How to take this article seriously? Serious question as so many similar articles are being churned out.

The author wrote a book titled ” What, No Baby: why women have lost the freedom to mother and how they can get it back”

Why wasn’t the book titled “What, No Baby: why men have lost the freedom to father and how they can get it back”

Or maybe “What, No Baby: why women and men have lost the freedom to be parents and how they can get it back”

The fact is that she only wrote a book about mothers, and so the rest of the article becomes suspect to say the least. Label me sexist or misogynistic, but I don’t think gender bias “gorgeous”, as a lot of harm can come from it.

Putting aside the fact that Cannold is speaking from a solely female perspective, she has made an excellent point about how workplaces view levels of 'committment' by staff.

As she says "the handful of men who really do swear off breakfast meetings, leave at 5:00 to pick up at crèche and refuse to work weekends find themselves in the same career cul de sac as working mothers". Many times over the years I have seen & heard precisely these types of messages delivered to both men & women at work.

The message is made quite clear that any person who rebels & does not toe the line - in terms of working unpaid overtime, being available out of hours (e.g. for 6 am breakfast meetings), and working weekends - is off the 'career track'. This is not just about women, men who choose to take some time out for a life are also penalised.

It is about time we (i.e. men & women) stopped whingeing about each other, all got together & started working to change the ideas and practices in the workplace that are unfriendly to any kind of external life.

Hear, hear Leslie!

Fertility is a national issue, yet also a private issue between two (or sometimes more individuals) it is not limited to women. As such I must say that Men's Australian Network was one of very few ( if not the only men's group) to repsond to the assisted reproductive technolgy senate inquiry.

We do need a society that values time with partners and offspring irrespective of the sex of the partners.

Having worked in a Melbourne CBD law firm i am very aware of the hours employees are "expected" to work.

The Legal sector is definetly a sector that would benefit from greater workplace flexibility and perhaps Steve Bracks plans for part-time Magistrates will go someway to breaking the glass ceiling in this profession.

I would agree geekgirl2, that fathers and men are being exploited by industry, with some of the longest hours now being worked by males in the western world, and some of the highest rates of un-paid overtime also. I think that government has also been turning a blind eye to this for some time.

However, the days of an author writing an article that considers one gender only are now numbered (or they should be), as this type of gender bias in the media can indirectly create social problems in the first place.

Social science has been highly gender biased in the past, to the extent that the AIFS now has to go back to “basics” so as to research fathers, who have been so much overlooked in the past.

See…http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/papers/smyth5.html

Social science has been of minimal use in helping to solve a number of social issues that have now become large social problems.

Similarly, this article does not help much to solve social problems either. It is not just an article that looks at an issue from the female perspective only; there are sections of the article that are quite gender biased and would constitute grounds for complaint to the author’s University.

For example the author states:- “there is little question that men’s desire and decisions impact significantly on whether women who desire children actually wind up mothers. The truth is men can derail women’s maternity plans by failing to partner, failing to prove themselves good father material or simply refusing to have the kids that they promised their spouse years earlier they would want “one day”.”

This set of statements creates a negative perception of males, but if these statements were true, then this would be equally true:- “there is little question that women’s desire and decisions impact significantly on whether men who desire children actually wind up fathers. The truth is women can derail men’s paternity plans by failing to partner, failing to prove themselves good mother material or simply refusing to have the kids that they promised their spouse years earlier they would want “one day”.”

The author did not make the second set of “true” statements, thereby creating a biased negative perception of males. This type of biased writing has been identified as occuring very frequently within feminist literature and feminist courses, and was fully identified by Christine Stolba in her essay “Lying in a Room of One’s Own – How Women’s Studies Textbooks Miseducate Students”

at... http://www.iwf.org/pdf/roomononesown.pdf

The three most common elements of bias identified by Christine Stolba were:-

Errors of Fact
Errors of Interpretation.
Sins of Omission.

