The taste I wanted was the taste to wake up to on a cold snowy morning, when the Christmas tree is up, something warm and spicy. Read More. On 1st November Over the weekend I have been over indulging on scones, scones, more scones and the occasional pumpkin cookie.
Despite all this I have not disgusted myself quite enough to stop from it altogether. An emergency plan is needed, I need to trick my own brain! With this goal and left over pumpkin puree from yesterday tonight I made and tasted my first Pumpkin Spiced Latte. On 14th April In Dinner. Getting a fairly regular supply of fresh beetroot is one of the best things about my organic vegetable delivery. When people normally talk about comfort food, they usually talk about typically national dishes, macaroni and cheese, bangers and mash etc. On 15th February Well you get these Chinese inspired savoury pancakes.
On 28th January Desert Woman. You mean to say that you are the first woman in creation to actually accept that women may in actual fact sometimes be responsible for their own lot in life? Do tell! On a more serious note, the point about men feeling entitled to make rape and death threats says more about you than men.
But don't let that stop you from making sweeping generalizations about men that perpetuate the vilification of males, even though the vast majority of men are decent people who DON'T RAPE and would probably put themselves in harms way to protect a woman in such a situation.
Can I summarise Lauren? Idiots bait idiots and then there is an idiot explosion. This explosion of idiots is then used as evidence against the patriarchy of which I am apparently a part. Where's my privilege? It does not matter, I am older, whiter and maler and as a result must consume in full any tripe that is put on the plate in front of me.
I hate tripe. Always have. So tell me, is it possible to be a feminist and a humanist at the same time or are the two mutually exclusive? Given that feminism mean believing that women should have all the rights, privileges and opportunities that men have, I don't see how it's possible to be e good humanist without being a feminist Could you refer to the Australian Federal, or State, legislation that is enacted with the intent of denying to all females Which Laws and which Pay Rates are not being acted upon?
In which industry? Why is The Union not doing something about this thru Trades Hall and why are the employees so stupid as to not realise it and legally act as they are entitled?
Or is this just a piece of artistic licence similar to what Dr Rosewarne describes in her article as Or should we call it a typical vanity piece involving a regressive political stunt that lacks statistical and intellectual credibility. Many industries are not governed by awards. Industries where employees negotiate their wages, such as law and finance, are notorious for underpaying women. There's even wage discrimination on the boards of businesses, and there's certainly no awards there!
Dinosaur cupcake toppers, roar, Grrr,Dino Party, prehistoric birthday party, dinosaur fossils,first birthday , jurassic Park cupcake topper. And if you made any delicious treats, share your pics! Is that obvious? Dare question patriarchy and patriarchy in all of its threatening, violent misogynist ugliness will loom large. The latter is called an award. Shoulda added a knife haha!!
David, Surely you see the problem with the argument you're presenting. The key word here is negotiate. It is against the law to pay female workers less for the same work, however the value of the work is perceived differently if it is done by a male or a female, thus women are not recommended for promotions as often as men. This was proven in tests where work done by women and men were evaluated anonymously or with the gender and name disclosed to reviewers.
The results showed that men scored higher when their name and gender was known to the reviewer while women scored higher when their name and gender was not known to the reviewer. So it is ingrained in our culture to value men higher than women and it will take time to change. It will change faster if we as a society point it out when it is happening. Actually your discourse is gendered. A real feminist believes in true equality, and thus goes out and lives it, treating all people equal.
There is no need to bring sexuality, whether physical characteristics nor 'identification' into discourse. Equals are just that, and there is no need to play up differences. And again, David "Given that feminism mean believing that women should have all the rights, privileges and opportunities that men have.
And is this equality merely women's equality with men? Or equality between the sexes? If it is the former then presumably it is only equality with men where they hold some advantage. If it is the latter, then what are our responsibilities to men, in addressing their disdavantage? It interests me that those who are define feminism as simply meaning equality often quote the Merriam Webster dictionary as their source. That dictionary is the usually the first that appears when I do an online search. I actually used to loosely sympathize with the feminist cause until my late 20's, when I started to become more and more aware of the fact that feminism and equality were becoming mutually exclusive terms.
I think my eyes opened about the time that reports started emanating in the early 90's regarding how effective feminist educators had become in re-balancing an education system that had formerly favored males, so much so that females had begun to outperform their male counterparts. When parents expressed concerns, the same educators, one very prominently on a major news site, basically professed a 'screw the boys' attitude, complete with smirking glances at the camera, that was grotesque to behold.
