A useful thing to remember is that anything tagged with "ism" on the end of it is only a doctrine - just like GWB's pre-emptive strike doctrine as well as feminism or any other.

It's just a matter of time before we'll see all of them floating past dead in the river.

The reality is that women in the West only have the freedoms they have because we live in wealthy societies and the men have given in and allowed them those freedoms.

It has been a trend throughout history that the women of the wealthiest societies have been the most pampered and indulged by their men.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, and jobs became scarce according to one documentary I was watching, the men took any available jobs and the women were forced out .
In other words when things got really tough the men took back any economic power that was to be had.

Also the pill has played the biggest role in female freedom. When the wealth of a country collapses the pill becomes a luxury that is often no longer available. Child care is also very expensive and would become nonexistent in a poor country. These two factors alone would have a huge impact on the the freedoms of women to live and work like men.

When armed men ride in and take control of countries then whether or not women have freedoms is decided by them unless the women can persuade them otherwise as they have done in the West . I’m not arguing that this is a good thing I’m just saying it’s the way things are. In fact I think world peace would be more quickly achieved by setting up family planning cum medical clinics for women all over the world so they can limit their families and ensure the survival of the children they do have.
Women can only persuade with reason because physically (strength wise) the men rule

Feminism(today)is a mirror designed by a few women so that all women will know how they ought to look. Men, they proclaim. If they are ever to step out of their social Neanderthalism. Ought to look just like this new perfect woman.

Woman unhappy with her lot having attained equality now presumes to change all man so he can be equally happy too.

It's interesting to note that the women who most want to change men didn't really want one before the change and can't abide the poor sod after.

Changed, changed utterly.

Hilarious. Everyone is arguing for or against little more than their own interpretation of the word. If you interpret the word in a negative light, then you're going to respond negatively to it.

I'm sure most rational people agree that both women and men should have equal rights and freedoms, yeah? Because I'm quite sure that is the fundamental definition. If you consider it to mean something else, and there are many who do, then argue away, but realise that you're arguing about something else, whether you use the word 'feminism' or not.

I was thinking best to leave this topic alone but I searched for Helen Garner and no mention so I will quote from "The First Stone"

"If you don't take certain positions these days you're 'not a feminist'. Dear God if I
know anything I know there are ten thousand ways to be a feminist"

other essential reading of Garner is "Joe Cinque's Consolation". Then you will understand Helen's line

"It's not a dialogue, it's a f* war"

and you will understand feminism

It's like everything in life, if you want to understand something you go to the experts [and I note she does not mention Greer once in 2 books]

Divorce Doctor, you quote Helen Garner:

"Dear God if I know anything I know there are ten thousand ways to be a feminist." Then you quote her again: "It's not a dialogue, it's a f* war" and you conclude that having read Garner: "you will understand feminism".

Why am I now confused? I got lost between "ten thousand ways to be a feminist" and reading two books by Garner and then being in a position to "understand feminism".