The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The cost of women’s liberation > Comments

The cost of women’s liberation : Comments

By Brian Holden, published 23/10/2009

The feminists of the 1960s set out to enlighten the average woman of the oppressed state that she was not aware she was in.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Mr Holden perhaps doesn't have any friends, or their lives might have shown him that views about all men being like this and all women being like that don't seem to bear any relationship to the real world. Wasn't it only in 1971 that the men in Appenzell Innerroden in Switzerland voted not to grant their women the vote because the men thought that the women seemed happy enough in their second-class role. I guess if it ain't broke don't fix it. Makes about as much sense as Mr Holden.
Posted by Poll Clerk, Friday, 23 October 2009 10:17:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah, Mr Holden your ideas of Womens' Liberation reflect the era when women in the main were denied education and access to well paid professional jobs. Accordingly, they had to stay in unhappy situations as they had no alternative.

You did not mention that it was the time when wives and children were left in the car while the husband went into the Pub for a drink or that Child Endowment may have the only money she had of her own.

Thank heavens things have changed. My daughter recently ended a long running relationship because of infidelity by her fiance. Thankfully, she was not married with 3 children and is a young Doctor. Snoopy
Posted by snoopy, Friday, 23 October 2009 10:20:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said, Brian - although as the comment from Poll Clerk indicates, many will read into it whatever they want to, even if it has nothing to do with what you actually say. It is something of an indication that when asked the right question in polls, about 80% of women agree with you.

I suggest you read the views of Marilynne Robinson in "The Death of Adam", who points out that one of the costs is a virtual halving in the value of our labour.
Posted by Anamele, Friday, 23 October 2009 10:35:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
what a gorgeous lament on patenalism and misogyny.
must be at least a score of spurious 'male' arguments as to
why women should remain under perpetual male supervision.
so much for that pesky equal rights nonesense!
but if "[m]en and women have different brain cell networks interacting
with different hormones" then how come the author is so lucid
at explaining what women think?
this article is a perfect advertisement for the provision of an equal rights
republic enacting law by agreement between women's and men's legislatures.
Posted by whistler, Friday, 23 October 2009 10:43:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with the author on several points.
I am sure my own mother and my late wife never considered them selves downtrodden or disadvantaged while home carers. When the youngest of our large family, by today's standards, was 8y.o. my wife, who had not worked earlier in our marriage, found and purchased her own small business and enjoyed that as much as she did her earlier task of caring for her family.
The price of homes has increased as two job families have become the norm so to a significant degree working wives are working to increase the wealth of the speculator, the wealthy and the banks.
When we moved into our first newly built four bedroom home I was, at 27 years of age with two children, on the lowest supervisory rung in heavy industry and obtained a 25 year housing loan at 5% fixed interest on a home which cost about 2-1/2 years salary.
That is not possible in today's circumstances.
Posted by Foyle, Friday, 23 October 2009 10:51:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Personally, the cost came to just under $2,000 AUD in the 1992-93 tax return. I have not received a tax refund since then because I would not lower myself to the level of filing an Australian Tax return after the excuse I was given over the phone when I called on receipt of that refund check that was neatly amended to exclude everything beyond the small change from the last $100.

When I explained to the 'representative' of the ATO that I had the receipt book in my hand, signed by my ex-wife for a weekly amount that I had payed in cash at around 50% above the government requirements, she told me that (paraphrasing from memory) "You could have 'stood over' her to force her to sign the receipts."

The best way to cope with sick imaginations like hers is to try to laugh about it and don't have anything to do with the ATO if that's the standard of professionalism they work on.
Posted by Seano, Friday, 23 October 2009 11:55:55 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My mother is 98. She must be one of those dreadfully downtrodden women, as she did not work from 1936, when she & dad married, until 1972, when she took a part time job. From 1946, after WW11 my father was a shoe shop manager, so we weren't rich.

For those young ladies, who can't understand how good she had it, I'll give you a picture, of her life then.

Friday. Dad would come home, with his pay packet, [remember when you got your money before the bank], unopened. They would open it, give me my 7 pence pocket money, & dad his. His payed for house maintenance, & later car stuff, when we finally got one.

