Reason,
Thank you for the demonising, unsubstantiated accusations (eg “You are not a fan of women”, “you are very aggressive” etc). What accusations would you like?

There are many social and political “isms”, but your belief that “feminism is based on equality/equal influence is not a factual statement rather a perception of the ideology.”, is not very clear I believe.

This also appears to be a problem for a number of political parties in Europe, who initially identified themselves as being “feminist”, but when they had to provide a set of policies that the public could vote on, they couldn’t, so the public hardly votes for them anymore. So being a political party that is overly “non-conservative” or “feminist” seems to result in minimal popularity.

But feminist supporters should clearly define what feminism is, and also provide a list of clearly understood feminist policies.

So could you provide:-
-A clear, easy to understand definition of feminism, and a list of feminist policies.
-A list of feminist books and web-sites I can read.
-A list of feminist organisations I can join (if possible, as I am a male)

Until then, I will stay with the description of feminism as contained in the address to the World Congress of Families by Dr Janice Shaw Crouse (http://www.worldcongress.org/wcf3_spkrs/wcf3_crouse.htm), because I haven’t found much to suggest that feminism is anything different (eg the confused Dr Susan Maushart),

Giaman,
You use exactly the same words, (eg. misogynist, dodgy etc), and have a very similar style as “garra”. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=7664

Garra was suspended for 28 days, starting from the 7/8/05. Further details can be provided.

Trinity,
Could you define what would be a “female” type politician, and what would be “female” type political policies.

Dr Paul,
There would be at least 3 fundamental issues with public opinion polls.
-The poll question wording has to be neutral.
-The public has to have sufficient background knowledge to be able to give an informed, reliable opinion.
-A single question in an opinion poll would be of less value than an in-depth research study with an abstract, conclusion, research details, references etc.

Eleanor refers to:

"use of Carolyn Hakim's work to support [conservative politicians] take on the family & work issue)."

The work of Catherine [not Carolyn] Hakim has been presented in a fairly uncritical and "pre-chewed" way in Australia, with little attention to the theoretical and empirical criticism it has faced in Britain. I don't have space to canvass all those issues here, but the ABS figures I cited on the work-family choices of women in the 25-34 cohort have major implications for Hakim's three-way, 30/40/30 classification of women as work-centred/adaptive/home centred.

I chose to study the 25-34 cohort because this is the cohort responsible for what demographers call the "M-curve" of women's workforce participation. Graphs of women's workforce participation across different age cohorts exhibit two peaks in the 20-24 and 35-44 cohort, with a dip in the 25-34 cohort due to childbearing and temporary withdrawal from work, giving an M-shaped curve. In terms of Hakim's theory, this would be explained in terms of the different life-choices of work-centred, adaptive and home-centred women being most manifest in the 25-34 period.

The thing to remember about Hakim's model is that she developed it during the 1990s, and had fully formulated it by 1998, on the basis of statistical data on women's work/family choices in the 1980s and 1990s. I have found that her 30/40/30 breakdown was actually a fair approximation of what Australian women in the 25-34 cohort were doing in the early 1990s. The problem for Hakim and her barrackers is that ABS statistics suggest that the behaviour of Australian women in this cohort today is more like 50% work-centred, 30% adaptive and 20% home-centred, with the shift to work-centred, and away from both home-centred and adaptive, showing no signs of reversing. In other words, whatever else Hakim might call her preference theory, she cannot credibly claim that it applies to women's "Work-lifestyle choices in the 21st century".

The 'choices' of women (and men?) are at three levels - personal, family and communal. Decisions made in one sphere affects the others, so the question is one of balance between personal autonomy and communal duty/responsibility (both within the family and wider community.)

The issue of equity is a little bit harder as we are quite willing to accept sex based sporting teams/events, however, cannot dictate on more fundamental sexually related areas such as childbearing and family structures, or wages (based on productivity & quality?)and other issues of gender discrimination or heaven forbid, moral codes.

