What Gillards postures proves is that all Tokenism is offensive. She has set back consideration of female outrage by making is not acceptable but rather, essential to ignore the latest time wasting, confected outrage. So much of it is the rankest bovine patties, by example the latest "Blue tie whine" invoked initial wide eyed startlement, laughter, head shaking and then doing something (else) useful.
Too much of what passes for "Progressive" thought seems to be "magical thinking".

Sonia
This is one of the best articles on this topic so far.

This sums up the way many people feel about the way this debate has polarised men and women. Sexism and misogyny are diminished by this debate which I am sure is the opposite effect to that intended.

The way this issue has been handled reduces misogyny to the 'every day' which it is not and can be likened to the little boy who called wolf to be almost meaningless. Nobody, other than a few stalwarts, are still listening. If Kevin Rudd, the master of contrived events, began a campaign titled 'Men for Rudd' it would be labelled as sexist. Women have to be careful of not fostering a double standard on this and in other aspects of society.

Jane Caro on the Drum the other night spoke about the feeling from many men that the PM is a PM for women only. Nothing good comes generally from these sorts of transparently manufactured rallies. Tony Abbott came a cropper in the similarly contrived 'ditch the witch' fiasco as did Alan Jones in the failed trucking protest.

Not everything nasty is about sexism. It is important to distinguish between the two in a democracy that represents both men and women. Australian people seem very despondent about the nature of politics and would rather there be debates about policy and ideology.

The media are not innocent in the downfall of Australian political behaviour. The media appear more interested and positively salivating at the hint of any scandal, leadership challenges or behind-the-scenes malarky than in critical examination of policies and comparisons between the parties.

If Gillard is a feminist, & feminists are the modern woman, I'll join the priesthood.

If it is not only a coincidence that the most incompetent, nasty & vindictive PM Oz has had in living memory is a feminists, the human race is bound for extinction, if the movement grows.

Sonia you say she is using it to her advantage, just what would the polls look like if she weren't?

I don't believe Gillard is anything but a "Gillard-istys". I can't see why someone who is simply a mean spirited, nasty, horrible person has to be called anything special. Lets face it, she is a lot of things, mostly unpleasant, but special is something she most definitely is not.

What ever the extreme comments or insults directed at Gillard may be, she has earned every one of them, in spades. Every one of them is no more than a mirror reflecting her own personality back in her face.

True feminists, as distinct from merely bitter & twisted people, who happen to be female, should dissociate themselves from her, for fear of the backlash this fool has generated include them in the bile.

You have voiced my feelings completely Sonia. I am a feminist but I am sick and tired of Gillard's constant playing of the gender card. To my mind she had brought the whole women's movement into disrepute. She seems to forget that most women, most feminists, have men in their lives, husbands/partners, sons, grandsons and she should be governing for them as well. But then as you said - desperation makes people do desperate things.

a well written piece Sonia.

You've restored my faith in feminists. I read too much Daily Life and I am glad there are some feminists of sound mind.

Actually as much as I go on about feminists I agree with the simple goals of equality, it's the rubbish you describe that gets me down. The general Feminist Social Commentator is addicted to Hyperbole, and cant resist tying in every little event into some grand conspiracy against women.

It's a constantly flowing narrative about how the world is this sea of misogyny (Formally what was called sexist, see what I mean about the Hyperbole), and every time a woman faces any hardship it's a direct consequence of misogyny and the Patriarchy.

There's all this pseudo psycho analysis of men and maleness and male sexuality that completely ignores men as individuals or even so much as contemplates that perhaps not everything is about gender relations or even about women at all heaven forbid.

Under stress people revert to type. Sadly, it is the real Julia.

The great irony is that Gillard and many other ALP women are only in parliament thanks to an archaic and sexist quota system. There is no other job in Australia filled by women in the way Emily's list operates so for her to cry sexism is deranged.

I have a daughter who was raised not to play the poor widdle girl card and at 40 holds her own with anyone - she does not like Gillard.

I have two 22 year old granddaughters and a 13 year old one who would never dream of using the poor widdle girl card because they have been raised by a very strong and determined mother who is one of the gutsiest people I know.

I fought the fight back in the 1960's but I fought for all of us to be equal - Anne Summers is still back there and todays new girls don't have a clue what it was about.

When a PM who is female is as cruel as Gillard towards women in minority groups and invents men in blue ties as bogeymen she has lost the plot.

What a shame to have to break this to you, Sonia, but you’re NOT a feminist.

You are actually a female MRA activist posing as a feminist. While you think you are being clever by calling yourself a ‘feminist’, everything you write about after that point renders you a dead giveaway.

