It would appear that feminism might just get a C- with women from third world countries.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/feminism-curbing-third-world-women-20101029-177ju.html

<However, on occasion, this feminist discussion slips into racist rhetoric that is oppressive to these women, just like the patriarchies they flee.>

<Imperial feminism is a term used by Pratibha Parmar, a black British filmmaker, to describe the struggles of black women in Britain in the 1970s, when the wave of feminism which emerged rarely captured the experiences of those women. If it did, it was often from a racist perspective. It claims to stand in solidarity with Third World women but in fact perpetuates stereotypes of these cultures as backward through the use of marginalising language and sweeping assumptions.>

Gee whiz, sweeping assumption, and perpetuating stereotypes, what would you know, that is the same tactic used us blokes.

Wonder what is driving it? Narcissism, personality disorder? Neurosis

hi Jefferson, the reason some men have trouble with the family court is that its not in a child's interest to be placed in the custody of a male who constantly whines and whinges about women. You wouldn't seriously consider yourself for custodianship of a child if you were on the bench would you?

hi JamesH, why do you think there is men?

Jefferson, while I agree with you that he feminist position is ethically dubious and I've done plenty along the way to stir them up, I don't agree with some of your views either.

Perhaps the biggest advantage of feminist activists is that they have successfully made the bearing of children a matter of feminist doctrine, instead of a cooperative act between both genders to the benefit and cost of both.

Your own comments seem to suggest that you agree, which I find disturbing.

Cornflower, I think you've missed the point. This article is about the present time, which the Age of Feminism and is trying to say a little about how men might find a way to be accommodated within that dominant ideology. Trying to discuss the topic without mentioning feminism is like trying to discuss cold war America without talking about Communism.

In a nutshell, what most people want is to be valued as productive, useful members of society. Feminism denigrates men and undermines that sense of being a valued contributor to the common weal, while placing unreasonable expectations on women who just want the white picket fence lifestyle.

James, I saw that article - what an excellent piece. She goes straight to the heart of the dishonesty and elitism that is Fabian Feminism (or "Imperial Feminism" as she puts it).

No matter who's in charge of the trough, they still act like pigs.

Thank you Robert rather belatedly
My brush with feminism began in the early sixties.
Not at an intellectual level necessarily but at the level of developing a more just society
Beginning a teaching career where women were paid about 80% of the salary of men doing equal work
In Qld. women had to resign at the end of the year and apply for their positions at the beginning of the next next.......no holiday pay
Marrying at a time when one was expected to stay at home and eventually care for the children while the man went to work
Things needed to change and we gradually fought for a more realistic view of women in society
Later there was the fight for women priests in the Anglican church
I know little of "Fabian" feminism or other brands for that matter but I do know that we fought hard and long for very basic issues to be addressed.
Daughters in the next generation who divorced and raised children on their own with little financial or other support gave me an insight into the difficulties of family break up and consequent responsibilities towards children
Now with grandaughters whose life expectations are more equitable because things have changed I feel it was worth the fight
Perhaps each generation has to address its own needs and solve the problems of its time

whistler
more sneering and personal argument, ho hum.

GAJ
Yes interesting. When my wife joined the workforce as recently as the 1980s she applied to Forestry and was told simply "We don't employ women".

But you're still not addressing the issues I have raised. You simply talk of any advantage to women in terms of "right" and any disadvantage to women in terms of the man's "responsibility".

Antiseptic
Similarly, the idea that raising children is the responsibility of both parents is the epicentre of patriarchy. It's what made it possible. Before that, women had to freelance sexual services to obtain supplementary subsistence.

You're still not addressing the fact of the difference between the sexes, as sexes, not as genders. The effect of presuming that the responsibility should be equal is that
a) it assumes an equality in fact that does not exist
b) it imposes on men the cost of the difference
c) it override's men's "right", as the feminists would say, to their own differenct values and interests.

And no-one has yet shown why such a responsibility should exist. All anyone has done is talk about a "responsibility" as if they have already proved it. In the circumstances, this amounts to arguing "Men should pay unequally for women's differences, because men should pay unequally for women's differences." It's invalid.

The whole point of using the law is that it enables people to initiative violence that would otherwise be illegal: to send people armed with weapons, physically seize someone, and lock him up.

It is fine to assert that men's biological causation of children gives rise to a *moral* obligation. But what the feminists need to show to justify a *legal* obligation is an ethical justification of the use of aggressive violence. So far they haven't done that.

Their argument is that men biologically cause children. So? Women biologically cause sexual desire in men. Does that establish an ethical justification to use violence to obtain satisfaction of that interest? That is the ethics standard of the feminist argument.

I wonder why nobody has taken on the simple basis of Jefferson's argument. It's a simple and worthwhile thought experiment.

To attempt to summarise...

Patriarchy was a social construct whereby men earned money to support woman and children, and women looked after their man in return (sex and cooking). Not sexy but that's the cold analytical deal that is assumed. That is also the characterisation feminists have long used in their critique of patriarchy. This is important, Jefferson's representation of patriarchy concurs with feminist critique. So, pelican, if it's derogatory to women, so is feminism.

Personally I think many men were loving fathers who loved their wives and women saw their husbands as more than a meal ticket. But feminists have long argued women were chattel, and men were more often than not abusive wide-beaters, and this arrangement only suited men, and no women were happy. That's the predominant picture that is painted. It doesn't gel with my reality, but maybe my family and friends are just really nice.

Now patriarchy was broken down, and we now have women don't have to have sex with their husbands without consent. But, now we have laws where men have their money taken and given to their ex-wives without consent. So men still hold the responsibility of patriarchy, but women don't. Why is this so? Nobody has taken this on.

Well, for one, the law still applies to women, and women who earn more can pay child support. Women also aren't allowed to rape their husbands, even though I suspect most men would really love for this to happen. So, even though it isn't used much, the law is there.

But, we have laws that marry people off if they are lovers for 2 years in the same abode. This is something feminists have pushed for, in order for women to gain the patriarchal benefits of marriage. So feminists pushing for the protections of patriarchy even for women who aren't married. Who would've thought.

Men really need to fight against this modern version of men as mere chattel. Patriarchy is a job lot.