*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.