I wouldn't believe anything in a women's magazine.

Most of the articles are fabricated, and Marie Claire magazine is running a competition with a $250,000 1st prize in handbags and shoes.

But a recent national survey in the UK found that 50% of children born outside of marriage lost 1 parent before ther reached the age of 5.

It is probably very similar here, but I have not heard a single feminist object to that type of family.

Boy howdy! The umpteenth article blaming feminism for every problem in the world bar global warming. It seems Danielle's life choices actually were not really her own but Simone De Beauvoir's or Germaine Greer's. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

Maybe the men she met in her twenties were complete losers. Danielle still made the choice to seek a partner elsewhere. She also made the choice to have an abortion when she knew she'd have a Downs Syndrome child. I support access to abortion but Danielle and other women have to live with that choice - not me. And now she's choosing the miserable, backward looking choice of living through her regrets.

Well, Danielle (if you're out there) how about choosing the joy of childlessness like I have? How about pursuing other options in life?

And as for idea that feminism fails women, let's look at countries where feminism is non-existent such as Sudan or Mauritania and see what female paradises places like that are.

So... is this article criticising feminists/feminism, or critiquing them/it then, or now - or both?
The first, they don't deserve (a movement that had to happen, if I could bastardise Keating), but the second is always worthy of a few lines...

You know what I object to most in this? The tag line:

"Feminists have never seriously interested themselves in questions of how women might successfully marry and become mothers."

It infers that that's the only thing women are around for. That's completely wrong.

Mark is attacking this poor woman for meeting the wrong person(s) when she was younger (and for making the reasonable decision not to have kids with the wrong person) and now regretting not having achieved something that she wanted.

Mark is famous for this (I've debated him a number of times) and his view is that women are only there to support women and to spit out babies irrespective of whether that's what they want or not. It's a disgusting view

The author is on cloud cuckoo land with this article. By advocating CHOICE for women to have and independent income stream, (most important given about 50 % relationships fail with children), by no means excludes child bearing – rather makes it more secure for most women. Giving people choice does not mean everyone will make the right choice – but that is life. Better the freedom to choose your own path than to spend a life as directed by others. Blaming feminists for the failure of both the medical community and education system to educate young people fully about reproductive health, (conception, fertility, STI’s contraception etc), it ludicrous. It is blaming the same women who have advocated quality child care, paid parental leave, baby payments & child endowments etc… Reproductive health education is something that feminists have argued in favour of for decades now.

It is interesting given all modern access to information that infertility is still considered a “female” condition when statistically 50% of couples presenting at IVF clinics are there to be treated for male infertility, (poor sperm motility, degraded sperm DNA etc), and yes – male infertility increases with age too.

Survey after survey show the main reason why child production is delayed in Australia is not due to women wanting to endlessly delay – it is due to men not wanting that level of commitment until they are much older, (and by then it is often too late for them as well). The reasons for this “male child commitment phobia” are many. But I suspect that men are not pre-pared to do this until they are financially secure in themselves and this is a matter of socialised male pride. It has become harder for both men and women to achieve financial security now than ever before with record housing prices, interest rates, petrol prices and low wages.

Rather than blaming feminists for all the ills of the world, like the witches were of old, perhaps the author should look past his own blind opinions and study the facts.

Feminism didn't fail women; the failure of a mature, unbiased discussion on male and female fertility fails women. The fact is that she was behind the eight ball with the man she fell in love with. Male fertility, or natural aging thereof with the resultant lower fertility and degraded sperm, also impact on a woman's ability to have a healthy baby. The story may have been different if she'd partnered with a man nearer her age, or younger.

When are men going to be told the truth about andropause, and that they are playing russian roulette with their fertility. 50% of infertility problems are with the male; aged sperm causes birth defects. Grow up men and face the fact you are not fully charged ever-ready batteries until you die.

Maybe I missed something, but I don't see how the we get from Danielle's own evaluation of where she went wrong:

"The trouble was, throughout my 20s and early 30s, my
relationships with men were short-lived and problematic. I
was always attracted to exciting, but emotionally
unavailable men, who were anything but suitable husband -
let alone father - material."

to the broad brushstroke statement to the effect that "Feminism only encourages women to have careers, not families". Is the author suggesting that "feminism" considers the dating emotionally unavailable men through one's twenties and thirties a suitable career for the modern woman? I don't recall that coming up in Betty Freiden (Jilly Cooper, perhaps?).

The argument may have carried some weight if the evidence bore some relationship to the hypothesis, though personally I'm with DavidJS on that point. As it stands, the article sounds shrill and hollow.

This is almost identical to a morality fable repeatedly told to my mother, who went to Catholic schools in the 50s.

Back then, Catholic girls’ minds were filled with horror stories about what would happen to them if they succumbed to increasing social pressure to marry ‘outside the Church’. This was usually known as a Mixed Marriage [capital M, capital M].

As the story goes … some silly girl with progressive ideas about religious desegregation defied all the nuns’ warnings and sailed down the aisle with a ... gasp ... Protestant. It was all downhill from there. After years of doom, gloom, financial ruin, miscarriages and sickly babies a-plenty, the cad finally deserted her. One day – a thin, frail and worn-out wreck – she returned to the Convent a sadder, wiser woman, begging for a handout just to put food on the table.

‘If only I had listened to you, Sister,’ she croaked. ‘My only hope is that one day my daughter learns from my mistake and never, ever makes a Mixed Marriage.’

The morality of the story hasn’t changed at all – i.e. Life punishes girls who break the time-honoured marriage rules laid down by generations of patriarchy. Only the concepts have been revamped for contemporary sensibilities.

Hi, I am another man having opinion about feminists.

Have not read the article but browsed through some posts. Not much substance in debate for my liking. I do not got deeply into feminist ideology because the only thing I know is negative behavior and ideas. Definitely as I know it, Feminism is an Extremism. And as such and what we can associate with it, is quite detrimental to everyone.

I've heard some arguments that this is the force aimed to stop or counteract the male dominance.

It is also blind argument. Because IF, male dominance is wrong, than does it mean that FEMINIST dominance is right? sure it is wrong.
Also it deviate from the issue and turn into fanaticism.

I actually run the forum dedicated families, and was taking active part on overseas fora on the matter. Such extremism or fanatism are serious distraction from main issues, from problem solving.

While I have no interest in going into analysing details of feminism, I may indicate that the idea of equality of gender on basis that we are all humans, is wrong.

Take the Priminister and yourself. You cannot claim that Rudd is your partner as feminists try to. On human being level, you are equal, but his role and yours is not and should not be equal. Be real.
Now imagine what is you or a group of people would try to make equal the roles of the group and the Priminister? Anarchy, or anything except order, peace, productivity and happiness. Same can be translated into feminist ideology.

Re: Bazaar comments by mmistrz. Umm……… I am not dignifying these comments with a reply but rather pointing out a huge mis-representation of Australian Democracy in his post for the rest of us. As Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard, Deputy Prime Minister; Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations; Minister for Education; Minister for Social Inclusion, has already acted as Prime Minister and will do so again whenever Rudd is unavailable. She is the person most likely be elected as the next Prime Minister of Australia. There are also some of the most talented women Australian Politics have ever encountered in the new Rudd Labor government ministry. Some of these amazing women include; Nicola Roxon Minister for Health and Ageing, Penny Wong Minister for Climate Change and Water and Tanya Plibersek Minister for Housing; Minister for the Status of Women. These women have all made it top in the toughest game around and done so based on their own talent and hard work.

Quite frankly I think blaming feminism for your ills is as immature as blaming your parents. Feminists have fought successful campaigns to achieve the vote for women, for equal pay for the same job, to establish women's refuges and to highlight domestic violence and child abuse (to name a few). Gee how terrible! What next? Freedom from sexual harassment?

I fail to see why any woman or man should have a problem with this. And if you don't like what some feminists have to say, stop reading their books and turn off the TV when they come on. Or move someplace where feminism is non-existent and women know their place like Somalia.

Speaking as the father of two children, I have to say that though I love them dearly my own life would probably have been much happier and fulfilled if I hadn't had them. As far as I am concerned people who decide not to have children are making a perfectly rational choice.

As for women (and men) who want children, these seem to me to fall into two groups -- those who just like to have kids around, and those who want to go through the biological birth process. The first group is easy to please: they can head for Asia and pick up some of the many millions of unwanted babies arriving on planet Earth each year. The second group I would classify as delusional -- why would anyone want to do anything involving so much pain? -- and they should be provided with counselling and therapy until they realise what a daft idea it is. Giving in to them will only cause misery and suffering.

