There's a lot of anger and a lot of tosh on this thread - "total wealth possession women as a group now exceeds mens." I mean, really. If you blokes really believe that, as one poster put it in another thread, women are"socially engineering society behind the scenes" you are, unfortunately, paranoiacs. Look at the woman you wake up next to, at your mothers and sisters and mates — are they really engaged in a conspiracy to undo you? Or do you imagine shadowy feminist powerbrokers, conducting evil symphonies of manipulation in backrooms? Then why not vote out the men who hum along. End of the day, the office for the status of women has little power. Parliament has power.

As Gecko sensibly points out, gender self-interest is not about “winning”. It's about ensuring both sexes have the freedom to live as they desire. The natural end to feminism is not, as Sam said, women inhabiting their own world, it's men and women living equally. We're not "the same" — on the contrary, we're chalk and cheese — but we’re both free.

As the article that inspired this discussion says, “the struggle for fairness and for equality is not an attempt by women to divide and conquer.” Notice the liberaral spinkling of the pronoun “we”. We are individually responsible for our personal destinies and collectively responsible for remedying cultural inequities. This article does not lay blame at the feet of men. Nor would any feminist worth her salt — society’s way too complex for that.

But the comments frequently focus on what “they” (i.e. feminists) have done to “us”. If a woman extorts money from you, it’s not feminism’s fault. She’s deceptive, and you shouldn’t have married her. Nasty women, and men, existed pre-feminism — in fact, feminism allowed women to build their own bank balance, not covet yours.

I know this post will meet with criticism, but I genuinely hope that the men on this forum learn to reassert their power and feel free to live however the hell they like.

Love your work there Vanilla, especially: "But the comments frequently focus on what “they” (i.e. feminists) have done to “us”. If a woman extorts money from you, it’s not feminism’s fault. She’s deceptive, and you shouldn’t have married her."

I'm constantly amazed by the criticism meted out toward feminists. When I criticise HRS's various fallacies, his responses are that he's copping 'feminist' abuse. It's not me criticisng him, apparently, he's copping it from feminism.

So if say, half the criticism in the world comes from women, by golly, that's a lot of 'feminist' criticism.

So basically, any time a woman does a man wrong, there's a subset of embittered men who appear to genuinely believe that it's feminism that's caused this.

Not just women either - apparently, if someone disagrees with them on gender issues, they're copping it from feminism, be it male or female.

Guys... if you've been done wrong, then combat it by highlighting the specific instances where the situation is unfair.

If there's unfair legislation, then point it out. If there's areas where men are genuinely disadvantaged then speak up - but for crying out loud, enough of the token injustices which nobody really cares about.

If you're annoyed because women don't show men chivalry too by opening doors, I say, suck it up.

Show some spine. Perhaps I'm a little old fashioned, but I've always found whingers who only have petty problems to be rather tiresome, regardless of their gender.

When nutbag radical feminists speak up, by all means, criticise them.

But saying that it's feminism in its entirety that's at fault just makes you look like crackpots.

It's like saying that the creation of the wheel should be blamed for a specific traffic accident, or that white people should be ashamed because some teenage white kid mugged you at an ATM.

Get over it.

Yeah, I also picked up on the comment: "If feminists are seeking equality, should they be pushing to have women to become as career focused as men, or should they be pushing to have men become more life focused?".Because it pushed to the heart of the matter, I consider.

"Feminists" are not pushing for for either of those options. What they are are/have been/will push for is the right for a person to take up whichever option they prefer. And I use the gender-free "person" because yes! If individual guys wants to become more life focused they should be able to do so, and if individual women want to become career focused that's also their own choice. Its about enabling people to make choices that aren't based on gender. That's all.

If a someone wants to be a sex worker, a CEO, or whatever, they should be free to do so. Some people find nothing more fulfilling than to stay at home and raise kids. but a) their gender should not prevent or force them to b) society should not condemn or condone their decision and c)those that don't wish to do so should not be made to do so.

