AB you don't know what you are talking about. Do a grammar check, please, and proof your writing, as your second sentence makes no sense at all.

Where is the hard, authoritative evidence for this claim that millions of women live in fear of violence? Which women? What countries are we talking about? Here is the ideology that James has (however inexpertly) pointed to. Give us hard evidence, please, not more ideology.

I need read no further. You have just raved on and on with no proper evidence for your biased views.

What an appalling piece. Clearly, it wasn't even edited.

Why bother commenting?

By and large, the early women's movement pressed for the removal of the social barriers and obstacles that had constrained women's choices – feminism has progressively sprung from this. As has been suggested, there’s a myriad of feminist definition around the bell curve. It’s perhaps helpful to define two differing strands of feminism and how they relate, as with many other groups, to ‘identity’ politics.

"The politics of identity is a kind of cultural politics. It relies on the development of a culture that is able to create new and affirmative conceptions of the self, to articulate collective identities, and to forge a sense of group loyalty. Identity politics - very much like nationalism - requires the development of rigid definitions of the boundaries between those who have particular collective identities and those who do not." Jeffrey Escofier

One feminist strand is generally referred to as ‘difference’ or ‘essentialist' feminism, and the other as ‘victim’ feminism. ‘Difference’ feminism emphasizes the unique identity of women as a group, stressing and celebrating essential female characteristics which it believes make women different from - indeed even opposite to - men. 'Difference' feminism appeals to some because it re-values previously devalued characteristics such as emotionality and social connectedness etc. which women are thought to embody.

‘Victim’ feminism also assumes that women have a unique identity, however, the focus of that identity is women's victimization on the basis of sex, typically at the hands of men. ‘Victim’ feminism also reinforces identity politics, for 'victim' feminism also assumes women's diametrical difference from men as a central component of its view. Naomi Wolf argues that 'victim' feminism "turns suffering and persecution into a kind of glamour." I agree, albeit the discouraging reality is that women have been and continue to be victims of sexism, male violence, and discrimination. But ‘victim’ feminism is attractive to many primarily because it absolves individuals of the political responsibility to act to change their own condition.

Arjay,

what is the point that the feminists miss? As a lot of feminist struggles were aimed at REMOVING legislation which prevented women from doing various things- e.g. voting, owning property etc.- I am not sure I understand what you are talking about in relation to too much legilsation and governemnt intervention.

Surely you don't mean legislation and government intervention is wrong in cases of abuse and domestic violence?

"Marxism sowed the seeds of communism and feminism"

A better way of putting this, is:

"Communism by nature seeks to expand itself by expoiting areas of perceived grievance, -the social inequality between males and females, and the emerging feminist movement, provided fertile soil for this enterprise"

So, I think feminism should be divided into the following:

1/ Those rightfully seeking redress over social inequality.
2/ Those who just wanted more power and even social revenge because they had abusive fathers.(Mary Wollstonecraft being a prime example)
3/ Those who were linked to the Marxists.

The Canadian laws re men, seem to be related to point 2 above.

I can see some wisdom for some cases in such a law, but as it stands, it could too easily be used as a weapon by a vindictive female.

Bolts criticism of Neave is entirely valid. (now watch her judgements)
Refer my article on "Bias in the Judiciary" on the general discussion area.

One major point I'd like to make. What we are seeing is a kind of 'pharisaical' approach to male female relations. The Jews of Jesus time had almost more laws and sub laws than the Tax act regarding what was 'work' and what was not. To the point of not being able to eat an EGG laid on the Sabbath, or wear sandals with a metal buckle on that day.
Paul taught "Husbands, love your wives as your own bodies" and "As Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her".
The further we depart from the principle of Love for God and our fellow man and woman, the more we will make 'laws' to cope with the collateral damage.

Example. We have a 'sexualized' society, so a school in Geelong has adopted a 'no touching' policy. So, natural innocent affection is sacrificed on the alter of political correctness, and reactionism.

I think you’re basically correct in your assumptions DB. We live in a hyper-sexualised society that began 50 years ago, when medical advances combined with fading morality to create the sexual revolution. Sexual intercourse was freed from reproduction, it is now an act far more recreational.than procreational – take this as a statement of fact rather than being judgemental.

One can consider, has this revolution done more to degrade the status of women than any comparable cultural current elsewhere in the world, short of India’s female genocide? Some part of feminism may be a deep felt reaction to this. There seems a terrible imbalance where political correctness has now reacted to suppress the natural emotion of human comfort.

We live in a society that has generally removed all responsibility associated with sexual behavior. Insidiously, over time it has actually distorted many women’s views of themselves, a reduction that causes them to behave as primarily sexual beings, in a society that defines their sexuality in purely masculine imperatives and desires. “The Princess Bitch Syndrome” by Dr Carr Gregg documents the toxic effect of this sexualised society on young women.

Carr-Gregg reports counselling sessions with 13-year-old girls who "wring their hands about whether they are satisfying their sexual partner . . . By the time girls turn 13, they look like they're ready for anything. But they're not….The adolescent brain is not fully formed until the 20s, and today's adolescents are "arguably the most vulnerable generation in Australia's history"

Byron Bay, child psychologist Michael Hawton can barely keep up with demand for his "train the trainer" parenting workshops. He says parents today are confused because "discipline has become a dirty word". He sees "parents who've reached the end of their tether just because they don't know what to do".

Is it perhaps possible, our shunning of certain religious morality has caused some serious imperfections in society - an observation, incidentally, not lost on many within the Western Muslim population (along with many of their Christian counterpart)?