It is always funny when men make statements about women's lives (or men's lives) and then blame feminism, without once even attempting to define the term or its relationship to the phenomonen that they are discussing. Why does he presume to speak for (all) women (he could at least speak for men about men but prefers to pronounce on women as if he is an expert)? The fact that this bloke reckons he has the right to tell women what's wrong with women and what's wrong with what they think and what's wrong with what they do certainly highlights that feminism has a long way to go yet. He would be better off giving the reader an account of why, despite feminism, men are the primary perpetrators of the most expensive, pervasive health risk to women aged 15-45 - violence against women - and the impact this has on men's capacity to form and sustain relationships... come on- think about yourself instead of blaming women (again).

I am in my middle years and still not sure how a feminist or feminism is defined. In the seventies and early eighties feminism concerned itself with equal rights, equal pay and a struggle for society to see women not only as mothers ie. CHOICE. The same way a man was seen as more than just a breadwinner or a father.

It is not so simple these days and I believe that families where one parent stays at home are largely penalised economically and in social status. Even our new PM (who I voted for) refers to Australians in general as "working families". Every time I hear that phrase I cringe no matter whom utters it. It implies that anyone who does not fit that mold is not part of the norm. ie. what about other types of families, singles and pensioners.

It is all part of the modern day myth that the economy overrides any other factor and that we must all be out there working as hard as we can and for longer hours than ever before. It is becoming increasingly difficult for a family to choose to live on one income. The CHOICE has gone and the gap between rich and poor is ever widening. Fertility problems are on the rise because people are delaying having their first child due to economic or career factors.

Feminism to me is about fairness and equality for men and women in whatever shape or form they come in. If we don't include men then we just become another narrow viewed interest group at the demise of the bigger picture.

We do have to remember though that it was the feminist movement and suffragettes that helped women obtain the vote and removed the stigma of women as some sort of inferior being. Social change or evolution does not without some form of cause or movement at the fore ie. a time and a place for a cause.

I agree with Mark Richardson that something is definitely wrong in society when it comes to "working families" and now our relations ships and especially women, are really suffering as a result, as illustrated by Danielle's story.

We no longer have the real choice for the mother not to work (or at least few are game to make this choice).

Society promotes the play boy mentality of putting of relationships until much later in life and playing the party field.

The one thing that society still harps on about is the importance of home ownership. It seems to be the only sacred cow left. Everything else is up to your choice. But I think women are starting to show the results of many of these poor choices, of basically devaluing the family and children.

Feminists have been off focusing on getting paid the same as a man while the really important things in life have passed them by.

Y'know what strikes me about all these debates about the influence of feminism, or the media, or whatever damn influence-du-jour is being discussed.

I don't give a damn what the media says about the importance of home ownership. I've no desire to get caught up in the real estate game and I think there's better investments out there.
I don't give a damn about expectations of a playboy lifestyle. I've been known to play that game, but I prefer a decent relationship.
I don't give a damn about waiting to have kids, if I find someone I want to have kids with, I'll have kids with them.
I don't give a damn about the failures of feminism, or all that much about the successes. I think women deserve equal rights as men, which makes me a feminist I guess. But I reject the assertion it has to be about careers or attacking men.

I don't give a damn what other people do in their private lives, as long as they're not hurting others.

So to Joe2008, I say that if people are really so vacuous as to get sucked in to playing the role of playboy just because of 'the media' or if they feel the need to buy a home because of it, well, if they're that foolish then it's their own stupid fault.
You speak about choices as if they're a bad thing, well, on that score I've got to pull you up. Having the freedom to make choices is something I do care about.
That's what real feminism should be about. The freedom to make choices.

Even dumb ones.

Nothing lasts... who knew.

Everything ends... who knew.

Women have reproductive biological clocks... who knew.

IVF fails... who knew.

Some people are short sighted... who knew.

Actions have consequences... who knew.

Men are blissfully delaying what they've always resisted now thatthe social expectation is off... who knew.

Feminism did as much, if not more to liberate men from constrained gender based roles and life cycle choices... who knew (and thank god).

We're all in it for ourselves now. Its a 'l, me, mine' independant, empowered state of mind type of world now.

Liberation frees people and doesnt free people... who knew.

And, contrary to all the blather about the state of gender relations in the last decade, regarding peter pans and peta pams... no one actually cares, else it would be changing... who knew.

Oh and did l mention... who knew.

I doubt feminism fails women any more than women fail feminism. As someone famous once said, it’s all in the implementation. One thing has still not changed – women are credited with its successes and men for its failures. As Trade says, who could’ve known …

I nearly choked on my coffee, had to wipe the screen down after reading the title.

However as amazing as it may seem that someone was actually game enough to right such an article, a few years ago there was a discussion about the subject of infertility and feminism, but it mostly blamed men for the fall in fertility rate and that men were committment phobes.

So when an egg donor decided it was time to become a incubator and went looking for a sperm donor, the sperm donors weren't ready to commit.

Did feminism fail women? I think that is a matter of perspective.
Did the media led women up the garden path?

Many of the early feminists, claimed that marriage was invented by men to keep women oppressed. So women who don't get married are not oppressed.

I have to agree with David JS's comments about "blaming feminism being as immature as blaming your parents". Feminism arose because of a need to address issues relating to the role of women as a group within society vis-a-vis the role of men as a group in society. These issues are ongoing as exemplified in debates about expanding maternity leave provisions or expanding family friendly workplace policies so that men can truly take time off work or reduce hours for family priorities without compromising career instead of women always having to struggle with the work/family dilemma.

Unfortunately, under the banner of the slogan/message "The personal is political", feminist ideas have been able to intrude into the dynamics of relations between individual men and women.

In this private domain there are no "right" or "wrong" answers that transcend the individuals concerned - ideologies of both the feminist and the patriarchal conservative-religious stripe can dangerously infect vulnerable minds with poisonous "memes" with devastating results on the imperfect individuals in those relationships and the children concerned.

Jung warned about the expanding role of ideologies and "isms" in the modern world and their corrosive effect on the soul. Feminism belongs in politics - women (and men) seeking to address inequities as they are perceived. Keep it political, not personal.

A few replies:

According to BN it's my view that "women are only there to support men and to spit out babies irrespective of whether that's what they want or not."

Well, that's news to me. I wouldn't even frame the issue this way. I tend to view love, marriage and motherhood as being more at the centre of life than careers, and so I would more readily frame things in terms of men working in jobs to support the motherhood role of women, rather than mothers "only" existing to "support men".

And why would I expect women to have children against their will? It's clear that most women naturally desire to have children of their own, so the "forcing" scenario is an unreal one.

Some commenters wrote that feminism wasn't to blame because Danielle had simply met the wrong men, e.g. "Mark is attacking this poor woman for meeting the wrong person(s) when she was younger (and making the reasonable decision not to have kids with the wrong person)."

This misses the point. It's not that Danielle was unfortunate in meeting the wrong men but that she deliberately sought them out. She postponed meeting the right sort of man until some time in her later 30s - which was not unusual for women of that feminist period to do.

It fits the feminism of the period because women at the time were urged to remain autonomous and to focus on careers above all else - what was held out to women was a single girl lifestyle in which independence, casual relationships, travel, shopping and careers were the glamorous trappings of success.

Then there were commenters who wrote that feminists couldn't be expected to warn women of issues relating to family formation and fertility.

But feminists could easily have done so - they had tremendous influence in the media, in academia and in the government. They were engaged in an attempt to socially transform society. Some warnings to women not to leave things too late wouldn't have been so difficult - but feminists were uninterested and remained silent.

The author offers a single anecdote from a trashy pop-culture magazine, waxes all world-wise about the socialised cul-de-sac he sees, and then tries to superimpose "feminism" out-of-the-blue as the obvious monocausal explanation. There's no sense that the author even attempts to come to grips with what "feminism" is, to then establish a definition and finally to fairly assess how that definition, at an empirical level, contributes to the phenomenon under discussion.

Why is it that conservatives so often give themselves licence to critique feminism on the basis of mushy ephemeral sense of things, or worse, as a juvenile South Park stereotype. If you want a serious discussion, do some work. Read primary feminist authors and paint us a real picture of their failing. Don't rely on this kind of vague, generalised sense that feminist empowerment somehow robs people of satisfying horizons. That's putting the cart before the horse and offers us nothing to consider but your self-evident preconceptions about "feminism".

A couple of years ago I would have burned with indignation at Mark's comments and world-view and entered - yet again - into the fray. But seriously folks, its all getting a little bit old now, isn't it? HRS cuts and pastes a hundred things he's said before on a hundred other sites yada,yada, yada. This Mark bloke gives us the benefit of the same old reactionary stuff my father's generation went on about, yada, yada, yada, geez, someone who admitted reading neither the article nor knowing anything much about feminism decided this gave him/her the keen edge to jump into a debate of this kind...and they were right. They are on an equal footing with the rest who rely on blind prejudice, soured life experiences, and limited knowledge of their subject to submit the rest of us to their obsessive, repetitive and passe ideas on women.

