I must point out that the author of this article has blatantly skimmed over the core issue of why women refuse to admit to being feminists.

The reasons why the stereotypes still exists and has such a hold is that the individuals that were the impetus for the creation the stereotypes still exist, that the non-'radical' feminist individuals continuously refuse to tell those that are radical to 'pull their head in' in popular media and that those that are radical by nature are media darlings often looking for the spot light. When news and popular media are awash with idiosyncratic personalities that identify themselves as feminists but in fact just have an axe to grind against society or part thereof with very little or no perceived back lash from moderate feminists it is very easy to view feminism as just being radical in nature.

It is not good enough any more to just sit back and whinge that feminism has a bad name, this will do nothing. Moderate feminists need to stand up and launch an active campaign to distance themselves from the view of the radical feminist being the only feminist. The problem of why more are not identifying themselves as moderate feminists is that no one knows what a moderate feminist is.

Stand up and be counted or run back to the shadows and complain, these are the only options open. If as the author wishes us to believe there is such a thing as moderate feminism people must know it exists, it must be in the public consciousness before young women will identify with it. It must also be defended to prevent what happened in the 1960’s from happening again resulting in another 3 decades of mistrust and stereotyping.

I found your post extremely interesting and to be honest, until now I have never really put much thought into it.

Is feminism a dirty word, I dont think its a dirty word...I think it is a label for our predecessors, part of our history. The modern day feminist is me, you, my daughter....we are living the life that the 'feminists' fought so hard for. The modern woman has dreams and goals that are not limited by their sex...if you were to tell my daughter that she couldnt become a solicitor because she is female she would look at you in utter confusion...that concept has never been part of her world, thanks to our 'feminist' ancestors.

Its hard to believe that only 20 years ago this wasnt at all possible. I know there are still many aspects in our society where women are limited because of their sex however in comparison, the equal and fair treatment of women as a whole has become the norm.

I think the name 'feminist' should be regarded with respect, however its no longer relevant. We are all 'feminists' because we dont allow ourselves to be treated any less than our male counterparts - we expect fairness and equality in the same way we expect to pay taxes!!......

Excellent post, Arthur N.

Feminism is one of the best things ever to happen to Western society, but somewhere along the way the term itself got appropriated by a minority of women who are more interested in revenge against men than in equality and harmony.

Did I miss part of this article?

What is a Feminist? Your comment "In the act of calling ourselves feminists we are expressing solidarity (not necessarily agreement) with others who share our core values."

What are those core values .. I can see something has irritated you, but why?

Is Feminism a little like the Eureka Flag, being used by Trade Unions it's lost its original meaning and intent?

Help me out here, or am I just easily confused?

Feminism made the Woman become a kind of Man ("climb that corporate ladder, knock heads together"). It was propounded (or interpreted) as a force for Destruction, rather than Creation. I think todays women want to find and connect with their feminine essence - which involves creation, nurturing and caring, but which was dismissed by the feminists as "weakness", and exorcised from the collective psyche. Its led to a generation that doesnt have any meaningful relationships - either with themselves or with others. No surprises then - Gen X and Y women are shunning the 'Feminist' ideals with a vengeance.

Feminism is not a dirty word - it put the discussion of Womens rights on the Agenda, but by no means is it a Silver bullet, and is now way past its "use by" date. We need a new philosophy - one that recognises Women for who they are (i.e. that they are not Men).

Just look at how the feminazi's attack any woman who supports their husbands and looks after the kids and you will see why feminist is a dirty word. Greer's views are even revolting from many lefties (a few exceptions)to that point of view.

Females have taken over the State education systems and look at what we are left with. I would hate to be a young boy know surrounding by all those chalk wielding feminist. In Victoria they have made the police force the laughing stock of the nation. M Despite propaganda some work is certainly better done by men.

I take heart that many of our girls today can see that the path of the feminist leads to dis satisfaction. It must irk the feminist to see many young woman content to be wives, mothers, career woman, politicians without having to act like men. Why not be proud to be what you were created to be? Stick to the dresses girls and leave the suits to the men. You will gain a lot more respect that way

"Feminist is not a dirty word"

and nor is "chauvinist"

however, they are, of course, synonyms of one another.

countryperson

'I think the name 'feminist' should be regarded with respect...'

True. And for many, many people, it IS a term of respect, indeed pride.

If a lot of young women who believe in gender equality don't identify as feminists, then it's just a normal reaction against politicising or pigeonholing themselves. After all ... how many people who believe in social equality identify as socialists, and how many people who believe in free enterprise identify as capitalists?

From my perspective I have no problem with women wanting equal rights. But isn't that equalism?

When I hear the word feminism I think of it as the female version of chauvinism. Both of these ideals are used by people to justify their inherent sexism and I don't agree with either of them. I have heard feminists and chauvinists make basically the same arguments about why their gender is better. I think this adulation of their own gender is the reason people associate feminists with lesbianism and chauvinists with self gratification.

To give a concrete example, I don't believe in reverse discrimination, be that on race, gender or whatever. It is not clever, nor is it just, to punish the current generation for sins of the past. All people should have equal opportunities and be chosen for jobs entirely on merit. That is what I mean by equalism.

But the name really isn't important. The concept is.

I thought this article was heading in a good direction, then was dissapointed.

Feminism does suffer from 'Brand' damage. That's why equalitism, or egalitarianism would be a better thing to subscribe to. Or is the rejection of this really a sub-consious need to keep exclusive focus on women?

'Radical feminism, which emerged from the diverse women's movement of the 1960s, focused on patriarchy as the source of women's oppression.'

SJF? I'm sure she wouldn't think so. This is the problem of the damage to the brand. The supposed 'radical' feminists are what has been heard most often in the media, and by lefty school teachers, and most published. We have the voice of feminsim embodied in acedemics such as Germaine, who even recently said on Denton that misogyny is everywhere, and loves underage boys.

Feminism suffers the same fate as 'radical' islam.

'Labels do matter. They are statements as much as descriptors. They are powerful'
Yes, exactly. Which is why it is time to drop the 'fem' and have a more inclusive label. The world is very open to ideas of equality and gender roles, so now is the time to drop the one-sided, gender-dividing name, and distance ourselves from the 'radicals'.

'In the act of calling ourselves feminists we are expressing solidarity (not necessarily agreement) with others who share our core values.'
Not really. Unless you're only interested in solidarity with women, and an exclusive 'sisterhood', which alienates half the population. 'Core values' are like 'Core promises'.

'Next time you're asked if you are a feminist...'
Simply say you're not so easily pigeon holed, and don't find the need to limit yourself to brainless sloganism to define your ideals. Or perhaps say you are an equalitist.

BTW: It's interesting the blame is put on 'anti-feminists' for souring the feminist brand, rather than the 'radical' feminists. Just like with Islam, I pour the blame on the radical muslims, not on the people who are reached by their message and react with appropriate distaste.

