Sometime during my first job a middle-aged female employee told me that the men there support each other while the women don’t.

From then on I have always wondered if the failure of women to get real equality was due to their own efforts. If women are portrayed as being emotional and helpless in the movies, and growing boys watch those movies, then why do actresses play those parts?

Avast there me hearties! There be a sh!tstorm a'comin'!

Indeed Vanilla. Now wait and watch as the slighted man-brigade comes crawling out from the shadows.

I can support remedying cases of injustice against men, but when they criticise any women's fight for equality - which, outlined in these stats, is still a battle worth waging - then they lose any sympathy from me.

I'm somewhat curious to see what tactics they deploy this time.

well ladies here is the storm! Shame she isn't honest.

Kellie Tranter wrote;

"In 1908 15,000 women marched through New York City demanding shorter hours, better pay and voting rights."

The Green fields of France"

"The thing I didn't realise until very recently was that he, and the men who died in his trench, and most of the other 420,000 British casualties, couldn't even vote. Most of the men - British anyway - who fought in WWI didn't even have the right to vote. Did you know that?It doesn't seem to get mentioned very often. The only gender issue we remember from that time, a time when men were being exterminated by the million, is that women couldn't vote.
"
http://hereticalsex.blogspot.com/2006/06/green-fields-of-france.html

"women do more than twice as many hours of unpaid domestic work than men, provide the most unpaid childcare and family care, and do more voluntary work;"

In todays newspaper is an article "Unequal pay claim attacked"

"What Jobs Pay, said official figures showed men also got more pay because they generally worked longer hours than women.

"The women's movement continues to argue about innate discrimination against females but they don't want to look at the composition of occupations and the nature of the work done," he said."

Kellie you say you want a fair go, yet the picture you present is distorted by misinformation.

The factual truth maybe unpalatable but distorting facts is not about equality or having a fair go.

Danielle in another post, wrote "The “correct” questions on a survey could provide evidence that 90% of elderly men in aged care, and indeed not computer literate, were indulging in internet porn."

I'm waiting for the celebrators of International Women's Day to call for more celebration of International Men's Day (on November the 19th).

There are schools that give a flower or badge to every girl in the school on International Women's Day, with all the girls being given talks by various guest speakers, but I know of not one school that celebrates International Men's Day.

It wouldn't be saying much to the boys at the schools, and it wouldn't be suggesting to the girls at the schools that they should consider themselves equal, and not more equal than equal.

:D Vanilla - Oh dear here we go again brace yourself for the onslaught.

This is a well written and balanced article, but someone will find a way to completely ignore the inherent meaning and the old 'demonising men' argument will be dusted off out of the closet for another airing.

Kellie Tranter let me present you with a WHITE FEATHER!

White Feather Feminism
http://itech.fgcu.edu/&/issues/vol1/issue1/feather.htm

The order of the White FEather
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWfeather.htm

War: One of the Bad Things that Women do to Men
http://hereticalsex.blogspot.com/2006/07/war-one-of-bad-things-that-women-do-to.html

Kellie wrote;
women do more than twice as many hours of unpaid domestic work than men, provide the most unpaid childcare and family care, and do more voluntary work;

Glenn Sacks;

"Warner, Hirshman, and other feminist critics compare the work men and women do at home but fail to properly account for their disparate obligations outside the home. Census data shows that only 40% of married women with children under 18 work full-time, and over a quarter do not hold a job outside the home.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ 2004 Time Use Survey, men spend one and a half times as many hours working as women do, and full-time employed men still work significantly more hours than full-time employed women."
http://www.glennsacks.com/are_american_husbands.htm

Ladies, you quite rightly object strongly about sexism and misogyny, so why the double standard when us blokes object?

Is not deliberate distortion and misrepresentation SEXISM? or is it only sexism when men do it?

Members of your gender often claim that us blokes do not listen, yet when valid concerns and objections are raised it is you who close their ears.

"Many women, particularly young women, shudder at being labelled a feminist and are reluctant to speak or act."

Why is this? Why can't women stand together on this and wear this badge proudly?

It seems that many have been cowered by the ongoing and concerted campaign to paint all feminists as militant man hating, bra-burning zealots.

I like the statement of Rebecca West's. I wish all women today would clearly "express sentiment" to "differentiate" themselves from the role of "door mat" or "prostitute". If the situation today hasn't much changed from 1913 and I don't think it has there would be an avalanche of feminist accusations and we could all wear them with pride.

We're fighting for equality after all, nothing more and nothing less. We're not a threat to men and the only men who think we are are those who for whatever reason haven't dealt properly with their own insecurities.

Timely article, Kellie, and a good one. I agree with Vanilla though that it will be a red rag for the usual suspects here. I can just see them trawling through their trusted hoard of statistics looking for rotten tomatoes to hurl at those pesky feminists!

‘....storm a comin’, ‘crawling out from the shadows’. ‘out of the closet’ OMG the death of free speech
Just shut up & don’t dare to dissagree because any diverging view is s..t & that person hides in the shadows & can only crawl like some animal…..terrible.

Women want same rights not special rights pleeeese

Like same pay for less work [tennis]
Perhaps all kind of help & funding from The Dept. of Women & their Minister but No such Dept. or Minister for Men!

Like no ‘special rights’ from massive funding for women only from the sexist Fed. Govt. Dept. for the Status of Women & its Minister yet no such Funding or Dept. or Minister exists for Men & Boys who have their rights to equal representation & be heard trampled on every day.

How about ‘ A Fair Go For Men’ not special rights just equal rights.

Sorry, how dare I even speak eh, don’t worry your safe just crawling back into the shadows so you don’t have to see.

DVD: "OMG the death of free speech
Just shut up & don’t dare to dissagree because any diverging view is s..t & that person hides in the shadows & can only crawl like some animal…..terrible."

Interesting. So just to clarify, you class some bad jokes and a couple of disparaging comments as the "death of free speech". (Rather than, say, an *actual* constraint on free speech, like a forum where bad jokes and disparaging comments would be deleted.) However, you obviously don't include yourself in this classification, and your post demonstrates you're happy to make bad jokes and disparaging comments *without* this being an infringement on others' right to free speech. So basically, your opponents shouldn't be allowed to poke fun at you, but you should be able to poke fun at them, or to put it another way, you can dish it out, but you can't take it.

Oh, that's right, and you think *women* want special rights.

Peace, love and warm girly cuddle to you DVD.

The arguement about stalling womens' salaries/advancement I believe is more complicated than what the author presents. In the real world of couples with and without children I see amongst friends a whole range of reasons as to why women may not advance to the highest paying echelons. Many women and some men with children will gravitate towards professions with child friendly hours -this is obvious in many areas which are almost employment ghettos of middle aged parents-most middle aged teachers have kids for example. Most principals however are men however usually with kids and a partner in a less demanding job. Most families end up with mothers taking more time out of their careers for raising children-this is fact. Women are then less likely to catch up. Very few couples with kids have both partners in the most demanding and high paying roles-it does happen but is really rare. Many people in the forties/fifties are looking to scale back on work and careers and this leaves the truely driven often men, who end up earning the highest salaries.

There once was a MAN who was well thought of, top of his class and paid among the highest salaries in the land.

One day he invented a new robot that would grow up, consume food and petrol for energy, drive cars and machinery and emit wastes like people do.

Well the Rudd government loved him and subsidised more ABR care centres for robots. Rudd rubbed his hands with glee and said YES more votes for Labor and more importantly more safe GST: The immigrants are getting dodgy a la Wollongong and home grown GST is always best.

The Generals were ecstatic: more soldiers as PEAKOIL2025 approaches. Australia will be the uber nation of the Pacific. No one will mess with us.

Well all was fine till one day all the real people of Australia got sick and tired of all the crap, all the cars, all the competrition and violence these new robots were causing. Worst of all they were so well adapted that they became fat, disrespectful and abusive to all the citizenry.

Then one day a man said lets not pay this robot man as much as the rest of us. Lets make it harder for him and his high carbon footprint robots and their climate changing ways. The government can go to hell. We'll just vote them out in three years so don't worry about Rudd. In short lets treat this robot person as a second class citizen, pretend to give him equal rights and treat him like dirt.

Well upon hearing word of this movement the man turned all his robots into beautiful women to compensate for the malfeasance that had been inflicted on him.

Continued..

Continuing..

In the meantime everything went back to normal. The robots were even more rude and obnoxious than before. Men even opened doors for them but NEVER, NEVER treated them as equals, only with the respect that you would show any pest like a crocodile or a heather-mill. For they knew these robots with their selfish multiple breeding ways would spell the end of Australia, environmentally, socially and culturally. We were all going to die as sure as interest rates rose. But we accepted our fate knowing it would be amongst such beauty, such unfulfilled concupiscence. And the smells of our sewers as they poisoned the oceans and changed the climate would be oh so redolent of perfume and lipstick and sanitary pads.

But hark! A late revival ....

Someone suggested all robot makers only make ONE robot per maker because of PEAKOIL, OVERPOPULATION of the planet and looming wars for SHORT SUPPLY. Could it be? Could robot makers and robot women actually play their part in securing all our futures. Could they at last be safely treated with respect and treated as equals with equal pay?

Only time will tell.

Browyn,
I understand that quite a few feminist won't acknowledge International Men's Day (being believers in equality and non-haters of men and all that), so I'm wondering what you did to celebrate International Men's Day last year?

pdev: "The arguement about stalling womens' salaries/advancement I believe is more complicated than what the author presents. "

That pretty much sums it up. I did some analysis of the ABS census data linked to in the article. On average the working female's gross earnings were about 65% of the males. That seems quite significant until you break it down using the other data available. Once you normalise the earnings for hours worked (22%), industry participation (5%), occupation/position (6%) and experience (using age, 1.5%) you get numbers that suggest pay ratios much closer to 1 than the article suggests.

There are additional factors that could be considered as well:

such as the gender effect on career ambitions. Looking at the typical child bearing ages, 80% of unemployed men were seeking full time work (vs part time) yet only 50% of unemployed women were seeking full time work. This demonstrates that men will, on average, have a stronger commitment to their career which will lead to greater achievement and hence higher earning. It also demonstrates that this difference is the result of the women's goals rather than sexist restrictions by the employer.

Incidentally men spend on average 8 hours more at work than women while only doing an average 6 hours less housework, who's working harder again?

"anywhere from 40 to 57 per cent of Australian women will experience physical or sexual violence at some point in their lives."

The last figures I've seen suggest that men are much more likely to experience violence than women.

HRS. What was your experience of "Mens Day", and how many turned up!

Vanilla, Pelican et al.

Waddya think of the "Woman-as-robot" analogy?

I reckon its worth at least a 6. If not for originality then at least as a change from the statutory i-have-never-seen-a-woman-with-a-black-eye/as-Daphne-(or dear-maggie)-says and dodgy statistics?

And oooh, the wealth of Freudian connotations therein!

- women do more than twice as many hours of unpaid domestic work than men, provide the most unpaid childcare and family care, and do more voluntary work;

See http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Previousproducts/B2EDB0EA36DE7402CA2570EC000CBB46?opendocument for a discussion of this.

- anywhere from 40 to 57 per cent of Australian women will experience physical or sexual violence at some point in their lives. Staggering statistics when we consider that Australia’s population is now more than 21 million;

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/4B2A703C9CB10C90CA25732C00207D2C?opendocument "In 2005, 11% of men and 6% of women aged 18 years and over reported at least one experience of violence during the last 12 months."

- Australia and the US remain the only OECD countries without publicly funded maternity leave;

WHy maternity leave rather than parenting leave?

- women hold just 7 per cent of the top earner positions (80 positions out of total of 1,136);

Some discussion of changes to income and factors at http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Previousproducts/1B800D50E9945B6BCA2570EC000CBB42?opendocument
"In 1982, 8% of all women were in the highest income quintile, compared with 11% in 1999-2000."

The points in the authors bullet points are not specifically covered but it's clear that the major factor in the difference between mens and womens income is workforce participation. Not the only factor but significant.

I'm wondering if those who applauded this article did so mainly because of the expected reaction froom James, HRS and others rather than because of any real feeling that the article provided a legitimate represention of the issues.

The author is using part of the detail to paint a misleading picture. We give Boazy curry for doing it about muslims, why congratulate this author for trying to mislead by presenting selective information here?

There are areas where women still don't get a fair go but this type of distortion may be one of the reasons why "Many women, particularly young women, shudder at being labelled a feminist and are reluctant to speak or act.". It's spin designed to misrepresent, who can blame many women for not wanting to be identified with this stuff.

R0bert

This was an interesting article.

Kellie says on 7 per cent of top earners are women.

International Women's Day has got me thinking about empowerment.

We live in an hierarchical society. Because this hierarchy is seen as natural, most view empowerment as “moving up” in society.

However, because these differences in society are systemic, achieving a position of power is actually disempowering. It reinforces the present hierarchy and thus keeps the majority of people “in their place”.

The empowerment of the few is at the expense of the empowerment of the many.

Maybe the way to fight for an end to women's oppression is to fight for an end to the economic system that created it in its present form. That would mean a return to the fighting ideas and struggles of the women's liberation movement of the 60s and 70s.

The strikes that heralded international women's day seem a first good step. My memory, and I stand to be corrected because I am getting vague in my old age, is that it was the socialist Clara Zetkin who founded IWD as International Working Women's Day. That is a proud heritage lost on the ruling class women of today.

I find the article by Kellie Tranter interesting, however, I would like to make a couple of comments.

“women do more than twice as many hours of unpaid domestic work than men, provide the most unpaid childcare and family care, and do more voluntary work.”

I was an active feminist in the 70’s and still support the right that a woman, holding the same position as a man, should have equal pay, and equality of advancement . I disagreed with feminists when they started to clammer for government pay for domestic work. The idea that some bureaucrat enter my house and do some “quality evaluation” of my house-keeping ... !

It is quite irrelevant in the workplace how much unpaid domestic work women do. This is entirely a matter within the family unit. If one’s husband keeps dropping his dirty clothes on the ground - throw them all out the window - eventually when he runs out of clean clothes (if not before), he will retrieve them and likely wash them himself.

I held down an executive position for seven years and raised five children, my husband also worked. The idea that the government, or any other body, pay me for domestic work and caring for my children was ridiculous. Indeed, that this should be a consideration in evaluating women’s value in the workplace, indeed, status of women, I find extraordinary.

One prioritizes. Even now, domestic work is not a priority in my life. I return from a walk, wave my hat around madly - I have dusted. A very dear friend, who is extremely houseproud, suggested I keep “get well” cards on my mantle to “explain” (I have been at death’s door) the state of my house - books and other avocational materials are everywhere. Feeling guilty, and the competition of the other “perfect” grandmother, I told my grandchildren I was doing a make-over of my home ... they became distressed ... they love it the way it is.

cont...

For me, personally, I never regarded my position as a career. When I resigned, I was offered top dollar to stay. However, apart from not liking “business culture,” the idea of committing myself to a company, working, and dying there, was too ghastly for words - I moved into a completely different area. I wonder how many women regard their jobs as a lifetime commitment, a career.

I read statistics, albeit some time ago, that more women are self-employed than men. Visiting any major shopping mall, there are possibly more women-owned businesses/boutiques than those owned by men. And many women conduct businesses from home. One of my daughters, a jewellery designer, does so. She decides her own hours.

I would argue with Kellie Tranter about volunteer work. When men retire, they do as much volunteer work as women.

Tranter states:

“There was no industry in which women were more likely than men to be top earners”

Not necessarily. Another daughter is a career -woman. She was head-hunted, negotiated a 5-day fortnight; as she has children, her day ends at 3 pm. Her earnings, pro-rata, are the same as her husband - a medical specialist.

Tranter has made many valid points, however, there are other factors at play:

Many women are self employed; some industries prefer employing female executives than male; some women do not want life-time careers - indeed, will forgo advancement rather than commit themselves. One really has to look at the big picture, seeing what different women expect and want for themselves. I would suggest that women, as a whole, have more diverse ideas about career paths than men. Having said this, I do agree that committed career-women in industry, should have the same opportunties and financial rewards as men.

Tranter states:

“The challenge from here is to make a change, and to do that we need to “unlearn” the emotional, sexual, and psychological stereotyping of women within the home, within business, within government and within our society.”

I applaud whole-heartedly.

Ah Danielle, - your post did us all proud - and made me very ashamed of myself! Well done, you.

Italy's highest appeal court has ruled that married Italian women who commit adultery are entitled to lie about it to protect their honour.

The court gave its landmark ruling after hearing the case of a 48-year-old woman, convicted of giving false testimony to police by denying she had lent her mobile phone to her lover. (from BBC)

GetUp! are running a petition for equal pay. According to them the pay gap between men and women is 16%.

While I agree that this is outrageous and have signed the petition, such an action must be just the first step.

Part of the pay differential comes from the fact that women are concentrated in low paying jobs like teaching, nursing and the lower echelons of the public service and business.

One solution is for the various unions to take industrial action for large real wage increases (say ten per cent per annum) for their members and for more Government spending by taxing the rich and moving priorities from wasted areas like defence and business support to public housing, schools, hospitals and carers.

More pay for more teachers and nurses.

What a mish-mash of propaganda, regurgitated misinformation and ideological claptrap, with a good splash of whinge thrown in for seasoning. Sadly, it's all too typical of the barely-literate rubbish that is churned out of gender-studies and Sociology departments across the world these days, as so-called "academics" do their best to stay on the funding bandwagon.

This has lead to such perversions of academic rigour as Michael Flood (one of the organisers of the so-called "White Ribbon Day") announcing that he is "pro-feminist" on every available document, just in case anyone missed his ticket for the bandwagon and the funding it carries.

Personally, my view is that women are treated more than fairly by our society, certainly with much greater regard than men, and it's about time they stopped whining. Campbell Newman, the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, summed it up in his press conference announcing a plan to provide "men's sheds" in this city. He said:"It is about . . . allowing us to take care of a group that has been neglected, actually, and that is men."

First, I would like to fully commend Danielle’s balanced and wonderful post.

Second, and sadly, to those who claim that women already have equal rights in the workplace or in the hearts of our leaders read the following excerpt:

“Channel Nine's head of news John Westacott has been accused of making offensive and sexist remarks to female journalists in new documents lodged with the Federal Court today.
Westacott is alleged to have told a group of female journalists at a book launch last year that they were hired only for their sex appeal.
"To make it in this industry, you gotta have f---ability. To make it in this game, women have to be f---able," Westacott is alleged to have said.

……Westacott is also alleged to have said that women reporters should do the "soft news" stories and leave the big-hitting reports to their male counterparts.
"Sheilas do health and consumer stories, the second break stuff [after the second advertisement break on commercial television]. You want your blokes, your main guns, doing the real news stories," he is alleged to have said.”

The full article is here http://littlurl.com/rnvgq

- what year is it again, oh yes 2008 not 1808 – but who would guess with attitudes like Westacott’s still prevailing.

Finally, as today is International Women’s Day, I thought this link to the history of universal suffrage of women would be of interest:

In 1911, the first march took place in Austria.

In Australia …”The first Australian IWD rally took place in the Sydney Domain on March 25, 1928. It was organised by the Militant Women's Movement and called for equal pay for equal work; an 8 hour day for shop girls; no piece work; the basic wage for the unemployed and annual holidays on full pay.”

How much has really changed?.... read full text at

http://littlurl.com/qz6ye

BTW the colours for IWD are purple, green and white - I am busy checking my wardrobe to wear clothing to honour my sisters.

Thank you

HRS

"Browyn,
I understand that quite a few feminist won't acknowledge International Men's Day (being believers in equality and non-haters of men and all that), so I'm wondering what you did to celebrate International Men's Day last year?"

I wasn't talking necessarily about celebrating special days, I was talking more about the need for women to exemplify and speak up for feminist ideals in their day-to-day lives. I'm not talking rabid flag-waving stuff just sensible proactive awareness and speaking out when needed.

One of the reasons that many younger women today don't see the need for this ongoing vigilance is that a lot of them don't realise how far women have come and the long and difficult struggle that has been waged by their sisters before them to get to this point. It's the same reason that unionism has been on the wane for some time now. Many people take modern workplace benefits for granted and are only just starting to realize that you have to maintain the fight if you are to protect them.

It's the same with women's issues. It's the same with men's issues. It's not necessarily an either/or struggle but it is an ongoing one.

Romany,

1. "Waddya think of the "Woman-as-robot" analogy?"
It bamboozled and fascinated me. The analogy has gone over my head, I'm still not sure if the author just hates our guts, but I couldn't help but be impressed by the eccentric, poetic beauty of "And the smells of our sewers as they poisoned the oceans and changed the climate would be oh so redolent of perfume and lipstick and sanitary pads."

2. Re Danielle, isn't she amazing? You actually remind me of my mum, Danielle (though you're younger). She has the same attitude to "victim" feminism as you do - it's not that she rejects it so much as she just doesn't get it, because she, herself, is nobody's victim.

However, Fractelle has a good point. The whole Westacott thing was incredibly alarming and totally boring really, I adore the Spitfighter for fighting back, and the only good news is that the whole world seems to be in agreement that he's a boorish old dinosaur. Nevertheless, dinosaurs still apparently roam the hallways of our media outlets, and the sooner we fossilise them, the better. (And the sooner I stop torturing this metaphor, the better.) I know a lot of journos, and the idea that the female ones might be kept off screen because they're weren't f@!kable enough would devastate me in its callous waste of talent. I know one male TV journalist who is certainly no oil painting but has won a Walkley for his excellent reportage.

In my view, the war is won in the Western world, but we haven't quite finished with some of the skirmishes on the side. (When you ask what's changed, Fractelle, I'd say a great deal - we do get holiday pay, we do have an eight-hour day. Or if we don't, it relates to gender-neutral IR issues.) We need to help men with a few of their battles and all.

HRS, what are you doing today to celebrate International Woman's Day?

if you want to understand human society, spend some time in the primate pavilion at the zoo. then marvel when you see any evidence we are more 'humane' than baboons and chimps.

women should keep in mind that they are the human race. they can get along just fine without men, bar an occasional spoonful of semen. even this necessity will soon be removed with effective cloning. just be patient, sisters, and you will see the male half of the population reduced to genetic dinosaurs.

then you can just have girl babies until the 'problem' is gone. it'll probably be a better world, best of luck in running it better than we did.

Danielle: "I read statistics, albeit some time ago, that more women are self-employed than men"

Actually the statistics say that less than a third of owner-run businesses are run by women. That said its roughly the same gender breakdown as the full time work force, so there doesn't appear to be any gender difference when you consider owner to full-time worker ratio.

I agree with most of the rest of your post but this got me thinking:
"I would suggest that women, as a whole, have more diverse ideas about career paths than men. Having said this, I do agree that committed career-women in industry, should have the same opportunities and financial rewards as men."

If feminists are seeking equality, should they be pushing to have women to become as career focused as men, or should they be pushing to have men become more life focused?

It only takes a quick look at the useless female fools that affirmative action has thrown to the top echelon of many public service positions & academia to see the error of this rant.

Try the lemon next time love. They are not quite so Sour.

ALERT: "Women who speak out for equal rights - the same rights, not special rights - are often described as being 'man-haters', or worse."

I think the problem is much much deeper than this, and we have real problems when we do it to ourselves.

Look at this article by Melinda Tankard Reist "Give this ad the boot" on ABC Unleashed.

It is a focus on underlying issues that control and can numb us and;

"Is it any wonder that we see so much angst amongst those on the cusp of adulthood, unable to focus on the real meaning of life?" And,

"There is something wrong with the moral compass of a society which not only ignores, but promotes the degradation of women - and children, as Julie Gale's earlier viewpoint stated."

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2183651.htm#comments

A big reason to pounce!

http://www.miacat.com/
.

Women will have a fair go only in a fair society.Society is unfair not only because of men.Women are equally responsible for the problems in the society.Now both the sexes being employed in all fields women also indulge in all sorts of corrupt and dishonest activities.Dishonest women cannot expect justice from their male counterparts.What I mean here is that unfairness to women is part of the general erosion of social values for which women are equally responsible.Loss of esteem for women in general is perpetuated by the obscene portrayal of women in cinema. Decent women should revolt against those women who come almost naked in movies for earning easy money. After seeing women in movies in such erotic roles youth cannot develop regard for women in general.
V.K.Muthu

This debate generally revolves around women on one side versus men on the other. What conclusion can we draw from that? That much of the debate is simply a reflection of self-interest.

If we were more perspicacious and even-handed we would argue the rights and wrong committed and inflicted upon both men and women.

Nevertheless, I do have empathy for many feminist stances. It actually surprises me that much more is not made of the fact that we men (whether our names be George Bush, Saddam Hussein, Rober Mugabe, John Howard.... the list is very long indeed) are the cause of virtually all those murderous wars - let along the millions of homicides committed by testosterone-charged males on their partners and ex-lovers.

A person can't be blamed for his chemistry, any more than a stag can be blamed for head butting another stag. And, to be sure, women have much to answer for as well. Hard core and subtle examples abound where men suffer prejudice and misunderstanding.

One common news announcement that annoys the hell out of me is the oft-quoted death toll ".... including women and children" - as if the only innocent people who get killed are women and children. I mean, why are not innocent bystanding men who are killed not equally treated as innocent victims?

But rather than become obsessed and self righteous about such examples I prefer to sit in the middle. On balance women are discriminated against much more than we men are. In history and at present.

I would contest that this makes men happier though. Our body chemistry not only causes we men to die younger, it also causes us to do many things such as self-harm, because we simply don't have the support building social skills that are innate to women.

Yes, women suffer ongoing discrimination, but there is no way they would want to live in our skins. Nor am I sure I would want to be a women - fixated, as so many are, on the latest catalogue specials at Myer. Yuck!

There are two sides to every story.

Girls
I have always been a true believer that you are entitled to equal rights, pay and conditions as long as the job you are in has no boundaries between what a man can do and a woman can do.

Lawyers, doctors, solicitors, taxi drivers etc - no worries here.

Manual labour with weight restrictions, packing goods on shelves, lifting cartons of anything - now you have a problem because the law states that women are allowed to lift X and men are allowed to lift Y. Sorry can't have it both ways.

The reality is that we are not equal at everything and that is all there is to it.

If you feminists wish to whip up a storm then knock yourself out but the reality is that there has always been and will always be differences between us and thank god for that I say.

In any case there will always be blokes who want to be women and women who want to be blokes.

I on the other hand will continue to offer protection for my wife and family and I will also continue to open doors for women and be the last to enter/exit the lift if a lady happens to be present.