By leaving out the second set of "true" statements in this article, Leslie Cannold carries out “Sins of Ommission”, and thereby creates negative bias against fathers.

It is ironic that Leslie Cannold works in a Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at a University.

Or perhaps it is not that ironic, judging by the article at
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12190959%5E7583,00.html

I have to be honest and say that I found this article disappointingly balanced, leaving me with very little to be angry about ;-)

Even though some subconscious male-bashing creeps in (as Mr Timkins rightly points out), it is good to see that some (no-doubt painful) effort has been taken by the author to include us poor maligned males in some serious consideration. Well done, Leslie.

Now the criticism – it is not the fault of employers that economic efficiency and workplace flexibility, are not necessarily consistent. Dr Leslie Cannold fails to consider other practical solutions such as tax reform, casual and part time employment, the roles of extended family, and community infrastructure.

For whatever reason, women seem intent on destroying some of the very structures that best support them - “the gorgeous men” Leslie talks about are an endangered species, for they are starting to recognise where decades of women’s studies are taking them. A place where fatherhood holds little value and is totally dependant on the whims of motherhood.

If “women are entitled to resent the high costs Australian society demands of those who have children”, then men, are doubly so entitled. Whether the cost is counted in dollars, or health and life expectancy, men lose out. Men are not naturally or predominantly primary care providers to their children, but they are generally, primary breadwinners. For that privilege, they pay higher taxes, spend less time with their children, and lose them when a marriage breaks up. That’s some serious cost

Hi Seeker,
It may have been very interesting if Leslie Cannold had written a book titled “What, No Baby: why women and men have lost the freedom to be parents and how they can get it back” as this may have introduced the topic of “parental responsibility” vs “parental rights”.

Parental responsibility being that the state or government determines what constitutes the best interest of the child, and sets those terms. The parents have no real rights, and become like un-paid child minders. The child is basically owned by the state.

Of course the destruction of the nuclear family by divorce etc and the raising of children through community or by the state, has always been a feminist desire.

EG
"In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them" Dr. Mary Jo Bane.

"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together.... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process.... No woman should have to deny herself any opportunities because of her special responsibilities to her children...."
Linda Gordon

Calls for more divorce are still occurring by feminists, but the loss of the nuclear family, and the loss of fathers, has many ethical questions.

I haven’t read the book ” What, No Baby: why women have lost the freedom to mother and how they can get it back”, but I can only assume that fathers are not considered relevant, because they are not incorporated into the title. This appears to be in line with long-term feminist ideology

Leslie Cannold titled the article "Sticking up for the 'georgeous men'" so she was not intending to man-bash as Seeker and Timkins suggest. Her article was in RESPONSE to several published recently pointing the finger at women for being selfish and not having enough children, so I think its a little bit unfair to cut her down for talking about it from a woman's point of view, when she is actually trying to get a man's point of view included in the debate (however much it is still written highlighting her perspective as a woman).

I do think it is amazing in this day and age that it isn't accepted that parenthood - or not becoming parents - is a joint effort and joint decision. The fact that the men still can't get equal amount of paternity leave to spend time with their child as women get maternity leave is OBVIOUSLY completely unfair and shouldn't even need debate.

I have no children, nor an interest in having them, but I long ago resigned myself that my taxes would go towards subsidising schools and family courts and so forth that have nothing to do with my life, so Seeker's little whinge that he pays higher tax as a man seems a little petty. How is it men are DOUBLY entitled? Surely you counter your own argument of equal rights for men...

Seeker did make a very good point that governments should provide better tax incentives to businesses and young families to enable them to afford to have children is a good point.

I have read articles in the Sydney Morning Herald (though I am too lazy to find the link) where government representitives call people selfish for not wanting to have children to support the aging population. This sort of comment is completely unproductive. Those who don't want will just respond "Yes I am, so why would you think telling me make me care?" and loads who do can't afford to. I know several people my age (29) who would love to have a family and can't afford to. If the government is that worried about it then they should provide significant incentives to businesses to help them be able to support their employees when family needs must be placed above work committments, and significant tax breaks to enable parents to afford to take on the responsibility of providing for children.