We have a rambling old beach house which has been in the family for several generations and as usual it is crowded for the last two weeks of September - old habits go on forever it seems.

I thought I would print this article and drop it into the 'girls' circle that forms whenever the 'boys' have rallied themselves to help out with the regular heavy maintenance of the house and grounds (mainly up on trestles painting or removing dense undergrowth). I though that with eleven young women from 16 to 20 and all going through expensive education, there was a good enough sample to get a view or two. One girl had exercised her right to drive a tractor, saying she had the clearest head, but she just likes driving of course. I caught up with her later.

Anyway, the consensus of what turned out to be a short discussion could be summed up by the shrugs of the shoulders of those present. In their words,"What would be the point of telling her (the author) anything because she's not going to listen, right?" and "Maybe hold a good Irish wake for 'them' to feel better."

I guess that pretty well sums up why young women run from the feminists, it is because they (feminists) are stuck in a rut of their own making, not relevant or largely irrelevant, not willing to listen and let's face it many are an embarrassment to young women who grew up in a different environment.

Regarding the last mentioned point, how often do you hear an avowed feminist say that feminism is about equality and justice, choice and respect, only to hear them drop back a few minutes later into the same old familiar rut of victimhood, blame and 'dissing' men - to use the parlance of the daytime women's shows.

It is all so yesterday, but not to those who would earn their daily bread from it of course.

cornflower,

That raises a very good point actually. If there really was such 'a long way to go' for feminism, surely it's 'struggles' would strike a chord with this group of young women. Perhaps they are living proof that it is time to move on.

They should be grateful for all feminism has achieved, for which they benefit ofcourse. Perhaps that's the motivation behind a lot of articles I read from older feminists whinging at the young women these days who cant be rallied to the cause. Where's the gratitude!

But the younger women are doing just fine thankyou very much, and they probably see these feminists as the lost soldiers, fighting in the jungle when the war has been won.

"entitlements of their sex"

Isnt this the fundamental problem of sexism?

Such a notion seems at odds with the values of equality. This may be causing the reticence.

A way needs to be found that includes both sexes and recognisies that we are all subject to the follies of conditioning for gender roles. The sentiments of victimology and projected guilt need to be dropped. They're pretty addictive emotions, so l cannot see it happening anytime soon, not when important branding issues loom large. Navel gazing gets redundant after a while and things have to get done, like figuring out a way to make gender politics gender nuetral in its focus and agenda.

There's a huge amount of difficult work to be done to reclaim this thing. Political movements tend to get hijacked by vested interests and over time disenfranchise the constinuency in whose name they claim to act. It gets reduced to a sea of cliched and stereotypical memes and politcally correct self-censorship. It can take decades to undo that sort of nonsense.

"Labels do matter. They are statements as much as descriptors. They are powerful, especially when we need to articulate our collective concerns and voice our demands."

Feminist, communist, socialist, democrat, liberal, anarchist, christian,

"...one we wouldn't dare ask any other social group or political movement that has been so vilified and misrepresented."

Feminist, post-modernist, traditionalist, materialist, nihilist, rationalist, theist

"Without such a label to pin these sentiments on you're left with a jumble of disconnected ideas and issues floating about in the ether, each one easily picked off and forgotten."

Feminist, Islamist, positivist, Marxist, Maoist, existentialist...

Enough already.

"In the act of calling ourselves feminists* we are expressing solidarity (not necessarily agreement) with others who share our core values."

* Substitute any of the 'ists' above and assess the quality of the argument being run in the article. Labels are dangerous and always need to be unpacked for the real meaning - and that's not an essentialist talking, just a realist.

I’m disappointed.

Runner, Col Rouge, Usual Suspect, Cornflower and trade215 have done their dependably tedious spleen-vents against the femomenace.

(Thanks, guys. You never let us down. Eternal vigilance and all that.)

But we’re still waiting for HRS, Steel and Antiseptic …

Come in, spinners! A little slow off the mark, aren’t you?

...

Oh ... and note to editor. Would it be too much trouble to ask for an article or two that puts the Mens Movement under the microscope for a change? It, too, has its agenda.

If you don't know of anyone who might oblige, try one of the above. I'm quite sure they've had some experience on that score.

Or, failing that, try one of the hundreds of MM websites in existence - many of which masquerade as feminist sites (the pretty purple is always a dead giveaway) in order to attract young women, while taking up most of their web space arguing that young women are not attracted to feminism anymore.

I have two teenage daughters - both of them disassociate themselves from the label feminist. As a person born in the 60s,at university during the most vocal of the feminist years (and yes sometimes radical and OTT), I found this attitude a bit perplexing at first. It is true that feminist has become a dirty word for some and is associated with the more radical elements which has tainted some of the purity of those earlier goals.

The issue for young people is relevance. They were born in a time where women have equal access to opportunity, education, wages and more financial independence. The survival of any revolutionary movement relies on a perception of inequality or oppression. A population cannot be mobilised when there is nothing to rage against or when the goals have been achieved.

I faced some criticism when I chose to stay home full-time for a period of time to raise my children. I sometimes think we need a motherhood or parenthood revolution. :)

In more modern times we should endeavour to be more inclusive and look at equity and fairness in a broader social sense which would include men, women and children. Or culture, race and religion.

We need a new 'ism' that is all encompassing.

This does not mean that we cannot acknowledge the good that was achieved but we should also acknowedge a few truths as well. To some extent feminism failed in that it created an environment where women believed they had to behave and act like men to compete in the same market. Perhaps this was inevitable. Real success would have included raising the profile of some of the more accepted feminine traits as worthy characteristics in a work environment. And to raise the profile of motherhood rather than denigrate it. Perhaps this was also inevitable for men to take women seriously - who knows.

I believe the workforce has taken on some of those more traditionally recognised femine traits (compassion, kindness, consultative) but it did not happen because of the feminist movement but more from an awareness of humanitarianism.

Feminism presents a radical challenge to the entire patriarchal "order" of Western "culture".

It is about a re-integration of the feminine principle into the collective consciousness, and more importantly bodies, of Western "culture".

The Pattern that IS Woman or Shakti has traditionally been associated with the body and all of its processes including the capacity to be sensuously related to everything---the culture of the Pleasure Dome

Woman has also by extension been a metaphor for the manifest world altogether.

Woman is thus THE WORLD altogether.

Patriarchal "culture" has always been at war with this Pattern that IS Woman

The war of "spirit" vs "flesh"

"Spirit" being the male principle and "flesh" being everything to do with Woman and incarnate happiness.

Woman (or the femine altogether)is also traditionally associated with the left side of the body, and all the cultural expressions that extend from the left side. The patterns that connect, feeling association, nurture. The feminine word Sophia means WISDOM

Man (or the masculine altogether) is traditionally associated with the right side of the body and expansion into the world. Even murderously so if not tempered by the Pleasure Dome Principle.

The Taliban are exemplars of this murderous psychosis.

The prejudice against anything to do with the culture of the left side (Woman or Shakti) runs hell deep.

