Wow! What a fabulous piece of writing. I now know why I still open the emails from OLO and read the article titles for items of interest. Congratulations to author for so logically and succinctly arguing this case. I agree with the author and think that in this article she very adeptly strips back the spoke and mirrors of the conservative illusion. The conservative illusion allows many women to believe that the feminist cause is redundant whilst at the same time the situation globally for women is becoming much worse and locally the feminisation of poverty is becoming entrenched.

Billy C, you may be interested in reading Laura Flanders' book The Bush Women where she documents the rise of Condoleezza Rice, Elaine Chao, Ann Venemans and others to the Bush Cabinet (see www.lauraflanders.com). Essentially she outlines how they doctored their supposedly humble backgrounds for media spin and have fitted in quite nicely as representatives of the American ruling class.

I guess for me the author of this article has said nothing that's a huge surprise. But anyone interested in US politics and sees the Democrats, including Hiliary Clinton, as somehow left-wing should examine the Democratic Party and its history a bit closer.

Whooo! A fembot cat fight. RRRRRR0AWWW.
I got twenty that says Hilary can take both Condi and Zillah Eisenstein.

Zillah Eisenstein

Well said -

thank you

I've gotta say, I wasn't particularly impressed with the notion that violence and imperialism was equated to being a masculine pursuit.

I'll admit, it's largely been men behind these endeavours - though now evidently some women are.

This kind of grouping creates division where there needed be - if the article was arguing in favour of general pacifism then fair enough, but if anything, the tone of this piece is of the 'masculine' kind of aggression it decries.

what gets up my nose is the wanton misrepresentation of the usa as a 'democracy'. it ain't. not even close. crypto-plutocratic oligarchy would be closest, if you insist on greek language. nader's "corporation state" would be more useful to modern readers.

if you don't even know what democracy is, you're illiterate. that's not a crime, but it does gravely compromise your credibility. better to read a few books, before you start complaining about the state of the nation or the planet.

you can't talk to strangers if you don't have a common language. one of the reasons "1984" was so valuable was the popularization of the concept of newspeak, so that anyone with an interest in politics could be aware that control of people was easiest when you control their language, and so their thought. unfortunately, the message of "1984" was itself 'newspeaked' by teaching it as a homily against totalitarian states, rather than an insight into social control by political elites.

Hells Bells, another gender-bender!

Yes, men can be total bastards; but that applies equally to women.

I support equality of opportunity for women – all of humanity will benefit from social perspectives generated equally from both halves of humanity’s biological divide. It’s taken a long time to get anywhere close to it in the developed world. The hard slog of dedicated women working for that gets a fair run-down in the book “The Long Road to Greenham Common”. The women of Switzerland only got the vote about a half-century back; and a great many women, even in the “more civilized” world – and Australia, still do not have adequate rights to control their own child-bearing destiny.

But to make the inference that girls like tough turkey Golda Meier, sink-the-Belgrano Maggie Thatcher of Falklands war fame, Mrs Ghandi of India, Mrs Bandaranaike of Ceylon were fronts for the male brigade – is untenable. There is no denying that, across the spectrum from Thatcher to Gro Harlem Brundtland, these lassies were no surrogates for shadowy males hiding in the wings of corridors of power. Both Condoleeza Rice and Hilary Clinton can be expected to manipulate what power comes into their hands, within its limits, according to their own agendas

"a great many women, even in the “more civilized” world – and Australia, still do not have adequate rights to control their own child-bearing destiny."

What a load of emotive crock.

Women in Australia have more than adequate rights to control their own fertility.

They can choose to be married or unmarried, whether to use birth control or not, to have a child within marriage or outside of marriage. They can choose not carry on with a pregnancy or too keep the child or adopt it out.

They can choose to be gay, straight or bi.

Unlike countries like China, the women of Australia do not have to apply to government in order to get pregnant.

A woman does not even need to include her male partner in her decision to get pregnant.

Some swallow the Matriarchial feminists messages about having it all and delayed child rearing, only to discover the older you get the more difficult it is to fall pregnant, so in reality is nature which controls a womans fertility, not the government or laws.

To quote your article:

"These countries don’t need the US imperial democracy in female drag. This is in no one’s interest, especially not the women of Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Israel. And it is not in the interest of women in the United States."

How dare you speak about women in the middle east, when you are so class bigotted and obviously think that white women and the western world are so superior and so much more important than the "brown mass" that exists elsewhere that you actually speak about the rights of women in the west at all. This is like sending an ambulance to the white guy who cut his toe instead of the brown guy who was blown up. Gender equality in the west is all but fixed, a few minor things are maybe yet to ironed out.

However, to not focus entirely on the rights of women in the middle east, where gender apartheid is sanctioned and official. You obvioulsy think that these brown masses are supposed to live like animals.

Did you support Hirsi Ali when she came out here recently, speaking about abuse of women in middle eastern countries? If you didn't then you have made my point for me.

White Warlock - as I commented earlier, don't think much of this piece at all. I think colinsett actually articulated views I share more succinctly than I did.

Your post White Warlock however, is specious in the extreme and I can't agree with it in the slightest.

You point out that gender issues in oppressive regimes are far more serious, and they are. But to state: "to not focus entirely on the rights of women in the middle east, where gender apartheid is sanctioned and official. You obvioulsy think that these brown masses are supposed to live like animals."