People - face it: the world just doesn't match up to your expectations. Get over it. Go collect stamps or learn a foreign language or something.

The whole Evil Feminist World Conspiracy thing is so tired. Like TRTL, frankly my dears, I couldn't give a damn. There's good people, there's bad people...and that's it: Life. Or as close as most people get.

Romany,
Would you like to nominate an “ism” that has actually worked.

Feminism told women to put career before family. They got that wrong.

Various feminists are now suggesting to women that they have children without a husband or a father to those children. They are destined to get that wrong also.

Nature rules, and not feminism.

BBoy, you weren't to know, but at my own sites I've written many detailed posts on feminism.

For example, "The politics of bad faith" discusses the work of Kate Millett:

http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2006/04/politics-of-bad-faith.html

"The case against Sweden" examines the views of Swedish ministers on gender equality:

http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2007/04/case-against-sweden.html

"Eliza Linton and the female Lurcher" considers the works of Mary Wollstonecraft and Eliza Linton amongst others:

http://www.ozconservative.com/elizalinton.htm

This article is also highly relevant:

http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2006/12/feminism-which-ends-in-tears.html

The last item looks at the criticisms of feminism made by Virginia Haussegger, who had been to that time a left-wing feminist journalist. Her criticisms are similar to the ones made in my post featured here at On Line Opinion.

BBoy, I'm not sure you really tried to engage with the specific criticisms of feminism I made in my post. Am I wrong in asserting that during third wave feminism young women were encouraged to follow a "glamorous" single girl lifestyle and to postpone family formation? Am I wrong in asserting that leading feminists did not issue warnings about the emotional pain such a postponement was likely to cause women in their 30s?

Romany. Word, sister. I didn't even open my mouth but you already managed to steal the words right out of them. I thought of posting on this thread earlier, then I thought of having a glass of wine and reading some PG Wodehouse. PG Wodehouse won.

Hugs to all.

Plleease! Another article rehashing this tired groan?:
1) As the first forum entry conjectures, this story was probably workshopped around a boardroom table two hours before an issue deadline. She's not a real woman, just a synthesis of hackneyed generalisations and urban myth;
2) Feminism is a very diverse and broad field. There are in fact many feminists who have put their minds to the question of motherhood and spousedom. This is, in fact, where second wave feminism began. It's an ignorant assertion to say that feminists are only concerned with women who are in the workforce and/or childless;
3) As a feminist and a (married) mother, who has taught feminist theory at University, it would concern me a great deal if Mark Richardson were my daughter's secondary school teacher. I certainly hope he doesn't propound this sort of feeble-minded pap in the classroom.

Ideally Online Opinion writers should actually know what they are talking about, and possibly even have some level of expertise in the area. It is beneath the usual standards of this journal to publish what is simply a reheated article from the popular press.

Yup: If one woman stuffs up her life ALL women are to blame. Now just when will those girls get the truth through their pretty little heads?

By the same logic, ALL men are to blame for tossers like Wayne Carey or Ben Cousins, aren’t we boys?

Richardson has made some sweeping generalisations which I would like to tweak a little:

“Real manly men have never seriously interested themselves in questions of how men might successfully marry and become fathers.”

OR how about this one?

“It's not that HRS was unfortunate in meeting the wrong women but that he deliberately sought them out.”

I figure are HRS has had so much to whinge about on OLO he would be a good substitute for the real or imagined Danielle.

I would like to suggest, Mark that you turn your shining spotlight on why men continue to stuff up by writing thoughtless twaddle like your article.

I'm so glad I decided to remain single and childless. I'm a woman in my early sixties, live alone, have wonderful friends (both sexes) and am retired. I love it! Many thanks to all those brave feminists, who have made my choices possible.
Brennie

Is the author aware that the proportion of women who have children compared to those who do not (a little less than one third don't) has been stable throughout the period of history during which records have been kept (more than 100 years). I’m sure we could pull out any number of stories of women (and men) who waited too long and didn’t end up with their dream. But then there’s any number of women who stuffed around most of their lives then thought about it all at the last minute and things proceeded perfectly. Or how about women who started too early and ended up in a nightmare. Or the women who started too early and ended up fluking the perfect life. Or the women who did everthing perfectly and ended up with the perfect/horrific life. Anecdotes like the one offered by the author we’re commenting on are useful for giving us something to mull over. But we can learn more by stepping back and looking at the figures on the bigger picture. Sure – women have some decisions to make and some things to think about today but life has offered every generation a series of challenges that leave some people unhappy. And as for those who do not bear children – the figures show us the proportion has been stable over time (with the exception of a post-WWII boom in which the proportion of women who didn’t bear children shrunk for a short period of time). Even when it was standard to marry as a teenager, there was about a third of women who didn't become mothers.

This essay is a classic example of what passes for "intelligent" cultural anal-ysis in "right" wing circles.
About as deep as a puddle on a concrete footpath.
Everything gets reduced to a set of cliched binary exclusions and polarities.
No room for complexity,paradox,ambiguity, multiple points of view, or shades of grey.
Or how, as the Chinese ying/yang symbol tells us everything, is in a constant state of flux via a DANCE of polarities, with every "positive" containing the seeds of a "negative", and vise versa.

If we can only put uppity women back into the kitchen, the nursery, and the church, then everything will be hunky dory.

Kinder, Kuche, Kirche rules OK.

And us males, with our tribal (genocidal) deity and our superior "intelligence", can really get on with our project of trashing the planet, and our endless imperial wars of conquest, so that, at last, we will convert the entire planet into the likeness of our own benighted one dimensional image.

Welcome to the WASTELAND.

Romany

‘The whole Evil Feminist World Conspiracy thing is so tired. Like TRTL, frankly my dears, I couldn't give a damn.'

I’d love to agree with you because I’m definitely on your side, but I’m afraid ‘the whole Evil Feminist World Conspiracy thing’ is NOT tired. In fact, ‘evil-feminist conspiracy’ theory has been gaining momentum since the 80s, and has had its energy revitalized with the advent of the Internet (and the wonders of trolling). Unfortunately, the forces that push this theory DO give a damn.

Jo F,
Did you ever teach any other type of theory at university, or just feminist theory.

Or put it another way, do you think that feminist theory is the only possible theory.

There have been considerable changes over the last 30 years, but even aboriginal children knew who their mother and father were, and their race lasted for 1000’s of years. So I am wondering if these changes have come about because of what is taught in feminist theory.

Johnny Rotten,
Amongst all the “tossers” and “tweaks” and “thoughtless twaddle”, what exactly is it you are trying to say?

HRS/Timkins

Do you know what feminism is? I'll answer my own question:

NO, you don't.

It is a movement that began over 100 years ago by women and not a few men who believe that all people have the right to equality of opportunity, equal pay for equal work, equal representation in politics as well as business.

Because you have been treated badly in the past, you believe that feminism is some kind of conspiracy to usurp men - it is not. Strong, well educated, independent women are a positive force for our world.

As has been demonstrated by myself and others on this thread, feminism is not to blame if a woman makes a mistake, therefore Mark's writing is indeed twaddle.

Unless you wish to be blamed for Wayne Carey's behaviour - do you?

Damn well said Johnny Rotten.

I don't think HRS is the least bit interested in justice for men, otherwise he'd realise his approach alienates those with a genuine interest in helping both men and women.

Nobody has disagreed with the assertion that there are destructive feminists out there.

But to continually assert, that absolutely-every-single-feminist-is-a-man-hating-witch is just so incredibly stupid, and betrays his blinkered motives and unwillingness to genuinely address issues.

It's identical to what the feminists that he claims to hate so much do.
Given that he's adopting this approach, and based on the postings of Timkins, his alter ego, I think it's high time he was exposed for the woman hater he is.

If he was truly opposed to destructive feminism, that's where he'd direct his efforts.
Instead he's attempting to cast a wide net and treat every single feminist at the enemy - anyone who would speak on behalf of women. Thus, he really is nothing more than a misogynist.

The fact that feminists have said on these very threads that they don't hate men, is the sole proof that is needed to silence his ravings.

There are millions of feminists out there. Anyone who believes women deserve equal rights are feminists. That's it.

There's a simple line of logic:

a) people who define themselves as feminists are feminists (HRS has conceded this).
b) many feminists just want women to be treated as equals.
c) HRS hates all feminists.
d) Therefore, HRS hates women being treated equally.

He's a troll. Of the worst kind, because he pretends to be interested and tries repeatedly to get others to scurry around collecting information to disprove his lunacy, but is capable of ignoring the most blatantly obvious information and the simplest logic when it's presented.

To those who oppose the destructive nutbag feminists, I agree wholeheartedly. Highlight their hostility and hypocrisy, by all means.
But don't hobble yourself by doing as they do, and tarring a vast number of people with a single brush, as HRS has done, or playing his transparent childish semantic 'ooh! I'm such a victim' games.