I saw the same pay packet thing at many mates houses. That was what happened in most families.

Saturday. Mom & dad played tennis, saturday afternoon. They would entertain friends, or be entertained at night.

Sunday. We would generally walk to the beach, [no cars yet available] while the big baked dinner cooked. This was Tounsville for god's sake. Dad, & later, I would chop the wood for the chip bath heater, & the washing copper.

Monday. Mum would go into town, bank whatever money they banked, do a little shopping, then play bowls in the afternoon.

Tuesday. The lady came to do the washing, & the fruiterer, softdrink, & butcher deliveries came.

Wednesday. Tennis in the afternoon, & a movie at night.

Thursday. The ironing lady came in the morning, & cards, at the bowls club, in the afternoon.

Friday, some shopping, food deliveries, & it all started again.

I know most of the ladies are now crying for my poor mum, it was tough. Most of them will have to work for 40 years, before they get to retire to get it so good. The ridicules thing is, they can't see how they have been conned.

No wonder Ruddy can get awway with his CTS con, most of the blokes aren't much smarter.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 23 October 2009 12:32:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No one seems to be disagreeing that pre 60's society was patriarchal and that women were to a degree oppressed. The crux of Mr. Holden's arguement is that women are still oppressed, not so much by men anymore, but by circumstances both economic and social.

The question being asked is whether fact that some women may not have realised, or perhaps felt that they were oppressed, made them better off than their current day counterparts? Is ignorance bliss?

It comes down to choice. In 1960, women's options were few. There was an expectation that a woman's life would follow a certain path, the expectation as much by themselves as by men. Once she started down that path, there were few forks in the road. Good or bad, that was likely to be the way things were for life.

That is not so anymore. Women no longer need feel that they have no choice. It doesn't automatically mean that life is better. As Mr. Holden points out, there are a multitude of stresses that confront women today, and in many ways it is a more difficult life. Families still need to be raised and cared for, economic imperatives mean that work is a necessity, stability of relationships is much more difficult to achieve etc. I guess that's the price to pay for self determination and freedom to choose.

I think that's what the original "women's libbers" had in mind. Not an easier life, just one where women could make their own choices, good or bad.
Posted by lilsam, Friday, 23 October 2009 12:34:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Au took a wrong turn in the sixtees. Women and money are a bad mix.
Never before has au had so much debt, so much devorce, so many bastard children, and so much family violence. Marriage is seen as something that might happen after we have some kids of course.
40% of women do not know who the father of their kids are, genetics shows this up.
Posted by Desmond, Friday, 23 October 2009 2:04:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Family violence is a one-way street according to the law.

What would you do if you were woken up by some shadow fallen across the needlessly left-on hallway light by the maritial bedroom to open your eyes to the sight of your loving wife poised in mid-air across the bed with a 12" breadknife clenched between her hands and her eyes focused on your heart and a new and never-before seen grimace in her jaw?

Would you report her to the police after defending your life?
Posted by Seano, Friday, 23 October 2009 2:25:01 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
lilsam,

That's a pretty good response. I would have to agree with most of that.

A few things.

1. Brian, you're a silly old bugger. I'm sure your attitudes reflect the times you were brought up in.

2. Not ALL women were oppressed in the society Brian was brought up with, and a hell of a lot of marriages were a partnership where both parties saw each other's role as valuable, and a lot of women were happy with their lot. Just ask a lot of old couples. Quite often when I hear feminists talk, it's almost as if EVERY family consisted of a drunken abusive male and a trapped female with no way out, who desperately wanted a career. It's rubbish.

3. It's actually turned nearly full circle now. Women were trapped in marriages (as were men due to societal expectations but obviously at least had financial independence), but now a hell of a lot of men are trapped as they see that in a divorce, most likely, they will be leaving the family home and only seeing their kids every second weekend. It's not as bad as for women before feminism, but I'd say it's hard to dispute that men have more to lose than women these days in a marriage break-up.

4. At the moment, we are forcing a lot of women into the workforce who don't want to be there, who if they had a richer husband would not be there.

What is needed really to make it all work is for Men to be allowed (By their wives primarily, their bosses secondarily) to have equal share in child raising. Then women would have better super, and men would get to see their kids more often, and when a marriage breaks up, it would be hard to justify women getting the majority of custody.