Is wrong for so many reasons. Firstly, employing the same logic, poverty exists in the third world, so we shouldn't be at all concerned with poverty in Australia. The same goes for STDs, malnutrition, in fact, almost any health issue you care to name.

This is specious in the extreme. At present, short of all out warfare, there is little we can do about the gender issues in these nations, and as evidenced by the Iraq war, combat has the potential to bring greater misery with no guarantee of remedying such human rights abuses.

Secondly, your implication that the author therefore isn't concerned about the "brown masses" is similarly flawed.
Because you focus on a problem in your back yard, it doesn't mean you don't care about broader issues. It certainly doesn't mean you support those issues overseas. Your attack there is among the most specious I've seen.

Lastly, whilst I tend to think gender discrimination in our culture is pretty mild, certainly compared to oppressive regimes, it hasn't been eliminated entirely. Men still earn consistently more than women for similar jobs and women have greater difficulty entering the workforce.
I'm not saying I necessarily agree with some of the measures introduced to change this and I'm not sure that there won't always be a lingering cultural issue regarding the status of women and motherhood. Nevertheless, to deny the issue exists is wilfully churlish.

The writer asserts that that “We need a politics where gender is not defined by one’s biological body”. What she means is one defined by her ideological nostrums, rather than what real women actually feel, advocate and do. Any female who doesn’t conform to her prescription is not a real woman but a “decoy”. What rubbish.

Haven’t we just spent 200 years trying to overcome the notion that authentic womanhood is defined in the eyes of a third party, not the capabilities, skills, lives and ideas of actual women, in all their diversity and contradictions?

If she disagrees with Hillary and Condi, (I often do too) let her say why. But to attack them as gender “decoys” or “manly women” is despicable bigotry.

The main gist of this excerpt from the author's book is:

"Thinking of either of these women as feminist or as icons of democracy makes about as much sense as the wars they authorise." the rest simply enlarges upon this basic encapsulation.

So what on earth are more recent posters getting their knickers in a twist about?

The woman's just objecting to the way the US government points to these two women whenever criticism of US democracy (notice she uses the phrase "so-called democracy"?)is abused and then goes on to cite them as proof of (non-existent) liberalism in Government.

Geez. The woman is saying the USA knows squat about democracy (as is one poster), couldn't be less interested in women's rights either at home or abroad, and will use any excuse to go to war anywhere, anytime anywhere, which she finds abhorrent. As do many posters.

She's objecting to the fact that Condi and Hillary are being used to divert attention into the old argy-bargy of gender politics (and a couple of posters skillfully illustrate how beautifully this tactic works)and she thinks it stinks. End of story.

Margaret Thatcher and Indira Ghandi or other female leaders therefore have nothing to do with this issue. And far from thinking how superior either she or her country is, she is accusing them of deceit, dishonesty, smoke-screening and manipulation.

She is most certainly not taking sides about women of one nationality versus another, but saying that the US government is.

More and more it seems that the analogy of Pavlov's dogs rules many people in our society: a little bell rings when key words like "Democracy, "Feminist" "Gender" "Islam" Middle East" "Terrorist" etc. appear and out they come, minds set and metaphorical fists swinging, for another serving, regardless of what is actually being served.

Unfortunately in the Middle-East we see women being blown up partly thanks to a ham-fisted attempt by the US Administration to impose a regime of its choice in Iraq. Dependence on Saudi and Kuwaiti oil plus their strategic advantage means we are unlikely to see any serious attempt by the Bush regime to help women's liberation there.

As for the US and other Western countries, women are overrepresented as victims of domestic violence, rape (outside prisons) and prostitution in proportion to their numbers.

The fight for women's equality has a huge way to go even in the most seemingly liberated of countries.

Romany, I think you’re being too kind to the author saying “Thinking of either of these women as feminist or as icons of democracy” is the essence of her argument, but even if it’s true, think what it implies – women are not to be judged for their actions, ideas or capabilities but for what they represent, i.e. reductionist identity politics

Furthermore, if you look at the language of the article, it’s doing far more than attacking to positions these women adopt, or claims that they demonstrate America’s commitment to equality and democracy. It’s attacking their right to hold their opinions, and at times even whether they are authentic women at all. This language suggests an authoritarian agenda which allows the label “woman” only to people who conform to the author’s idea of the “cultural construct” of womanhood. These are some examples:

- “Sexual decoys for democracy”
- “Gender here applies to the cultural construct of ‘woman’; as distinguished from biological sex – ‘female’. So Hillary and Condi are female …”
- “she de-sexes gender while re-gendering sex.”
- Condi is a “neo-mammy”
- “Sexual decoys are females in drag”

The use of gender in times of warfare is nothing new.

"A decoy is a misrepresentation - one thinks one sees something that is not really there."

This could almost be the script of "White Feather Feminism" where Pankhurst alligned herself with the concerns of aristocratic conservatism and the military.

Interestingly others such as Carey Roberts and David R Usher have a different spin on Hillary and Condi, which opposes this authors suppositions.

"I cannot abide the decoy politics that allows female bodies to be used to cover over the insanity."

The emotive association of female bodies has been used for centuries and it has been used extremely effectively by feminists in this gendered cold war.

