The comparison of feminism to unionism is instructive on a certain level. l beleive that the purpose of politics is to divide and conquer. Tap into, or preferably engineer, a social discontent then build a constituency on the back of it by claiming to redress any real and perceived power imbalance. The founders of a political movement, the activists, tend to drive most if not all of the substantive changes of a political movement in its very early formative changes. Then once those changes are in effect, the politicians move in and hijack the legacy of the activists, claiming it as their own and using it as thier basis of power.

This is about the time that political ideology becomes crucial. It becomes important to focus on the marginal remaining areas of discontent and really hammer home the ideology. Ideology by definintion is arbitrary, unyeilding... it does not change. It defies logic and reason. It must, for logic and reason will always defeat ideology, being that ideology is a leap of faith. By its nature, it must be contradictory and unacheiveable. Above all it must be IDEALISTIC ie aspirational and unattainable in its totality. That way, social discontent can always be fostered and those few politicians searching for personal power can keep eating.

Eventually, there is no place to go except into the marginal, exaggerations of 'us versus them' ideological propoganda. That leads to the necessary VILIFICATION of the political opposition... it keeps discontent alive thru emotional manipulation. Eventually, the anti-opposition vilification disenfranchises the constituency. They can see the changes, they can see that its just the few at the top who are still fighting for their place at the levers of power and they disconnect. Especially distasteful to the constituents is the propensity for extreme and often quite rationalisation. The lack of person substantive relevance and the distaste for hateful vilification of the oppostion drives people away.

l think this happened to unionism and its starting to happen with feminism. In fact femisist ideology is morphing into a womens' rights movement, which may be closer to truth than the laudible yet political obfuscation of a quest for so-called equality. Equality is an ideal... highly laudible yet logically flawed and essentially unattainable. No one is equal. We are all different and unique in some way or other. Given its idealistic nature it the perfect backbone of a political ideology. Interestingly, men too are now thinking in terms of so-called mens' rights. More of the same... me, me, me, us versus them type of stuff. Many of the rights that both men and women seek as a function of gender have merit, yet many are laced with vitriolic gender bashing personal discontent.

As an aside, l think that quoting such a narrow demographic as 24-35 yr olds is extremely limited. Particularly in this case, where a woman's reproductive biology has a signifiacnt impact on her needs and perception. Its well and good to see things a certain way when foot loose and free. Its another thing entirely when the kids come along and so much seem sto revert back to the ways of old, very often at the strong insistence of women. When women get past 35 and cannot conceive, their feeling and thought can change dramatically. Failing to survey women (and men) who are older than 35 is a huge ommission which in my view casts serious limitations over the inference and conclusions of the article.

Projecting the opinions of such a limited demography onto an entire population is, l believe, a logical flaw. It is the fallacy of construction. Basing a premise on a constructive fallacy can be a slippery slope.

Laurie,
So much talk about “women and the vote”, sounds very much like Animal Farm. Any discontent from the animals, and one of the pigs would immediately give a speech telling the animals that they were much better off under their leadership, and how all the animals should be grateful. Most of the animals were too young to know anything different.

Women had the vote a few years after men, but for most men and women, the vote meant very little, (as many people could not read, or get much information on their candidates to make an informed vote anyway), and the vote still doesn’t mean much even today (as voter’s perceptions are being moulded by political spin doctors).

In every era, women were much more protected than men, and if women had their 1.75 children years ago, then you would not be here, because the human race would have died out, because of the high rates of mortality before so many diseases were reduced or eradicated.

That's the reality of history, but it is rarely mentioned by professional feminists, who seek to portray women as being continually oppressed, no matter what the situation

Some issues regarding current motherhood, fatherhood and childhood were contained in my first post, but to ensure a complete picture of society is known, statistics that should be taken into account would include:-

Rates of
-abortion and unwanted pregnancy
-single mothers
-fathers being removed from their children
-single parent households.
-child poverty
-child abuse
-mortality
-STD’s
-children being born drug effected.
-welfare
-homelessness
-drug addiction
-marriage
-divorce
-debt
-suicide
-mental illness
-physical fitness
-crime
-single person households
-tax being paid
Etc,

If such current rates in society were compared to the past, (ie 25, 50, 75, 100 yrs ago) then this would give a clearer picture of how well our society has advanced or progressed, for all the work that has been done, and all the taxes that have been paid (some of which now goes into the pockets of people such as the highly confused, but academic feminist and professional male-basher, Dr Susan Maushart PhD)

Trade215

I don't think we agree on all things, but my God ! that analysis of yours in the 2nd last post was most welcome, and appropriate and so true !

