'In the past 5 years many billions of dollar have been spent on subsidies aimed at women of all stripes, from parental leave schemes, baby bonuses, preferential "affirmative action" hiring and promotion schemes within the APS and moving to private industry, child care subsidy, "family tax benefit"...'

But by the same logic as used above anti, men benefit from many of these schemes. It evens out; Men profit form the middle class female targetted welfare to their wives, and women benefit from the superannuation of their husbands.

Not that I'm in favour of any middle class welfare. I'd much prefer the lot was scrapped and they just lowered taxes. But then unemployment would rise with all the paper shuffling public servants flodding the centerlink offices they used to work in handing out family tax benefits.

I also reject the paternalistic anti-libertarian bent of superannuation. I deserve the right to spend my money as I wish, and not support a very inneficent and inadequate finance industry. Thank god self-managed super is becoming more feasible, as I am making money and not paying 2% for the priveledge of losing money.

You are right though when you say...

'If a problem affects predominantly men, then we are told it is "unfortunate" or "unavoidable" or a "structural change" and those men affected had better pull up their socks and nothing is done.'

This is due to the effective victim-positioning propaganda of feminists (I loved 'Feminist historical revisionism' BTW). When you position women as universally and unilaterly at a disadvantage to men, regardless of class, and in any sphere of social interaction, it's really quite offensive for any men to be helped until the last women has been helped.

Also, I will end with a generalisation. Women are conditioned with higher levels of empathy, men are conditioned with higher levels of responsibility and independence. This is the essence of the different perceptions of the world for men and women.

Although I think this is changing with chicken hormones and metrosexuals these days. We will one day reach androgyny.

In the end Rhian, all this woman hating bigotry is really a reaction to the constant denial of the flow of money from women to men by feminists.

This flow of money is conveniently avoided in all feminist rhetoric, as it would alow the context of loving relationships and adoring husbands and functional marriages to cloud the universal theme of hatful male abuse and priveledge they're spruiking.

There are NO loving husbands who share their income and super, and appreciate and value their wife's homemaking and child raising efforts, and die 15 years before her leaving her everything. THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN!

There is only selfish abusive misogynist patriarchs, who deny the little woman any financial independence, and laugh with an evil laugh when they die or divorce her leaving the poor happy selfless martyr home maker with nothing!

Feminist social revisionism 101.

BTW That should read 'denial of the flow of money from men to women by feminists.'

Since I have wasted a post, I'll just also add here that I find it hilarious that in feminist rhetoric, it is a DISadvantage that women have that they live longer than men:-)

'Women suffer a superannuation deficit compared to men, yet live 4 years longer.'

They have less super, and those poor women also have to live 4 years longer!

Or, maybe it's that those selfish, abusive, misogynist patriachs are so selfish as to die before their duty of providing for women is completed. Those B@STARDS!

Yes Houellie, men can benefit from those schemes as long as they remain in a domestic relationship with the woman. Women can benefit from a man's super even if they decide not to remain in the relationship.

As you say, there is a large set of assumptions that underlie feminist special pleading. Feminists carefully avoid examining those assumptions, on the whole, although I have to express some hope that things are changing a little in that regard. The inequity of preferentialism based on false premises is becoming too obvious to ignore.

Jeez, it's not the flow of money, it's the economic power and relations that determine how much a woman can accumulate in superannuation.

There will always be a host of other factors such as children, personal health, whether a woman has a partner, etc, but the crux is whether a working woman, without any help from any other party, can make the same continuous levels and duration of contribution that a man can.

She can't.

Cheryl:"She can't."

She can, if she chooses to do paid work and she chooses to work as long as her male peers each week and she chooses not to prioritise having children over working in the same way that they are assumed to do.

The bottom line being that on the whole she chooses not to do all of those things and so unsurprisingly, she doesn't achieve the benefits that accrue to those who do. Nothing to do with ability, everything to do with application.

Moreover, the real problem is the whole idea that she should be able to do as well on her own with children as she would have done as a member of a parental couple. Why? It's an obvious truth that two parents means double the resources, while costs are lower per person with more members in a family. It's one of the principal reasons for people getting together throughout history.

It seems that some women today want all the benefits of being in a couple without having to put up with the obligations.