I dare say less marriages would break up if both men and women could have better chance of obtaining a better work life balance.

Subsidised childcare for the middle class encourages couples not to do this.
Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 23 October 2009 2:58:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When I see women trying to act like men, when I see women refusing to mother their children, when I see women portrayed as purely sex objects, when I see women killing their unborn, I see as much 'liberation' as the Muslim women to whom most feminist ignore. The biggest losers from the feminist movement have been women themselves.

Thankfully despite decades of propaganda and brainwashing many women love being mums, wives and feminine.
Posted by runner, Friday, 23 October 2009 5:40:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree there are a lot of women with young children who are forced into working who would much rather not be. This is a real shame but I believe is a symptom of femininsm still having a long way to go rather than having gone too far.

The author also fails to mention the very real issue of lack of financial security for women who do not work - in "the good old days" it was a fair assumption that your partner in marriage meant what they said re "until death do us part" etc. However my own experience has found me in a position where, having given up work to raise my children while my husband became the breadwinner, has left me very much regretting the decision once he up and left with no notice. I am now having to work for an income much lower and in a lower position than if I had kept up my career over the years. I am not sure what the answer is but something needs to happen to reduce the amount of stress that families are currently having to deal with.
Posted by sajo, Friday, 23 October 2009 5:41:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said Sajo, I agree feminism still has a long way to go.
Women these days, while having more say in society in general, now have twice as much on their plates as their mothers did.
We now have to work both inside and outside the home, while many men continue to have just the one job outside the home. Not liberated at all!

Desmond, I agree that socially women are worse off now in some ways. There are more men willing to have sex with any woman- married or not, and then leaving them pregnant.

More men are violent towards women because women now try to stand up to them, instead of blindly agreeing to everything their man says.

Yes there is more divorce too. Woman are not so stuck in doomed relationships anymore, and are able to get out instead of being forced to stay with domineering or violent men.

These facts are often hard for men like you to deal with Desmond.
Posted by suzeonline, Friday, 23 October 2009 6:53:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[quote]"Yes there is more divorce too. Woman are not so stuck in doomed relationships anymore, and are able to get out instead of being forced to stay with domineering or violent men.

[b]These facts are often hard for men like you to deal with Desmond.[/b]"
Posted by suzeonline, Friday, 23 October 2009 6:53:21 PM[/quote]

The implication being that only a minority of men and women display the tendency to be domineering or violent?

Domination and violence from others are inherently 'hard' to deal with.
Posted by Etham, Friday, 23 October 2009 7:24:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An interesting thought provoking article by a gentleman who's lived long enough to have experienced huge societal shifts and observed many of the effects.

While not agreeing with all his theories I can see much truth in his writings.

My slant is that today women have many more choices. Men also have more freedom of choice. Marriage is not and never has been just a social or moral institution but an economic one in which a couple work together to provide the necessities of life and hopefully a few luxuries for themselves and any offspring. Marriages themselves require work - communication, negotiation, give and take. Nothing stays the same - good times give over to bad and bad to good again. There is probably more pressure on relationships today because the traditions of sex based roles are largely bygone. Also there has been a cheapening of the value of marriage and commitment to the detriment of our society.

Though there are many benefits enjoyed by women in Australian society today as a result of the Feminist movement there are also negatives. Whether this is a result of feminism or more to do with economic factors is probably the question I would pose.
Posted by divine_msn, Friday, 23 October 2009 9:53:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A good article but to try and place the blame on anyone point is useless within itself
People have got to get a common cause both male and female
When a union of a male and a female give rise to children then both have a responsibility to the child
People have then got to realize that that obligation is a lifetime obligation
As I have said before the feminist movement didn't need to have women doing the wrongs that man was already doing they needed to show the men a better way ie get home after work and enjoy thier time with the children and take a little of the burden off the wife and mother
Instead of pointing out to the women that were doing right by staying at home in a working marriage that there was a more free way to live they should have been using these marriages to show an example to the marriages that weren't working

Thanks Have a Good life
From Dave
Posted by dwg, Saturday, 24 October 2009 5:23:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All articles on OLO have to take a particular stand to be worth reading. There is a limit of 2000 words. I squeezed in two points in favour of women’s lib - while knowing that there were a lot more. But I had to keep to the chosen theme i.e. the cost.
Posted by Brian Holden, Saturday, 24 October 2009 8:31:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Commentary doesn't get much more despicable than a son begrudging
his mother the cost of rights to education, employment and opportunities
he has enjoyed with the view she was happy being a second-class citizen.