Female MRA activism posing as feminism has been around at least since the early 90s. It was pioneered in the US by the Heritage and Olin foundations and imported to Australia via the Murdoch media – which is most likely how you picked it up.

The writing style is based on faux-feminist mea culpas, in which a self-proclaimed ‘feminist’ actually sets out to discredit feminism by lots of faux soul searching about how bad and mean and awful it’s being to men, and how bad and mean it’s making women (because feminism stops them from growing up and taking responsibility for themselves, ya know), and how bad and mean it’s making women and men act towards each other.

Your real agenda is to pile guilt onto women (and men) who dare to question and challenge male privilege – which is what REAL feminism is about. Criticise feminism all you like but don't call yourself one until you learn something about it.

I’m sure all the pats on the head you received from the resident MRAs here (who ferociously guard the commentary gates against any stray feminist dogmas creeping in) was your best reward. So you don’t really need feminism, kiddo.

Sorry, but you’re OUT.

Excellent satire, Killarney.

It's going on my office wall.

Marilyn

‘Gillard and many other ALP women are only in parliament thanks to an archaic and sexist quota system …’

Which was introduced to offset the archaic and sexist exclusion of women from political life in the first place. (Of course, don't even THINK that those women might be there because they can do the job or that a lot of men are there simply because they are men.) The quota not only increased the much needed and long overdue presence of women in the Labor Party, it also had the flow-on effect of shaming the Coalition to lift their gender game.

Should that quota be dropped, the boys club will very quickly fill the void again. To think otherwise is to be utterly naïve, especially after the rampant misogynist and generic hatred directed at Julia Gillard during her prime ministership, simply because she didn't fulfill every point on everyone's agenda for first female PM.

You’re also being disingenuous to proclaim that thousands of years of male privilege and dominance in every sphere of public life can be overturned in a generation or two simply by having mums raise their daughters to be ‘gutsy’ and ‘determined’. Women have always had guts and determination – they’ve certainly needed it. What they lacked, and still lack, is a 50-50 share of the world in which to apply that guts and determination, one that is commensurate with their numerical makeup.

You’re not doing your daughters or granddaughters any favours - or the general population of women – by using sneers like ‘poor widdle girl card’ to discredit and shame the right of all women to challenge male privilege.

Bravo, Killarney!

A worthy successor.

Well said Killarney.
I felt the same way after I read this silly article.
(And If Runner was happy with it, then that's it for me.)

The author is trying to endear herself to men, while still trying to say 'I'm one of you' to modern feminists.

We can't drop the ball now and allow men to take over politics again.
God knows they have had a long enough shot at it...

killarney,
What women lack is an ability to lead. The only female leader of any worth since Joan of Arc has been Thatcher. And notice which side of politics she came from? You can carry on with your school yard gender studies stuff, but at the end of the day Gillard has been absolutely, horrendously hopeless. If she is the best women can do after 113 years of federation then let's hope it's aother 113 before we have to endure another.

Gillard's main problem is that she has allowed her emotions to interfere with her duties, the primary one being to carry out the wishes of the electorate in a rational and effective way. There's nothing wrong with emotion in politics or anywhere else -- Hawke was a very emotional man and still an effective PM, but when one's emotions prevent rational decision-making then the results are going to be predictably disastrous. I don't want to attack Gillard on the basis of her gender, but I do wonder whether any male politician could have risen to such heights without learning the appropriate boundaries for emotional expression.

I'm not quite sure why some women here regard Gillard as a champion of women's rights.

Her government has made it infinitely harder for single parents, the vast majority who are women, to manage.

I met a woman in that position a while back who, along with her daughter, had been living in her parent's backyard. They've now moved into the two front rooms of a friends house whose husband works fly-in-fly-out.

It's one thing to use the "misogyny' clause to create a bit of theatre in parliament - and entirely another to actually render mothers destitute and often on the streets or begging at charities because they can no longer afford to pay the rent or bills.

How is that lifting up women in our society?

Expect to see more of this as mothers and their children exhaust their list of family and friends willing to support their eroded circumstances.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-30/housing-fails-to-meet-changing-face-of-homelessness/4659026

Poirot
It is a pity our parliamentarians on both sides of politics cannot highlight those issues you have raised like homelessness instead of re-defining feminism to suit a political agenda. I have also yet to see privileged middle class feminist lobbies champion the cause of lowly paid childcare workers. They won't because this would impact on the 'affordable childcare' model. Similarly those agencies like OSW have given little, if any, time for women who might choose to stay at home to raise children in terms of policy.

