Aqvarvis....you highlight a very important point.

That Feminism has never been just about 'equality' but dominance,PAYBACK for the sad acts of a few bad fathers who produced daughters who decided to start a movement (Pankhurst was one of these)

When the foundations are flawed, so will the end game be.

I shudder when I look at the level of emptiness, deadness, anger, fury, contempt, hate,bitterness which seems to characterizes so many people in our society today.. much of it coming from women.

Thinking they have found liberation, they have in fact found slavery, they have followed as sheep, lemmings to the cliff, and now, we are paying the social cost.

Genuine love went out the window so long ago and now, in its place we have POWER......

"Husbands, love your wives as your own bodies.. as Christ love the Church and gave Himself up for her. Wives respect your husbands in all things" Pauls word to the Ephesians.

Its a 2 way street, but one side has been selective and chosen just one "obey your husbands" and cried victim.... now we have chaos.

Western feminists are like cows in a china shop when clumping in around other cultures. As if they have not made enough mess in the West.

In the West they are the middle class intellectual elite. They represent their own personal interests, consult with no-one and have no place for women who are heterosexual and value family life.

It is always cute when feminists try to claim a link with the Suffragettes, yet does anyone stop to think that the Suffragettes worked with and valued the input of men. They also valued family and children most highly.

What a difference with intellectual toffs like Germaine Greer who is an avowed anarchist, who has lived off the fat of the land all of her life, has never had to do a day's hard work and lives in an English country villa. She is a person who has made a good living out of being a destructive attention seeker and is gross to boot.

We have no right to impose our culture on other countries. What about US feminists having a look at child poverty in their own country or Australian feminists coming to grips with the suicide rate of boys and young men?

It is time that politicians realised that the community is fed up with funding left wing feminists through universities and government sinecures and grants.

*sigh* I know I shouldn't bite, but what they hey.

1) Feminists do not hate men. There may be people who call themselves feminist who do hate men, but this is not the standard modus operandi.

2) Feminists are aiming for the women to have as much choice in their life paths as men have been allowed. For some women this will mean being a classic housewife, for some this will mean aiming to be Prime Minister. The idea is choice, and not being locked in by social expectations.

3) Yes, men have been marginalised by some aspects of feminism. That dosn't make that marginalisation correct, nor does it mean feminism is intrisically bad. What is required is a sense of equality by all, not gender wars. Men should have as many choices as women - they should be able to stay home and look after the kiddies, they shouldn't be looked at askance if they wish to teach primary school, or become nurses. Feminism in its pure form should be fighting for Men's easy access to the traditionally feminine persuits as much as it fights for women's easy access to the traditionally masculine roles in society of leadership and influence.

4) I am a young woman with a good education and career, and I am deeply thankful that the various waves of feminism have allowed me to think about what choices I wish to make in my life. I hope that one day those choices will involve children - most young women I know also plan to have children, and also identify as feminist. We do not hate children and family.

5) Women's ability to make choices about their lives has been linked in many studies to better education and health outcomes for the entire community. Why should the women of Cambodia not be made aware that they should have options aside from the traditional if they want them? They may choose, or not choose, to take a different path, but knowing it exists would be great.

(continued)

(continued from above)

I know this won't change many people's perspectives, but women who believe in feminism are not out to destroy men. Most of us love men. We are daughters, sisters, girlfriends, wifes, mothers, etc. And most of us want as many opportunities for men and women in this society as the individual person wishes to seek for themselves. The false barriers of sex should not play into what role in society a person should aim to fulfil.

Laurie

With respect, feminism isn't one big sugar coated pill that is good for all, but a hotch potch of beliefs, theories and political movements and is prone to being hijacked by sectional interests for their own gain.

There is something quite pathological about the dominant brand/s of feminist theory being espoused in the West. So why shouldn't there be robust debate? For this reason alone, I object to calls for a united front. You should too if you are saying there is no common 'enemy'. There is no way I would ever be willing to suspend my judgement and become a foot soldier to uncritically defend some of the self-interested dominatrices and manginas who set themselves up as gurus and experts on feminism.

Mass education and health programs are the best chance for people in less developed countries and none of this would benefit from the particular political 'spin' and interference of Western feminists. In any event, feminist academics have been trying for years to close the ever-increasing gulf between Western feminism and multiculturalism so what marketable product do they have of relevance to others?

This being so, it is easy to imagine that feminists in other countries would prefer to grow their own product: one that fits their culture AND does not carry those toxic man-hating and family-hating viruses from the West.

The American Civil War was fought over the Confederate's belief that it was their culture's right to own slaves.
I'm sure it was cultural for the Boers to oppress blacks, and for the Germans to hate Jews. It was cultural for the Chinese to bind women's feet, and it is cultural in some parts of africa to have child slaves. Honour killings are cultural, and the woman who was sentenced in India to be gang raped because of some misdeed of her brothers was victimised by her culture, as well.
Do we accept all of that?
If we don't, then to argue that the oppression and suppression of women is cultural and therefore okay in any place at all is the height of discrimination. It basically accepts that only western women are fully human and can have human rights.
Human rights are not relative. Every human, regardless of race, colour, creed, age or gender is entitled to them.
The Bangladeshi banker who just won the Nobel Prize received it in recognition of his small loan program to destitute women. He lent really small amounts of money (the equivalent of $10 or so) to these women so they could start small businesses, the incredible results of this small gesture towards otherwise ignored people have resulted in it being a model followed all over the world and in the Nobel Prize. He lent exclusively to women because no other lending institution would look at them - that was cultural too,
Women, everywhere, should have the same rights, choices and respect as men. When they don't, we should point it out, and help in any small way we can. It is not okay to say they are "only" women and their lack of rights doesn't matter. If you wouldn't want to be treated that way yourself, chances are they don't like it much either.