I don't see this as being better, just respectful.

international womens day...and I will not be joining the celebration...Im sure majority of women and a significant proportion of men supporters wont miss those of us who are not...

and why not celebrate...women have achieved a lot for their lot...statistics are hard to come by but total wealth possession women as a group now exceeds mens...corporate media that works in womens interest...court that does...government that does...and on

there were some real inequities...but since the 'advantaged' or 'first class citizen' status women now enjoy over 'second class' men and children makes a mockery of any past disadvantage...with some real cruelty to boot...

whats wrong is how it was achieved...this article is prime example...each and every statistic quoted is outrageous and now mostly rejected by peer review...does not stop women like in this article abusing it to further benefit women...a lawyer at that who is supposed to be 'officer-of-court' and duty to take 'bona fide position'...nor from 'mass-supporters' misusing key words like 'balanced' to support it...or pre-emptive strike 'slighted man brigade' to prevent criticism by shaming or refusing to acknowledge the deceit...

imagine womenss response to the same article reversed...ie by a man for mens benefit using fudged statistics...bros you will see examples of reasoning logical minds at its best to shoot it down...

bottom line...I think most men have 'woken up'...which is good...and if some one said lets push feminism to its natural end...let women have their own world...except we men wont be a part and we have our own protected one...I got a feeling many men and their children are going to be lining up...

so I suggest we need to start from base eg...'housewife' role should cease...all independent workers...all own their own house...if want children then share the care equally...with current 75% break up of families with father ending up on the street, this way already a good start...ie never live together

Sam

Well said Kellie.
Pretty simple isn't it?
Respect and be nice to each other, equal pay for equal work, equality in the work place,and don't lock up and demonise refugees.
We should try and get this society to the point that all within have a fair chance of developing and reaching their potential.
By the way what is a career?
Careers seem to perform a number of functions. Not all of them nice, some seem unecessarily exclusionist and some quite selfish.
I like to help keep the house clean, the garden neat and hopefully thriving because I happen to live in that space with my wife and kids.
Bruce Haigh

...annnnd..here it comes :)

It’s a bloody disgrace!

Describing the beautiful role of nurturing little defenseless babies in such callous terms as 'unpaid domestic work' is probably one of the most insulting, demeaning, ungodly, manipulative, and destructive attacks on gender equality you can find.

ALL those statistics (relateing to the home) are solved in one sentense:

"Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself up for her"

If we taught that VALUE to our men,.. and re-structured our culture to actually re-inforce it.... there would be probably zero whining, or moaning or claims of unfairness.

PRESUPPOSITION. yes.. there is a HUGE one underlying the statistics provided...and that is 'women and men are the same' but guess what..they aint!

Having raised 3 children, and now blessed with the most beautiful granddaughter in the world, I find the attack on women in those stats most offensive.

I use the term 'attack' because it seems to me that if women are moulded and shaped into 'male clones' and taught that everything a man can do, they should be able to do, denies not only nature and physiology, but God Himself.

Now by this point, the atheists etc have either switched off or are rolling their eyes "Oooohnooooo".. Vanilla.. please pick up those eyeballs from the floor.

Nope.. you mob can rant all you like about inequality and exploitation, and 'unpaid work' etc.. I'll stick with the idea of 'family' based on love, under God.

That way, no clown will come along and persuade me that I have to use makeup because it makes me prettier as a bloke :)

Browyn,
I too am a believer in equality.

I believe that men should be getting equal rights to women in areas such as law, work, education, medicine, government policies and government subsidies, and men should also be entitled to an Office for Men.

I also believe that there should be a public enquiry held into feminism, similar to public enquiries held in the past into the communist party and the Nazi party (as there are considerable similarities), and I also believe that there should be gender vilification laws introduced to rid the country of feminist, as I have seen the most minimal evidence that feminists do not vilify the male gender.

I also believe that there should be a complete and total review of all social science literature in this country, to find whatever truth there is in social science, and to throw the rest in the garbage bin. In this way the public will not be so mislead by whatever advocacy research various social scientists have undertaken.

I also think that schools should be celebrating International Men’s Day as well as International Women’s Day, so that the schools do not become even more gender prejudiced and feminist then they are at present.

Vanilla.
What did I do on International Women’s Day?

I worked, to get money to pay taxes to help subsides various women. I hope that you find that satisfactory.

boaz, here's where perspectives come into play.

The description 'unpaid domestic work' is accurate. It's quite neutral.

It's a) unpaid. b) domestic. c) Doing things like dishes and cleaning up, is, work.

You view it as an attack on the role and position of mothers. Allow me to present a different view.

If I did believe it was under siege, I'd agree with you that women should be able to raise children as a worthwhile career, for want of a better word.

The difference is, I think they should also have the choice of a work career.

I also think men should have the same choice. They should be able to take on the role of raising and nurturing children.

You view the situation as an attack on women being able to raise children - the thing is boaz, I view comments such as yours above, as being an attack on the rights of women to choose a work career over family if they so desire.

I view it as an attack on men who want to take on that role, so their wives may pursue a career instead.

The question is boaz, are you attacking those things? Because if not, then we don't really have a disagreement here.

If you believe women should be able to raise a family and be respected for that, we're on the same page - provided, you also believe they should be able to choose a work career instead, or even have men take on the traditional mothering role so their wives or partners can have the career instead.

Are you opposed to those things? That's the real question. That's where we can reveal where the real 'attack' lies.

Part A, plus part B, equals life. and so we are back to the beginning again. Simplified! Nit picking will get us no-where.

I think that it explains it's self in a nut shell. Only if you have studied as hard as I have, will the Truth come to you. If you search for it! you will find it. Don't be afraid!

It has nothing to do with god. Your just born with it! That's part C.

I think you might call it, what ever you want it to be.

Electrochemical! That's what we are and nothing else. GOD! An invention of the mind.

I try not to put my self in a over diverted world, but Iam only one man. The open minded is where the window is. The closed mind, is where the real hell lives. And that's a fact!

All the best with your thoughts.

Err hang on, its not all one way. Women, when still young and
pretty enough, have enormous sexual power, lets be honest. Many
know how to use it too, to their advantage.

I was just reading an article in the paper about high class call
girls in America, the tops being paid 5000$ an hour, lesser ones,
1000$ an hour.

When you girls start to pay us fellas that much for our time,
I'll take your claim about equality, a bit more seriously :)

90 years after women got the vote a 50+ year old woman in a modest one piece bathing suit is subjected to a sad case masterbating in front of her in a beach side park in broad daylight. No - women still don't have equality.

In the 1920s middle class women didn't work by the 1960s women who worked got 66% of the male wage for doing the same job. By 1980 women had to contribute to superannuation the same as men. Statistics show that the average full time female wage is still 67% of the average male wage. Women generally have to be better qualified than men to do the same status job.

Yes, culturally many women play the victim rather than admitting that as a sentient human being they took a particular cause of action because it was the most sensible.

Billie,
There is a big difference between work carried out by men and women. In the town of Bowen in Nth QLD, house prices have risen nearly 300% in 5 years, due mainly to the opening up of nearby coal fields in the Bowen Basin, but very few women apply to work in coal mines (particularly underground mines).

There are very few women learning trade work or applying for trade jobs, and there are high wages being earnt in some of those jobs at present, although the work can be very demanding, and most of it is not carried out in air-conditioning with carpet underfoot.

So far as feminist propaganda that women were oppressed in past times, a group of art historians began studying the artworks contained in houses during earlier times. They found that the most expensive item in an average house in Europe during the 17th century, was the clothes in the women’s wardrobe.

Doesn’t seem like oppression to me.

I put it to you guys that unpaid domestic work isn't unpaid at all.

In a marriage I understand that it is the wife who decides which house to buy and influences what car the family will have. She will spend around 80% of the family budget.

Now most married blokes except those who are high income earners will realise that before marriage there was money in the wallet, and getting married moved the money from his wallet into hers.

Children are expensive, and after children there is much less money to go around.

Now if a bloke remained single and didn't father any children, he doesn't need a 3 or 4 bedroom house, or the SUV. And the utilities bill remains low.

Sure there are wide variations between mothers/wives who do not work, do part-time work to full time work. There was a research article which showed that women wanted full-time work for men.

Children do create a lot of house work, where as a single bloke might have to use the washing machine once a week, with children this can be a daily occurance.

Billie your example of the person who was masturbating is not an example of inequality, it is possible that this man is either mentally ill or has an acquired brain injury, frontal lobe injuries disinhibit people.

Just ask any nurse who works in on a neuro ward or in a brain injury unit.

Rehctub here
Sorry for the last bit of my previous post, it will make sense when you read this one….

And lastly to all you man haters who are waiting for someone to take the bait.

I think there are vast differences between women and men and always should be. After all, opposites attract!

This does not make men better than women or women better than men. The truth is that there will always be tasks and jobs that are better performed by either women or men. It is just that you ‘man hating feminists’ out there can’t leave well enough alone.

The sad part about all this is that by your very actions you are depriving many women of what I consider to be their rightful privileges, that being to be treated like a lady, by a gentleman.

Furthermore, I think you should have some type of a mark or sign so that the gentlemen among us can identify and avoid you while at the same time continue to show our respect for the women out there who don’t think that nature needs a hand to alter our body chemistry and who actually appreciate it when a gentleman opens a door, waits his turn or puts himself out for a lady.

Now if that’s ‘crawling from behind a rock’ then I am proud to be a ‘rock dweller’!

p.s. As for women having accumilated more wealth than men this is as a result of 'assett hiding', just look at the recent HIA fellows case, or the Allen Bond's of the world. Please do not try to score cheap shots.

Desipis said: "If feminists are seeking equality, should they be pushing to have women to become as career focused as men, or should they be pushing to have men become more life focused?"

I have no idea if this a serious question or if I'm just going to cop a bollocking, but here goes. Feminists are seeking what all civil rights group seek, for everyone - men and women - to have the most freedom possible within the boundaries of culture. What is important for both sexes is not whether you choose to focus on your career or on your family, but that you are free to build the life you want. One definition of a happy marriage, in my opinion, is when both partners are doing what they want in terms of the work/life balance and supporting their partners to do what they want. My partner and I have both committed to taking the onus of earning the rent money on if the other needs to do something else with their life for a while. (Including child-rearing, but also solo work projects.) We're never going to be rich this way, but the idea is to be happy.

In short, if we fight for equality - things like paid parental leave and access to child care - then both men and women can be more free to fulfill their goals. I think. No doubt you blokes will have a hundred reasons why I'm wrong and a d!ckhead, and I'm sure you're right, but that's what I reckon.

James, I agree with you about the public masturbator, but I'm not sure what you're on about with unpaid domestic work. Of course marriage and children are expensive, and both men and women are free to marry or not marry, to have kids or not have kids.

cont...

I believe the answer is not for women to want the same things out of life as men but for men to start wanting the same things as women - then we might find a better balance for everyone. We need to be convincing men that spending more time with families and the community is a worthwhile experience. Workplaces will then become more family friendly which will open doors for all - women and men - who wish for more equality in the workplace. The lack of equality is not so much between men and women as between childless workaholics or those married to "doormats" and the rest of us.

There's a lot of anger and a lot of tosh on this thread - "total wealth possession women as a group now exceeds mens." I mean, really. If you blokes really believe that, as one poster put it in another thread, women are"socially engineering society behind the scenes" you are, unfortunately, paranoiacs. Look at the woman you wake up next to, at your mothers and sisters and mates — are they really engaged in a conspiracy to undo you? Or do you imagine shadowy feminist powerbrokers, conducting evil symphonies of manipulation in backrooms? Then why not vote out the men who hum along. End of the day, the office for the status of women has little power. Parliament has power.

As Gecko sensibly points out, gender self-interest is not about “winning”. It's about ensuring both sexes have the freedom to live as they desire. The natural end to feminism is not, as Sam said, women inhabiting their own world, it's men and women living equally. We're not "the same" — on the contrary, we're chalk and cheese — but we’re both free.

As the article that inspired this discussion says, “the struggle for fairness and for equality is not an attempt by women to divide and conquer.” Notice the liberaral spinkling of the pronoun “we”. We are individually responsible for our personal destinies and collectively responsible for remedying cultural inequities. This article does not lay blame at the feet of men. Nor would any feminist worth her salt — society’s way too complex for that.

But the comments frequently focus on what “they” (i.e. feminists) have done to “us”. If a woman extorts money from you, it’s not feminism’s fault. She’s deceptive, and you shouldn’t have married her. Nasty women, and men, existed pre-feminism — in fact, feminism allowed women to build their own bank balance, not covet yours.

I know this post will meet with criticism, but I genuinely hope that the men on this forum learn to reassert their power and feel free to live however the hell they like.

Love your work there Vanilla, especially: "But the comments frequently focus on what “they” (i.e. feminists) have done to “us”. If a woman extorts money from you, it’s not feminism’s fault. She’s deceptive, and you shouldn’t have married her."

I'm constantly amazed by the criticism meted out toward feminists. When I criticise HRS's various fallacies, his responses are that he's copping 'feminist' abuse. It's not me criticisng him, apparently, he's copping it from feminism.

So if say, half the criticism in the world comes from women, by golly, that's a lot of 'feminist' criticism.

So basically, any time a woman does a man wrong, there's a subset of embittered men who appear to genuinely believe that it's feminism that's caused this.

Not just women either - apparently, if someone disagrees with them on gender issues, they're copping it from feminism, be it male or female.

Guys... if you've been done wrong, then combat it by highlighting the specific instances where the situation is unfair.

If there's unfair legislation, then point it out. If there's areas where men are genuinely disadvantaged then speak up - but for crying out loud, enough of the token injustices which nobody really cares about.

If you're annoyed because women don't show men chivalry too by opening doors, I say, suck it up.

Show some spine. Perhaps I'm a little old fashioned, but I've always found whingers who only have petty problems to be rather tiresome, regardless of their gender.

When nutbag radical feminists speak up, by all means, criticise them.

But saying that it's feminism in its entirety that's at fault just makes you look like crackpots.

It's like saying that the creation of the wheel should be blamed for a specific traffic accident, or that white people should be ashamed because some teenage white kid mugged you at an ATM.

Get over it.

Yeah, I also picked up on the comment: "If feminists are seeking equality, should they be pushing to have women to become as career focused as men, or should they be pushing to have men become more life focused?".Because it pushed to the heart of the matter, I consider.

"Feminists" are not pushing for for either of those options. What they are are/have been/will push for is the right for a person to take up whichever option they prefer. And I use the gender-free "person" because yes! If individual guys wants to become more life focused they should be able to do so, and if individual women want to become career focused that's also their own choice. Its about enabling people to make choices that aren't based on gender. That's all.

If a someone wants to be a sex worker, a CEO, or whatever, they should be free to do so. Some people find nothing more fulfilling than to stay at home and raise kids. but a) their gender should not prevent or force them to b) society should not condemn or condone their decision and c)those that don't wish to do so should not be made to do so.

It seems that on this thread, as on others concerning this subject the word "feminists" get confused with the word "woman". Any person who, as the article pointed out, speaks up for women's rights; any female person from prostitutes who charge $1000 a time to posters who disagree with some other posters, is considered a feminist.

It also appears that those who get steamed up the most are those who, on various other threads, have volunteered the information that they got done over by some woman (thereafter used to represent "feminists"). If, therefore, those females one disagrees with,or who have treated one badly, or any woman written about in the media are conveniently labelled as "feminists", the word becomes pejorative. Of the people on this thread who have identified as feminist, not one has displayed any of the characteristics the "haters" ascribe to them.

JamesH

"I put it to you guys that unpaid domestic work isn't unpaid at all."

I can see a certain amount of truth in this statement.

In my own situation for example I've always taken on more of the domestic and family load while my partner has contributed more of the income. He's always worked full-time and I've mostly worked part-time. This is an arrangement which we have both agreed to and which suits us both. In this type of situation I feel your statement (however crudely put!) is a fair one. There's agreement and there's give and take on both sides.

However, there are many partnerships out there where both partners are working long hours and yet the woman is still shouldering the bulk of domestic and family responsibilities. In this situation, even though his income might be worth more, to state that her "unpaid domestic work isn't unpaid at all" is offensive. Her time is clearly being devalued in comparison to his.

Vanilla, re "total wealth possession women as a group now exceeds mens."

I doubt that we have yet reached the threshold where women have more of the worlds wealth than men yet. Too many at the top of the list of the really wealthy are men for that to seem credible.

I've seen a range of material on this topic in recent times which suggests that it's not as clear cut as it might otherwise seem. What I've found so far trying to relocate sources is all british in origin - unusual.

- http://www.lpgf.com/files/LEEPEC0001/LPGF2005/PDFs/Mailshot-Finance.pdf
- http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20050423/ai_n14599410
- http://www.banking-business-review.com/article_feature.asp?guid=822A8CC5-4417-4200-B38D-4F8C360018CA

Forbes has some interesting lists
- http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/10/07billionaires_The-Worlds-Billionaires_Rank.html
- http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/11/06women_The-100-Most-Powerful-Women_Rank.html

Whilst I agree with much of what you, TurnRightThenLeft, Romany and Browyn have written in your most recent posts I do think this article deserves a kick for it's attempts mislead in it's misuse of statistics and it's failure to take into account that women have tended to make different career choices and tend to earn less as a result.

When women get paid less for doing the same job as a male it's discrimination, when women get paid less for choosing a lower paid job or for working less hours or having less experience it's not discrimination.

Articles like this undermine genuine claims of unfairness towards women in the same way that HRS's posts undermine the legitimate concerns about discrimination against men.

R0bert

*any female person from prostitutes who charge $1000 a time to posters who disagree with some other posters, is considered a feminist.*

Not really, the female charging 1000$ or 5000$ an hour for her
skills and looks, is simply making the best of her assets, as
is her right. We then have Paul McCarthy's ex, walking away
with approx 120 million for 4 years marriage. Clearly that
is a very profitable business for some women!

The point is, women bleating that they get such a raw deal is
simply not true. We have countless examples of women thriving.
Take a look at the present CEO of Westpac. She started as a
bank teller in South Africa, came here as a migrant and now earns
millions for her skills and ability, as her talent was recognised.

This cry that women are discrimated against, is in fact a great
way of rationalising away reality, for those women who are failures.
Clearly its easier to blame the whole world and those evil men
out there, then their own lack of abilities. That is basic
human nature.

The genders on average are different, yet complimentary. Both
have advantages and disadvantages and as we can see, some of both
genders thrive and some don't.

I simply don't believe this mantra that a few feminists constantly
go about about, as to how disadvantaged that women are, compared to
men

"The genders on average are different, yet complimentary."

Ah, Yabby, would that this were true: then none of us would have anything to worry about.

Romany,
In regard to someone being "done over".

If someone questions feminism, the normal response from a feminist is to say that the person is a misogynist. If that doesn’t work, then the next step is to say that the person must have had a bad experience with a woman.

Of course the latter doesn’t equate to logical, as so many women will not call themselves feminist (as mentioned by the author). So these women must be misogynist, or they must have had a bad experience with a woman.

I’m just waiting for feminists to call for schools to start celebrating International Men’s Day as well as International Women’s Day.

I shouldn’t have to wait very long for that to happen.

Desipis

Thank you for your correction - I hope I haven’t inadvertenly misled anyone.

What is indisputable is that women are just as competent at running a business as men. I suspect they are also more inventive, entreprenurial. I know of one women who built up a very successful business; she then closed down her shop - thus overheads, and worked from home using an online site - and without losing one customer.

You ask:

"If feminists are seeking equality, should they be pushing to have women to become as career focused as men ...

First of all, please omit the word “feminists” ... the word “women” is much more accurate

I don’t think women can be pushed to become as career focused as men. Women are either career focused, or they are not; or they see multi-choices. Indeed, are all men career focused, or would they prefer to go into other directions.

However, we will stick to “career”: By the time a woman has reached a position where she is likely to meet discrimination, she has already addressed all her issues, which male colleagues now see as barriers to her promotion. She has made her decisions - often much harder than any man would have to make - knows exactly where she wants to go, and is committed to do so. She should not now be subjected to discrimination in either her advancement, nor income.

You continue: “ ... or should they be pushing to have men become more life focused?”

Pursuing a career, being so driven as to lose sight of yourself, I think is soul-destroying for either sex. I have seen men retire who have identified themselves solely by the job/career they have pursued - it is sad to see them now lost, without sense of identity. This should never happen.

cont ...

I just read an abstract co-authored by Scott Coltrane, Uni of California, published on the website on the “Council of Contemporary Families”, which stated:

“American men have doubled the amount of housework they do and may be having better sex because ot it. ... Wives report greater feelings of sexual interest in and affection for husbands who participate in housework (Joshua Coleman).

Also American men spend more time with their children.”

I do not consider “housework” being life focused, nor gender specific ... Sharing it and freeing up time so that couples have more time for each other, their children, and other interests, is certainly life-focused.

When a man identifies himself, soley by his career, he not only loses sense of himself, but also the couple risk losing sight of each other. This is the dominant feature of not being life focused.

The coming challenge, I think, will be to recognise the ability to work smarter, not harder and longer hours. Having worked for seven years in a $ multi-billion industry, I can attest that this was a serious problem. I suspect that this occurs in many places. Currently, big business, the “top end of town”, indeed, other areas traditionally dominated by men, carries a male mystique which is quite unfounded.

Both sexes must retain a sense of their own identity to be able better to maintain relationships, be supportive of each other, and follow personal interests - this means being life-focused. When this occurs, I suggest that the problems of inequality in the workplace will recede; indeed many inequalities between the sexes ... whilst never forgetting "viva la difference".

Vanilla,

at the moment of separation/divorce a woman's standard of living falls. So if unpaid domestic work was actually unpaid, she would not have experienced a fall in her standard of living.

Bronwyn,

Bettina Ardnts book "Taking sides" she wrote that when it comes to house work, it is who sets the standard. I have known house husbands who have said things like they could wipe down the kitchen bench just before she came home and the first thing she will do is wipe down the kitchen bench, another said he would vacuum the floor before she arrived home and the first thing she would do is.

You guessed it vacuum the floor.

I know women who regard the money they earn as their money and the money he earns is still their money.

A while ago there was an exercise in comparative worth, where the cost of doing certain household chores was compared to professional charges. This certainly inflated the cost of house work. Plus there were certain statistical exaggerations as some jobs tended to be grouped together, for example doing the washing, cooking and supervising children.

Now if a bloke lived by himself he might need a housekeeper once a week.

I know of dinks who do employ a housekeeper.

One of the major causes of conflick over what is descibed as 'unpaid housework' is that most women set a higher degree of 'what is clean and or tidy'.

My wife and I recently had a tift and she said that I could'nt even fold cloths. I replied, "yes I can, I just don't fold them as neatly as you do".

So I guess if you girls wish to set the standard that is what we guys consider to be 'above and beyond' well then yes you may well consider yourself as 'unpaid' in doing so.

Let's face it, some women can get out of bed, don a resonable dress, pair of thongs and go down to the shops for some last minue shopping, while, others have to look like an oil painting just incase they are spotted. No offence intended as some guys are the same.

So, in essence if you set the level of the bar then perhaps you should'nt expect your partner to kkep up, in which case, live with it or find another partner.

JamesH

"I know women who regard the money they earn as their money and the money he earns is still their money."

Yes, this is a running joke at our house too, with not much truth in it really, as my partner will readily admit when you get him in a serious mood!

Women in this situation might spend some of the money they've earned on themselves, but in my experience the majority of it goes towards house and family projects or extras that the normal budget mightn't stretch to and I'm not talking luxury items here by any stretch.

In my situation, and I'm not necessarily speaking for others here though I doubt that it would be uncommon, I defer to my partner if we have a difference of opinion on how money should be spent on major items. This doesn't happen often as we mostly work things through and come to an agreement, but one example of contention is in the area of investment. I would prefer our money to have been invested through ethical investment companies, whereas he doesn't see this as a priority. I am prepared to make this concession as he has always been the major income earner so I feel out of fairness I should do this even though it is not easy for me to concede on this issue.

Most women engage in degrees of give and take like this. You are painting a very negative picture of women. They're not all out to take your money.

Rehctub

"One of the major causes of conflick over what is descibed as 'unpaid housework' is that most women set a higher degree of 'what is clean and or tidy'."

This is true to some extent, though I know men who set the bar higher than their female partners and actually put pressure on them at times because of this, so I think it cuts both ways.

I feel both you and JamesH are using this line of argument to conveniently negate the value of women's unpaid domestic work. Yes, maybe some women do occasionally wipe the bench when it's not strictly needed, but most of the washing, cooking, cleaning, shopping, etc women (and some men too) do as unpaid domestic work is vitally necessary to the smooth functioning of any home and family unit, irrespective of how thoroughly or otherwise it is done.

The time spent on it needs to be factored into the working arrangement of any partnership if there is to be a real degree of fairness. This still doesn't happen in a lot of partnerships. Many men still view it as an invisible add-on that their partner should somehow manage without much input from themselves, in spite of the fact that in many cases she is working just as long as he is in paid work outside the home.

To state, as you both have, that most domestic chores either don't need to be done at all, or if they do they don't need to take as long as they do, is to totally devalue a sizeable proportion of many women's lives. Like it or not, this stuff has to be done, and unless you can afford to contract it out, it has to be shared between the partners in the relationship. It can be done fairly, as is the case in many relationships, but still too often it is not divided up fairly at all, a fact to which the male partner can often be quite oblivious. I might be wrong but I think you could both fit into this latter category!

Its not unpaid domestic labour when someone else pays your half of the domestic bills.

And you dont get to include the half of the work that you do on your own behalf.

Neither do you get to unilaterally define what is or isnt work. Thats just padding and its no different to what happens in the so-called paid workforce. In fact its rife. People always overstate and exagerate their contributions. The time taken to do a task usually expands to fill the time alloted to it.

Anyway, a male friend of mine has been a stay at home dad for 8 yrs. Its the cruisiest gig on planet earth. He and l get together for weekly gossip sessions and we larf wonderously at the irony of role reversals. To this end l disagree whole-heartedly with the premise that feminism has been a bit lagging. Its done wonders for the choices and possibilities now acceptable to men.

Oh, another feminist article. Who would have thought.

I was trying to not be so cynical, but she lost me when she started banging on about an overheard conversation about a job interview. I didn't find that argument very compelling.

The housework argument always grates as in my experience most women WANT a cleaner house and VALUE cleanliness over free time more than men. It's ridiculous to lump this in with equity as there should be compromise between couples. i.e. If you really need to vacuum every week and I think once a month is enough lets do it once a fortnight. Then the lady of the house does it every week in between anyway, because SHE WANTS TO.

