Paul I agree that there is little evidence to support Australians becoming more conservative and I can understand that there can be confusion about what we are told by the elites and what seems to be the stat, facts.

As a man that was at the begining of the baby boomer years and had personal experience with the changing equality, the worst women I met were the radical feminist dyke's who hated everything that may be male.

Could I just add this to the debate, please don't forget the many men back then that supported equality for women and put it into practise, without ranting and raving. One of the reasons I feel that younger women have changed their attitudes is because the vast majority of sane men accept that they are equal. What you can't do is take out the inbred desire for both sexes to oggle each other. Even at my age I love to look at lovely young women, but as I would look at my daughter. This may sound stupid but they are so cute and full of life and they know that they can go get it if they want. The world is their oyster so to speak and it is a pity that it didn't' become that way long ago

In some cases there are things in law and social standards which favor females, but there are also somethings that favor men. We have an equality that allows us to see each other as equal contributors to society.

We must also understand that we are all still men and women and until that changes, we will be different. Being different brings equality, not sameness, not accepting difference is inequality.

To the ladies on this post, you do yourselves proud, which is more than I can say for the mentally ill religious ones that can but quote mythological illusions constantly. After all it is religion that attempts to suppress women and men into submission.

BD, why would relevance be a problem for feminism? If the goal of feminism is to promote women's equality, then as long as there is inequality, there is relevance. When men and women are equal, the relevance wanes – and so does the concept of feminism. At that point it would be hoped that all people of the world see not gender but a person.

Until gender is not a consideration for any goal sought by an individual, feminism will be relevant. Once it’s not, I don’t think even the most radical woman would care that it wanes.

As for the comparison between radical feminism to Marxism, this is also applicable to other radical (see fundamental) Christian, Islamic or other ideology that becomes larger in the minds of the followers than in real life.

Would you care to state clearly whether the respect you attributed between the husband and wife is equal – or relative to their position in the ‘partnership’? I sense a subtext in your writing. Is there a ‘senior’ partner in your idea of husband/wife?

Could you also state clearly, without circumspect (that is, in yes or no terms) your answers to these questions:
- Does a woman deserve exactly the same freedoms and opportunities, in every way, that a man does?

- Is a woman as capable of leading as a man?

- Is it natural for a woman to be in a completely equal partnership with a man?

- Is it natural for a man to mind the house while the woman supports the family?

Just some curiosity regarding your world view…

Food for thought – my family. A single mother raises 4 children who go on to be: a decorated police officer, a lawyer, a financial advisor and a children’s counsellor. No criminal records, no drugs and no alcoholics. All while holding down a full time job and managing a mortgage in the 80’s – with no assistance from the father. Seems to me a woman is as capable as any man.

Be proud women – you are strong and equal in every way.

Rainier,
Perhaps you could be more specific in your opinion of statistics, and in particular the statistics contained in this article. If statistics are worthless, then why is it that so much taxpayer’s money is spent on researchers developing statistics. Is such research worthless?

Giaman,
You have said a lot of generalised, unsubstantiated words. Is this representative of feminism? Perhaps you could be more specific.

Paul Norton,
Public opinion polls can be easily manipulated through choice of wording in their questions, and they also depend upon the public having sufficient knowledge to give an opinion. Very often the public does not, and some people who have objectively studied feminist ideology have found nothing but lies, fraud and myth, (eg http://www.iwf.org/ARTICLES/article_detail.asp?ArticleID=68) so the public has not been able to see the real picture in the past because of this.

I would think the backlash is now well on in Australia and in other countries. A part of core feminist ideology is the destruction of the nuclear family and the removal of the father from his children. This has been occurring extensively, but the release of study papers such as “When the Difference is Night and Day” http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/afrc8/parkinson.pdf have highlighted the extent of this part of feminist ideology occurring within Australia, and that paper was heavily referred to in various inquiries held recently into Family Law. The result will likely be some of the most major changes occurring to Family Law in 30 years. Those changes have to occur, as the present situation cannot continue, or there won’t be any families in the future.

Core feminist ideology also includes the promotion of wide scale abortion, but backlash to this is now growing also, after many millions of children have been killed, and abortion rates have hardly decreasedin many places, even with significant advances in contraception.

Other parts of core feminist ideology includes the state being responsible for raising children, and backlash to this is also occurring, as even governments now recognise that this is not only inadvisable for children, but too impractical also.

I could continue but have reached word limit.

Timkins, My point is that people change their minds overnight. Opinion stats should be seen as a snapshot of a demographic of opinion - not a conclusive and reliable indicator of attitudinal change. This does not mean statistics are useless, rather the opposite, interpretation of them is often at fault.

I'm not sure if there has been a retreat from feminist values so much as a constriction from a much broader and outward-looking agenda to a narrowly instrumental and self-centred one.

Feminism as I understood it in the seventies and eighties was much more than simply striving to achieve equality with men in the workplace and on the domestic front. Feminism for me provided the hope that women would achieve positions of power and influence and would change the world for the better.

Women have become decision makers but sadly nothing has changed. The competitive indivdualistic environment remains and becomes more dog-eat-dog with each passing year. Women now climb over other women to get to the top. The feminine values of caring and cooperation are as far removed from the echelons of power as they ever were.

Where I once hoped the rise of feminism might mean the end of war, there is arguably less questioning today of the efficacy of war than there has ever been. Equality for women seems to have resulted in little more than women now demanding the right to kill alongside men. The idea that women might have an equal voice and demand an end to killing doesn't seem to have occurred to many in this generation of women.

Rainier,
I'd agree that public opinion polls aren't that reliable. They are like asking one question only in an exam paper. If the poll question was, “Do you think women should have more rights”, then the most common answer would probably be “Yes”. If the question was, “Do you think women should have more rights than men”, then the most common answer would probably be “No”. So asking more than one question gives more insight into peoples thoughts, but more than one question becomes a research study, not an opinion poll.

By it’s name, Feminism is gender biased and prejudiced, and I know of few feminist organisations that include males, so feminism is also undemocratic. So how reliable or worthwhile is feminist research?

My personal experience is that feminist research is 99% unreliable. At it’s best, feminist research is advocacy research or a form of brainwashing propaganda. An example of where feminist research eventually leads to would be Dr Susan Maushart PhD, who has carried out an extensive amount of feminist research in Australia, but by her own words in her most recent book, (eg. “I’m as f*ed up as ever”),so she does not seem to have a very clear idea regards anything. So becoming totally confused, does not necessarily mean becoming less conservative.

Bronwyn
An interesting article on feminisim US politics:-

“Instead, she claims that feminists “demonize” conservative women such as Ann Coulter, Phyllis Schlafly and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutcheson. “Feminists called Hutcheson a female impersonator,” said Easton. “Somehow, she’s not a real woman because she’s conservative?”
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=8403

Considering the actions, texts, press releases etc of various feminist and women’s organisations in Australia (nearly all of which exclude males, so they cannot be democratic), I would say they very much rely on name calling and demonisation as a political tool also. In the past they have mainly carried this out on males (including young boys), but in the US they also carry it out on other women.

I would think that someone calling themselves a feminist does not automatically qualify them for special privileges.