Ur welcome Amfortas; thanks for saying so.

Houellebecq: I take it this is your childish pot stirring again. Have you any examples of what you're alleging? (At least you give me and my oppressor a good laugh occasionally).

Stev: G'day again. Yes, I really like it that I've come across someone who does the same sort of mental-testing! It's kind of addictive fun once you get into it isn't it :)

I don't know if you have the patience for this and I apologize if it's a bit of a slog, but here is a tract by John Stuart Mill describing his observations of the ways the sexes were situated:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/jsmill-women.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill

It's not all indisputable but I've put it up for consideration because it's a bloke describing things at a time pre-feminism (more or less) and about 40 years before the accomplishments of the women Brian writes about. I chose him because I thought you might appreciate the male perspective; he was a very progressive person for his day.

Please bear in mind that even in my lifetime, women were pressured towards certain educational paths and occupations (in order: marriage, nursing, teaching, bank clerk, typist, shop girl or waitress or some sort of carer.). A F bank teller was not allowed to progress to branch accountant and despite doing the same work was paid 75% of a M wage. I couldn't get a loan without having a father or spouse as co-lender; I couldn't enter the university course I wanted to do despite achieving scores well above many male applicants who were accepted.... and so on.

I am not sure how Brian should tone it down - it seems to me that he has given a fair account of life as it was.

anyway,
see what you think and thanks for an interesting discussion,

pynch

'..women were pressured towards certain educational paths and occupations (in order: marriage, nursing, teaching, bank clerk, typist, shop girl or waitress or some sort of carer.). A F bank teller was not allowed to progress to branch accountant ... and so on.'

Why did you stop?

Good to see you're back on message. None of this 'understanding people's lives and behaviours in the context of their time.' rubbish any more. Oh, that's right, it's because we're talking about those nasty men and how hard done by the women were!

You keep on draggin' up all those inequities of the past lovvy. I know they give you comfort, allowing you to hang on bitterly to all those grudges. Keep painting your picture of women the downtrodden. Make no mention of the present, or the context of the time pre-feminism. Make no mention of the men being similarly restricted by their gender roles. No, it was only the women, always at the mercy of men. None of them, NONE of them were happy with their lot. All of them desperately wanted to be bank managers. They all still do too! All the women were chattel in abusive relationships with no orgasms.

Well, I'll never buy it. I've talked to many older ladies who loved their husbands and kids to death, loved their lives and still think it's sad many women now just have a different pressure to NOT be the feminists so-called 'baby factory' no matter how fulfilling they find it and how much they'd love to be a guilt free housewife.

I talk to the old men who very much valued their wives contribution to the partnership, the family they made together. How their wives ruled the roost, had them twisted around their little finger, but oh how they adored them.

It just doesn't fit in with the downtrodden chattel generation you constantly paint, and it's certainly irrelevant to today unless you're a bitter old shrew.

Pynchme, I think Houellebecq made my basic point in a little bit more of a colorful way. :-)

Stev: If whatever point you were intending to make has been accomplished by Houellebecq's misinformed gobbledegook, then I overestimated your capacity for a civil discussion.

What neither of you understand about feminism 101 is that it is not whether or not women fulfil traditional roles, but whether or not the choices are available to them (and by secondary association - males) to be something else.

One of my daughters and her spouse have chosen that she leave work to be a stay at home mother in a traditional household configuration. However, as parents we ensured that she (like our other two children) was equipped via education to be economically independent - so that the choice for her and her family is a viable one.

My son is looking forward to being a parent and wants to stay at home some of the time with his children (as his father has, for our kids - and me). He is under no illusion that staying home or looking after littlies is easy work. I like that a lot of his friends think likewise.

I chose to stay at home with my children, but fortunately had acquired the professional qualifications to work nights and weekends.

How can advocating that people are not barred from working towards whatever goals they're suited to be problematic? Why do men perceive themselves as victims because women are finally surmounting many traditional barriers ?

I take it neither of you read John Stuart Mill to be better informed - but if you do take the trouble - just think about whether or not you would be ok living as a woman in those conditions.

Houellebecq, it wasn't that ALL women wanted to be bank managers (you drama queen); it was an organizational rule that women could NOT be employed as branch accountants or bank managers. This is not very long ago and while laws change, industry or the wider society don't necessarily follow at any great speed - as your views indicate.

Pynchme, what do you think the point of Houellebecq's post was? Are you incapable of seeing that structural barriers to life choices are not necessarily a barrier to personal happiness?

Of course, you might be a follower of Gramsci and argue that anyone expressing happiness in an oppressed condition is suffering from "false consciousness" and that personal happiness is therefore an illusion. Just let us know if that is the case.

Let us hark back to the the first world war. My grandfather's first cousin died in action in France in 1917. His whole service record has been scanned into the national archives, including a handwritten letter from his grandmother giving permission (as his guardian) for him to go to war, and several eyewitness accounts of how he died.

How easy would it be to create an heroic narrative for my ancestor? However, the reality is that I have no idea how he felt about the war or his motives for signing up. Several war movies have been made that play down the heroics and focus on the idiosyncratic details of each solder's life - their fears, their hopes, their dreams. Despite what social theorists purport, society is not one giant structural bloc where everyone has the same experience and motivations.

As an aside, my great great grandmother was also an interesting woman - an English missionary to the gold miners on the diggings at Ballarat in the 1850s, who married a Chinese missionary. Surely another heroic tale waiting to be told, but I'm more interested in her lived experience.

Stev,

I like it how you can sum up my post in so few words:-) Though I still think my post was entertaining. Even if only to me.

pynchme,

Why do you never get it? My objections to feminism begin and end with the 'drama queen' aspect. The woe is me, women are the downtrodden, and always were, always will be. Like I said, the most offensive to me is housework as a gender equality issue. The women always the victims, of magazines for body image, their husbands for leaving the toilet seat up, of employers for not spontaneously offering them pay rises.

I actually want the gains of feminism to go further and get my 1 year paternity leave because I'm more than a little jealous of my wife. I'm not your average macho type. I love my kiddies and am not very career focussed.

Back to my objection. It's the painting of history, and projecting into the present of history this one-sided view of the world. Woman, always the downtrodden at the expense of men. Times were different (as you used as an excuse for white feather activity) and people had gender roles (Some happy some not).

But you constantly harp and harp on every little way women were constricted and really are bitter about it all. Men were constricted too! Men have a lot to thank feminism for, and conversely women have a lot to thank MEN for. Just think how quickly things changed as soon as women put their had up and said 'I want more'.

You have a black armband view of history for women.

I say: Society set up with man as provider, men get jobs and given loans as it's expected they'll be providing for children.

You Paint: The oppressed women, hatefully patronised and downtrodden and enslaved and prevented her financial dependence by the abusive misogynist men.

You don't hear men ever saying those hateful women stopping men from having a full emotional relationship with their children by denying them time with the kids and forcing them to go and earn money.