It is all becoming a big YAWN.

Rhian - hmmmm. Been sitting here going over and over this piece in the light of your interpretation.

See, I agreed with the "sexual decoys for democracy" quote because, as I posted above, I agree that Condi and Hillary are being utilised simply because they happen to be two people who have the right "bits".

So, the next quote made perfect sense: although both are biologically female the cultural concept of 'woman'- rightly or wrongly - embraces certain expectations, modes of behaviour and concepts which these two people do not embrace.

Which was why I had no trouble with the next quote - especially as the author had explained that that she was utilising the word gender within the parameters of cultural concepts. So, yeah, Condi de-sexes the cultural concept of gender and by being complicit in this, re-genders sex.

The "neo-nanny" thing I didn't take as anything other than an exposition of her continued manipulation by the WASP ruling class.

Therefore sexual (and the author had explained that sexual here referred to biological determination) decoys being people presented to the world as representing the cultural construct of woman but not in fact doing so, I did not see as pejorative.

The trouble with extrapolating authorial voice from an extract I guess, is that one has no yard-stick to measure by with pieces out of context. I don't have a snowballs of being able to read further on this one as I don't live in an English-speaking country presently. Have you read it? Would be interested to to hear from you if so.

And JamesH? If its all such a big yawn, don't martyr yourself so tirelessly on every thread which pertains. You deserve a break, mate. Leave all this boring stuff to the people that find it interesting.

JamesH
‘Some swallow the Matriarchial feminists messages about having it all and delayed child rearing, only to discover the older you get the more difficult it is to fall pregnant ...’

Some more stuff for you to yawn about …

Myth # 1: It was the media of the 70s and 80s that initiated the ‘having it all’ mantra and falsely attributed it to feminism. (The bra-burning myth had almost identical origins.) Feminists have never said that women can ‘have it all’. Feminism DOES say that women are entitled to equal rights, outcomes and opportunities to those of men - who traditionally were able to have both a career and a family, while women mostly weren't. The ‘having it all’ message was capitalist, not feminist. It was about promoting a new consumer market among women who were no longer dependent on hubbie to bring home the pay packet.

Myth # 2: Feminists did NOT recommend that women delay child rearing. Women throughout the Western world began having children later for a number of socio-economic reasons that had little or nothing to do with feminism. These included: greater availability of birth control, advancing school and tertiary leaving ages, increased tertiary education debt, increased cost of housing, more opportunities for travel, increased competition in the workforce, and the absence or lack of maternity leave or benefits.

Myth # 3: It’s a fallacy that the older you get the more difficult it is to fall pregnant – as many an older mother will happily attest (myself included). Just because the average woman’s egg count diminishes with age does not mean that it becomes more difficult to get pregnant. It just means that the mathematical odds are lower. When all it takes is the fertilisation of one egg to get pregnant, it hardly matters whether you have 20,000 or 50,000 eggs in your body. Fertility only becomes a significant problem after about age 46 – and by then, it’s very rare for a woman to be still undecided about starting a family.

Romany,

I’m not convinced that gender is an entirely social construct, rather than being at least partly determined by biology and self-conception.

But if it is, it raises the question of who is qualified to adjudicate on whether a person is or is not a “woman”. I’m suspicious of anyone who claims the right to arbitrate on that distinction.

You say: “the cultural concept of 'woman' - rightly or wrongly - embraces certain expectations, modes of behaviour and concepts which these two people do not embrace.” To you, it may be self-evident that active support for the USA’s foreign policy is inconsistent with behaviour and concepts associated with “woman”. But t many would disagree - are they all victims of false consciousness, and do their opinions count in the “social construct” of gender identity?

What disturbs me most about this approach is that, rather than attacking these women’s views and activities directly, it attacks their identity. Their support for the Iraq war is not bad because the war’s a bloody fiasco, but because it’s not consistent with norms of feminine thought and behaviour. This is primarily an attack on their gender, although the “neo-mammy” (not “neo-nanny”) attack on Condi is a racial slur. The implication is that “real” women and “real” African-Americans do not think and act this way.

It also implies that these women owe their status to their gender not their ability, a charge we’re more used to hearing from sexists than supposed feminists.

To my mind, the great achievement of feminism is that it discredited the practice of forcing females’ opinions and activities to conform to narrowly perceived norms of womanly behaviour and attitudes. The result is that women now have much greater freedom to populate the spectrum of political opinion, and to engage in occupations and activities than they couldn’t in the past. This necessarily means that some will think and do things that others find wrong, offensive, or unfeminine.

It's sad to see self-described feminists imposing their own gender stereotypes in place of the ones we’ve so recently thrown off.

Real women went the way of real men. Now they are both as rare as hens teeth. What we have left is the ephemeral remains of past glories and a heavy reliance on our excuses and prevarications. We have failed miserably. We know this by the amount of sexual frustration, anger, and oneupmanship we promote as equal rights activism and the narcissistic attention we give to our sexual identities 47 odd years after the heyday of social-sexual freedom. Condi and Hillary are no more sexual decoys for democracy than Al Gore or Al Sharpton. As a man I wouldn't aspire to emulate either of the gentleman.

To Turnrightthenleft Part One.