Hi Jci,
Basically the author did carry out a "Sin of Omission" as detailed in a previous post. That is a fact, and another "Sin of Omission" was also carried out by the author by writing a book titled “What, No Baby: why women have lost the freedom to mother and how they can get it back””

That book omitted fathers as a parent, and by excluding fathers, it makes fathers look as though they are second-class parents, which is part of the overall problem. (eg. Quite a lot of industry also looks at fathers as just workers only, and not as a parent also)

So, to help fix some of the problems of gender bias in society, and the belief by quite large sections of society that fathers are not important as parents, it becomes constructive to highlight such things as Errors of Fact, Errors of Interpretation, Sins of Omission etc in media articles. Failure to do so simply perpetuates the problems.

This has been tested out in other places, and found to be the best procedure to follow. Simply allowing bias to occur in the media does not stop the bias.

Timkins and Seeker are succeeding in creating tired and boring discussions here at Online Opinion.

The constant bashing of the same old point and refusal to engage with valid and intelligent debate is a demonstration of the insiginificant impact of the men's movement.

Timkins argues on the surface, and obviously does not have the capacity to engage with some of the more progressive thinkers in Australia. His misreading of the Leslie Cannold argument because of his blinkered views and obsessive disregard for feminism is a typical case in point.

If he actually bothered listening to her argument he would realise she is arguing for a partnership between men and women to solve the problems that face us all in our lives. An argument no dissimilar to Timkins himself. So what if the book doesn't have men in the title. It's the title. There are another 70,000 words in the book - one that you obviously haven't even read.

Seeker and Timkins - get over yourselves, you are not that important and your opinions are repetitive and not helpful to furthering the diccussion and the debate regarding men, women, family and parenting.

We want less divison and more co-operation, which is something you are obviously unwilling to particiapte in. The 'poor me' mentality of men of your calibre makes me frustrated and disappointed in my gender.

I'd request others not bother engaging with them - you are wasting your time.

Aha, thank you so much, Anti Timkins and Seeker Drivel. Most of us are BORED TO DEATH with these two idiots who swarm over every forum, with their psychotic castration fears and their selfish anti-women maunderings, their knobby-headed inability to get the point of the authors' essays, and their lack of any sense of humour whatsoever. Roll on our fearless liberator!

Hi Anti Timkins and Seeker Drivel,

When Leslie Cannold writes a book (or even an article) titled “What, No Baby: why women and men have lost the freedom to be parents and how they can get it back”, then I will believe everything you wrote.

Lets make a pact that we simply ignore and not respond to seeker and timmy.

Thanks anti-timkins and seeker drivel. Agreed on the pact, but I can only extend myself to ignoring Timkins - who is like the McDonalds of anti-women rhetoric, ever-present, poorly and too quickly prepared, has a guaranteed and un-changing menu and totally lacking in nutritional content - but Seeker, on occasion, has made some relevant points.

Kenny and Audrey, like Groucho Marx I cannot join a club, so I will reserve my right to throw a bomb in occasionally.

And you can be sure that Timothy and Seeker won't go away, because they have nowhere to go...Timithy has already advised us elsewhere that he has been assigned a mission to destroy feminism, or something. Pity the poor OLO editors and authors who are watching their website forums degenerate into such a pathetic farce...

Kenny, please don't give up entirely, your guerilla warfare has had me laughing out loud in the past, you too Audrey

Who is this mysterious one-post fearless liberator who calls themselves “Anti Timkins and Seeker Drivel”?

Interesting tactic, but somewhat gutless in using a pseudo pseudonym. Frankly, I thought everyone already ignored my drivel. Apparently not.