This article is further proof if ever it was needed that men are incompetent
to advocate for women such that the provision of a women's legislature
is an urgent national priority.

Does the author also advocate a return to slavery and the refusal to
pay Aborigines wages as a cost saving measure or the revival of
feudalism to contain real estate prices?
Posted by whistler, Saturday, 24 October 2009 12:17:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Does not really resemble my memory. I think more and more women were having to work. My mother always worked from 1948 until she was 55 in 1985. So more like, well if we are going to have to work we may as well do something a bit more interesting. I wanted to do architecture for eg..i was going to work whether I liked it or not, but was told that majority of those accepted are men and that few women are allowed entry. So off to secretarial school I went and failed!. So I had no choice as what work I was condemned to do anyway.

Perhaps being able to live on one wage was becoming more difficult. Chicken before egg eg.
Posted by TheMissus, Saturday, 24 October 2009 12:42:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Got to agree with TheMissus, many women worked from the Fifties through to the Eighties. Their experience was little different from that of men, most were shoved into the usual predictable jobs. It wasn't 'liberation' that changed things for women it was the coming of the all electric house, The Pill and new jobs that either hadn't been invented before or demand for them was previously in its infancy. Examples could be jobs created through changes in technology, the growth in (say) allied health and the thousands of jobs created by government forever extending its role.

What had a major effect on employment for at least thirty years post war was the very strong lobby of the RSL which ensured preference (often a requirement) for the recruitment and promotion of ex-servicemen. With all respect to these men and it is a thing that is rarely discussed, they were as a group responsible for the introduction and maintenance of practices that few modern employers and employees would accept these days.

This cohort was also responsible for among other things, the traditions of gambling and binge drinking that carries forward to today. It wasn't only women who were frustrated by the repressive, selfish traditions of this cohort, many men were similarly affected in a negative way, often being excluded socially and at work as a matter of course.

To be blunt, escaping the burden of the post WW2 traditions that held society back was really not possible until the loss of members reduced the influence of the RSL. It is not by coincidence that the glory days of the churches, especially the Catholic church and their repressive, controlling stranglehold on the nation, affecting both men and women, is tied in with the same period of history. It was all do as I say and never you mind.

Of course it can be expected that all of society and especially women would suffer some severe adjustment problems after decades of reactive, repressive government and traditions, but it is wrong to blame those adjustment problems on women's liberation.
Posted by Cornflower, Saturday, 24 October 2009 7:41:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Of course it can be expected that all of society and especially women would suffer some severe adjustment problems after decades of reactive, repressive government and traditions, but it is wrong to blame those adjustment problems on women's liberation.'

So they added some more fuel to the fire and we all reap what they sowed, both genders equally punished in different ways at different times, for the sins of the 'parent' even until the third and fourth generations.

The ship was already running off course before the ladies took the helm, but now these waters are not so predictable for fair-weather sailing. Let us hope that these storms pass by and calm humanity prevails once again.

Goodnight my friends.
Sweet dreams and see you tomorrow.
Posted by Seano, Saturday, 24 October 2009 10:12:22 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The costs to our society of keeping women 'at home' in the style of the 1950s is not acceptable today.

These costs include the loss of skills and talents in the workplace (the Australian Public Service had a marriage bar - so that any woman who got married had to resign), the costs of domestic violence as practised almost openly until the 1970s and the trauma of 'rape within marriage' being acceptable.

My mother did not work once she got married. She kept home, played tennis and met the needs of her family. My father had to work two jobs instead of one, so that he was only a distant person in my life until my mother died when I was 11. So my mother, by being the person that she was, actually kept my father from being an active parent. But that was how it was, unfortunately.