You say:
"employing the same logic, poverty exists in the third world, so we shouldn't be at all concerned with poverty in Australia. The same goes for STDs, malnutrition, in fact, almost any health issue you care to name".

You are deliberately missing my point, which clearly was that the issues of inequality, racial & sexual abuses, outright human rights abuses by official bodies etc. are all much worse in non-western nations than they are in western nations, and that it therefore follows that we should focus proportionately more attention to the non-western problems. In fact, the problems in these countries is so much more serious than they are in western nations, that to focus any more than 5-10% of our efforts on western countries would be criminal. I did not imply that we should not focus on, or do anything about, the inequalities that still exist in western nations, but just that if one finds oneself writing articles about these problems at all, that they would obviously be focusing on the worst cases first (similar to a triage nurse).
"At present, short of all out warfare, there is little we can do about the gender issues in these nations, and as evidenced by the Iraq war, combat has the potential to bring greater misery with no guarantee of remedying such human rights abuses."

Part Two to Turnlefthenright,

In regards to this point, as I stated in my original post (I think), I totally agree. What is needed is a world wide military humanitarian intervention to get rid of all brutal dictatorships and run them ourselves, so that through force we can institute a free media, democratic elections, free and open (and unbiased) schooling, etc. To do this would require a Soviet style police state, as is evidenced with the current Iraq situation, a people that have been abused and brainwashed to hate the "other" for generations such as they have in many Muslim countries due to leaders that constantly play the race card, and blame all their economic/social problems on the Zionists and bikini clad westerners in general. To say that it is worse that the US got rid of Saddam Hussein is a joke, even though (yes) there are massive problems. Would you have said the same thing if, when the allied forces defeated the Nazis, Germany descended into civil war with brutal murder happening constantly? I wonder. What really needs to happen is that the rest of the selfish world needs to help in Iraq, Iran and elsewhere.

Lastly, I agree that gender inequalities in the West "hasn't been eliminated entirely. Men still earn consistently more than women" in many jobs. Poor white people also haven't yet had there justice. People descended from convicts are put in the same basket as the wealthier white people and asked to say sorry to the aborigines, told that they are racist, have no culture etc. when in fact this class of people have inherited a myriad of problems from their abused convict ancestors.Compared to these people and the aborigines who leftwing people are keeping down by not giving them back their agency (by not allowing kids to be taken from abusive parents), women and gays in the west are extremely well off.

It is wrong to talk about the situation in the western world, as I believe that there is ZERO discrimination against women in western societies like Australia.

No, I take that back. We do have a serious problem with it in minority communities, especially the Islamic community - where some misoginist husbands don't let their piece of 'meat' outside lest some Islamic cats get at it.

By covering women in bedsheets, Islam relegates women to nothing more than sex objects. Yet your article doesn't focus on this even once!

You're either a cultural relativist, which, if so, means your lacking in reasoning skills - as all cultures are NOT equal, or ignorant.

Despite desperate attempts by the leftist nutters who dominate our education institutions, we all know that western values are totally superior to those of tribal cultures.

This article should have focused on this, not western women. Non-whites are people too, you know. We need to confront the barbarism of Islam, to free women, half a billion in fact.

This is a worthy goal, this will help women, this will do good in the third world.

People shouldn't be afraid of this, I mean, I know you risk getting killed (which just goes to show how vile many Muslims are for such cowards to crop up so often in their communities - Theo van Gogh for starters, not to mention the hundreds of writers in the Muslim world.

They need our support, as does Hirsi Ali. One notices ALL the Muslim 'moderates' not supporting her - which says everything for a start that there are NO moderates - and is ALL THE MORE REASON WRITERS NEED TO EXPOSED THE UTTER BARBARITY OF MUSLIM VALUES WHEN IT COMES TO WOMEN.

Congratulations Benjamin, on managing to turn a discussion on the gender politics surrounding two major United States political figures, into a gratuitous polemic against Islam.

You have won this week's "Boaz_David Islamophobia for Dummies" trophy.

It is awarded to the poster who achieves the topic-switch with the least evidence of shame or self-awareness, and the maximum of blatant, brazen non-sequitur.

You did lose marks for the total absence of glowing Bible stories, and the frankly disturbing omission of a tirade of abuse aimed at carefully selected quotes from the Qur'an.

Your careful use of capital letters for your key points, however, easily made up for these shortcomings.

It is a beautiful trophy, suitable for installing on your mantlepiece at home, or attaching to your lapel when you front the RSL for your weekly prawn dinner.

Wear it with pride. It is a really lovely shade of yellow.

Some of the sparks generated, by this article’s attempt to weave a plausible thread about feminist activism around Condoleeza and Hilary’s place in it, need a dose of perspective.

Emancipation for many women in Australia is far from ideal. The most glaring example is Brian Harradine’s heavy political hand - which had been clasping, uninvited, their genitalia for many years. Our Health Minister Tony Abbott’s political hand is now in that position.

Then, to say that Australian women’s emancipation is so advanced in relation to less developed countries as to be a non-issue, is a gross misrepresentation of the situation. It sidelines the fact that Harradine’s influence extended to those countries as well. This same influence continues through our present Government.