The Latin word for left means sinister---not to be trusted, unpredictable, uncontrollable.

What caused the not so long ago hysteria that caused the mass witch burnings?

The totally irrational prejudice against women being "priests" in the "catholic" church.

Why would any sane woman want to be a "priest" in a church which is at war with what she IS at the fundamental depth of her being?

The completely irrational prejudice against the "left" altogether

When feminism began to emerge it emerged from a "culture" that had long ago suppressed and mutilated Woman.

How could feminism do anything but reflect and be infected by the psychosis that it was emerging from?

The psychotic patriarchal fathers did everything they could to suppress this emergence, including belittling it and playing up the inevitable abberations that occurred.

Feminist is no more a dirty word than suffragette. We no longer refer to women struggling for equality as suffragettes, so perhaps it is time for a change.

And then, I read someone, I think it was Kreacher (thanks Bugsy) who makes an important word a very nasty one indeed: FEMINAZI

When I hear that word I square my shoulders, stand tall and remind myself how I am proud of what so many good women and men have done towards a fairer, humanitarian world and I am, therefore, IRREPRESSIBLE. You can call me names but that can never change who I am.

If and until another word for equality between the sexes arrives, I hereby, reclaim 'feminist' and wear it with pride.

I think you've got it all wrong.

Most women I know have grown out of the feminism label.

They prefer to champion equality between the sexes - a two way street. As opposed to fostering that women vs men mentality.

Probably because they realise that feminism is (or should be) obsolete and the disgusting attacks on men are unwarranted and full of deceit and deception. To put it simply.

Usual Suspect

The young women I spoke about have grown up being able to make choices. They are wise too in that they have observed from older women around them what are the likely outcomes and life careers from certain choices. They will continue to learn.

Why should they own the baggage of older generations? Why should they be thankful? Isn't it enough that they are getting on with their lives and will have more choices available to them than their mothers, or their fathers for that matter?

The feminist movement as it is now reminds me of the RSL, which was similarly elitist and excluded all but their anointed ones and especially the opposite gender from membership. However, one day the RSL found its clubs closing through lack of support as all of the old members faded away. Even as clubs closed, the die hards remained elitist and were still lecturing all and sundry and especially the younger veterans (who didn't fight 'real' wars you know). Feminists are like that: they alone have the 'knowledge' so there is nothing to learn from young people who are ignorant and thankless.

Every young woman should be conscripted for gender studies bootcamp and serve several years in the trenches of the gender war before they know what is good for them, eh?

Fact is, it is not the fault of young women that the old jackboots of feminism are irrelevant to them and it is their choice what shoes to wear.

Runner, well said and totally agree, but also so many people find that Feminist is a dirty word because they see its double standards & misandry at work every day.

Feminist = Equality? What an oxymoron. If you truly cared about equality & society you would be a Humanist not a Feminist!

‘You go girl’ ‘It’s all about ME’ Feminists don’t give a stuff about anybody but themselves, if they did the last thing you would need to call yourself is a Feminist. Only when the femipower are happy (impossible) will the world be a better place…….history proves that’s a lie.

Feminist/Mangina version of equal pay…….’she’ only needs plays 3 sets of tennis to ‘his’ forced 5 sets, yes Feminists are all about finding excuses for their version of equality & equal opportunity.

Feminist/Mangina version of equal representation from government……..’she’ gets ‘her’ own Government Departments & ‘she’ gets ‘her’ own Ministers!..........
……. ‘He’ gets…….ZILTCH! such wonderful equal representation, so sorry for the future of the little boys & of cause non feminist women with all the policy makers killing off any rights to be different & have different opinions to a Feminist.

We have well recorded history lessons that show just what happens when the rights & minds of unarmed people are trampled on in the name of?

Humanist is life equal. Feminist is all about her & no other version will be tolerated.

This was an interesting article. Thanks Monica.

I disagree with patriarchy theory. But I also disagree with the analysis that says women have won equality. Equal wages for equal work is still a dream.

However the women's liberation movement (yes, its initial name, I understand) or WLM won the right to work and challenged the very order of society of that day - the male domination of work and the stereotypical role of woman as mother and carer.

I also think there is something else at play.

The WLM aross in a time of real social ferment. It became the women's movement as part of the swing to the right.

Elements of that movement took patriarchy to its logical conclusion and thus thought they had or have more in common with Margaret Thatcher or Sarah Palin than the working class movement.

On top of that I think it fair to say that across Western society the dominant neo-liberal philosophy has emphasised individual effort and competition at the expense of co-operation and community. This has undermined the "unity is strength" arguments of feminism in its many guises. Paradoxically, today's seeming conservatism among younger women is built on the success of the WLM in breaking the shackles of the woman at home myth and making it seem a natural part of society that jobs are there for all who want them, irrespective of gender.

Of course, as I mentioned before, the struggle is far from over for decent child care, reproductive control, equal wages, equal positions in (an essentially hierarchical) society and so on. But when young women realise they are not as equal as they thought, the social base for a fightback doesn't exist in any organisational sense. It can be built but that would also involve a more leftward move in other sections of society too, like unions launching strikes to defend wages, jobs and conditions, a mass anti-war movement and so on.

The last gasp words of a lonely feminist world :)

"You can call me names but that can never change who I am."

Fraccy.. combativeness is not the solution.

Gentleness and love are... on both sides of the gender equation.

As soon as you make it a 'battle' you have lost the war...

I'm referring only to a 'between the sexes' scenario here. We must be very combative and vigilant on those things which effect 'all' of us together in society, and I don't mind passion from my opponents, it helps clarify the target. We won't all be equally passionate about the same issues.

Feminist may not be a dirty word, but some or alot of the people associated with that word are much less than desirable human beings.

Whenever I hear the words, feminism and equality, I cannot help but associate these words with George Orwells classic "Animal Farm".

Was Feminism Necessary?
http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/09/14/sarah-palin-feminism-oped-cx_hm_0915mansfield.html

A Gentleman Responds
http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/09/23/feminism-radical-eaves-oped-cx_hm_0924mansfield.html?partner=moreover

The point is just as there are many types of Feminism, there are many different points of view, some pov's can be less biased than others.

While feminist seem to think that they can challange the socalled Patriarchy unhindered, these same feminist take any challange to feminism as a personal insult and with great indignation.

I guess that is their idea of equality, they talk and express their ideas and opinions, and anyone who wishes to challange them better shut up.

James, there is an element of truth in that but it misses some of the dynamic.

"I guess that is their idea of equality, they talk and express their ideas and opinions, and anyone who wishes to challange them better shut up."

I was thinking of the discussion I've had on another thread re Farrel and some of my history with posters such as SJF. We manage to annoy each other at times, exchange harsh words at times and misunderstand one another often. Occasionally the suggestion is made that I should give up on my hobby horses - maybe thats being told that I'd better shut up but maybe not.

