No, I’m saying that as the only party to be anti genocide, if Australians cared about it as an issue, their votes would have increased, not decreased.

Yes, especially tricking kids into surgery, despite all the research saying transgender surgery is less regretted than many successful cancer surgeries. And despite the fact that usually gender affirming care for kids is puberty blockers to allow them to make a firm decision when they are older. In fact, to help prevent the fact that kids are more suspceptible to persuasion and confusion.

Irans response is pretty clever so far. Proportional and restrained, with warnings. I don’t doubt that’s more because they know the USA Israel wants a war and trump is foolish enough to be led into one. Of the repercussions were less and they matched equally, they’d have done more. I wonder if next is spread into Qatar, UAE and Saudi. All the regimes playing proxy wars are now having them come home to roost.

That’s what China see,Ed to do too.

Yes, I agree, but they were still the only party that were opposed to genocide and nobody cared enough to vote for them.

So whatever your views of the greens, the voters view of genocide was that it wasn’t important.

Sticking to principles is the opposite of flip plop. I agree, they are not pragmatic, though. However, no other party with a chance at a seat was anti genocide. If they did the same or better, the argument could be made that aussies care. They did worse nationally. Aussies don’t care.

Yet, the greens received less votes and were the only party with an anti genocide agenda. Like America, Australia was uncaring at best.

The country gets the representation it voted for.

It’s all a house of cards, so it may all come crashing down. A few have tried and failed to harness MAGA support. Ron DeSantis being the biggest crash and burn.

That’s both Australian and I Australian at the same time. Well done. You’ve broken Aussie stereotypes forever. A real “yeah, nah”

It certainly should. Of course they shouldn’t shoot themselves in the foot, like Trump is, but it’s like play chess with a pigeon. It’s not about normal tactics.

I don’t disagree that they should have responded when Crimea was invaded, a decade ago, or Georgia 15 or 20 years ago.

I think Ukraine deserved protection based on those agreements, which were made with world interest at heart.

The crux of the matter is that the USA can’t be trusted to uphold any agreement with Trump at the helm. The UK is providing assistance but insufficient on their own.

Ukraine is not part of NATO, so there was not the same clear line of action and response.

Whether Russia was bark or bite is irrelevant when you send your own citizens to die in a war, protecting a different country. You need the political will and popular will to do that.

Those red lines Moscow made have incrementally dropped, without escalation outside ukrainez which sucks for Ukraine but is what the other allies would want, short of peace.

Putin is a violent demagogue and the only response is to destabilise him, which means being the war and sanctions to all Russians so that he doesn’t have the political will not support to continue.

Appeasing him by allowing Crimea to be annexed will only mean he tries again there, or somewhere else in the future.

But Ukraine is not part of nato, so although nato members were not happy, they risked a larger scale war by attacking directly. The point of nato is that Russia risks it by doing the opposite. And it only works if they aren’t bluffing.

Lol, yes, as a gay man with 2 kids, I’m unable to appreciate the struggles men might have in raising children.

You seem to think we all can make choices without consequences. If women choose not to raise children and instead return to work rather than their husband, they are judged for it. If men do so,.it is seen as normal and expected.

Couple make choices but part of our choices are framed by how society is set up to allow those choices. Would more women choose to take more time with their children if they knew their career and finances would be unaffected? Would men too?

Would more children have the love and care they need if we allowed people to make the choice based on how they think the kids are best raised, rather than from financial pressure?

The crux of the matter is, how society is set up affects these choices, materially and in peer pressure to conform. As it is currently, that means women take more of the childcare burden and face financial consequences for it. Outside of childcarez they face discrimination on the basis that they MAY have children in the future. Assertive women are seen as bitchy. Assertive men are seen as go-getters. Professional women are less likely to find and marry a partner, even if they wish to, as men find it emasculating… professional men find it easier to find a partner as they are seen as accomplished. Then we have the issue of how much each role is paid and roles offering flexibility to allow child care being paid less.

Basically, the cards are stacked against them but they can choose to fight at every step. Due to the fight at every step, few advance to the upper echelons and the average woman is paid less at all levels. Sometimes for the same work, sometimes as they are overlooked for promotion to higher paying roles. Either sucks.

I don’t know if you’re purposely missing the point. Some of the world’s wealthiest people are billionaire women. That doesn’t mean sexism doesn’t exist. Lots of women having high paid jobs doesn’t mean there aren’t more women than men being paid for the same work, or for similar amounts of effort.

You talk about me wing one sided while thinking women doing fully time child care would have time to study to advance their career? Lol, no.

Children take a large amount of time and resources to raise. The way society is set up, women are expected and obliged to sacrifice time, men are expected to provide resources. In the mens case, this means pressure to advance, through promotion or a higher paid role. For women the pressure is to cut down on work and responsibilities at work to the detriment of their long term career.

You talk about men having to sacrifice a preferred career ro take a better paid one. How do you think it goes for the woman’s preferred career while full time caring for kids? The end result is both parties would lose their preferred careers but in the man’s case he ends up wealthier.

Men are shouldered with the financial struggle? Do you mean in a couple with a relationship? So, from your hypothesis, both parents have pressure placed in them by having children. In men’s case it’s to their financial benefit and for women it’s to their financial detriment. Does that not make society sexist in your view? This kind of sexism is what is called structural inequality. It leads to lower wages for women. However, as much as that is an issue, there is also an issue of women getting paid less for the same work. That also happens but can be harder to measure

Yes, everyone on the system can choose to partake differently but they are swimming against the tide tondo so.

I’ve also seen women with no children with both low and high salaries. The point is not what is possible to happen, but what tends to happen. Women get childcare imposed on them at the cost of their careers and income.

Then there is also the problem that jobs traditionally taken by women are paid less than men. So, again, a man working as a nurse or in childcare is paid less also, but the level of education and work required for these roles is not commensurate with the pay for similar roles for men, like in trades.

Part of the gender pay gap is because women have to leave their careers to raise children. Either because of societal expectations or the father is not present. Same pay for same work is all well and good when you have only one to think about.

Add the loss of income at that time, to the loss of experience and chance to advance. Then add discrimination and sexism.

I thought a bunch left the diplomatic core over the last number of years?

Yes, I was thinking the same, but a part of me thinks we shouldn’t be giving these people the attention. It’s a self perpetuating illness. Others, even less deranged, may be tempted to copy if it gains popularity.

Sometimes the reason there is no use for it is because the data was unavailable. With larger data throughput, more and better services may become available.

Even when you consider common stuff like gaming, it often takes a while to fully download or update games.