Killarney,
What's good for men IS automatically good for women and patriarchy ensures that women and children are cared for by their husbands and fathers.
The reason the political parties are dying is because they can't attract young male members but they treat them like crap when they do join and the fact is that young women will only join in when there are men their own age present.

Killarney wrote "Yes, this is the way of the patriarchy. Men lead/women follow. Men active/women passive".

Yin and Yang is more than some esoteric dribble. And to hold passivity in an inferior light and without it's own sphere of power and universal necessity is to reveal a rabid feminist lurking about somewhere.

Killarney, without the patriarchy -- and without associating the feminist misuse of the word -- then we're without order and virility that drives a society. But more than that, woman are now in more positions of power in the patriarchal model than ever before - and continuing to rise.

So what then is issue with Jay's post?

Take Euro-Maidan the girls filled the molotovs and their boyfriends threw them at the cops, division of labour.

Jay

Tell that to the millions of women over the centuries who were deserted by their protectors or left widowed, and then found that their only means of survival was menial labour, religious charity, putting their children into orphanages or, more recently, welfare (which is now under serious attack).

No, the only real protection for women and children is for women to have their own financial independence.

One of the main reasons the old parties are dying is because they still operate under the old competitive male-breadwinner system, which inhibits policies that provide for more equal distribution of opportunities and outcomes for all.

Interesting that you resort to a warfare analogy to 'prove' your distribution of labour point, without realising that war is the ultimate expression of competitive male violence.

Gaudium

'reveal a rabid feminist lurking about somewhere'

My posting policy is to ignore childish provocations of that sort. If you wish to post a mature argument about gender and politics, I might consider engaging with you. Otherwise, you go straight to my 'Ignore' list.

Killarney,

What you quoted of my post cutoff the preceding statement of that sentence; an important point too. Taken as a whole you'll see I wasn't provoking you.

Gaudium

With or without the context, your use of the term 'rabid feminist' is childish and provocative. It wasn't meant for me. It was meant to show solidarity with other men and women who find feminism threatening and femininely unattractive.

Either engage with me as an equal and as a person of intelligence or don't engage with me at all.