With regards to the pay gap, I'm really skeptical regardless of the stats. It wouldn't make economic sense to pay a man 15% more when a woman can do the same job for less.

With % of women in top jobs, discrimination is assumed, but why not assume a lot of women just don't want the jobs? There needs to be a better statistic on jobs applied for or something that would give more info. It would only hurt the feminist cause though so don't hold your breath for that research.

Danielle's post probably covers the rest of my opinions...

Bronwyn, the wonders of the english language.

"To state, as you both have, that most domestic chores either don't need to be done at all, or if they do they don't need to take as long as they do, is to totally devalue a sizeable proportion of many women's lives." Bronwyn.

Show me where I said that?

I believe that you are adding your own interpretation to what I wrote, conveniently to try and put myself on the back foot. I had a relationship once with someone who did that trick very regularly, where she reinterpret what I said to something very different.

R0bert,

Thanks for that info. You make an excellent point.

Everyone:
All this talk about who does the housework confounds me. I'm the messy one in our house. Maybe we're lucky, because we both do the stuff we either like or hate least and that seems to work. Why fight about something so boring? James, you've met some godawful women in your time. Have you extrapolated from this to conclude all women are godawful?

Romany on the sexes being "complimentary": Ah, Yabby, would that this were true: then none of us would have anything to worry about.

Hilarious. You're so cool, Romany.

*Ah, Yabby, would that this were true: then none of us would have anything to worry about.*

Ah Romany, but I remind you, mother nature had it all worked out.
Men did the hunting, women picked the berries and minded the
kids. It was all very complimentary indeed!

Now if women decide to put on their pants and go out hunting,
they should not be amazed or complain, if they get tripped up
in the heat of the battle. Those who do, would have clearly
been better off, sticking to picking berries :)

Vanilla,

I think when you have articles like this that throw up women doing more housework as an example of discrimination, it really does weaken the argument as being a disgruntled woman nag. You cant and shouldn't legislate on housework, so the point is just to have a whinge I feel. It weakens the other points that appear next to it.

Your reality is obviously different, but it is a common complaint of women that men don't do enough housework.

My answer to such nags is....

Don't do it then. Danielle's advice is the best:-)

There's too many martyrs in the world.

Bronyn
To state, as you both have, that most domestic chores either don't need to be done at all, or if they do they don't need to take as long as they do

Don't know how yo got this out of my thread, I can only assume that you are in 'self defence' mode, ever watchfull for the man who dares to have his say.

Vanilla, my pleasure.

Some more if you are interested
http://neweconomist.blogs.com/new_economist/2007/06/women_wealth.html - this one suggests that the number of very wealthy women in the USA peaked in the late 60's and has since declined. It also suggests that in Britian women hold 48% of the nations personal wealth.

http://oss.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/25/6/969?ck=nck
A brief for a research paper which claims "In countries with a relatively small or relatively large proportion of female workers, all workers are underpaid to the extent that merit pay and strikes are relatively rare." - need a password to get at the article :(

A trascript of a BBC4 interview which touches on this
http://www.rochdalewomensenterprisenetwork.co.uk/womensnews/womensnews_interface/Results/moneybox%202%5B1%5D.doc

An article which looks at the sources of female wealth http://www.newsroom.barclays.co.uk/Content/Detail.asp?ReleaseID=1092&NewsAreaID=2 including the following summary of sources of womens wealth

"Wealth is largely driven from earnings and business ownership (83.9 per cent) or from personal investments (32.8 per cent). This compares to marriage (24.7 per cent), divorce (2.2 per cent) and inheritance (19.9 per cent), which the research shows are becoming less important sources of wealth. "

I've not managed to locate anything dealing with this stuff for Australia so far. I wonder what the proportions of wealth held by women and men are in this country.

R0bert

Yabby,

“... high class call girls in America, the tops being paid 5000$ an hour, lesser ones (depreciation?), 1000$ an hour. “

It really is a buyer’s market. There would be as many pretty ones, with all the right accoutrements, as these girls. I suspect that they are mostly utilized by embassies as “gifts,” and big business wanting to swing a deal. These girls would be listed among “entertainment expenses” as tax deductions.

What man would pay that much ...?

An old salt, a connoisseur of every brothel from Portsmouth to Buenos Aires, used to say: “All cats are grey in the dark”.

Big business also pay for trips for clients of both sexes overseas - admittedly there may be a conference thrown in, but the conferences are held in very exotic places with five-star accommodation. Even where world-class golfing tournaments are being held.

James H.

I , too, know of many dinks who employ a housekeeper; also diwks.

“I have known house husbands ... wipe down the kitchen bench just before she came home and the first thing she will do is wipe down the kitchen bench, another ... would vacuum the floor before she arrived home ... first thing she would do is... vacuum the floor.”

I can well believe that this occurs; and the couples concerned have to address this openly and calmly, if possible, and a decision made as to which one is to do the task. Both doing it ...?

An earlier generation imposed upon women the belief that she was not a “proper” woman if her house wasn’t sparkling and a person couldn’t eat off the floor. Women can be painfully critical of other women’s housekeeping skills. My own mother, who had a live-in household staff of 5 to 6, was very critical of my “skills.’ I rebelled, and decided my priorities; yet I still maintain residual guilt ...

People - of either sex - can have as much passion for their home, as gardeners for their gardens. This can go beyond “housework”.

cont ...

I agree with Bronwyn. Most women engage in degrees of give and take regarding money and financial issues. I would hazzard a guess that most women will forgo something she wants, for the benefit of the family.

Undoubtedly there are women who are out for what they can get; also men who do the same. Many divorced/widowed women have lost everything to such men. This behaviour is not gender specific.

rehctub

“My wife and I recently had a tift and she said that I could'nt even fold cloths. I replied, "yes I can, I just don't fold them as neatly as you do”

I’ve had some very nasty ... indeed, painful tussles ... with my husband when I’ve begun hammering nails into things. Men can be VERY fussy too! Now if I go near a hammer, he rushes to takes. He shows alarm if I attempt to prise open a can of paint ...

The competency to use hammer and paint is gender-free; but my husband considers me - quite unfairly - incompetent here... just like your wife, rehctub, in your folding clothes.

Importantly ... jobs which need to get done, get done ...

As in business, also in the household, the idea should be to work smarter, not harder and longer hours

You state:

“ ... others have to look like an oil painting ...”

Agreed.

However, some husbands expect their wives to look gorgeous all the time. Have you any idea how painful waxes can be ... or having strange substances injected into your lips or around your eyes .. and having to wear stiletto heels !

An old French saying: "To be beautiful, one must suffer."

Then there is the fear of “trophy wives” ... waiting in the wings ...

A man shouldn’t be looked down upon, considered unmasculine, if he is a house-husband and primary child-carer, and his partner, a career-woman, the bread-winner. I know two of such cases and it works superbly. Nor should a woman be considered unfeminine if she strives to reach the top in some industry, or in parliament.

*What man would pay that much ...?*

Sounds like the Gov. of New York State was one of them, despite
the married with 3 kids bit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7288540.stm

Its a bit like asking, what woman would pay 5000$ for
a Hermes handbag? At the top of the foodchain there are
some seriously rich people, who for their own reasons want
what is exclusive. Those who can project that exclusive
image, stand to make a lot of money, be it selling handbags,
Rolex watches or high class sex.

If we are to attempt addressing what it would be to live in a civilised world, tackling issues surrounding the raw data of women suffrage would be a good place to start.
"anywhere from 40 to 57 per cent of Australian women will experience physical or sexual violence at some point in their lives"
If this statistic alone can not inspire constructive conversation based on our moral obligation to a humane society, what will these statistics reveal in a year from now?

Justin: While I agree that violence is an important social issue, it's in no way a "Woman's Issue". If viewed through from a gender divisive angle it should be a "Men's Issue".

From the Australian Personal Safety Study, 2005:
"In the 12 months prior to the survey, there were an estimated 443,800 (5.8%) women
who experienced an incident of violence compared to 808,300 (11%) men"

Effectively that 40-57% for women becomes 50-75% for men.

Danielle:
"I don’t think women can be pushed to become as career focused as men. Women are either career focused, or they are not; or they see multi-choices. Indeed, are all men career focused, or would they prefer to go into other directions."

It's my argument that currently it's the men who have less freedom when it comes to careers. Women are free (in the social sense) to chose to be career focused or not, while men are much more pressured into identifying themselves based on their career.

"I’ve had some very nasty ... indeed, painful tussles ... with my husband when I’ve begun hammering nails into things. Men can be VERY fussy too! Now if I go near a hammer, he rushes to takes. He shows alarm if I attempt to prise open a can of paint ..."

The difference is that the stereotypical men's standards are typically based on practicality; a poor nail job will result in something falling apart. A stereotypical woman's standards are based on image and the perceived social status from having a well kept household. For example the installation of a new fashionable bathroom to impress the woman's friends will still be seen as a shared thing because it is used by both people, whereas a new fashionable car to impress the man's friends will be seen as his thing even though both people use it. I think it's telling that studies show that women control 80% of discretionary spending even though men earn about 2/3rds of the money.

Yabby

"The genders on average are different, yet complimentary."

"Ah, Yabby, would that this were true: then none of us would have anything to worry about."

"Ah Romany, but I remind you, mother nature had it all worked out.
Men did the hunting, women picked the berries and minded the
kids. It was all very complimentary indeed!"

I know I'm not being as 'complimentary' as Romany (and not nearly as tactful or witty) but maybe a dictionary might 'complement' the other skills in your posting repertoire!

Justin

"If we are to attempt addressing what it would be to live in a civilised world, tackling issues surrounding the raw data of women suffrage would be a good place to start.
'anywhere from 40 to 57 per cent of Australian women will experience physical or sexual violence at some point in their lives'."

Yes, I agree, women in Australia are suffering, though I'm not sure that suffrage has much to do with it!

Women in Australia have had the vote for a hundred years and levels of violence against them have steadily risen in that time.

Perhaps when women (and men too) can vote for a party that truly reflects the values of sharing, caring and co-operating together, their suffering (and that of men too) might diminish.

Desipis & Frank. Sorry to be repetitive, but it seems to me that you're blaming feminism, or perhaps women in general, for the behaviour of some particularly unpleasant specimens. Frankly, anyone who installs a fashionable bathroom (whatever that is) or buys a fashionable car for the sole purpose of impressing their friends is, I'm afraid, a w@nker. Man or woman. And anyone who vacuums the floor as soon as they walk in the door needs to get a life.

It is your choice who you marry and who you befriend. I wouldn't marry a man who spend all weekend watching the footy and who'd never read a book in his life and then complain about "bloody men!" because I'm unhappy. Equally, if you're a bloke stuck in a relationship with someone shallow or greedy it's not womankind's lookout. Nor is it particularly becoming to have kids then complain about how expensive they are. They're bloody expensive! They're kids! Stay single, if you want to live in a bach flat with a housekeeper.

What neither sex is blame others for unwise choices.

From R0bert's source: "Wealth is largely driven from earnings and business ownership (83.9 per cent) or from personal investments (32.8 per cent). This compares to marriage (24.7 per cent), divorce (2.2 per cent) and inheritance (19.9 per cent), which the research shows are becoming less important sources of wealth."

What a heartening and impressive stats. So yard yakka makes women wealthy, not swindling the ex's assets during divorce. Hurrah!

Desipis:"currently it's men who have less freedom when it comes to careers." Then fight for more. Women have freedom because a lot of brave women, like my mum, lived the lives they wanted despite family and cultural opposition. Then fight for supportive legislation. Fortune favours the brave.

Vanilla ,
Been away earning just responding to your early post
Re cant take it ..etc

Eh, What are you on about?
Calling OLO responses that differ from the author as SH.T is not only innappropiate & unnaceptable it is terrible. It’s not a ‘JOKE’ (feminist minimization) but is intended to humiliate, demean & devalue those people.

Everybody has a right to respond to the subject matter with a differing view & not be labeled by you as being part of a SH.TFEST.
Attack me all you want but first comment on my points in what we are all here for, the subject matter. Positive or negative & I have no need to swear at you for it. And yes moved on now.

I chose just three from hundreds of examples of Women & Girls ‘Special Rights’ that are over & above ‘Equallity’
Say again,
Women & Girls have ‘special rights’ from massive funding for Women Only from the sexist Fed. Govt. Dept. for the Status of Women & its Minister yet no such Funding or Dept. or Minister exists for Men & Boys who have their rights to equal representation & be heard trampled on every day.

Please prove me wrong & supply us with the contact info for the Fed. Govts. ‘Office for the Status of Men’ & its Minister so Men & Boys can be better empowered with information & help with their Rights & lives as Women & Girls are.

Yeh…………………. ‘Right’

How about ‘ A Fair Go For Men’ not special rights just equal rights.

Danielle

"However, some husbands expect their wives to look gorgeous all the time. Have you any idea how painful waxes can be ... or having strange substances injected into your lips or around your eyes .. and having to wear stiletto heels !"

I agree, and the pressure to conform to this imposed image of female beauty seems to be increasing. Unfortunately, the feminist movement has made no real impact in this area. When women can walk out the door in the morning without having to worry about any of this crap, they will be truly liberated, no matter what their pay levels!

Feminists like Germaine Greer and many others fought hard on this in the sixties and seventies, but it's looking more and more like a lost cause these days. Most young feminists today seem focused on achieving pay equality and career advancement, which are both important issues, I'm not denying that. But most don't appear to recognize, let alone acknowledge, the bondage they have encased themselves in through constantly striving to conform to that societally imposed ideal of how they should look.

"Nor should a woman be considered unfeminine if she strives to reach the top in some industry, or in parliament."

No, but if she chooses to do this in an aggressive, self-centred or dishonest way she is, in my mind, dishonouring the efforts of her sisters who have fought the long fight for a better world. Women who resort to a win-at-all-costs mentality are playing the same game and by the same rules that have always dominated in the man's world we are all trying so hard to change.

I know I will be attacked mercilessly on this as I have been on other threads! I must have some sort of death wish!

Vanilla,

I'm not blaming feminist for anything. I'm pointing out alternative interpretations for the evidence that's being put forth by some feminists to claim oppression of women. That the lower level of women in high level positions and the greater hours spent doing housework are the result of women's own choices, not oppression. I find it rather common for any differences between the genders to be viewed as if men are normal and ideal while women are different because they are oppressed.

Bronwyn,

'the bondage they have encased themselves in through constantly striving to conform to that societally imposed ideal of how they should look.'

How Bizarre!

What about women who like to wear heals, as they like to feel taller, or who wax because they like the feeling of smooth legs. Regardless the reasons, I thought feminism was about choice, not telling women how they should look.

If woman are that hopeless that they cant be expected to make their own clothing decisions, and bow to the pressure of 'societal expectations' they have a lot more problems than pay inequality.

I say it's up to individuals to not be so vain, rather than some
feminist lie Germaine needing to tell a woman she must wear flat shoes and not wax her legs as that means she is being oppressed.

It's such a cop out. Oh, I'm so oppressed, I have to 'conform to this imposed image of female beauty '. I applaud women for fighting for real issues rather than that crap. You don't see all the cloned young guys in striped shirts and rooster and mullet hairdo's and buying expensive cars crying they are victims of an imposed image of male beauty.

Oh the humanity! I cry for every man who was about to walk out the door and his missus said ' are you wearing that?!'

I also reject your assertion that 'an aggressive, self-centred or dishonest way ' is a man's way, and that women are somehow better than men, but only resort to these 'ways' to compete with the men. Men and women can both be aggressive, self-centred and dishonest.

Vanilla, I liked that one as well. It is encouraging. It combined with other stats provide a healthy balance to the claims of both extreme's in this debate. Women can and do make it by their own efforts.

I had the impression that women were more likely to use small business for success but a brief look around suggests that may not be the case.

An ABS report into the characteristsics of Small business makes for an interesting read.

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/ProductsbyCatalogue/E49E3B4DC3595C92CA2568A900139377?OpenDocument
"There were 1,269,000 small businesses in Australia in June 2004, of which (62.0%) were operated by an individual male or predominantly by males, a significant increase from June 2003 (55.1%).

There were 21.5% (273,000) of businesses operated by equal numbers of males and females. The proportion of businesses in this category declined by 3.9 percentage points. There were 16.5% of businesses operated predominantly by females, a drop of 3.0 percentage points on the June 2003 estimate. "

There is some interesting material around. Much demonstrates that women have the opportunity to achieve success if that is their priority and that it's not all about ripping off some man.

R0bert

DVD..
Firstly, I did not swear, or write the word “SH.T.” *You* wrote that word, and I quoted it. Please read the two messages again. *You* wrote the extract you label “inappropriate & unacceptable,” not me. Which makes your comment, “I have no need to swear at you” particularly funny. You swore at yourself.

Secondly, there is no federal department of women — there is an Office for Women. There are crucial differences in power and scope. I’ve no idea why some men seem covet this organisation so — it’s pretty impotent — but given you do, why not lobby the new federal goverment to set up a corrosponding Office for Men? I’d support such an institution — I’m sure most feminists would.

If you’d like an Office for Men because you believe in equal representation, why not work toward equal representation in Parliament House? And I mean on merit, not via affirmative action.

R0bert,
Exactly.

Bronwyn.
I entirely agree with you. Two feminist issues still consume me: Emily’s List, and the beauty myth. The latter incorporating many ideas — raunch culture, the recasting of excessive feminitiy as “choice”, the generic ambition to be “famous” and the concurrent devaluing of real scholarship and real ambition, fake bazookas and brazillans. I object to none of these things entirely or in a puritanical way, and I’m not anti-porn. I just believe that we’re wrong to promote beauty from its position as culturally important to all-that-bloody-matters. Make space for the other wonders of humanity. We need to stop breeding young women and men who are overly focussed on beauty not because they so value it it but because they genuinely have few other interests.

Whitty
What about Bronwyn’s post did you feel cried “I'm so oppressed”? Note her phrase: “the bondage they have encased themselves in” — who, in this sentence, is responsible for the bondage? She’s critiquing feminism, pushing it forward, not crying victim. Being actively engaged in the cultural evolution of women and blaming men are *entirely* different things. Attributing blame-gaming to Bronwyn reveals the flaw in your analysis, not hers.

*but maybe a dictionary might 'complement' the other skills in your posting repertoire!*

But maybe the use of a dictionary, is rather trivial in the bigger
scheme of things, when it comes to the internet. Not for the
pedantic perhaps, but I am not pedantic. I am here to discuss
concepts, not fuss over details. Unlike you, I don't conform
to others rules or opinions.

*When women can walk out the door in the morning without having to worry about any of this crap, they will be truly liberated, no matter what their pay levels! *

That's not about gender, thats about intelligence. Note that some
of the smartest businessmen don't conform to the rules, they make
or made their own rules.

Richard Branson built his empire, wearing jeans, living on a house boat.

Robert Holmes a Court, when he walked away from New York with
another 200 million $, was told that he did not know "the rules"

His comment was "The Viet Cong did not know the rules either and
look what happened to them! "

Desipis,

Regarding male violence, I agree with you. It is a “ Men’s Issue”. How it impinges on women is both serious, and complex, and would need more space to address than here.

You have made other completely valid points.

When I was younger, very few women worked. Women, and indeed society as a whole, expected men to be “good providers” - and sometimes a man would take a career path, even a promotion, for the sake of his wife -If not for his wife, then be “directed” into a job by his parents. Some women kept a very tight reign on what their husbands could/not do. It is tragic to think that a person is committed for life in a job they hate.

Things are changing now with women entering the workplace; men can have more freedom of choice in careers. It is not uncommon for either sex, from mid-life and beyond, to return to study to gain other qualifications in order to make a career change. When this occurs, there is often a partner supporting them whilst they study. It will be interesting to see how many career changes an individual may make during a lifetime. Perhaps there are already statistics available.

You mention “status” issues - and you are undoubtedly correct. This is not in my orbit of values, so had not considered this aspect in my responses. But I recall a high-flier’s wife rushing out to buy her small son a new set of pyjamas because she was giving a dinner party; also desparate to ensure she had the latest model car. We met at a group, and she confessed that she, initially, avoided sitting next to me because I didn’t wear designer clothing. I can see that “status” is very significant in some people’s lives - for both men and women - and this must put enormous pressures on families. But, then I don’t consider folding clothes neatly a priority, either.

cont ...

“ ... studies show that women control 80% of discretionary spending ... ”

A study would need to be undertaken as to how this 80% is spent. What % for groceries, utilities, children’s needs etc. Undeniably, women in the work force have to maintain a level of appearance, and this upkeep can be expensive. My career-daughter spends an enormous amount on personal upkeep; but the company for whom she works, and her position demands this - not only for seeing clients, but for travelling and formal functions. She’s happier in jeans and a T-shirt.

Robert,

Your provide compelling figures that women own greater wealth than men. Could this be a factor that women on average live longer than men, and these figures include wealth owned by widows; and where finances have been so arranged as these don’t emerge as “inheritances.” Perhaps widows assume control of such businesses. Also this poses the question, whether women’s wealth may actually be jointly-owned businesses.

Bronwyn,

I agree with you about with you about women rising to positions in ways - “aggressive, self-centred or dishonest”. The last thing women should seek is to emulate the less desirable aspects to which some men can resort. However, men also suffer from the actions of these types. Bullying is very nasty.

Desipis,

Regarding “a poor nail job” - I confess, in my case at least, that you are correct. When passing “my” nails, I frequently hiss: “Stay up, you bugger ...” But, on the other hand, when I pick up a hammer, my husband immediately does a task which might otherwise not get done ... and I don’t have to say a word.

Danielle,

from the articles that i have seen where female millionares/billionares will out number men, is mainly because women live longer than men (and havent divorced their husbands).

Vanilla you wrote that the OSW is impotent.

In a book I read a feminist said that too bring about change it is not the politican to target, but the political advisors. I have watched how certain feminist claims evolve and it follows a pattern, particularly in its spread from one country to another. A recent example is the current push to change the law in regards to sexual consent.

The recent Australia Says No campaign unfortunately only concentrated on violence against women and as such missed an opportunity to address violence in a much more holistic and effective manner. It is no good targetting only a part of the violence problem and ignoring other forms of violence.

Miacat "There is something wrong with the moral compass of a society which not only ignores, but promotes the degradation of women - and children, as Julie Gale's earlier viewpoint stated."

there are a number of books on how the media portray men and this would appear to be a much bigger problem than how the media portrays women.

So Miacat it would appear that you are supporting special rights for women.

I wonder how many of the women on this forum have read any of Warren Farrels books? or David Thomas, Maggie Hamilton, Melanie Phiilips.

Me, I have read Greer, Fauldi and others who escape me at present.

Danielle, I'm uncertain of the answers to your questions. The material I found which suggests that women currently have very similar levels of personal wealth to men seems to be all UK based. I've not found anything similar for Australia or the USA.

The quote Vanilla picked up on suggests that most are generating wealth through their own efforts. Living longer than men must be some help and clearly marriage and divorce make a big difference to some, I've not seen anything on it recently but women used to marry up (marry people with higher wealth than themselves).

I'm not convinced that women have more wealth than men yet, rather that the assertion is not as silly as it seems and that authors such as the one who wrote this article are giving a misleading view of how things are. They use selected statistics to try and create an impression of oppression and lack of opportunity.

I believe that our own beliefs about what we can and cannot achieve have a much bigger impact on us than any remaining societal gender discrimination. We may have work a bit harder to overcome perceptions sometimes but that's life.

R0bert

Vanilla,

I never said Bronwyn blames men, I see her blaming 'society'. She seems to think women who wear heels and wax their legs just need to be better educated by Feminists that their actions are an act of self-bondage, and they just don't recognise it. They're such victims they don't see what society is 'making' them do to themselves. It's pretty patronising of women I reckon. If women are so helpless to the expectations of 'society', it's not a very flattering picture to me.

I say a lot of women probably just like the feeling of smooth legs and feeling taller, or display natural human vanity, and it isn't for believers of some ism to tell people how to behave, and admonish them for letting the 'sisterhood' down.

I take your point that she does later in her post talk about self-bondage rather than opression, but does blame society fo this self-bondage, and at a streatch men or husbands (even though I haven't argued this), when you read her initial comments below....
'"However, some husbands expect their wives to look gorgeous all the time...." I agree, and the pressure to conform to this imposed image of female beauty seems to be increasing.'

Whitty,
Feminists have never tried to stop women wearing heels or shaving their legs and feeling proud of their pins. I do all three. The whole “feminist lie Germaine needing to tell a woman she must wear flat shoes and not wax her legs as that means she is being oppressed” is just a cliched, intellectually bereft, semi-hysterical and untrue view of feminism that peaked in the 80s and seems to have found some retro purchase on these boards in the naughties. It’s the lie. It bores the bejezus outa me.

What feminists do is challenge men and women on how “free” their choices really are. Our clothing choices are *entirely* governed by society — if you seriously think otherwise, then I assume it’s entirley conicidental that you dress like a 21st century Aussie bloke and not like Louis XIV, or Tollund Man, or Rita Hayworth. Costume has always been fodder for cultural critique, and rightly so. Many commentators, feminist and otherwise, have echoed Bronwyn’s point in recent years.

Discussing societal pressures isn’t surrendering to victimhood. Society’s function is to exert pressures all over the shop. It must, to keep us from throttling each other or singing show tunes loudly in business meetings. I’ve never been a victim of anyone or anything, but I see abundant value in *constantly* challenging society. Indeed, challenge gives society its oxygen, lets it morph and grow. Don’t you seek to challenge society on its neglect of men?

Bronwyn isn’t blaming. Or telling women how to dress. She’s challenging. She’s peeling away motivations to locate real freedom.

You’re free to disagree, but don't be so sensitive to victimhood that you invent it where it isn't.

Bronwyn, what's your view?

Yabby: “Unlike you, I don't conform to others rules or opinions.” Um, like the dictionary?

James: Good piont about the OSW. So, should there be an OSM? There are certainly men’s issues that could benefit from a central home — prostate cancer awareness, violence issues. Has anyone ever lobbied for such a thing?

R0bert, you're so intelligent and sensible. Hope the author saw your comments.

Whitty

"I also reject your assertion that 'an aggressive, self-centred or dishonest way ' is a man's way, and that women are somehow better than men, but only resort to these 'ways' to compete with the men. Men and women can both be aggressive, self-centred and dishonest."

I agree, of course both men and women can exhibit these traits. When I speak of a man's world I'm speaking generally, it's nothing personal. I'm not a man-hater.

I'm referring to the world we were all born into, one that is undeniably built on the values of individualism, competitiveness, domination and militarism which I argue in a general sense are male values. I envisage a different world, one based more on nurturing, compassion and cooperative endeavour which I would argue are traits more traditionally associated with women.

