Friday, May 25, 2012

Gender segregation of magazines in public and private sectors in Australia

Sex segregation of recreational reading offered at an Australian public library. This categorized way of displaying magazines is a new development. The magazines were previously displayed in alphabetical order of titles.

Sex segregation of magazines for sale in a supermarket in one of the two major supermarket empires in Australia

God forbid that some bloke might mistakenly pick up a copy of the Australian Women's Weekly and try out some new recipes for the family, or some confused female take up bodybuilding or purchase a muscle-car and chuck a few doughnuts. Australian ladies are only interested in making doughnuts in our kitchens, because we all have female brains.

Three of my blog articles about gender segregation in Australia:

Young Aussie school children self-segregating by gender - a sign of the times? 

New wave and old-fashioned sex segregation in everyday Australian life, and around the world

I'm none the wiser....


Justthisguy said...

When I look at the magazines offered for sale near the cash register at the grocery store, I think that 19th amendment to our Constitution (the female vote) was a bad idea.

Just to be fair, I also think that universal male suffrage was a bad idea.

In a rationally ordered polity, _I _ would not be allowed to vote, as I have no income and no property.

Lili Marlene said...

I'd be happy to allow you two votes. The rich have plenty of influence, let us not forget.

Justthisguy said...

I like one of Heinlein's ideas: You have to solve a quadratic equation to be allowed to vote. If you can't memorize the quadratic formula and keep it current in your head long enough to get from the clerk's table to the voting machine, you ain't got no business deciding matters of life and death for your fellow citizens, which is what you do when you vote.

I am not kidding. The State reserves the right to kill us, or coerce us into killing others, and to do all sorts of other evils.

If The State were run by Christian Gentlemen I wouldn't be so annoyed by it. Unfortunately, The State seems to be run by sociopaths.

Justthisguy said...

Or, we should have it as the Founders intended here in America. That is, you don't get to vote unless you show up for militia drill with rifle, boots, rucksack etc.

I think the local militia drilling on the courthouse square would have a salutary effect on the politicians in said courthouse. That is, it would remind them of their duty, or make them pee in their pants.

And volunteers only, for foreign wars.

Lili Marlene said...

I do like the idea of a bit of an intelligence test for voting, but I'm afraid if you suggested presenting the masses with a bit of maths dyscalculics might object, and also folks who think maths is for males.

I fail to understand the militia thing. How is that relevant to today? We don't need soldiers, we need volunteers to help hand feed masses of demented old people in nursing homes. Some oldies are actually under-nourished because they can't feed themselves, and the nurses are too busy. 2012 needs an army of nurturers and arse-wipers, and bullets are not an ethical approach to the problem.

Justthisguy said...

Well, I did my duty by my own aged parents, with the arse-wiping, and all. When my time comes, I'll be just screwed, having no offspring, and will be parked in some government facility and attended by incompetent third-world "immigrants." Why, yes, I am a bit of a racist. Sexist, too.

On the militia thing: It assures that one has "skin in the game", that is, if you are to have the power of the vote, to elect judges and such like, you must take the responsibility
of standing in front of a bullet, if necessary. It is classic republican theory. Better a militia than a standing army. It keeps the power in the hands of the people.

Justthisguy said...

On "skin in the game":

I mind a story about a guy who was teaching kids to make kites, or watercolors, or something. He was providing all of the materials himself, but insisted that each kid pay a pittance, half a dollar or so, so the kids would take it seriously and work at it.

This is why I would not mind a moderate poll tax in order to vote.
Lessee, I believe an average cigarette habit in the USA will cost one about $800 per year. Assuming yearly elections, let's set the poll tax at 10% of that, or $80/year. If you can't think ahead far enough to cut back 10% on your bad habit and put the money aside, I don't want you governing me.

Lili Marlene said...

I'm sure many would say you need more incentives to vote in the US, not less.

Justthisguy said...

There are many smart people in the US who have given up on voting, because they think it will have no effect on the system. I am sorta halfway like them; I always show up for elections, but tend to turn in a mostly-blank ballot, or write in my neighbor's or cat's name.

Then there are the dumb people who don't vote. I am happy that they don't vote. We should not stir them up to vote. I mean, look at what happened in 2008! They got out the dumb vote and now we have the O-hole in the White House.

I voted for McCain in '08, not because I wanted him for President, but because I thought he was the lesser evil. On talking to others who voted for him, it seems they all have the same opinion, We held our noses and gritted our teeth, so to speak, when casting our ballots. Had McCain gotten in, I would have sent him cartons of cigarettes and big packages of bacon, in hopes that he would stroke out and Sarah would become President. I think she has bigger balls than he does, at this time.