For the most part I find those discussions worthwhile. Where others seem to routinely hit conflict I'm often able to have what to me seem interesting discussions even when there is disagreement.

Another discussion which comes to mind is the one with Pynchme. I seem to be having a polite discussion (from both sides) while others are in a fight over the same idea's. That would suggest that the conflicts are not about Pynchme's ability to cope with disagreement.

All to often I see broadscale attacks on feminism which are bound to annoy feminists where a discussion of a particular issue may not. Most of the feminists are quite capable of discussing issues but understandably don't like to see the whole thing dissed.

We do need to take care not to ignore our own contributions to the tone of debate and just assume that it's the other side.

R0bert

Polly:

""You can call me names but that can never change who I am."

Fraccy.. combativeness is not the solution."

This comment from a man who only values women who 'know their place'.

Confidence and self esteem are qualities that develop in a truly egalitarian society, and anachronisms like yourself are threatened by the very idea of capable self-determining women. Hence your claim of "combativeness" applied to someone who merely pointed out that insults will not deter women from contributing equally in this world by whatever means they choose; be it as homecarers, business or politics.

Fractelle

You mention choice and being a home carer (among other things). I'd be interested in exploring this, because I think this idea of choosing to be at home actually contributes to the stereotype of women as having a natural place which is not in the workplace, politics or business but rather only in the home.

Anti-woman propaganda makes much of this "choice" yet it seems to me it is societally determined ( for example through constant images of women as homemakers, carers etc) in the interests of the economic elite (of whatever gender) to have women at home to raise children at no cost to business.

It also denies women the liberation of work.

Passy, interesting question. I hope I've understood what you are raising with Fractelle properly.

Can I put a question (or questions) to you?

How do you see those dynamics played out when it's men who choose to be the prime carers, stay at home parents? I gather some men do feel threatened by others who do that - perhaps because it weakens the stereotypes which they are comfortable with. I gather mothers wanting to work (in paid employment) have at times faced pressure from those prefering the old roles (both men and women).

I love the idea that feminists feel they have the freedom to make a choice just as I'm loving the changes in recent years that are making prime care by men more accepted.

My perspective is that we need to be opening up the sense (and reality) of choice for men and women on these issues rather than switching the direction of the pressure for a new stereotype. I see the difference between breaking down an old stereotype and creating a new one but I don't see how limiting choices is a good way to do that.

R0bert

"In the act of calling ourselves feminists we are expressing solidarity (not necessarily agreement) with others who share our core values. We're also showing respect to the many women who've championed those values for more than 100 years. Being mindful of their legacy helps us avoid repeating mistakes, but it is also our best defence against feminism's detractors propagating even more false assumptions, clichés and distortions."

Four excellent reasons for all women to at least acknowledge and retain some pride in their feminist heritage, even though they might not personally consider themselves an activist in any sense.

I don't think it's surprising that young women have tended to disassociate themselves from feminism. When young, it's very natural to feel confident about the choices stretching out in front of you and to be full of optimism at being able to make them work to your advantage. It often takes a little more life experience, and the realisation that the biological clock is ticking away and that having it all is not as easy as it once appeared, that the reality of the feminist struggle is truly understood and appreciated.

Besides which, I don’t think young people today are generally as politically aware or as interested in collective activism as they have been in earlier decades. Many don't have a good sense of history either. It's not easy to appreciate the gains which have been won for you, if you have little understanding of where we've come from and the long-fought struggle involved to achieve each small win.

Pelican

"To some extent feminism failed in that it created an environment where women believed they had to behave and act like men to compete in the same market. Real success would have included raising the profile of some of the more accepted feminine traits as worthy characteristics in a work environment. "

I agree. This to me is the big failure of feminism. It has failed to have any taming effect on the market or any real success in civilising the workplace. The world of work is still a competitive, individualistic and relentlessly profit-driven model, and has actually become more so in the period in which women have played a more dominant role within it. Women are competing with men and they are doing it on men's terms.

Women have made piecemeal gains here and there but have failed to bring about any real change in the work environment. Permanent part time work, which suits women with families, is still hard to come by and is often poorly paid and afforded low status. The collective, co-operative and nurturing traits, which many hoped feminism would bring to the fore and help create a better and fairer society and improved conservation of our natural environment, have been subjugated more than ever. Women are now trapped alongside men in the unrelenting pursuit of beating their competitors and increasing the bottom line.

“And to raise the profile of motherhood rather than denigrate it."

Again, I agree, Pelican. Women are still struggling to fit motherhood into the narrow confines of the workplace. Being a mother first, and a worker second, is as difficult to achieve for most of the women who want that choice as it ever was. And for those who do manage to put motherhood first, there is always an ongoing struggle to deal with the fact that your choice is undervalued and unappreciated by the society in which you live.

SFJ “dependably tedious spleen-vents against the femomenace.”

Really ?

Maybe you can see “speen venting “ in my post but I cannot

This is very simple,

Any racial, ethnic or gender selective process is, imho, an offence to the rest of humanity who are not qualified (eg as an accident of birth) as members of that racial, ethnic or gender group.

I can only assume, that because you rely on your favoured status and vested interest, enjoying the advantages associated with being a qualified member of a favoured group, you find it necessary to comment disparagingly on my balanced, reasoned and accurate comment regarding feminism

Being it is an alternate words for “chauvinism” in every sense.

However is can also be describe as a female version of paternalism, where feminists demand all authority, rights and privileges is to be vested in females, instead of being shared, equally with males.

The western democracies have moved progressively, from somewhere where blacks were treated as second class citizens. We do not need to move to a place where males are similarly victimized, under the immoral and incompetent “affirmative action” policies demanded by extreme feminists.

Then a mother of five who has gained elevation through the US political system from councilor to mayor to governor and now stands at the door of national office is hardly in the mould of the excuse-driven equality (provided your female) obsessed loons of the “radical womens” movement.

Bronwyn “Being a mother first, and a worker second, is as difficult to achieve for most of the women”

It seems Sarah Palin has the secret, maybe ask her…

but have you ever thoguht to asked how do fathers' manage being a worker and also a Dad?

Come on, don't get so screwed up over labels. Look at the product before trying to define the brand "feminist".
To me, the title suggests women who accept their gender, nature, the characteristics which differ from men, their personality and often appearance.
Femininity often equates with beauty, both in mind and body, the very antithesis of "macho".
Alex Buzo took a tongue-in-cheek approach with his description of
"overalls-clad women driving unwashed Datsuns on their way to give sexual awareness lectures to southern Meditteranean women."

Bronwyn mentions...

"Permanent part time work, which suits women with families, is still hard to come by and is often poorly paid and afforded low status."

This is because most companies/employers are not set up for that kind of work. There are of course some occupations of a more clerical nature which can lend themselves to this but to manage a major project? good grief... it would be totally unworkable.

I hope Bronwyn or other females would not be suggesting that EastLink should have been built by an equal number of male and female civil engineers where the females only had to work 50% of the time?

