<When women had no rights whatsoever, the ony way they could compete or survive was using sex consciously or unconsciously (if that was your implication). Men have always had the power to say no>.Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 8 March 2011 4:46:50 PM

Pelican, this is as you describe it a very narrow point of view!

At what time in history did women have 'no' rights what so ever?

Following the anglo saxon history, if you were irish, scottish and male, you had no rights what so ever. If you happened to be serf or crofter, your life style depended very heavily on the grace of your ruling lord.

Female gentry were regarded as weak and in need of protection.

There was the code of chilvary, I read an article on labour laws and laws were introduced that protected women and children, but not men.

So Pelican how much research have you actually done, on history and human rights? Remember you are now judging the past from a modern perspective and values.

If you use the example of the right to vote, it was not long before women got the right to vote, that all men got the right to vote, it use to be restricted to certain select groups of men, such as land owners.
http://hereticalsex.blogspot.com/2006/06/green-fields-of-france.html

Men have always had the power to say 'no'. When and where? If you were conscripted, you definitely did not have the power to say no.

Feminists love myths, thus they created the 'Glass Ceiling', 'The gender pay gap'. Such is the power of night mares.
http://hereticalsex.blogspot.com/2008/03/power-of-nightmares.html

Interesting article and comments. From my own experience I've found that for their part, Australian men, have generally reacted positively to the growing equality of women. In fact, their own roles, being complimentary to those of women, are inevitably in some flux as well. Men are now permitted a more gentle and expressive personality than would have been considered appropriate a few decades ago. Like the feminine role, the masculine role is now more ambiguous, more flexible, more subject to interpretation by the individual. Resolving this kind of ambiguity is part of the challenge of social and cultural change. Under the old system, everyone knew what their roles were and most people unquestioningly behaved as they were supposed to. The system in the past constrained people, but it freed them from the need to make choices. There are fewer constraints today, but the individual now has the liberty - or the burden - to choose his or her own path to self-fulfillment. Our society today is individualistic and highly open to change and experimentation, and it is a society in which men and women are able to explore a wide variety of possible roles. True liberation from the restrictions of gender today means that all possible options are open and equally acceptable for both sexes. And, a person's individual human qualities, rather than his or her biological sex is the primary measure of that person's worth and achievement.

There we go! Its unethical to rip off the poor!~Raycom has the call: WOW! I wish I could be that person:) what a DICKens! 19th order is needed:) and I agree:) but 6.9 billion is knocking at the back-door, and the players don,t know what to do:) Clue! For every action....there;s an equal and ? something reaction:) I guess no-one told me. Sorry members.......its all so fair today......Iam just not thinking strait.

Maybe when I wake up tomorrow. "Men versus women" what joke. When you loose all you have because of the rich......Join me! Its getting worst.

Fat people in a fat rich would.............it must be heaven.

But I see no god!

OH I see...........those in power are the real gods. Now I get it:)

BLUE..........and FY!

All the best.

pelican,

'The culture of the time was dictated probably more on old notions of class than gender '

Yeah! Try telling that to your average feminist. We all know pelican, that if women ran the world there would be no war, and we'd all solve our differences around the kitchen table drinking camomile tea. It's the nature of men to be brutish domineering bullies, where women are consultative communicators nurturing all members of the team making everyone smile and hug each other.

'You can pretend our society was not formed on a patriarchy - but it is a historical fact - it is how we proceed from here that matters.'
Yep, but as robert said, men are always given total responsibility for the patriarchy.

That's why this is such a great article. I've read so much feminist crap, but this is the first article that discusses women and their responsibilities. I've said before, the irony is that feminism is actually all about men, which brings me to

James,

'Whilst the microscopic focus remains at all times on male behaviour, feminists can avoid dealing with the real issues about equality.'

Amen. Feminism is all about men. How many feminist articles do you read, where the topic is really men. An analysis of their behaviour, theories about their motives, their nature, what they have that women don't, how they treat women, their attitudes to women. I really think it's time for feminists to stop trying to work men out, and to just concentrate how women can change their own lives.

This Gender pay gap is a good example. Let's do surveys on how many women would be happy to go to work 4 weeks after the birth of their child and stay working (With hubby at home) until the kids are school age. I think we need quotas for families that will allow men to enter the homeforce. They are being excluded, and women can play a vital role in changing their attitudes to men and their caring abilities. Men have just as much right to enter the homeforce as women.

Houlley you know my thoughts about the gender pay gap issue. Those thoughts you repeat above are not what the women I know believe, many more of them taking a much broader humanistic view.

That kind of talk was the 'speak' of the 70s but women also received flak from some male quarters and emphasis was on the bra-burning aspects rather than the big picture. I reckon we are getting closer to something that resembles fairer outcomes for men and women.

I listened to part of Kate Ellis' speech today and the comments made on Q&A Monday night about the number of women on Boards. The interpretation was: if there is an idea of merit based appointments why is there only 8.3% of women on Boards suggesting only 8.3% of women are suitable. This analogy misses the point completely.

Numbers are meaningless if taken at face value. Perhaps women make up only 8.3% because there are more men vying for those roles thus more to choose between and a lesser pool of women. Women are still the primary care givers and many women only want part-time work to be able to balance the two responsibilities.

I am a bit sick of hearing this rhetoric when there is much more work to be done overall on wage disparity across different sectors and complete lack of emphasis on the fact that some women still want to be stay-at-home mums at least for a time.

Within the whole feminism debate nobody asked what do we do with the children? Or what is best for the children? That does not infer there is only one model for success, but at the moment there is not many offerings other than de rigueur of economic growth and by implication an emphasis on institutionalised child care.

Houellebecq

<How many feminist articles do you read, where the topic is really men. An analysis of their behaviour, theories about their motives, their nature, what they have that women don't, how they treat women, their attitudes to women>

Whilst this is somewhat true, lately I have been considering that maybe it is more about putting huge wedges between male and female relationships.

Lets take for example the early 1960's when it was claimed that marriage was a patriarchial construct design to keep women enslaved. Notice the negative perspective on heterosexual marriage.

So marriage was viewed through the lense of negativity, rather than a relationship where caring, mutual respect and nurturing were taking place.