My hope for feminism has always been that it would be the catalyst in creating this fairer world, but unfortunately I think we're moving further away from it. I can't help feeling that women have sold out, or been sold out, I'm not sure which. We’re still living very much in a man's world. Women are competing with men on men's terms. They are taking on the hard-nosed values of this old world rather than influencing a change toward the more compassionate and cooperative values I once held high hopes might triumph as women gained more influence and power.

Some women are achieving high levels of personal success which is great for them and generally speaking there are more options available for women than was once the case. On a world level though only a small minority of women have benefited. There are more women today than ever before struggling to survive the crippling effects of war, poverty and discrimination.

Please remember I'm making a general case here. I'm not picking on men or implying they are inferior in any way.

Bronwyn

I agree with your statement:

"Women are competing with men on men's terms. They are taking on the hard-nosed values of this old world rather than influencing a change toward the more compassionate and cooperative values I once held high hopes might triumph as women gained more influence and power."

Maggie Thatcher springs to mind as an example of a woman playing (albeit successfully) the men's game without changing anything, She personified that 'male' trait of individualism over cooperation.

The only way we can get to a more compassionate world is one where there is more equal representation of people (male, female, white, black) where sex is unimportant except as recreation :-)

It it a world of equal opportunity for all not just the alpha males (and females). What never ceases to amaze me is that men are as suppressed as women by gender roles. Also that it is men who oppress men - this idea of feminists wanting world domination is as absurd as it is misleading. It is a misdirection for powerless men away from the truth of where the true power lies - where it always has: a few men.

Vanilla,

'cliched, intellectually bereft, semi-hysterical and untrue view of feminism '

Hey, don't look at me, I'm only commenting on Bronwyn's lamenting the 'lost cause' of those very ideals that haven't been taken up by the modern woman, supposedly because they don't 'acknowledge, the bondage they have encased themselves in '.

'Our clothing choices are *entirely* governed by society'

Well there is a pretty wide scope available. I think you can find comfortable shoes if you want.

'don't be so sensitive to victimhood that you invent it where it isn't.'
I honestly don't see the distinction you're making. If you blame peer pressure for your actions are you not playing the victim? Why is it that only women are so keenly affected by this societal pressure? Can you imagine a man saying he will only be truely 'liberated' when he can go to an office job in shorts? Bronwyn says it's more important than pay equity!

BTW: I earn at least $10k less than I could because I choose a workplace that allows me to not wear a suit. I just believe if your employer can tell you what to wear, they really own you.

Bronwyn,

'...values of individualism, competitiveness, domination and militarism which I argue in a general sense are male values.' 'nurturing, compassion and cooperative endeavour which I would argue are traits more traditionally associated with women.'

You're kidding right? Do you even know how sexist that is?

'compassionate and cooperative values I once held high hopes might triumph as women gained more influence and power.'
Your going to be sadly dissapointed. Power corrupts. If you think women are the more compassionate, just watch a bunch of teenage girls from the in-group tease someone 'til they develop an eating disorder

Fractelle,

'She personified that 'male' trait of individualism over cooperation. '
More sexist rubbish. Just perhaps to lead humans around the paddock you need more than a series of Rudd-style committees. Too many cooks and all that.

Fractelle: “… a few men.”
Spot on. Did you read an earlier post when someone posited that the “natural end” of feminism is a world entirely populated by women? A lot of men on these boards seem to think that feminists are hoping to “win.” What the prize is, I’m not sure.

Whitty: “I honestly don't see the distinction you're making. If you blame peer pressure for your actions are you not playing the victim?”
I don’t reckon. Culture is complex and people are curious. Society is in constant flux, and uses “pressure” (in a metaphorical sense) to continually mould and remould people in all sorts of ways. Attaching “blame” to this “pressure” is something you may choose to do, but I don’t see how they’re self-evidently linked. Cultural pressure simply is, it simply exerts — it’s our choice to blame it or embrace it or ignore it or shift it. We create culture just as culture creates us. I find its shape-shifting endlessly fascinating and I actively want to be — and am — involved both in critically analysing it and in actively shaping it. In fact, it’s only by analysing that we can shape it.

“Why is it that only women are so keenly affected?”
By culture? They’re not. Never meant to suggest it.

“Can you imagine a man saying he will only be truely 'liberated' when he can go to an office job in shorts?”
Virtually all cultures have deemed appearance and dress more critical for females than males. A comparable situation for men lies perhaps in Desipis’s comment: “men have less freedom when it comes to careers. Women are free (in the social sense) to chose to be career focused or not, while men are much more pressured into identifying themselves based on their career.” I agree with this — women still have more freedom to be home or office-based. So the answer to your question is no, but I *can* imagine men seeking to change the shape of culture in order to create more choices for himself. And I love it.

With all the clever hammer-in-hand negotiation techniques, choice and opportunity, women are such an ungrateful lot. They tell us they hold up half the sky, but point out how little they own of the moon.

Sure, some of us may have promised it in the heat of passion (the moon, the whole thing to the one lady), but seriously, how many of us actually own even a small parcel (yes, an enterprising real estate agent somewhere is selling undeveloped acreages as we speak).

Can’t wait for ownership stats and outrage these are sure to provoke.

Vanilla, thanks,

Bronwyn, I think that you have underestimated the complexities that shape society.

We've tended to give the good stuff to the agressive competitive types. They are rewarded by both men and women for playing hard and those who don't play that way are treated as less. A lot of parallels with the beauty thing for women which is also reinforced by both men and women. The world we live in is not a male construct, it's the result of the complex interplay of a lot of different forces which tend to reward those who do best at getting to the top of the heap.

Both men and women have shaped it by the way we reward certain types of people and the things we value.

R0bert

Err hang on, its a bit of a cop out to just blame society, culture,
their job or men, for the huge amount of trouble that women go
to, to improve how they look.

All those boob jobs, all that botox, are affected by a couple of
large factors. Firstly women are highly critical of each other and
competing with each other, in the Darwinian race of life.

Just watch women, when some new woman walks into a pub. The bitches
amongst them, are ripping her apart with their eyes, as they criticise
every detail. A few honest ones, have admitted to me that its true.

Secondly whilst men in general (there are always exceptions) are
more focussed on what they think, women in general, are more focussed
on how they feel. That includes as to how they feel about themselves.

Many a woman goes through all kinds of operations and spends large
amounts of money, for that very reason.

IMHO that's just the way that womens brains are wired, as to distinct
to men. Once again, there are exceptions, its a bit like saying
men are taller then women. On average that is true, not in all cases.

Women will only be free, when they stop fussing so much about what
others think

R0bert

‘… authors such as the one who wrote this article are giving a misleading view of how things are. They use selected statistics to try and create an impression of oppression and lack of opportunity.’

I notice that you often take this line in your posts and it seems to have earned you a reputation for being a fair and sensible poster. I don’t agree. I think you are playing a game of paternalistic double-speak – professing a balanced approach to feminist rhetoric, while continually seeking to undermine it.

Take, for example, your post of 7 March 2008 8:32:41 PM...

In response to the author’s claim that ‘- women do more than twice as many hours of unpaid domestic work than men, provide the most unpaid childcare and family care, and do more voluntary work’, you offer the following vague response:

‘See [ABS link deleted] for a discussion of this.’

I did, and I found that the article actually validates the author. Housework division in the focus year (1997) was 35.6% males; 64.5% females, and volunteer work was 6.7% to 12.7% respectively. So what was the point of posting this link, if not to cast doubt on the author’s credibility, quite possibly assuming that most readers wouldn’t bother to read the article itself?

In response to the author’s claim that ‘- anywhere from 40 to 57 per cent of Australian women will experience physical or sexual violence at some point in their lives’, you respond with a quote from another ABS link: "In 2005, 11% of men and 6% of women aged 18 years and over reported at least one experience of violence during the last 12 months."

So? The author was referring to whole lifetimes, not the last 12 months. Again, who’s doing the misleading here? Perhaps it’s the researchers for the International Violence Against Women Survey 2003 (Australian component), who found that: ‘Over half of the women surveyed (57%) had experienced at least one incident of physical or sexual violence over their lifetime.’ [http://www.aifs.gov.au/acssa/statistics.html]

Post continues …

R0bert (continued post)

In response to the author’s claim that: ‘women hold just 7 per cent of the top earner positions (80 positions out of total of 1,136)’, you inexplicably respond with a quote from an ABS link that "In 1982, 8% of all women were in the highest income quintile, compared with 11% in 1999-2000".

Huh? Is a 3% increase over 18 years supposed to be proof that the author is misleading us about a continuing gender gap in top level salaries?

You then go on to comment that: ‘… it's clear that the major factor in the difference between mens and womens income is workforce participation.’

True. But it’s decades since ‘equal pay for equal work’ became law in this country. Since then, the common criteria used to determine the gender salary gap have been work participation patterns, salary packages (asked for and offered), and average salaries in male- v. female-dominated professions. The author is doing no sinister withholding here. Or would you like to accuse every research body that uses these criteria, of misleading the public?

The author has used reliable and convincing statistics to show that women are still very much subjected to ‘oppression and lack of opportunity’. However, it’s hard to realise this after the fog of ‘selected statistics’ you have used to ‘create an impression’ that her statistics can’t be trusted.

Yabby

"I am here to discuss concepts, not fuss over details. Unlike you, I don't conform to others rules or opinions."

I wasn't being pedantic, Yabby. I was trying to point out that you'd completely missed the gentle irony in Romany's post, and again in a later reference by Vanilla. You wasted a whole post to Romany defending yourself against a charge she never made. And all because you muddled up two words with very different meanings. I tried to tell you tactfully but it was obviously too subtle for you so I'll be blunt and to the point this time. It's got nothing to do with conformity, it's about basic communication.

I too admire non-conformity. I just happen to think it's easier for men to be non-conformist regarding their appearance than it is for women. Your example of Richard Branson building his empire whilst wearing jeans only reinforces my point. Society is kinder to men who refuse to waste time on how they look. Men can let their hair grey and their lines show. They can spend most of their non-working time in often quite daggy looking but comfortable clothes like shorts, T-shirts, jeans and thongs and no-one gives a toss.

If women let their hair grey and their lines show they'll soon learn what invisibility is all about. If they choose to wear comfortable shoes and trousers as well they'll certainly know all about it. As women age they are forced to waste more and more time and money on keeping the aging process at bay in a way that men don't have to think about to nearly the same extent.

The pressure to have the right look is being felt at an ever-earlier age too. While boys are out kicking the football, girls in early primary school are poring over the latest look in some kids magazine.

From cradle to grave, looking good is a part of women's lives whether they like it or not and I think you really have to have lived this yourself to truly understand what we're on about here.

give Robert a Fair go, SJF.

SJF you wrote that 11% of women were in the highest income percential, so statistically the other 89% of people in the highest income percentile will inflate the figures for average male weekly earnings. This will distort the statistics when comparing the diferences between male and female earnings. In my work a large majority of the women work part-time, so if you were to do a comparison between male and female earnings, on statistical averages men would be earning more, even when people are being paid the same rate of pay for their level of experience and qualifications.

Last time I looked into this 69% of wage earners earnt less than the average weekly earnings. The top end of the income bracket $1 mil or more is perhaps comprised of fewer than 1500 people in this country.

I believe there is a saying like "there are lies, dammed lies and statistics!"

Danielle in another post wrote that if you ask the right questions, your survey can say anything you want it too. Even demonstrate that 90 year old men in a nursing home were watching internet porn.

Women particularly in western society are the most privileged women in history and you write that "women are still oppressed and lack opportunity".

The link below looks at Norways effort to get female bums on the boardroom chair.

This makes american feminists seem reasonable.
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1925

R0bert,

“I believe that our own beliefs about what we can and cannot achieve have a much bigger impact on us than any remaining societal gender discrimination. We may have to work a bit harder to overcome perceptions sometimes but that's life”

I largely agree.

A survey should be taken of the numbers of women doing tertiary Business Studies, or MBAs, or Corporate Law degrees. This would provide an idea of women’s realistic expectations. One of these qualifications, plus an Asian language degree ...! And women are increasingly going into Law and Medicine.

Also, unlike women of “my day”, women can now take out bank loans ... in fact, back then a woman could not have a credit card with a shop unless it had a male guarantor.

Channel Nine's head of news John Westacot is, as an OLO writer stated, a “dinosaur” - and a ludicrous one at that. After seeing his photograph, any idea of “fuckible” would be a one-way street. It would have only needed an advert taken out in the press to boycott the station’s advertisers, accounts which the channel relies upon, and Westacot would have been ... I’m sure men, as well as women would have answered “the call”. A boycott, even for “one day,” would have enormous repercussions on the acccounts.

The media’s influence on women (and men) is a problem. When some “celebrity” has now taken our a large defamation claim against a paper because it stated “she was piling on the pounds” ... ! However, any glance at the magazine section for women, would suggest that women have brains the size of a pea rattling round in a pumpkin. It is up to women to demand better from these women-run media.

Importantly, we must rid ourselves of any “male mystique” at the top end of town, also “female mystique” associated with housework.

cont ...

Whitty,

When I mentioned “waxing”, I wasn’t referring to legs. :-[

Also, unfortunately, it is the companies who employ executive women, who demand they be extremely well-dressed - even if the women are part-time. You only have to see women struggling to get dressed and made-up, and trying to leave the house on time, with toddlers screaming and pulling at them, or babies being sick down the back of their jackets, or older children “losing” something, to realise just how stressful this can be. It is even worse, when women also have to prepare their children for nursery, or pre-school. After being already stressed “to the max”, these women now have to appear calm and collected and face a day, which has its own stressors.

And it can’t be denied, that if a woman looks old, even if very experienced, her chances of getting a job drop dramatically - a man can be virtually toothless. So women have to make their move early in the workplace.

As for Branson, he started in a particularly “informal” field - also owns his empire. I guarantee he expects his female executives, in appearance, to “reflect” the success of his business. I don’t know if it is quite the same now, but a woman was considered an asset (and not in a sexy way) if she dressed and presented herself well.

Vanilla, Fractelle,

“… a few men.” I agree. You've both brought a smile to my face. The amount of time I have spent trying to argue with feminists that most men didn't vote either not too long before feminism.

'that feminists are hoping to “win.” '
I've always said no matter what laws or power or status women achieve, they will NEVER be happy:-) Therefore I don't think they can win.

Bronwyn,

'they'll soon learn what invisibility is all about'

I think this is at the crux of it. Most men are ALWAYS invisible. Women just don't appreciate how lucky they are to be desired all the time. I for one would love to be wolf whistled or perved at in a non discrete way. I remember being hit on by a guy once, and being flattered, and thinking it must be great to be a woman. I even learnt why women are tempted to tease men, it's a wonderful feeling of power. So what I'm saying it's just one side of a two sided coin. Maybe women are drunk on the power of their own beauty, and fear their loss of power as they age.

'forced to waste more and more time and money'
'forced'? They are CHOOSING to. They are simply vain. You know why men aren't 'forced' to? Because they don't allow themselves to be. My mates and I constantly ridicule each others efforts and expense to look good. Vanity is discouraged in male circles and encouraged in female ones.

There seems to be this attitude out there (Not necessarily by the posters here) that men are forcing women to look a certain way. I think it's much more other womans influence, and to men it seems like a closed circle of obsession with celebrity, fashion, cosmetics and plastic surgery that we stand on the outside and look in at in a state of bemusement. Then we are told it is men who are the opressors in this because we dare to be attracted to women.

Although Richard Branson has always been hirsute and worn jeans to work his Virgin Blue empire is very prejudiced against overweight and older workers. Virgin Blue has admitted not hiring anyone over age 36 and the uniforms provided for female cabin crew highights every extra gram lurking on the belly.

As Danielle mentioned grooming, those women whose ancestors hail from the Mediterranean know that a leg wax costs $35, its not a DIY operation, a razor is no substitute as smooth hairless legs are compulsory under a skirt. A woman pays far more for an equivalent haircut than man, often double or triple.

*Vanity is discouraged in male circles and encouraged in female ones.*

Exactly! Its females competing with each other, that is the real
issue here.

Bromwyn, if you look at just about any men right at the top of
the food chain, including Branson, Buffett, Murdoch, Walton, Gates
and a long list of others, few have any dress sense or care and
they generally don't give a hoot what others think about them.
That's perhaps one of the reasons why they have done so well.

What they fuss about is what customers think of their products, not
about them. Big difference!

Branson was frowned on by the British business establishment, for
a very long time. But of course in the real world, results speak
louder then anything.

Sadly there are very few female entrepreneurs out there.

As to the corporate world, yup, in any large company it gets very
bitchy and nasty, as everyone attempts to move up the food chain.
People put on their uniforms when they go to work, to suit the
workplace. The really smart ones are talented enough that they
don't need to bother, but others do. A friend of mine worked
for a large advertising agency in Europe. He was so good at his
job, his ads got such good results in the marketplace, that he
dictated the terms in the end, not the company he worked for.

Yes Branson fusses about the age of his hosties, what they wear etc,
as that is part of the product that he sells. He is selling a flying
experience after all. If you don't want to fuss about what you wear,
start your own business, or accept that wearing the company uniform
is part of your job.

Why are so many women failures at being entrepreneurs?

"Gender-orientated legislation and bureaucratic bodies to support it have been in place in Australia for a long time, but their impact seems to be lessening over time."

About time the affirmative action organisation was abandoned in recognition of the failure which it is.

This bleeding heart diatribe of apparent disgraces like

"a female CEO earns two-thirds the salary of her male counterpart; "

but are the sizes of their organisations comparative or skewed?

"in Human Resources, where women are more commonly found as top earners, the pay gap is still 43 per cent; "

but are the sizes of their organisations comparative or skewed?

Anyway, my observation of HR is it is a complete waste of effort and the strong organisation will leave the authority with the line managers and minimise the HR function to a parttime consultant.

"60 per cent of female top earners work in the bottom 100 ASX200"

maybe they cannot compete in terms of "skill" (that mixture of technical ability and attitude) with the men, who do not need maternity leave. Being a "woman of childbearing age and inclination", is not a commercially valuable attribute when considering her for a significant management role. The potential disruption through pregnancy detracts and given two people of equal skill and merit, where one might get banged up and the other biologically unequipped for pregnancy, the one less likely to get preggers is the winner.

Anyway the best quote I know regarding the feminist cause is

"I owe nothing to Women's Lib."

Margaret Thatcher.

(And she had some of the biggest and hardest balls going)

Whitty & Yabby,
I think you need to dig a bit more deeply in the compost heap that is culture.

James,
Firstly, I completely agree with you about the Norwegian boardroom legislation. I am dismayed by it and I hope you will remember that not all feminists support this type of legislation. I believe that, if there was ever a time with affirmative action for women was appropriate, it is *long gone* and it’s insultingly patronising to suggest that women can’t make it on merit. And if we’re not, then we need to fix that — in meaningful ways. Because society would benefit if men and women werre represented equally on the average company boards — men and women are a natural fit, and skewing things either way creates a weaker orgnanism — but there are many things we can do to make it easier for both men and women to balance work and family life which would in turn make women more available for boardroom work. I would fight against this legislation if it were introduced in Australia.

Secondly, you didn’t answer me about the Office for Men. Is this what you’re seeking? Has any effective lobbying ever taken place?

Billie,
Excellent point re Branson. He’s such a tosser. I loathe Virgin Blue and its fake smiles and enforced bonhomie and its you-don’t-have-to-be-crazy-to-work-here-but-it-helps! ethos. Ugh.

Danielle,
You are doing a great job of being calm and reasonable in the face of a lot of people either deliberately or actually misreading your posts. Well done

Having explained my problems re posting elsewhere, I get frustrated at not being able to post whenever I want. So, although it might seem I am regressing to refer to Yabby again, bear with me.

Yabby, - there is no evidence whatsoever to support the fact that mens and womens roles were always separate. To base ideas on contemporary (albeit it is said the culture goes back 40,000 years) tribes has nothing to do with our Neolithic ancestors. Cave drawings show stick figures so we have no way of knowing whether indeed "women picked berries and men went out to hunt". Until the advent of writing we had no way of knowing either that Celtic women went into battle alongside the men...a fact which Hollywood has always ignored.

I find it ironic therefore that The Usual Suspects get so steamed up about perceived unfairness and blame "feminists" when women have been fighting for change for centuries. Ever since we emerged from what some still refer to as the "Dark Ages" and Christianity imposed a strictly gendered society women have been fighting it. Yes, we have made a lot of progress recently in European countries but we are still, it seems from these threads, being opposed tooth and claw.

It took us centuries and we fought every step of the way...I join the other posters who invite you to do the same. Go and have tubes pushed down your throats; get slung into jail, be burnt at the stake, march through the streets. If you feel so strongly about it go and do something about it. Several women on this site have offered to join you. If you don't wish to, then stop blaming the entire female sex for your own bad choices!

Here's Aemilia Lanyer (1569-1645)objecting to the Church teaching that women were responsible for the downfall of humanity:

"But surely Adam cannot be excused;
Her fault though great, yet he was most to blame;
What weakness offered, strength migh have refused,
Being lord of all, the greater was his shame."

And Margaret Cavendish (1623-1673)
women, she feels
"are kept like birds in cages to hop up and down in our houses, not suffered to fly abroad to see ...thus by an opinion, which I hope is but an erronious(sic) one in men, we are shut out of all power, and Authority, by reason we are never imployed either in civil nor marshal affaires."

and..."Marriage is a Curse we find/especially to Womenkind/From the Cobblers Wife we see/To ladies, they unhappy be."

SJF, I’ll admit to undermining feminist rhetoric when it is 'rhetoric' rather than honestly addressing genuine inequities.

This author provided a list of 'facts' which taken at face value provided a misleading picture. I’ve attempted to provide links to material which provides a more balanced view of the data. All of the links in the post you refer to were to ABS documents.

I provided a link to that info on unpaid housework so fair minded readers could get better overview of the situation than snipping a couple of convenient stats.

The author is correct but only tells a part of the story. Did you notice that the difference in the value of unpaid housework performed by employed men and women while still significant is much less than the proportions suggested by the author (20.7% and 27.5% respectively). As I understand it men have a higher participation in the paid workforce so we should expect some difference in this group. The big difference comes in when you look at the work done by the unemployed (that term looks ugly in this context).

The authors stat was accurate but misleading the way it was used.

Similar issues for the volunteer and community work items except that employed men did more of that than employed women (25.1% and 21.4% respectively although the difference seemed to be mostly in travel time). Again the real difference is about employment status rather than gender.

cont'd

Daniella, well said.

R0bert

Vanilla,

to be honest I havent given much thought about an office for men. It is an idea. It would interesting to see what would happen if there was, and hopefully they do not have people like Michael Flood dominating it.

Personally I would prefer to see courses at the uni level, which are not controlled by or under the umberalla of the gender studies departments.

Has there been any lobbying? I have no idea.

I do know and I am sure your husband will support this, is that the vast majority of men do not want touch these subjects with a barge pole, if they can avoid it. I think this for two reasons, firstly by discussing the subjects covered on OLO many men will get in touch with areas of their life, feelings they would prefer to avoid. The second reason as amply demonstrated here time and time again, to have a view point which is different and not politically correct, invites some very personal attacks.

so it not a very safe area to try and explore or discuss.

I previously asked the question if any of the women had read any of the books by Warren Farrell, Maggie Hamilton, Melanie Phillips,David Thomas, etc and nobody had answered.

I have read books by feminists, even if I did not agree with what they were saying and the reason I read these books was in order to develope an understanding.

*Excellent point re Branson. He's such a tosser.*

Vanilla, sounds like Branson will be able to cope without you or Billie after
all :)

http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,23354806-462,00.html

Romany, I tend to rely on anthropologists to figure out what our ancestors did
or did not do. People like Helen Fisher and others. Its only 500 grandmothers ago,
which is nothing in genetic terms, that they lived in caves after all.

Fisher has some interesting theories about pair bonding etc and blames the
plough for the enslavement of women. If we look at women in hunter gatherer
societies like the Kung and others, they seem to have had far more freedoms.

Now it is possible, that women passed their kids to the menfolk, as they picked
up their weapons and went out hunting, while the men chatted and picked berries,
but its improbable. You need to question why pair bonding evolved in humans,
in the first place.

*we are still, it seems from these threads, being opposed tooth and claw*

I don’t know about opposed, we just point out that these days, you girls are
on easy street and complain loudly for few good reasons. If you fail in life,
rather then addressing your failings, I guess its easier to just blame men..

SJF, (continued)

The point is so that people read the whole story, no questions about context or selective stats.

In regard to the violence point my post clearly showed that the figure was for a 12 month period. No misleading. Perhaps 2005 was a very bad year for men but I doubt it. Again I posted a link to the article so that readers could form their own opinion and compare the various figures. The article gives some demographic info which is relevant.

No attempt to mislead, rather an attempt to promote a more balanced look at the issues. Rhetoric and the selective use of stats which promote a misleading impression harms the cause of those seeking to deal with genuine injustice and unfairness. Those who are not 'true believers' get cynical about claims when they are used to exaggeration and misrepresentation.

Vanilla, I'd have mixed views about the idea of an "Office for Men"
There are some issues where a dedicated focus on mens issues might be good, our lower life expectancy would be a good place to start.

In other regards the idea horrifies me. Offices like that all to easily fall into the trap of persuing agenda's which damage the community as a whole as they seek to benefit their group. They can be devisive and we don't need more of that. Can you imagine competing anti-DV campaigns each seeking to portray the other us wrong. I'd rather the one campaign that attempted to stop all non-consentual violence. People find themselves with cushy jobs and seek to show that they are still needed by exagerating claims. True believers jet jobs in those kind of offices and persue their agenda's regardless of any concept of fairness or truth.

At this point in time the negatives look far greater than the benefits.

R0bert

This is an interesting thread. To me it's just further evidence to support the idea that the world could be a very different place if it were women making the decisions!

The debate's on track. It's rigorous and wide-ranging and there's very little in the way of personal attack, which is due in part to the civility of the male posters too of course, but the thread is definitely being driven by its feminist contributors. It's good to be part of a debate where you know there's always someone else there to step in and carry the baton. Go sisters!

And brothers!

To Vanilla, Fractelle, Romany, Passy, SJF, Danielle, Miacat, sajo, TRTL, billie and anyone else I may have missed - thank you, I hope to cross your paths on other threads, not that this one is dead yet by any means!

Bronwyn,

'the idea that the world could be a very different place if it were women making the decisions!'