Well if feminism has done nothing for women, it has done less for men.

Therefore why do the feminists bother?

For the most part, I would speculate simply because they are beguiled by the sense of power and sound of their own voices.

In these matters I prefer to rely on the words of a woman.

“I owe nothing to Women's Lib.”

Margaret Thatcher, there was a woman who “made it” in the competitive world of international politics and had a family.

All the bulldust spoken about “women’s rights” – to be a mother and have a career. Fails to recognise that everything we do comes at a personal price and sometimes, the “price” of one thing is not being able to do the other.

People need to understand, life is not about “rights”, it is only about “opportunity”.

We can expect to enjoy certain opportunities of life but that does not entitle us to expect them as a “right”, beyond the most fundamental, and a job or “career” protected from the merit and interests of others, with the same “right” to seek a job or “career”, is the sort of affirmative rubbish which is akin to appeasement and appeasement never resolved anything, it only weakened the ability of society to function effectively and meritoriously.

Two of the interesting things I have learned about the history of feminism (in the West) over the last few years is that -

1. The leader of "the second wave" - Gloria Steinhem - was an agent and of the CIA and working under their instruction and

2. This "wave" was significantly funded and supported by high-level members of the US business community.

Why?

To break up the Family Unit and to "get the kids away from their mothers much sooner". (I guess this makes them easier to influence by external forces.)

Another reason was to easily provide a vast supply of resident workers, who could be paid slightly lower wages for the same types of work as their husbands. Any resulting industrial actions for equality could be drawn out over many years.

I remember a time when most families could be supported by a single breadwinner and the option of a working wife was available for "luxuries" or specific purposes.

Nowadays, after winning so many concessions(?), the idea of women working is virtually mandatory just to meet the financial demands of having a family at all.

Except for equal pay, did many of the problems espoused by feminism really exist at all?

Sure, there may since have been some idealogical gains made for women, but at what cost to society generally?

As I think about this article and the arguments around it I'm reminded of a scene from Life of Brian.

I'll get the wording wrong but the message should be close

The conspirators are sitting around bemoaning how bad the Romans are.
Someone says "What have they ever done for us?"
The others repeat with a "Yeah what have they ever done for us?"
Someone pipes up and mentions the roads.
Well apart from the roads what have they ever done for us?
Well there is sewege and running water.
- this goes on for a while as they list off a wide rage of benefits the Romans had brought.
Well apart from road's, sewage, ..., running water what have the romans ever done for us?

Feminism has got some stuff wrong, it's not spoken out on everthing it should have spoken out about. It's stood all to silent when it's been misused on some issues. It's not a single defined dogma, it's an approach to human worth and freedom that will be interpreted differently by each individual. It's brought opportunity and freedom to large numbers of people who otherwise would not have had that freedom.

As a single dad I can bemoan the role of feminism in supporting some of the biases in our family law system whilst celebrating the freedoms it has contributed to for me to explore my role as a father.

Democracy has it's failings, some might be able to demonstrate that people would make fewer bad choices if they had less opportunity to make choices. That does not make democracy less desirable than a dictatorship, it just means that with the benefits come costs.

R0bert

The whole Evil Feminist World Conspiracy thing is so tired. Like TRTL, frankly my dears, I couldn't give a damn. There's good people, there's bad people...and that's it: Life. Or as close as most people get.
Romany, Thursday, 31 January 2008 9:51:45 PM

Does that mean you are surrendering? or making a tactical withdrawal?

The plain fact is that feminist philosophy, theory, dogma, idealism etc has had an enormous impact on all levels of governmental policy over the last 4 decades.

Without a doubt there are good and bad people, sometimes bad people are attracted to a particular special interest group.

Banality has found its home. Now apprently Baker needs to find a homemaker.

The women's liberation movement was born in a time of great social ferment when all the traditional ruling class ideas were under challenge and the ruling class propaganda of racism, sexism and homophobia was being pushed back. In some instances (such as Paris in May 68 or Czechoslovakia in the same year) capitalism itself was being threatened.

Sexist, racist and homophobic propaganda and ideology perform a valuable role for capital. They divide the working class and thus help maintain the rule of capital. So at every opportunity the apologists for the dictatorship of capital look to wind back the gains of the past.

We must continue the struggle for sexual and human liberation. Ultimately this is the struggle against the rule of profit and for the rule of people.

Passy

Yes!! At last someone here is standing back and looking at where feminism sits within the big political canvas. I was beginning to despair.

Big 'C' Capital certainly plays its part, but I believe your comments re feminism, racism and homophobia apply equally to dominator systems in general - be they left-wing, right-wing, fascist, feudal, theocratic, imperial or whatever.

'In-groups' maintain their power by homogenous group-think, which in turn requires the ongoing exclusion of all 'out-groups' from the mainstream.

Of course, this is all gobbledygook to those whose belief systems depend on women knowing their place as inferior to men, non-majority races keeping to the periphy of society and homosexuals staying ensconced within the realm of life's shadows.

Johnny Rotten
“Do you know what feminism is? I'll answer my own question:”

I’m not sure if you have asked me a question, or you have asked me a question, and then answered your own question, before I could answer your question.

Next you will be telling me that feminists believe in equality.

What I think, is that you are someone who is attracted to an “ism” called feminism, and you have said that a certain male is a “tosser” and writes “thoughtless twaddle”,.

That is what I think, but next you will be telling me that feminists don’t believe in abuse.

Turnrightthenleft.
How is your search progressing?

Recently, loving feminists on OLO have called various males “slime and snails”, “meatheads”, “loafers” and now “tossers”.

Next you will be telling me that feminists don’t believe in abuse.

SJF
If someone objects to feminists calling males “slime and snails”, “meatheads”, “loafers” and now “tossers”, then would they be in the in-group or the out-group.

All ideologies fail those in whose name they are promulgated.

So the answer would be yes.

Who knew?

More to the point... who cares?

The rule of profit versus the rule of people.

That doesnt sound like a divisive ideology.

Oh, the irony. How odd that its people who pursue for profit. There is range of definitions for profit, some lend themselves to the exploitative bent (which validates socialist/marxist nonsense), others to a service/benefit bent (mostly in service of capitalist clap trap). Take yer pick and spin it in the service of your non-devisive ideolgies, at your leisure. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=profit

"They divide the working class and thus help maintain the rule of capital. So at every opportunity the apologists for the dictatorship of capital look to wind back the gains of the past." Hahahahaha. Not a word of propaganda in that. Too funny. Having said that, l prefer the blathering nonsense of this delusional contrivance to the whole laissez faire, free (hahaha) and efficent (double hahaha) market dribble of so-called capital (whatever that is).

Anyway, good work not being ideological and cohesive. Oh yeah and make sure you never take title on a home, private property being a major no-no in the pursuit of da peeple's inherent claim to all things and everything.

"Feminists have never seriously interested themselves in questions of how women might successfully marry and become mothers ."

From the reading I have done many of the 60's feminists saw marriage a patriarchial construct to keep women enslaved and oppressed.

Erin Pizzey wrote about the planned destruction of the family
http://fathersforlife.org/pizzey/destrctn.htm
and when she was told; 'Your problem is not your isolation but your husband. He oppresses you and he is a capitalist.'

Wendy McElroy wrote this; "For decades, PC feminists have led a full-frontal attack on the traditional family. They have rejected stay-at-home motherhood as unliberating and celebrated career women instead. This rejection has come back to haunt them because motherhood,"
http://www.ifeminists.com/introduction/editorials/2002/0521.html

So firstly we have feminists condemming marriage and children in the 60's & 70's then around 40 years later suddenly women are finding that getting pregnant and/or finding a partner is not that simple.

There is a chinese proverb "be careful for what you ask for, because you might just get it."

I see a similarity between feminism/feminists and Don Quixote and if I recall correctly someone held a mirror up to Don quiote and he then saw his true self.

BN -> The post never infers marriage and motherhood is the ONLY thing women are arouind for. He just thinks that feminism has neglected this area of women's lives

pelican ->'Feminism to me is about fairness and equality for men and women '. No feminsim is about equality for women. Any advantages to men are happy side effects.

Seeker -> ' women are credited with its successes and men for its failures' SPOT ON. I would also add that feminism is praised (and rightly) for all it has achieved, but is beyond any critisism.

Vanilla, Romany -> 'the sisters' good for you I suppose. Though I think there was quite an audience when feminists attacked 'the patriachy', and I see 'The Evil Feminist World Conspiracy' in the same light as 'The Patriachy'

Col Rough -> 'All the bulldust spoken about “women’s rights” – to be a mother and have a career. Fails to recognise that everything we do comes at a personal price and sometimes, the “price” of one thing is not being able to do the other.' I hear you.