Where feminism started it's journey about equality and choices, it has sinced morphed to some extent into a packaged product marketed in line with the prevailing dogma where failure to show allegiance on all matters is marked down in the test of feminist loyalty. It is not altogether surprising; this phenomenon is characteristic of many causes.

What is most offensive is the dogma that Sonia writes about in her article. The 'you don't agree, so off with your head' mentality. This focus on feminism as a political foil does more harm than good.

Suse
Criticism of aspects of feminism is not about 'endearing oneself to men'. That is a well-worn tactic to dismiss conversations that need to be had about feminism that may seem at odds with the dogma. It is the same as saying 'off with your head, dissent is not allowed'.

The article is not arguing there is no misogyny in society and that women don't experience sexism from time to time. It is not saying that feminism is bad. Read the article again and really 'listen' to the author's argument.

You've got to love Killarney's sloganeering of "male privilege." Spoken like a true feminist automaton. Never mind the fact that this "privilege" is earned by waking up at 6 am 5 or 6 days a week then slogging it out at work for 8-10 hours a day, week after week, month after month, year after year. It's such a "privilege" to work until your health fails.

In reality, it's an insult call people who work for what they have a "privilege." But insulting people is what feminists do.

'The article is not arguing there is no misogyny in society and that women don't experience sexism from time to time. It is not saying that feminism is bad. '

Exactly pelican. But, as you say, it's zero tolerance! Stay on Message, those menz are b@STARDS! Don't ever give em a break or explore anything other than black and white obedience to the doctrine that every event is part of a continuing narrative of the evils of men, the patriarchy and the infinite misogyny.

SJF, sorry Killarney, as antiseptic laughs, really is quite comical. Basically anyone who doesn't buy into the 'truth' of the grand overarching conspiracy of all men, the ' thousands of years of male privilege and dominance in every sphere of public life', can never be a feminist in her mind.

Back in reality land, outside of the gender studies propaganda machine rewriting history as one grand Adam vs Eve, where men and women have loved and laughed and worked hard together raising families throughout history, however constricted by gender roles, the world is much more nuanced.

I think really what Killarney defines as feminist is to be perpetually angry and bitter and maintain a huge chip on one's shoulder. Cant imagine why women with a balanced and rational and fair minded outlook wouldn't be interested in that.

All I see is an author who revisited the very worst bits of hyperbowl, stepped back and rationally looked at the situation with an open mind, still found misogyny, but discarded the most extreme bits. Traitor! Off with her head!

Poirot

There have been some lively debates on feminist websites about the failure of Australian feminist commentary to seriously challenge the government's Newstart/single parents legislation. I've engaged in them myself and been extremely critical of this failure. I also know several women that have been plunged into dire predicaments because of it.

This is the kind of criticism that feminists welcome and learn from. It is concrete, fair and easily proved. (I suspect that there might have been more feminist criticism about this, but the welfare-phobic Oz media just didn't want to know.)

However, empty generalisations about feminism upsetting men and stopping women from growing up are subjective perceptions that can be neither proved nor disproved. They achieve nothing other than a sense of self-righteousness in the generaliser.

Great article, I also had a look at Sonias article on criticism of women who put child care ahead of career by some feminists, also very well said.

http://bowditchpitch.com/2013/02/22/bugger-off-feminist-movement/

Feminists willing to speak honestly rather than playing for every advantage give the movement credibility, those who blatently play for special treatment undermine it.

R0bert

'It is concrete, fair and easily proved.'

HAhahahaha

Like the basis is of practically all feminist social commentary I'm sure!

I too, have no problem with arguments of this sort.

It's the poor thought out theories that attempt to assign motive to every thing men do that gets my goat. The grand conspiracy theories about the secret Patriarchy clubs, the hive mind of men, the extrapolation, the 1 in 3 statistic pulled out of thin air, the abuse of statistics, the expansion of definitions, all twisted and construed to attempt to fit into this world view, this continuous narrative of the innocent female victim and the aggressive oppressor male.

If only the constant feminist commentary of men was 'concrete, fair and easily proved'. Hahaha

'empty generalisations about feminism upsetting men and stopping women from growing up are subjective perceptions that can be neither proved nor disproved. They achieve nothing other than a sense of self-righteousness in the generaliser.'

Bravo! You have just described feminism. Empty generalizations about men and their 'attitude to women', misogyny, and supposed privilege, and the total denial of women's agency or any responsibility at all for any social problem are subjective perceptions that can be neither proved nor disproved. They achieve nothing other than a sense of self-righteousness in the generaliser.

"However, empty generalisations about feminism upsetting men and stopping women from growing up are subjective perceptions that can be neither proved nor disproved. They achieve nothing other than a sense of self-righteousness in the generaliser."

