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.