I think you'll find feminism is a vast social movement with many different women who accept the label but with very different ideas about what feminism means to them.

Josephine Butler and Elizabeth Blackwell in the late 19th century wanted to reform the political landscape in regard to women's rights. They had no connection to the communist movement. Syliva Pankhurst did but her mother Emmeline was more conservative and supported Britain's intervention in WWI.

Today we see feminists in the ALP, Liberal Party and sometimes even further to the right. Interesting that you should provide a link to Beverley LaHaye. Susan Faludi documents her contradictory views - interesting in that she espouses some traditional feminist viewpoints from a socially conservative perspective.

It should also be mentioned that feminists such as Sheila Jeffreys espouse relationships with other women as positive and fulfilling. This is more than just a rejection of men. Jeffreys in her works (I've read most of them) rarely mentions abortion because she is promoting the positive aspects of lesbian relationships. And, as a gay man, I can see where she's coming from. Definitely, feminism is about more than just abortion.

DavidJs
“I think you'll find feminism is a vast social movement with many different women who accept the label but with very different ideas about what feminism means to them.”

I would agree, because most of the original principles of feminism simply do not work (ie destruction of marriage, removal of fathers from children, gradual removal of men from society etc). So many feminists will use feminism only when it suits, and ignore it when it doesn’t.

Feminism is now so confused and contorted it should be forgotten about, and instead have democracy for all, and concentration on those who are in greatest need, not necessarily almost complete concentration on one gender.

You will notice that in nearly all feminist literature, the male, husband, or father is not included, except as someone to be derided. In this article on abortion, fathers are not mentioned once (although half of a child’s DNA comes from the father). This type of “gender equality” is the essence of modern feminism.

Most feminist doctrine rarely solves social problems. Many feminists will identify a social problem, but to fix that problem they simply call for more government funding. This article mentions government funding 21 times, and such thinking leads to a high taxing government, but still the social problems exist, because many of these problems cannot be solved by money alone

Feminists will say that women should have more “voice” or “choice”. They will then carry out highly biased research studies, and most articles in women magazines and literature are fictional, but made to look as though they are non-fiction.

Feminists have tried to replace marriage with co-habitation, while research into co-habitation constantly shows women are generally worse off in almost every way, from decreased wealth, to increased rates of STD, abortion, domestic violence, child abuse etc.

Feminists say there are now female CEO’s, while ignoring the many thousands of women who are now welfare dependant.

The list can go on, but feminists are best at patting themselves on the back, while ignoring the enormous overall harm they have done to men, children and women.

In relation to abortion, it is interesting you (and Anne O'Rourke for that matter) didn't mention feminists work around the sex industry. The decision to have a child or not is an occupational hazard for women in prostitution - something women in more comfortable occupations don't have to worry about. Feminists such as Kathleen Barry, Sheila Jeffreys and Evelina Giobbe have worked hard in getting prostitution recognised as a violation of women's rights. Other feminists such as Christina Hoff Sommers have ignored the sex industry altogether. Still others have sought "equal access" for women to the industry or even call it a liberating experience for women!

Many feminists do infact work towards achieving social justice. I know this because they are my colleagues in the NSW community sector. Coalition Against Trafficking in Women (CATW) and similar organisations try to do the same thing internationally.

I would ask why feminism should be about achieving social justice for all? I do work for organisations in order to achieve social justice for gays ie: not heterosexuals. If heterosexuals feel underprivileged in relation to gays then they can set up their own groups and get off their backsides and lobby. Why should feminists worry about men with their nose out of joint?

DavidJS,

>> Why should feminists worry about men with their nose out of joint?

Claims of fighting for social justice becomes a lie when we introduce more injustice in the pursuit of our own aims. I agree that fighting to help men suffering injustice is no more the responsibility of a feminist than that of any other member of the community. It is an issue for feminism when feminist groups are involved in the production and use of dishonest studies and reports which villify men to gain advantage for women (DV stats are a good place to start if you don't know what I am talking about). In doing so they move from being innocent bystanders to being an active part of the problem.

Thankfully there are some feminists such as Patricia Pearson (author of "When She was Bad") who see both the harm done to women, feminism and society by that kind of lie.

Fighting for social justice should be about truth and justice, not just a grab for power by one group at the expense of others. Power grabs are tribal warfare not social justice.

And the issue for a man who has been excluded from his kids lives or any of the other consequences of the current mess that is Family Law in action is a bit more than having a "nose out of joint". They are real issues contributing to the suicide of thousands of men a year in this country.

Would you be happy to see harm done to gays described as "having their nickers in a knot"?

DavidJS you will learn that Timmy is one of those people who believe that the source of all their trouble is other people. For Timmy women appear to be particularly threatening.

DavidJs

“Many feminists do in fact work towards achieving social justice.”

“Why should feminists worry about men with their nose out of joint?”

I think you have summed up the hypocrisy of feminism very well in these two conflicting sentences

To expand a little:- Feminism is normally highly selective, highly gender-biased and anti-male. It ignores much but wants to be taken seriously, and if anyone is critical of it, then they are normally labelled misogynist or derided in some way.

An example:- Kenny’s remarks which are usually non-specific and without supporting evidence. Undoubtedly he would react if someone did the same to him (EG morgonzolla, who can’t answer simple questions, but likes to make remarks similar to Kenny’s).

It is interesting that the gay community is so aligned with feminism, as the gay community wants to move from co-habitation to marriage. Meanwhile feminists have done all they can to try and replace marriage with co-habitation (which does not work very well as previously mentioned). I think feminists are only interested in lesbians, and will probably turn on gay males at some time in the future.

With regards to lobby groups, a highly democratic and well run society should not need them. The taxpayer is already paying out money to maintain universities and research institutions that “should” be undertaking sufficient quality research to enable government to make informed quality decisions on a whole range of issues.

I say “should” but quite often they don't. For example it is not even clear how many abortions are carried out in Australia, but perhaps that information has been suppressed in some way.

When it comes to social issues, I doubt if our government could make an informed decision regards any social issue at all, (even if it wanted to), based on the highly conflicting data that normally comes out of Social Science.

This article on abortion ignores much, and if you think that there are issues left out, (and there are many), then take the matter up with the author. I have mentioned it a number of times in previous postings.