Ena,
Your sentence:
"We will not become fully human until we value the female experience of the world as much as the male." pricked my conscience.
When do you think that females will enjoy sex without the aim of having children?

Richardson stated:

“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.”

Misleading and inaccurate.

While the formation of the suffragettes, created greater awareness of the lack of female participation in the world, the only period where women entered the professions in greater numbers was during WW1 to replace lost ‘manpower’ and, of course, were expected to return to their domestic duties as the war’s end

Women have always worked in the fields, laundries, as maids – all low level occupations.

Only in the wealthy ranks have women been ‘kept’. From these rarefied ranks only a minority were indulged by being permitted to participate in a dilettante’s version of professional occupations.

Even then these careers were limited to writing (some such as George Eliot pretended to be male) or fine art. Even rarer were female scientists (Madame Curie) and I can’t think of a single lawyer or doctor during this period. Perhaps Richardson could enlighten us. Ultimately the numbers nowhere equalled that of men.

“Ultimately women wanted love, marriage and children MORE than they wanted careers.” So says Richardson – a man! What could his agenda be, I wonder?

I should not have to point out this basic fact; women make up half the world’s population and, as such, are affected by decisions made in politics, business and the public world. To deny women from participating in the world is a form of slavery people such as Richardson would have us return to.

As human beings, women and men fundamentally require being treated as mature, intelligent beings, each responsible for themselves. To place either gender into rigid categories such as ‘man, the provider’ and ‘woman, the nurturer’ limits the evolution and progress of the entire human race.

Richardson is clearly afraid of change, he can’t deal with it any more than he can cope with an independent, resourceful woman. He is shackled by his dependency on control over half the population; hardly the aspiration of a mature, responsible and fully realised man.

I’m jumping in late (been away again) but this is too much fun to miss!

Mark, so many small minded comments... where to start?

** “Ultimately women wanted love, marriage and children more than they wanted careers”
Please provide evidence to this, rather than making an unsupported claim. Interesting that you get into the mind of every female in the last 200 years!

** “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.”
You seem to be projecting your perception of what men (and women) want. Is it possible that you don’t understand the concept of diversity and what this means for different people wanting different things?

** “Second, feminism rejects the idea that men are protectors and providers... what remains to connect men to women is the sex instinc... and then exploit them sexually”
What a load of codswallop! The Neanderthal attitude speaks for itself. If this is all you perceive in the connection between men and women, then it is a sad, limited and narrow world you live in.

Ena,
I think you hit the nail on the head – until we perceive in human only ways (gender should not be an issue), there are going to be problems. Both for the men who live in the last century (or the one before that) and for women fixated on becoming ‘dominant’, ‘more than equal’ to men or who abuse their position/talents to seek advantage

I understand the threat this may pose to the fundamentalists on both sides of the argument but it is nevertheless true that equality should not be about power or dominance but about compromise, honesty and co-operation.

For my part, my partner and I will take 6 months leave of absence each, in turn, for the children (when they come) – and damn the world for thinking less of me – or her!

Reason asked for evidence of women's participation in the professions in the 1800s. I can't find the name but the first surgeon to perform cesarean sections when both the mother and baby survived on a regular basis was a woman who had to masquerade as a man for all of her adult life. Of course her name escapes me and Google can't help.

The woman was the daughter of a British doctor who thought that girls would make just as good doctors as men. He connived with the head of medicine in Edinburgh for his daughter to study medicine. She adopted male dress because women were unable to study. When she graduated she was went to South Africa as an Army surgeon, still masquerading as a man. The head of army in South africa was another of her fathers connections. Her patients and their babies started surviving cesarean sections in the 1890s. When she died at about 60 years the person laying her out was surprised to discover she was a female and her body showed signs of child bearing. The fate of her baby is unknown.

Reason,
Ena has not hit the nail on the head. You have not had a family so you don't know anything about life yet or women.
You have a lot lo learn. For instance your last sentence does not make sense until we get to the last two words "for her".
It is only at the end of the sentence that we know if you partnet is male or female.
All the human world is devided and understood in gender.
We are not human. We are gender orientated from birth to death and each gender is the most ignorant when they get married. You have not got to the 'toss-a-coin' section of married life yet.
Divorce is about 42 percent in Australia and will rise to about 50 percent and I have heard it is as high as 57 percent in the USA.
Feminism is doing a lot for family life and the children.

The limitations set by OLO really restrict adequate and effective responses to posts.

However, I am nothing if not persistent.

Richardson argues with anecdotal evidence: “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.” Maybe they are gay, maybe they are happy as they are – independent – as a single woman myself, I am far happier being free. Why does Richardson see this as a problem?

Richardson asks: “Why does feminism disrupt relationships?” First, there is the assumption that feminism does disrupt relationships – where is the evidence?

I have no doubt that any woman who wishes to stand on her own two feet and not be dependent to anyone for her life, would not remain in a relationship with anyone who wished to dominate her. Would Richardson prefer that dysfunctional relationships be forced to continue will all the attendant tragedy such relationships create?
I am happy to see the male posters who have effectively taken Richardson to task over his anachronistic views.

Men, like Richardson, reveal their inadequacy by their fear of strong, confident and independent women – that these men are being ‘outed’ by their peers gives me much hope for the future emancipation of both sexes.

When we can stand together as equals there will be hope for the human race, yet. For how can we eliminate racism if we can't treat both genders of the human race equitably?