I can’t speak for Timkins, but I’ll try to be a more interesting person from now on. That includes being more manly and strong. Taking it on the chin so to speak, or in the groin as Grace would obviously prefer. Perhaps Grace would even prefer that I self-administer, as she does use “psychotic” in the same phrase. Hey, if that “Rugby nutter” in yesterday’s SMH, can do it … http://smh.com.au/articles/2005/02/08/1107625213777.html

“The 'poor me' mentality of men of your calibre makes me frustrated and disappointed in my gender.”
Thank you “Anti Timkins and Seeker Drivel” for helping me become a stronger person, by beating the victimhood out of me. I wonder if that same approach may work on the wider community. What is your gender by the way?

Thanks Audrey, I hope I don’t disappoint too much.

Kenny, ummm … I already ignore you, so you are welcome to return the favour. Must admit, you can be pretty funny at times, and I too enjoy a laugh. It is unintentional, no doubt.

:-)

Welcome to the human race seeker.

Hi Seeker,
Did you see the cartoon in the Australian today, about a woman killing her husband.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/opindex/0,9320,opinion%255E%255ETEXT,00.html

Charming. I bet there will be a lot of women in this forum writing letters to the editor complaining about that cartoon, or perhaps I cannot see the “satire” in it, with so much domestic violence legislation being directed at males.

I have had another read of the article and it only confirms my initial suspicions that the author is speaking in “forked tongues”. She starts the article by mentioning her book, (which left out fathers), then in the first few paragraphs she maligns males. This is probably out of habit as you have mentioned previously.

But from then on she describes what she considers to be a “gorgeous” father. However a closer inspection of this shows that a “gorgeous” father is merely someone who does what the mother says and wants. Most of the article is about work and earning money etc, but “love” is mentioned once. But this is only when the male has to love and commit to the woman. (eg. “single men exist who are willing to commit to women they love”) Nowhere in the article does she mention that a woman should love and commit to the man. So to be a “gorgeous” male, it is all one way.

The author also uses a number of unethical techniques often used by feminists within the article, and overall I think the article no different to many others that have been written That is now my thoughts, but you may have other ideas on it.

As I have mentioned previously yesterday, it would have been an interesting book if it were titled “What, No Baby: why women and men have lost the freedom to be parents and how they can get it back “ This is because of the “parental responsibility” vs “parental rights” issue, and whether parents will have many rights in the future.

No I didn’t Timkins. Thanks.

Doesn’t Janet Albrechtsen look sexy (half way down the page :-).

If that damned book ever gets retitled, let’s splurge out and share the cost – you can read it first.

For seeker
And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man,

Ezekiel 4:12

GRACE !
u might be interested in how a "Feminist Jew" regards Paul the Apostle. I just found it this morning, and was taken back. (pleasantly)

http://www.crosscurrents.org/eisenbaum.htm

I take issue with one definite MYTH she seems to hold, that 'women submitting to their husbands' makes women 'inferior'. Such is NOT the case. Submission or obeying is always seen as the complement to the self sacrificing husband. Its never about 'inferior/superior'.

Have a read (anyone)

"The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does." (1 Cor. 7:3-4)

WOOOPS... did I read that correctly ????????

"The wife rules over the husbands body ?

Nobody owns my body except me.

That's because nobody wants to, Grace.

Good one Joe, but how do you know?

Grace.. u always jump toooo far .. who said anything about 'own' ?

"For the wife does not rule over her own body..."

Nor does Hubby...its a way of saying something.
"do for your wife as u want her to do for you"

And we also know how that biblical phrase has been misused by men against women throughout history, don't we Boaz?

But that is for another forum, which I can see peeping over the horizon right now, as Tony Abbott and his catholic mates argue the case for men's "ownership" of women's bodies.

Grace.. yes, hence I've been emphasising that the true picture is one of BALANCE.. selective application helps no one. Men HAVE misused it.
Doesn't change the truth of the Biblical picture :) which of course has everyones welfare in mind.

