ChazP,

I'm sorry to pop your bubble, but it "is" our economic paradigm that has given birth to feminist theory and has increasingly loosened the bonds on women. And, what's more our consumer society encourages women to be out there doing her bit for the GDP. These days a woman almost has to defend her decision "not" to send her infant to daycare.
Our community infrastructure has been systematically centralised - so much so, that smaller organic community interaction is, for the most part, absent. Everything depends on the prevailing economic model, and it is a system propelled equally by men as it is women.
Rabid feminism is a symptom of our system - the Western system of rabid consumerism.

Poirot,

I, for one, don't think most women are rabid feminists. As I have said many times, the huge volume of FSC (Feminist Social Commentary) is pretty rabid, one-sided, victim-feminism. I would be surprised if you disagree. There's lots of it on OLO, which makes me question people thinking this site has a right-wing bias.

'Rabid feminism is a symptom of our system - the Western system of rabid consumerism.'

I don't know about a symptom, but I know it wouldn't be possible without the western luxuary of cheap third world Labour and resources.

In the end, I pity people like Val Kyrie are very sad. Just... sad.

Of course so are formersnag and vanna.

Whatever happened to love...

Poirot - Val Kyrie and chapZ are correct. Professor Parkinson is arguing from a reactionary masculinist and defensively Patriarchalist perpsective and not from any kind of `economic paradigm', a term you use to obscure the absence of arguments, rather than to enlighten. It was of course Parkinson who was the major architect of the disastrous 2006 Family Law changes, which took such laws back 150 years to Victorian times. So its not difficult to see where his ideological beliefs are based. And they are not in an `economic paradigm'.

Houellie,

I'm with you, in that I don't believe the majority of women are rabid feminists either....they've just conformed to a particular pattern according to their economic opportunities.

My point to vanna and co has always been that our system, it's upsides and downsides, is propelled along by the spontaneous participation of both genders.

What did ever happen to love? : )

In any fight against paranoid masculinist oppression and its elements of subjugation and subordination to the will of others, suppression of abilities, and denial of equality of opportunities, there are always those who lead and take the flak, while others are more passive but enjoy any benefits which may accrue to them. (e.g. Universal franchise in 1908, property rights, partial equal pay etc). Some are so conditioned into acceptance of their subservience and see no means of resisting, or are oblivious to their subordination, that they comply to the power and control exercised and controlled within society and social groups.
Fortunately the vast majority of males are not paranoid, oppressive masculinists and supremacists and recognise the inequalities and oppressions experienced by females, especially when such paranoid psychopathic control is enforced by violent means. Many such males are angry and appalled at seeing their sisters abused and violated by their male partners, or their wives similarly oppressed and abused by former husbands in Family Court proceedings, and consequently they are supporting the moves to stop such oppression and violence against females. And they recoil in horror at the kind of contemptuous, derogatory, and dehumanising of females apparent earlier in this thread.
Poirot – Love is not enough, especially when it is seen as a weakness and is abused by using it as a control mechanism.

In any fight against paranoid feminist oppression and its elements of subjugation and subordination to the will of others, suppression of abilities, and denial of equality of opportunities, there are always those who lead and take the flak, while others are more passive but enjoy any benefits which may accrue to them.

Some are so conditioned into acceptance of their subservience and see no means of resisting, or are oblivious to their subordination, that they comply to the power and control exercised and controlled within society and social groups.
Fortunately the vast majority of females are not paranoid, oppressive feminists and supremacists and recognise the inequalities and oppressions experienced by both genders, especially when such paranoid psychopathic control is enforced by dishonest means. Many such females are angry and appalled at seeing their brothers abused and violated by their female partners, or their husbands or partners similarly oppressed and abused by former wives in Family Court proceedings, and consequently they are supporting the moves to stop such oppression and violence against males. And they recoil in horror at the kind of contemptuous, derogatory, and dehumanising of males apparent earlier in many feminist writings.

Not perfect but close.
R0bert