I've always supported the feminist cause and welcomed criticism of patriarchal culture. But lately I find myself frustrated by the fairer sex. In my experience they're the loudest critics of feminism; there the ones I see on the News, patriotically coddled in the flag--effectively censoring criticism of Australia's military roles, or of militarism in general; they're the ones who monopolise and thereby fuel the consumer culture that's destroying the planet; they're the ones who seem to go in for religion at its twee nonsensical worst. And where are the female intellectual radicals working "outside" culture; the only ones I know of spend their time proving that the system can't be overturned. Are there any genuine female anarchists out there? I'm not for anarchy (too messy), but I am for anarchic discourse. Can anyone restore my faith in women? Are they movers and shakers? Or are they the perennial preeners and peace-maker?

Dear Sqeers,

I don't recognise the women you're
describing in your opening post.

The women I know are highly individualistic.
They explore a wide variety of roles.
Most of the women I know combine a career
with a family, and their individual human qualities,
rather than their biological sex is the
primary measure of their worth and
achievement. Today, the women I know have the
liberty to choose their own path to self-fulfillment.

As for pulling their radical weight?
The women I know have always done that.

Ok so I asked my husband to get the truth.

Me: Honey I am radical?
Him : OH YEAH, then started laughing for 5 minutes before adding the qualifier "in the traditional sense".

So I am Trad Rad and mad!

I share an interest in feminism. I find myself increasing disgusted with the hordes of women who are happy to accept the benefits of feminism and may even call themself feminist, yet they define feminism in a way that costs them nothing. Accordingly, they define feminism as being about choice and self-confidence. Choice means doing whatever they want and complimenting other women, no matter what they do. Self-confidence means telling people what they want to hear.

Choices have contexts and consequences. I have more respect for models of feminism analyse why women make particular choices and what the consequences of that choice will be. It is hard for someone to be all that they can be if they are making dumb choices. Certain problems cannot be resolved if women don't consider the impact of their choices. Over-inflating people's self-esteem can set them up to fail and provides little incentive for self improvement.

One of the original aims of feminism was to undermine paternalism, where women were thought to need to be sheltered. This obsession with self-esteem and applauding all choices is just as over-protective.

I am as confused as Foxy on this post. I haven't met any of the sorts of women who Sqeers and Benk seem to know of.

Sqeers, on the one hand you say that women are "..effectively censoring criticism of Australia's military roles, or of militarism in general;"
and on the other hand you ask "... Or are they the perennial preeners and peace-maker?"

Those comments just go to show the very diverse opinions of women in Australia, whether they are for or against feminism. They are as different as the opinions men have as well, so what exactly are you trying to say?

Ah then suzeonline and foxy you need to get out more, mix with the sisters.
See they see the problem is women enjoying life, being free to be what they want to be.
The sisters often have that tattoo on their arms you know the one, female with a warfies arms.
Fact is yes in matters they are concerned about ,understand women lead as often as men.
History is full of female opinion leaders.
But let us never forget, the idea if they do not follow others ideas they are failures is silly.