wow....this is precious.

AUTHOR:

Feminists see the increasing numbers of single mothers and female executives as a reflection of women’s liberation.

FEMALE CONTRIBUTOR (Briar Rose)

As a woman, I have to say that I find your deterministic generalisations about the innate nature of women and men extremely unsatisfying.

ME...err.."Unsatisfying" ? no kidding Rose ? at least you didn't deny the fundamental reality and truth of what Brian said.

You did however try to use exceptions to dismantle obvious rules.

You feminists have been duped by Marxist propoganda in the form of radical Marcusian feminist b/s about 'equality'.. something you had all along..without even realizing it. On some issues there was a tweak needed, but culturally, we were 'ok' by and large and the roles of male and female complimented each other, whereas now it's more 'competition'.... stupid really.

JP adds a bit of the wisdom of Solomon...

If materialism is true then determinism is absolute. We are all just chemical robots with no control whatsoever over what we do, say,....

and of course.. JP deserves a huge TICK for that grasp of the obvious (to all except the philosphically bigoted of course)

PAUL of BATHURST (or is it Asia Minor ? :)

"Within a Christian perspective headship is service to others not self."

*hoooray* for some decent input.

FRACCY joins the fray in defense of the women....

All women are naturally nurturers, all men are naturally warriors.

Oh noooooo.. there it is again... "if you criticize someone, you are 'hating all' of that persons group... *sigh*

As a general rule males are like this...and females are like that....
Put them together in mutual respect, complementary roles and selfless caring and life can be wonderful

It's nature Fraccy..please join the program.

<"You feminists have been duped by Marxist propoganda in the form of radical Marcusian feminist b/s about 'equality'.. something you had all along..without even realizing it. On some issues there was a tweak needed, but culturally, we were 'ok' by and large and the roles of male and female complimented each other, whereas now it's more 'competition'.... stupid really">

No Al, Marxism wasn't responsible for domestic violence, rape, child sexual abuse, poverty imposed upon women and children who were abandoned by their "servant leaders".

It was feminism that uncovered those issues and which has gradually worked inch by inch to obtain some justice and balance.

I'm sure that YOU were "ok". Your world worked for you; I can understand why you wouldn't question the entitlement that you believe is your right.

In the process of tweaking - just what did any of our "servant leaders" do, or even propose - towards making sure that other "servant leaders" who mistreated their spouses and kids; played up on them; drank; gambled; had affairs and so on, lived up to their (supposed by some) responsibilities? What were all the "servant leaders" doing about helping abused kids and women?

Al: <"Within a Christian perspective headship is service to others not self." *hoooray* for some decent input.">

Maybe an ideal and a catchy new phrase that we're hearing a lot; but it rings hollow because there is no proof whatsoever that it occurred, except in rare cases, outside of the 50s television screen.
As noted above - blatant fabrication.

Pynchme,
If feminism has been wonderfull for women, as we are endlessly told by feminists, then how come women's happiness levels have not increased?

Also, if testosterone is not good, then did nature make a stuff up by giving males more testosterone than females.

Opps, best not ask uncomfortable questions.

Hi Vanna,

<"If feminism has been wonderfull for women, as we are endlessly told by feminists, then how come women's happiness levels have not increased?">

I don't know which women or studies you're referring to. If your calculations include women leaving abusive relationships then I can't imagine the departee being "happy"; maybe relieved to be able to leave in relative safety and go on to rebuild an independent life. Doing that with a late start, some trauma baggage and maybe parenting a child or two alone as well is not an easy task. I think it's especially difficult for women who've been raised as traditionalists, with little emphasis on education or work skills and with the idea that some bloke will always support them.

As a parallel - women in Afghanistan. No doubt some husbands are very kind in their way, but is society organized in such a way that a female who is not treated kindly can safely choose an alternative. Are there any moves in government or at any level of the main controlling institutions, ie: men with any power, advocating for women to have equal rights to education and to be treated decently, or do all just turn a blind eye to the beatings, rapes and killings.

<"Also, if testosterone is not good, then did nature make a stuff up by giving males more testosterone than females.">

If testosterone is the source of energy and aggression, then most men prove that it can be channeled positively. Like - using strength to protect the weak and vulnerable. I think that how men choose to use their energy depends a lot on their socialization. Part of that socialization includes obtaining the approval or disapproval of other males who model acceptable behaviour and society's tolerance including whether or not we make excuses for bad behaviour like blaming hormones.

If, as you and the author propose, men are controlled by their testosterone then there isn't much of a basis for claims to being particularly rational and objective.

<"Opps, best not ask uncomfortable questions.">

I didn't find the questions uncomfortable.

Pynchme,
As a feminist, you may not have been told about studies into women's happiness, but women's levels pf happiness haven't increased world wide for some decades. Some studies conducted in Australia suggest women's happiness is actually decreasing, with increasing rates of depression.

You will also find almost twice the rates of menat illness amongst unmarried women than married women.

You will also find abuse is one of the least likely reasons for divorce.

You will also find the vast majority of males are not aggressive.

However, I have found that none of the above is rarely mentioned by a feminist, and anything said by a feminist should be regarded as being possible, but not probable.

There is a direct relationship between happiness levels and materialism. Poverty is at the opposite end with the same effects but for different reasons.

Getting the balance right is not easy and it is our economic systems that affect that balance more than any aspect of feminism.

I agree with some of the comments above. In my experience, when we become too self-focussed and not outwardly or community focussed there lies the foundation for unhappiness and discontent. Religion is only relevant in that context if one practices what they preach which is true of any doctrine, theist or non-theist alike.