Laurie, it would be nice to see some research looking at hourly rates for men and women broken down by number of years training/experience required to achieve the pay rate. I certainly share the perception that some occupations dominated by women are underpayed (for hours worked).

enaj,
are your husbands work hours a result of his personal drive to work long hours and be away from home or rather a result of his dedication to his family and his attempts to work in a partnership with you to provide for that family. If the latter then would it not be reasonable if you split up (I hope not too) for him to change priorities? To often a males willingness to provide for his family becomes the stick he is beaten with after a family break up. Has he had the opportunity to be the prime carer while you do the long hours at paid employment? All other things being equal would you cooperate with that? Maybe you would but all too often the roles undertaken while a family was together are used as an excuse for massive inequity if the family splits up.

R0bert

Timkins - I see your answer is wilful ignorance then.

Robert - time to move on from your appalling marriage.

Enaj, Laurie the above prove that on this website at least there is indeed a backlash.

Trinity, moving on from the marriage is easy. Moving on from the web of excessive child support and a life kept out of balance by a system which discrimiates and an ex milking it to the hilt is not. This is not history it is something which restricts my ability to move on every week.

I'm very much in favour of equal rights, equal pay etc. I'm pretty much in agreement with what you have said in earlier posts.

I have a real problem with those who use the guise of feminism to seek a special deal for women (some of what Timkins talks about but Timkins and I seem to be at a different place about the validity of feminism).

I'd would like more feminists to see the damage being done to legitimate feminism by those playing the system. Those who want better than equal rights but no accountability. In the areas I have looked into there are a lot of dodgy figures being used so I question other generalised figures which don't deal with the background.

I use my own situation because it is one where I know the details. No smokescreen about a hard done by mum not able to work because the child needs looking after etc. I have seen figures on how much support is paid.

R0bert

Robert,
I would think there would be about a 5% chance that feminism is actually for “equality”, and a 95% chance that the term “equality” is being used as a type of smoke screen.

Feminists will say that they are for “equality”, but they do not call themselves “masculinists”. While a feminist is pro-female, they are not necessarily pro-male as well, and many feminists are highly anti-male and also anti-child.

If you have knowledge of Family Law, you will know the system is highly anti-male, and fathers are not regarded as being parents. That is feminism in action, with feminist textbooks found referring to fathers as being “foreign” in the family, and advocating that fathers be removed from families.

You probably know what feminists want to do to DV legislation, where a male is to be regarded as being automatically guilty, and has to prove his innocence, no matter what the situation.

Feminists want women to be removed from jails and detention centres because they are female, but of course the males must remain behind.

Feminists is some universities want all research to be approved by a feminist board before it is carried out, to see that the research will be pro-female, so eventually research becomes advocacy research for feminism, and such research is currently rife within social science already.

Feminists want women to be elected into government based on quotas, not ability. So eventually more feminists can get into government by default, and then they can change laws based on feminist ideals, not necessarily democratic ideals.

The list goes on, but an insidious aspect is to call “feminist” policies “progressive”. This means that if someone now questions feminism, they can be called “anti-progressive” as well as the usual terms of misogynist, anti-female, patriarchal etc

It is all designed to give more and more to females, but not necessarily more and more to the males as well (which is why so many feminists don’t like to talk about their “policies”, but hide behind the term “equality” instead)

“Don’t you worry about that” says the feminist.

R0bert - thanks for your response - I did reconsider later on that maybe I had been a bit harsh - I confess to venting some frustration. I agree that there are women who milk the system - this is not the result nor the intention of feminism.

I didn't choose too well with my marital partner either, I'm not holding the patriachy to blame, although back in the 70's a call to the police or neighbours for help while being abused brought no support - women weren't taken very seriously back then. Unlike you I was able to escape completely from the clutches of my ex - although if I had had children I often wonder if I would even be alive now. R0bert - not all women are like your ex please don't let her make you bitter and twisted.

At least we now acknowledge DV as a crime - one of the advances brought about by feminism. (yes I agree men are abused too - and I believe this acknowledgement is about the struggle for equal rights).

Timkins - a diversity of opinion does not negate the need for equal rights and I am still waiting for your example of "male" type politicians and "male" type policies - in no more than 350 words please. Your arguments are becoming weaker and more desperate - you are now putting words into the mouths of feminists eg >>
“Don’t you worry about that” says the feminist. << Where is your evidence of the Great Feminist Conspiracy for World Domination? I see alot of men and women who really want each other and want to get along with each other. Anyway at least you are entertaining.

Trinity:- Still no definition of feminism, or a set of feminist policies?

Trinity previously said:- ”I fully concur with Bronwyn's point that the (few) women who have risen to the top simply play the men's game by men's rules”

I’ve heard similar before, eg Gudrun Schyman:-
“women's lives, choices, and opportunities are restricted by the patriarchal power structure.”
http://www.transnational.org/forum/meet/2005/Schyman_FeministInitiative.html

Gudrun Schyman is the principal founder of the Feminist Initiative (FI) party in Sweden, which would be the latest major feminist political party formed in the world. There have been countless hours of feminist research conducted throughout the world, so FI could be the final culmination.

Gudrun Schyman is an ex-communist, an ex-alcoholic, has been charged with tax fraud, and headed the Swedish Left Party which sank into political oblivion.

Policies being mentioned by FI include:-
-a special “man tax” be placed on men, because they are male.
-men must get verbal agreement from women before any sex, which means that only men can initiate sex.
-gender quota systems on boards and government, which means people are primarily elected according to gender, not their ability.

So FI’s “anti-patriarchal” policies are hardly non-gender biased, and the history of feminism is one of feminists continuously attacking males, or trying to gain more power for themselves. Not surprisingly, a FI co-founder Ebba Witt-Brattström recently left the FI board citing “co-operation difficulties”. (ie a “non-patriarchal” party power struggle)

While some women may be pro-female, it doesn’t mean they are pro-male also, and women do not necessarily make the best politicians, just because they are female.

But looking at different figures on motherhood (some mentioned in my first post), I would think motherhood in Australia is at it’s lowest point ever (despite feminism). So many women are either killing or poisoning their unborn, or trying to remove the father from the children. Hardly much equality, (or even quality), in Australian motherhood, but I have noticed that feminists will rarely mention such figures.

So that is the rather uninspiring state of feminism (with all its declared or undeclared policies