sub23

F.N.F – Far North Fathers

Ph: 4055-0034 , Fax: 4055-0249

Address: 55 Christensen St. Machans Beach, Qld.

2 August 2005

To:

Paid Work and Family Responsibilities Submission

Sex Discrimination Unit

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission

GPO Box 5218

Sydney NSW 2001

By email: webfeedback@humanrights.gov.au

Re: 2 JUNE 2005 DISCUSSION PAPER - SUBMISSION

Dear Sir/Madam,

Below are a number of points in relation to the Discussion Paper.

Equality

There have been numerous papers written around the world about the notion that: The unqualified equality of the unequal is in fact discrimination.

Women can perform all tasks men can perform, however men cannot give birth.

Yet, the world is set upon achieving “…full equality between men and women”. (Preamble Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women GA Res 180 (XXXIV 1970) 19 ILM 33 (1980) & Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) s 3(d) ) – as quoted in your paper).

And HREOC believes that “…[e]quality for men and women should be recognised in all spheres of life” (p 5 in your paper).

It follows that the Convention, the Act and HREOC’s goal is discriminatory and biologically impossible. The goal may apply only to human androgynous societies, and those do not exist.

Differences

There have been numerous papers written around the world about the notion that: A man’s brain is different to a woman’s brain.

The average woman is more emotional and more nurturing than the average man. It has nothing to do with conditioning. Many, if not most, in the human world accept it as fact. Is it wrong?

Yet the only differences the Discussion Paper depicted were differences of perception (eg, that women are perceived to be more emotional and nurturing than men) and the fact that humans with female organs are called women and humans with male organs are called men).

Given the fact that the paper ignores anatomical differences, a reader may wish to replace the term women with the term humans with green shoes and the term men with term humans with blue shoes and reach the same conclusion HREOC would reach about the equality of men and women.

The Convention, the Act and HREOC ignore the average psychological traits characterising a particular gender and instead focus on the genders’ performance data. By so doing, HREOC is ignoring the average psychological traits characterising a particular gender and is trying to establish services that would influence future performance data.

(The Discussion Paper is seeking comments about maternal gatekeeping. Doesn’t it say something about suspected average psychological traits?)

Further, anecdotal accounts reveal that women do not, and do not wish to, listen to men, and that men do not, and dot wish to, listen to no-one.

It follows that programmes and services devised by men for the benefit of women are only lip-service services, whilst programmes and services for men devised by women (and/or men) would ‘fall’ on deaf ears.

Your data is not wrong in respect to the fact that men do not utilise services. However, as mentioned above, your conclusion, that men would utilise services if those services were appropriate is incorrect. By definition, men do not utilise service.

It follows that HREOC, in this regard, acts as an Orwellian manipulative monster which tries to have men take the load off women’s shoulders by attempting to encourage the assimilation of men into the ‘women’s race’.

The Role of Men

There have been numerous papers written around the world about the roles of men in European societies.

The current roles may be described as: Sperm Donors and Women’s Helpers.

It used to be thought that men were needed for wars, for defence and for crusades, but those are no more. In A Critical Introduction to Law, Mansell, Meteyard and Thomson (3 rd ed, 2004) reached the conclusion that across the globe and through the years men needed to marry and to have children in order to link themselves (men) to the society in which they lived. Men exerted control over women for that end.

Mansell et al’s explanation must win by default, because there is no other viable explanation.

So where are we standing today? Women can perform all tasks; men cannot exert control over women and 50% of men lose their link to society by separating from their wives and, practically, from their children.

HREOC’s solutions, whatever they will be, will be wrong by definition. HREOC’s recommendations to establish services, whatever they will be, will be wrong by definition. Solutions and Services are women-speak. The statistical average man does not and will not use services. The more services for men are advertised the more men become isolated. Services for men is a contradiction in terms.

Senior Government Officers

The statistical average Senior Government Officer is a person who is devoted to his/her job. He/she spends many extra hours collating and reading material. Senior Government Officers do not have balanced lifestyle. It is therefore hypocritical for a Senior Government Officer to promote balanced lifestyle.

Will Commissioners, Ministers and the like, ever be allowed to do their job part time for HREOC’s ideal that “[c]aring work will need to be supported and shared more equitably in order to meet the greater demand for care as the population ages and ageing parents increasingly rely on their children to enable them to remain in the community” to work?

Is this submission relevant?

Every paper contains some assumptions. Your Discussion Paper contains two significant assumptions:

1. That there is an area of concern: the continuous current and foreseeable increase of workload on women;

2. That the international and the Australian community wish men and women to be unqualifiedly equal.

It follows that submissions which question any of these assumptions may be considered irrelevant. However, ignoring such submission would deem the academic integrity of HREOC irrelevant.

What does the future hold?

Will women start collapsing under the increasing workload?

Will men share the caring with women?

Will nothing change?

Will men become increasingly alienated from society?

Will newly born Australian baby boys be deemed useless and be drowned in rivers as baby girls have been in China?

Or, will they assimilate and become the non-child-bearing women of society?

Will society ever again celebrate the differences between men and women?

What do men in Sweden (where workforce participation of women is over 80% according to your data) say about their position?

Will a 25 hour week contribute to a better balanced lifestyle, sustainable economy, sharing of care, integrity of the nuclear family?

What to do?

Discard the assumption that the international and the Australian community wish men and women to be unqualifiedly equal.

Republish an amended Discussion Paper and include a question regarding gender roles.

Take it from there.