Self-righteousness on OLO. Never!

An opposing view does not necessarily equal self-righteousness.

The article is not an attack on feminism. I wonder if anyone ever reads these pieces properly.

I am a feminist but.... (looks like the author has a point, no-one is listening)

Pelican, it's a point that is obvious and it's exactly the same point I've been arguing for the last several years on this site.

I gave this link in another thread. It's worth putting here.

http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2013/6/the-blind-spot-in-feminist-political-theory

"When we remember the obvious fact that human communities, including their ruling elites, do not control their destinies, and so do not simply legislate for social order according to a set of ideal values, much that is otherwise inexplicable and even ugly in human social orders becomes clear.Human social orders are functional devices which aim at group survival, and so these orders are more restrictive the more demanding the problems to be solved. Of course, they are not simply functional—societies are strongly inertial, and preserve in their traditions many features the purpose of which have long been lost—but much headway can be gained in understanding social structures by keeping in mind the necessity, for any society, of solving this basic problem of survival."

Feminists have been very successful in convincing shallow women seeking special treatment and shallow men who are desperate to please that the above statement is untrue.

As a result we have a lot of legalised discrimination against men based not on the need for survival of the society, or its prospering, but on some nebulous "values" that are no more than facile justifications of that discrimination akin to the religious "values" that US slave owners used to justify their "right" to behave abominably and to convince the slaves their situation was divinely ordained.

Have a loom at the thread on abortion, where suseonline gives a fine exposition of the slave-holder's mentality.

Pelican

‘The article is not an attack on feminism. I wonder if anyone ever reads these pieces properly.’

No, of course not. It's a deeply nuanced and insightful treatise on the human condition. I wonder if you even read my COMMENT, which was about the willingness of feminists to accept fair criticism and learn from it - but I suppose that's too much information to process.

Just to show you that I DID read the article, I’ll do some cut’n’pasting from it – just to save me the trouble of having to write something that won’t be read.

‘The feminist creed has become so unforgiving that … Nuance is not welcome.’

Nope. No attacks there.

‘Deviate from the [feminist] script and you will be brandished a traitor to the cause.’
Nope. No attacks there, either.

‘I am a feminist but, unlike many … I refuse to encourage a way of life that pits women against men in this way.’

Oh, look! Another not-an-attack on feminism!

‘… has our society been conditioned to accept that to criticise women or poke fun is considered misogynist?’

Oh, but this quote has nothing whatever to do with feminism, you understand. No, none at all.

‘I am a feminist, but I feel uncomfortable taking part in this “let’s make it all about women versus men” palaver …’

Oh, lawd! Perhaps the author meant to say: ‘I am a feminist butthead.’

Killarney:

http://tinyurl.com/at5enuc

I'm sorry I couldn't find a link to a 'no true feminist' page. I hope you can still understand the point I'm trying to make but I'm happy to clarify things if you can't.

Cheers,

Tony

Killarney <"Oh, lawd! Perhaps the author meant to say: ‘I am a feminist butthead.’"

Lol!
Never mind Killarney, that's the way I read this article too, but I was also shot down.
Maybe good old-fashioned feminism is still alive outside OLO, but on here feminist bashing is alive and well.

Killarney
"...which was about the willingness of feminists to accept fair criticism and learn from it - but I suppose that's too much information to process."

Well I will try my best. Trouble is that with any criticism of feminism comes comments like that of 'self-righteousness'. This is not informed debate. I am very happy to listen to arguments but if we happen to disagree it may be that we just process this information differently.

There are many examples where offensive events have been put down to sexism when in fact it has just been offensive. Sexism should be identified when it occurs, it is that one should be sure that it is in fact sexism and not a knee-jerk reaction because the recipient just happens to be female.

As a feminist there are things that we accept as offensive to women - that are indeed sexist. Discussions around mens' issues are also needed and are valuable if we are to create better communities.

My personal view is that the PM was not (for example) calling out sexism in the rally about blue ties, rather using it as a electioneering opportunity to push the feminist barrow. This is a divisive tool and only serves to draw a wedge IMO. There are ways of arguing for more women in politics than diminishing men and their apparell.

Governments must serve the interests of all groups.

Even though I believe the term was misused and overstated, I understood the PM's misogyny speech as it was an impulsive and emotional reaction to a nasty and bottom-dwelling comment by Tony Abbott about her father.

The article is putting forward only some criticism of feminism and we can learn from it. We can be feminists together and we can disagree. Feminism should also look at liberating men from their shackles of gender based roles if we are going to be fair. There is a lot more discussion to be had together united than divided.