However this society is still in flux, as it should be. Men and women are still adjusting to the changes that the 1960s, 70s, 80s and 90s have brought. I became convinced some time ago that with new medical technology (ie fusion cloning using two embryos) than the 'man' in mankind only has about 8 generations in 'the West' before the term is as extinct as the male of the species, after which men will be superflous to requirements and we will have a brave new world of females only.

A world where the aggression and violence characteristic in males is completely replaced by the feminine: ie a world without males.

But so be it.
Posted by Dougthebear, Saturday, 24 October 2009 10:27:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
scarey eh!
grant women equal rights and within eight generations men will become extinct.

one more reason for law to be enacted by agreement between women's and men's legislatures.
Posted by whistler, Saturday, 24 October 2009 11:21:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think it is debt.

When I do think back, both parents worked, my father two jobs often, I still remember being poorer than some single wage packet families. I know they had a medical debt from when they first arrived as immigrants having no medicare back then, and was 10 years to repay if I recall correctly. So the difference may have been that obligation. So my mother was enslaved to debt.

However debts were repaid. Mortgages were based on a single income only, irregardless if the wife also worked. So debt was manageable and the mortgage paid off, no credit card debt so life was good once the kids fled the nest.

So when the wife's income was allowed to be used to assess how much one could borrow it doubled the amount to purchase driving up real estate prices and enslaving the wife (or house husband). So maybe it is simply debt that has taken this choice away from mums. When we stopped the sexist attitude of not lending money to women perhaps we should have reduced the amount as a percentage that could be borrowed overall.
Posted by TheMissus, Sunday, 25 October 2009 6:14:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fleeing the nest might be a good idea. There are still civilised places on this planet where men and women can live together as friends without the aggression nor the unattainable goals double-income inflation and mortgages just for a roof over your family's heads, and it's not about running away, but I suppose that many men brought up in the western world might have been taught like myself from a very young age to never fight a woman.

If she slaps your face, then step back, turn and walk away. That is the way that gentlemen behave. If you find yourself getting slapped in the face continually throughout your life in contemporary Australia, then take a good close look at your own behaviour, but if that is not the cause of it, then to further that learned-response, make sure you have your degree w/transcripts, and fly, fly away while you can still afford the airfares.

There is still intelligent life on this planet, even today. Australia being an island continent, it requires a boat or a plane, but don't give up on the entirity of humanity until you look beyond the horizon.
Posted by Seano, Sunday, 25 October 2009 5:21:51 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dougthebear < "A world where the aggression and violence characteristic in males is completely replaced by the feminine: ie a world without males."

Tempting as it may seem at times Doug, the scenario you paint seems very depressing! Most of the medical reproductive advances you speak of are of use mainly to either infertile couples or to perhaps lesbian couples and the odd despairing single woman.

These constitute only a minority of women in our world. The rest of us, I can assure you, are still quite happy to make babies the old fashioned way. Women's liberation won't change that.

The pleasure and companionship that many women enjoy with their male partners, family members and friends far outweighs the disadvantages of living with men.

Seano has restored my faith in mankind by his insightful post.
I must admit I become despondent at times trying to communicate with any man on this forum who does seem to at least tolerate us girls!
Posted by suzeonline, Sunday, 25 October 2009 5:40:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The cost of this process was the decommissioning of the traditional family.

As to what cost the children pay (or what level of benefit they enjoy) is proportionate to the successful division of family tasks that the parents (and children) negotiate.

Whilst I don't suffer at work, the reality is that I am here to earn money so I can enjoy my recreational time with my wife and children. If I had the 'privilage' to secure a fixed mortgage 20 years ago, I would have paid off my house and would be scaling back my working life and enjoying being with my wife and family a lot more than I can now.

The moral of Mr H's article was that we have all been entrapped by banks, business and economic cycles and all because we have politicians happy to cede our (the peoples) societal interests. Aspiration, affluence and...?

Sadly, as a society, people are becoming more commodified and our intrinsic value along with concepts of family, marriage etc, are becoming marginalised.

Thank God my wife is happy to put up with my imperfections and those trying times that children bring.

