paul walter
Oh yeah, and so the way for a society to get rich is through socialism? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Good one.

The resurgence of the women's liberation movement in the post-Friedan late sixties and 1970's took a wrong direction that has bedevilled us ever since. The worm in the heart of the rose was the assumption that nature could be transcended, and that biological differences were irrelevant to social policy. Instead of re-investing power and honour in mothers, the assumption was made that to be "equal" women had to be like men. That women had children was belatedly discovered circa 1980, and since then there has been a desperation-fed effort to make paid work mother-friendly. The entire domain of thought needs a complete rethink. This does not mean re-introducing negatives about and for women that were common in the fifties and early sixties, but it does mean trying to identify what was wrong in that era, and trying to find a new pathway out of those troubles that valorises women's biological and intellectual endowments instead of trying to deny that men and women have physical, psychological and social profiles that do, and should, differ.

It would also be VERY helpful if "third world" countries like India were not used as counterfoils to try and prove how wonderful was the western recipe for sexual and social misery. India could easily be written up as the world's last great matriarchy, because in India, until recently at least, the family outranked the state as the primary politico-social institution. Where the family rules, women rule - no matter what formal deference is paid to the male. Most 'traditional' societies with differentiated gender roles allow a large and significant fraction of their women to become strong leaders. And the social problems listed as indicators of female disadvantage are actually indicators of poverty.

poirot,

'Fulfillment for women the world over is more likely to flourish if both genders learn to acknowledge and value women's maternal maternal and nurturing role - not to relegate it to mere drudgery or collateral status.'

Men have always valued 'women's work'. That's why they look for a good wife. It's feminists that de-valued it and decided it was 'beneath' women. Of course, men absolutely love being wage slaves. It's oh so fulfilling.

'It makes sense, as why bother when someone else will look after the child that may result from any sexual encounter?'

Is that the reason they gave, or your interpretation? It's a different culture. Perhaps it's an insult by implication of disease, infidelity etc.

'the country also had one in three of its female residents over the age of 15 victims of physical assault. '
How many of it's male residents?

'it appears that social scientists are correct when they say that women continue to face inequality in their daily lives. '

It does when you don't quote the male victims. Tell me the numbers and I can decide if an inequality exists. Why is anything bad that happens to women

a) Evidence of inequality
b) Assumed motivated by a hatred of women

Bad stuff happens to everyone, and it normally has FA to do with their genitals.

'Whether this inequality is about career advancement, better pay or life and death issues, it is clear that women around the world do it tougher than men simply because of their gender.'
'Having children or not is the great divide around the world when it comes to women's equality'

So, by your own admission, it's *not* due to their gender, it's due to them caring for children.

I find it an odd argument that women in poor countries having poor medical services is evidence of inequality. Unless you can conversely prove all the money is going toward cosmetic surgery for men in those same countries.

I see poor people with poor conditions. Nothing to do with gender at all. Where is the gender inequality?

Houellie,

I agree that men always valued "women's work"- and, yes, it is feminist agenda to devalue it.
That was my point - that entrenched Western thinking in this day and age does devalue it.

Peter,

I thought you'd had treatment for that uncontrollable laugh...seems it has returned.

Poirot
It breaks out on exposure to extraordinary ridiculosity.

The CEO of Westpac is female. I don't see that bank becoming more nurturing and considerate of women or men than any other.

No Western feminist will make inroads into the circumstances of women in developing countries without first respecting and acknowledging the cultural differences, and the power those cultural attitudes have. Then you have to find a way to work within them, even if they do shock your feminist sensibilities.

As another poster has pointed out, empowering women in developing countries to start their own businesses and take economic charge of their lives is a great beginning. Health care and education is another.

Teaching them to complain about gender inequality is useless. All we've done for the last forty years in the West is complain about gender inequality, and address it on a middle class level, and still we have one in three women and girls assaulted in this country, and the abuse of children continues unabated.

So we haven't exactly achieved much with our complaints, have we, if we've made superficial changes while at grass roots level we're still looking at these appalling figures.

The author seems to be of the opinion that raising children is like being imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay. There's no denying it can be tedious and mind numbing. But women can do much to make this better for themselves for the four or five years before kids go to school, if they choose to take responsibility for doing that. If they choose to help each other, for example, with child care and support. I know this is true because it's what my group of young mothers did when our partners were too caught up in providing support for us and our children to be available.

I would hate to see the feminist culture of complaint exported to developing countries. Women can do much to assist other women, but teaching them to whine about being hard done by is not the way to go.