Rhian "My point is, the root of bigotry is to make negative generalisations about a group of people and use that to draw conclusions about individual members of that group in order to dismiss them or treat them less favourably. "

But this is exactly how most feminist theory works. Isolate a couple of example of misogyny, then infer from the particular to the universal.

You can't complain about men engaging in such an approach to the social sciences when feminists do the same.

Cheryl
"older women who are divorced or caring for a sick husband or family."

Sounds like something straight from a feminist’s manual.

Times have changed.

About ¼ of women don’t have children anymore, a meal can be cooked in 10-2- minutes, housework is minimal with automatic dishwashers, automatic washing machines etc, groceries can be ordered over the internet, and delivered for less cost than driving to the supermarket.

More women are also becoming feminist indoctrinated and not getting married.

So it is very much looking like many women simply don’t earn enough.

And the reason: Many women don’t like paid work, and prefer that men do it.

However I’m sure men will be called upon to pay for such women some way or another.

"it is the rise of older women who are divorced or caring for a sick husband or family"

Or in the case of some people I know an older man caring for an ill wife.

Aristocrat makes a very good point, the heart of feminist theory is "negative generalisations about a group of people and use that to draw conclusions about individual members of that group in order to dismiss them or treat them less favourably"

A view of the world that highlights what is convenient and ignores what is inconvenient in order to create a dialogue of "oppression" and male privilege while ignoring context and many of the realities of peoples lives.

It would also be viable to construct a view of history based on those who have had the main child nurturing role through much of history perpetuating social stereotypes that pressured males into taking the most dangerous (other than childbirth which could not be passed on) and unpleasant roles and enforced a variety of symbols of submission upon males (standing when a woman enters the room etc) whild allowing token claims of power rarely reflected in actual homes.

Feminism is a revision following the changes which came following the industrial revolution to take some of the benefits accrued from that. Such a view of history would also need to ignore much context and history but in terms of western culture is no less valid than feminist views based around male oppression of women.

In reality culture has been a mix of practical necessities of periods taken past their use by date and perpetuated by both genders.

R0bert

*where women sat out in the car in the car park and drank because they we're allowed in the hotel if there wasn't a saloon*

Gawd Cheryl, thats nearly as bad as the "kiddies down the mine"
argument which some desperate posters sometimes try on. We are
discussing here and now, not history.

Reread the article. Its all about "woe is poor women", totally
ignoring the fact that most the points could apply to men too.

Fact is, on average women live longer then men, so they will land
up with most of the loot when men die. Just check out the cruise
ships full of loaded widows.

Super is but one income stream for old age. Most Australians still
land up owning a house. If the pension and their super is not enough
for them to live on, people are free to sell their homes and live out
their last days in comfort. The next generation will already inherit
more then any other generation before them, its not compulsory to
scrimp and save just for their benefit.

Yet that is what some oldies do. Spending the kids inheritance is
quite legal

Yabby

Women don’t talk more than men; that study is discredited:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=women-talk-more-than-men

I haven’t complained about glass ceilings or women’s lower average earnings or even toilet seats. Compare posts and you’ll see many of the male contributors have complaining about the opposite sex; I have not (except a poor joke about my husband).

Your language seems to me to presume male power and entitlement. “We” (men) have “given” (because it’s in your gift) “them” (women) a “cushy deal”.

Couples agree who does paid employment, housework, childcare, etc. Often women do more unpaid work, and men more paid work. If that partnership breaks down, then surely the women is entitled to a share of the assets accumulated jointly – her unpaid work contributed no less his paid work. And if there are children, and if she is the primary carer of those children, then it’s fair that she should get more than half, at least until the kids are self-sufficient. Both parents are responsible for their children.

Dane
Do you think that exchange with Steffi Graff was a “real” marriage proposal, or her reply a serious answer to one?

The data cited in the article you disparage are from the UK household survey.

If a man and woman share a household and share the work needed to run it then they should share its resources – just because the man earns more income does not mean the woman has no right to spend some of it.

You may regard women raising children rather than working full time as a “lifestyle choice”. But if it’s a choice entered willingly by both parents, they should share responsibility for the consequences, including ensuring that there is enough saved to support both in retirement. That mutual responsibility extends to a fair share of assets in the event the relationship fails.

Aristocrat
I agree, there is a strand of radical feminism that demonises and stereotypes men, and is no less bigoted than misogyny. But in this thread, all of the negative gender stereotypes and sweeping generalisations I can see are made by men about women

Rhian:"Your language seems to me to presume male power and entitlement. “We” (men) have “given” (because it’s in your gift) “them” (women) a “cushy deal”. "

Well, considering that Feminist historical revisionism places men in sole charge of everything, then yes, it IS "within our ift" and given that women have taken for granted the man's role as provider, then it's still within our gift.

You see, you can't have it both ways: if you want an easy ride, then it has to be provided by someone else's effort. If what you want is genuine equality, which seems unlikely in light of the rhetorical offerings to date, then there's no easy ride to be had.

Unfortunately, many feminists spruik equality while demanding that easy ride, demonstrating a basic sense of entitlement to the fruits of other's labour that no amount of rhetoric will erase.

It's a childish ideology, really.