Let's face it, there is little societal pressure/judgement for her to limit her reproductive life to one 'partner' when a P&O cruise is just a ticket away. 'That' very sad incident says it all to me. Some blokes are just not fit for feminine company and some women are just too silly and all with such dreadful outcomes.

Liberation is built on mutual respect for ALL other people. Acting childlike (innocence, thinking the best of all whom we encounter), rather than childish (arrogant, selfish, using people for MY pleasureetc), is a key option and applies to institutions as well as individuals.

There remains a lot of hurt people out there that need healing, and a lot more who just need an economic chance to live, let alone prosper.
Posted by Reality Check, Monday, 26 October 2009 1:33:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ANY MARXIST ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS OF WOMEN'S LIBERATION WOULD SUGGEST THAT WOMEN ARE MORE OPPRESSED THAN EVER... BUT STILL ONE HAS TO SAY THAT WHILE BOTH WOMEN AND MEN FIGHT FOR A DWINDLING NUMBER OF JOBS, IT IS MEN WHO WILL HAVE TO GO AND FIGHT IN WW111- ...PERHAPS LIBERATION MAY MEAN MORE CHAINS AND PERHAPS MORE WOMAN SHOULD GIVE UP THERE DAY JOBS AND JOIN THE DEFENCE FORCES...BUT UNTIL THEN, YOU COULD SAY THAT WE ARE ALL OPPRESSED BY BIG BUSSINESS AND WAYWARD GOVERNMENTS, AND FORGIVE ME FOR BEING APOCALYPTIC, BUT WHEN IT COMES, THERE IS NO AMOUNT OF FREE THINKING WHICH WILL ALLOW ANY OF US TO BECOME COMPLACENT... ESPECIALLY AS IN THE SENSE OF WONDERING HOW WE SHOULD SPEND OUR SPARE TIME
Posted by sam_swestgarth, Monday, 26 October 2009 3:03:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Great article.
Every change will involve positives and negatives.
The positives of liberating women are well documented and generally well understood, the negatives are not so well understood. I reckon the author did a pretty good job.
On balance, you'd have to say the positives outweigh the negatives but it is completely wrong to say there are no negatives at all. Nothing is that perfect!
While the value of labour has decreased and the culture has changed and workers have generally lost out to companies (who now have a much bigger labour pool)...this is balanced by the fact that we are not breeding like rabbits and can afford some civilisation.
Posted by Ozandy, Monday, 26 October 2009 3:04:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Brian, now we know about your mother, but the real question is how does your wife or partner feel about this subject?
She was there when it was happening.
She would be able to tell us the differences it made to her life.
I hope her retirement is as happy and carefree as yours.
Posted by Hilily, Monday, 26 October 2009 4:42:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course women's lib was necessary, and of course the situation of different laws for boys and girls was (and occasionally, still is) ridiculous and wrong.
Having said that, I think the author has made some valid points -at least economically. The most important one being the undeniable fact that 2 income families have driven up the price of real estate to the point where you have to have a 2 income family.
I know a few highly educated women who love their jobs and their lifestyles. But for every one of these, I'd guess there are 3 or 5 or more women working dead end jobs, just because they have to. Child care centres are the biggest growth industry in this country, and I for one think that is not just sad, it's bloody wrong.
I have met just one woman who actually preferred working, to staying home with her child; which to my mind begs the question, why have a child?
I know that sounds terribly sexist, but a 1 income family doesn't necessitate a male bread winner.
I bought a farm when we had kids, so we both could be home to raise them.
Of course, it didn't quite work out the way I envisaged...
Posted by Grim, Monday, 26 October 2009 6:55:48 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grim I like your post. So often people can't seem to think beyond the woman's role - she is damned if she does work and damned if she doesn't.

I agree about the childcare biz too - very much so; but with so many family members living far apart I suppose there isn't the extended family network. Some people don't have much choice especially if they are sole parents.

As you say at the last, "... a 1 income family doesn't necessitate a male bread winner." This is so true. If only men could have got with the program sooner - the workload could have been shared; they'd have had less pressure on them too; could have had more time to enjoy being with their children - all that; and the cost of housing might have stayed in check... maybe.