Pelican, whilst I appreciate what I believe you're trying to say in this piece and you have obviously good intent, I think you've allowed a couple of unexamined assumptions to creep in.

"As a feminist there are things that we accept as offensive to women - that are indeed sexist."

This assumes two things: firstly that we can "accept" certain things as objectively offensive based on our class membership. But the same things would not have been perceived by different members of the same class a generation or two ago. In other words, what we "accept" is a construct, it doesn't follow from the nature of the class in the same way that (say) poverty can be seen as a part of the nature of the class of long-term unemployed people. It's subjective, not objective. That is at the heart of the problem with "progressive" policy formation generally; it is aimed at "doing something" about subjectively-derived "problems" rather than objectively addressing observed inequities. It is informed by emotional advocacy rather than rational enquiry.

Second, that sexism is defined by that subjective offence. You clarify later, but it does show the seductive power of subjectivity.

I'd also like to take you up on the second sentence in that paragraph. There are no such things as "men's issues" or "women's issues" or even "family issues", there are simply "people issues" which need to be addressed holistically, not as a class-based contest.
Part of that is recognising that humans have 2 sexes and that we do better when the sexes are not competing as well as understanding that we have complementary strengths and weaknesses. Trying to make the sexes identical is laughable, as Killarney shows so well with her satire.

Anti

One does not have to be member of a class to identify sexism. Aren't most observations subjective - based on personal experiences and analysis.

My main objection is the careless use of the term 'sexism'.

As for generations ago, there were many conditions women 'put up with'. My great grandmother had many children being a good Catholic and had to raise them almost alone, with a husband who came home drunk more times than not. And a Church that told her it was her duty. Women were also told they could not have abortions but did anyway despite the risks of backyard operators.

Men also carry the burden of major breadwinner and that expectation may be viewed as sexist. Maybe those burdens is why my great grandfather came home drunk - who knows. Men have to put up with a different sort of sexism as highlighted by many previous discussions around family law. I am not arguing sexism is a one-way street. It is complex and I agree with you that the discussions around this have to involve men and women.

I am not talking about gender roles in this context. More the way women were viewed as 'lesser' in terms of their value as a homemaker/mother or in terms of their abilities to be rational, or ability to work in various professions.

Unfortunately the feminist movement, instead of adding value to those traditional feminine roles, chose instead to demean them in the race to be 'equal' to men. In a way feminism swallowed the line that value comes as a productive unit within an economic system. The value to society that come from family solidarity were diminished.

For example comments like 'this is what you get when a woman is PM' or 'women are destroying the joint' are examples of sexism. Sexism is out there but let's be honest about what is and what isn't sexism. However is it government's role to push these sorts of agendas in the everyday unless it is on behalf of men and women.

.../cont

"... there are simply "people issues" which need to be addressed holistically, not as a class-based contest."

The majority of public policy should be focussed on what is right and what is wrong. Gender is irrelevant for the most part with the exception IMO still around issues of rape and sexual politics. There is still more work needed on that front and perceptions about women/men in that context. Whether governments should get involved is another matter. How does a government deal with deeply entrenched attitudes - I don't know. More government advertising is not the answer.

My view is that the best change (as far as attitudes go) comes from setting examples without the accompanied lecturing. Not a contrived example but simply just living your values is the best approach in my opinion. Not just for a PM but for anybody.

Anti
Your statement about "complementary strengths and weaknesses" needs further examination.

Do we have complementary strengths and weaknesses? Maybe there are some broad biological differences but my problem with gender discussions around this issue is they are also subjective. The main objective IMO is to remove that stereotyping as far as policy goes, so that we open up opportunities for men and women (equally) by working from a premise that we are individuals first, not slaves to a concrete view about gender abilities.

My concern with the biological arguments is that they are seen as all-encompassing without acknowledgment of individual strengths and weaknesses. But maybe you did not mean it to be all-encompassing approach.

I don't pretend these discussions are simplistic by any means and from time to time I re-visit and examine my own views on these complex discussions. These ponderings invariably come back to the simple values of respect and consideration.

Pelican, you are very patient with some of these 'discussions' , and I take my hat off to you : )
I doubt you will ever change Antiseptic and his cohort's minds though.

There will never be simply 'people issues' where gender equality is concerned, especially while we still have some way to go yet.

I agree there is nothing to be gained by carrying on the stereotyping of men and women, as this has never benefited either gender I believe.

There is much that is offensive to women that many men will never agree is also sexism. It will be a long time before that changes ...

pelican,

Have you considered that maybe you were raised at time when differences between the sexes had to be denied? Activism required that to achieve the same pay, for example.

