A brief comment in response to Timkins in particular, and some others, about the reliability of the figures I cite in the article.

I have relied primarily on findings of the Australian Election Study from 1987 to 2004, and Australian Bureau of Statistics figures regarding the workforce and family status of women in the 25-34 age cohort.

The AES is conducted after Federal elections and referendums by political scientists (both male and female) from the Research School of Social Sciences at the Australian National University. It is Australia's most reputable and continuous database of social and political attitudes, and is accepted as authoritative by politicians and commentators across the ideological spectrum. Whilst it is true that survey questions can be "cooked" to produce a preconceived outcome, in the case of the AES its questions on attitudes to abortion and to equal opportunity for women have remained much the same from 1987 to 2004. It should be clear from the article that I have simply noted that the AES has detected a straightforward increase in broadly pro-feminist responses and a decline in anti-feminist responses. It should also be noted that the AES has found strongly conservative majorities in opinion on issues other than gender and family.

The figures I cite on workforce and family status of women in the 25-34 age cohort are derived from the fm2 table (labour force status by sex, age, relationship) in ABS Data Cube 6291.0.55.001 Labour Force, Australia, Detailed, and its hard-copy predecessors.

Timkins and others don't have to like what these figures reveal about public attitudes to gender and family issues. Nor do they have to abandon their sincerely held views just because they are current in a minority. However I am intrigued by Timkins' attempts to assert the existence of backlash trends in defiance of the evidence I have presented, and without presenting countervailing evidence of his own.

I wrote:

"Nor do they have to abandon their sincerely held views just because they are current in a minority."

I meant "currently in a minority." Sorry!

Dr Paul,
You have agreed that public opinion polls can be “cooked”, but opinion polls also rely upon the public having sufficient reliable information in the first place, so as to give a reliable opinion. I’ve given examples of where feminist type information, text, research etc is extremely unreliable.

In the area of families, research has often been unreliable, and the AIFS has acknowledged that fathers were often left out of their research, so much of their past research into families was therefore biased and unreliable. http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/papers/smyth5.html

Upon including fathers into the HILDA survey, papers released from that survey have indirectly lead to major changes being proposed for Family Law, to overcome the feminist ideology of the destruction of the nuclear family and the removal of the father (which has been extensively occurring)

Feminist ideology has also wanted de facto relationships instead of marriage, and whilst research into de facto relationships or cohabitation has been minimal in this country, research in other countries indicates that such relationships are far inferior to marriage.

Feminist ideology has also wanted increased levels of promiscuity so as to “liberate women”. However various research definitely indicates that increased promiscuity eventually leads to increased rates of teenage pregnancy, increased rates of abortion, increased rates of STD’s etc.

You can find various data and research on this in several sites, particularly from the Rutgers University site http://marriage.rutgers.edu/

So if the public had sufficient information available on which to base their opinions, I am sure that their “opinions” would be far different to what they presently are, or have been in recent years.

Establishing reliable and accurate information is now an important issue, but if members of the public can only rely upon the type of information presented by people such as Dr Susan Maushart, then establishing reliable opinions would be a remote possibility.

Feminists are also not adverse to exploiting other women through “spin” http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_2718_133/ai_n12938336, and not adverse to demonisation of women they class as being “conservative” http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=8403

I see no special privileges necessary for someone just because they call themselves a “feminist” or a “radical”

Bronwyn,
I never considered your take on feminism and I have to say it makes sense. Feminism is not just about ‘empowerment’ but making a difference in the world through influence and decision-making. As you stated though, it seems the ideology to control, win at any cost and continue the current ‘power is everything’ thinking has infected the few leading women as much as the old boys. Pity really.

Timkins,
What has happened to you, that you despise feminism? Care to explain?

Your claims that feminism wants to promote de-facto marriage and promiscuity are extreme. Can you provide evidence that this is right? Or is it your take, from a tainted view? Feminism is about equality/equal influence (thanks again Bronwyn). What you probably perceive is a male domination threat – that should be welcome. Domination of half the world’s population is wrong.

The links:
The ‘Spin Sister’ article is not about feminism, it is about media women continuing to profit from and control women – nothing to do with feminism. There are no claims they are feminist. Is it your claim that any woman in a position of power must be a feminist?

The Human Events Online article simply states that feminism is having an internal crisis – targeting a particular kind of woman. This is similar to political party in fighting. As seen in male dominated political party shenanigans. Is it OK for the men but not the women to stack their organisations for their causes?

The first two are from organisations with their own agenda, in line with your position.

You also claim that people need reliable information to form their opinion. Information considered reliable should be a universal truth. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Truth is what one perceives while another denies (sounds very religious). My point is that if the information backed your position, one would expect you would not question it, while others would (and do) disagree.

I am not saying you are wrong Tim, just that you cannot have an unbiased opinion, given your extreme distaste for feminism in any form.

Reason,
Thank you for your unsubstantiated assumptions (eg “you despise feminism” etc)

I believe that I have done a considerable amount of work in my posts to make my points clear, but you have done little. I find that feminist supporters will rely very heavily upon hearsay, anecdote, doctrine, name calling, mantra and unsubstantiated or unproven statements such as “Feminism is about equality/equal influence”

You can do some work, and provide me with reliable information to say that feminism or women’s groups are democratic (eg the number of males in the Office of Women or the Sex Discrimination Commission for example)

You can find the substantiated evidence that de facto relationships, abortion, promiscuity etc is not heavily advocated by prominent feminists.

You can find the reliable evidence that feminists do not attempt brainwashing in their media, but give objective assessments.

You can find the evidence that feminist political parties such as the Green party in Sweden remain popular, once they make their policies or beliefs fully known to the public.

You can find the information that feminists will not put the female gender before the male gender, or ignore the male gender, or exclude the male gender, and also find the information that feminist supporters will not attempt to demonise or denigrate the male gender, and strongly oppose those feminists who regularly do so (eg Dr Susan Maushart)

You can do some work other than making unsubstantiated assumptions about myself, or making unsubstantiated statements.

C'mon Timkins, your posts are an almost non-stop tirade against feminism, no one needs further evidence. (Shall I count up how often the word appears in your posts?)

And this:
"unsubstantiated or unproven statements such as 'Feminism is about equality/equal influence'"

Surely with all your efforts to find friendly statistics, you can also find a dictionary.