New topic ????? sniff sniff...... aah...puts the napkin on.

lol

Upgrade to the web-site address of the cartoon that appeared in the editorial page of the Australian Newspaper on the 10/2/05. I understand that this cartoon is being condemmed on a number of web-sites world wide.

http://network.news.com.au/image/0,10114,416926,00.jpg

Within this cartoon, there are two women drinking wine at a bar. One says to the other ”Did your marriage improve after the first decade.” The other says “Oh Yes, he forgot our tenth anniversary so I killed him”

The cartoon could have been as follows "There are two men drinking beer at a bar. One says to the other ”Did your marriage improve after the first decade”. The other says “Oh Yes, she forgot our tenth anniversary so I killed her”

However that cartoon would probably be too objectionable for publication in a major national newspaper

Calling for government and employer 'support' is not inconsistent with the Robin Hood, social welfare state, entitlement atitude that pervades mature western economies. Same old crying that someone esle should support my choices, my life. For reasons a,b,c,1,2 and 3.

If you choose a family then you can support your own decisions. Expecting taxpayers and employers to pay for your choices because taxpayers 'benefit' or have some sort of 'social responsibility/con-tract' or an employer should pay because they gave you a job strikes me as quite disempowering... the first rule of which is taking responsiblity for our own decisions.

If you want a family, then that becomes a priority purely by din of the nature of the commitment. It is very time consuming and much is involved bringing people into this world and caring for and preparing them for life. Its a project/job which makes paid employment pale by comparison. Sure you dont get paid (in cash) for it but that is the price of projecting your genes into the future, of vicarious living thru progeny and the self centred (selfish ?) quest for virtual immortality. Oh and the self-sacrifice of that bundle of joy... once they enter the world. Provided of course, its your bundle of joy and not someone else's.

Me thinks the fertility 'debate' is becoming the fodder of media and political hacks. Trying to break peanut shells with baseball bats. Overkill. This 'problem' is so easily fixed thru immigration, that it begs the question... why are we even talking about it?

PS. the idea that its 'all mens fault' when women dont get whatever they want is hardly a revelation of modern thinking. Men are the default scapegoat for women's disctontent. Always have been, always will be. These days, nagging, whinning and complaining has been re-baged as isuues, concerns and gender politics. All the Orwellian Newspeak and Doublethink is not going to change what we can see with our own eyes. Hmmm, l wonder if this has anything to do with mens 'failure' to 'partner.'

Calling for government and employer 'support' is not inconsistent with the Robin Hood, social welfare state, entitlement atitude that pervades mature western economies. Same old crying that someone esle should support my choices, my life. For reasons a,b,c,1,2 and 3.

If you choose a family then you can support your own decisions. Expecting taxpayers and employers to pay for your choices because taxpayers 'benefit' or have some sort of 'social responsibility/con-tract' or an employer should pay because they gave you a job strikes me as quite disempowering... the first rule of which is taking responsiblity for our own decisions.

If you want a family, then that becomes a priority purely by din of the nature of the commitment. It is very time consuming and much is involved bringing people into this world and caring for and preparing them for life. Its a project/job which makes paid employment pale by comparison. Sure you dont get paid (in cash) for it but that is the price of projecting your genes into the future, of vicarious living thru progeny and the self centred (selfish ?) quest for virtual immortality. Oh and the self-sacrifice of that bundle of joy... once they enter the world. Provided of course, its your bundle of joy and not someone else's.

Me thinks the fertility 'debate' is becoming the fodder of media and political hacks. Trying to break peanut shells with baseball bats. Overkill. This 'problem' is so easily fixed thru immigration, that it begs the question... why are we even talking about it?

Some interesting observations about academia... the idea that one needs to relate to or be birds of a feather in order to contemplate and comment on an issue seems illogical. How do academics present anything of value if they go foward with that perspective? l hear you saying... How can an English Literature teacher teach literature if they've never written a book?