The result of such influence is a near-cessation of overseas aid that Australia had initially agreed to provide for women’s health and well-being. This cessation has impacted negatively on their, and their society’s, problems such as transmission of sexual diseases; social impediments; and general health.
Without assistance to say no to unwanted fertility, women there become the beasts of burden for expansion of populations to the stage where food production is compromised. In many communities a bare minimum of food from the depleted soils can be obtained only through Cassava, a plant of South American origin. In parts of Africa it provides for 80% of their meals – all laced with Hydrogen Cyanide. The food is processed insufficiently to mitigate against serious medical afflictions from the cyanide; but without it they starve.

The article itself is no more than a fart in the windstorm of expansion of human numbers. Gender issues are a fundamentally important part in addressing that storm. But, whether or not Condy or Hilary are being “Uncle Toms” in the issue of male domination is hardly worth a brass razoo.

First off: pERICles, YOU_rOCK!! Or at least your last post did.

Rhian, I think we are beginning to mis-read each other.

I read this article with the fact at the forefront of my mind that this was not a piece specifically designed to stand alone - and especially not specifically for the OLO readership. It's part of a book the author directs I imagine, to people who are familiar with her and her work and who share her feminist insight viz: that while USA politics - indeed USA policy - is decidedly not feminist-friendly they use the positions of these two women to stifle criticism by saying "Look how enlightened and progressive we are, we ALLOW two women to have these positions."

Therefore when she talks about the cultural/societal concept of women she is doing so not in a partisan way but illustrating how what she sees as a misogynist society constructs the image of woman. Thus, she finds it amazing that the very people who are complicit in this construction do not see the obvious flaw in the argument: neither of the two women mentioned actually fit into these narrow boundries.

As to whether I personally "find it self-evident that support for US foreign policy is inconsistent" with the image that main-stream society has constructed for women - that would be the subject of another discussion altogether. I only began to post on this thread in regard to what it appeared the author of the piece intended by her remarks.

Of course I readily admit my interpretation may be incorrect - but my own views on the whole question remain both immaterial and unuttered, I am arguing my deconstruction of the article: - not of my own views of the subject matter. Pax?

It's obvious that you agree with everything I wrote Pericles, as you could condemn none of it. Like all those on the far left, devoid of reason, devoid of logic, you can't argue, only hurl insults.

I therefore accept your trophy, but I can't help but notice it isn't even real - just like leftist sentiment of having the higher moral ground!

Laughable.

How anyone could be so cruel as to hide behind cultural relativism nonsense in preference to actually helping women is beyond me.

I'll say it again and again, Islamic values are utterly barbaric, especially when it comes to women. What is there to be shameful about when it comes to having disgust at such values? Do you know what morals are? Are you honestly saying those women shouldn't be helped? If so, you need help. No, you need to live in Iran for a while.

You leftists are all squeamish too, which is why you get nothing done. Take the Aboriginal issue for example, and given the report just handed down, this is a good time to espouse what I would have done.

The children used to be taken away, or to use leftist language (set up, along with Aboriginal identity, their flag - which didn't exist before 1970 as Aboriginals aren't a nation, they are tribal....set up so the leaders of the Aboriginal Industry could get their hands on the coffers, which they did through ATSIC!) 'stolen' from incompetant parents, as happens with poor whites.

Along came the fools of the left, who thought we no right to tell them our culture is better than theirs, who talk the language of rights rather than obligations, and boom, two generations of inmates.

I predict in the future there will be a class action by Aboriginals about my age (in their twenties now) that will sue leftist scum who forced thosse policies on them - forced them to STAY with drunk parents instead of taking them away like they did for white kids of drunk parents....

Thanks for rising to the bait and showing your true colours in their full glory, Benjamin.

Like every twenty-something young Liberal before you, you see only a massive "far left, devoid of reason, devoid of logic" campaign to undermine your suburban white-bread ideals.

Once again you have managed to hang your prejudices - the "far left", "cultural relativism nonsense", "Islamic values are utterly barbaric", "the Aboriginal issue... 'stolen' from incompetant (sic) parents", "fools of the left" (again), "leftist scum" (again again), - on the slender hook of a discussion on US gender politics.

Apart from the witlessness and simplistic vacuity of your assumptions concerning my political leanings, you surely do not claim your ramblings qualify as "argument". Do you?

As in "devoid of reason, devoid of logic, you can't argue, only hurl insults"

And if you seriously thought my post was insulting, let alone believe that those insults were "hurled", I can only conclude that you have had an extremely sheltered upbringing.

To Pericles: Part I.

What kind of anti-Anglo bigotry is this: "RSL for your weekly prawn dinner".

And how pathetic is this: "Congratulations Benjamin, on managing to turn a discussion on the gender politics surrounding two major United States political figures, into a gratuitous polemic against Islam".

I would ask: how could a discussion about gender issues about two US female political figures NOT turn into either a discussion about the more serious gender issues in the world today, i.e. Islamic gender apartheid, or if not at least about the cruelty and bigotry of the "chadinay sipping class bigots" who would dare to write such a piece of rubbish.

If I was going to write about poverty why would I talk about people who earn 60 thousand a year instead of the homeless? If I was going to write about major wars I wouldn't pick the Falklands war I would write about WWI or WWII.