Surely the major wars have been won and it is OK to discover and celebrate the differences between the sexes.

As well, what about conceding that both women and men were prevented from obtaining abortions? Yes, the woman's body was directly affected, but both the woman and the man are affected by unplanned pregnancy and abortion. Men have feelings too.

I really do not believe that the way ahead is through feminist 'insights'. Times have changed a lot, just consider the effects of globalism and technology, and we need to work together to work things out. Rightly or wrongly, in modern times feminism is not a positive force or facilitator for change and it is most commonly a defence or attack tool - the card certain to block conversation, even if the other party is only turning away in disgust.

Pelican, thanks for the interesting take on things. You cover a lot of ground.

Using a subjective observation to impute motive to another is simply irrational. Any reasoning based on that imputation is intrinsically flawed. It is fine to say "I was offended by that comment", it is not fine to say "I was offended by that comment, you're a sexist" and to go any further is totally beyond the pale.

Up until the last 30 years or so the social norms were that a woman would work until she found someone to settle down with, possibly continuing for a few years so they could save a deposit for a mortgage, then, usually well before 30, she would fall pregnant and thereafter, until the children were grown, her primary role would be mother and a secondary one, wife. The preferred norm for men was to find a job that had the prospect of being secure and offered a pathway to promotion and increased pay over time, so that the family would be securely and comfortably funded when she was no longer working.

As a result, costs were constrained by the money available to a family with a single breadwinner and if a woman chose to do part-time work it meant the family was tangibly better off, since her money was not required to meet ordinary expenses, but could be saved or purchase luxuries.

Women were not viewed as "lesser", at least in my experience. They were seen and viewed themselves as central to the family and to society. Many men came home on Friday and handed their unopened pay to their wife. However, there was a clear demarcation between the gender roles and both sexes disparaged that of the other at times, usually on the basis of stereotypes that had a grain of truth, often a whole truckload.

However, they also knew they were unchallenged in their own domain and roles. They could relax into their skin, so to speak.
[cont]

Gender is very far from irrelevant as long as women bear children. We are a eusocial species with instinctual drives that are very different in both sexes. Women are not men with an "innie" instead of an "outie" and it is immensely damaging to everyone to pretend otherwise On another thread one such difference was demonstrated by Suse, who thinks it perfectly reasonable to give a man no choice to "abort" his involvement with an accidental conception, but demands that women MUST have such a choice, even though the woman's choice involves killing the foetus and the man's only requires that he leave. 3 men disagreed and sadly no other women chose to comment.

Feminism has played on that female insecurity that Suse's response demonstrated. Having a child at heel is a significant impediment to self-support, so a mother is reliant on help, traditionally from her mate. That reliance breeds fear of abandonment and can lead to resentment. I'd go so far as to say that such insecurity is a fundamental part of a normative woman, mother or not and that it drives a great deal of the interaction between the sexes, while a man's responsibility as provider/protector breeds a different set of related insecurities and resentments. Shakespeare spent a lifetime writing about them.

Those roles are intrinsic to our eusociality. Feminism has been incredibly destructive because it has ignored that fundamental aspect of humanity. Neither women nor men are better off and we are all less happy except a few childless women with professional careers and those who profit from a high level of consumerism.

Because of feminism a normative woman can no longer look forward to a happy 10-15 years of family rearing supported by a husband's income, but must work or be supported by the State, even if they are married. The family is not relatively more prosperous for that work, a large part of it is consumed in paying for others to do the things that women would have done themselves if not working and both mother and children are deprived of their time together.

Last part, you can relax soon...

Male unemployment is now at levels higher than during the Great Depression. The productive work that they used to do is not seen by feminists as necessary. We have a "service" economy. Once, being "in service" was to be a servant of those who had wealth and was a minor, poorly paid occupation of those who lacked marketable skills. In the distorted vision of feminists it is the future of a nation.

It is instructive that the nature of the work that women choose mirrors the type of work they would have done domestically in an earlier age to a large extent, but now instead of doing it for an appreciative family who place Mum at the centre of their world, their toil is for the benefit of uncaring strangers and strangers play at being mother to their children

Because of feminism a normative man's protective and providential role has been degraded and his value as a eusocial human diminished quite deliberately. As a result men are lost and drifting, their best instincts portrayed as hurtful to the very people they most want to please and protect, but because of those instincts they go along quietly, being supportive, accepting even the most egregious abuse from women like Suse, accepting their second-class status. They have no choice to do otherwise, the same instinct that makes them willing to die in war to protect the women and children at home makes them willing to make any sacrifice if women demand it.

