Y'know, Robert, I think we actually are moving on to that point - though one would never guess it from many of the posters here. I see it in my own work and research.

And then I recently read a report which commented on the fact that in a particular survey it was a marked factor that those who held opinions such as: - that many rape victims were "asking" for it through behaviour or dress; that rape statistics and reports were only reporting female rape; that feminists had not played any part in advancing change for the good; that Family Courts were in the grip of feminist manipulation; in fact many of the more earthily described opinions often to be seen here - were predominantly the 50+ age group.

And before anyone starts accusing me of ageism - the word used was "predominantly", not "exclusively". Other research has independently provided similar results.

What this means is that somehow or other we actually are moving forward, with the generations who will/are becoming the policy makers and who are/will provide the bulk of society having a more balanced and informed outlook on these matters than their predecessors.

The fact that, as a society, we are steadily increasing the kinds of understanding, empathy and tolerance that leads to gender equality gives hope that the horrific gender intolerance often illustrated here is already becoming a construct of a less enlightened historical period - like crimplene suits and lycra shorts.

Tranny led enlightenment? I don’t think so! Seems like more of the feminist instigated lunacy Maximus is describing.

For proof you needn’t go further than to recall the dismal rejection of SNAGs by the very women who thought they wanted them. Now please stop this talk of gender reassignment, transition, neutralisation, or whatever you have in mind!

Why do we never hear of feminism demanding change from women? Surely it is your turn to change - let’s have non-whining, all-doing, SNAFs please.

Romany

You say you should not be accused of ageism but why shouldn't you be, after all you have given people aged fifty and above and feminist or not, a solid sledging in your responses so far.

Maybe you protest too much and need to take a good dose of the medicine you prescribed to others - namely to go off and talk to people over fifty and read articles written by them. Perhaps you will be very surprised by the maturity, sensitivity, knowledge and life skills of those people over fifty that you seem to despise so much.

There is plenty of evidence around that people over fifty are not as washed up, silly and useless as you might think.

Cornflower - what is your problem with me?

I "sledge" and "despise" people over 50 and consider them "washed up, silly and useless". On what do you base this? Is it because I quoted an article that had noted that the majority of people were now more informed about sexual abuse than was common twenty years ago?

The inference there was that this generation was more knowlegable about such things than their predecessors which I saw as a good sign. That's sledging? That's showing I despise people?

This article is about modern feminism. Earlier on I pointed out that contemporary feminism ( like contemporary Christianity or contemporary psychology for example) has moved on. I highlighted the fact that to continue basing ideas on what feminists of another era did was unfair. Just like continuing to judge catholics on Vatican 2 would be unfair.

Quoting activists from the 60's and 70's did not adhere to the parameters of this debate.

Reading the work of to-days feminists who grew up in a different environment is relevant to an understanding of to-day's feminism.

From this you extrapolated that I consider anyone over 50 washed up or silly or useless?

And what part of "I have travelled up and down the country etc..." did you not understand? Do you imagine that all the members of such clubs as Rotary or CWA or Lions or Christian Churches or crisis centres or staff of secondary schools, or the homeless or the inhabitants of psychiatric wards etc. etc. are debutantes?

As for reading articles and books by people over 50? I teach at a University - therefore a vast percentage of the articles and books I read are written by people not only over 50 but who kicked the bucket centuries ago! Some of my colleagues are over even 70!

Do you continually malign me for no other reason than that I hold different opinions to you? In light of the fact that you have never acknowledged my apology nor provided quotes as proof of your accusations it begins to seem so.

A saying which I think has more than an element of truth is;

"At 20 if you are not a liberal you have no heart,
At 40 if you are not a conservative you got no brains."

So basically in theory as people age they gain life experience, which can lead to a greater understanding and insight. Well for some of them anyway. With age some people gain maturity.

"Quoting activists from the 60's and 70's did not adhere to the parameters of this debate.

Reading the work of to-days feminists who grew up in a different environment is relevant to an understanding of to-day's feminism."

Romany, sure today's young feminist grew up in a different enviroment, however this occured because of the ageing feminists.

Many of the ageing feminists were very anti-marriage seeing this as the way men keep women oppressed. Now women in their 30's 40's are saying that they cant find a man to commit or suddenly they are having great difficulty in getting pregnant.

It has been justified that because women have theoretically suffered thousands of years of oppression, then it's OK for men to cop it.

Selective examples of history have been used too justify the excesses of feminism and as to why women should have special treatment to make up for past injustices.

There may well be a new group of feminists emerging, but we only have your word for it. Words are meaningless without action to reinforce them and the old style feminist said they wanted equality, yet all their actions showed they wanted exclusivity and that they are sexist and biased.

The truth is that human behaviour is much much more complex that feminists care to portray.

As a feminist, I agree with maximus. Not his tone (rather smug, I think) but his analysis. He is quite right, male power was not a male conspiracy, it was a result of women having no control over their own fertility. While feminism started alongside humanism and anti-slavery as part of the Enlightenment in the 1700s (around time of French Rev), you can date the revolution in women's roles and status from the introduction of the contraceptive pill. Nor is it a male conspiracy that many men and women - particularly those brought up prior to the 1960s and 70s- have found this revolution threatening and hard to handle, it is human and completely understandable. Also, no group in human history has easily given up power once they've got it and it is unreasonable to expect anyone to both lose power and enjoy losing it. However, it is also unreasonable to expect more than 50% of the human race to stay meekly in their "supportive" roles, earning less, owning less and deciding less, and even more unreasonable to argue that it is justified - particularly if you are one of the half of the human race not constrained by biology. Its similar to arguing that blacks deserve to be second class because of the colour of their skin or shape of their nose, when you are smugly white.
As a feminist, I agree with R0bert (I often do), and I do not demonise either men or women or feminists. Humans are humans, no better, no worse than one another and this constant my gender's better than your gender is just childish.