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! "