The problems raised in the article are general societal problems. Is anyone really arguing that feminism is responsible for modern pornography? In case you hadn't noticed, porn predates feminism (by a couple of thousand years).

The advent of the Pill in the 1960s, primarily the disconnection between sexual intercourse and pregnancy/the having of babies, is STILL working its way through society. Hence a whole lot of confusion about sexuality, morality and ethics. For the first time in human history, we can now reliably choose when (or if) to have children, without abstinence.

There are plenty of interesting women out there, why does the media insist on concentrating its resources on vapid nonentities like Lindsay Lohan? Is this really what people want to read?

My daughter was given a make-up kit as a 4th birthday present - the offending object was given away to charity - my daughter, being a sensible four year old, had no interest in it.

Bronwyn, "To me, feminism is about women being taken seriously and being able to effect some change for the better in a world that has always been dominated by male values of individuality and competitiveness."

Yes, individuality and merit are hardly feminist ideals. Women ought to be given positions of power because they are victims and thus deserving.

"We are all diminished as women when individuals amongst us choose to prostitute themselves to please men, whether it's pole dancing or dressing provocatively,"

No woman in history has ever prostituted herself, pole-danced, or dressed provocatively for the pleasure of any man. They did so using man as a means to an end, and still do.

"As Melinda said, we haven't come far at all. We're as enslaved to men today as we were when we stayed home full time and kept house for them."

And if anyone ever wonders why feminism failed this last bon mot is the clincher. Women stayed home full time to keep house for men. This is mans continual enslavement of women. I kept looking for the line barefoot and pregnant. Men are very devious indeed they have used love of a woman and the desire to have children with that chosen one and raise a family as a means to enslave them to their will. (insert evil laugh here)

aqvarivs

I used the term 'enslaved' in a figurative not a literal sense so you can save the evil laugh. Women certainly were (and still are) enslaved, not by men, but by societal norms and their own acquiescence to them.

You've misread me on every count. I'm no man hater. I don't view women as victims. And I would only ever consider it important for women to aspire to positions of power if they could use that influence to help create a better and fairer world. It's what I once hoped feminism would be able to achieve.

"As Melinda said, we haven't come far at all. We're as enslaved to men today as we were when we stayed home full time and kept house for them."

What I find really interesting is that in the past being home was most likely the safest place to be when compared to the occupational dangerous jobs. Lets consider the fact that OH&S has led to an improvement in job safety, prior to that, what was it 12 men died during the construction of the Sydney Harbour Bridge.

If one looks at the OH&S data, men still head fatalities at work by a large margin.

Research published in New scientist magazine, "Women are natural born flirts" found that is was largely women who controlled the meetings and their physical actions (gestures) had a direct effect on males.

''You can predict male behaviour from female behaviour,'' said Grammer. ''But not the other way round.''

In 'Sex, lies and monogamy' the short form is basically the human female evolution strategy by hiding her fertility and having sex (most of the time) keeps males interested in them, rather than investing time chasing multiple partners.

So the question is who enslaves who?

Esther Vilar "The manipulated Man" writes;

"Women let men work for them, think for them and take on their responsibilities - in fact, they exploit them."

Bronwyn, "To me, feminism is about women being taken seriously and being able to effect some change for the better in a world that has always been dominated by male values of individuality and competitiveness."
How should I interpret this? How am I to view a statement that assigns individuality and competitiveness as male only values, that woman are not to be considered as individuals nor are they to be competitive? And that makes these two male values the cause of womans need for a female exclusive ism to counteract the negative impact such values have on womanhood.

Bronwyn, "We are all diminished as women when individuals amongst us choose to prostitute themselves to please men, whether it's pole dancing or dressing provocatively,"
How should I interpret this? That women are driven to pole-dancing as a socialized need to please men? That women suck the fat out of their bums and inject it into their lips to please men. Cake on the old make up to please men? Wear clothing that leaves nothing to the imagination to please men? Sister you need to get out and actually talk to some real men. None of the men I know are interested in any women who behaves like that. All that stuff women do for women and themselves. Don't saddle men with that responsibility. Men are visual and don't mind looking at fake women knowing that they are indeed fake. They don't want to marry fake women. Fake women have major head problems. They have issues that demand their full self absorbed attention.

Bronwyn, "As Melinda said, we haven't come far at all. We're as enslaved to men today as we were when we stayed home full time and kept house for them."
How should I interpret this? I don't see any figuratively speaking anywhere in that statement. I do see a put down on women who choose to be mothers. That there is an implied one sided servitude, a lesser woman cowed by the reality of the oppressive patriarchal homestead.
I don't see proud womans choice.

aqvarivs,
"None of the men I know are interested in any women who behaves like that. All that stuff women do for women and themselves. Don't saddle men with that responsibility. Men are visual and don't mind looking at fake women knowing that they are indeed fake. They don't want to marry fake women."

Count me in on that. There are men out there who do go for the over the top types but none that I know. Thinking about your words brought to mind the oft heard complaint of very pretty women, they find it difficult to get dates. There are guys out there who like the high maintenance look, the artificially coloured, flavoured and padded but the men I know prefer natural (or more suttle enhancements).

Bronwyn, I've held off responding to your post because I've been uncertain if I misunderstood your comments. I wanted to see how others responded. My reading seemed to suggest support for a feminism that does not widen womens choices, rather which exchanged one percieved master for another. That social pressures to be a certain way are kept, just fine tuned to be suit the preferences of some women rather than the perceived preferences of men. I say perceived because I'm not convinved that men have been as in charge as some feminists claim. I drift off topic ;(

The feminism I support works to make women (and hopefully all humans) freer to live by their own choices, not to be bound by someone elses codes of proprietry, place and role.

Many women enjoy their sexuality in ways that don't fit perceived social norms (as do many men). Many men and women place great importance on pleasing members of the opposite sex, there can be a downside to that but there are also upsides. Those who follow their preferences without unreasonably harming others (and all the stuff about consenting adults etc) are not letting anybody else down, they are living as free human beings.

As I mentioned earlier, I may have misunderstood you. If so it is unintentional.

R0bert