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.