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!

Vanilla, Romany

Fair enough, but I just constantly come accross this attitude, that when a woman does wrong, there was a man somewhere to blame. Like Maggie Thatcher. She is often described as 'like a man' when people didn't like her leadership or policies. The women never hit first, only in self defense crap. Why cant people accept women have supported war, without the influence of men, or somehow being like a male. I say Maggie acted like a woman in power. I'm sure that will ruffle some feathers.

I realise I have over reacted, but Bronwyn seemed to get my point, and she was the one I addressing, where you two have decided to nit pick to score points. Sure my language was loose, but my intention was to get her to type in google the phrase white feather feminist, and see for herself the involvement of women and feminists in this behaviour.

Romany since you seem to think you know what my response will be to each point you make, and seem to be in a argument with yourself, this is the last time I will bother addressing you.

Bronwyn,

Thanks for addressing my argument and clarifying your position. I think we'll have to agree to disagree. You saying ''Women sure as hell wouldn’t have led us up the garden path to the quagmire of Iraq. ' is as offensive to me as I imagine you would be offended if a guy said 'If men had the babies there would be much less abortions'. I feel you are softening your stance though.

Romany

Sorry for the delay in responding. Yes the robot anaology was bizarre but entertaining for it's originality and storytelling flair if nothing else.

Articles like this tend to bring out the them and us arguments and it is the same old responses, miscommunications and misunderstandings (sometimes deliberate) rehashed and packaged in a different wrapping.

What if we forget the term feminism for a minute and think about equality and a fair go for both men and women within a 'win-win' ideal.

We are all agreed that there are swings and roundabouts when it comes to fairness and equality for men and women both at work and home. Perhpas we should be fighting for a universally better work-life balance for men and women, singles and families where the importance of raising a family, running a home and working can be best juggled and satisfaction achieved. This might mean making major changes to our in-grained beliefs about economic structures and how we work and would naturally involve consultation with business and the way we view family law matters.

Would it not be better to work together as 'humanists' rather than feminists or masculinists (sorry don't know the term for the male equivalent) :).

"...you two have decided to nit pick to score points."

I wasn't "...nit pick[ing] to score points." Score points where, for a start? It's not a competition.

I just thought it was worth telling the truth about this issue.