"... 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.