But if you simply work out payrolls.. do invoicing.. chase money... etc .. well you can employ a person of either gender for this say 3 days a week.

Most responsiblities which are 'high status' are also highly demanding... but 'part time' high demand/high responsibility work is probably like... hens teeth.

How about women taking the highEST status and responsibility in looking after their families?

Babies tend to gravitate to 'mummy' and 'grandma' far more than daddy and grandad at times..specially when they are sick. I would not wish a continuously crying sick infant on any bloke when the immediate solution is for mum or grandma to hold her. (whereupon she stops crying)

Polycrap: << How about women taking the highEST status and responsibility in looking after their families?

Babies tend to gravitate to 'mummy' and 'grandma' far more than daddy and grandad at times..specially when they are sick. I would not wish a continuously crying sick infant on any bloke when the immediate solution is for mum or grandma to hold her. (whereupon she stops crying) >>

I guess that's why feminism still has a way to go, eh? Say no more...

Col Rouge,

I was interested in trying to engage SFJ in a discussion about Kate Fillions book "Lip Service".

It was a book that I couldn't get into and found it a hard slog to read it. Possibly also because I have kind of gone off that stuff.

I did however find Kate's interpretations to be interesting.

Feminism as in “sisters unite” as rallying points are like hippies, greenies and old fashioned unionism etc. as collectives, are all a bit rather anachronistic today. Time and circumstances have moved on that is not to say that the many of the individual issues no longer exist. Most women that I know, that think in those terms, have internalized the concepts relevant to them to whereby feminism is a tautological term for western women today.
Society has moved from political/ideological groupings the emphasis today is on the individual and is therefore more issue based.

The villain today is World Corporatism and in most cases focus is more about survival than campaigning in an environment where unemployment was a genuine 2-5% (no need for terms like hidden unemployed and definitions of employment weren’t 1hr per week).

The labour force stats show women on lower paid jobs or under employed etc but explanations solely in terms of Gender victimization are dubious.
The divide today is now more about fiscal power than any class or structural conspiracy. The “old school tie” hereditary class mind set if not dead it’s on palliative care. In these days of international conglomerates power is elsewhere and profit recipients don’t care who or how it is manipulated/exploited to be created.

In this Capitalist world promotion has more to do with Executive paranoia/self interest (Will the aspirant help me to maintain my place at the trough or will they be a threat) than much else. One might argue that is simply a sophistication of human natural instincts or an extension of runaway corporate capitalism. Consequently I doubt that women run things all that differently than men I doubt it they are still subject to the same capitalist and natural pressures. Hillary is a simple example she played the feminist card but was seen as a rouse for more of the same.
As for the Alaskan Governor? I’d reject her because of her odious policies and attitudes not her gender.

examinator (I borrowed eAnt's logon)

Dear Monica,

Why should any women want to label themselves with something they don't believe in? To please you? Most young women today probably don't even know what it meant 309 years ago when it was created. Why should they even care what you think?

Labels are really a huge part of why society is as disfunctional as it is.

You don't need a label to be equal or to advance the cause of women. Just behaviour and strength ia needed.

JamesH “”Col Rouge,

I was interested in trying to engage SFJ in a discussion about Kate Fillions book "Lip Service".”

Not sure what you refer to James,

I was responding to a comment where SJF included me among a bevy of other posters she claimed made a “dependably tedious spleen-vents against the femomenace.”

The only interest I would have in a book called lip service is if it could help my partner improve her blow-job skills.

eAnt you seem to be promoting the usual stereo typical double talk of the less-than-gifted, all too boring to read or absorb.

Personally, I like engaging in debate with rabid feminists.

Countering their small minds, self deceptions and imperfect logic is so much easier than trying to challenge a valid point of view.

Col Rouge <<Personally, I like engaging in debate with rabid feminists. Countering their small minds, self deceptions and imperfect logic is so much easier than trying to challenge a valid point of view.>>

That might be very well Col old sausage (I'll bet it's limp and small), but if you're just going to add another small mind, more self deception and the further imperfect logic of a rabid masculinist, this forum will stultify.

C'mon little man, give us a decent argument (you're obviously not going to be any good with the other)!

Col Rouge

"It seems Sarah Palin has the secret, maybe ask her…"

Sarah Palin does not have the secret on this or any other issue. She might be a mother of a large family but she is definitely not an example of someone putting motherhood first. While she is furthering her career ambitions, someone else is doing most of the hands on mothering of her young Downs Syndrome baby.

I'm not against women having careers. My argument is for the need to create a workplace where women are able to reduce their time in paid work when their children are young, without being penalised for it and without being made to feel inferior because of that choice. Ideally, all women, who choose to, should be able to do this at least once or twice in their working lives.

"but have you ever thoguht to asked how do fathers' manage being a worker and also a Dad?"

Being a worker and a parent is easily managed when you're not the one doing the hands-on full-time raising of the children, and only a very small minority of men are in that situation.

By the way, Col, your 'lip service' comments plumbed new depths, even for you, and that's certainly saying something. The only reason I'm responding to your comments here is in the interest of furthering the debate in general. I've long found you totally obnoxious and your latest comments only reinforce that.

I think Col Rouge's comments show his complete disrespect and contempt for women and most readers in general. But that is the Right for you.

If the comment was flaming, it was flaming repulsive, reprehensible and ridiculous.

In the early years of the revolution, the Bolsheviks tried to address the question by having communal eateries (paid cooks, cleaners etc) and universal child care. They saw children as the responsibility of the whole community.

The rise of the dictator Stalin - the man who set about establishing State capitalism in Russia and was the gravedigger of the revolution - saw the same ideas as Col espouses about women and their role as objects and mothers being emphasised.

[url=www.google]test[/url]

Bronwyn

‘This to me is the big failure of feminism. It has failed to have any taming effect on the market or any real success in civilising the workplace […]Women are competing with men and they are doing it on men's terms.’

The way this reads, you are placing most of the responsibility for this ‘failure’ in the hands of feminism – which is a tad unfair (that’s if I’m reading it correctly).

Firstly, blaming feminism for not achieving its goals – without mentioning the well-connected and well-funded backlash pressures against it – is like blaming Cuba for its poverty without mentioning the embargo. There is just so much a movement can achieve with the collective foot of society’s threatened conservative forces permanently on its neck.

Secondly, even without the encumbrance of the backlash, why should taming the market and workforce be feminism’s responsibility – especially when much of its lifespan (at least the Second and Third Waves) has covered the most extreme period of zealous free-market ideology in modern history?

Thirdly, it is well beyond the role or responsibility of feminism to change society to value feminine resources. Even if it were, women typically cannot forcefully assert this ‘feminine power’ without being perceived as a threat.

The post-industrial economy wanted women out of the kitchen because it needed a ready supply of cheap labour and a new market. It thought it could reap those benefits and give little to nothing back to women in return. It thought right.

Spikey – your reference to members shows both an unhealthy preoccupation and envy, maybe spikey by name, spikey by endowment.