HRS-> I find myself skipping all your posts. Others may be too. Maybe you're wasting your time.

As I see it, the concerntration on women's rights in the workforce had the side effect to de-value the role of raising children. I would like to aim for a society where child care was not so necessary and the resources used to prop up child care were used instead to help couples raise their own children.

I see the advantages of mental maturity rather than financial security as a better reason for delaying starting a family.

Col and Whitty have a point. The problem may lie in the modern myth of Having It All (to paraphrase Virgina Hausegger's book).

It is not possible to have it all without something falling through the cracks. It's a fact of life that sometimes to achieve one thing another thing has to be sacrificed. And there is nothing wrong in that - sacrifice has become a dirty word.

Why would you want it ALL anyway, it sounds quite exhausting and why not do one job to the best of your ability rather than two at half strength.

I wish agencies like the Office of the Status of Women looked at raising the status and economic wellbeing of stay at home mothers (or fathers for that matter) as equally as they fight for women on other fronts.

Whitty,
The real record of feminism is the steadily increasing number of single person household, which will become a social, economic and environmental disaster in a few decades.

The other record of feminism is the vilification of the male gender, which is now right throughout the media, and steadily progressing through the education system.

Both records are actually related, and there is no tangible evidence of equality in feminism.

what a hot topic!

With the advent of the pill, bra burning and the feminazi brigade launching thier jihad on the male gender is not any wonder kids run the streets with no one to care?

After all the crap men have to put up with and have to consider Child support ETC why should we give a toss about women?

Lets face it multi culti femi crap BS created just about every ill the Western World lives with today.

Ladies you did it to yourselves, feminism was the greatest failure for humankind after multiculturalism.

Still ISLAM does not look like bowing down to the girlies anytime soon.

Would like to see the feminazis attack the Koran about the value of a female witness to that of a male witness.. OH whats that, dont have the balls.

All the bombast about “feminazis” is an attempt to take away from women their right to own their struggle for equality. Maybe because feminism is about equality for women, such a male-centric view of the world as is demonstrated on these pages, men feel left out of the equation. It’s not all about you boys.

There is so much hatred here – no wonder women need to continue the struggle for equality. The vitriol expressed by the likes of Scotty – does he want a return to the time when women were completely dependent on men for their survival? Is that what men really want? Helpless, dependent, uneducated, submissive women?

Why is it always assumed that when women struggle for the same rights that men have had for millennia that women must, therefore, hate men?

Far from it, I adore many men, although I wouldn’t want to spend any length of time with some of the posters to this forum – and maybe that’s the problem; these men blame their failure with women in their own lives on feminism. Rather than having a good hard look at themselves.

The author (male) writes that feminism has neglected motherhood, completely ignoring the fact that most feminists are mothers as well.

More women still have babies than not. And most women believe that their place is along aside men – not 10 paces behind.

It is a shame that the word “feminist” has been poisoned to the level where women I know will preface a comment like “I’m not a feminist but…” before launching into an example of discrimination against them. Clearly misogyny is alive and well if this forum is anything to go by and clearly feminism still has a long way to go, if whenever we speak up we are assumed to be attacking all men. We’re not and most men can see that there are benefits for them if their partners aren’t completely dependent on them as in the past.

To the feminist haters here - do you want a return to the past when women were helpless and dependent?

Fractelle, a society in which independence is held to be the highest good can't work. Logically, if you want to maintain your independence you would select not to marry and not to have children - whether you are male or female.

Why would a man seeking independence marry or have children? It can only reduce his autonomy to do as he likes and increase his responsibilities. Similarly, if a young woman prizes her independence above all else, she will follow the single girl lifestyle of careers, travel, shopping and casual relationships.

Feminism gets it wrong for several reasons. First, it does promote autonomy as the highest good, and so it encourages women to delay family formation and motherhood - leaving many women to experience a deep grief later on when they have to come to terms with being alone and/or childless. Second, feminism assumes that men are a privileged class who have always had an autonomy denied to women. Feminists don't understand the sacrifice of autonomy men make when they commit to family life.

In a viable society, men and women give up a measure of independence within the family in order to serve higher ends of fatherhood and motherhood.

Fractelle, in the 1950s and 60s only 10% of women ended up without children. In our feminist era that has risen to 25% (much higher for uni educated women). There are countless more who had fewer children than they hoped for. Feminists have to accept responsibility for this.

An example: as recently as 2002 the American Society for Reproductive Medicine attempted to alert women to the dangers of delaying motherhood through a poster campaign. The National Organization of Women, a feminist group, attacked the campaign. They objected to posters with the message "Advancing age decreases your ability to have children". According to NOW the posters sent a negative message to women who might want to delay or skip childbearing in favor of their career pursuits. The campaign was withdrawn.

So even the simplest of warnings to women about delaying family formation was too much for the leading US feminist group.

Passy “In some instances (such as Paris in May 68 or Czechoslovakia in the same year) capitalism itself was being threatened.”

The Paris forment was hardly a threat to capitalism, especially when the outcome resultED in a stronger Gaullist government, not a weaker one.

As for Czechoslovakia in the same year, the thrust of the uprising was against the evil empire of USSR, not capitalism.

I think you are getting a little carried away with rewriting history to suit your own twisted delusions.

“They divide the working class and thus help maintain the rule of capital.”

Yawn, the bleating of those who believe in their own impotence.

The capitalist system allows for all to rise to whatever heights their ability can project them

It is socialism which demands no one is allowed to aspire beyond that limit dictated by the state.

Mark Richardson “In a viable society, men and women give up a measure of independence within the family in order to serve higher ends of fatherhood and motherhood.”

You are probably right Mark.

For myself, I would seek to see a society where men and women are equal, neither gender protected or hindered by politically motivated affirmative action agendas and everyone of them, male and female, respected for the freedom to make decisions as individuals; in the belief that any society can only reflect the healthy or otherwise attitudes of the individuals who compose it.

At least I have had the privilege to practice that and pass it on to my children (both girls, one of whom is (to sterotype) more typical a “home maker” personality and the other who is far more career orientated, diversity, don’t ya just love it).

Gosh some of the responses are pretty hate filled on this forum.

Despite the failures of feminism I can't see how replacing it with misogyny will help. One could argue that it was men that created feminism due to the inferior way in which women were treated - happy people don't revolt so to speak.

So instead of turning it into a gender war, why not some solutions to increase the quality of life for all.

The first suggestion might be to ensure economic security for families who wish to raise their own children at home. The more we are pushed out of the home to work due to financial burdens means that choice is taken away from us all.

Men have been disadvantaged with child support that is true although the new Family Laws and Family Relationship Centres should improve access to children for men. Some women are not paid any child support nor do they receive any help from their partners and some have been abused.

The right treatment for the right situation is the goal.

Gosh some of the responses are pretty hate filled on this forum.

So instead of turning it into a gender war,
pelican, Sunday, 3 February 2008 6:44:15 PM

"Under the leadership of the Pankhursts, the movement had taken on a broader and more radical scope -- the call for equality had taken on the look, the feel, and the design of a “sex war”" "White Feather" Feminism:

TOO Late, Pelican it was made a 'gender war' long before any of us were born.

I find it interesting in that you label this forum as "hate filled" when much worse is spoken and written about men in all forms of the media.

All I can say is thank god for the internet or else we would be only reading what the media wanted us to read or hear about.

Fractelle, women were never helpless, especially when I read about the suffragettes.

Mark thank you for the courtesy with which you responded to my post - although we disagree completely at least you write with consideration and thought.

Mark, your own research is telling you something, but because you see women in the traditional role of mother you are failing to understand. As you said yourself; the more educated women are having less children. Feminism has always been about choices it is not anti-motherhood – an oxymoronic claim to say the least. Not all men wish to be fathers and not all women want children, or even to be married. In the past women were not educated, could not enter the variety of careers open to them now – had little choice but to marry and be dependent on her husband, or if she didn’t marry remain dependent on the largesse of her biological family.

At a time when we are questioning sustainable living, when the human population is reaching, or has reached what this planet can support, women are having less children. You seem to think this is a bad thing.

The education and empowerment of women is vital in reducing poverty and overpopulation. The health and size of the population is related to our behaviour and, in particular, the behaviour of women. Knowledge and skills will enable women to find work and earn money. Economically independent women tend to have fewer children, and these children are inclined to be healthier and better educated.

And this is good for all – sustainable population, healthy children and men and women both contributing towards a liveable society.

It’s about working together, not about one partner in a relationship having complete dominance over another. Clearly there are men who understand this and have posted their thoughts here.

What is the problem with men and women having equal rights and responsibilities? This empowers both genders.

Fractelle, a brief response:

Those educated women aren't choosing to be childless. Many suffer tremendous grief at how their lives turn out. And Western societies don't need a lower fertility rate - it's already below replacement level.