This isn't a game, gender equality is a serious issue and it remains a major unsolved problem in much of the world today. To focus on the messiness of your castle while the poor and wretched live in squalor below is disgusting bigotry, ignorance and cruelty. This is what you are doing if you focus on equality of women in the west instead of on eqaulity of women (and everything else) in the non-western world.

When are your kind (the cultural relativists, pretend Marxists) really going to embrace the idealogies of equality for all classes,races and genders? You can't even have a discussion about real major problems that affect in a severe way the lives of millions of people unless the perpetrators of the wrong are white.

Didn't you know that just because you may not be violent or directly negative to someone of different colour/culture, it doesn;t mean that you aren't still treating them with disrespect and as a lesser being. Patronising behaviour towards other cultures, treating them like children who don't know any better, etc. - this is indirect, passive or negative racism. Probably worse than positive racism.

To Pericles: Part II.

The simple fact is, Pericles, that as is clear from your obvious disgust and irrational prejudice at the average working Anglo male (RSL spew), as I always suspect about cowardly leftists, that your entire politics and belief system revolves around what you see as the "ocker Anglo", so much so that you are willing to throw the coloured people into some lower draw somewhere where rights and equality have some other meaning, perhaps one that can incorporate female genital mutilation or burqas or forced marriages. Even helping the Iraqi people is less important than throwing dirt at the Anglo male, ususally represented by what leftists call "righ wing" politicians such as Howard or Bush.

You rudely forget, like a little middle class brat, that many of these particular people (RSL patrons) either fought themselves, or have direct ancestors that did, against brutal totalitarian societies and their armies in at least two major wars, so that we could be here today deciding what beliefs to hold and how to vote.

Ask yourself this: is it wrong for a non-white person to criticize the KKK? Would you call them a bigot? Did you think that using force to free the East Timorese was wrong? What if the UN didn't back it?

You see, I have morals and I stick to them, that's why when the Taliban first came to power in the mid-nineties I thought that it was disgusting that the UN didn;t attack them, just like I think it is disgusting that the UN or someone doesn't attack every Gulf state to start with, to overturn the sever gender apartheid. If you are serious about this issue you would agree with me.

Pericles,

My upbringing? I grew up poor, in housing commission in Cabramatta in the 1980's.

I'm 29 now, and can tell you a thing about racism.

Most Australians fled when the Vietnamese arrived, but we were too poor too. I know of many people who died of heroin overdoses in that area, but what I remember most is the violent racism from Asians.

Mabye this does influence my attitudes to migrants. I know how many rort welfare and Christian charities like the Smith Family, particularly those within the middle-eastern community.

Does this mean they are all bad? Of course not. I never said that.

But I liken myself to an anthropologist, as I learnt a lot about other cultures growing up. All my friends weren't white, but migrants, but I learnt that they really aren't true friends with those outside their race.

This is why so many, again, particularly middle-eastern, marry among their own, forbidding their children to marry Australians. It's even still like that among the Greeks and Italians - although it has gotten better.

So I know a lot about racism, I lived in the trenches. I knew of streets where Aussies were bashed on sight, for nothing more than not being of 'their tribe'.

I learnt about value systems of non-western cultures and don't like them. Neither do they I guess since they all flee to come to western countries.

It is this I learnt. My experience of multiculturalism was horrible, not just in a restaurant on a Friday night and that's the end of it like mabye it is for you.

Ignorant? No way. I know probably more about the subtleties of non-western cultures than most Anthropologists. I know about customs, rituals, and all the superficial crap, but mostly it's the values, the way they treat people outside their tribe, or race.

Sly, cruel, cold and immoral.

Do you not think so? Are you really saying the western world is no better in regard to morality than, say, Vietnam?

Pericles,

How can you, or anyone say that Islamic values AREN'T barbaric?

Seriously, if you really are saying that, then you have no moral compass. You can call me what you like mate, but women are being severely mistreated every second in the non-west, black women are being pack raped by Arab Muslim immoral filth in Sudan, while their husbands are forced to watch, and then have their throats cut.

Do you not care? Do you not see how insane it is that Arab nations say nothing? It's the 'evil' US that has finally forced China to step aside so troops can go in.

Do you know about the politics of it? That China, through it's veto power on the UN security council, wasn't allowing anything to be done because they have massive oil deals with sudan?

The US and other western CIVILISED nations banned their companies trading with Sudan because of their human rights, yet CHina doesn't care.

Hey, there was just a slave market uncovered in china today!

When you speak ill of the west, or white people, I get mad because while whites have done some pretty bad things over the centuries, they are the ONLY ones now who care about the world, about people.

The US gives half of all world aid, just 1 country.

Filthy rich Arab gulf states do nothing, go check the UN. Tsunami especially. They use their money to fund wahhabi mosques.

It doesn't matter what u think though, truth is all that matters. The west IS superior and our values will be exported to the whole planet.

Even if the whole earth was Taliban, eventually, in 1000 years even, women would march for their rights, minorities would march, get the vote, and become like us.

For you to not see this is cowardice, and racism. ALL ppl are equal.

Romany – Pax indeed
I must admit your reading of the author is more generous than mine. I’d agree that the positions of power these women hold do not demonstrate that the USA is a feminist-friendly society, however

Now for the pregnant pause, it is really hard to keep abreast of things, but then one must do some hard labour, no matter how tittilating it may seem.