Bronwyn” While she is furthering her career ambitions, someone else is doing most of the hands on mothering of her young Downs Syndrome baby.”

And have you bothered to find out who or are you just “firing from the hip”

The other point is, we are each responsible for our children’s welfare.

She, like every other parent is entitled to buy the childcare services she needs, just like millions of other working mothers.

I suggest you stop trying to demonize her for the very choices millions of others make regularly.

Btw, ever get the idea, your opinion of me counts for nought?

Passy “The rise of the dictator Stalin - the man who set about establishing State capitalism in Russia and was the gravedigger of the revolution”

I recall both Lenin and Marx had a few words to say in support of “state capitalism“ too.

Further, Lenin managed to starve a few million to death (not sure if any were actually put in graveyards or just ploughed back into the fields) and that was well before Stalin took control of the organization.

You can keep trying to distance yourself from the consequences of the policies you espouse Passy,
It is an impossible task but do keep trying and I will keep correcting you.

Cornflower,

'Why should they own the baggage of older generations?'
They shouldn't.

'Why should they be thankful?'
Just as with your RSL example, it's about respect. Some individuals may not return the respect to the younger generation, so in that case fair enough when no respect is returned. But sacrifices were made, and the fruits of those sacrifices are being enjoyed. A bit of thanks wouldn't go astray. Not saying that thanks should include joining up for a cause that no longer has any relevance though. Recognise, while you're moving on.

James,

'I guess that is their idea of equality, they talk and express their ideas and opinions, and anyone who wishes to challange them better shut up.'

That's gold.

Robert,

'We do need to take care not to ignore our own contributions to the tone of debate and just assume that it's the other side.'
That's pointless. On the other topic you mentioned, ALL my contributions were dismissed as vitriol, bullying, personally insulting. One poster determined I shouldn't have the temerity to address them. When I asked for evidence of any personal insults, or bullying, deafening silence.

I have come to the conclusion, that to not agree with every aspect of feminism, is bullying, personally insulting vitriol.

Passy,

'Anti-woman propaganda makes much of this "choice"'
Who commissions this propaganda, and what is their budget? If 70% of women with young children want to be at home, why are we being so arrogant as to re-engineer society to tell these women their choice isn't valid. The poor dears, they've just swallowed the propaganda, and their maternal feelings are not real. We know what's best for them!

As robert says 'rather than switching the direction of the pressure for a new stereotype. I see the difference between breaking down an old stereotype and creating a new one but I don't see how limiting choices is a good way to do that.'

Col R

OK I withdraw the inference about your sausage, but not my plea that you give us a decent argument.

You know, one that has facts, logic and reason attached, not just insult and anger.

Col Rouge,

Examinator's not here!
I've read his post and been through your all of yours. While I don't agree with all he says at least it is logical and actually discusses the topic 'Feminism is not a dirty word'.
However, the same can’t be said for the arrogance and narcissism.

eAnt

Bronwyn,
'Women are competing with men and they are doing it on men's terms.
'
Ha, when a woman acts 'like a man' huh. These aren't 'men's' terms.
Women have these very same traits, it's the nature of power, aspiration and leadership that nurtures them.

When a man is being compassionate, cooperative and nurturing with his children, is he acting like a woman?

'The collective, co-operative and nurturing traits, which many hoped feminism would bring to the fore and help create a better and fairer society and improved conservation of our natural environment..'

Your categorisation of all supposedly 'negative' traits as male and all 'positive' traits as female, where the females only ever exhibit 'negative' traits because of a male construct is offensive really.

'Women are now trapped alongside men in the unrelenting pursuit of beating their competitors and increasing the bottom line.
'
Whenever I see people being 'trapped' in gender roles, or 'trapped' into materialism a red flag appears. People who chase material wealth are not trapped. People who choose to be prime carer are not trapped. They might be exhibiting vanity or greed, or envy, or just care too much what others think of them, but they are not trapped. That's a cop out. It's what socialists use to dismiss capitalism, what feminists use to portray victimhood.

'undervalued and unappreciated '
I keep hearing this, but never see any evidence for it. It's a violin statement. It's all wrapped up in martyr statements such as 'a woman's work is never done'. It's counter-productive victim-speak.

SJF,

'Radical feminism, which emerged from the diverse women's movement of the 1960s, focused on patriarchy as the source of women's oppression.'
I see I'm not the only one who would consider you a radical feminist. I know you will probably dismiss this as a personal attack, but I wonder whether you agree with this characterisation. See I'm always looking to find what is a radical feminist, as every argument I come up with to other feminists on OLO I get the reply, yeah but only radical feminists believe that

As usual Runner nails it.

Seriously, the article didn't exactly say what a feminist stands for. Overarching, all-encompassing motherhood phrases don't wash. "Equality and justice, choice and respect" sounds like something Batman would say if asked why he spends so much time out of the office.

Seems to me feminists are their own worst enemy. It'd be easier to find two economists who agree with each other. Most articles I read are pitched against efforts not of men or government but...other feminists, or women claiming special insight. Bettina Arndt writes some amusing stuff but gets attacked for going easy on guys. Greer - well, she fits the stereotype and then some. Faludi, Cox, all have unique perspectives.

STILL don't know what yours is though Monica.

Usual Suspect

‘See I'm always looking to find what is a radical feminist, as every argument I come up with to other feminists on OLO I get the reply, yeah but only radical feminists believe that.’

As I’ve never said that to anyone, wouldn't it be better to address this enquiry to someone who has? On the contrary, I've always criticised the use of 'radical' versus 'moderate' anything as being a tool of polarisation, not clarification.

Also, re the RSL example … I’m not quite sure if the RSL’s history did unfold the way Cornflower tells it. However, for the sake of argument, if the RSL ever found itself in danger of closing its doors due to lack of relevance, then it’s amazing how a shrine-junkie, Anzac-mad PM can turn an organisation’s fortunes around.

I guess this is the big fear of anti-feminism – that a sympathetic government might one day re-ignite the innate justness of feminism’s cause and give it a similar RSL-style Lazarus treatment. That’s why eternal anti-feminism vigilance must be maintained.

On the positive side, though … All these rhetorical debates on why/whether/has feminism lost its relevance have the paradoxical effect of ensuring feminism’s relevance … by having it continually talked about.

So I do hope you can keep that spleen of yours in good venting order.

SJF

"The way this reads, you are placing most of the responsibility for this ‘failure’ in the hands of feminism – which is a tad unfair (that’s if I’m reading it correctly)."

No, I'm not placing 'most of the responsibility' for this failure on feminism. My point is that people who think feminism has achieved its goals and is no longer relevant are sadly mistaken.

To begin with, I find it difficult to discuss feminism as a homogenous movement, because to me there are two very different schools of feminist thought. There's the one to which I subscribe, and I'm sure you do too, that feminism is about changing (or at least moderating) the androcentric model on which most western societies are currently based, that is one in which the values of aggression, competitiveness, individualism and profiteering are predominant.