It seems that on this thread, as on others concerning this subject the word "feminists" get confused with the word "woman". Any person who, as the article pointed out, speaks up for women's rights; any female person from prostitutes who charge $1000 a time to posters who disagree with some other posters, is considered a feminist.

It also appears that those who get steamed up the most are those who, on various other threads, have volunteered the information that they got done over by some woman (thereafter used to represent "feminists"). If, therefore, those females one disagrees with,or who have treated one badly, or any woman written about in the media are conveniently labelled as "feminists", the word becomes pejorative. Of the people on this thread who have identified as feminist, not one has displayed any of the characteristics the "haters" ascribe to them.

JamesH

"I put it to you guys that unpaid domestic work isn't unpaid at all."

I can see a certain amount of truth in this statement.

In my own situation for example I've always taken on more of the domestic and family load while my partner has contributed more of the income. He's always worked full-time and I've mostly worked part-time. This is an arrangement which we have both agreed to and which suits us both. In this type of situation I feel your statement (however crudely put!) is a fair one. There's agreement and there's give and take on both sides.

However, there are many partnerships out there where both partners are working long hours and yet the woman is still shouldering the bulk of domestic and family responsibilities. In this situation, even though his income might be worth more, to state that her "unpaid domestic work isn't unpaid at all" is offensive. Her time is clearly being devalued in comparison to his.

Vanilla, re "total wealth possession women as a group now exceeds mens."

I doubt that we have yet reached the threshold where women have more of the worlds wealth than men yet. Too many at the top of the list of the really wealthy are men for that to seem credible.

I've seen a range of material on this topic in recent times which suggests that it's not as clear cut as it might otherwise seem. What I've found so far trying to relocate sources is all british in origin - unusual.

- http://www.lpgf.com/files/LEEPEC0001/LPGF2005/PDFs/Mailshot-Finance.pdf
- http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20050423/ai_n14599410
- http://www.banking-business-review.com/article_feature.asp?guid=822A8CC5-4417-4200-B38D-4F8C360018CA

Forbes has some interesting lists
- http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/10/07billionaires_The-Worlds-Billionaires_Rank.html
- http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/11/06women_The-100-Most-Powerful-Women_Rank.html

Whilst I agree with much of what you, TurnRightThenLeft, Romany and Browyn have written in your most recent posts I do think this article deserves a kick for it's attempts mislead in it's misuse of statistics and it's failure to take into account that women have tended to make different career choices and tend to earn less as a result.

When women get paid less for doing the same job as a male it's discrimination, when women get paid less for choosing a lower paid job or for working less hours or having less experience it's not discrimination.

Articles like this undermine genuine claims of unfairness towards women in the same way that HRS's posts undermine the legitimate concerns about discrimination against men.

R0bert

*any female person from prostitutes who charge $1000 a time to posters who disagree with some other posters, is considered a feminist.*

Not really, the female charging 1000$ or 5000$ an hour for her
skills and looks, is simply making the best of her assets, as
is her right. We then have Paul McCarthy's ex, walking away
with approx 120 million for 4 years marriage. Clearly that
is a very profitable business for some women!

The point is, women bleating that they get such a raw deal is
simply not true. We have countless examples of women thriving.
Take a look at the present CEO of Westpac. She started as a
bank teller in South Africa, came here as a migrant and now earns
millions for her skills and ability, as her talent was recognised.

This cry that women are discrimated against, is in fact a great
way of rationalising away reality, for those women who are failures.
Clearly its easier to blame the whole world and those evil men
out there, then their own lack of abilities. That is basic
human nature.

The genders on average are different, yet complimentary. Both
have advantages and disadvantages and as we can see, some of both
genders thrive and some don't.

I simply don't believe this mantra that a few feminists constantly
go about about, as to how disadvantaged that women are, compared to
men