...contd...

so what do we learn from history...well, 'democracy' and 'feminocracy' are deeply intertwined, but from roman times expressed diferently...catholic church the first feminist creation, till things started going crazy and they started killing across europe just for crime of reading the bible...till french crushed the papal institution...and to current form when italy gave it status of a 'kingdom' by creating the sovereign vatican in early 1900's...and other different expressions of government to current...

so roman women accessed the power...showed italian women, whom exported it to 'the_white_women' as in europe, and 'democracies' appeared everywhere, canada/usa, europe/england, australia/nz, and of particular mention is english women whom got themselves treated better than princeses while first effectively linking democracy and military obedience...yep, colonial days...to now where democracy is the usual in most parts of the world and 'feminocracy' being exported to all corners...

so how does one rercognize a feminist governed country, as they all work on 'decent image' to hide behind...womens interests rule, from unbalanced health/education/work environments...criminal laws apply 'less', cities are protected policed clean enclaves, and on...and culture of the people, as that developing over thousands of years, dies and replaced by 'me and now'...like the add 'I'm worth it'...(watch one of the last bastions of preserved culture, the tamils of south india...now huge highways built into it, consumerism and money will flow in, and I expect women to jump for the apple first, men will step away from women, so children kept and broken to accept and obey feminocracy...)

where do I stand...well we all have live under some form of government...so each has its plus and minus...but the current one is making us 'consume' and 'unresponsive' to needed change...so while our planet is struggling more we are not acting effectively...and the clocks ticking...so seems like feminocracy is only good for the land of plenty...not for land of limiting resources...

sam

Poirot

>> as the main point seems to have been to get as many humans participating in the market as possible. <<

Exactly. And the majority of these working stiffs, be we male or female are caught up in this cycle. Women have gained some entry into politics and the market, but with the same old rules that keeps the majority of men in place.

However, for some, women demanding equality of opportunity brings out people who would rather see women back in the kitchen. Ain't gonna happen. Women love being doctors, lawyers, architects, chefs, airline pilots or nurses or teachers or simply gardeners - just as much as men do. And neo-liberalism has been swift and tenacious in exploiting this simple human trait and it suits the status quo to have the workers arguing among themselves rather than demanding a fairer share of our labours.

I very much doubt that a wonderful female-dominated world that was supposed to have existed in pre-feminist days (the world according to Hasbeen and RObert), would have encouraged all those suffragettes to get out there and demand a better life for women!

Let's look at life for women back in the mid 1800's :
Unable to vote,
unable to own property after marriage,
unable to have any custody of children after divorce,
unable to get justice for being bashed or raped by the husband ,
and unable to go on to higher education or university.
Any wages she earns belongs to him (if he lets her work at all.)
He is able to deprive her of her liberty, at will.
She is allowed into churches, and to practice religion, but only as a subordinate.

Oh yes please Scotty, do beam me back to those wonderful days where women 'had it all'!

Now Suzie tell us a bit about the wonderful life of the male companions of those same women. The ones who tossed their lives away in dangerous jobs trying to provide for their families, the ones who were conscripted to go off and die in war's ordained by their kings and queens. The ones who got the vote not many years before women.

The legal system was a crock, I accept that but the picture painted by many feminists presents a far more unbalanced picture than is likely to have been the realty for most people. The language implies some sort of systematic oppression of women by the men in their lives rather than transition from structures based on the practicalities of an earlier age.

It misses far to much and is devisive rather than constructive.

R0bert

Since feminism did, as I say, balk at fomenting genuine and desperately needed reforms, and feeling some male comradeship with RObert, it's worth quoting Camille Paglia, a feminist:

"Let us stop being small-minded and freely acknowledge what treasure their [men's] obsessiveness has poured into culture.
We could make an epic catalogue of men's achievements, from paved roads, indoor plumbing, and washing machines to eyeglasses, antibiotics, and disposable diapers. We enjoy fresh, safe milk and meat, and vegetables and tropical fruits heaped in snowbound cities. When I cross the George Washington Bridge or any of America's great bridges, I think: men have done this. Construction is a sublime male poetry. When I see a giant crane passing on a flatbed truck, I pause in awe and reverence, as one would for a church procession. What power of conception, what grandiosity: these cranes tie us to ancient Egypt, where monumental architecture was first imagined and achieved. If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts. A contemporary woman clapping on a hard hat merely enters a conceptual system invented by men. Capitalism is an art form, an Apollonian artform to rival nature [indeed conquer it]. It is hypocritical for feminists and intellectuals to enjoy the pleasure and conveniences of capitalism while sneering at it. Even Thoreau's "Walden" was just a two year experiment. Everyone born in capitalism has incurred a debt to it. Give Caesar his due.

Capitalism did indeed deliver us from the tyranny of our feudal masters. But despite Paglia's panegyrics, capitalism is the new tyrant and straddles the globe. Women remain in Man's shadow so long as they enjoy his megalomaniacal patronage. It's about time women brought some Dionysian influence to bear upon vaulting Apollo.

I don't recall talking about the mid 1800 Suze, it would appear you want to use a different time to my comparison, when none alive can tell how it was.

RObert my mother may have "born the majority of early childhood care", but isn't the dream of full time motherhood, one that many would aspire to today, if they could only afford it. She also bore the weight of choosing the washing lady, who came weekly, & the ironing/cleaning lady who also came weekly. She also had to put up with playing mid week tennis, & bowls. All this from the lofty height of the wife of the manager of a shoe shop.

How women were stupid to give up this privileged life for the right to equal work choices & pay I'll never know. Just stupid I guess, & led by the even more stupid women's libbers.