pdev, I agree that there is increasing differences between the haves and the growing class of working poor but I don't believe the emancipation of women is the cause of this - try globalisation.

I look back at the economic role of Australian women last century

in the 1920s and earlier middle class women did not work, if the worked they were not paid

in the 1920s only working class girls worked for a pittance that was too small to allow them to catch a train home on Sundays on their afternoon off

in the 1930s the public service decreed that married women could not work

in the 1940s women were encouraged to step aside from their war time jobs so that demobilised servicemen could work.

The 1950s were the low point for women who were judged on their husbands position, children's behavior and cleanliness of their house. Only low class married women worked. The middle class ideal for was for girls to work as typists, nurses or teachers until marriage then produce the first baby after a year of marriage.

In 1966 the public service allowed married women to remain working after marriage.

In 1973 it became illegal to pay women 2/3 of the male wage. ie EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK

In 1978 women could contribute to superannuation funds at the same rate as their male counterparts when they were made permanent employees.

in 2000's young women think pole dancing at $1500 per week is a career option

The problem's arose
- when the husband died or ran away, interstate was far enough, the wife and sprogs had to survive in poverty of enforced low pay
- educated, wealthy, unpleasant, ugly or fat women who had difficulty finding a suitable mate were shafted.
- single women couldn't get mortgages
It was discrimination.

Historically in australia high status women and low status men have remained single.

If you are embarassed by your household wealth, your wife could stop work. Remember you are unlikely to both be earning high bucks over 50.

billie,
We can forgive pdev for not reading the Bible of 1Timothy 6:10 as a prospective deviation.

pdev,
I think that the proud working class families of the past were great for the men in them , but perhaps not quite so much fun for the women in them. If they had been equally satisfying, they would not have changed. They changed because they were not working for half the participants.
The women's revolution is in its very early days, of couse we are getting it wrong as often as we get it right, but it was inevitable. We will not become fully human until we value the female experience of the world as much as the male. We are closer now, at least in the west, to doing that than we have ever been, but we still have further to go. In the end, this is logically a journey we must embark on, it will be risky, painful but exhilerating. There is no going back.
And, I truly believe, that it will be ultimately liberating for all of us, because we can live as human beings first and drop the straight jacket of gender, at last.

A few points. First, women were not as excluded from work in the past as some are claiming. There was a whole wave of feminism which lasted roughly from 1860 to 1945. During this period women were able to pursue higher education and enter the professions. A significant number did. Before WWII there were female academics, doctors, lawyers, artists etc. However, this first wave of feminism collapsed for the same reason the second one will: it was too disruptive to family formation. Ultimately women wanted love, marriage and children more than they wanted careers.

Second, it is not only poorer men who face difficulties partnering in a feminist culture. Everybody does. My best friend has four younger sisters (upper middle-class family). None of them has even ever had a boyfriend, let alone partnered and they are now in their 30s.

Why does feminism disrupt relationships? First, there is the assumption within feminism that gender is to be thought of negatively as a "straight-jacket". This idea might fit in well with liberal ideas about "writing your own script" etc, but it is anti-heterosexual. Heterosexual men want women to be attractively feminine; heterosexual women want men to be admirably masculine. It doesn't matter how good a job a man has, if the women he meets are mannish and therefore unattractive, the odds are much worse that he will partner. (continued next post)

Second, feminism rejects the idea that men are protectors and providers. This means that what remains to connect men to women is the sex instinct. That's one reason why you get the female "raunch" culture in a feminist society, since sex is the one thing left by which women can hope to attract the interest of men. But the problem is that the male sex instinct is promiscuous. A self-confident male can keep churning through women, not choosing to settle down until very late in the piece. It is only when the protector-provider role is encouraged that men are likely to opt for monogamy, as it makes little sense to dedicate yourself to protecting women, and then exploit them sexually.

Third, feminism assumes that what matters is that we have the power to enact our own will. This means that feminism is concerned to a high degree that women as a group have the power to enact their will relative to men as a group. Therefore you have the assumption that men and women are competitors for power within their own personal lives and within society. A mood of gender war is created which breeds resentments between men and women.

For all these reasons, feminism is a highly unstable philosophy on which to build relationships. Most women refuse to associate themselves with the movement because they sense the negative and destructive side of feminism. Most men are either openly hostile to feminism, or else have turned away from the idea of making longer-term commitments to women.

Mark you do a good job of showing one side of the picture. ena has already acknowledged that some things are not being done right. I've used the illustration in the past of moving house, when you move generally things are in a mess for a while. Stuff is still in boxes, we we struggle to find things, the routines we are used to do not work so well anymore and it will take some time to get that sorted out. Not a reason never to move, just something we should expect.

I'd like to pick up specifically on one point you made. "It doesn't matter how good a job a man has, if the women he meets are mannish and therefore unattractive, the odds are much worse that he will partner.". What are you meaning by mannish in that comment? I'd accept that some women have picked up some of the worst trait's of what they think it takes to be a successful man to get ahead in the business world. Annecdoatal evidence and some of what I've seen suggests that some female bosses can be the worst of the worst (especially in their treatment of other women). Some women do dispense with personal grooming and the like as well (as do some guys) but they would seem to be far in the minority.

My impression is that feminism will increase the proportion of women who are attractive in totality. I see one end of a scale being the essentually useless woman who has devoted herself to external appearance and little else and the other end being the woman who has chosen to be an adult human being, on average not as physically strong as a man, has different emotional responses and takes responsibility for her own choices. The latter is so much more attractive and it is part of where I see feminism taking things.

Rather than opposing feminism men are much better served by supporting the parts that are about the development of more complete human beings, we have a vested interest in the outcome.

R0bert