So, the structures that women (and men) were subjected to pre 1960's (ie marriage, monogamy, child bearing, single income family models etc) could be seen as restrictive, but, could also now be seen as essential and in the interests not only of the individuals but society as a whole - hence so much talk of it never being so bad (or good, if the nuclear 'christian' family isn't your thing.)

The issue of 'power' (patriachy no less!) is also difficult in that the social engineers / policy makers / Churches have been replaced to a certain degree by an emphasis on individual materialism cf social and economic outcomes and responsibilities.

Women (and men) are now in the position where they can desire and see merit in a series of models/choices at family and communal levels but actively practice personal choices at odds with those.

So, both commentators and researchers are probably at the same place as people can judge what is 'right' on balance, but, are no longer compelled to practice it personally.

Imagine if we continue down the path of women 'choosing' to have 1 or 2 IVF babies on their own later in life rather than several natural childbirths earlier with a monogamist husband.

Demographics may well see feminists (and western cultures) bred out of existence as other societies ignore the perils of such 'free' choice.

Dear Timkins,
I will not attempt to answer all your questions, as they were not addressed to me, but just a couple.
First, a definition of feminism. It simply means someone who believes that women are equal to men, not the same, a common misunderstanding of the word equal. Equal means of equal worth, though two things may be different. Our entire monetary system is based on this concept; ie: an apple is worth (is of equal value to) $1.50, say. By this definition (a prasee of the dictionary definition) you are probably a feminist, Timkins. Within feminism, just as within most religions and philosophical movements of all kinds, there are moderate feminists and those with more radical ideas.
As to feminism being democratic, well, men are welcome to call themselves feminists, as I do. I don't actually belong to any feminist organisation, I just identify as one. But, surely feminist groups are entitled to restrict membership to feminists (who tend to be women) if they choose to do that? Just as Muslim groups restrict membership to muslims, and black rights groups may well restrict membership to blacks. There's nothing all that odd about such groups, they exist all over.
And as for Susan Maushart, her columns are meant to be funny, Timkins, so don't take them so seriously. She always gives me a good laugh.
As to the so-called conservative backlash, perhaps it is the last gasp of those in power desperately trying to turn back the clock to a time when the rest of us knew our place and were content to stay there. How refreshing your statistics are, Paul, perhaps power really is beginning to be shared a little more equally. We still have a long way to go, however, women still earn less money on average than men, even when they do the same job.

Dr Paul,
You seem to be saying that the M curve is changing into a inverted U curve through:-
A. Women are having fewer or no children
B. Women are returning to work earlier after a baby is born.
Both are actually occurring.

But opinion polls or a study of work hrs being performed, does not answer the question of why. Nor do they suggest if it is a good thing or not.

You seem to be suggesting that it is “progressive”, or even "feminist", but I don’t know how that is determined, as society cannot last long with both A and B.

With A, society will run out of children, although this can take a while.
With B, children become raised by the state or by someone other than the parent, (eg. in day care centres ) etc, but I have seen studies suggesting that long hrs in day care is detrimental to the child.

So neither A nor B is that progressive, and both lead to a society that does not value children (and this would also be related to the supposed increased acceptance of abortion)

I think my premise remains, that many people are too ignorant, or too uninformed to form what are reliable opinions.

No one would ask a group of mechanical engineers a question on botany and expect a reliable answer, and I don’t think people are being informed enough about how to best operate families, raise children etc, to give an informed opinions on those issues.

I have yet to see any evidence that both A and B are actually “progressive”, or even sustainable over the medium or longer term.

enaj, I'm pretty much in agreement with your post but did wonder about "women still earn less money on average than men, even when they do the same job". Is this an "all else being equal" scenario or missing some key factor?

Hours worked being an item which can tilt the equation if it is ignored. If it is an all things being equal what are the mechanisms used to do it? Do males routinely have higher gradings (for the same length of service) than females?

Cheers
R0bert