At the risk of attracting Vanilla's wrath again, I refute this suggestion that the world would be rosy if women were in charge. Yeah I know you said 'different', but given the tone of your post and earlier comments, I think you mean better. Especially since you go on to praise the superiority of the female posters and thank your mates for backing you up.

To me it's the same as in politics. The minor parties like the greens don't have to make the laws or do any governing, and can bang on forever about all the government's mistakes, and be as idealistic as they like, as they know full well they don't have to make any tough decisions or actually run the country. If they came into power, I think it would be a very different story.

But you go on bigging up your nurturing and compassionate and cooperative women, and attacking all those nasty individualistic, competetive, dominating and military loving males.

You say you don't hate men, which is probably true, but the way you attribute all these negative characteristics to men and positive ones to women makes you seem quite female-supremacist at least.

I agree with you whole heartedly Whitty.

I too have wonder if Bronwyn is not a female supremist?

Bronwyn “To me it's just further evidence to support the idea that the world could be a very different place if it were women making the decisions!”

If you are going to make grandstanding statements like that I would suggest you qualify them

However, Margaret Thatcher got it right when she said

“Let our children grow tall, and some taller than others if they have it in them to do so.”

(Margaret using height as a simile for all human attributes)

Men have generally grown taller than women.

I can imagine an army run by women,

the camouflage gear would co-ordinate and “military decorations” would be crocheted.

Not that it would matter, “Sorry girls, no tank battles on Thursday, PMT is setting in.”

The arrogance of feminism is it presume we would be somewhere else, without acknowledging that where that might be may not be such a (male influenced) good place as where we presently are.

Danielle:
"A survey should be taken of the numbers of women doing tertiary Business Studies, or MBAs, or Corporate Law degrees."

According to the census data, males make up about 2/3rds of those holding postgraduate degrees in the broad field of "Management & Commerce".

"The media’s influence on women (and men) is a problem."

Yet the media is influenced by those who buy what they produce, so its a cyclical issue where consumers create demand for sexist material. If the current media stop producing then someone else will come along and fill the gap to supply the demand.

"it is the companies who employ executive women, who demand they be extremely well-dressed"

They also demand the men be extremely well dressed too. Corporate-fashion menswear isn't cheap or easy either.

"You only have to see women struggling..."

You seem to describe a situation here where the woman is trying to have both an important career focus and be the primary carer of her children. I think it illustrates the freedom women do have when they try to have it all and are able to take on more than they can handle. Interestingly the census data indicates that a higher proportion of men (33%) employed full time engaged in caring for a child compared to women (27%) employed full time.

Bronwyn:
"To me it's just further evidence to support the idea that the world could be a very different place if it were women making the decisions!"

I'd argue the world would be much the same, but women would be very different. As Whitty infers, the culture and attitudes of women have developed within their historical role of carer and nurturer, where they were sheltered from the harsh realities of the world.

Vanilla:
"society would benefit if men and women werre represented equally on the average company boards — men and women are a natural fit, and skewing things either way creates a weaker orgnanism"

Here you infer that men and women are different, yet refuse to acknowledge that such differences may make one better suited to a position than the other.

Despisis: "Here you infer that men and women are different, yet refuse to acknowledge that such differences may make one better suited to a position than the other."

Sorry? Where did I refuse to acknowledge that? As you'll know if you've read my OLO contributions, my broad philosophy is the genders have natural differences - although, of course, each individual is a hothouse of exceptions. One of my major arguments with other feminists in recent years was the obscene blackballing of Larry Summers for saying men may, as a group, be better at the sciences. As long as those exceptional women are not discouraged from achieving, I don't dispute this may be correct.

What was it I said that led you to believe that? This is my problem with these gender discussions. If you're going to tell me what I think, or what feminists think, at least put a bit of elbow grease into getting it right.

Whitty: "At the risk of attracting Vanilla's wrath again, I refute this suggestion that the world would be rosy if women were in charge."
I not wrathful, I'm depressed. This sentence would seem to suggest that you really have no clue what I think.

"I think you mean better. Especially since you go on to praise the superiority of the female posters and thank your mates for backing you up."
I know. We like and admire each other. How sexist and superior of us! We just wanted to provide a contrast to Yabby's "bitches" in the pub.

James: "I too have wonder if Bronwyn is not a female supremist?"
Really? What an odd definition of it you must have. Jeez, the name-calling. A couple of posters have suggested I think they're sexist, or even misogynist. To be honest, I do think HRS is a bit problematic, but other than that... supremacist, sexist - they're such silly, old-fashioned words.

But what would I know! We women just sit on the sidelines!

Hot tip: read the Sunday Age opinion page this week.

"Female supremacist"? That's way off beam guys. I love and admire men. I love their company and enjoy their conversation as much as that of women. So much of the good stuff in this world is being driven by men.

I won’t back down from my argument that the values I've outlined as critical in developing a more sustainable and fairer world are values that are inherently more common in females than in males. Of course there are many people from both genders exhibiting mixes of all these values. And I also realise it's far too black-and-white to state that some values are good and some are bad. Competition for example can be useful, it can drive people to achieve more than they might otherwise, and the cooperative approach on the other hand can be slow and cumbersome.

Anyone who spends a lot of time with large groups of young children as I do will relate in some degree to this basic premise. They'll observe boys from an early age vying to claim the best truck or digger. In lower primary they'll spend a lot of time dealing with boys who've been hit or punched by other boys. And in later primary they'll see boys organizing their play almost entirely around the proving of their individual physical prowess.

Young girls are much more likely to play in a cooperative situation. They'll play 'doctors and nurses', set up 'shops', look after 'the babies' and so on. Of course conflict arises but they tend to talk it through. Girls can be cruel as was alluded to earlier and can exclude others from the group just as readily as boys. But they rarely involve themselves in physical fighting. They will usually be the first too to come to the aid of a child who is hurt or upset.

It's far more interesting and far more constructive when you debate the issues and challenge our thinking (as you and Yabby and others for the most part have been doing) than when you resort to labelling and cheap shots as you have in this instance.

Bronwyn,

you've convinced me, and explained your position very well. Though I'm sure if a male suggested women just didn't have enough natural aggression and leadership for some task I would be considered sexist. Your tone in your last post did come off as superior, but it was a bit much to call you a female supremacist.

Vanilla,

I also still wonder how yourself and Bronwyn reconcile your position of attributing the state of society and culture as men's responsibility, in this supposedly man's world, yet deem it offensive to believe women have been standing on the sidelines and criticizing. Note I did say it is fair enough to counter that they haven't had the opportunity to have an input.

So which is it?

a) Women bare just as much responsibility as men for society and culture, hence this man's world business is crap and women aren't the holier than though creatures they are made out to be

b) Women have no responsibility, as it's a man's world, but any argument that they would have done it better is an exercise in being the masters of hindsight, armchair expert, and naive idealists.

Billie,

'A woman pays far more for an equivalent haircut than man, often double or triple.'

That's because men refuse to pay any more than about $20. Women could do that too. For god's sake I know of a few girls who even leave a tip after their $80 trim!

Whitty: “I also still wonder how yourself and Bronwyn reconcile your position of attributing the state of society and culture as men's responsibility…”
What the...? Ok, you need to help me out. I don’t believe the “state of society and culture [is] men’s responsibility”. I don’t even believe one gender *can* be responsible for a culture — including their own, which necessarily sits in both harmony and opposition to the other. I’ve reread my posts TWICE and *honestly* have no idea why you believe I hold this position.

Quote me, and I’ll endeavour to explain what I actually meant.

I’m totally depressed by my apparent inability to articulate what I mean.

Ok. Onwards.

“… yet deem it offensive to believe women have been standing on the sidelines and criticizing.”
For a start, you’ve never offended me. I may disagree and get bolshie, sure, but offended? No.

Your original quote was: “It's pretty easy for these women standing on the sidelines (through lack of oportunity or not) to be untainted by humankinds path thus far, while reaping the rewards in standard of living.”
Firstly, who are "these women sitting on the sidelines”? Contemporary ladykind, I hope we all agree, is in the main arena. You could conceivably say that, pre-suffarage, women sat on the sidelines and voice strong opinions. (They were the suffragettes, after all — they did have stuff to complain about.) But if you mean women these days, I reject your premise. Prove it.

Secondly, women contribute to the standard of living, both by generating wealth and by supporting men who generate wealth. Both men and women reap the resultant rewards.

Both a. and b. are inadequate explanations.

“That's because men refuse to pay any more than about $20. Women could do that too.”

The commerce that’s grown around the adornment of women in every culture since the Greeks is kinda complex. Its roots are both deeply biological and deeply commercial — through property and marriage markets — and if you extracted beauty from business the economy would collapse. I admire your ambition, but it’s bigger than haircuts.

billie

And they have to starve themselves too ....?

Vanilla,

Thank you for your support and kind words. I am generally known for my unfailing, albeit innocent, ability to upset people :-[

Returning to the topic of husbands’ (some) expectations. I recall “a lifetime ago” being promised to be covered in diamonds. Wanting to keep the romantic moment going, I encouraged more - only to reveal this would show the world the measure of his success. I didn’t marry him; but I learnt a valuable lesson. If my husband can be encouraged to “drop off his twig”, I will be out there looking for a wealthy widower with a very bad cough ...

More seriously.

Statistics need to be broken down much further into professions and industries, etc; also an indepth study done of what women actually want for themselves, including partners. We don’t want women to feel guilty that they aren’t striving for the top eschelons in corporate business. It was bad enough when women first entered the workplace with the guilt of being working-mums.

Some industries may not attract women and, therefore, are male dominated; this would skew figures as to male/female ratios of advancement. I suspect the mining industry is such; also pilots of commercial airlines. Albeit, this area is not barred from women. A few years ago great publicity heralded the first woman pilot of one of the biggest companies. Predictably this was followed by an irate “letter to the editor” from an outraged male, stating he would never fly with a woman pilot ... (something about) ... hysteria ... and PMT. Forget terrorists, think ovaries.

Romany,

I agree with your about the Church... After all ... Adam’s excuse, ...”The woman made me do it ...”

And throughout social history there is a fear of women’s menses. At some level, I believe, this accords with the idea of women in the board-room.

Depsis,

“According to the census data, males make up about 2/3rds of those holding postgraduate degrees in the broad field of "Management & Commerce”

1/6th difference - women are catching up.

cont ..

Women’s clothing is much more expensive than men’s - compare the same brand and exactly same style of jumper for a woman and a man - a massive price difference. Exploitation?

Struggling with children can occur when career-women are full-time or part-time. It has nothing to do with taking on more than one can handle. It appears - and I might be wrong - that men on average leave the organisation of babies and tots to their wives. Does that 33% of men include care of very young children.

Yabby,

Women, indeed, have entrepreneurial  flair. They can turn an old idea on its head and create something new. They also introduce completely novel concepts, particularly in meeting societal needs. However, as Bronwyn has shown, women interact differently with others, and many prefer smaller businesses, (often more apparent than real), for example, a vocational magazine run by two women, with international recognition of being top ranking in the world, and with world-wide readership. Then we have such businesswomen as Therese Rein.

Col Rouge

We have already clashed about corporate management on another OLO.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1532

“ Being a "woman of childbearing age and inclination", is not a commercially valuable attribute when considering her for a significant management role.”

A ludicrous statement, completely outdated, should not even factor in. Women seeking significant management status have already made the necesssary decisions.

Apart from the falacy of your argument, when male executives go on long-service leave, it is hardly even noticed - no businesses collapse, nor indeed departments.

Re: Margaret Thatcher. It is heard that English male cabinet ministers often have a psycho-sexual “nanny complex” or prediliction for women’s undies; which sometimes hits the headlines.

“... an army run by women”

You are dating yourself .

“ ... PMT is setting in.”

It was YOU who wrote that irate “letter to the editor” about female pilots! We have women fighter pilots, even space pilots.

“The arrogance of feminism is to presume ... we presently are”

The immediate above, obviously the result of incandescent rage, dear Col Rouge, is completely incomprehensible.

Oh Danielle nice to see I caught your attention, between running the kids to and from school, getting your hair done and making a nice meal for the man in your life.

“We have already clashed about corporate management on another OLO.”

Nice of you to remember.

Yes, you seemed to be getting your knickers in a twist there too.

All the anecdotal evidence in the world does not substitute for analytical research and since all you said was your own “anecdotal experience”, I see no point in giving it the more credit by challenging it.

“A ludicrous statement, completely outdated, should not even factor in.”

Well I think otherwise and am entitled to express my views, regardless of your assertions on allowable factors.

“ Women seeking significant management status have already made the necesssary decisions.”

Yes, that may be so but have the men, who are considering employing them, made the necessary decisions too?

“no businesses collapse, nor indeed departments.”

However, you fail to quantify how much organizational disruption it causes, unless the role the woman plays is sole incidental to what really matters (as with all HR roles).

“It is heard that English male cabinet ministers often have a psycho-sexual “nanny complex” or prediliction for women’s undies”

I do recall an Australian Labor cabinet minister being up on charges for having a “predilection” for children.
Maybe you could argue that was a result of Keating’s style of leadership.

“It was YOU who wrote that irate “letter to the editor” about female pilots!”
It was not but when should the truth ever get in the way of your rant.

“The immediate above, obviously the result of incandescent rage”

Hardly, you seem to be the one who is seething and salivating, for myself, I am enjoying a warm evening with a cold beer and a belly laugh at your expense.

“dear Col Rouge, is completely incomprehensible.”

Comprehension is in the eye of the beholder and sometimes constrained by the limited ability of the same beholder.

Have a nice time, I look forward to your response, more fun and frolics.

Danielle,

Who hasn’t clashed with Col on OLO, but why blame him for shortages in female pilots and astronauts? Surely Lisa Nowak and others like her, have exerted more influence to such outcomes than we could realistically credit frolicking Col.

*Women, indeed, have entrepreneurial flair. They can turn an old idea on its head and create something new.*

Danielle, I did not say none existed, just that in comparison to
men, women have not done very well in the entrepreneurial stakes.
Look at the world's top 500 or so entrepreneurs, how many are
women? I'm not saying its good or bad, just that it is so.

I think that there are good reasons for that. Today its pretty
well accepted that the "tabula raza" theory was nonsense.
Behaviour is affected by both genes and environment. What
our ancestors were selected for, still affects us today.
Hormones also affect behaviour and if we land up male
or female, different hormones will be more pronounced in
our endocryne system.

People like Rupert Murdoch, don't go out to work for the
money. Its the buzz they get from winning. Money simply
measures how well they have done. IMHO its still the
hunter gatherer in us. The businessman going out to make
a "killing", the sporting team going out to win a "trophy"

So men are more focussed on business, sport and sex (in general)
and women with all sorts of other stuff.

Thats another reason why I think that men were the hunters and
women picked the berries, not the other way around :)

Vanilla,
"To be honest, I do think HRS is a bit problematic,"

I've never said anything mean and nasty about you, even after you have said many abusive things about me, and I vote you as one of the top three abusive feminists on OLO.

Yabby,
There is possibly another reason why men have been hunters. Eating meat is one of the most efficient ways of getting protein, and also various other essential nutrients such as iron.

Today, men are probably working longer hours in paid work to get essential money, and also pay the essential mortgage.

Bronwyn you haven't convinced me!

although you say that you love and admire men, you give examples of the differences between the play of boys and girls. You said that girls were generally more co-operative.

However research into the bullying behaviour of girls showed that they flew under the radar and that their bullying behaviour was more difficult to detect. One article looked at how girls had adapted their bullying tactics with the use of new technology.

Warren Farrell in one of his books asked a teacher to conduct some research into who hit who and how often. The teacher, I can not remember the exact quote but remember that the teacher after awhile tended not to notice the girls violence.

I personally know of two boys who have been kneed in the testicles by girls and even though it was reported it was ignored. I cannot imagine that it would have been ignored if a boy happened to knee a girl in the labia.

One of the boys reported that he was not the only one it had happened too.

Too call you a supremetist is perhaps a little exaggeration.

The article by Kellie Tranter is described as "Women who speak out for equal rights - the same rights, not special rights - are often described as being 'man-haters', or worse." Looking at the posts from the usual (male) suspects I would have to agree with the article's premise.

Attaching a derogatory label belittles any attempt at meaningful dialog and significant change.

Some of the discussion has been about violence.

I would recommend two pamphlets for people who want to understand the link between the society we live in and violence against women.

They are both by socialists.

Sandra Bloodworth "Rape, Sexual Violence and Capitalism"

Sheila McGregor "Rape, pornography and capitalism

Billie

I fully agree.

When a woman simply states she believes in equal rights and opportunities as men, she is subjected to a tirade of misinformation and name calling.

I know that there are wonderful men who agree with equal rights for the sexes, and a very small percentage of them post here. But they are too often drowned out by the noise of the usual suspects who just basically don't like women as people as opposed to desiring women.

This is why I haven't bothered posting here much at all.

Until women have equal representation in leadership positions in politics, business and all aspects of human endeavour we cannot be said to have true equality.

All the bluster in the world does not change the above fact, that in this world (both in developed and underdeveloped countries) women have yet to achieve equal numbers as decision makers.

Sure, for western women we have made some progress, but we still represent only a third of politicians (at best). We do have a ways to go, however, I also believe we will get there. The men I know are nothing like HRS, and I believe his ilk are really very much the dinosaurs of the male gender.

So, Billie, don't be too dismayed, there are lots of men who do want true equality as much as we do

Yoh! Hey, Yab-miester -

What makes you assume that, unlike you, I do not depend upon the word of anthropologists for information regarding anthropology? Yes, I have got little bits of paper attesting to my qualification in Lit. and Drama from a recent stint at Uni, but first time round my field was Anthropology and Sociology. I do not think there's anything in any of my posts to suggest that I habitually mouth off on subjects about which I know nothing. (But hey, provide excerpts if this is not the case)

Your patronising scenario to refute the claim that perhaps the man-as-hunter, woman-as-dependent scenario is a later construct by scholars anachronistically applying contemporary sociological division may seem "possible" to you, but appears ludicrous to me. And is not at all what was meant.

I was merely arguing that to base contemporary mores on the premise that things have always been thus and that it was the natural order of things may be a flawed proposition. The facts attesting that, for as long as we have been able to hear women's voices they have felt there was nothing "natural" about it was provided to shore up this argument.

You and others seem continually to blame some nebulous and recent "feminist" opponent both for your own misfortunes and the state of the world. I was merely pointing out that we cannot be certain that the two genders did not start off from a society organised not along gender lines, but along those of natural aptitude and ability. In which case THAT would be the natural order of things. This then, could provide a reason for dissatisfaction between genders forced to undertake societally different constructs.

It's a discussion for crissake, not a war in which each sides seeks to point out how badly the enemy has treated them!

Romany, "It's a discussion for crissake, not a war in which each sides seeks to point out how badly the enemy has treated them!"

Spot on.

R0bert

Billie,

'are often described as being 'man-haters', or worse."...
Attaching a derogatory label belittles any attempt at meaningful dialog and significant change'

As does trotting out the term misogynist to any male that disagrees with any feminist position. Notice how few people know the meaning of the word Misandrist.

I would say all the men I know are in favour of equal rights for women. I believe women do have equal rights in most respects in our society.

What I rally against is tokenism and wanting equal representation in everything, denial of any gender differences, misrepresentation of stats, blaming men for 'society', not taking responsibility for your own choices, saying something is too expensive, and then still paying for it (eg clothes and haircuts).

I believe women have the same OPPORTUNITYS as men, and it's ridiculous to cry discrimination every time women aren't the same as men. Nobody ever imagines women are making the CHOICE not to further their career, and a lot are happy with their life balance.

Any discrepancy in representation is automatically assumed discrimination. Some feminist arguments are as stupid as say... men complaining that we spend more on cars because women makes us because they like guys with a nice car. That's the quality of a lot of these arguments.

Do you know the average height of CEO's is about 4 inches above the population average. If it was women instead of short men, discrimination would be the cry!

Fractelle,

'Until women have equal representation in leadership positions in politics, business and all aspects of human endeavour we cannot be said to have true equality.'

Just what are we going to do if women don't want to be in these positions, and we just cant find enough women who are interested in the roles?

Hey Whitty, I posted something to you which has got a bit lost in the kerfuffle - my last post above: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7088#108590

No obligation, but I'd love to know what I said to make you believe I believed something so inimical to my actual thoughts.

Vanilla,

I only have my memory to rely on, perhaps I got this impression from your defence of Bronwyn. There's too many blogs for me to keep up with. Sorry I cannot find where you have said this. The way you have used standing on the sidelines a couple of times leads me to believe that has got you riled up.

'Secondly, women contribute to the standard of living, both by generating wealth and by supporting men who generate wealth. Both men and women reap the resultant rewards.
'
I was talking more about the riches stolen by the west from the third world, by use of miltary superiority. Many women in their fictional women's world with no war and total cooperation between countries fail to see the befits they have gained by all that nasty male violence and competition. If all women were lining the streets and protesting about every war, rather than handing out white feathers... OK I am just winding you up now:-)

With respect, you don't have to rely on memory - all my posts are above, and if the reference exists, it shouldn't take long to spot it. But this isn't the first time you've attributed ideas to me that I haven't articulated and do not possess. I don't like it, because then it looks to other posters that I actually possess these (to me) objectionable attitudes. And I waste posts restating my original position.

To the extent that this is my fault — that I haven't articulated myself well — I apologise. But I'd also like to ask you, if poss, if you could make sure you're responding to what I've actually said. I have lots of opinions and ideas and I'm happy to enlarge on them, defend them, change my mind about them — all sorts of stuff. But let's be honest and get to the crux of what we *really* believe, not what others believe or simplifications or inaccurate extrapolations.

Even in your last post you talk about "many women in their fictional women's world with no war and total cooperation between countries" - I get the joke, but as I'm pretty obviously not one of those "many women" it's all a bit irrelevant to me whether you're winding me up or not.

Here’s how the power hierarchy currently operates on planet earth:

AT the apex are Top Dogs, mostly male white, a couple black and a few token females (Condy Rice et al) types not likely to change anything that may favour women. We already know that Maggie Thatcher was actually a man in drag as Col Rouge has kindly pointed out her great big bollocks. And the Top Dogs apply the old adage of divide and conquer, thus we have:

The Hoi polloi – that’s you and me folks.
This consists of two layers:

1. Cannon Fodder – mostly men – they are kept in a state of hope that they can work their way to top and also that they are superior to the second layer:

2. Baby machines - mostly women – they are told that they will receive things like baby bonuses if they breed some more, which of course completely screws up any career path they may aspire to and they are called feminazis if they try to reach the same level as the Cannon Fodder, which is not all that great anyway.

Lately there has been some shifting about between layers 1 and 2, some women want to be cannon fodder and some men want to actually get seriously involved in parenting. However, the Top Dogs make this difficult by making parenting leave and custody difficult for the layer 1 and they tell them that this is all the fault of feminazis… and so it goes…

Excellent Fractelle!!

Fractelle
When you call someone a "dinosaur", you are now carrying out abuse.

No wonder you are attracted to feminism.

There is no democracy or equality in feminism. Feminism is discrimination based on gender.

Romany, yup it’s a discussion. That is what I am doing. Its not me mentioning
the sisterhood or brotherhood .

I just happen to disagree with the author. Women get a fair go. Discriminating
in their favour, because they are women, would be sexist. If they think that their
salaries are too low, they are free to negotiate with their employers or start their
own businesses, just like men do.

I certainly don’t blame feminists for my misfortune, as I don’t have misfortune.
What I point out is that some women complain endlessly and blame the world
and men for their problems, others get on with life and thrive. There are
plenty of women out there who are content with their lives.

*but along those
of natural aptitude and ability.*

Absolutaly. It just so happens that its women who get pregnant and not men.
Running around going hunting, when 6-9 months pregnant, or with a kid
under the arm, would not be the easiest of things to do. Men also on average
happen to be taller and stronger then women, so their natural aptitude would be
to go hunting, rather then mom with her swollen belly.

In hunter gatherer days, women clearly played a more independent role, as
they had their own food sources and could easily swop meat for sex. That
is Helen Fisher’s point, when the plow came along, things changed for women.

As to another poster’s comment that white males dominate everything, rubbish.
Nearly every white male has a female to answer to and I’ve never seen a more
henpecked bunch of husbands, then the Americans. Look what happened to
Clinton or Spitzer, when they decided to fool around for a quickie elsewhere.
Instant destruction of their careers! So where is that power then?

Seeker,

I don’t blame the “frolicking” (I love it - I hope it catches on) Col for the shortage of female commercial pilots. Undoubtedly, he would like to take the credit. The good Col would see it in everyone’s best interest.

Yabby,

Some of those amongst the world’s top hundred are dynastic, or have inherited a business.

Whilst you cite the world’s top hundred, I wonder how many other male “entrepreurs” have actually gone to the wall, losing everything, including investors money.

Some men are prepared to “mortgage” everything they own, including their family.
This may demonstrate a “killer instinct” , but are these men prudent - how often do they succeed? Some women may not be prepared to go this far.

The women I know who have successsful businesses, started very small, and didn’t borrow until they saw the “need to” due to expanding demand of their product. My daughter, runs a very successful business. A jewellery designer, making her own product, her materials and equipment are very expensive. However, she has never borrowed money. She worked to acquire the capital, eased herself into her business (effectively working at two jobs), until she was flying solo.

One of the biggest multi-national organisations in the world, was started by a woman making beauty products in her kitchen.

A study should be undertaken to evaluate whether there is a gender difference in business practice and the impact on success or not. Also whether there is a gender difference in declared or forced bankrupts. Whether men are more prepared to risk their family’s well-being, than women.

Men might have been the hunters. But, perhaps women first saw the benefits of digging traps and using nets. Women, aware of the risks of foliage-covered holes in the ground to toddlers, would be more likely to have had a “eureka” moment.

Whitty “I believe women have the same OPPORTUNITYS as men,”

If they have not they certainly should and the outcome of who gets to aspire to fulfill any opportunity should be based on the merit of the individual.

Ultimately, in the debate of this nature, based on gender, it comes down to “what is best for everyone”.

For the antagonists, protagonists and the bystanders it is best for the individual who is most likely to achieve the best outcomes, to aspire to prominence through any selection process, regardless of their gender.

Fractelle “The Hoi polloi – that’s you and me folks.
This consists of two layers:

1. Cannon Fodder. . .”

The vocabulary of your post dates your thinking.

“The Hoi polloi “ and “cannon fodder” were expressions in general currency at the beginning of the 20th century,

You are one hundred years out of date

As for the “divide and conquer”, let us consider the benefits of modern capitalism, like inventing all those cute household appliances which allow the “baby-machines” to spend more quality time “aspiring to careers” than being “tied to the kitchen sink” or kept “barefoot and pregnant” and the “cannon fodder”, after a hard day at work returning home in the ‘burbs, well away from the sound of the factory siren.