Feminism is a dysfunctional, inhuman creation of corporate greed and the selfishness of a few defective women. It has prospered only through enormous subsidy and promotion and by it's constant nagging reiteration of petty resentments and deliberate fostering of insecurities. Earlier generations would be scathing of what their grand-daughters have become and weep for the children.

We have constructed a system tied to corporate and government exigencies, where if someone else looks after one's child, GDP rises - if one looks after their own child, GDP is not affected.

Late capitalism dictates in the modern West that women are raised up because they now hand over the tots to be nurtured en masse while their mums are ensconced in the "workplace".

Not only that, but we fortunate Westerners, who judge every nuance of life,it seems, by its dollar value, have access to very cheap produce from developing countries overseas......another construct of the corporate paradigm. We shouldn't underestimate our reliance on other people's misery that enables our "workplace" mentality. We're not required to do things at home because we can purchase them for a song in the shops. and when they're worn out we can just buy some more because they are CHEAP.

So this is what our corporate first world righteousness does to women overseas in places like China and Bangladesh http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-24/australian-retailers-linked-to-sweatshop-abuse/4773738 ....but that's okay with us too because apparently we're giving these women opportunities to slave for a pittance way away from their families.

So much for feminism.

Poirot, to be fair, I doubt feminism wanted what has happened to the women in China.
I would think their rights were never considered that important before the days of feminism either.

Feminism brought women the vote, better working conditions, and support for single mothers. So I don't think we can write it all off as a complete disaster.

Feminism had little to do with women having to work outside the home in our country, while the depression and the world wars were to blame.

I agree that working mothers have it particularly hard, but I doubt feminism is to blame.

It may be easy to lump sexism in with feminism, and many blame feminism for their current woes, but we still have a way to go before women are considered equal as far as work conditions are concerned.

See this is what gets me.

We have quite interesting discussion from people who do and don't identify as feminists, and it is to me at such a higher level than the one-eyed sloganeering of the likes of Killarney. Why after all the practice, do feminists do discussions on gender roles and societal structures so so badly?

I think the authors point is proved by Killarney. I really don't see a
' willingness of feminists to accept fair criticism and learn from it', especially from Killarney.

'There is much that is offensive to women that many men will never agree is also sexism.''

Have you ever considered maybe it actually isn't?

For example, from the article, being insensitive about the death in the family of Julia Gillard. Just how is that anything to do with sexism?

I read an article the other day on the shortcomings of medical services as experienced by lesbians. There was some attitudes from doctors about the need for pap smears etc, and some 'assumed heterosexuality'. This was casually and matter of fact-ly described as 'homophobia' by the author.

Hold your horses!

The lesbians are experiencing 'homophobia', based on someone assuming they were heterosexual? I just don't think people fighting for recognition for any group that experiences discrimination ever really steps back and re-visits these terms they sling around, and realizes how irrational that is.

Just like 'misogyny', the word that had it's meaning changed by constant misuse by feminists, is anything that renders any feeling of marginalization for a lesbian, by definition, homophobia?

At the core, this is my problem with feminism. The assigning of motive to men based on the perception of the world by feminists; I feel x, so by my huge jump of logic, men are y, and you think z.

To attempt to correct this assertion is often to be considered sexist and misogynist.

'we still have a way to go before women are considered equal as far as work conditions are concerned.'

Definitely. The need to die more on the job for that to happen.

Suze,

I'm not only targeting feminism....yet our societal structure now dictates that women working outside the home and reliant on being able to purchase their goods and services is the way it is.

So we have a corporatised lifestyle whereby women are relieved of domestic servitude. The things they once had to spend time making are now available "cheaply" in the stores. That may be seen as a boon for Western women.

What I'm saying is that Western "convenience" is bought on the backs of women in the third world being worked in factories for a pittance.

Westerners are the royalty of the world.

How can Western women hold up their heads regarding feminist achievement and freedom from drudge when their third world sisters are being cruelly exploited to provide goods for them so that they can live the "emancipated" life?

'How can Western women hold up their heads regarding feminist achievement and freedom from drudge when their third world sisters are being cruelly exploited to provide goods for them so that they can live the "emancipated" life?'

Those third world sisters come in handy when western feminists need to appropriate their hardships for some western cause, but I agree in the end the western feminist is loath to recognize the source of their liberation. As is the western man of course.

Feminists never seem to have discussed any alternative to getting third world women (and child care workers) to support their workplace liberation.

