La1985; Yes, I do read feminist literature (Dworkin, Greer, Wolfe, Friedman. Summers etc) and if I had chosen the academic direction I would have my PhD by now, that is if I managed to get pass the university propaganda and censorship board.

Have you read, David Thomas, Warren Farrell, Katie Roiphe, Bly or any of the other books I had previously listed?

Now if, I as a bloke were to make personal attacks and comments about female body parts, this would be labelled as ‘bullying’ and ‘sexual harassment.’ But! Then we have different ‘rules’ for men. Don’t we?

Flood is not encouraging greater equality and communication, he promotes communication along specific lines only and is dismissive of communication which conflicts with his indocrination.
“I wouldn't have to pull out the irony meter and slap you round the head with it” This is a threat of violence. It doesn’t matter if it is tongue in cheek or whatever, it is still a threat of violence.

How do we measure equality so that we know when it has been achieved?

Is it when men and women achieve parity under the law, we have equal numbers of each gender as CEO’s, politicians, when husbands do an equal amount of housework even if that means that they spend many more hours of actual work?

It is funny this argument about unpaid work, whilst there may not be any direct cash recognition for this work, there are many other indirect payments made. Oh! Yes married women control and spend about 80% of the household budget. If women did the vast majority of upaid work then how come their standard of living decreases following separation and divorce?

The propaganda machine comes up with snazzy and catchy words and phrases like “Backlash” “Glass Ceiling” etc. But in reality a lot of it is and has been about the choices and decisions women make about their lives.

One thing I have noticed is that women often accuse men of the very behaviours that they themselves are doing. This is called in psychology, ‘Projection’.

Warning: irony meter might make an appearance in the following post in a possibly violent manner.

Now the metaphorically challenged come out of the woodwork. (For any figuratively challenged people out there: I didn’t literally mean James came out of woodwork, I don’t know how one would, you know, literally do that).

Clutching at straws James, clutching at straws.

Clarification: I don’t actually mean that James has straws in his hand and is clutching them.

Maybe you should all “stop taking yourselves soooooooooooooo seriously.”

See that, that was something trade215 said. And I used it against you. Ha!

(cont)

PEOPLE like you set the tone and make the rules in the world of ideological pretention. Its easy enuff to identify the modus of the logically lazy, who run veiled, self serving, selfish agenda to exclusion. Easier following your lead into the abyss of everything that is unreasonable discussion/debate. Only on the internet. Real life is too short to get bogged down in ideology. Healthier to grow a funny bone and laugh. Plus, why would l broadcast my position? More can be achieved in the face of controlling ideologues by ‘keeping them closer’ and placating them with words.

Eventhough women have made themselves difficult (tho not impossible) to like, they will always be very easy to love.

Replacement for feminism? How about HUMANISM… equality of BOTH sexes?

Ironically, feminism hasnt created many independent women (financially self reliant tho shackled to ideology, precluding independence of thought). The real challenge, the major gripe of so-called ‘anti-women’ men (bizarre idea given where we originate), is that feminism hasnt actually created truelly responsible and accountable women. Most still play old head games of deflected personal accountability, now they do it a lot more cleverly.

Men who dont care about women’s equality dont get involved. Being here trying to engage discourse speaks to the fact that we care. The men who dont care and dont have respect ingore you, larf in your faces or snigger behind your backs. Many men whom you think most respect your position, when behind closed doors amongst men only, have some pretty ugly attitudes.

Being blunt, crude, gruff, reflects frustration (YOU don’t seem to care), hurt (gender war) and a bit of tuff love (men can be confronting), not blatant, hateful disregard.

Anyway, let the name calling, personal attacks, misrepresentations, projected attributions, assumptions, distortions, deflections, dishonesties, evasions and dismissals continue. There's plenty on offer in this post to latch onto and run the predictable routines. Above all… justify, rationalise, deny.

Zealot types, you are too complexcated for this simple mind. l forfeit. You win.

Cherry pick away.

Good pluck brainiacs.

Enaj, good thought on obstacles. Does our natural world create more obstacles for women than men, or are these all constructed and socialised by us men? I don’t see this reflected in our laws or institutions. On the contrary, women seem to be well taken care of by men whom you consider obstacles? As obstacles, we’re pushovers – you can even have my child and have me support you without my consent, but I guess nature then gets even and imposes an obstacle on you – the child.

While discoursing on feminist theory with city girls I note these ladies prefer living in cities. I diplomatically mental-note that not so many of those happen to be built by women but that is probably precisely why in less guarded moments these same ladies dream of the obstacle-free matriarchal cave dwelling of eons past. Don’t mention the fifties to these ladies! They want to wipe the slate completely clean and start again from the very beginning.

Noos, your list is unlikely to reinvigorate the fem revolution – men want all those things too.

La1985, Feminists don’t much focus on meeting men’s needs –otherwise, at least for equality credibility’s sake, they would help stamp out things like paternity fraud. Yes I wonder why they’re so uninterested.

Wre, a very balanced and obstacle-free view. “…Greer and her like- they were so obsessed with making choices available for women but now they seem intent on taking these choices away.” There’s a simple reason for that. It’s not Marxism.

JamesH poses a very good question; one I’ve been meaning to ask myself – “How do we measure equality so that we know when it has been achieved?”

If not based upon his prompts, then is women’s equality branded a success, when all women are equal to the most powerful man, or when the uber-alpha-female (say Scout) is equal to the most powerful man (who would that be – Gates, Bush, or someone a little more Marxist like Putin perhaps)? Is it that the most disadvantaged women must equal average men? Or is it dependant on each individual woman grasping equality from her current male partner? If that fails, divorce?

Do you then consider yourself entitled to a promotion if you come across a “better” specimen (and how do you measure that?), or demotion when you’re again single but older. If like most women, you like to marry up, do you place clear expectation upon yourself to improve to his level, or do you prefer to bring him down a notch or two. Is it perhaps more of a compromise – you meet half way?

I will know that I am "equal" when I am judged according to my ability, my talents and my character rather than by my gender. Sometimes and to some people - both male and female - this is not an issue, I am a person first and a woman second. With others, I am a woman first, last and always, and as such when I act, speak or argue in certain ways they find me particularly difficult to deal with, because they have a rigid view of how women "ought" to think and behave.
By any objective measure, women are more often restricted because of their gender than men are. In general, we earn less than you do, own less than you do, retire on less than you do - even though we live longer than you do - fill fewer positions of power than you do - despite performing better at school and uni than you do - more of us are poor than you are, and less of us are mega rich. It is too convenient to dismiss this as somehow natural or all our own fault. I'm not blaming men for this, by the way, not individual men, anyway, just the way society has been unfairly constituted for a very long time. But it is surely only reasonable to ask you to recognise the very real discrimination that still exists, and it is deeply unreasonable to complain about the great steps towards a fairer society that have occurred and want women to remain second class members of society, not only for evermore, but without complaint!