This is why I've been trying to drag (with a lot of kicking and screaming mind you) some in the PC thread to see the big picture rather than the obsessively small like 'manhole/personhole' which is a classic example of what you were describing as the major issues fade and activists scrounge around for some 'relevance hook'.

You should be a Christian apologist + a 'family values' advocate :)

SPENDO
I don’t wish to drag you into something, but if your knowledge of Islam and Catholicism is limited, it might be a wiser course to hold back from telling us not to attack anything if you don’t know about it. With respect, I do know about them, from formal study. So, I’m in a better position than you to know whether it deserves to be attacked or not. No offence. I’m protestant by the way.

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/women/html/wh_033500_sexism.htm

“Sexism -the cultural assumption that men are superior to women and deserve preference and power over them”

I’m sure glad the Bible is not sexist.

Falacy 1. “Men are ‘superior’ This is a straw man. Men are in fact DIFFERENT.
Falacy 2. “Because men are superior, they DESERVE power and preference over women”

Men are not superior, so its wrong there. Men don’t ‘deserve’ power, it just works best that way by very natural laws which most people will not observe because of the relative peace of today+modern lifestyle. Put us in a traditional life setting, with predatory enemies, and it becomes quickly apparent that men must hold leadership in the protection of the ‘state/village/town’.

A female packing rations, is not inferior to the soldier who eats them on the front line.

<<The term sexism was coined in the 1960s by feminists>> (same article as above)

i.e. it is a political term, (Like Homophobia) invented with a specific political agenda in mind.

The problem, - itwas used tothrow the babyout with the bathwater, not differentiating between male female relationships based on ‘difference’ as opposed to ‘superiority/inferiority’ which should not exist. They don’t exist in the Bible, which is based on ‘difference’ and complementary roles.

Feminism attacks Patriarchy also, for ‘repessing women’ but it allowed a female leader of Israel during the height of Patriarchy. (search ‘Deborah+bible) So, Maggie Thatcher has her precedent err.. 2700 yrs ago.. Did ‘patriarchy’ need to be attacked ?

PC is closely related to the above, so I will attack it. I prefer simple ‘respect and courtesy’ they always worked b4, and if regained, will do so again.

BD,
I agree with your fist point – yes, men and women are different.

On your second:
“it just works best that way by very natural laws which most people will not observe because of the relative peace of today+modern lifestyle”.

You have got to be joking. Or delusional. Or just plain dumb. As far as natural law goes, in most ‘natural’ situations, the female of a species is more likely to fight for the protection of the young than the male. The males fight among themselves for dominance and territory while the females fight for survival and food. And much harder and viciously. So, your ‘natural law’ theory is complete trash.

“it becomes quickly apparent that men must hold leadership in the protection of the ‘state/village/town’”

Again, just plain male crap. Given you already held Mrs Thatcher up as example, how you justify this I don’t understand. Given she led England through a minor war (Falklands) and the Cold War – no mean feat – I think your argument is again, weak and inconsequential.

“it is a political term, (Like Homophobia) invented with a specific political agenda in mind.”

Well, this is just extreme religious stupidity becoming involved. So, gay men being bashed for no reason other than they are gay is ‘just political’? I’d say homophobia is alive and well. It’s not political, it’s just intolerance. As is the demeaning of women, claiming they aren’t capable because of their chromosome make-up. I know what you think ‘natural’ is but all you cling to is an outdated idea for a different time. As far as I know, God wants man to grow. I’m sure the ‘man’ in that included both the sexes otherwise they have to be considered the same as the animals – placed on Earth as tools for men to use.

Until gender is a non-issue, I can’t see why women shouldn’t feel they aren’t equal. When humans can get along with each other, regardless of race, religious or gender, then we will have grown, as God wants.