Alternatively they could have

a) Found a better way to enhance the financial independence of women rather than making them wage slaves like men. The superannuation in this country is a problem, only if women divorce of course, as their partners die much earlier, which is probably not unrelated to their superior financial independence. I don't think this is too hard to achieve through good policy.

b) Fought to improve the perceived value of women's traditional gender role, though I think most men have always valued it. It is ironic as anti says, the end result has seen the bulk of women doing traditional gender roles for strangers rather than their own families.

c) Fought for working conditions in line with joint responsibilities in child-rearing, and worked to make it more acceptable for men to take on more of those roles, rather than demonizing them all as potential pedophiles. You don't see feminists rallying young women not to marry someone who earns much more than them, or to encourage women to desire partners in child-friendly occupations. Men in high demand jobs have traditionally looked for a good home-maker, women in high flying jobs seem to look for men in higher flying jobs.

d) Sorted out a superannuation type deal to handle the most intensive time for parents with young children that would allow parents to bring up their own kids.

Suze,

1850: Men with 100 pounds free-hold, 10 pounds annual value householders, 3 year lease of 10 pounds annual value, or depasturing licence were allowed to vote.

1893: The right to vote in Western Australia was granted to all male British subjects over the age of 21.

http://www.aec.gov.au/elections/australian_electoral_history/reform.htm

1895: Women over 21 were given the right to vote in South Australia.

1899: Women over 21 were given the right to vote in Western Australia.

This women and voting history is a big furphy. Most men didn't vot either around the same time. The feminist tries to rewrite history that it was some big sexist thing, when it was more to do with money than gender. It was to do with gender that the very rich were men, but not that women couldn't vote, as the poor men couldn't vote either.

It's a trick feminists use to position men as unilaterally at an advantage to women, when in the same period of history the vast majority of men, the poor men, couldn't vote either.

Feminists don't want to talk either about how women voted overwhelmingly to send young men who could not vote to Vietnam.

Apparently it isn't sexist to conscript 19yr old male youths to risk life and limb in a foreign country, and not even for the defence of Australia.

Poirot, I too worry about the women in other countries who don't have living or working conditions nearly as good as most have in Australia.

I feel especially angry for those women living under strict religious shackles, with patriarchal 'elders' who want to keep their women living in the past forever.

However, I'm not sure if western consumerism is able to be stopped, or even slowed down though.
Taking away the only employment those poor women have, even if it is to make items to satisfy the increased needs of western consumerism, would not help their lives.

The only changes able to be made in those women's working and personal lives will have to be from within their own countries and communities, and I am sure that will come.

I feel kinda funny around here, Suse, in that I seem to be only one who doesn't think that a subsistence peasant farmer, be it male or female, is out of "employment" or without work. Nor do I think they're necessarily unhappy or destitute or without the basic skills and resources to provide for themselves and their families.

Not every one in third world countries lives in landscapes that can't support them, in fact most live in landscapes that have supported their communities for eons.

I don't necessarily think swapping a traditional lifestyle for the thrill of slugging away in a factory for a pittance to serve the Western need for convenience and excess is a great outcome at all.

Poirot, I started a response to your last comments then realised I really don't know, just some ideas.

Basic premise, long term those subsistance farming lifestyles have had the numbers of people involved kept in check by a variety of factors that may apply less now. Transport can bring in emergency aid during a famine, vacinations reduce infant mortality etc. Meanwhile the subsistance farmers have not gotten wealthy and educated enough to reach the point wherethey start having less kids.

There are less natural checks on the numbers the land needs to support and the old ways don't meet the needs of an expended population.

Hence the problem

R0bert

RObert
You are not alone. I sometimes go to write great screeds on this and find it difficult to express or portray what I want to say. I think there have been some great discussion and honest feelings expressed on this thread.

Poirot's points are highly relevant as regards the standards of women elsehwere and the tendency of westerners to push their values, mainly around consumerism, onto another culture.

Even in the West, feminism is fostered to some extent on the backs of poorly paid child care workers who have to submit to less than living wages to suit the ideal of affordable childcare under a feminist/capitalist banner. It is the same with cheap imports at a cost to those nations who provide the better-off with their cheap goods.

It is all back to front in may ways.

I am a bit old-fashioned in some ways being born in the early 60s and grew up with strong gender differentiation but having been through the 70s as a young teenager/woman I was all for feminism in terms of equal respect, womens' shelters, equal pay for equal work. But feminism has morphed into something of a one size fits all approach which is just as dogmatic as the criticised patriarchial system. And the exclusion of men in the discussion is short-sighted.

People might be surprised at, what I think would be positive outcomes, of governmet focussing policy on good human outcomes rather than always pushing this modern and divisive gender-bent. It is not good enough when men share their feelings on these gender biases that SOME feminists merely reply 'diddums'.