Fractelle

‘What is the problem with men and women having equal rights and responsibilities?’

Some thoughts on this …

There is a derogatory saying that goes: If you help the poor you’re a saint. If you question poverty, you’re a communist.

One could also say: If you believe that women should be equal to men, you’re a saint. If you question why women are not equal to men, you’re a feminist.

Feminists are feared and hated – particularly among the politically conservative – not because they advocate equality between the genders, but because they seek to change the existing social order in order to make that happen. For this reason, feminists are singled out for ongoing vitriol, similarly to trade unions; environmentalists; gay rights groups; anti-racist and indigenous rights groups, and liberal education/child-rearing advocates.

However, none of these groups receive anything like the level of vitriol or illogical hatred directed at feminism (except perhaps gay rights groups). This is most likely because gender politics are bound up with the emotional minefields of marriage, family, fertility, divorce, traditional male supremacy and … that most dangerous minefield of all – sex.

Fractelle

'All the bombast about “feminazis” is an attempt to take away from women their right to own their struggle for equality. Maybe because feminism is about equality for women, such a male-centric view of the world as is demonstrated on these pages, men feel left out of the equation. It’s not all about you boys.'

All the bombast about "misogynists" is an attempt to take away men their right to question whether women already have equality. Maybe if feminism itself practised some form of equality, rather than a female-centric view of the world, men would consider feminism had something to do with true equality. It's not all about you girls. Men exist in the world whether you like it or not.

'Why is it always assumed that when women struggle for the same rights that men have had for millennia that women must, therefore, hate men?'

Why is it always assumed that women do not now have the same rights as men, and that when men struggle for the same rights as women in say, the area of family law for example, they must be misogynist?

'It is a shame that the word “feminist” has been poisoned to the level where women I know will preface a comment like “I’m not a feminist but…'

Perhaps it is. Feminism has acheived some good things. But Feminists are responsible for the poisoning of the word feminism.

The language of feminism is one that dispises men. Regardless of the propaganda, I refuse to accept women are in no way responsible for the structure of society, or that men born post feminism need to be continually castigated for a world they had no hand in shaping.

It's pure propaganda to espouse as many feminists do that ALL women were helpless, dependent, and submissive, and ALL men were abusers and the holders of power within relationships.

I cant understand women born post feminism who somehow holds a massive chip on her shoulder while living in a society where women have the same rights as men and probably more choices.

Mark Richardson

You cite the example of the NOW response to the US Society for Reproductive Medicine as something irresponsible, even dangerous.

Yet, a poster that blares out the message: ‘Advancing age decreases your ability to have children’ is equally irresponsible in spreading fear and misinformation. NOW was well within its rights to object to it. (A Google search found no news items whatever to indicate that the NOW response caused the campaign to be withdrawn. As with all campaigns, the money probably just ran out.)

The ASRM campaign would have acted far more responsibly if they had used wording that put their claims into perspective and that applied equally to both genders (after all, infertility rates apply equally to men). At all ages, the overall rate of infertility is still very small. All the horror infertility stories directed overwhelmingly at women hopelessly distort this reality.

Advancing age does not ‘decrease your ability’ to have children. A woman’s body carries about 50,000 eggs at age 25 and 15,000 at age 47, but she only needs ONE of these eggs to be fertilised in order to conceive. Her 'ability' to have children is not changed – only the mathematical probability.

Whereas the statistical percentage of infertility increases with age, this is mostly in relation to the rest of the age group. Because far more women are getting pregnant for the first time at age 25 than at age 40, an infertile 25-year-old woman lies within, say, a 5 percentile of her age group getting pregnant; however, an infertile 40-year-old is more likely to be within, say, a 20 percentile of her age group getting pregnant.

Also, what never gets factored into these fertility scare campaigns is that, by the age of 40, when age starts to become significant to fertility, the overwhelming majority of women have already made up their minds, one way or another, about having children - so beating up feminists over the issue is irrelevant.

Mark fills up blogsites with material supporting his view that a 40/50's family of working father/stay at home mother with kids is an ideal we should somehow transport society back to. Feminisim is seen as the destroyer of traditional family values and the mechanisim by which left agendas are foisted upon the population. Mark and his cohort seem to discount the massive change in the social order of Australia and most Western countries that occured during the sixties and seventies when working/lower middle class families decided that their daughters were worthy of a tertiary education. I believe the success of Feminism as a social movement was premised on this move by a huge mass of young women into further education. From the basis of an equal education issues such as equal pay became a natural progression. Mark avoids any discussion of class in his analysis. What were the old working class still has pockets of single salary families-these are the people forced to the outer suburbs were every blip upwards in interest rates threatens their very existence. Families made up of professionally qualified people with or without children are in a much advantaged position and are able to afford high cost inner city and middle ring suburbs with high levels of transport, services, high performing schools,etc. There are a few examples of single income families in this group but here you are usually talking about people with very high incomes $250k+.

Mark the world has moved on- I doubt very much that anyone accepts the idea that women should not have the opportunity for a teriary education and the career opportunities that makes available. As a male who has been married for 24 years to a highly educated professional who works full time and earns as much as me, I can say that Feminism has not failed but has created the opportunity for us to live equal and complimentary lives as partners and parents. Yes we are parents of two teenagers who are confident,socially and academically successful and have the benefit of seeing a loving, equal realtionship every day.

Mark

An observation or two:

1. The complete absence of women posting here who hold feminism to blame for not finding the right mate with whom to have children in time for the deadline of their biological clocks.

and conversely,

2. The barrage of (the usual) bitter men who regularly pour forth their bile on anything "tainted" by the feminist cause.

Johnny Rotten,

'The complete absence of women posting here who hold feminism to blame for not finding the right mate with whom to have children in time for the deadline of their biological clocks.'

True, though I would say feminism is a sacred cow. And I wouldn't think this forum would be representative of the community. I suppose if you believed something freed you from oppression, but gave you some bad side effects you would think it unfair to whinge about it. That's why it's rare for any woman to see anything at all negative about feminism. I agree it has created great good, but am not blind to the side effects. Anyway I wouldn' think people are 'blaming' feminism, just accepting limitations in certain areas of women's lives.

'The barrage of (the usual) bitter men who regularly pour forth their bile on anything "tainted" by the feminist cause'

Yeah, well, just because someone doesn't agree... I think that's a bit harsh really. As above, pity those who attempt to critisise the sacred cow. I don't subscribe to the commonly held belief that the antonym of feminism is misogyny.

"I don't subscribe to the commonly held belief that the antonym of feminism is misogyny."

Neither do I whitty, believe it or not, and I wholeheartedly agree with everything in your last post.

After the many posts I directed toward HRS, it was only in the last one I called him a misogynist, and I think the reasoning I put forth in that particular post as to why, is sound.

And it's not because he's just critical of feminists.
I accept that there are issues with feminism, I really do.
What bothers me, is this absolute refusal to countenance anything that feminists have to say.
When it's combined with tactics like blowing things out of proportion and equating an insult to a particular individual as representative of a 'feminist attitude toward men' it really looks very weak.

Regrettably, those criticising feminism who actually are misogynists make it hard for the more reasonable people to be taken seriously.

The problem I have, is that there are many disgruntled men, who instead of genuinely addressing the sections of feminism that are at fault, prefer to pretend the entire philosophy is to be attacked. Because pretty much all sensible women believe in equal rights for their gender, it's only a quick jump from this attitude, to a hatred of women in general.

But yes, I concur that there are plenty of problems with feminism, though I don't think any of the articles I've seen on OLO are representative of this alleged misandry that lurks in the feminist psyche.

Whitty,

”.... though I would say feminism is a sacred cow.”

Disagree, plenty of women disagree with each other on these forums, EG abortion, religion, politics, economics. And many women would not describe themselves as feminists, however, majority of reasonable women believe in equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities - which is the foundation for feminism.

“ And I wouldn't think this forum would be representative of the community.”

I agree, however, as I noted above plenty of women on these forums do disagree with each other. And the fact is not a single woman has posted agreeing with Mark.

“I suppose if you believed something freed you from oppression, but gave you some bad side effects you would think it unfair to whinge about it. That's why it's rare for any woman to see anything at all negative about feminism.”

As Fractelle has stated many women don’t like to describe themselves as feminists (because of the negative connotations) but still believe in equal rights.

You have attacked feminism in a general sense, rather than on Mark's claim. In addition, the author appears to resent higher education for women – says that is why women aren’t having families – do you agree with him? Guess I am asking you to make a post about the topic. This is the issue I have with the more hostile posts, they’re just attacking feminism and not considering the implications of Mark’s claims.

'The barrage of (the usual) bitter men who regularly pour forth their bile on anything "tainted" by the feminist cause'

”Yeah, well, just because someone doesn't agree... I think that's a bit harsh really.”