As a result, we now live with a system where females are exceeding males educationally to such an extent that we could well have a scenario in a decade or two where women will take up two thirds of tertiary level studies - so much for balance and equality.
That was about the time my support for feminism went out the window as I slowly began to realize just how self-serving and blinkered the movement was, not to mention the outright hostility to men that has gradually pervaded the entire strata of our society and become so ingrained that we accept the snide commentary and the daily attacks in the media such as this ridiculous and unbalanced article as a part of our daily lives. Headline: "Feminists throw mud at people, cry foul when it is thrown back". The reality is that civil discourse does not work with feminists. For example, they have been spouting the 'wage gap' myth for decades now and despite people politely proving them wrong time and time again, they continue to allege massive conspiracy and attack all men generally.
It may all seem harmless but we are a society in massive decline, and feminists have not only served as coal mine canaries to that fact, but have played a massive coal in destroying pillar that keep society stable such as family, tradition, community and social cohesion. The best thing people can do at this stage is to ignore the feminist trolls and quietly lobby politicians and organisations not to pander to their victim hood ideology, guilt tripping, etc.. I don't like extreme feminists. But I wonder how it can be women's fault that society is apparently destructing?. What have we done to destroy it?.
I am a woman, I went to school and Uni, can vote, have a bank account, get a mortgage, can get married if I want, divorced if I want, stay single if I want. I can control my fertility. I can do any job I am capable of, if I want. Now, which of those things cause the decline of society?. All societies change, I prefer life now than it would have been in the fifties thanks very much.
I expect it's mainly a generational thing. I am of course not saying that it's entirely their fault, but that they have played a large part in it or at very least facilitating it.
It is possible however, that they are destructive symptom of societies collapse as opposed to one of many direct causes, its even possible that both of those scenarios are equally true at the same time. The reason they must, a bare minimum, be associated with the collapse of society is because of how crucial the things they directly affected are. The family, reproduction and similar things are easily the most important things holding up any society, and feminists will happily admit to having attacked and changed such things over the last few decades.
I appreciate your personal circumstances, but I am strictly talking on a society wide scale far larger then any individual person.
Take for example, one of the most important statistics: reproduction rates; no one individual can affect it, but an entire society of course can and does. From this post, I can only assume that the argument goes that society will collapse because of the low birth rate.
follow link As feminism has resulted in society granting females such freedoms as the right to vote, own property and the right to choose whether or not to marry or have children, this undermines reproduction rates. Ergo, for the good of society, women must sacrifice some of their rights so the reproduction rate can increase. In practice, doesn't this mean hubby goes to work while wifey looks after the 2.
What you are saying pH is very useful when well rotted down and dug into the garden, but not much else. The world is overpopulated with a plague called humans. Society is being destroyed, not held up, by population growth. If feminism can help bring about a huge reduction in the human population, thereby keeping other life forms on the planet alive in addition to ants, cockroaches and rats which will outlive the human race then I am happy to support feminism. Lawrie, you are talking about non-Whites generally, whereas the opposite is true for us.
Everything single White person that is born is a net benefit to the world, as we advance it scientifically, ethically and morally; the plagues of people you speak of around the world depend on us to give them a future. Feminism is not going to stop population growth in the third world, but you are right that it would be a good thing. However, there is no sane argument you can make for it being good in Western populations. Please understand that it does not exclusively refer to per-position pay, but also across-career earning women are less likely to ask for promotions or raises, especially from men, and men are less likely to give them to women.
Feminism isn't a conspiracy, its a movement, and until I'm sure that there is equality between the sexes, it is still necessary. BTW, part of feminism is the weakening of assumed gender roles, which leads to better outcomes for men as well such as more even-handed custody disputes. There is no discrimination, no patriarchy, no misogyny; only freely made choices by individuals which alter earnings. What good is it dismantling 'gender roles' when at the same time you're dismantling reproduction rates, meaning there will be no daughters to enjoy all the 'progress' you've made?
It comes about by comparing averages for men and women without regard for differences in pay for different careers and life choices made. Recent figures from Britain have the wage gap in certain age groups going the other way. I absolutely agree with you, Onieros that the wage gap still exists. I fought to narrow it as far back as , when I and my male colleagues in the union in the UK downed tools to force the company I worked for to actually comply with the newly enacted law stipulating equal pay.
I've always been a supporter of genuine, pragmatic feminism. Interestingly the company had assumed that because the union was a predominantly male one, they wouldn't give a toss about the women workers. Well we did, at a cost of a day's pay and no benefit to ourselves, and achieved our aim.
This put a lie to the assumption that men didn't care about equality.