The word 'birth' is often used to describe the beginning of destructive events like the birth of a volcano, hurricane, storm, tornado etc.

What is it that us blokes get told?

I know, we get told "you are being too sensitive!" or "being overly sensitive."

Personally I don't think Hillary is the perfect sexual decoy.

I do however support her about health care in America, but it is not patrairchy or democracy that defeated her. It was the almighty american dollar god. Interestingly Hillary tried introduce a Australian styled health care system, just as Prime Minister John Howard almost simultaneously is trying to introduce the American style health care system in Australia.

One could be forgiven for thinking that Condi and Hillary are the only women in American politics.

"We need a politics where gender is not defined by one’s biological body."

Then why can we not transform the feminists movement into a humanist movement?

In the context of Benjamin's latest hyper-xenophobic rant, we find this:

"I know probably more about the subtleties of non-western cultures than most Anthropologists..."

The basis for this breathtakingly arrogant claim is his apparently miserable life experience in suburban Sydney.

If young Benny were to expand his personal horizons just a little - like, for example, by enrolling in an Anthropology subject at any university in the country that still offers them - then he might have some hope of learning just how deluded he is when he writes

"But I liken myself to an anthropologist, as I learnt a lot about other cultures growing up."

Benjamin may be many things, but he's not an anthropologist's bootlace.

White Warlock and Benjamin. It is almost as if you are one and the same person.

Or at least taking turns at the same keyboard. How sweet.

Where to start? There is enough hot air between the two of you to dry my carpets, which are still wet after last week's rain.

I did rather like the jibe

>>Patronising behaviour towards other cultures... is indirect, passive or negative racism. Probably worse than positive racism<<

Interesting concept, "passive racism". I guess it is in contrast with the blatant "positive racism" White Warlock demonstrates.

[White Warlock? Imperial Wizard? Coincidence? You decide]

But finally, there is some meat.

>>I think it is disgusting that the UN or someone doesn't attack every Gulf state to start with, to overturn the sever [sic] gender apartheid.<<

Since the UN is made up of a number of countries who don't necessarily agree with your priorities, who is the "or someone" that you have in mind to "attack every Gulf state"?

Australia? You?

Face it, your problem with Islam has its roots in your image of yourself as some kind of fascist "righter of wrongs", a sad mixture of Batman and Pol Pot.

And Benjamin, you need to get some perspective in your life before your irrational hatred of the "other" consumes you.

>>I know probably more about the subtleties of non-western cultures than most Anthropologists. I know about customs, rituals, and all the superficial crap, but mostly it's the values, the way they treat people outside their tribe, or race. Sly, cruel, cold and immoral<<

You can't use Cabramatta as an excuse for being a shortsighted bigot all your life, so it would be smart to start learning about yourself before you witter on about other cultures.

>>truth is all that matters. The west IS superior and our values will be exported to the whole planet<<

Ok, here's a question for you. Which country would you invade first, in order to "export our values"? And will you be first into battle?

The Boaz bug. "ONE NATION,ONE RACE, ONE CULTURE" (his caps, not mine).

Highly infectious.

White Warlock -

Your comment "to not focus entirely on the rights of women in the middle east" indicated to me that your view was there should only be a focus on the plight of middle eastern women to the exclusion of all else. Thus, I responded accordingly.

Besides, there was some mention of the suffering caused by the Iraq war - perhaps not in reference to the plight of women, but suffering all the same. Whilst it may be more indicative of an anti-american stance, the fact of the matter is, the author expresses concern about the situation there - for you to extrapolate that the author doesn't care about the oppression of women in the middle east, simply by the fact they're not mentioned, still has little basis to me.
It indicates than in any feminist discussion, you have to bring up the topic, which ultimately, doesn't get us very far.

"Women’s rights rhetoric is used to manipulate and disguise war making in the name of democracy. No one’s rights - especially not women’s - are ever recognised in war."

Author Warren Farrell in the Myth of Male Power describes men as the disposable sex or the invisible gender.

Zillah demonstrates this rather admirably, but then it is not surprising in the eyes of feminists that men do not have the right to have human rights. Lets consider the fact that having the misfortune of being born male in these war torn areas, means that your life expectancy can be very short, but then no one seems to be keeping a tally.

Christine Hoff Sommers recently wrote a valid criticism of American feminists she forgot to include Australian feminists.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/points/stories/DN-sommers_17edi.ART.State.Edition1.43ee30f.html

Zillah uses similar techiques in trying to combine the problems experienced in the middle east with the problems experienced by western women.

Zillah confuses sexual decoys with unbridled capitalism. Without getting into American bashing, America has a history of trying to destroy the opposition.

Her article has more in common with the fire and brimestone sermons from the evalangical priests.

To Pericles,

no time, will attck you more fully later, but in the mean time, about
"[White Warlock? Imperial Wizard? Coincidence? You decide]",

my point is precisely this:

in the dark middle ages people who were "different" or went against the established metaphysical claims of the "herd", then they were branded "witch" or, in the case of the male, "warlock".

So, in light of today's political climate where anyone who dares to speak against the established clergy (the so-called "left") and to challenge their metaphysical claims, gets irrationally attacked by the mindless herd that throw hollow slogans at them and use fear tactics to silence them, just like the way that the "herd" used to treat "witches" and "warlocks" in the dark ages, which we seem to be in again, at least when it comes to reason and rationality.