Social academic studies have a tendency to Predict the Past. They tell us what we already know. What society has already embraced. Just so that we know. And so we can learn from the past. The thing is, we never really repeat the same history, so that assertion, though seemingly plausible, becomes a bit spurious. That and not risking the lucrative funding of research projects... the reports which just end up being shelved/binned and never read by more than a handful. l know, from personal experience, that academic researchers/consultants can make a small fortune churning out pointless research reports. Snouts in the trough.

PS. the idea that its 'all mens fault' when women dont get whatever they want is hardly a revelation of modern thinking. Men are the default scapegoat for women's disctontent. Always have been, always will be. These days, nagging, whinning and complaining has been re-baged as isuues, concerns and gender politics. All the Orwellian Newspeak and Doublethink is not going to change what we can see with our own eyes. Hmmm, l wonder if this has anything to do with mens 'failure' to 'partner.'

Trade,
I’m not sure if immigration is an answer to increasing the population. Several reasons. Immigration is being cancelled out by increases in emigration. (IE increasing numbers of people have had enough and are shipping out)

For example, from a report “Emigration From Australia Economic Implications” at … http://www.immi.gov.au/research/publications/econimpact_1.pdf

“provisional figures for the year 2000 show that there were 41 100 permanent
departures, compared with 24 800 in 1983. (In 2000 there were also 92 300
permanent arrivals, making a provisional net permanent gain of 51 200.)”

So if emigration keeps increasing, immigration has minimal effect in increasing population, if increasing the national population is required.

Also immigration has a cost, and it is best to have skilled immigrants. However skilled people are becoming in short supply world-wide (particularly in certain trades). So Australia has to compete with other countries to attract skilled immigrants. This is not always easy, because Australia has high tax rates, high mortgage costs, and quite a few social problems that now make other countries more attractive.

If we do need more children, then I think it best to get marriages working better, as over 70% of children are born in marriage. Despite all the bad press that certain people have tried to throw at marriage, it remains the best environment for having children and raising them.

So it comes back to basics. Follow leftist dogma and believe that temporary relationships are best for having children, or go back to basics and have more marriage, which has been found throughout history to be the best environment for raising children.

Also agree with you that too many women have become too prone to blaming men for anything they feel like. Also too many women like to speak in “forked tongues”, where they say that they like men, but in reality they only want men as pay-packets.

Cannold's article sets men up using that age old ploy that mothers use to control their sons (and which women later use to control their men)... alternating the dispensation of approval/affection and denigration/withholding of love.

First comes the denigration and withholding of affection by espousing disapproval of various behaviour by men, like 'failure to partner.'

Then comes the measured and calculated dispensation of approval with the 'georgious man' concept.

This is classic emotional manipulation. Those that manipulate, and particularly those that do it emotionally, do not have any real respect, love, nor basic regard for the object of manipulation. It is a cold and calculated strategy to influence and control. In my estimation, people can pick up on this behaviour and conclude its attendant implications. Not many folks like being undermined, particularly emotionally. I would go so far as to suggest that the so called gender war has made all very aware of this modus. Feminist politicians, for example, make constant use of this technique and many a maligned male are removing themselves from the damaging aspects of exposure to that mindset.

Incidentally, l distiguish between those that 'see the light' and pioneer a movement such as Feminism or Unionism and those that then move in, co-opt the legacy of the founders and use it as a basis for building a constituency that underpins political power. These paper shufflers forment fear, discontent and division. These are the buttons they push. They do not care about the essence of a social ideology. In fact they eventually disenfranchise their constituency as their self serving subversion becomes obvious. l suspect this may be behind the attrition of the union movement in recent times. l suspect that it is now starting to happen with feminism. The majority of change that favourably impacted the majority of people was affected in the formative stages. Now the politcally motivated and the fringe dwellers trying to get at that remaining 5% on the periphery have over run the landscape. For most of us, it is approaching both irrelevance and argumentative navel gazing entertainment.

