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.