As ever, it seems that to those men who don't apparently like them very much, women are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they pursue self-actualisation via the workplace they are demonised as man-hating feminists, and if they do so via home and family they are obviously manipulative gold-diggers. As a bloke who rather likes women, I get the impression that some of the chaps who seem to write here most prolifically about all aspects of women's lives are also those who evidently spend the least time actually with women.

Further, it's surely unnecessary in this day and age to respond with any seriousness to silly patriarchal assertions that women should somehow be under the 'guidance' of their 'husbands''

However, having said that - I've long thought that women have been sold a bit of a pup by second-wave feminism with respect to equating their emancipation with self-actualisation in the workforce. The reason I think this is that I also think that men have also been sold a pup if they think that work and its material and status rewards will actually make them happy - and some of the chaps who post here most often seem singularly unhappy... unless of course they've found God or some other such opiate.

My partner and I are 'downshifters' - in that we opted out of very demanding urban careers in favour of running a business together in the bush, and leading a decidedly more pleasant life together in each other's company. We don't make much money, but we live pretty cheaply and actually enjoy producing much of our own food - even selling surplus. One of the really great things is that we each create space in our working arrangements for the other to do the stuff that we never had time to do when we worked 60 - 80 hour weeks as professionals, ironically at a time when we each had little kids and big mortgages.

Now we have time for each other, our kids and grandkids. There are alternatives, people :)

Well my goodness. Quack, quack! Up spoke the duck.

But did the duck quack about logic? Did the duck quack about girl's education? No. The duck did quack about his alternative life style and how he and his duckette did have it all together growing vegies in the bush, whilst the rest of us have no idea of what was going on.

The duck wears his adopted country-life as a heart upon his sleeve. Does the duck think he's the only one on these pages who lives up the bush? Does the duck think he's the only one who has open, ongoing and decent relationships with womenfolk? Does the duck have his head up his own dark place?

Could be.

Gosh - I shouldn't have said that - I'll get banned like Timkins did last week. But on the other hand, having had those unspoken presumptions and inferences revealed above by the good Dr Leslie, what can a man do but to go paranoid and read into the text anything that he might consider to be an accusation against his character.

Mahatma Duck, go sit on it - stop making presumptions and taking inferences and turning them into illogical conclusions. You're not the only person in this world with common human respect and decency. And don't assume you are.

Some of us are actually pretty nice likable people - even if we don't always agree with your point of view.

Dear oh dear, Maximus. I certainly hope you feel better after that little spray. However, comments such as

"...natural for women to cook up all sorts of crazy notions in their heads any time a man does or doesn't say something"

and

"...women now live in a princess privileged world here in the west"

and

"Perhaps women do need a few lessons on staying logically on the point..."

seem to indicate a certain antagonism on your part towards women, which belies your claim of "open, ongoing and decent relationships with womenfolk".

My contribution to the thread took up issues raised by others concerning alternatives to traditionally gendered division of labour, and questioned whether work and consumption are really the parameters upon which our quality of lfe and relationships should be measured. Other than gratuitously taking a swipe at me, what was your contribution, exactly?

If you had actually read what I wrote instead of pouncing in ad hominem glee, you might have realised that I was critiquing the feminist assumption that the key to increasing women's status is via participation in the paid workforce.

Like I said, there are alternatives. You just need the imagination to see them.

Guys,
If you really believe men are so hard done by, you need to get active and do something about it. Feminists, by definition, are primarily interested in the condition of women. Asking them to get active on behalf of the injustices visited on men is like asking black activists not to rock the boat or demand their rights because it might adversely effect some white people.
Actually, feminists are often the mothers of sons and so are actually very likely to defend and agitate on behalf of men and boys, but, when they are wearing their feminist hat, they are noticing how society disadvantages their own gender and protesting about that. Personally, I believe feminism ( which, as I keep pointing out, only means a belief in the equal worth of both sexes) will help liberate both women and men from the straight jacket roles they have both been expected to inhabit for centuries.
I get annoyed that some men continue to expect women to give way and take a lesser role because it makes the men's lives easier. I think that is demeaning and damaging to both men and women. Many men need to grow up and start taking responsibility for themselves (so, by the way, do many women, particularly those who rely on dependent, manipulative, conventional feminine behaviour to get their way). Its not going to get you far if you sit around expecting feminists to help you. Really, you need to do it for yourselves.

Mahatma Duck,
It becomes difficult to decide what to call you, whether that should be “Mahatma Duck”, or “Garra”, or “Giaman”

There was a poster called “Garra” who has used exactly the same language, words and phrases as you have recently used (eg “I've thought for some time now that women who seek self-actualisation and fulfilment through paid work, either instead of or simultaneously with motherhood, have been sold a pup by second-wave feminism” . http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3438#7094)

Now “Garra” would carry out much name calling and flaming of other posters, which is something “Mahatma Duck” has indulged in a great deal also (probably holding the record on OLO for the amount of name-calling and flaming of others)

Then someone called "Giaman" began posting, who had a very similar style and used the same words and phrases previously used by “Garra” (eg “dodgy”, “misogynists” etc http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=2466#13195).

So there appears to be 3 posters who have a very similar writing style, and have used exactly the same words and phrases in their posts. A “mahatma duck”, a “garra”, and a “ Giaman”.

Perhaps you can answer, if you have also posted onto forums using names of “garra”, and “Giaman”?

About the only thing I can agree with you is that many women (and some men) have definitely been lead astray by feminist doctrine.

If there are social issues concerning family and work, then there should be as much information made known as possible about family and work, not piecemeal information, or information that is specially selected so as to negatively portray the male gender.

Without full information being made known, no problems will be adequately solved, there will likely be a continuation of misinformation and myths spread throughout society, there will likely be discrimination, and of course no proper education programs can be adequately developed (for either males or females).

Enaj,
Telling men to “grow up” has been often used by various women and feminists. It appears to be a very common form of verbal abuse, that is used to hide relevant information and issues.

So how about addressing my moderation comments Timkins...