Poirot, sorry I was being picky but at the moment I'm so over the men are to blame thing. We seem to have had a spate of articles on that theme recently as well as the resurgance of the "we only want to protect children but did you notice how violent men are" thread's. It's hard to rebut that stuff without sounding like you are taking the opposite approach (which I'm not). I am appreciating your contributions and the food for thought from both yourself and Squeers.

I'll disagree with parts but the intent seems honest and that's refreshing.

Loved a couple of posts by Pelican starting at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12262#211741

R0bert

Some interesting perspectives emerging in the debate. While I quite appreciate the Neo-Marxian analysis, I think that simply identifying what used to be called 'commodity fetishism' as the ultimate source of disparities in gender status may serve to disguise other sources of gender inequality - beyond the facile biological differences in stature and reproductive capacity etc.o

I think it's quite telling that, while women have certainly made great gains since the 1970s, their success in the workplace - especially the upper strata thereof - is largely a function of how much they behave like men (or rather, the degree to which their behaviour and attitudes at work emulate those that were normally seen to be the domain of men prior to the advent of second- wave femiinism). In this way, superficial statististical measures of 'success' like the relative proportion of women in senior management and board positions can actually mask the persistence of gender inequality in private sector workplaces. I've always thought that feminists were sold a pup by making integral to their project the myth that self-actualisation is achieved via paid employment.

@ Yabby:

Why do you persist in misrepresenting those with whom you disagree? Your out of context quotation of part of Ammonite's comment obscures the point she was attempting to make, which was that women who permit sexual exploitation of their bodies for money very frequently suffer low self-esteem, but are also to some extent complicit in perpetuating their situation - or 'relations of production', as it were. Disagreeing with such a contention is fair enough, but it's intellectually dishonest to quote Ammonite out of context in order to get away with palpable nonsense ,like "the very thought of some men enjoying themselves with impunity, fills many a feminist with horror!"

Can you please desist in these devious rhetorical tactics? They don't further debate, but seem to be solely designed to annoy people with whom you disagree, but against whom you don't have sound arguments.

RObert <" I'm so over the men are to blame thing. We seem to have had a spate of articles on that theme recently as well as the resurgance of the "we only want to protect children but did you notice how violent men are" thread's. It's hard to rebut that stuff without sounding like you are taking the opposite approach (which I'm not)."

I was pleasantly surprised to come back to this thread tonight and find some reasonable debate going on :)

I agree with you Robert in feeling that there has been quite a lot of recent threads on this feminism/gender war/who's-better-than-who subject.
One thing I notice though is that they tend to attract quite a few comments- good and bad, and thus the reason we see so many threads of this subject, even though it often brings out both the worst in some and the best in others.

I think the fatal mistake that many men and women make in these arguments is to tar ALL people of the opposite gender with the same brush.
We have some male posters saying all women are rabid feminists and are all 'ball-breakers' or worse.
We have some female posters who believe all men are violent perverts unless proven otherwise.

Luckily we also have the wonderfully eloquent and reasonable posters such as Poirot, Ammonite, Squeers and RObert to help bring more commonsense back to debates like these.

I believe that we all need to work together even harder to try and understand each other and to celebrate our differences rather than attack them.
Of course, that may not make as interesting reading to some... :)

>> 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. <<

More excellent points from Squeers.

I haven't noticed women being any less greedy than men - greed is not gender specific. And it is thoroughly exploited to support neo-capitalism as well as providing the cute blond for the otherwise boring old fart.

And it is true that if you're an attractive woman, you don't have to be wealthy, until you reach old age that is. Here's a little something for those who are still in the 50's; Marilyn Monroe sang "Diamonds Are A Girl's Best Friend", for many who are unable to make a 'brilliant career' this remains true.

Poirot

We are definitely on same page vis a vis consumerism. And what is it about stiletto heels? I like to be free to move and find looking 'hobbled' as sexy as a turd on a cane toad. I guess looking strong and free is a bit scary for some men, which reminds me,

Morganzola

Thank you for clarifying my point. I am of the impression that Yabby doesn't get to meet many women who enjoy sex, poor lamb.

<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.Posted by Squeers, Saturday, 2 July>

Is that really true? Or is it just another emotive, arguement?

Esther Vilar wrote "The Manipulated Man"

<"Men have been trained and conditioned by women, not unlike the way Pavlov conditioned his dogs, into becoming their slaves. As compensation for their labours men are given periodic use of a woman's vagina.">

Then there's

'If men have all the power, how come women make the rules'

then there is the interesting blog by Clarise Thorn

"why do we demonize men who are honest about their sexual needs?"
http://www.alternet.org/sex/148291/why_do_we_demonize_men_who_are_honest_about_their_sexual_needs/?page=3

Ask any group of men, and it is they who will say that they dance to womens tunes.

Michele Obama, said "If mama aint' happy, then nobody is happy"

http://www.michellesmirror.com/2011/05/if-mama-aint-happy-aint-no-one-happy.html

Now go and pull the other leg about women dancing to mens tunes.

JamesH

Anyone who feels the only way they can have power is by withholding sex has major problems. If this is the only type of woman you meet, I feel as sorry for you as I do Yabby.