Dear Seeker

Thank you for your comments. I am not pretending these issues are uncomplicated and I try to be self-critical when I argue a point. I am usually pretty set in my beliefs but will sometimes come to see a different and valid point of view when talking with other people - not everything is black and white. My response to this article is (for me) looking to the bigger picture. But as you concurred so nicely - we can agree to disagree and argue without insults (which you didn’t by the way) and thank you (sarcasm I can take). :)

The thing that annoys me most is that if a woman makes a comment against this type of advertising (and I have seen worse) she is branded a feminist as though that category sums up her whole perspective into one little neatly packaged box. Usually perceived as a negative package in an “Oh... she is one of those...well that explains it”. It really gets up my nose.

My view of feminism includes the rights of men as I have so often stated on other threads, women and men cannot be truly equal (ever probably) in every respect but as far as possible - equal as citizens in terms of access to opportunity but also accepting responsibility in the acceptance of those rights. I also agree with Antiseptic's comments about the burdens of responsibility of men, particularly the burdens of prime breadwinner (in many cases) which brings its own pressures.

I am no supporter of women who adopt a man-hating agenda (they are the minority by far) nor men who no longer use the term women but ‘feminists’ to imply an equally negative image and who refuse to believe that women were once denied basic rights afforded to men as though somehow it was all concocted as some sort of global female conspiracy.

Gender politics always turns in the usual them-and-us scenario which is a shame but maybe inevitable as change is never a smooth road. What about a new word to encompass all – ‘Fairists’ maybe

Antiseptic

“What "privilege" do you see in the role of the peasant farmer, or the drover, or the miner, or the factory serf, or the blacksmith, or the mucker-out of stables? These are all traditionally male occupations, have been for centuries in that bastion of male privilege, the West. How about the soldier, the barber/surgeon, the linen-bleacher (which involved collecting, aging and then treading in people's urine). Seeing much privilege yet?”

I agree, there’s not much privilege here. Part of this is due to historical circumstance. Some of these occupations no longer exist and when they did there would have been women performing tasks of equal drudgery and risk to their health. Time has removed a lot of these dangers. And added new ones, for example, men working on shonky high-rise building sites.

You list the "mucker-out of stables". Today it's probably done by women and girls every bit as much as it is by men and boys. In countries without sanitation, women still carry buckets of excrement on their heads and Dalit men in India sweep the stuff. Today's "factory serfs" are the millions of women working in appalling sweatshop conditions, many of them locked in and frequently forced to work around the clock.

For every example listed to support an argument, another one can be found to support another view. Most of your examples raise social justice, class and poverty issues just as much if not more than they demonstrate the supposition that it's men who do life's risky and unpleasant jobs. To me, they only confirm the argument that women and men should both be fighting together for a fairer world rather than fighting each other over the spoils of an inequitable and failing system.

“One consequence is that men die younger and spend a lot more time injured or ill, just as we do in Australia.”

This is also attributable to other factors. Men are generally less proactive regarding their health, less well-informed on dietary issues and more likely to engage in risk-taking behaviour and health-damaging substance abuse.

Pelican - ditto to everything!

Pelican,

Thanks for showing consideration in your response and especially for suggesting a new name for feminism. Love the concept!

May not be easy to agree on a new name though. Your initial suggestion of “Fairists” is a bit “off with the fairies” and likely to disenfranchise just as many men with such connotation. Equalist and Humanist also have problems.

How about “Advantageism”? This could accommodate any activist of any gender or age fighting for equality of advantage. It is inclusive, positive (victimless), and looks to the future. That is, until someone comes along who wants to fight “against inequality of advantage”.

Or how about taking an existing word like opportunism and cleaning it up a bit for its new purpose? I wonder how we managed to tarnish such words (opportunity = good, opportunism = bad, feminism…).

Anyway, I find the idea of name change very appealing indeed.

Whatever it is, just make sure the name of it doesn't end in 'ist' or 'ism' or clearly, it must be evil right?

I also suspect that it would spawn a counter-movement, dedicated to preserving gender roles, calling these 'fairists' (or whatever they're named) an affront to our traditional ways of life.

It would only be a matter of time before people are saying the movement is evil and driven by out of touch ideologues, as critics and proponents choose to only see the best or worst in the belief system.

I was attempting a humour with the "Fairists" bit to make a point. As TRTL says no matter what the term, it will be distorted or opportunised to a particular agenda.

A comment on Whitty's previous post about the pendulum swinging too far in one direction but still in other ways a long way to go. The two are not mutually exclusive. To provide an example or two:

1. The way women are portrayed in the media. One beef is with body image and the ambiguous messages we give to young girls and boys. (I have two daughters so this is of concern to me although they are through the more difficult ages)

2. One area I think feminism has failed is that it forgot somewhere along the line about CHOICE. Agencies like the Office of the Status of Women fail to address the needs of women who might choose, for ideological or personal reasons, to stay home for an extended period of time to raise children. There is not much advocacy for these families compared to the emphasis given to say, childcare, maternity leave or workplace issues. These are important issues for sure but we should not forget policies that might help one income families (whether it be the mother or father staying at home) such as income splitting. Not all familes are 'working families' in the way that term has been used. There are many more men choosing to stay at home too. This is what we should be about - each family choosing a lifestyle that suits their particular circumstances. If we can implement policies and economic systems that allow for individually tailored family-work-life structures rather than a one-size fits all approach, all the better.

3. Feminism to some extent has not addressed the issues of class and low income women do not receive the same level or rigorous advocacy that career women might from established feminist groups (although they do have an advocate in the Unions). eg. affordable childcare usually means childcare workers receiving less than adequate wages.

Pelican,

I’m so glad you admitted your attempt at humour, otherwise my oxymoron would have looked very much out of place. Now come on! “Equality of advantage”! How many of you started working on placards to take to the streets? Hands up!

Our comic talents are wasted here, Pelican. Maybe we should use more smileys to punctuate our material. I knew “fairists” was a joke, but without the smileys one can never be quite sure with some of your other stuff. I actually felt some ROFL regret after your last post, because I eventually realised you could be serious.

“A comment on Whitty's previous post about the pendulum swinging too far in one direction but still in other ways a long way to go. The two are not mutually exclusive.”

“The way women are portrayed in the media. One beef is with body image and the ambiguous messages we give to young girls and boys.”

“One area I think feminism has failed is that it forgot somewhere along the line about CHOICE.”

“… affordable childcare usually means childcare workers receiving less than adequate wages.”

Ambiguous message? Forgot about choice? Affordable childcare means low pay? Two sides of the pendulum not mutually exclusive? (my favourite). Please confirm the smileys :-)

Vanilla,

I think you make a mean "cheese on toast" ;-)