James H,

No matter how "advanced" the human species considers itself, it is still beholden to biological imperatives - the most powerful of which is the drive to reproduce the species.
Paglia wrote that a pregnant woman is "complete".
Woman's biological experience is cyclic in nature, whereas man is always driven to project himself - he must "pursue, quest, court and seize".
She said: "Women have no problem to solve by sex. Physically and psychologically, they are serenely self-contained. They may choose to achieve, but they do not need it."

I think the will to achieve in women is spurred on to some extent in modern society because of the blurring of gender roles, and this is to a great extent what feminist controversy is about.

So it does seem understandable that some men may feel its a tad unfair to have to keep buttering up his complementary gender in order to keep his genes in existence, but that seems to be the way it is.

Ammonite,

You are a mind-reader. I was going to comment on stilettos and high-heels in general in my initial post.
Greer is right that they raise a woman's height. They also fashion a (hopefully) shapely and slender leg - and only came into their own when hemlines went up. But a woman is required to redistribute her whole centre of gravity in order to successfully pull off the dressage. Buttocks and breasts are strategically deployed to bring about the balance necessary - all very titillating - so that an ordinary human gait becomes a clopping, thrusting prance...all designed to show of their bits to the best advantage.

*Women with low self-esteem but physically attractive find 'easy' money to be gleaned from exploiting their bodies in porn, prostitution and strip-clubs, will provide the service for the demand by men to have unconditional sexual gratification*

Morgan, it is very sweet of you to try and defend your mate, but
for your benefit, there is the full quote. Does your plumber
suffer from low self esteem, when he exploits his body to fix
the blocked sewage system at your house?

I put it to you that it is a business transaction, agreed by both
parties. The working girl charging 500$ or whatever is simply far
more pragmatic and perhaps with alot more self esteem, then the
girl who gives it away at the pub for a couple of drinks and a few
cheap compliments.

By the very fact that the author mentions "unconditional sexual gratification", she
insinuates that it is an issue for her, or there
would be no need to mention it. Fact is that the sisterhood is
full of females who hate the sex industry, because it removes the
one source of power onto which they cling. Power which some women
regularly misuse, to achieve their objectives. Pointing that out
makes perfect sense in a world of complaining women.

JamesH,

I just mean it's still a patriarchal society, despite modern concessions to women--patronage designed to exploit them and grow more capital.
I think this is roughly Ian Robertson's position, though it's definitely mine. Capitalism, a brilliantly conceived social/economic program, developed by the classical economists, evolves, adapting constantly to stimulus (demand). But in the modern, decadent or late-capitalist age, markets are no longer human staples, or serendipitously discovered, they are heavily researched and cultivated according to biological/psychological propensities, at the individual level, and social/cultural manipulation broadly.
Alcohol, fashion, junk food and pornography are perfect examples of the exploitation of common human weaknesses. In recent decades these have all been nurtured and normalised into flourishing global markets, without the remotest pang for their psychological/social/environmental effects. Indeed, it's easy to suppose that all men are sexual megalomaniacs and women shopaholic poodles by design, when it's far more plausible that the proclivity, be it biological/psychological/social, has been cultivated.
It's not for nothing that through the ages sex and sensuality generally has attracted so many taboos and moral moratoriums. Cooperative human society demands self-control at the individual level, yet here we are with a host of industries designed to nurture long-inhibited drives and a general weakness for excess. Thus we have obesity, addiction, mental illness, perversion and sexual violence--shallow materialism and satiety on an unprecedented scale. Life's simple pleasures, born of novelty, are gone. Meanwhile, we condescend to our forebears for their prudery and innocence! Our "enlightened" age is a state of permanent "carnivalesque", devoid of idealism.
In light of current discoveries about the remarkable "plasticity" of the human brain, we may look upon this development as generationally, or pseudo-permanent.

Does it not make sense that since patriarchy presided at the dawn of this new social-evolutionary era, the individual/social sensibilities that had theretofore developed would continue to be nurtured? Capitalism brings forth, nurtures and exploits the "germ", the biological/psychological/gendered potential in all of us--turning it on and encouraging it to dominate over the "true" individual, "concerted-potential" that might have been.
Look at modern Man and Woman; they're caricatures of themselves!

Yabby, your specious comparison of plumbers and sex workers is probably a good self-rationalisation from the perspective of a customer of both. However, if you had ever had anything to do with sex workers other than professionally, you would be aware of the appalling emotional and psychological damage the majority of them suffer.

Sex may be the equivalent of plumbing to you, but most people don't regard it that way. Thanks for trying to explain your position though, instead of blatantly twisting other people's arguments beyond recognition. Mind you, I'd leave the amateur psychologising to the professionals, if I was you. You really don't seem to have much insight into women beyond the biological aspects of their sexuality.

poirot,

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

Nice that we can agree on something.

morganzola,

'their success in the workplace - especially the upper strata thereof - is largely a function of how much they behave like men..'

This is a classic mistake feminists make. In business or politics men don't behave like men they behave like managers, accountant, or leaders. Men who succeed are goal oriented. There was not 'male' way for Newton to work out that F=ma2 or for Bill Gates to design windows. There was only the laws of physics and the laws of success. This is where men and feminists differ. How can men and women be equal so long as women are only concerned with redistributing wealth or knowledge that men have created?

This brings me to squeers point:

'Fellas; deny it all you like, but men still play the tune. And women, sadly, still dance.'

There is some truth to your statement. But what do you expect. So long as it is men who make the life long sacrifices needed to achieve senior management positions or the advances in science that I mentioned above, it will be men who call the shots.

Having said that, it is remarkable how much power women have and how reluctant they are to admit any of it. Who would have thought that the word of an illegal immigrant could have brought down the head of the IMF? What power. Laws now so favour women, in a marxist attempt to redistribute wealth and power, that meerly the word of a woman is enough to detroy any man.

So in short, squeers, Strauss-Kahn may have called many shots in his time, but at the moment I don't think he feels women are dancing to his tune.