You think? With the exception of Mark Richardson most of the “criticism” of feminisn has been very hostile – as if there are no redeeming features of it whatsoever.

At least my post got you to put down something that I can respond to in an intelligent way. Thanks, mate.

And thanks TRTL, always well thought, although I don’t agree with you completely about Whitty’s post.

Everyone believes in equal rights – the rest of us struggle with equal responsibility.

Johnny Rotten,

Just to clarify, I don't see the problem as higher education for women. I do regret that so many uni educated women fail to partner and have children (something like one in three last time I checked the stats), but I don't conclude from this that higher education itself is at fault.

Mark

Why is it so important that more women partner and have children?

As Fractelle pointed out, we need to consider a sustainable population.

Your article is very patronising, as if women can't make up their own minds whether or not they should marry and have kids and whether they can wear the responsibility for their decisions. Women do know that they have a biological clock, yet you persist in blaming a movement that stands for equality of CHOICE, because of individual mistakes a few women have made.

There are more important issues at stake here, like the Family Court catching up with the fact that more men want to be involved in parenting and wish to have greater if not complete custody of their children - BTW political policy is still dominated by males - ironic that so many fathers feel so dispossessed when the law makers are still mostly men. I apologise for going off on a tangent here, but I want to make the point that while far from perfect, feminism is not to blame for every injustice suffered by men.

I conclude that your article, Mark, is just another (thinly veiled) attempt to knock feminism. Healthy well loved children is what our goals should be and I believe both men and women hold the same ideals.

Johnny Rotten, I avoided this debate because I thought the article that sparked it was neither interesting, intelligent (really, Marie Claire? As a source?) or insightful. Women alone and women and men together have been having these debates for some time now and at a far more sophisticated level than this.

However, I just wanted to say that your posts have been exemplars of common sense, brainyness and native wit. Cheers from this chick.

You too TRTL. As always.

"There are more important issues at stake here, like the Family Court catching up with the fact that more men want to be involved in parenting and wish to have greater if not complete custody of their children - BTW political policy is still dominated by males - ironic that so many fathers feel so dispossessed when the law makers are still mostly men. I apologise for going off on a tangent here, but I want to make the point that while far from perfect, feminism is not to blame for every injustice suffered by men.

I conclude that your article, Mark, is just another (thinly veiled) attempt to knock feminism. Healthy well loved children is what our goals should be and I believe both men and women hold the same ideals."
Posted by Johnny Rotten, Thursday, 7 February 2008 9:54:09 AM

The law makers maybe mostly men Johnny, how ever law makers can be manipulated. I read somewhere where one of the feminist activists, instead of going straight to top, actually targetted the advisors of the lawmakers, with good effect.

Lenore Weitzman published research which had an enormous influence on Family Law and this research was later found to be extremely faulty.
http://www.acbr.com/biglie.htm

See also
Manufacturing Research
http://web.archive.org/web/20050313222440/http://www.nojustice.info/Research/ManufacturingResearch.htm

and "Perceptions are not Facts"
same website.

Johnny rotten you are right to say that not all injustices experienced by men were created by feminist activists, however feminist activists use words like 'social justice' and 'human rights' when arguing for women, yet fail to take into consideration on how their proposals may create social injustice and breech human rights consideration for the other half of society.

If Marie Claire won't do, then how about Vivian Gornick, a lifelong American feminist:

"Who could ever have dreamed there would be so many of us floating around, those of us between thirty-five and fifty-five who live alone. Thirty years of politics in the street opened a door that became a floodgate, and we have poured through in our monumental numbers, in possession of the most educated discontent in history.

Yet, we seem puzzled, most of us, about how we got here, confused and wanting relief from the condition. We roam the crowded streets, in naked expectation of a last-minute reprieve."

In tracing this fate, Gornick recalls the time that she,

"discovered the promise of revolutionary feminism; and then the loneliness that came with what I took to be independence – turning it quickly into a political position ..."

She filled the gap in her personal life with work:

"Work … had come to seem everything. Loving a man, I had decided, would never again be uppermost in my concerns."

The effort failed:

"The only important thing, I told myself (again), was work … If I worked, I’d have what I needed ... What would it matter then that I was giving up on “love”?

As it turned out, it mattered ... As the years went on, I saw that romantic love was injected like dye into the nervous system of my emotions, laced through the entire fabric of longing, fantasy and sentiment ... "

As for autonomy and choices:

"what I was calling my “choices” weren’t really choices at all, they were simply the impulses of a conflicted being: one of them had to be acted upon. And thus, more often than not, after I had “chosen” I’d end up feeling stranded, confused and disappointed; surprised it was turning out this way; and as shut up inside myself as before – neither free nor independent. Ah, there was the rub. Not independent."

http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2006/09/silent-apartment.html

Cheers Vanilla, JR. Right back atcha.

All those comments, mark, there was nothing stopping that person from finding someone and settling down except themselves.

But that was their choice. They can claim they were duped all they want, but if you don't have the conviction to go for what you want, well, that's your fault and nobody elses.
If you haven't got the choice to pursue a career however, well, you haven't got the choice. Better to have the opportunity to make the wrong choice, than not have the option at all.

That pretty much sums it up.

Feminist Rosie Boycott realises her type harmed men, but she doesn't care
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=512550&in_page_id=1879

"For the feminist movement, this is not the sort of victory we envisaged at all."

On another blog is how marriage has become a lose/lose proposition for men.
http://loseloseprospect.blogspot.com/

Sam DeBrito in All men are liars blog wrote;

"It doesn't take a genius to work out that a woman who is judgmental, critical and whining whilst single - and has a whole planet-worth of men to castigate - is probably gonna to radically focus her displeasure when she has one localised, all-too-flawed husband to concentrate on.

And you've had no takers for the position, Laura? Wonders never cease."

So the lack of suitable male partners seems to be a world wide phenomenon.

Vanilla, TRTL

I feel all warm 'n fuzzy

Have a great weekend

JR

JamesH “So the lack of suitable male partners seems to be a world wide phenomenon.”

I can give some insight into this

Being in my 50’s and noting the original article was talking about a lady who was 45 and a man who was 50.

My observation of the relationship between men and women is this

In ones 20’s women have the “power” in the relationship. They have the focus to marry and have kids (their hormones) and men are basically driven by testosterone (their hormones).

Somewhere in midlife (maybe the cause of the crises) the power balance shifts to neutral.

By my age that power-shift has continued. The remaining men (those who have not expired along the way) definitely have the “power”. The pattern of life has been bred into us, women still seeking, in general as they did when 20, with older men and vise-versa.

When I see TV shows on how Hugh Heffner lives, I realize no woman could ever aspire to an equivalent public life style.

Being an older bloke, the choice is for any number of younger women. Although I have one girl friend in her 50’s who has a boyfriend in his 40’s, she is an exception in terms of attitude, appearance and libido. The average older woman is likely to find the choice of available older blokes dying off in front of her.

James,

'Feminist Rosie Boycott realises her type harmed men, but she doesn't care '

I wouldn't say she doesn't care. It is perhaps a better article than this one on OLO though.

A few points resonate..

'It seemed to me that to feminise society in this way must be to the greater benefit of all. But was it? '
I think society encourages traditional feminine traits on men and discourages traditional masculine traits. Maybe some men enjoy being able to express their feminine side, but for each of these men there is a man who is castigated just for being himself. The messages are to express your feelings in a feminine rather than masculine way, so women may find it easier to relate. To indulge your vanity in a similar way to women (i.e. clothes and cosmetics) rather than traditional male vanity of who is the toughest. Even smacking children (I think little boys are more equipped to understand the language of violence than a verbal dressing down) is outlawed.

Further she states...

'A man who stays home and keeps house, who brings up the children ... lives off his wife's money, is seen in our judgmental times as a loser - not as a pioneer of a new way of living.

'Most people believe that blokes who 'work in the home' have only ended up there because they've been fired or can't get a good (ie high-paying) job'

I would also add that most women get first dibs on staying at home with the children, even after the first year. It's only if the women CHOOSES to go back to work, the man may get some choice to spend time at home if financially possible. In this women have a lot more choice than men. Good on them though, they fought for it.

As I said before, a side effect of feminism has been the down-grading of the value of raising children. I would love to see the resources spent on propping up childcare used to afford couples a chance to share the job rather than outsourcing.

Johny Rotten,
As a loving feminist who likes to get a warm and fuzzy feeling, I surprissed you didn't call Mark a "tosser" in your last post, as you did call him a "tosser" twice in your previous posts.

So as a nonabusive and loving feminist, why didn't you call Mark a "tosser" for the third time.

Surely giving abuse to a male gives a feminist a warm and fuzzy feeling.