If what you post is what you believe, it explains why you have problems finding “satisfaction” living in the 21st century.

“Divide and conquer” were parts of the Marxist dogma, used to foment revolution between “the classes”.

Well Marxism and its acolyte, socialism, have consistently failed to produce comparable social and “life quality” benefits to those experienced through “the capitalist consumer revolution” for all classes, of either gender.

But socialism and Marxism, like you, are stuck in history and are incapable of evolving, like libertarian capitalism, to address the needs of all, regardless of gender or century.

Which might explain the underlying cynicism of your post.

R0bert

‘When women get paid less for doing the same job as a male it's discrimination, when women get paid less for choosing a lower paid job or for working less hours or having less experience it's not discrimination.’

It IS discrimination! Oppressed people make just as many choices as non-oppressed people. It’s just that their choices are much more controlled. Choices are made within a system of conventions, restraints and historical precedent – of which gender forms a major part. For example, a woman who ‘chooses’ to work part-time because society’s messages have taught her that her toddler would suffer psychologically if she were to put him/her in child care for long hours at a stretch – when society has not fed her husband the same guilt about working full time – is a ‘choice’ borne of gender oppression, not to mention double standards.

Also, workforce participation is not in itself an explanation for the gender income gap. It's extremely difficult to ascertain that women and men are being equally paid for equal work, especially when so many jobs carry negotiated ‘salary packages’ for the same work or role. On the basis of historical precedent alone, no prizes for guessing which gender has the greater confidence to command, and get, the higher salaries.

Fractelle

I agree with Ginx. Great post! And so true.

Ah SJF, what you are implying is that when it comes to salaries,
men have better negotiating skills then women, so they land up
with higher salaries.

That could well be true. So if women have such poor negotiating
skills, that they are unable to negotiate a fair salary for
themselves, why should they be paid the same salaries, given
their relative lack of skills?

Whitty: “As does trotting out the term misogynist to any male that disagrees with any feminist position.”

HRS: “If someone questions feminism, the normal response from a feminist is to say that the person is a misogynist.”

This is what interests me. No female poster has accused anyone of being a misogynist on this thread. I can't remember hearing it on OLO - certainly not just for questioning feminism. And yet there are heaps of men questioning feminism and disagreeing with feminist positions right here. They have are met with feisty counter-argument, but they're in no immediate danger of being labeled a misogynist.

So, if it doesn’t happen here, then where? You're saying that, in some other arena of life, women are “trotting out” the term, that it’s a normal response to questioning feminism. I love to hear some concrete examples.

And also, given that it's so prevalent elsewhere, why do you think it *doesn't* happen on OLO?

Sheesh! Women: damned if they do and damned if they don’t…

On one hand we have Yabby claiming that women in prehistoric times sat demurely picking berries till the menfolk arrived home with haunch of mammoth. On the other we have HRS who, in his many posts, claims that women are more aggressive than men and intent on world domination.

Some common sense please.

1. Fact; hunting large game animals took time and cooperation between hunters. The hunters would be away for long periods of time, days or even weeks. Given that there are plenty of strong, able women in this day and age, it is reasonable to posit that in prehistoric times some women went hunting with the men.

2. While the hunters were away the tribe still needed protein (does Yabby think that people simply sat and starved?) the smaller tribe members (women, children, elderly men) were perfectly capable of bringing down small game using nets, traps or bows and arrows as well as foraging for edible plants. This also required intelligence, skill and cooperation.

What all this resulted in is the bleeding obvious that among the sexes there are some very brutal aggressive women and some quiet placid men. We as humans all share the same characteristics to a greater or lesser degree.

Think of the bell curve; the extreme macho male at one end, the extreme femme at the other while the bulk of the rest of us are found in the middle.

This means some men make great parents and some women make great corporate leaders. The problem is that there is currently a power imbalance between the sexes. Why it is coming to a head now, is that for the first time in history women are as well educated as the men and have the same opportunities. The problem is that a few men can’t deal with it and feel threatened.

HRS

You’re quite correct, my use of the word ‘dinosaur’ was incorrect – they were very successful creatures, I should have said ‘anachronism’ and here’s a little cartoon you should appreciate:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2130/2288205407_fc58e945b2.jpg?v=0

Peace

Vanilla,
The word misogynist is probably one of the words most often used by feminists to abuse others.

I have been called misogynist many times by various feminists (and in particular by the highly abusive feminists Turnrightthenleft and a C.J Morgan) This is interesting because I don’t think I have said one negative thing about women.

It is also routinely said that men who question feminism are “bitter”. This is another form of abuse from feminists.

There is no equality in feminism. The real history of feminism is complete discrimination and social disharmony.

Feminists have gone into politics:- There are no policies for men by any major political party in the country, but every party has a policy for women

Feminists have gone into law:- Males are now considered guilty until they can prove themselves innocent.

Feminists have gone into Familty law:- The greatest human rights abuses in this country are now occurring in the Family law area.

Feminists have gone into social science: - Social science now has no credibility, and many people no longer consider it a science, but simply a propaganda system for feminism.

Feminists are entering into education systems:- There are now teachers who consider boys to be of no value other than future tradesmen.

Feminists talk about “women and their children”:- About one in 4 households in Australia is now a single person household, with that number growing each year.

This is some of the real history of feminism, that feminist will rarely talk about.

That's funny I always thought that divide and conquer was the hallmark of British colonial expansion from the 1600 onwards, and communism only got into its stride after 1917.

I have called HRS a misogynist. It's an accurate term and I stand by that. There were many, many posts responding to him before I did do that, and I wouldn't be so presumptuous to affix such a label unless I was quite confident.

I've not done it for any other posters, though there are quite a number who have issues with feminism.

I have laid out my reasoning behind this many times, but I'll reiterate.

If HRS can accept that some - not all, just some - feminists are making a worthwhile contribution to the gender debate and that being a feminist doesn't have to be a bad thing, then I'll happily retract the statement.

HRS has accepted that if someone defines themself as a feminist, then they are a feminist.

Most women hold some feminist ideals. I suspect most men do as well. It's not a cut and dry thing, there are many issues at stake.

Some feminists, are simply people who believe that women deserve equal rights as men.

HRS has categorically ruled out any feminist being reasonable - thus, he's also rejected women who think they should be on an even footing with men.

Clear line of logic and I don't see any holes. Anyone who would speak on behalf of women is to be vilified in your view.

You can prove me wrong, HRS, by stating that some, just some, feminists do make a worthwhile contribution to debate, even if they also make mistakes, or go overboard. I'm not denying that.

But you can't.

Because you're a misogynist, who cloaks himself in the mantle of a victimhood.

It's bull, however, and I don't buy it for a second. Call me an 'abusive feminist' all you like, but it's not feminism that's criticising you, it's just me.

Though I see that you like to take any criticism of men and say it's the work of feminism. Of course you hate it then. Any criticism, of a man, anywhere, is now the work of the evil feminists in your warped view.

billie

“The article by Kellie Tranter is described as "Women who speak out for equal rights - the same rights, not special rights”

a-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y c-o-r-r-e-c-t

Those men who believe that women are not as competent to hold executive positions as men, should not object to equal rights for women. According to their logic, there would be no change in the neighbourhood.

Other men who deny women equality, would be those who feel threatened that they could be displaced, or disadvantaged for promotion. Thus, tacit agreement that women are as competent as men.

Col Rouge

Your description of me couldn’t be more wrong.

I don’t make assumptions about you - other than what is self-evident - you are a bully; and I suspect, have an unduly inflated opinion of your own worth.

Anecdotal experience, case study, is often the basis for empirical evidence.

Are you one of the mushroom people, who prefer to be kept in the dark and fed bullsh@t.

Another anecdote: A CEO said that executives should know their teams so well as to predict their responses.

“I ... am entitled to express my views”

Indeed you are, and I am entitled to point out that they have no relevancy in the 21st century.

“ men ... made the necessary decisions too?”

Is this more of the same; or are you stating that men have had to make decisions about getting pregnant also?

“you fail to quantify how much organizational disruption”

In a well run organisation, there is no disruption. Long leave is accommodated.

You missed my point about about Margaret Thatcher.

If you are ever about to be operated on by a female surgeon, do think PMT ...

“The arrogance of feminism ... we presently are”

I still maintain your last para was incoherent ... too much beer, perhaps; or a very cheap brew.

HRS: "The word misogynist is probably one of the words most often used by feminists to abuse others. I have been called misogynist many times by various feminists (and in particular by the highly abusive feminists Turnrightthenleft and a C.J Morgan)"

So, you have been called a misogynist by two male posters on OLO. And TRTL's reasoning is not that "issues with feminism," but because he believes you think anyone "who would speak on behalf of women is to be vilified" and you reject "women who think they should be on an even footing with men."

In other words, he doesn't call you a misogynist because you have questioned feminism, but because he honestly believes you are a misogynist.

So, you cannot prove that "The word misogynist is probably one of the words most often used by feminists to abuse others" or that “If someone questions feminism, the normal response from a feminist is to say that the person is a misogynist.”

Whitty is still yet to prove that some feminists "trot out the term misogynist to any male that disagrees with any feminist position."

As TRTL says, if you have the proof, I'm happy to see it. But I'm a feminist and so are both my male and female friends, and yet I seldom hear the term misogynist. It is rare to hear it on OLO.

So either it's going on in another arena, in which case I'd like to know where, or it's a myth.

I'm sure I sound snarky about this, but it's important. The men on this board have called women man-haters (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7088#108096) and female supremacists (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7088#108536). And yet they say that it is they who are being insulted, that feminists call men who question feminism misogynists.

If it's true, back it up.

Vanilla,
You have just finished calling someone on another forum a “sleazy puritanical god-botherer”. As a feminist, you may not realize it, but you have just abused someone.

The most abusive posters on OLO would definitely be feminists, and the word misogynist is used so often by feminists that it has as much meaning as “all men are rapists”.

If anyone wants to call themselves an “ist” after last century, then they must have no idea of history, or perhaps feminist history does not take into account the 100 million who died last century under Marxist regimes, and feminism is very closely related to Marxism.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41944

Last century millions also died fighting, so that they would not be compelled to call themselves an “ist”. So one of the things that feminists want, is for people to call themselves an “ist”.

Feminists have learnt nothing from history, and feminism is likely to teach people nothing also.

I think the following sums up feminism in this country quite clearly:-

"Making it OK to be Male (pdf file) (is one paper that should be compulsory reading for anyone wanting to learn about the problems caused by the way men have been emasculated by the feminist agenda. For too long, especially at school, boys, and men, have been told that they are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Instead of celebrating masculinity in a positive way, men are portrayed as misogynist, violent and emotionally crippled."

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=679&page=2

Feminism has done very little except vilify males, destroy families, disrupt society, and introduce some of the most discriminatory laws ever introduced into the country.

Hopefully in future years, women will be using International Women’s Day to celebrate the removal of feminism from society.

SJF, "Oppressed people make just as many choices as non-oppressed people. It’s just that their choices are much more controlled."

Who do you consider are the oppressed and who are the non-oppressed in your post?

I'm tempted to make assumptions and join in a game of "my oppression is bigger than your oppression" but left my response long enough to remind myself how unhelpfull that game can be. If you think that men are the non-oppressed and you are willing to review that assumption have a read of William Farrell's book "The Myth of Male Power".

I may be persuaded to provide examples (and if you ask JamesH very nicely I'm sure that he would be willing to ablige).

Most of us suffer and benefit in different ways from social pressure. Most of us contribute to it when it suits our interests as well or even when it does not suit our interests if we have grown to believe in something strongly.

I'm very aware of the pressure working mums can face from others, a particular pressure that men rarely face. I have a very close friend who cops that from some of her extended family. It's ugly and not backed up by a willingness to reduce the financial pressures which require her to work full time.

R0bert

Vanilla,

And there endeth the lecture:-) Obviously you take this a lot more seriously than myself. I generally wont bother scanning multiple topics to find out where I got a certain impression. I just took your word for it when you disputed my interpretation of your position to be honest.

I am probably very guilty of the extrapolation you describe. I do think that you interpolate, and underestimate the prevalence of feminist views the posters are critical of that you label 'fringe' or outdated. I find it reassuring to hear your views as they are more moderate than most feminists I encounter, and perhaps I expand your definitions to ensure you will refute them.

As to the misogynist debate, ask most women, or even men, what Misogynist means, and then ask them what Misandrist means. This little OLO world is not the real world. Anyway, I don't hear you asking Billie for references to posters using the phrase man-hater.

SJF,

'It's extremely difficult to ascertain that women and men are being equally paid for equal work'

Exactly! So why the call of discrimination from feminists when accurate figures are not so easily attainable.

Any why is it discrimination whenever 'society's messages' influence people's actions? Why do you think when men are under-represented in anything, it's not considered a problem? Do think society's messages are equally influenced by both men and women?

What is to be done if not enough women are interested in the roles of decision makers the feminist want equal representation in? What if in the end there will never be equal representation in EVERYTHING, which seems to me to be the feminist aim. Are we to then force women to be CEOs and politicians, or have some ridiculous incentives to ensure equal representation in everything.

Do you think a man who ‘chooses’ to work full-time because society’s messages have taught him that he should provide for his family – when society has not fed his wife the same guilt about not working full time – is a ‘choice’ borne of gender oppression, not to mention double standards?

For the record, HRS is the only genuine misogynist I see here - I often disagree with you, Whitty and JamesH, but your arguments tend to be well constructed critiques of feminism, and I suspect you can both see that dismissing every single feminist viewpoint is irrational.
R0bert's another poster who outlines problems with feminism, and I tend to think his contributions are quite productive.

I'd agree that using the term 'misogynist' as a blanket criticism of those who criticise feminism is unfair, though I don't actually see it happening all that often - and sometimes, people such as HRS who do dislike women, use feminism as a trojan horse to attack women in general.

The evidence of that I've outlined, but I think I can simplify it - whilst HRS may stop short of criticising women directly, I think it's safe to say that

a) women who speak out for their gender can be described as feminists.
b) to reject all feminists in a broad swipe, means that you are rejecting any women who would speak on behalf of their gender.

Thus, whilst he mightn't criticise women, he just attacks anyone with the temerity to speak on their behalf.

Sometimes it's an effective smokescreen for misogyny, but I think it's important that people see through this subterfuge.

I also think misogynists do immense harm to those who would genuinely seek to address the problems with feminism, as people are more likely to dismiss honest criticism, because of those who are using that tactic to further their prejudices.

HRS: "The word misogynist is probably one of the words most often used by feminists to abuse others. I have been called misogynist many times by various feminists (and in particular by the highly abusive feminists Turnrightthenleft and a C.J Morgan)"

I think that any reasonable person who bothered to read the interminable bleating posted at OLO by Timkins and his sock puppet HRS would be entitled to infer that he has a deep antipathy to women. The term 'misogynist' is therefore an appropriate descriptor of this unfortunate person, and is not a term of abuse.

Whitty

‘Do you think a man who ‘chooses’ to work full-time because society’s messages have taught him that he should provide for his family – when society has not fed his wife the same guilt about not working full time – is a ‘choice’ borne of gender oppression, not to mention double standards?’

My answer is No … because society places a higher value on paid work done in the workplace over unpaid work done in the home. Oppression is about the socio-political factors that give certain groups lower social status. Gender oppression tends to keep women as a group at a lower status than men as a group.

While the man’s choice in the above example may be a limited one, it still gives him greater value and status in society than a woman who chooses to stay home with the kids and/or work part-time. It also guarantees him greater independence, financial security and an uninterrupted career path – all much more highly valued by society than staying at home, earning little-to-no money and doing work that, while rewarding, can’t be put on a CV.

R0bert

In general reference to your last post to me, you seem to be confusing oppression with unhappiness. You also seem to be confusing gender politics with gender relations.

Feminism operates mainly in the area of gender politics, not gender relations (although certainly they can overlap). Gender politics is not about which gender is happier. Neither is it about how women and men can relate better to one another (although feminist theory can often help people to better analyse problems in gender relations).

Gender politics is about which gender controls the social, political and cultural agenda. The last time I looked, it was men.

‘I may be persuaded to provide examples …’

No … no … please! I’ve spent far too much time away from the ironing, trying to sift through all your ‘examples’. Enough already! :)

SJF:
"because society places a higher value on paid work done in the workplace over unpaid work done in the home."

That could be because the 'paid work' is contributing to society, whereas the housework is not.

"Gender oppression tends to keep women as a group at a lower status than men as a group."

How are you measuring this 'status'? Does a woman's vote count for less? Do they have less rights? Are there specific government structures set up to support men but not women?

"While the man’s choice in the above example may be a limited one, it still gives him greater value and status"

Women have just as much opportunity to gain that 'value' and 'status' if they chose.

"...while rewarding, can’t be put on a CV."

You seem to be saying that the most important thing worth having in life is a career. It's also far from the only way to have social or political influence. It fact it's probably far easier to become more involved in such processes when free from the obligations and restrictions of a career with a particular company.

"Gender politics is about which gender controls the social, political and cultural agenda. The last time I looked, it was men."

Do you have some sort of measurement for this 'control'? Women make up about 50% of society, have about half the vote and control more then their fair share of discretionary spending. It seems to me less that they don't have the control and more that you don't like what they do with it.

SJF,

'society places a higher value on paid work... '
Does society, or do you? Or feminists?

I would think 50% of society is women, so are the women oppressing themselves? I think a lot of women value the nurturing of children more than paid work, which is why they choose to stay at home at least part time. A lot would love to stay at home full time, because they find the job so rewarding, and only reluctantly go to work because of financial necessity.

All the men I know have always valued the nurturing of children, but see their role as being responsible for providing money for that nurturing to be possible, and don't think because they get paid their job has more value.

I believe it's feminists themselves that have downgraded traditional female roles, in their efforts to have women the same as men, and have equal representation in everything whether the actual women they are 'fighting' for want it or not.

Now that women have all the same opportunities as men, this oppression you talk of is ridiculous. Be responsible for your own choices. If you're a women, know that if you want the man to stay at home and mind your children full time while you persue your career, you need to choose a man that earns less than you, and loves children, and is secure in his masculinity. If you're a woman who wants to stay at home full time, find a rich man, or accept you will do without a lot of luxuries.

If you're a man who wants even to work part time and stay at home, you must find an employer accepting of your life choice, and find a woman who earns more than you, and wants to persue her career at the expense of her relationship with her children. I missed out on that, but I recognise that's the choice I made, and don't cry oppression.

SJF, I didn't mention unhappiness in my post to you. Is that a genuine mistake on your part or are you using a strawperson argument?

"Gender politics is about which gender controls the social, political and cultural agenda. The last time I looked, it was men"

My local councelor is female, my new mayor is female, my states premier is female, my states govenor is female, the deputy prime minister is female and the head of state is female (the Queen).

Maybe they are all token women towing some man's agenda but I expect that most would find that suggestion rather offensive.

Last time I looked it was rather hard to tell that any one gender controlled the social, political and cultural agenda.

Desipis, I disagree with the comment "That could be because the 'paid work' is contributing to society, whereas the housework is not.".

Raising kids contributes a lot if done with care. Much unpaid work benefits nobody except the person doing the work but some of it is vital.

I think one of the things SJF and others miss is that a lot of people see earning the money as a means to an end rather than an end in itself. The big job is raising the kids, one of the things we need to do that job is money.

TurnRightThenLeft, thanks for you kind apraisal of my contributions. For the record I think that feminism is "a broad church" - it encompases a wide range of attitudes from those who actually want equality to those using it as a tool to get women on top. I'm fully with those who want equality of opportunity but strongly against those who want to be on top just because of their gender. I find the thinking of those who assume that women are inherently better than men just as repulsive as those who think men are inherently better than women.

R0bert

*The women I know who have successsful businesses, started very small, and didn’t borrow until they saw the “need to” due to expanding demand of their product.*

Danielle, that is all very well and nothing wrong with that. Fact is
business IS about taking calculated risks. Each to their own and
what they are comfortable with.

The thing is, business and politicas are very Darwinian, the fittest
survive. Women are free to compete in the rough and tumble, nobody
disagrees with that.

Where I have a problem is when women complain that they don't make
up 50% of business leaders or 50% of politicians etc. Some suggest
that we mandate that there should be. Why?

Women should compete in business or politics, like men compete.
Yup its dirty and nasty, that is how it is. The fittest survive.
Some take calculated risks and win, some take calculated risks and
lose.

Why should women get any special treatment? That is my point.

Whitty: “This little OLO world is not the real world.”

And my goal was to discover if there really was an arena in either world where feminists frequently greet criticism with the liberal application of the word “migonyst”, or if (as I suspected) it was a pervasive myth. If these arguments are as frequent as you and HRS say, you should be able to cite instances, and given the lack of them I’m satisified *for now* that it’s a myth. Give me evidence, and I’ll revise my opinion.

As to my “lecture”, I apologise. I was being overly-precious.

HRS: “... the word misogynist is used so often by feminists that it has as much meaning as ‘all men are rapists’.”

Ah, well now I enforce “Vanilla’s Law” ( http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1555#29598 ) which I made up and named after myself, which is a varient of Godwin’s law. Vanilla’s Law says that a converstation about feminism is over when one side quotes either Dworkin or McKinnon. The other side wins. Sorry HRS.

For the record, like the feminists on this board, I’m pretty sure that most misogyny has *nothing* to do with criticising feminism or feminists. It has everything to do with an unremittingly hostility to women, and/or believing them less complex organisms compared to blokes.

I have never met a misogynist in real life. Tend to agree with TRTL and CJ about this board, but.

This gets really confusing sometimes with too many different arguements happening at the same time.

Sadly when we view the past the way we view it is through the lense which is coloured by our own values NOW. Case in point is that something that was totally acceptable/unacceptable say 100 years ago, can be seen as being unacceptable/acceptable today.

eg single motherhood was frond upon, now it is acceptable.

Since WW2 (a point I picked) our society has under gone an enormous change.

Fractelle made a point that the cannon fodder hope to work their way to the top and that they were superior to the second layer. My grandfather and my father, plus uncles who worked the land would give me a clip under the ear if I was disrepectful to women.

So I don't know how Factelle can maintain the cannon fodder beleived that they were superior to women.

It easy to forget that once pubs and clubs had ladies rooms, where unescorted single males were not allowed. This was to protect women from harrasment, so if women were seen as being inferior, why bother to have a separate room for them?

The point I wish to make is that if the past is viewed through a negative lense, then that is all that will seen, conversely viewing the past through a positive lense also produces a bias.

For some people their career is the most important thing in their lives, other people have different priorities. People who get to the top make decisions about the things that they choose to give up on the way.

If one looks at the past, if a woman lost her husband and did not have wealthy parents, her standard of living would fall dramactically. Sometimes children would be put into institutions.

A diary from a relative of mine in the earl settlement of Australia told of the hardship he experienced when his wife died, leaving him to look after the children.

This gets really confusing sometimes with too many different arguements happening at the same time.

Sadly when we view the past the way we view it is through the lense which is coloured by our own values NOW. Case in point is that something that was totally acceptable/unacceptable say 100 years ago, can be seen as being unacceptable/acceptable today.

eg single motherhood was frond upon, now it is acceptable.

Since WW2 (a point I picked) our society has under gone an enormous change.

Fractelle made a point that the cannon fodder hope to work their way to the top and that they were superior to the second layer. My grandfather and my father, plus uncles who worked the land would give me a clip under the ear if I was disrepectful to women.

So I don't know how Factelle can maintain the cannon fodder beleived that they were superior to women.

It easy to forget that once pubs and clubs had ladies rooms, where unescorted single males were not allowed. This was to protect women from harrasment, so if women were seen as being inferior, why bother to have a separate room for them?

The point I wish to make is that if the past is viewed through a negative lense, then that is all that will seen, conversely viewing the past through a positive lense also produces a bias.

For some people their career is the most important thing in their lives, other people have different priorities. People who get to the top make decisions about the things that they choose to give up on the way.

If one looks at the past, if a woman lost her husband and did not have wealthy parents, her standard of living would fall dramactically. Sometimes children would be put into institutions.

A diary from a relative of mine in the early settlement of Australia told of the hardship he experienced when his wife died, leaving him to look after the children.

Vanilla,
I’m not a feminist. I don’t denigrate a gender.

I have not said a negative word about women, which is very different to what innumerable feminist have said about men.

For all their propaganda, I have rarely heard a feminist mention the word "democracy", and you should feel very lucky that you live in a country that is not being run by an “ism”. I have been in such countries.

Yabby,

Women aren't asking for special treatment. They are asking for equality - - this is the basis of the argument.

Danielle: "Women aren't asking for special treatment. They are asking for equality - - this is the basis of the argument."

The way the statistics are presented means they're asking not for equal treatment, but for equal outcomes. The inference is that they want special treatment to ensure these equal outcomes.

I do get very amused by HRS logic:

He states: "For all their propaganda, I have rarely heard a feminist mention the word "democracy."

Y'know, I've rarely heard environmentalists mention it either. Cunning fiends must be out to subvert our governments.

Same goes for washing machine salesmen and maybe dogs too.

Actually... Gosh HRS! I've never heard you specifically state that you're opposed to cruelty to animals!

HRS, you puppy killer! That's disgusting! Guys, he's clearly a puppy killer! Everything he says must be wrong!

Wow. Vacations in the land of HRS logic are fun. It's so much easier than making a coherent argument.

HRS, are you willing to admit yet, that if say, a woman opposed the stoning of Saudi Arabian women who don't wear veils, and logically said that as she's defending women's rights, she's a feminist, could you admit this feminist has a worthy pursuit?

Are you willing to admit that feminists might do some good, as opposed to every single one being bad?

Logically, making this admission looks quite easy, but the fact that you simply can't bring yourself to admit that any feminist has a worthwhile view, is a stone-cold clear indicator of you are indeed a misogynist.

It's not that you hate feminism - you could logically take an approach that overall, the movement is negative, though there are a minority of feminists doing good work with positive contributions. I disagree, but it's a defensible position.

But you simply can't, because you really do hate anyone who sticks up for women.
Clear proof you're are actually misogynist, HRS. I'm not calling you that because you dislike feminism, I'm doing it because I've just proven that you really do dislike women on the whole, you just know that normal people find that ugly so you hide your hatred of women as hatred of feminists, which is nominally more palatable.

But I'm sure you'll find a way to not actually respond to logical arguments. I'm pretty sure you've run out of original tactics though, but it'll be interesting to see which one you choose.

And yet your rarely hear HRS use the word "aubergine".

