Robert,
Who has had an extreme of conflict?

Cherful wrote:
"Now seriously, men have made a right stuff up of running the world so far. "

Followed by:
"So thank you to all the lovely men out there."

It only supports my previous opinion (a well founded opinion I might add) that in our feminist society, many women are now extremly mixed up and confused individuals, who will have to be kept alive by men, until they can sort themselves out at some time in the future.

Yes Cherful A nice peace offering, but I still must take you to task for the earlier assertion that, "men have made a right stuff up of running the world so far". That claim can just not be substantiated in the western, & dare I say christian world.

When you look at the facts we are housed clothed & fed better than the world leaders just a couple of centuries ago. We have the opportunity to make more of our lives than any peoples have had at any time in the past. How can those who have been running the world, who ever they are have done such a bad job?

Sure many paid a high price for our fortune, living through the industrial revolution, but even there, would there have been so many moving from the feudal farm to the city, if conditions were so bad.

We hear much about the sweet shops of China & others today, but the same thing is occurring. The sweet shop must better than the bush, or so many would not be doing it.

Another few decades of peace, & we might all be wearing pink, {Oh except the poor Greeks of course]

Pink is pernicious, Jocelynne. As Eva Cox points out: "Emphasising women as victims also contributes to gender-based biases in political thinking." She's right.

From today's Fairfax press

http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/deadliest-cancers-lose-funding-race-20120202-1qvor.html

"Women's cancers including those of the breast, cervix and ovary were funded generously compared with the amount of death and disease they caused, said the chief executive of charity the National Breast Cancer Foundation, Carole Renouf.

But lung and pancreatic cancer, which have high death rates, received a relatively small fraction of overall cancer funding from government research agencies and independent organisations."

and

"The women's cancers, along with melanoma and leukaemia, received about 70 per cent of all cancer research money, and were ''somewhat to blame for taking the voice away'' from other forms of the disease, she said."

It's just as well a woman said this, or there'd be accusations of misogyny thrown around all over the place from those who see women with breast cancer as a useful tool for "progressively framing the debate".

I'd be interested in Jocelynne Scutt's view,but I have a feeling she's ensconced in her office writing another polemic and won't have time to look at actual facts that contradict her preferred roseate view of femi-politics. Of course,she does have time to chant "you go girl" when one of her cronies has a fatuous piece of fluff published...

About as much substance as a lettuce and much less beneficial in the consumption.

Antiseptic
<I still must take you to task for the earlier assertion that, "men have made a right stuff up of running the world so far". That claim can just not be substantiated in the western, & dare I say christian world.

When you look at the facts we are housed clothed & fed better than the world leaders just a couple of centuries ago. We have the opportunity to make more of our lives than any peoples have had at any time in the past. How can those who have been running the world, who ever they are have done such a bad job?>

I said that in retaliation for Vanna saying, "that men should kill all women because we were not as good as the men or some such wording.
However, if you want to argue the toss on it, I still think if a lot of the male leaders in India,Africa,the Middle East, and so many overpopulated miserable countries had stood up 20 or 30years ago and ensured contraception and women's Child and health clinics, (because it has been at least 30 or 40 years since the contraceptive pill was introduced).
The worlds population would now only be approaching 3billion or even less instead of 7billion and rising.

Even today in these same countries where the West would be more than willing to work with them on this issue in the United nations the men still oppose it. Just recently in Afganistan their were men throwing bombs into schools and at young school girls.

It is the overpopulation in the world that is driving all the misery to my way of thinking.
You seem to forget that the women in Western countries had to chain themselves up to protest at not being allowed the vote

Cherful, it was hasbeen who made that comment, although I do tend to agree with it. The "power behind the throne" has often been a woman and a great deal of Western thought has been devoted to consideration of the needs of women, culminating in modern feminism.

On the subject of contraception, I think it's more complex than you paint it. Contraception, until the advent of cheap chemical means, was often about protecting the rights of men to use a particular woman's womb exclusively. The chastity belt is a famous example. Otherwise, it was entirely the responsibility of the man to use a condom or one of the even less reliable methods.

It's also true that women experience a strong urge to bear children, that is both biological and sociological. Even when contraception is available,as in the West, many women choose not to use it,or to use it sporadically. My own first child was conceived when her mother was supposedly using the Pill (and admitted later she'd been fudging it).

I do agree with you about overpopulation, but placing all the blame on men simply doesn't stack up.

I think the dialogue of blaming men for all that happens even where men are the most visible instruments misses much of the context and background. Not always, there are some cultures where I don't think that do seem to oppress women but not ours. Men and women have been in it together, often as a response to earlier practical limitations and needs which became "the way we do things".

The voting issue was before my time but as I understand it most men hadn't had the vote for long at that period either. Hard to tell just what got the vote for women more quickly accepted, public stunts to highlight the issue probably did highlight the issue and speed change.

From what I've seen and read opposition to social change generally has a fairly big feminine component to it even when the change could benefit women. I've seen a fair bit of material suggesting that those most keen on female genital mutilation are the older women.

Much of the opposition to feminism is I suspect a kickback at the framing of the need for change in terms of male oppression of women, blaming men for the stuff that doesn't work etc. I don't see many men in our society opposing genuine equality of opportunity, equality of rights and responsibilities, etc.

I know in my own case I'm very tired of seeing my gender portrayed as oppressors, as warmongers, as having all sorts of failings. Almost always out of context and ignoring that we are all in this together, as Anti points out there is often a power behind the throne.

It's also important to remember that most men and women in our culture have had the majority of early childhood nurturing done by women, those who want to point the finger at men seem to ignore that.

Blaming men is useful if you want to create a context for gaining special privilege, if you want top be able to oppress, not if you want to further genuine social change to make things better for all.

R0bert