The other school of thought, as I see it, is that the struggle to change society is unimportant and that all that matters is changing women's positions within that society. I realise this is overly simplistic but I still see a clear dichotomy. I could accept this latter interpretation of feminism, and in fact did for many years, if it meant that change was affected once women achieved more equity within the power structure. My disappointment is that I just don't see enough evidence of that happening.

"There is just so much a movement can achieve with the collective foot of society’s threatened conservative forces permanently on its neck."

I couldn't agree more (and love your description!) That is why I find it so disappointing when it seems the next generation of women think the battle's been fought and won and won’t be there to pick up the baton.

“…aggression, competitiveness, individualism and profiteering” aren’t exclusively male traits, Bronwyn. You haven’t met my sister. Maybe she was coerced into behaving “like a man”?

Have to say though she enjoys the benefits.

Interesting set of responses.
Over the last six decades it's been my lot in life to be at the extreme cutting edge, to be the one with radical and new opinions. Even so as a radical feminist I am neither lesbian nor hairy. The first because not so inclined, the second because of good genes.

If we women in our society have achieved all that the feminists desired why is it that young women as they start their careers post uni come to me and complain about the terrible culture that is work?

And the stats still say that women are not as well paid as men, even working the same job!

And has no-one posting here read the material that came out in the last 12 months about Clinton? And now about Palin?

When women have had control of their fertility for over a century, and when men take up the burden of caring for themselves then perhaps we could say that feminism is achieved.
In the meantime the changes will come in waves. First the struggle for the vote, then the struggle to control our bodies, and next I don't know, since many women will now be distracted by working to save the planet.

Bronwyn "That is why I find it so disappointing when it seems the next generation of women think the battle's been fought and won and won’t be there to pick up the baton."

That young women are more concerned about the big issues of equality, fairness and so on in a broader sense is good, not bad. Even better, they are choosing to work with young men to find solutions. One gender does not have all of the solutions just as one gender was never entirely to blame.

It is also about being responsible for one's own choices in life and what is so wrong with that?

Usual Suspects,

""'Why should they own the baggage of older generations?'
They shouldn't.

'Why should they be thankful?'
Just as with your RSL example, it's about respect. Some individuals may not return the respect to the younger generation, so in that case fair enough when no respect is returned. But sacrifices were made, and the fruits of those sacrifices are being enjoyed. A bit of thanks wouldn't go astray. Not saying that thanks should include joining up for a cause that no longer has any relevance though. Recognise, while you're moving on""

Utterly agree with you, our feminist predecessors, have to be respected and not forgotten.

Cornflour, the very fact that young women have the right to choose what 'boot' they would like to wear is because of the feminist movement- theyd still be tied to their ovens, with no hope of getting an education let alone driving a tractor. The freedom of choice they have today didnt just happen - surely you must be able to recognise the difference between a woman of the 18th century and a woman of the 21st century - what happened ? we didnt evolve into this.

Feminists came in all shapes and sizes.....not all of them were {and still] arent the stereotypical hairy legged lesbian we so 'fondly' remember.

Every part of our society have their radicals, it would be disastrous if we refused to acknowledge a movement, religion, race, idea etc if we didnt like the look of their radical members

Countrywoman

No, young women like all young people will rightly get their backs up if the are told they should be anything, including being thankful. Respect is earned in the here and now through behaviour.

Respect is also a two way street and feminists are not that willing to listen to anyone, including young women.

That was the point of giving the RSL example which was about club policy and membership being captive of an elite who lived in the past. The continual rejection of younger veterans by the RSL and government, especially by coalition governments including Mr Howard's is well documented, as any Vietnam Veteran will attest.

As far as young women are concerned, driving the tractor is not the same where the feminist matriarch refuses to let go of the steering wheel, preferring to stay in the same old ruts she is familiar with.

Why not simply agree, which should be easy enough to do, that times change and any movement has to change with the times or wither away?

Cornflower, try asking the same group of young women the same question in 10 years time. My views on what equality is and whether it has been achieved changed greatly once I had kids. The simple fact that it is assumed that when the kids are sick or their carer ill, that it is I that takes a day off work to care for them is a dead give-away that the playing field is not yet level. In my case I made the grave mistake of marrying a man who is exceptionally "traditional", and didnt realise how far-fetching that was until the kids came on the scene (dont get me wrong, I love them intensely and wouldnt give them back). Whilst my situation is probably more extreme than most people, I still see with my friends and colleagues, that if both parents are to work, then its the woman's job to find and pay for the childcare, its the women that pick their kids up early, or ferry them to extra activities, and its the women who are responsible for much of the dinner, bath, bed routine at night. This is even the case where I know the woman is the main income-earner (much more common recently, so I guess there is some progress being made). So, I think unless there is significant advancement in the next few years, this group of girls you spoke to are in for a bit of a shock.

CG, whilst I take your point about the preconception that women will be the primary carer whilst married, I must point out that it is usually at the mother's own behest, not imposed upon her. Certainly, my own wife was very happy to take time off from work to do "baby stuff" and was very vocal about how "empowered" and "female" she felt as a result. She never once suggested that I should take over that role, although she was quick to give me a nudge in the ribs if I didn't stir swiftly enough when one of the kids started crying in the middle of the night. The other side of that coin is that mother's are usually able to claim "ownership" of that role when the marriage ends, regardless of the father's wishes. The changes to the FLAct were a response to that preconception.

Country Gal,

Notwithstanding your man's very old fashioned attitudes that I have heard of before, it is not only the men who are responsible for this turn of events.

My partner was very unimpressed when I suggested I work part time and she full time once her degree is finished and she has equal or greater earning power. Very frosty she became. Not even too happy about changing to me 4 days, her 3 rather than me 5 days her 2 at work.

You make it seem like women are 'lumped' with these tasks, when in fact a lot of the time it's the women who see themselves as being the best and most important parent, and insist on having full control. They see themselves as the leader, who delegates tasks that must be done in their own distinctive style. They want 'support' not a partnership when it comes to caring roles. Only mummy can do these things 'properly'.

Women carry the baby for 9 months, and really, after the birth, it takes a long time (if ever) for the women to not consider the baby more hers than his. Likewise a lot of men who work consider the family money more theirs then hers.

When 70% of working mothers would rather be at home with their children, it's simplistic to suggest that it's those dinosaur husbands lumping women with all the caring activities. If anything, we have set up society to coerce these women into a role they see as secondary, some with a tinge of resentment their man doesn't earn enough to allow them the luxury to be full time mom.

Feminism has often been a champion of abortion. It is amazing how many women go back to their natural instincts when they have a young baby that belongs to them.

Country Gal

They would be worse off pairing with metros who will not perform traditional men's nor women's work around the home.

Women should own up to their role as mothers in raising young men who do not help around the home. We cannot blame society and the government (I know you are not doing that) for everything.

