Dane and Yabby,

You both choose to misconstrue my point. I'm not denying that women are grasping in pursuit of material wealth. It's always been so - afterall, they're only human. My point was that now they also participate in the traditional male "workplace" as well as the marketplace, and this has probably transformed societal demands and expectations more than any single factor.

But let's not delude ourselves that the whole Western construct is not a "joint operation". The commodification of woman's desires and the whole tarting up Western material reality is for profit and growth because "we're worth it". This arrangement is now extended to the pursuance of frivolous self-aggrandisement and alluring geegaws. Whole sectors of consumer society make enormous profits from pandering to such extravagance.

Both genders have been complicit in the rupturing of the traditional paradigm by seeking to elevate conspicuous consumption to the apex of human aspiration.

I must admit I'm torn between siding with the men (I don't buy the propaganda that the women do all the work either) and defending the women, but as Poirot and I have tried to suggest, via Camille Paglia, that is the favoured position, same ol' same ol', where each sex blames the other.
In my view what we need to do is view all human issues in the larger context. This sounds like a banal suggestion, but sadly it's not, and good advice, I believe, if you want to get beyond your bigotries.
The larger context is social, or rather the means of production, which is consumerism. "Progress" (random development) in the modern West is driven by consumption: ultimately narcissism, though this is often forced, or precipitated, rather than voluntary or discriminating.
Yet for all the conservative hoisting of the individual as the pinnacle of civilised life, it's a sublime (actually naive) illusion. Humans are social animals and derive their sensibilities, more or less, from the host culture. Yet they have this curious capacity to step outside themselves and look back (though they waste it).
It's true, I think, that feminists who blame women's sexjugation and subjugation on men, are kidding themselves. And men who blame the modern woman, are too.
The fact of the matter is that both sexes are degraded by the larger context, which is consumerism. Possibly a majority of women are shallow, sentimental shopaholics, too busy socialising and seeing themselves in the mirror to see themselves at a remove.
Similarly, men tend to be obsessive-compulsive egotists; emasculated drones with egos as sound as the pyramids.
Women and men are demeaned by their servitude to capital. Oh, they supplicate before surpluses, but they're just the crumbs, cast-off by the big end of town--a miserable gratuity.

But forget all that, since most of us aren't interested in making life better, only in how the swill's divided.
Back to gender politics; I'm afraid there's no escaping the fact, Fellas; deny it all you like, but men still play the tune. And women, sadly, still dance.

*Both genders have been complicit in the rupturing of the traditional paradigm by seeking to elevate conspicuous consumption to the apex of human aspiration.*

But Poirot, look back in history. Pharohs who built pyramids for
themselves, sheiks who had palaces, Romans who had feasts like
we could not imagine. The list goes on. They did it because
they could, the rest were dirt poor. Human aspirations have not
changed.

Poirot and Squeers some good points there. I do disagree with what appears to be the assumption behind one of Poirot's earlier comments.

"Man's civilisation in the modern Western paradigm exalts the pursuance of material wealth. It is predicated on greed and excess - and this male-driven construct is so enamoured by all that glitters that he has elevated his female counterparts to physically join him in the pursuit."

I might be misunderstanding the point you were trying to make but my impression is that if you dig down a lot of men's interest in material wealth is based on the perception that it improves chances in finding a more desirable partner.

Obviously not that simplistic but all these discussions involve over simplified explainations.

A basic lesson repeated over and over is that more women are attracted to rich powerfull men than to those who are not. I don't think it's valid to suggest that pursuit of material wealth is a male-driven construct.

As you've been saying we are all in it together.

R0bert

*will provide the service for the demand by men to have unconditional sexual gratification*

Sheesh Ammonite, the very thought of some men enjoying themselves
with impunity, fills many a feminist with horror! They want control
and take away their sex weapon, they are indeed a sad case.

RObert,

Yes, well, "male-driven construct" wasn't perhaps the best choice of words, and I probably shouldn't have gone with it. I was referring to civilisation and commerce.
I don't believe that men are more attracted to material gain than women. I believe that all humans are inspired by the same material lust. As Squeers pointed out, it's mildly amusing that in wealthy societies we spend so much time squabbling over which gender is more to blame.

What we seem to overlook in modern society is that both genders are still driven by instinct. Women still concentrate on their physical desirability to enhance attraction and men still seek to procure the means to attract a mate. The marketplace has simply anticipated and answered demand.

Yabby - you are right about human aspirations.
The difference, however, between your wealthy sheik and the modern world's debt-ridden Mr Average is that the sheik wasn't induced to institutionalise his infants and set his wife to work in the bazaar to pay for the palace.