Vanilla,
You seem to know a lot about name calling, and also abuse.

Feminism = abuse + villification of males + name calling (all hidden behind equality).

Also see the following:-
http://www.lietuvos.net/istorija/communism/communism_2.htm

Those attroticies were carried by "ists" who continuously talked about "equality", but like feminists, they rarely talked about democracy.

Quite so, Vanilla. No mention of "aubergines".

However, he's on about "ists" again - are they anything like "ilks", do you think?

(P.S. I like 'Vanilla's Law', but I suspect it's too subtle for many around here)

*The way the statistics are presented means they're asking not for equal treatment, but for equal outcomes. The inference is that they want special treatment to ensure these equal outcomes.
Posted by Desipis, Monday, 17 March 2008 6:04:23 PM*

Congratulations to that! So very true!

*The way the statistics are presented means they're asking not for equal treatment, but for equal outcomes. The inference is that they want special treatment to ensure these equal outcomes.
Posted by Desipis, Monday, 17 March 2008 6:04:23 PM*

I echo Yabby’s view,

Affirmative action only achieves its objectives by setting the hurdle for the participants from among the non-favoured group high and the hurdle for the favoured group low.

It is neither moral nor equitable.
It could generously be called patronizing and guaranteed to produce

1 Alienation from those for whom the hurdle is set comparatively high

2 Produce substandard results compared to the outcomes of a meritorious competition.

You will never fix the supposed problems created by what is mythically claimed to be the “old boys network” by duplicating them in "affirmative action" policies.

Vanilla,

'Give me evidence, and I’ll revise my opinion.'
I don't feel the need to convince you, and I only have my own experience to draw on which would not likely satisfy you anyway.

Perhaps it's just as invasive a myth as Billie's quotation of the author "Women who speak out for equal rights - the same rights, not special rights - are often described as being 'man-haters', or worse." , or the authors quotation of The Clarion “I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a door mat or a prostitute.” which I have heard quoted from many feminist posters. I notice you felt no need to challenge these assertions.

' believing them less complex organisms compared to blokes. '
Come again? If that's your definition, I'd love to see how many people qualify as Misandrist. Just read 'Mere Male' in Women's magazines or think of Homer, or anyone who ever says men are simple creatures. If anything people are more likely to say women are much more complex creatures.

CJ Morgan,

'but I suspect it's too subtle for many around here'
Ho ho ho ho. Indeeeed. You're both just so intellectually superior aren't you.

Col and Yabby,
I agree, but what does a 'usual suspect' like myself know :-)

R0bert

‘I didn't mention unhappiness in my post to you. Is that a genuine mistake on your part or are you using a strawperson argument’

I said: ‘In GENERAL REFERENCE to your last post to me, you SEEM to be confusing oppression with unhappiness.’ An impression is not a direct quote. So who is the one making the straw argument here?

‘My local councelor is female, my new mayor is female, my states premier is female, my states govenor is female, the deputy prime minister is female and the head of state is female (the Queen).’

Oh … look! Five women in political positions! And another one who gets her twinset and pearls paid for by the public purse! We feminists can all go home now. Honestly, Robert. Is that the best you can do?

‘Last time I looked it was rather hard to tell that any one gender controlled the social, political and cultural agenda.’

Check out: Women in National Parliaments [http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm]

… and then tell me how ‘rather hard’ it is. (On second thoughts, don’t. You’ll just come back with a dozen links to ‘prove’ that the site is written by unfair-minded feminists trying to provide a misleading picture.)

Also, if you believe I should be reading the odious Warren Farrell, who makes breathtakingly ridiculous arguments like: ‘When slaves give up their seats for whites, we called it subservience; when men give up their seats for women, we call it politeness’ [Yuk!], then you could check out R.W. O’Connell’s ‘Gender Politics for Men’. I quote …

‘Men’s dominant position in the gender order has a material payoff, and the discussions of masculinity have constantly under-estimated how big it is … Men have ten times the political access of women worldwide (measured by representation in parliament). Men have even greater control of corporate wealth ... [and] men control the means of violence, in the form of weapons and armed forces.’

Yabby,

Certainly business was very vicious, and a better man has been fallen by a less capable man by this "dog eat dog" philosophy. It wasn't the best reaching the top, but the biggest bastards. You don't have to go that far back in history of the top end of town. Unfortunately, when the businesses eventually crashed, they took a lot of happless people with them, including investors; but they themselves seemed to survive supremely well. Is that what you would call a good business operator?

I understand that Business Ethics is now being taught in MBA's and other courses. Let's hope those who do these courses take this with them into the outside world. This would make a level playing field for really competent men and women.

Desipis

‘"because society places a higher value on paid work done in the workplace over unpaid work done in the home."/ That could be because the 'paid work' is contributing to society, whereas the housework is not.’

Oh … Lawd! And people wonder why there are feminists!!

I quote ABS Fact Sheet ‘Measures of Unpaid Work’ (2006): ‘The most recent estimate of the value of unpaid work in Australia was $261 billion in 1997 - approximately half of the total gross domestic product (GDP).’ The link is here:

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/2914.0Main%20Features234002006?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=2914.0&issue=2006&num=&view=

‘You seem to be saying that the most important thing worth having in life is a career.’

What you think I SEEM to be saying is up to your own imagination. However, what I actually DID say was that:

‘… SOCIETY places a higher value on paid work done in the workplace over unpaid work done in the home.’

I’d like nothing better than to live in a society in which paid work done in the home was given the value it deserves – at least equal value to paid work done in the workplace, and certainly not the token sentimentality surrounding Mothers Day and Fathers Day. This is precisely why I'm a feminist.

However, I’m not holding my breath. As the above ABS Fact Sheet points out, ‘The 2006 Census was the first time questions on unpaid work have been included in an Australian census.’ (A bloody disgrace!). And that was only after a long, hard lobbying campaign by women’s groups such as the Women’s Action Alliance. Even then, the question looks as if it will be dropped from the next Census because a bunch of sexist statisticians have decided the question is ‘too subjective.

SJF,

Unpaid work is quite subjective. I don't consider cooking as work, but my wife does. I notice you're not too concerned about yard work being included?

Why have you decided the statisticians are sexist when they have stated their reasons based on data reliability?

'paid work done in the home was given the value it deserves '

Not sure if you mean unpaid? If so how do you propose it is given value?
Obviously you value it, I value it , and I have argued society values it, so I can only assume you want it assigned a monetary value?

Are you suggesting people be renumerated for cooking for themselves washing their own clothes and keeping their environment clean? If so how would you be sure their work was being done? Where would the money come from to pay them?

“I don't feel the need to convince you…”
Cool. But I don’t think I was out of line to ask you to back up your assertion with a little proof.

“Perhaps it's just as invasive a myth as Billie's quotation of the author "Women who speak out for equal rights...etc”
Sure. I don't dispute it cuts both ways.

“I'd love to see how many people qualify as Misandrist.”
So would I, but I suspect it would be the same as how many men are really misogynists — i.e. very, very few. I believe the vast, vast majority people do realise that the inner life of the opposite sex is just as complex as theirs. I have only encountered one misogynist in my life. I can’t think of any misandrists.

One thing I do take exception to, though, is picking on Homer Simpson. I think you’re *dead* wrong about Homer. He is one of the most enduring and adored fictional characters ever created. He works so well as a man because he’s *not* a worthy feminist parody of man, he is the creation of a big fat genius man — actually, a couple, if you give James L Brooks his due. Sure, Homer is a dumbass, but that does not mean people who enjoy the Simpsons think all men are dumbasses. The Simpsons is iconoclastic and irreverent — to hold it up against the values of the workaday world simply restricts its inventiveness and comedy. What to you want here — a smart Homor, a better representative of the male population? You actually want *cartoons* to become politically correct? What’s your goal?

If your goal is to sanatise representations of gender, then I am not sympathetic to this line of reasoning whether it comes from males or females.

SJF “The most recent estimate of the value of unpaid work in Australia was $261 billion in 1997 - approximately half of the total gross domestic product (GDP).’”

I love comments like this

Has anyone noticed, the hourly rate quoted for unpaid work is based on some mythical equivalent standard expected for “paid work”?

Doubtless, if those who do “unpaid work” were to try and negotiate for an actual hourly rate of pay, the like of which they quote, they would find themselves with a lot of spare time on their hands.

"Work" is worth what one can get someone else to pay for it, not how much one perceives ones own time is worth.

SJF, I have already posted where what is classified as unpaid work isn't unpaid at all.

see; JamesH, Sunday, 9 March 2008 1:52:33 AM

SJF you seem to be obsessed with the idea that so-called unpaid is not valued by society, I put it to you that so-called domestic chores are what keeps us healthy and fit to partake in paid employment and leisure.

For example if people did not clean their houses all sorts of illnesses would result in living in unsanitary conditions. So in reality it is domestic chores that enables us to work and play and so-called paid labour enables us to do domestic chores and play. By staying well, we stay out hospital, our life expectancy increases, our productivity increases. etc etc.

For example I wash my clothes so that I have clean clothes for work. The working wage enables me to be able to afford to buy clothes.

As too Warren Farrell, find most of his books difficult to read, however they are much easier on the brain than some of the convoluted and distort text in some of the feminist texts I have read. I struggled through them and at times had to find some could translate some of the phrases for me or explain the reasoning behind their arguments.

One of the reasons I have read feminist texts is to try and gain a picture of what is going on. The same reason that I have read Farrell, Thomas, Melanie Phillips,etc. I do not always agree with what authors write, however I do sometimes consider the concepts that they present as being interesting and then that makes me investigate their concept more deeply before I make a judgement on its validity.

There are two books on Misandry "Spreading Misandry and Legalising Misandry" so not only is there a problem with how women are portrayed there is also a problem with how men are portrayed.

So SJF if you were really interested in equality I believe then you would be prepared to read these texts, even if they didn't match you own views/dogma.

C.J Morgan,
I’ll name some of the “ists” if you like.

Marxists, Communists, Fascists, National Socialists, Maoists and so on.

They all told people that they believed in equality, but rarely did they mention democracy.

Once in power, their “equality” quickly became “more equal than equal”, and last century over 100 million people died because of it. Those people normally had their rights systematically taken from them, and then died in concentration camps, torture chambers and killing fields.

Of course feminists have learnt an enormous amount from this inglorious part of human history, and that is why so many feminists now go into schools on International Women’s Day, and tell girls that there needs to be more democracy, and not more people who call themselves an “ist”.

And that is why feminists such as yourself are so non-abusive.

*Ethics is now being taught in MBA's and other courses. Let's hope those who do these courses take this with them into the outside world. This would make a level playing field for really competent men and women.*

Danielle, that is all very nice and sweet, but especially when it
comes to international business, the law of the jungle will continue
to apply. Those who are naive and get sucked in, won't survive.

The Chinese treat business strategy a bit like warfare. They apply
their "fair game" theories and you sink or swim. Unless you can outthink them,
you will stand there naked, no matter what the business
schools teach.

An aquaintance of mine, ( an Aussie ), signed a contract with
a SE Asian company, where in the end, commodity prices moved his
way. He waved his bit of paper around, thinking it would mean
something. Ha! He learnt the hard way. No wonder that so many
Aussie companies who go to SE Asia, walk away in their underpants.

Its law of the jungle out there, that is the reality.

As to those commenting about the value of housework, it seems to
me that in divorce cases, housework is usually worth as much
as hubby earns, so they get half or similar. Clearly society
has put a value on it and in many cases, its very high.

Somebody worked out that Heather Mills was paid 36'000$ a day
for washing Paul's jocks etc. Not a bad income, as even as
a high class hooker, she could not have earnt that kind of money,
all tax free I presume.

I think poor old Timkins/HRS should acquaint himself with some other "ists" - like psychologists, therapists, psychiatrists and other appropriate specialists, for example.

This repetitve bleating is clearly a cry for help. The poor chap needs assistance, not a soapbox.

C. J. Morgan.
It is noticeable that if someone disagrees with you, you immediately abuse them, or say they are mentally insane and have to go to a psychologist or psychiatrist.

This was a feature of various “isms” such as Communism and Marxism, where if someone disagreed, they were sent to re-education camps.

It is also a factor with feminism, where men have to go to special courses to be re-educated. Why? Because they are men, and men are abusive, but of course feminists such as yourself are not.

Thank god you are no longer a teacher.

Yabby keeps quoting the sum of money garnered by high clas hookers and Heather Mills. I take it as indication of the regard with which he holds women.

How HRS can compare feminism with Marxism, Communism, Nazism and Socialism is beyond me, I think HRS needs help.

HRS should see "Rosie the Riveter" to see how Democracy has manipulated women to achieve societal goals, in this case mobilising the work for the american War effort 1939 to 1945 and the subsequent push for family values to get women out of the workforce so that demobilised men had a job.

*Yabby keeps quoting the sum of money garnered by high clas hookers and Heather Mills. I take it as indication of the regard with which he holds women.*

Billie, women are all individuals, so my regard for them varies
accordingly. The Mills and Spitzer stories are plastered across
most news sites, so I mentioned them.

I certainly carry no moral baggage about women who sell sexual
favours to men for 1-5000$ an hour. I'm surprised that men will
pay that kind of money, but clearly they are. Frankly if women
were prepared to pay that much, I'm sure you would find plenty
of willing male volunteers :)

I have far more of a moral problem with some women who seem to have turned
marriage into a business. 36'000$ a day sounds a bit steep, for
getting the housework done.

HRS, are you able to admit that a person who opposed the stoning of non-veiled women in fundamentalist nations, would be an honourable feminist yet?

You really can't, can you. It's quite a handicap you have there.

Anything that even has a hint of feminism must be opposed in your view - so it's not their stance at all, it's what they are, not who they are.

Garn. Try. Consider the notion, that somebody who opposed the stoning of women, might be honourable, and might be a feminist.

Are you brave enough to admit that perhaps, just perhaps, a feminist might be capable of good?

You don't have to admit all of them, you don't have to even admit the movement is positive on a whole. You just have to acknowledge that some feminists might do good work, and in the name of feminism at that.

Can you? Have you got the courage to apply this logic, or even put up reasoning to the contrary, that isn't a shallow potshot at 'isms' or a request for irrelevant informaion, or your fallback victim, 'I'm being abused' mentality?

If you haven't the courage to do this, then it's no wonder you think you're getting abused. People tend to get annoyed when others can't accept the most basic piece of reasoning.

TRTL

Love the challenge to HRS

I would like to know his opinion of removal of the clitoris that occurs in some cultures - would he object to men and women opposing this?

Does HRS object to male and female surgeons receiving the same pay for the same work?

Does HRS object to women voting?

To women becoming politicians?

How about women driving cars? Does he object to this?

I am paying off my own home without the help of a man, not so long ago I could not even been granted a mortgage, does HRS object to this? Should I be renting instead?

What about female newsreaders, 30 years ago there were only male newsreaders, because it was considered that female voices lacked gravitas. Does HRS object to female newsreaders?

Female scientists - HRS should women be able to become scientists?

I have heard a plethora of reasons why HRS dislikes feminists, what I want to know is whether he has reasons to object to any of the above mentioned.

Yabby,

What an earth is wrong with Business Ethics? If another business was not playing from the same script, don't you think a woman executive would pick it up immediately and act accordingly. The whole problem is that you can't see, or refuse to see, that women are as capable as men.

Can you point to an area in executive administration where women can't be effective as men?

I can't. As I have repeated before, there is no justifiable reason for the male mystique at the top end of town.

What about those little old ladies who play the stock-market so well.

As billie has pointed out women were mobilised the workforce for the war effort. Shock and horror! The were building bombers and spit-fires and mustangs; indeed most of the armaments used by the allies. Oh! What a the disaster ... wings were falling off, not to mention propellors ... and this was before they even left the ground ... How many pilots refused to fly the planes knowing they were made by women?

I have just read an Australian document that states most jobs are not advertised, but filled by friends, family members, or some sort of old chum network - not by a system of the best person for the job. Furthermore, this practice could be as high as 80% but there is no reliable data. If this is true, than businesses are hobbling themselves.

Nepotism in the US is rife, and undoubtedly occurs in this country. So common, that :

“To discover whether or not the state or municipality in which you work has enacted nepotism or anti-nepotism laws, contact the state legislature or the municipal equivalent (such as the city council), or consult an attorney.”
http://employeeissues.com/

This does not apply to husband/wife businesses.

As society is ageing, big business better get a handle on this, and realistically look at the employment of women. Big business should not be a men’s club where men seek refuge from women, “rhubarbing” away. This is not sound business practice.

Danielle: "The whole problem is that you can't see, or refuse to see, that women are as capable as men."

Do you have evidence that in spite of differences in brain structure, chemistry and function (see link) that there are no differences in cognitive capabilities?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080229171609.htm

"I have just read an Australian document that states most jobs are not advertised, but filled by friends, family members, or some sort of old chum network - not by a system of the best person for the job."

You're assuming that the preexisting relationship provides no value to the business. Taking on a new employee posses significant risks; while a potential employee may look good on paper or do well in an interview there are many important attributes that are not easily measurable with such methods. One of the best ways to find a good employee is a reference from someone you trust and respect, and often these will be friends and family but will generally be people you've come to respect from your own experiences. Additionally these preexisting relationships provide some level of social pressure to ensure the employee works hard at the job.

Obviously from the outside this can seem like some sort of exclusive club, and certainly employer discretion can be used in a corrupt fashion, but there is no way to clearly determine the 'best person for the job'. I think in this globally competitive world there is already plenty of incentive to at least try to chose the best person.

Billie “"Rosie the Riveter" to see how Democracy has manipulated women to achieve societal goals,”

Oh your mind works in such funny little ways billie (emphasis on ‘little’).

I guess we should confront despotism using people only in their traditional roles, because that is what “Democracy” is all about, maintaining a environment in which people can go about their daily activity in safety and free from government interference or external duress.

As dear of Will said “He must needs go that the Devil drives.”

Or as it is usually expressed “Needs must when the Devil Drives”

So billie, coming along and pretending “democracy” manipulated women to suit its ends is bunkum, when considering the alternative to such a strategy(annihilation of the democratic process which protects us all, you included).

However, since your posts seem to consistently lack reasoning, it is no surprise that the inane flows so readily from your pen.

As for those complaining about nepotism. You can go on and on about that until the cows come home. Of course nepotism exists. However, it disadvantages men as much as women.

The point with “nepotism” is, it favours relatives and friends of the employer.

I would challenge such when it happens in public office because it can be presumed to adversely effect the tax payer who has elected a public official to act in their name, fairly and without prejudice.

Since employment in most commerce these days is with a company owned by share holders and not a government owned entity involving tax payers, it should remain a private matter for the directors to oversee their managers in applying appropriate standards in staff selection.

Depisis I agree with you,

The benefit with employing someone who is already known is precisely that they are ”already known”,

That is the benefit, that the prospective employer is dealing with a known quantity rather than the unknown stranger. As such, it becomes a material consideration and thus, worthy of merit.

Desipis

"Do you have evidence that in spite of differences in brain structure, chemistry and function (see link) that there are no differences in cognitive capabilities?"

This does not provide evidence that men are better at business than women. If you really want to go down that path, it could well be that women are better at business than men.

Anyone who has been in business has seen the results of the "network" system. Yes, more comraderie in the office, and jokes about the weekend fishing in the lunch-room, but how effective is this really. An employer finds themselves in a very difficult situation when the person turns out to be a dud, despite the glowing references from a chum.

An employer, employing a friend/relative, even a friend's relative, can be a recipe for disaster; and also morale breaking for those who have to prop him up. How many people have witnessed a firm paying a salary to someone not contributing in any way; or even taking advantage of the situation (this is not unheard of) - the boss being caught between the rock and the hard place.

Danielle
“This does not provide evidence that men are better at business than women.”

And it does not prove the opposite either.

Men and women are individuals and each unique. Assess them objectively, it will produce the best outcomes, far better than relying on some old-boys club or affirmative action.

“An employer, employing a friend/relative, even a friend's relative, can be a recipe for disaster; and also morale breaking for those who have to prop him up. How many people have witnessed a firm paying a salary to someone not contributing in any way; or even taking advantage of the situation (this is not unheard of) - the boss being caught between the rock and the hard place.”

To save me rewriting it, see my previous post
The employer bears the cost for is poor judgment.

I agree with you, the world is not a perfect place.

I could write a book on bad business mistakes. HIA, Enron, Cambridge Credit, Estate Mortgages, the South Sea Bubble, San Francisco DART etc.

Just look at the listing in the bankruptcy courts. Examples are legion, plenty of evidence of poor management and bad mistakes.

But people make mistake, errors of judgment, voting for the Krudd government for instance.

None of that makes any difference to the fact, men and women are all individuals, some talented and others less so.

Poor employment selection is the start of many problems but just because you and I may recognize it and even promote such notions to employers, it does not mean those employers will change, they are after all, human and subject to human error.

Fractelle
I’m not a feminist. I don’t denigrate a gender, male or female.

There have been a number of highly abusive feminist posters who keep saying that I hate women, or that I am a misogynist. And yet you can look back through my posts, and you will not find one negative word said about women.

I challenge you to find that single negative word.

You have mentioned some abuses of women occurring in some parts of the world, but the greatest abuses of both men and women are normally occurring in countries with the least amount of democracy. Many of those countries are also being run by people who call themselves some type of “ist”, but this is a reality I have never heard mentioned by a feminist.

Men are women’s greatest friend, and not their enemy. In a natural state, 50% of children will die before the age of 5, and of those people that live, 50% will die before the age of 60. Those are the natural statistics. But I have never heard a feminist thank men for improving on those statistics.

Instead, I have heard just about every type of negative, maligning and discriminatory comment made by feminists about the male gender. So exactly who are the abusers?

I challenge you to answer that as well.

Col thanks for the gratuitous insult, because you call me "little", I assume you have oversized genitals . . . . . . or have a towering intellect.

Many Australian women were pushed out of well paid jobs that they had performed competently in 1945. As well as being made casual employees upon their marriage from 1930 to mid 1960s.

Col Rouge said "Since employment in most commerce these days is with a company owned by share holders and not a government owned entity involving tax payers, it should remain a private matter for the directors to oversee their managers in applying appropriate standards in staff selection"
Au contraire - shareholders expect to see some accountability to ensure they aren''t pouring their money down the drain. ASIC is expected to ensure corporate governance is not suspect to prop up the integrity of our free market.

HRS says "In a natural state, 50% of children will die before the age of 5, and of those people that live, 50% will die before the age of 60. Those are the natural statistics. But I have never heard a feminist thank men for improving on those statistics."
Well do we thank men, or modern medicine or civil engineers for improving water supplies.
The first caesarian sections where both the mother and child consistently survived were performed by a British army surgeon in South Africa in the 1850s. Upon her death the people laying the body out discovered she was a woman who had had a child.

Not sure you have to be a male to be a doctor or engineer.

Danielle, there is nothing at all wrong with business ethics. But today, to survive,
depending on your industry, you also need to understand the law of the jungle, or
you will get done like a dinner.

Women are great at playing by the rules. What they forget is that there are people out
there, inventing new rules. Did you follow the Bear Stearns collapse? Worth 170$
a share two years ago, 70$ last year, 2$ now. Billions lost, yet hedge funds made
hundreds of millions, by playing the laws of the jungle. Its rough out there and if you don’t understand it, you could lose your knickers.

To cut a long story short, our genetic makeup gives us all certain aptitudes, then things we have less aptitude for. That is influenced by genes, hormones, ligands,
neurotransmitters etc. Wether we are male or female plays a role in all this. Its like
saying men are taller then women, there are always exceptions. Today our understanding of all this has increased and yes, there are things that men are in general better at, things that women are in general better at, allowing for the exceptions, which will always occur.

Yes, women are great on production lines, even assembling aircraft. They are methodical and do what is asked. Guys are more difficult, they will argue about
how things are done and try to find different solutions.

Women have better verbal skills, are more nurturing and caring, are more sensitive
to many things, are great in things like human resources, consumer perceptions etc.

Guys are better strategic thinkers, are better at separating emotion from reason,
don’t have to focus on the kids when making career decisions, are better at
spacial skills and reading maps.

Women are more likely to follow their intuition, which sometimes are correct and sometimes leads them right up the garden path to nowhere.

Oxytocin, which women have in spades, makes them more trusting then men,
also IMHO, more gullible.

The point is, we should do things for which we have a natural aptitude.

Yabby

“But today, to survive, depending on your industry, you also need to understand the law of the jungle, or you will get done like a dinner.”

Not all of us want to play by the law of the jungle, Yabby. Some of us are capable of imagining a better world.

“Women are great at playing by the rules. What they forget is that there are people out
there, inventing new rules.”

Are they inventing new rules? Or just new ways to bend the old rules? In the old game. The game where the winners get to the top on the shoulders of the losers. Some of us are increasingly uncomfortable playing this game. We can't help wondering just how long it will be before the millions of losers rise up and say, To hell with the rules!

“Women are more likely to follow their intuition, which sometimes are correct and sometimes leads them right up the garden path to nowhere.”

Women sure as hell wouldn’t have led us up the garden path to the quagmire of Iraq.

I agree there are inherent differences between the sexes and I think you’ve nailed a few of them here reasonably well. One you didn’t mention was arrogance. Are you capable of even recognizing how patronizing your comments are?

There’s a blindness that comes with arrogance. In your case it’s a blindness to the realization that the entrepreneurial model epitomised by your pin-up boys Branson and Murdoch might just be leading us all up the garden path.

It’s not that we can’t match it in this dog-eat-dog world of which you’re so enamoured. It’s that a lot of us just don’t want to.

SJF, I understand that you believe in equality.

Then as a person who said they believe in equality you would be interested in a book even if it is written by someone you classify as odious, Warren Farrell

"Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men?: A Debate between Warren Farrell (with Steven Svoboda) and James P. Sterba."
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=afa74692-d935-4240-8a37-5c325ddc62be

The link below contains data about the pay gap.
http://www.geocities.com/socialunderclass/index.html
A sampling of data that supports arguments that men are somehow left off the social (health, education etc) agenda.

HRS

I KNOW you are not a feminist - kinda worked that out for myself.

You did not answer a single question I asked.

To make it easy for you I will keep it to a single question, as follows:

Do you object to women as politicians?

Cheers dear

Billie,

'Many Australian women were pushed out of well paid jobs that they had performed competently in 1945'
Really? That's pretty disgusting. Pushing out women for these men who have been risking their lives and seen their friends shot to pieces and needing some semblance of their old life. Men are such oppressors aren't they?

