Frank... that little barb at the end of your post mentioning the list and then the 'CHURCH' is the problem.. mate.. c'mon.. that was below the belt and was also not correct.

The Biblical view of women is one of 'complementary' not inferior in the sense you mean. Is there a structure in family ? Yes indeedy there is. Christ, the man, the woman, the Children.

Can women in the Biblical picture achieve high social positions ? Yep you betta believe it. Deborah was a Judge and leader of Israel in the midst of the Patriarchal period.

Can women be leaders in the Church ? yes and no. They have many roles which involve leadership, but probably more connected with women than men. Do we need to apologize for this? No. Take it up with the Almighty when you meet.

Relative positions of males and females in society should reflect our complementary natures. Anyone doubting this should consult my favorite anthropological article 'Steel Axes for Stone Age Australians' to see just how bad things get when male/female roles/identities are stuffed up by quaint ideas of a 'progressive' nature. For the Tribe concerned it meant decimation and virtual extinction. But hey.. how can this be ? afterall.. it was "just" a steel axe.......

COMBATIVE.. notice how most of the list of things to do is 'combative'- "fight" this.."dont" do that. "Stop" doing such and such. It seems to me that its all 'symptom dancing' and not getting to the heart of the problem.
A fractured relationship with God, is the starting point. If thats wrong, everything is wrong. Specially our view, and treatment of, the opposite sex.

FRANK.. when ur ready to join me in a protest at some service station peddling woman objectifying pornography as though it was nothing, we will be on the same page, and we can stand together against this.
Imagine.. 100 men at a servo, signs, banners, "NO TO PORN" current affair there.. wow.. that would be a rush.

The author wants girls to enjoy the same civil liberties as their male counterparts. So who says the lot of the boys is enviable?

What planet does she come from that she is so unaware that the same problems confront boys and girls. Is she really sure that girls are the only victims and if not, why the sin of omission?

The article compartmentalises and allocates victim status to one gender.

All this article 'proves' is that the Jesuits are as hung up on sex as feminists. But most people were already aware of that. People are also aware that fear and sex are used by priests to gain control over people.

Would the Jesuits like a return to the fifties where young women wore veils and carried beads to church only to be denounced as archetypal Eves?

It lowers the credibility of authors and respondents alike who cannot discuss social issues, in this case child development, without making it an issue of gender

Mary wrote "we can work together to talk about how to make parties safe for young women; how to oppose work practices that discriminate against women and how to ensure that women enjoy the same civil liberties as their male counterparts."

I think as men the first step we need to take on such one sided female interests only article is to accept the obvious. It is written by a women for women. Time and again its seen that what is wanted, which usually a favourable bias towards women against men policy, is not supported by verifiable facts in balanced context. The result an unfair outcome and the results are all around us in government, court and work. This article just another general call out to women to focus on the stated areas, while the areas where they have unfair advantage is protected and kept out of public discussion.

There is nothing stopping women working together in creating and managing a money making commercial product enterprise and sharing out that money among themselves as they see fit. Higher superannuation%, wage higher than market rates ect. Problem arises when they attack the public/industry purse.

I think we should ensure that these imbalanced views have no influence in politics, government and court. These entities must see the whole dynamic problem in its entirety and to treat all of us the same, ie genderless humans. Violence, sure but men get the same protection. Right to have a meaningful parentchild relationship after parent separation, sure just the same. And a system where any such bias have strong statue laws to counter it including easy public process to address judges, politicians and police etc.

So that leaves us men as a group. Yep, like women there is no reason why we cannot act as a group work ourselves to make a society that helps us be happier under the same above context.

Sam
Ps~ take for examply wa overhauling 'child sexual abuse' services which is male dominant. http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Child-protection-overhauled-in-WA/2007/03/07/1173166790335.html
First question is why not just 'child abuse' which will include psychological abuse which is female dominant...

"Jesuite Social Justice Centre" now there's an oxymoron if ever I heard one. While the author is concerned about the horrible western values that are influencing her daughter she works for an organisation, the Catholic Church, that is directly causing the deaths if millions of women in developing countries because of it's policy on condom use. Gimme a break.

But to the article. It strikes me that many of the indicators used are applicable to both girls and boys. Some of the stats the author quotes are alarming until we remember that, for example with respect to assault for example, there has been a concerted push to bring these crimes into the public by reporting those that, in the past, may have been unreported. Still a lot more work needs to be done to reduce all assaults and voilence; levels of reporting notwithstanding.

We need income equity but isn't the lower super payout reflecting the time that women leave the workforce to raise children too? Perhaps instead of (or as well as) a baby bonus the government could make a direct contribution to a mother's superannuation account.

It's easy to scare ourselves silly by highlighting the negatives in the current culture. Sure there has always been a Twiggy/Paris around and probably a Peyton Place/Desperate Housewives but I think that mose girls (even if they are watching thse shows) have the ability to discriminate between them and real life. YouTube is probably more incidious. By the way, Rainbow parties, to the extent that they exist, were first mentioned in a work of fiction.

I'm aware that I'm playing down the author's shrill message. There is a lot to be done in society so that both sexes can live less potentially damaged lives; and girls and women still get the short straw.

Yes, look what it's become.

The chance to prove yourselves flushed down the dunny.

And only yourselves to blame in the end.

It's very sad and I see the results everyday at my workplace which caters mainly for women.

Why not see for yourself your own degradation in attempt to become 'empowered'.

Go to 'youtube' and search for 'vagina monologues'.

Moving images of america's finest reducing themselves to a bodypart, obsessed with the 'c' word.

Watch them, ordinary women and a few celebrities degrade themselves, think that they're a minority well follow the money...

Search on Wikipedia....

Some of the artists involved in the play.
Kate Winslet, Cate Blanchette, Jane Fonda, Alanis Morrisette,

Am I supposed to respect these women?

Apparently presidential hopeful Hilary regards the original author of these plays, Eve Ensler as a friend. Look out america!

Watch these videos, is it any wonder that young girls behave the way they do, is this what feminism offers?

Is this the best it can do?

David,

I'm not the least concerned with the Biblical view of women or the names of a couple of women in high status positions in that period. I'm talking about 2007 and beyond.

Nice choice of word, though - 'complementary'. Sounds like a euphemism for inferior to me.

As for the inferior but proper role you ascribe to women in the contemporary Church - and the suggestion that I 'take it up with the Almighty when you meet' - that sounds like a cosy position for men to take. (What if she turns out to be a woman?) And it's the sort of rationale that has been trotted out to keep women and other underlings in their proper inferior position through the centuries.