Whitty – not sure what your point is? I’m sure we can all find all kinds of quotes to back whatever we are saying.

As for maternity leave:

1. The number one reason why most women take the leave rather than the man is purely an a house hold economic decision because in Australia men still, on both average and median income, even amongst CEO’s, earn much, much more than women.

2. The reason why so many women delay returning to work is the cost of childcare and loss of family payments that make working more expensive than not.

3. For the 13 weeks paid leave for Comm. Pub. Servants, (some of the few that have access to it) the Act dictates that this must be taken by the women who gave birth and cannot be pro-rated with a man even if he works in the same department.

4. We are still only one of 2 OECD nations, (the developed world) that does not have a paid parental leave scheme for all parents. The USA is the only other one.

Feminism has never downgraded the value of child raising. As per my earlier post, feminism has argued for choice. Some women prefer paid work some prefer to child raise – just like some men prefer paid work and some to child raise. Feminism has argued for these family choices to be respected and facilitated.

James your second link is to a nut-job women hating site. Though if this is true about the law in terms of domestic violence, I wouldn't want to live in the US...

'"Must Arrest” laws require police to make an arrest, regardless of the officer's judgment. "Primary aggressor" laws pre-dispose police toward arresting men rather than women, regardless of the truth of an event. "No drop prosecution" policies pressure prosecutors to pursue a criminal conviction, even when they would otherwise drop charges. America's Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) effectively denies the existence of abuse against men,.'

I fear the 'To Violence against Women, Australia says no' adverts may mean we are heading down this path.

It also stated a women can get a restraining order because she 'feels threatened', but I doubt that to be true.

Billy C,

'not sure what your point is?'
I was discussing an article that James posted. Why is what you're saying more valid than what I say? You seem pretty arrogant to me.

In the US 40% of couples the women earns more than the man. I cant imagine all those men are at home while the wife works. Also I'm not talking about maternity leave, I even stated 'even after the first year'.

I would be interested to see wage figures that compare men vs women in the same job working full time too. Can it not be that women are more often working part time because they wish to be at home part time with the children. You seem to think decsisions like this are based solely on financial considerations and social expectations will have no bearing.

I never said 'Feminism has downgraded the value of child raising', I said 'the effect of feminism' (women entering the workforce) ie feminism has had this effect not that feminists have pushed for this.

'feminism has argued for choice' Yes. For women. Good on them as I said. I don't see what is wrong in arguing for choice for men also. Again any discussion of men at a disadvantage to women is threatening.

Whitty – which state has the VAWA? Changing the culture of violence against women is difficult task.

I am still not sure what your point was.

After the first year of care it is still maternity (parental) leave – as it is still leave to care for a child. As for the USA stats – in country where it takes three minimum wage jobs to pay rent, food and raise a child – I can see how easily it would be for 40% of women to earn more than men – they are statistically the ones with the three jobs rather than the two, (and taken on to cover the costs of children).

The same job for dollar figures are available through the ACTU and I believe that Stats has recently put some figures together. No – it is not because more women are working part time as the figures are based on full time work. Graduate full time employment salaries clearly show the picture as do the recent CEO salary stats.

I disagree with you that the effect of feminism has been to downgrade child raising. For example feminists have pushed for single parent pension, (previously widows pension), to allow women to raise their own children if that was there choice rather than being forced to work and earn money to have custody. This was the case until the 1960’s that if a woman wished to raise her own children she had to prove an income equal average weekly man’s earnings, (difficult when women only leagally able to earn a third of this) in custody disputes – as in the Australian novel and film “Caddy”. Many women of this time stayed in violent relationships for fear of losing their children

Re: discussion -Threatening to who?

It's not enough to say that the women who missed out could have chosen differently and therefore it's their own fault.

This is expecting women to choose irrationally. All their lives these women were told that autonomy was the highest value; it was drummed into them at school, on TV, in magazines and in films. If it's true that autonomy is the highest value, then they acted rationally and morally in deferring commitments to family life and to motherhood.

I suspect that what some people are really saying is that these women should have held to autonomy as the highest good as a public orthodoxy, but then pragmatically acted otherwise in terms of their own private lives.

But even this is problematic. It's not easy to insulate choices in your private life from what you accept as a public orthodoxy, particularly when feminists insisted so often that the personal is the political.

What feminists needed to do was to accept that marriage and children are vitally important to most women and that autonomy is therefore not always the sole organising principle of society.

'Whitty – which state has the VAWA?'

I don't know. Perhaps you can read the article yourself as you seem keen to comment on my comments of it.

'Changing the culture of violence against women is difficult task.'
Yes it is. But I don't think violence against men should be ignored. Or that it is necessary to erode the rights of men to the point they are guilty until proven innocent to change this supposed culture, if the article is accurate. Your attitude seems to be who cares, women should be protected at any price to men. This isn’t equality.

'I am still not sure what your point was. '
Maybe your comprehension skills are lacking then. Or you are just trying to wind me up. I'm not sure what your point is.

'I’m sure we can all find all kinds of quotes to back whatever we are saying'. I haven’t attempted to find quotes to back my opinion, all I have done is comment on an article James posted.

'After the first year of care it is still maternity (parental) leave'
Yes, but most government payments are considering the first year, and the justifications of only women getting it for breast feeding/birth reasons evaporate after a year.

I will generously take your word on the stats. God knows why considering your arrogant attitude. I cant see why it would make economic sense to pay men more than women if they were of the same value to a company.

'Many women of this time stayed in violent relationships for fear of losing their children'.
No doubt they did. As I am sure many men in this time stay in emotionally abusive, physically abusive, or loveless marriages for fear of losing access to their children and the home they live in. As I said before, women are protected at any price to men.

You can deny societal pressures and attitudes influence which parent goes to work and which stays home, but I don’t agree

Mark Richardson: "It's not enough to say that the women who missed out could have chosen differently and therefore it's their own fault."

"This is expecting women to choose irrationally."

Couldn't disagree more, and this is among the most paternal things I've ever heard.

Cutting through your language - autonomy has more meanings than you're expressing here.

My suspicion is, that you're referring to autonomy as a person living as a single unit, separated from marriage and the family unit.

Well, that's one interpretation. But before the individual adopts the lifestyle as wife and mother, autonomy has a different meaning.
That is, the freedom to choose what kind of life they want to lead.

In this instance, I think 'autonomy' is the only real option, and anything less is dictating to women how they should live their lives. It seems very ugly to me, and simply a dressed up version of the 1950s ethos that women should be house bound.

If a woman chooses marriage however, then after exercising their autonomy in choosing this, they are becoming part of a cooperative unit. The loss of autonomy cuts both ways, for men as well. It's a dual choice.

Thus, for all the rather patronising language in your last post, it comes back to the fact that its up to the women to choose that lifestyle.

You claim they're bombarded with the imagery associated with being an autonomous person without reliance upon a family unit.

To claim this is the overwhelming influence seems exceedingly shortsighted to me, given that our culture still has traditional aspects that places a premium on the family unit.
The image and message of the housewife mother, who is a skilled cook and devoted carer of children still permeates much of society, and I know women who have been left feeling inadequate because they can't cook a roast.

For all the perception that career is paramount, the opposite perception exists as well - the family priority.

So it's not an 'irrational' choice at all. It's just a choice that women are quite capable of making for themselves.

TRTL: ‘Mark Richardson: "It's not enough to say that the women who missed out could have chosen differently and therefore it's their own fault."
"This is expecting women to choose irrationally."
Couldn't disagree more, and this is among the most paternal things I've ever heard.’

Then follows one of the more nonsensical circular rants lately attempted on OLO. Not only does “TurnRightThenLeft“ unknowingly zigzag around Mark’s point, but is simultaneously and blissfully unaware that rather than just turning right then left, is actually traversing clockwise, then anti-clockwise.

TRTL would have us believe that men saying “we do not expect women to choose irrationally”, are being paternalistic, and feminists saying the same thing, are, well, feminists. No doubt, this is an important distinction. Moreover “So it's not an 'irrational' choice at all. It's just a choice that women are quite capable of making for themselves”. Hooah!

Actually seeker, I don't recall making any distinction between genders. You're making a gender distinction here that doesn't exist.

I'm just saying that denying women choice under the guise of looking after them is paternalistic and that once you strip away the condescending language, that's all Richardson's piece amounts to.

I never said I expect people to choose anything. There's a remarkably high number of dumb people in both genders. My point is that anyone should be free to make these dumb decisions, male or female, and if the silly woman in this article made those decisions it was her choice.

At the end of the day, I think blaming it on feminism is just plain weak. I'd be royally pissed off if people tried to deny me information simply because they didn't think I had the maturity to use it properly. I'm well aware that much of the information is flawed, but it's my choice to pick what's best for me and nobody elses.

That's paternalism and I don't give a damn what gender the proponent is.