However, it's not too late. Lots of professional women love having partners who are prepared to be the homemaker some of the time. I know I am the envy of so many. We have made sure that our son and daughters are capable in a few domains including homemaking. They are adaptable; their sense of self isn't totally vested in any one endeavour.

I suspect that is the way of the future - adaptability; loyalty; a willingness to compromise and put the needs of others ahead of one's own a good bit of the time. I think it helps too if we can see the consumer society for what it is and reject as many of the excesses as possible. It's still possible to survive on one income.
Posted by Pynchme, Tuesday, 27 October 2009 12:39:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whatever the price, women now have a choice to be people in their own right.

From the age of 6 kids are away from home for a large part of the day, and from 13 are largely independent. It would be ridiculous to model her entire existence on the fleeting period of parenting.

My mother never needed to work, but did so part time from when we were about 10 to full time later, and as a result could hold an intelligent conversation.

My wife works part time for the same reasons, and is interesting company unlike the ditzes that circulate the tea parties.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 29 October 2009 9:23:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You will never be any more than a shaddow minister, with a view like that.
Because she works makes her more interesting !
I don,t know how you come to that conclusion.
That would have to be one of the most biased things i have ever heard.
Even i would stand up for women with a remark like that.
You should individually send apoligies to every female that decides it's best to stay home and run a normal household.
Posted by Desmond, Thursday, 29 October 2009 10:07:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes feminism has its price and it should be alright to say so. This doesn't mean that we should give up everything that feminism has given both genders, just that people should be aware of all of the implications of any changes. I have more of a problem with people who want all of the benefits of feminism but don't want to pay any of the costs.
Posted by benk, Thursday, 29 October 2009 3:37:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Australia could have been very different if women had been able to retain the jobs they had during WW2 if they wanted to keep them and extend of course into other fields. What is also forgotten is that thousands of women marched to Sydney Town Hall during WW2 demanding active operational jobs in the military, but they were refused, not by 'men' but by the controlling dinosaurs in charge of the military and in politics.

That was also the typical conservative response and top priority post-war of politicians and employers, to reel things back to maintain the old order and to slot in as many de-mobbed soldiers as possible - which to their way of thinking was heaps better than providing any real counselling or re-training.

There is plenty of evidence from government reports that couples are delaying fertility not because they want to but because they cannot afford to provide adequate housing, pay for schooling and so on. Of course expectations contribute to the cost of housing, however it is wrong to say that double income families are the main or sole cause of booming housing prices when there is plenty of evidence that it is demand that is doing it and that comes from the continually increased record numbers of immigrants. Booming population growth from immigration equals booming housing prices. The same high annual influxes of immigrants are driving taxes higher to provide more government services and needed infrastructure.
Posted by Cornflower, Thursday, 29 October 2009 3:38:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
it should be remembered when considering cost
that the alternative to feminism,
where patriarchy was headed, is extinction.
if feminism is too costly so then so is life.
Posted by whistler, Thursday, 29 October 2009 10:40:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Desmond,

From your shocking spelling and archaic attitudes:

"You should individually send apoligies to every female that decides it's best to stay home and run a normal household"

I would guess that smart independent women frighten you.

I understand the need for time away from work during the formative years, however, while I respect the right of women never to seek outside employment and remain cloistered in the household (as much as I have the right to fill my hat with fruit and don a pink tutu), I don't hold their decision in much regard.

It is my personal opinion, and I am not about to apologise to anyone.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 30 October 2009 7:25:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister, "however, while I respect the right of women never to seek outside employment and remain cloistered in the household (as much as I have the right to fill my hat with fruit and don a pink tutu), I don't hold their decision in much regard."

While some might be slack in your view, the substantial majority are the glue that holds society together, working actively in their extended families and in the community. It is no surprise that so many of the voluntary bodies, including charities are reduced to hiring labour or folding because many of the women who were previously available as volunteers are now at work.

You underrate the value of the extended family (and the unpaid labour of love of the women concerned) to society because you don't understand it and probably you are pandering to the outspoken feminists. How did you think that most child minding was provided and without the need for expensive State financial support, regulation and quality control (QA of private providers, now that IS a joke)?
Posted by Cornflower, Saturday, 31 October 2009 7:29:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy