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.