s hoping we can really balance these things without creating a dog fight between men and women.

      We should have fifty percent representation in our parliament given women make up half of the population, if we don’t we need to ask why and address it NOW.

    • DG says:

      09:44am | 22/01/10

      Women make up more than 50% of the electorate. If women wanted to have women in parliament they would vote them in and there would be no males in parliament.

      How about a reality check? How many people do you know that choose their member of parliament based SOLELY on gender? How many people base it on other things such as political ideology (either generally or in respect of a particular issue) how about those that base it on a vibe? and those who simply vote because they are required to? and those who vote for person A to show their displeasure at person B?

      If all of these people are basing their decision on something other than gender, how can you then claim that the resulting disparity in representation is the result of gender discrimination or some gender inequality?

      Our parliament should be made up of 100% of the people elected. There should be no obligation to fulfill a quota of breasts, testicles, skin colours, religious ideologies, heights, weights, family structures, sexual preferences or any other manner of division one could choose to apply. In politics it’s not even about the best person for the job - it’s a popularity contest, nothing more, nothing less.

      I agree that, in any household, “someone” has to look after the old and young, maintain the household and earn an income - you have choices:
      (a) you can do it,
      (b) you can seek a partner who will do it,
      (c) you can seek a partner who will share responsibility for it, or
      (d) you can employ someone else to do it (note: This really only works, if you earn enough to pay someone else to do those things).

      Which of the choices is gender dependent? If a person only has sons does that mean no one will look after them in their dotage?

      If you don’t want to do it, your partner doesn’t want to do it (and you are unwilling to share responsibility), either employ someone to do it or end the relationship. Of course, if you end the relationship you will have to do those necessary thing for yourself anyway and you’ll have no one to share it with. But you have a choice, and most importantly a choice that is not driven by gender. If your partner wont do the work and you can’t afford to pay someone to do it you can either choose to do the work, or seek a relationship with someone that is willing to do the work.

    • Nathan says:

      12:57pm | 22/01/10

      Why stop at 50% women Emma? If we want to be really politically correct and have true ‘representation’ in Parliament we can also make sure that 10% of our mps are gay (albeit less than 10% in reality), and roughly 3% are of Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander heritage. As DG stated, people (other than leftist idiots) will not base their vote on gender, but rather policy. Having a mandatory minimum requirement for a specific group of people, whether it be in politics, business, etc, is nothing but tokenism. I sincerely doubt that anybody within parliament will give creedence to ideas such as this.

    • Rebecca says:

      02:03pm | 22/01/10

      I’m 27, female, and what I’d consider a ‘true’ feminist. 
      I would like to see REAL gender equality, better representation of women across ALL fields (since I believe women can provide a measure of balance to decision making - especially in government). If you’re incompetent, regardless of gender, you should be told to leave, and try something else.  I’d like to point out that there are a hell of a lot of women in certain areas who are only ‘marginally’ competent - but they are kept on in spite of better employees (either male or female) simply because the company doesn’t want to have a social ‘stigma’ over their heads - that even when proved to be inaccurate, doesn’t really wash away…
      Now, before you go all crazy on me…
      1) Companies that are allowed to employ, or address the needs of ‘women only’ should all be banned, unless there is a corresponding company providing for those same services for ‘men only’ (I’ve seen plenty of gyms for women, but none exclusively for men..).  The converse is also true, however - there are still a number of places that cater to men only - I’d like to see strip clubs (and brothels!) forced to cater to both sexes to be allowed to operate…  That would be funny - demand is likely to be considerably lower for those services, however.  I could bleat on about why, but that would be going much further off topic..  Real equality should be sought after, not having it ‘one up on men’. 
      2) Choices you make are yours - to have an education, family, career, life - these things come with responsibilities.  You make individual, and partnership sacrifices for all these things - these are choices.  What sacrifices you have to make depend on your choices - but there is ALWAYS a choice.
      3) Women (and men) should have equal access to flexible working arrangements - whether for family commitments or not.  Women, don’t go bleating about working part time for family reasons, and then have a go at the woman down the hall who wants to work part time so she can do further education, or even just to go out and have fun.  Men, don’t bleat about not having access to part time work (for any reason) - equal opportunity means exactly that - use it - discrimination laws work for you, as well.
      4) Agree with a few comments above - you choose who you’re with, and if you’re with someone who doesn’t meet the partnerships needs, then make the choice to do something about it - whether that be leave, convince them to do more, or put up with it.  Don’t bleat about it constantly.
      5) Women are most often the ones keeping their own counterparts down - in just about every circumstance mentioned in the article.  There are certainly still a large number of men who try to push the ‘get back in the kitchen’ line - but that number will only drop by effort on the part of women - both to stop berating (and start supporting) other women in various enterprise - and be the kind of person that ‘men’ can’t use that for.  Many of the queries about ‘oh, how do you cope being a minister with a family’ come from women, or are asked on behalf of other women - sometimes because women are impressed, and want to emulate - but more often because they are trying to feel validated for their own choices otherwise.
      Personally, I enjoy the company of male counterparts more - and in a lot of situations I prefer dealing with men.  Not because I think women are less capable (because generally they aren’t - and can indeed be considerably better) - but more because of either attitude or policies.
      Oh, and just so you know, I work part time nowadays to offset some of the ‘family responsibilities’ - mainly because I earn less - and whilst my hubby DOES have access to similar part time arrangements, it is considerably harder to implement (can be complicated when you’re in the Navy) - and he would do so (and intends to soon, after the birth of our second child).  Thats a choice - just like as a family we made the choice to sacrifice some things, and to spend a large portion of my income on childcare - because while I love my child, I also consider my needs for adult interaction, and feeling like I am still contributing to both my work (self-worth) and my family (in time and monetary contributions) is of value to me.  Oh - not to mention the fact that daycare provides my daughter with a variety of children and adults to associate with - to me feels as though this is a good thing (though I concede others have a different point of view).
      In amongst all this though - there is still a lot of work to be done, for both sides.

    • DG says:

      02:33pm | 22/01/10

      AMEN!

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

RT @matthewbedwell: @antsharwood i just lost it at the'bitter dissapointments' story. Epic . If only we all lived in such a blissfull bubbleworld!

ToryShepherd

RT @antsharwood: Meanwhile, a case from the glass half full files. Andrew Bolt has attacked me in a much nicer way than usual today http://t.co/mQqX6rOc

Anthony Sharwood

Meanwhile, a case from the glass half full files. Andrew Bolt has attacked me in a much nicer way than usual today http://t.co/mQqX6rOc

Anthony Sharwood

Trust you've all read Greens senator @larissawaters excellent yarn about the threats to the Reef on The Punch today http://t.co/i6aatFIO

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Reports of Ron Paul’s death are greatly exaggerated

Reports of Ron Paul’s death are greatly exaggerated

Reports of Ron Paul’s political demise have been greatly exaggerated and his tactical genius is…

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not…

Our Budget blade didn’t cut aid, it’s being paid in spades

Our Budget blade didn’t cut aid, it’s being paid in spades

Ten million children vaccinated. 2.5 million people with access to safe drinking water. And 30 million…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Real women like men who drink beer

Real women like men who drink beer

British comedian John Cleese calls them “beer fairies”.  It’s a euphemism for… Read more

198 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter