Now we get down to nuances?
Briar Rose and RObert present to me nor so much an opposition as two poles between which we may find much of interest. Briar Rose is correct as far as Briar Rose goes, of course modern phenomena developed and evolved is derived of older forms, in the case of business from the times when women were more or less out of the field due to reproductive issues, to now (at least in the west). But that both sexes can play the corporate game indicates to me that capitalism is a field applicable to humanity rather than either particular gender.
If women can only become bosses by being like men, it also stands to reason that women have the same personality traits as men (ruthlessness, etc,) that could be played out in other fields of human endeavour. Unfortunately women running factories makes no difference beyond the difference in sex of the boss- look at Meredith Hellicar and Bernie Banton.
I think more along Barthe's "Mythologies" and his notion that, "the bourgeoisie always obscures itself".
I look to influences more tribal and situational than gender/"identity" related,the glass ceiling is anexample of this rather than necessarily relational to women on the basis of sex alone, it's about ironing out potential competition ,the fact that a woman may be a woman is only an excuse, not a manifestation of pathological hate based on gender.
What is more likeable about, say, a Janet Albrechtsen and a Gordon Gekko?
One wears trousers and one wears a skirt.
What else?

rObert, hegemonic masculinity is a term used in some discipline, can't remember what, maybe sociology, to identify the dominant expression of masculinity in our society.

It's used to point out the differences between various expressions of masculinity. I guess the colloquial term for hegemonic masculinity is masters of the universe. Alpha males, maybe. The masculinists who run things, as opposed to men who are as subjected to their dominance as are women.

Some women are hegemonic masculinists. It's a state of mind, rather than a gender but they are predominantly male.

Hegemony means the dominant political, ideological, cultural, economic group.

Because our dominant world paradigm is patriarchal, we have a global hegemonic masculinity, supported by both genders. Women support the patriarchy.

There will have to be a revolution to overthrow patriarchy and install a new paradigm. But we'd all have to give up our addiction to consumerism first.

I've been up all night, so this might not be as clear as I'd like! Somebody help if I'm being obscure

We will have to give up our addiction to consumerism in order to change things. The whole system is set up to feed the monster.

I believe women do themselves a disservice by devaluing their traditional role. I gape in astonishment as women try to straddle the gender divide when they have young children.
I was talking to a woman recently who had returned to her former managerial position in retail to work two days a week. She has one child in school and she placed her two younger children in daycare. After childcare fees, she came out ten dollars out of pocket, yet she's rapt that she is back in the work force - I think she's crazy, but she feels that it's the thing one is expected to do. She obviously feels more valuable for her participation.

This sort of gender-wide participation is only possible because we choose to instutionalise our very young children - and they in turn are indoctrinated into the system.

briar rose you are making sense (more than I'd make after being up all night).

I do think that part of the problem is that we have got so used to seeing some behaviors described as masculine that most are oblivious to it and the message it carries.

paul walter, I definitely don't see myself as opposition to Briar Rose. I greatly appreciate her posts and articles. My disagreements with her views (or wording) are rare.

R0bert

Robert, a slight misunderstanding, when I said "oppositional" I was speaking from the point of view of the discussion, as per that specific point discussed, as to the concept itself.
Like yourself, I appreciate an open discussion (for once!) on this type of issue.
Her (BR's) answer btw re Hegemonic forces and what's "beleived" was spot on. Pelican had the gist, I think.

Poriot,
I recently saw a woman walking down the road with four men.

She seemed very sober and very cheerful and very happy.

But why weren’t the men carrying out oppression and abuse and sexual assault?

And didn’t the woman know that the four men were male?

Brior rose,

“and all toilet seats are left up by men”

Ha,Ha. I’ve caught you out. Ha,Ha.

I was once a cleaner with security clearance, and we cleaned a number of government buildings such as police stations, taxation offices, schools etc, and we cleaned the toilets.

On not one occasion did I or any other cleaner ever find the toilet seats left down in either the women’s or men’s toilets.

The feminist complaint that men never put the toilet seat down is an example of the hypocrisy, double-standards, misinformation, half truth and general all-around bigotry of feminism, because women never put the toilet seats down either, and feminists know it.

Have you had a good look at the hierarchy of risk control measures? (not yet says Briar rose)

Here is another list of recommended risk control measures placed in order of importance.

http://www.smartohs.com.au/site/files/ul/data_text30/1363739.pdf

Out of 6 risk control measures, it places education at no 5 (or second from the bottom) in terms of importance, and no wonder feminists think that education is the most important way to control risk.

Still following their ideal of never getting anything right.

BTW.
What do you think of UNIVERSITY FEMINISTS having mandatory 0.0 blood alcohol content, and voluntarily undergoing random drug and alcohol testing, so as to set a good example for the students.

Maybe feminist could do something useful.