These claims mostly take the form that the "other" is a separate entity, almost another species who exists in a cultural bubble that can't be penetrated, thus one can't abstract out of all these "cultural bubbles" commonalities that can be used as a foundation to build moral and political systems on. This is precisely why we apparently cannot criticize other cultures, and this is what cultural relativism is.

give hilary a break! after all, how many blokes are in parliament/congress because their father, grandfather, stepfather, uncle, brother etc etc etc (and so it goes - fraser, anthony, katter, gore, bush, kennedy the list just doesn't end ...) was there before them. dynasties are more of the making of men than of women. and even those without a relative to assist didn't get there on their own. *everyone* but everyone in parliament or congress gets there or got there with support, help, mentoring, $$$$, etc from someone else and generally from lots of someone elses ...

CJ Morgan,

I'm actually a Law student if you must know, with a background in Philosophy and Politics.

Yes, from where I've come from, it IS an immense achievement.

Most people I knew ended up in prison.

And just to throw in more confusion about me (after all you do think I'm a right wing nutter) I am totally with the Greens regarding drug policy. That is another post though...but that is a far leftist position is it not?

I went back to University last year after a few years of doing the silly things people do in their mid-twenties, although to answer your query about Anthropology, I think I do have enough field experience to make a 'judgment'.

Think about it.

Here's this young boy growing up in the experiment that is multiculturalism in the 1980's, without any preconcieved notions - my parents didn't indoctrinate me or my brothers.

This is in my experience unique, especially considering how much the 'ethnic other' is indocrtinated.

They literally have preconceived notions of everything, right down to which cousin they must marry, or if they are allowed infidel friends.

Can you believe this topic is a major discussion thread over at Sydney Muslim Village - a mainstream Muslim chat site. I recently was kicked off by the moderators for commenting that they were all racist, that it shouldn't be an issue.

Why would one not be friends with one just because they're an infidel?

Do you see what we're dealing with yet? A mainstream site?

NEWSFLASH: I just seen something on the news about intellectually disabled Iraqi kids in an orphanage who were severely abused. The aid donated by the west (who else?) was being sold while the kids starved.

I'm sorry, but that couldn't happen in the west as our ethics don't allow it.

To mention how sick that is isn't being racist, it is simply dealing with the reality that non-western ethics are vile.

Now back to my post...

I noticed that while my parents were friendly to my friends (all of which were ethnic - I'm serious, there were NO whites in my street) I was never invited inside at most of their houses.

I thought it may be the language (see how tolerant I am! I even tried to excuse it!) but I've realised one doesn't have to know the language to smile, or invite someone in.

So, you condemn me all you want.

I have lived it, your experience is either in a restaurant on Friday night or mabye a really 'assimilated' one lives next door - as the areas you type usually live in one needs money.

Are you so naive you think the white flight phenomenon is racism? Haven't you considered it may have something to do with the behaviour of third world cultures?

Do you hate statiticians who tell us the most violent areas are those where they live?

Your only argument about me being wrong is if you said I was unlucky enough to meet the worst of them.

Still though, it manifested itself in other ways.

The shopkeepers, for example, would stand on stools looking around the isles in their little shops - because many of their customers were theives - a cultural value.

Old ways imported here.

Vietnam is notorious for piracy, 99% of market is pirated, from CD's to linen.

There is NO good will in such cultures.

This is why the largest Medicare fraud in our history was in the Cabramatta/Fairfield area in 1993, in which 2/3 of the health professionals were in on it - all Asians (going to university doesn't change ones ethics).

I'm not saying they are all bad, I say their cultural values are what cause this.

If they were all to become westerners there is no way a community could develop where 10yr old kids sell heroin on the street.

There are westerners who are corrupt, of course, but a whole community? Not possible.

Why would you want to not believe me anyway? This says a lot about YOUR preconceived notions.

Politicisation of gender is the decoy. Author buys right into it and has clearly been hooked. Cant seem to see it tho.

Governments have no regard whatsoever for the rights of people, any group of people. They pay lip service to that idea and as history clearly shows the electorate generally buys the facade.

Women have been conned regarding gender rights. Its a huge hoax. What you are getting is far removed from the utopian rhetoric. Its like a consumer shopping fix. You get the feel good rush but a day after the goods are outta the box you are left feeling flat, cheated.

l think most people sort of feel cheated as a matter of course.

There's a lot of crap in a mans world, most of it goes unsaid, thats just how it is and we are expected to take it, which we mostly do. Most men live a life of quiet desperation. No point complaining, no one wants to hear it, especially not from a man. Men have been sold many a pup thru the ages... religion, democracy, unionism, free markets, socialism/society, matrimony, consumerism, all empty rot.

We are all in the same boat. l think it may be a bit harder for women to see the con as they have been sold a wicked lemon which panders to some pretty deep seated delusions (like people are equal).

In the end, everyone is 'equal', some are just more 'equal'.

The essence of government is to LIMIT YOUR RIGHTS.

That is the point of governanace, regulation, rules, laws, courts, enforcement, incarceration, punishment, etc. All in the name of the opposite. Orwell smiles from the grave no doubt.

The fact that people like the author take the twisted bait proves the point.