Dear Alison Jane,

Please explain what on
earth you're talking about and why.
There's lots of books available on
evolution at your local library.

Foxy,

The evidence is in that the predictions of the social constructionist is completely wrong and that while all options are now available, the choices by men and women overwhelmingly tend to deviate along gender lines especially in countries where there is the strongest equality of opportunity.

Foxy said- "True liberation from the restriction of gender would mean
that all possible options would be open and equally
acceptable for both sexes. Then a person's individual
human qualities, rather than his or her biological sex,
would be the primary measure of that person's worth and
achievement."

Answer-

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

According to communist writers and thinkers, the goal of communism is to create a stateless, classless society...(compare this to Foxy's gender stateless, classless society or- "liberation from ...gender") Communist thinkers believe this can happen if the people take away the power of the bourgeoisie and establish worker control of the means of production (Compare this to Feminist views that power needs to be taken away from the male patriarchy- as if they ever had all the power).

Communism is not anti-individualist (I would say it's anti-family as are Locke Liberals). However, it does say that decisions should be good for the population as a whole (who says what is good for the population as a whole- some small group of academics), instead of just being good for only some part of people in the country.

Does Foxy question the "traditional morality" of her own parents?

The thing is there will never be complete "open(ness) and equality"- The way Jordan Peterson puts it- humans need values (there is no tabula rasa- blank slate), values create hierarchy, hierarchy creates inequality. Also the way power is structured in the hierarchy determines the steepness and the level of tyranny.

A global hierarchy will create more inequality not less. Liberalism justifies greed and creates scarcity. There are those that favour anarchism for their own benefit.

Warren Thomas Farrell, American political scientist
who's generally considered "The father of the men's
movement" and who the female author of this article has
referred to - advocates that:

"There should be neither a women's movement blaming
men nor a men's movement blaming women but a gender
liberation movement freeing BOTH sexes from the rigid
roles of the past, toward MORE FLEXIBLE roles of the
future".

Not sure what communism or totalitarianism has to do with
this discussion. But I guess some people will try to
bring anything in as an attempt to score points.

However it should be clear to most rational people - that -

This does not mean that women will gradually adopt
the characteristics of men or that the two
existing genders will converge on some happy medium.
It does not mean gender similarity or a "unisex"
society.

What is being suggested is that in the future,
there probably
will be fewer constraints then there were in the past,
and that
individuals will be able to choose his or her own
path to self-fulfillment. Where various options will be open
and acceptable for both sexes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Farrell

It's worth reading a more objective text on Warren Farrell. Not that I agree with all of his views.

He's seems to be a bit of an out of touch theatre goer and was initially a second generation feminist but he makes some approapriate observations.

Interesting reference to "Cassie Jaye's 2016 documentary film about the men's rights movement, The Red Pill".

Even Nietzsche talked about "fewer constraints then there were in the past, and that individuals will be able to choose his or her own
path to self-fulfillment" Read "Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None".

I'm suspicious of this academia/ expert authority/ Burnham Managerialism laden view and people aren't allowed to have an opinion- sounds much like totalitarianism to me.

The cover to "The Godfather" says "Power cannot be given- it can only be taken".

I've been reviewing the concept of propaganda and the Institute for Propaganda Analysis of 1938.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Propaganda_Analysis

Father Coughlin’s radio talks were selected by the IPA for analysis since they represented "a fairly typical borrowing of foreign anti-democracy propaganda methods by an American propagandist."[3]:x Seven tricks of the propagandist were outlined and illustrated by reference to the radio talks in a book The Fine Art of Propaganda, edited by Alfred McClung Lee and Elizabeth Briant Lee. As Clyde Miller explained in the Preface, "So far as individuals are concerned, the art of democracy is the art of thinking and discussing independently together." The book is presented as a "candid and impartial study of the devices and apparent objectives of specialists in the distortion of public opinions."[3]:viii Chapters four through ten described the following propaganda tricks:

Name-calling
Glittering generalities
Transfer
Testimonial
Plain folks
Card stacking
Bandwago

Public opinion is the sum of the decisions of
the members of a public on a particular issue.
Because people may constantly change their views,
opinion on many issues is often in a state of flux.
An assessment of public opinion is therefore valid
only for the time and place in which it was made.
People may be quite willing, however, to express
opinions on subjects they know nothing about.

Despite this, in our society, considerable importance
is placed on public opinion.

A great deal of money is spent annually on public-opinion
polls and market surveys and on media campaigns to
build favourable public images of policies, corporations,
products and political parties.

These campaigns are actually forms of propaganda -
information or viewpoints that are presented with the
deliberate intention of persuading the audience to adopt
a particular opinion. Propaganda may be true or false,
but its objective is always the same, to influence public
opinion toward a specific conclusiopn.

Public opinion arises in an informal way, making it difficult
to study. We do know, however, that people are not the
passive victims of advertisers and other media persuaders.

Opinions are not formed in a vacuum. They are made in a
context of existing cultural and personal preconceptions.

Moreover, people don't necessarily get their opinions
directly from media sources.

Information and viewpoints are sifted through other people
particularly family, friends, and workmates.

For example we are more likely to be influenced to see a
movie by a friend who recommends it to us than by a
newspaper advertisement.

We're also influenced by opinion leaders, usually people
we admire - whose views mirror our own. We can see this
from the rise of minority political parties - such as
One Nation.

There are various propaganda techniques that are used and
the expressed opinions of the public can now be measured by
opinions polls with a high degree of accuracy. But there
are significant problems of constructing, using, and
interpreting measure of public opinion. And as we have seen
in the past a notorious misreading of opinion can occur.