I agree there also Trade,

If the father does what the mother tells him, then he is “gorgeous”, and if he doesn’t, then he is "not gorgeous”.

I suppose the system is straightforward enough, but that would be the only thing that such a system has to recommend it

Well said Trade. You should submit for publication an opinion piece of your own.

Trade
your comment about 'others move in on the legacy of the founders' is classic :) and so true.
How many movements begin with wonderful ideals only to be hijacked by manipulative and opportuntistic people. The left is the classic for this.
If they see something which looks like an issue, they will be there with THEIR BANNERS to make it look like its about them. Or simply use the thing to advance their own profile.

Case in point religion.

Trade said "Calling for government and employer 'support' is not inconsistent with the Robin Hood, social welfare state, entitlement atitude that pervades mature western economies. Same old crying that someone esle should support my choices, my life. For reasons a,b,c,1,2 and 3.

If you choose a family then you can support your own decisions. Expecting taxpayers and employers to pay for your choices because taxpayers 'benefit' or have some sort of 'social responsibility/con-tract' or an employer should pay because they gave you a job strikes me as quite disempowering... the first rule of which is taking responsiblity for our own decisions."

I think your out of touch here maybe your an American anarchist. Both side of politics here think it a prudent way the encourage fertility rates

Kenny,

l have European genes and a goverment issued piece of paper (birth certificate) with the Australian coat of arms on it. l do not accept that those things define me nor how l see myself. l determine that for myself based on my own contemplations.

Agreed. l am out of touch with the two party political paradigm. l dont realy care what the politicians say. In fact these days l see them as a constant source of self serving amusement. They are a study in mass manipulation. l take what they say, if at all, on its merits. It is not enough for me that they are saying it or agree with each other. Authority alone does not convince me of anything, other than to be cautious and suspicious of their true intent. Just because a pack of lemmings is heading for a cliff, in blissful agreement, does not stop me from looking at where they are headed and deciding if l want to join them. Once upon a time, the consensus was that Columbus and Galileo were 'out of touch.' l would rather be of their mindset than those that are 'in touch.'

l am more of an anarchist in the spirit of say Ned Kelly.

I hope not Trade215 Ned Kelly was a murdering criminal!
As far as employer's having to supply more then just wages it is simply a case of coming full circle. Employer traditional in most communities look after all aspect of it's employee lives. Hopefully this time round we don't go as far as serfdom.
PS.
As far as Columbus is concerned the fact that the world was round had been know for centuries it was a matter of religious dogma that it wasn’t. Columbus was wrong in the sense that he believe he was off the china. The map he had acquired was a copy of a copy and incorrect. As for Galileo the people working in his field were generally thinking along his lines as is usually the case it was those ignorant of the facts that believe he was wrong..

l prefer to distinguish Ned Kelly's political ideology from his murderous actions. Just because someone is a killer does not, in my mind, negate his assertion that 1+1=2. l don't like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

There are a few murderous killers about in the halls of government at the moment, but that does not seem to diminish the conviction of those that support them. They believe in the direction even if they find the method a bit distasteful.

The historical detail of Columbus and Galileo aside, the point of those examples is to highlight the potential folly of 'being in touch' with the dictates of governace, as you highlight in your refernce to the dictates of the Catholic Church, with which, l suspect most of the 'in touch' populace were in agreement. Me thinks they are the equivelant of the two headed beast that is left/right political government.

l think the assertion of return to surfdom is a bit extreme, tho l take your point. l think things have swayed too far in one direction and might benefit from swinging back toward the middle.

In terms of 'looking after' someone's lives... that is a claim on others or myself that l don not recognise. l do not recognise the transference of a person's responsibility from them to me. l may choose to assist, as l often do of my own free will, but l do not recognise the implicit coercive claim upon me as a vasal thru which others may enable their needs. l have my own needs and being forced to feed those that make a claim on my existence is not one of those them.