Killarney,

Unfortunately, some of what you say is all too true I fear, but I really don't think it's nearly as dire as you suggest. We in Aus, and in the West generally, I would suggest, are in a transition, a tortuously slow one perhaps, but a transition nonetheless. But, apart from male-hating females (and vice versa), men and women still make a good team, in effect the 'perfect' team, and whether we like it or not we have evolved that way, and evolution is a tortuously slow process.

Now, I'm not suggesting we have to wait for evolution of the species to bring us all more into line with the paradigm shift in physical, cultural, technological and lifestyle circumstance which has taken place since the dawn of humankind (maybe 1-2 million years ago), but the acceleration of change over even the last 200 years takes quite some adapting to - and that is what has been occurring, an adaptation of attitudes and inherent traits to this changed circumstance. Some are, and have been, better able than others to make this adaptation and suppression of 'nature' and of 'tradition' - but it has been happening with cooperation and understanding on both sides, male and female together. Such it has been, and must be. If some want to go it alone, that is their choice, and no-one should stand in their way - as long as it does not entail riding roughshod over others.

>>Either way, it's the men who win, because it's the men who make the rules - at least for now. They know they've had it too sweet for too long. And they're terrified of losing it.<<

For some men the above statement would be all too true (might I suggest particularly in some parts of the developing world), but in my world of the 20th and 21st Centuries, women have not been absent either in the decisions which have created better lives or in the decisions which have created havoc. Not in the spotlight perhaps, but not silent either, in thought or in deed.
TBC>

Cont'd:

The times they ARE a-changing - not fast enough for some, and a bit too fast for others. There are effective matriarchal societies and effective patriarchal societies, but we are in flux - spinning in the centrifuge and only making sludge, at least for the moment.

Still, much as I may endeavour to understand the need for and the nature of the feminist movement, I believe in mutually beneficial partnership, and if, or when we achieve feminist rule or male dictatorship, then I'm out of here quick smart.

Oohh Spicey!

'Maybe some women actually demand their right to independence and security on their own terms. '

Some no doubt do, but it doesn't sound like a very successful pair-bonding strategy. Do you really think men in relationships have independence and security on their own terms? If you do I think you're very naive. Relationships involve compromise and dependence.

'gender privilege has given him the means to achieve the power the patriarchy denies her'
As I said in an earlier post, there is more than financial power at stake. This reminds me of the ridiculous feminist notion that men don't have to choose between career and children. Men, pst, must be quiet here, miss their children when they have to go to work. Women on the whole have been able to achieve a better balance between work and family life, and good on them.

You may think more women are interested in high flying careers, but most of the women and a lot of the men I know are not. These positions of power are for people who don't have or want kids, or for people who are happy rarely seeing their partner and kids, and who have a partner who is happy with that. People with family commitments or wanting a better balance in their lives need not apply.

' If they settle for back-seat power tethered to an alpha male's every whim, they're cunning bitches. If they assert their right to follow their own path and challenge the restrictions that society puts on them, they're evil feminists.'

Are those the only 2 options? What about creating a true partnership with a man and negotiating in the relationship the role that each party wants to provide to the family unit, based on trust, compromise and empathy? That's what I see happening every day.

'Either way, it's the men who win'

Win what? Perhaps if you didn't see the whole world as one grand Adam vs Eve, you could win too. Anyway, I thought it was only the nasty men always looking for dominance.

Jingle belles, Jungle drums ...

Can the people who believe in LOVE, Santa, Easter bunny & tooth fairy stop clogging up this forum.

No one wants these immature imbeciles running our economy, or legislature or our lives.

Oh, what's that you say? They are running our lives & whatsmore they want to keep existing fairytale marriage laws to keep the populace self divided and easily ruled.

Sheesh ... go figure!

In the meantime DECEPTION and violence rule the families in our suburbs to the delight of casino owners, chambers of commerce, drug crooks, bikies, fat-head politicians and out of touch prime ministers.

There you go, Killarney - Houellebecq's last post is reasonable and thoughtful. It's "not" misogynist. In comparison to your tirade, it's the soul of temperate exchange.

I have difficulty with first world women who ignore the fact that women in developed countries, those who have gained much independence, cannot see that they themselves support the status quo. They are right behind the men in all the things you protest against. Capitalism and consumerism are their major nourishment. Women just whoop it up spending and consuming in the "nasty" male paradigm.

Getting back to Houellie's point about families, etc. I'm trying to understand your resentment of males and the extent to which it poisons your outlook of the human state. I can only assume that you're a type of women who "feels dominated". I never feel like that with men. If I became involved with a man who attempted to dominate me like that, I would soon find the door.

In my opinion, it's not necessarily about domination, but about different roles in play between the genders. Often the women becomes "the well", the place where all succour is derived in the family unit - never diminishing no matter how much is drawn from her depths. That is real strength.....It's the anchor of all emotional development among humans - and it's the ultimate power (although it can't be exchanged for money, goods or status, so it tends to be negated by the feminist movement).

Poirot, are you forgetting that Houellebecq is seeking recognition as a mother (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13686#236995)? Of course he is going to be reasonable and thoughtful.

He of course deserves to be called a mother (preferably without any add extensions ).

R0bert