Bronwyn,

'Women sure as hell wouldn’t have led us up the garden path to the quagmire of Iraq.
'
I'm sooo sick of hearing about this wonderful world women would have created with no wars. Reminds me of all those feminists in the White Feather Brigade.

Danielle: "This does not provide evidence that men are better at business than women."

Neither do the statistics presented in the article provide evidence of sexism. What I was suggesting was a scientifically credible causation to explain the historical correlation between gender and apparent business acumen.

"If you really want to go down that path, it could well be that women are better at business than men."

I have no problem with women making up the majority of business leaders if they are in fact better at it than men, however I don't see much evidence that they are.

"An employer, employing a friend/relative, even a friend's relative, can be a recipe for disaster"

Yes, of course there are risks with all employees, yet most experience would be that the risk is lower when the amount unknown is less.

Yabby: "Not all of us want to play by the law of the jungle, Yabby. Some of us are capable of imagining a better world."

Unfortunately the jungle out there that is the real world doesn't care what you want or imagine. This is one of my biggest concerns with idealist causes such as feminism (or for eg religious moralism), they are great at formulating wonderful ideals but when they cannot rationally reconcile their ideology with reality they will all too often choose to misrepresent reality to avoid choosing a more realistic and practical ideology.

Why oh why did anyone give HRS an opportunity to go on about his latest pet-project: the dreaded "ist" and "ism" theory? Having declared war on romanticists, artists, pianists and declaring he would never want to be associated with things like consumerism or tourism it may be that his refusal to answer TRTL's challenge or any other question is simply because he disavows intellectualism?

And Yabby et al:- if its considered that media reportage of divorce settlements or prostitutes somehow proves women's overall cupidity then I also have "proof" of something.

I have never had an intimate relationship with a guy who did not:

a) find the expulsion of waste gas from the body a cause for fun, merriment or congratulation
b) view the automatic bodily function of a morning glory with all the pride of one unveiling the prototype of the wheel
c) or consider that the way to cure any of their partners problems from menstrual cramps to an existential crisis was to stand naked before them and do the helicopter.

Does this prove that ALL men do this?

Rom you surprise I guess some feminists do have a sense of humor after all. ;0))

Your post gave me a good chuckle.

Fractual,
I’m not a feminist. I don’t judge someone according to their gender. I don’t even consider whether someone is male or female when voting for them.

But taking into account the history of certain political systems, I would not vote for anyone who calls themselves a Marxist, Stalinist, Maoist, Socialist, Communist or feminist. They all talk about equality, but rarely mention democracy.

I hope that answers your questions.

HRS

1. No, you have yet again managed to qualify your answer.

A simple YES or NO was all that was needed.

2. My moniker on this forum is FRACTELLE

You complain about others using derision on you - yet you clearly indulge in it yourself.

^^^

In conclusion, I have yet to be convinced that you have any liking or respect for women.

So the ball is still in your court, to answer honestly without qualification.

I don't believe you can give a straight forward answer.

Prove me wrong.

Desipis

”Unfortunately the jungle out there that is the real world doesn't care what you want or imagine.”

Your arrogance, Desipis, is exceeded only by your ignorance. To denounce the desire for a different and better world as unrealistic idealism or “religious moralism” is to negate the efforts of millions of thinkers and practitioners all over the world. What are you really suggesting here? That we move out of the way and leave it all to Wall Street and the George Bushes of this world? There are idealistic people in all facets of human endeavour, men and women, who work in a myriad of incremental and practical ways to bring about real change. In my view, they are far more in touch with reality than people like yourself who argue that the reality of the here and now is all there is.

Quite apart from issues of fairness, the course we are on now is completely unsustainable. If we don’t change and in a big way, the future for all those except the minority rich with the resources to ameliorate the fallout is unfortunately a very bleak one. Perhaps if you spent more time reading the science and less the stock exchange you’d understand the urgency of what I’m saying. I’ve got no time for your arrogant “We know best” attitude. It’s that sort of blind thinking which is taking us all down. It’s time for a new paradigm and if you can’t see it at least don’t stand in the way of those who can.

Romany, I’ve never tried the helicopter to cure anyone’s menstrual cramps, so
it seems that not all men do. Given that women don’t view those morning glories with
the same pride, clearly there are differences between the genders that are biologically
based, which was my point. :)

Bronwyn, wether my comments are seen as patronizing or arrogant, really does not
matter. That is an emotional response as to how things are said, not a factual analysis
of what was said. Big difference

You might not want to play by the laws of the jungle, but if you are a CEO, your
company is in the marketplace and others are playing by those laws, then your company will most likely be affected. If the profits of your company decrease
due to your philosophical issues, then clearly shareholders have the right to
question if you are up to your job or not.

*Are they inventing new rules? Or just new ways to bend the old rules?*

They are inventing new ways to play games, which at present are not illegal and
were not thought of before. It seems like new rules need to be invented, to deal
with them.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Pricing-out-predators-CTRSZ?OpenDocument

When people go to work for hedge funds each morning, they don’t carry a lot
of philosophical baggage with them. They are there to make money, pure and
simple. Strategic thinking is what it is all about.

The bloke who spent 20 years building up ABC childcare centres, has found out
the hard way, that the laws of the jungle are today’s reality. You cannot close
your eyes and wish reality to go away, it won’t. That is the bottom line.

That is what separating emotion from reason is all about and its critical.

*Women sure as hell wouldn't have led us up the garden path to the quagmire of Iraq.*

So why did tens of millions of them vote for George Bush, when Karl Rove
pushed their emotional buttons about Osama under their beds? Without
the women’s vote, George would not be there! I say that as an Obama supporter.

Bronwyn “Women sure as hell wouldn’t have led us up the garden path to the quagmire of Iraq.”

And

““There’s a blindness that comes with arrogance.”

Your assertion to what “women” might have done in Iraq sounds pretty “arrogant” to me, Need a white stick?

“It’s time for a new paradigm and if you can’t see it at least don’t stand in the way of those who can.”

As far as women who have “strut the world stage” in the past century, Margaret Thatcher is the stand-out example of someone for all you ladies to aspire to as an example of the “female paradigm”

Remember, she is the one who sent the combined British Forces into the Falklands in the name of democracy and, if she were in power at the time, would have done the same as Blair in going into Iraq.
However, you possibly consider to exclude her as a poor example for her failure to tow the feminist line, after all she did say

“I owe nothing to Women's Lib.”

but any such exclusion would be criticised by me as "Cherry picking"

Whitty “'m sooo sick of hearing about this wonderful world women would have created with no wars.”

Yes, it’s a bit like “The meek will inherit the earth, if thats OK with everyone else”

Bronwyn “the course we are on now is completely unsustainable.”

Before making that claim, I would expect you to define what is “sustainable”, relative to any given population and qualifying whether you are talking about nation or world population (it makes a big difference to who you tell to fix the problem).

“Perhaps if you spent more time reading…”

Seem a little hypocritical, when followed with the statement

“I’ve got no time for your arrogant “We know best” attitude”

Fractelle
If your asking me if I believe that women should have the vote, then I believe that women should have the vote.

But I’m not a feminist, and I don’t vote for someone based on their gender.

If you are trying to say that I am a misogynist, then you can look through my posts, and find where I have said one negative word about women. A feminist has done that already, and couldn’t find anything, but still calls me a misogynist.

So much for the "ism" of feminism.

Col Rouge,

A reference from a pal is not necessarily a reference at all. Apart from the palship of close friendships, the employed may have been put into the position of recommending this person to his boss.

Have often are these scenarios played out

Scenario 1.

Pal 1. X is resigning ... dead ... had a nervous breakdown ... We’re advertising ...

Pal 2. (interrupting) I could do his job with my hands tied behind my back. You know
my experience and efficiency (subtext: you haven’t seen me in action, but I’ve
told you often enough). Put in a good word for me. Be a good mate ...

Scenario 2

My son, your godson, is looking for a job in your neck of the woods. I hear there’s an opening just up his street. I know you would keep a good eye on
him ...

I would have thought that selecting employees was rather more sophisticated today. Not only qualifications and prior experience, but also the interview process itself, by judicious questioning should determine just how familiar, capable, with various “procedures” the candidate is - AND not the least the interviewee’s own observations. By also presenting the candidate with hypothetical or past problems, thus a measure of how quickly the candidate can think on their feet, indeed, work under pressure (of an interview). Surely this would be some gauge of experience.

This assumes, of course, that the interviewer, himself, is competent and knows what he is doing.

Anyhow, we both agree:

“None of that makes any difference to the fact, men and women are all individuals, some talented and others less so”

Thus, women and men should both be assessed equally for an executive placement. Gender shouldn’t enter into it.

cont ...

Desipsis,

“I have no problem with women making up the majority of business leaders if they are in fact better at it than men, however I don't see much evidence that they are.”

A specious argument. When women are excluded already for consideration at executive level, there is hardly likely to be collective evidence of their business accumen.

Yabby

What exactly is this “law of the jungle”. Is this meant to deter or frighten women? "The law of the jungle" couldn’t be more forocious or savage than a mother protecting her young. Any person who has been involved with animals can confirm this; and it translates well into humanity itself.

To the gentle OLO readers out there, please forgive me for what I am about to do...

HRS

I did not ask you your opinion on women voting, nor did I query how you vote.

Please, a little more focus.

My question to you was and remains:

Do you object to women as politicians?

Now either you have no problem to female pollies, if so, you could easily answer, "No"

Or

You do object, so you would then answer "yes"

It is not a problem for me if you object to female politicians. You are not alone, in fact there are other men who object to women's participation in politics, business and other areas of power in our society. Yabby argues all the time that women as less capable than men in these fields.

However, that you appear to be incapable of giving a straight forward answer to a very straight forward question is very revealing about you.

For some reason, you don't wish to be called a misogynist. You are allowed to express your true beliefs here. I don't like religious fundamentalists, I don't have a problem with moderate religious, but the fundy's are very worrisome.

Clearly, you find feminism worrisome too. That's fine. I just wish for some straight forward honesty on your part.

Now, please, a simple straight forward answer.

Do you object to women politicians?

Whitty

“I'm sooo sick of hearing about this wonderful world women would have created with no wars.”

Why is that Whitty? Not of course that women have ever had the chance to create such a world, but we’ll ignore that.

Are you saying you’re happy to live with the level of warfare afflicting the planet at the moment and the resultant pain and poverty it’s creating for millions of people?

Or are you saying, no, you’re not happy about it, but that women would have created the same sort of world anyway had they controlled the reins of power?

Or are you as I suspect just having a go at anyone who dares suggest the current (might I say androcentric) model is flawed?

A little evidence, Whitty, to support your whinge would go a long way!

Yabby

“So why did tens of millions of them vote for George Bush, when Karl Rove pushed their emotional buttons about Osama under their beds? Without the women’s vote, George would not be there! I say that as an Obama supporter.”

What a nonsense statement this is. Women make up 50% of the population so of course he wouldn’t be there “without the women’s vote”. He wouldn’t be there without the men’s vote. What does any of this prove?

George Bush being elected had far more to do with the millions of disenfranchised prisoners and the corruption of the Florida vote than it ever did with gender.

Anyway, when I stated that women wouldn't have taken us into Iraq, I wasn't referring to women voters. I was referring to the imagined scenario where women were holding positions of power.

I bet most of the women who did vote for Bush though sure as hell weren't giving him a mandate to invade Iraq.

Obama, hey? Well, Yabby, we agree on one thing!

Fractelle
I think you keep changing your questions.

I do not have a problem with female politicians, and I have recently voted for 6.

However I would not vote for any politician who calls themselves a feminist, and similarly I would not vote for any politician who calls themselves a Marxist, Socialist, Leninist, Stalinist, Maoist etc. The reason for this is none of these have ever shown much interest in democracy (and I can only find the slightest amount of democracy within feminism).

I do not have a problem with women in business. My current business mentor is female and my accountant is female. I have talked to both, and I feel confident that they are not gender prejudiced or feminist.

I do have a problem with International Women’s Day being celebrated in schools and not International Men’s Day as well, as this is obviously gender prejudiced and feminist.

I also have a problem with the Office of Women when there is not an Office of Men, as this is also obviously gender prejudiced and feminist.

I also have a problem with the vilification of men by so many feminists, and I would welcome gender vilification laws to be introduced into the country to help clear up that issue.

I also have a problem with the many biased and distorted statistics released, and I think that there should be a complete review of social science throughout the country, as it is obvious that social science has simply become a part of anti-male feminist propaganda, and is not a science at all.

*What exactly is this law of the jungle*

Danielle, its basically about Darwinian evolution theory, ie survival of the fittest.

*Is this meant to deter or frighten women?*

That depends on their flight of fight response I guess, which would vary.

*The law of the
jungle couldn't be more ferocious or savage than a mother protecting her young.*

Yet the world is full of predators, who make a living by eating those mothers children, despite their protests.

They use stealth, patience, timing, strategic thinking, etc, to grab those kids for
dinner, just when mommy might least expect it or be at her most vulnerable.
Anything goes, the fittest survive, the rest are spat out for lunch.

Now Bronwyn thinks that Murdoch is a hero of mine. He’s not. I simply point out
that he is an example of a very good strategic thinker. His morals, ethics etc, are
a totally different story. But in business its results that count and not many can
go from one newspaper in Adelaide, to build a global media empire and beat Fleet
Street as well as Wall Street at their own game of strategics.

Being a great strategic thinker is perhaps one of the most important qualities that a
CEO needs, to be successful, that’s why I think that men in general are more suited
to the job, but not in all cases.

I actually bought some more Westpac shares on their last low, because I happen to
think that Gail Kelly will be great for Westpac, as she was for St George. Caution
and great people skills are extremely important when running a bank, both of which
she is great at. You don’t want bank CEOs who take huge risks, so IMHO she could
well do better then any of the men.

*I bet most of the women who did vote for Bush though sure as hell weren't giving him a mandate to
invade Iraq.*

Bronwyn, so why did they vote for him again, after he invaded Iraq? Why did Hillary vote for invasion, yet Obama was against it

HRS

Suggest you reread my posts.

But I will move on.

You stated you voted for 6 female politicians.

Please name them.

Thank you.

Fractelle,
I voted at the recent council elections, and my council is run on party lines (unfortunately). I make a policy of never telling anyone who I vote for, and I certainly wouldn’t be giving any politician free publicity by saying their names before they have even started the job.

The author seems to assume that feminists represent women. This is completely debatable. One poll in the US found that only 20% of women would call themselves a feminist, and it is likely to be the same here.

I can’t see much evidence to suggest that feminists are representing men, so feminists may only be representing 10% of the population, or feminists are simply representing feminists.

Yabby,

Your apotheosis of the male - the hunter - the law of the jungle ... survival of the fittest”

“They use stealth, patience, timing, strategic thinking ... the fittest survive, the rest are spat out for lunch”

Your words, so visual, so poetic ...Yabby ... But to which species are you referring?

Pack hunting is gender free, bears are solitary, the big cats are solitary. Lionesses hunt for the pride ... I can’t recall what the lion does from his recumbent position ... perhaps semaphores instructions with his tail. Only on a special and rare occasion does the lion actually get up and contribute to the hunt. When, indeed. he has killed prey, unlike the lioness, he will will not share. But to give the lion his due, he does, alongside lionesses, defend the pride.

Murdoch inherited (I use the word very loosely) the News from his father Keith, who died heavily in debt. It was Murdoch’s mother who managed to salvage what little she could of the News, also a couple of subsidaries. The increasingly lax media regulations undoubtedly contributed to Murdoch’s empires, as much as his actual abilities. Both he and the late Packer were both great gamblers. Is this what you mean? Not exactly what one would look for in a business leader.

Ignoring any business principles, or indeed ethics, then such business leaders might as well hold up banks. From what you are saying, there there is not much difference - if any. Are you saying that they are no different from them and unconsciousnable criminals?

Where exactly do they draw the line?

*Your words, so visual, so poetic ...Yabby ... But to which species are you referring?*

Danielle, you could even apply it to hedge funds, which are the predators of the financial world these days.

*Pack hunting is gender free, bears are solitary, the big cats are solitary. Lionesses hunt for the
pride ..*.

You are correct, in many species the females have to provide for themselves and their offspring and risk their lives each time they want dinner. In some species
however, where the offspring require lots of resources, pair bonding evolved
as a strategy. Foxes, many bird species. In return for a bit of nookie, the
females have their own personal resource provider and the males have a reason
to stick around, so it’s a win-win. A lioness has no personal food provider for
her young, so she has to hunt.

*The increasingly lax media regulations undoubtedly contributed to Murdoch's
empires, as much as his actual abilities*

The media regulations were the same for everyone, yet he is the only guy I know
in the media industry, who went from 1 small paper in Adelaide, to buying the
Wall Street Journal, with a 50 billion$ empire. Credit where credit is due,
whatever we think of Rupert personally, that is the point.

There is a difference between gambling per se and taking calculated risks, which
is what business is about after all. If you don’t like risk, buy Govt bonds.

*Ignoring any business principles, or indeed ethics, then such business leaders might as well hold up
banks.*

The law is quite clear about holding up banks, the law is far from clear in many other
areas. In many countries there are laws but they are not applied, or the judiciary is
corrupt etc. CEOs who are not strategic thinkers and who don’t understand those
laws of the jungle, will quickly lose their shareholders money. That’s the reality.

Bronwyn,

The second option. YOU have no evidence women would have created a world with no war. I really think you should read up on the White Feather Brigade of feminists handing out white feathers to young men, branding them as cowards becausethey weren't voluntarily joining the army...

I think you are very naive if you think there would be this nice peaceful world if only women were 'in power'. I also think you underestimate the influence women have had on society.

HRS

I realised immediately after loading my last post I shouldn’t have asked you the names of the women you voted for, I apologise for that.

However, I very much doubt that any of the 6 women you have voted for believed in being subservient to men and I am sure they regard themselves as valid as men. Does a woman actually have to call herself a feminist before she draws your ire?

Or does she simply have to aspire for equal rights?

As you have noted, many women do not call themselves feminists, part of the reason is the hostility the term attracts – just look at the disparagement on these pages.

So how can you be sure that the women you voted for weren’t in fact in agreement with the philosophy of feminism?

If you asked women about specific feminist policies (equal pay, reproductive rights, etc) you'll get a very high number in favour of them, even though they may not call themselves feminists.

However, apart from the above mentioned basic goals of equal rights for women, there are as many different feminists as there are differences among the individuals in any group.

Your relentless blanketing of feminists as dominating and divisive is very similar to Boaz David’s obsession with Muslims. It is myopic to assume that whatever groups us as human beings means that we are all one big homogenous lump.

Yet you continually fail to discern that not all feminists are the same any more than all pro-men’s groups agree with each other.

This blind spot you have regarding feminism prevents an exchange of honest opinion with you and then everyone gets irate.

A shame really, if you are genuine then you are alienating those who could be sympathetic to you.

Whitty - and I am "sooooo sick" of hearing about the White Feather brigade on these posts.

The "White Feather" brigade was organised by a man, Admiral Charles Fitzgerald who recruited 30 women, yes, but not 30 "feminists".

During WW1 the Army organised a huge propagands machine which recruited writers like Kipling, Wells, etc. and many artists to the war effort. Fitzgerald's White Feather women were part of this effort. Yes, the movement was silly, but so was most of the work of the male writers and artists of the propaganda machine: many of whom rebelled against it. In the same way most(note the qualifier) White Feather women had ceased their activities by the second year of the war.

Although there was no "feminist" movement at the time there was a Suffragist movement and even this was divided in the issue of the war: Sylvia Pankhurst being a pacifist and Emmeline organising a huge movement and rallies for women's "Right to Serve".

"White feathering" goes back to ancient Greece and to keep attributing it to "feminists" is I imagine, a result of contemporary propaganda machines.

Fractelle,
Thanks for your lecture, but I have not lectured you on what you should or should not be doing, nor have I made personalized or insulting remarks about you.

I’m a very democratic person.

It would be true that feminists talk about equality more than most other people at present.

Unfortunately history shows that people who talk most about equality rarely carry it out if they get into a position of power. Their “equality” very quickly becomes “more equal than equal”, and if they have no interest in democracy, then they will normally arrange the system so that they cannot be voted out.

Examples are Marxists, National Socialists, Communists, Stalinists, Maoists etc.

The “equal rights” of feminism has very quickly become more equal than equal, and this is readily seen by the fact that International Men’s Day is not being celebrated, the fact that no major political party has a policy for men when every major political party has a policy for women, the fact that there is an Office for Women but no Office for Men etc.

There is no equality in feminism. It has become like the majority of other “isms”, and is now “more equal than equal”.

So I keep voting for people who don’t call themselves feminist, as there is less chance that they are feminist.

HRS

What I posted was not a lecture - however you clearly needed to dismiss my post somehow and that was only way left to you.

Of course, you reserve the right for yourself to disparage all feminists all the time.

Well, no-one can say I didn't try to communicate.

Think I will stop now - brick wall vs head; brick wall hasn't opened up one bit.

Fractelle
I have not related your head to a brick wall, or made any reference to any part of your body, or made any type of personalized remarks about you.

I am a very democratic person.

However, many years ago I was a feminist and a reader of feminist literature, until I began to see feminism for what it is, which is a system of discrimination based on gender, with many connections to Marxism.

Feminism has as much equality and democracy as Marxism, which had none.

Romany,

Of course. It's impossible for a woman to do anything wrong, unless influenced by a man somewhere. Women are pure and virtuous and men are evil by nature. I accept that. BTW, I never said anything about it being organised by feminists.

But Bronwyn says all women are opposed to war and if women were in power there would be no war. I have offered an example where women, some even in a feminist group, supported the war and painted men who dared not to join in as cowards

Whitty: "Women are pure and virtuous and men are evil by nature."

That wasn't — by any stretch — what Romany was saying, Whitty. Her post is not emotive, it's entirely rational. If you don't believe that it is historically accurate, then address that. But the heavy-handed sarcasm seems misdirected to me.

Her point is that the group you keep referring to wasn't a "feminist" group. Argue with her, if she's wrong. I've *never* heard Romany saying anything remotely suggesting she believes "women are pure and virtuous and men are evil by nature."

It is of course quite probable that Whitty is wrong, as men seem to dominate that particular statistic as well.

So tell us where you think women have an unfair advantage over men, or are themselves UNFAIR to men under current “equalisation schemes”. Tell us how feminism (or you personally) can help change this.

This article is all about fairness (equal rights, same rights), and it seems a little inconceivable that women are still so disadvantaged in Australian society today, but NEVER themselves cause disadvantage to others. Seems a little incongruous that while equal with men (or better) in every positive human attribute, deny such equality on the negatives.

If gender pay gap approaches 17% for no other reason than choices women make, then perhaps it is due to too many choices being available to her. Why not just narrow those choices, to ensure pay equality. Let’s make sure the same number of women (as men) are in the workforce and in the same jobs, work the same hours, and take the same breaks from work. Universal childcare? Sure – we can afford it when every woman goes to work and pays her share of tax. More of them will have to work in childcare of course, and too bad for those that want to personally raise their children. More too, will be plumbers, miners and CEOs.

This is just the tip of the iceberg of course. While we’re at it, let’s give men equal reproductive and parenting rights too. Let’s see how many take up the challenge when SAME & EQUAL choices are granted to them. Might even lead to sufficient standard of unpaid domestic work. Just imagine the quality of sex!

Sneeker, I reckon this stuff about sex and housework is little more than a snow job. Once upon a time it was being a snag or a meterosexual, being in touch with his feminine side and a whole host of other things that I have forgotten.

A diamond ring only worked until the solid gold ring was on the finger.

So in reality all this stuff has a use by date, and then it ceases to work.

Reminds me of the song about the fool on the hill.

And all the prisoners cried fool, fool.

This diamond ring dont shine, so buy me a car next time.

And all the prisoners cried, Fool Fool

Not the exact words but close enough.

Thomas Ellis author of "The Rantings of a Single Male" wrote that even sex has its limits.

Whitty

”I think you are very naive if you think there would be this nice peaceful world if only women were 'in power'."

Yes, I would be naïve if I believed that, but I don’t. One only has to look at the likes of Maggie Thatcher to realize that getting women into positions of power is not in itself a panacea. I want to see men and women in leadership positions whose decisions reflect the values I have outlined previously. My point is that once we get closer to achieving an even ratio of men and women in these positions, the chances of moving towards a fairer and more sustainable world will I think be increased. Not dramatically, but increased just the same.

Col Rouge

When I spoke of a new paradigm I didn't mean a “female paradigm” as you incorrectly paraphrased.

I’m not about creating a women’s world or putting women above men. I’m actually an environmental and social justice advocate before I'm a feminist and it’s those imperatives that are of paramount interest to me, not creating some sort of women's nirvana.

”Before making that claim, I would expect you to define what is “sustainable”, relative to any given population and qualifying whether you are talking about nation or world population."

I’m talking worldwide sustainability. In a globalised world where all transactions are interconnected, it's difficult for a nation to achieve sustainability in isolation. Solutions need to be global in nature though effected locally of course.

Population is only part of the problem though of course a very significant contributor. I was really referring to resource management. There aren’t enough resources to sustain our current standard of living and, even if there were, drastic changes will still have to be made to the way we are using those resources if we are to avert catastrophic climate change.

Apart from issues of sustainability, wealth disparity is also a huge and growing problem. This is why I keep making references to the current world order having to change. And I think women can play a big part in bringing this about. But it won't happen if we become fixated on competing for our own personal gain and lose sight of the bigger picture.

I am that fool James. Come up, the hills are alive. We’ll follow that rainbow crossing a vanilla sky.

Whitty - So, you informed another poster somewhat patronisingly: "I really think you should read up on the White Feather Brigade of feminists".

So no, you didn't specifically state that this group of "feminists" was organised by feminists. For the purposes of your argument it appears we envisage a group of "feminists" in 1914 who were organised by someone else? O.k., cool, I supplied the name of the organiser. If it wasn't a "feminist" then its not surprising that it was a male. So why stamp your metaphoric foot and try to escape into sarcasm?

My point however, as Vanilla pointed out, had nothing to do with evil men and virtuous women. It was to point to an anachronism. Feminism per se did not exist in 1914. I thought I'd made that pretty clear in the bit that said that although there were no feminists there were suffragists?

Ergo:- your two references to "White Feather feminism" were not statements of fact and could not therefore be "read up on".

And before you try to frame a retort of equal wit and profundity to the last (like "oh, and I suppose only men make mistakes and women are always right" perhaps?) the reason I bothered to point it out was that it supports a statement made previously by others beside me, that the word "feminist" often is used as a synonym for the word women on these threads. (And please, don't make me go to equal lengths to go reiterate the point behind that).

Sheesh!