As a lesson, just watch how women exclude boys from nursing and playing with babies and infants, yet I have met very few boys who don't want to get in there and enjoy the experience. Change doesn't have to be marked with the public display of "Men OUGHT to do this too" - all that is required is for women to treat them practically and normally. However there is a lot of needless confusion about what is normal, especially where women have allowed feminists to do their talking for them.

Really there is no need to wonder how one's children will be acting in ten years time or what choices they will make because all one has to do is look at ourselves as models for their behaviour. To take an example, all in our house pitch in and help in the kitchen and it hums because it was deliberately laid out to be a centre of interaction and socialising, as well as being efficient for meal making. I can expect that my children will always see meal preparation as a time when all or most of us were usually together, participating as we could or were needed, even it that was 'only' participating in the conversation.

You see, the mundane 'chores' that many feminists despise provide opportunities for conversation, sharing and togetherness. Again, it has not been my experience that boys (or girls) shirk these tasks if they have been included early and not put off.

We have to remember too that most women would not like to give up their command and casting vote on 'domestic' matters, especially the spending side.

Bronwyn

The two schools of feminist thought you describe were an excellent clarification of the points I raised … and thank you. You’re right in saying that the former sums up my views, especially this comment …

‘… that feminism is about changing (or at least moderating) the androcentric model on which most western societies are currently based …’

This is the side of feminism that is timeless and relevant to all societies everywhere (not just Western) – regardless of the 'status’ that women presently occupy within their society's structure. This is also the type of feminism that works better when applied to other disciplines like sociology, anthropology, archaeology, history, politics, philosophy, theology etc, rather than as a stand-alone movement.

(By the way, your use of the term ‘androcratic’ makes me wonder if you have read much about Cultural Transformation Theory and the works of Riane Eisler. If not, I believe you would get a lot out of them.)

As for the other school of feminist thought you describe …This is more strategic feminism – the type that focuses on specific goals when the time and opportunity are ripe – e.g. the EEO struggle, the female suffragist era. However, that type of feminism then wanes once the goal is achieved.

‘That is why I find it so disappointing when it seems the next generation of women think the battle's been fought and won and won’t be there to pick up the baton.’

That's not my experience. I see huge numbers of young women at IWD and other feminist events. And even if it were true, don’t be too hard on young women. Taking things for granted is a privilege of youth.

I agree with Denise Chumley (a radical feminist on OLO – yaaay!). For most post-EEO era women, the full impact of gender injustices, like the lingering male-centricity of the workplace culture and the undervaluing of the stay-at-home parenting role, does not hit them until at least their 20s.

Some accept it and adjust. Others get mad … and then they get political!

SJF

"That's not my experience. I see huge numbers of young women at IWD and other feminist events."

That's encouraging to hear. It probably helps explain why you tend to see the good a little more readily than I do!

"Some accept it and adjust. Others get mad … and then they get political!"

I hope you're right, but again I'm a little less sanguine than you are. I agree, a lot of women do get political later on in their lives, but my guess is that most of them have had an earlier taste of political awakening somewhere along the line, either at school or uni, and are just picking up the threads.

Again, you might be in touch more than I am, but my sense is that the initial stirrings of political interest in today's students are much less likely to be kindled in the first place than was once the case. Courses at both school and uni have become much more narrow and vocationally oriented. The status of humanities studies has been downgraded and students are so busy working to pay their living expenses that the time for sitting around and reflecting on the issues of the day is not part of the uni experience to the extent it once was.

"I agree with Denise Chumley (a radical feminist on OLO – yaaay!)."

Yes, welcome Denise!

En-heartening posts SJF.

I didn't get political until after I was married. I really didn't know that women could be regarded as chattel - until my husband. Talk about a baptism in fire... from my twenties onwards I prefer to use the title of 'Ms'. Another wake-up call was while still married; applying for a job and being asked if I planned to have children - acceptable in those days, but what wasn't acceptable was the reaction of the all male interview panel who, when told that I did not plan on children, remarked that my husband must be crazy, that they would be trying to impregnate me at every opportunity. Eeeeuuww. These days I could've sued the bastards.

However, I don't believe that the posters on OLO are an accurate cross-section of people. I certainly don't encounter the hatred and vitriol that occurs whenever a female (or male) posts a pro-feminist comment, in my day to day life. The men in my life are fabulous, but I did have to learn the hard way and I am careful. There are those whose insecurities lead them to believe everything that is wrong with their lives is someone else’s fault and feminism is a convenient scapegoat simply because women are still not full participants in the power structure of our world.

When men and women can choose to either focus on parenting as their most important contribution, or follow full-time careers, or a combination of both we will be on the way to a more egalitarian society.

And young women do grow up, eventually.

Bronwyn,

You seem to have side-stepped all the queries of why you think women only ever exhibit 'negative' traits because of a male construct.

Do you think when a man is being compassionate, cooperative and nurturing with his children, he is acting like a woman?

Fractelle,

'When men and women can choose to either focus on parenting as their most important contribution, or follow full-time careers...'

They can. Nothing is stopping them.

'everything that is wrong with their lives is someone else’s fault '
Would that be like saying it's someone else's fault that you cant choose between career or parenting, when there is no law stopping you and many other people can achieve just that?

I hear a lot about this 'hatred and vitriol' from you, but I don't see any evidence of it. It seems to me that according to you anyone who disagrees with you is guilty of hatred and vitriol?

SJF,

'a sympathetic government might one day re-ignite the innate justness of feminism’s cause '
re-ignite? I think feminist orginisations get pleanty of funding. Geez, recently Elizabeth Broderic recomended a new government department to deal with sex discrimination against males as apparently that's outside the scope of the sex discrimination minister's office.

BTW: I see Denise and Bronwyn implying that women are more interested in saving the environment than men. I wonder if there is any evidence for this assumption. Kind of like Fractelles belief of a war-less world if only women were in charge.

fractelle:"There are those whose insecurities lead them to believe everything that is wrong with their lives is someone else’s fault and feminism is a convenient scapegoat simply because women are still not full participants in the power structure of our world."

Please tell me what opportunities are denied women in "our world"? I'm not referring to the third world where disadvantage is rife, but to the world that you and I inhabit.

As for the rest, I disagree strongly that feminism is a "scapegoat". The feminist movement has achieved some remarkable things in relation to redressing the imbalance of opportunity between the genders, but in so doing has rendered itself obsolete. As a consequence, it has morphed into something much less worthy, which exists largely to feather the nests of those women who want to have power. These women will do anything to pander to what they see as their constituency, which is other women and the easiest way for them to do so is to attack men. Some powerful men have assisted this process in an effort to be seen as having the same constituency.

Far from being a "scapegoat", the feminist movement has become an oppressor of many for the benefit of the few. It's nothing to be proud of any more.

Feminst values? - "equality and justice, choice and respect".

I applaud the women who make the choice, for whatever reason, to refuse the label of a 'feminist' as part of how they articulate their identity.

I chose to call myself a feminist - I 'respect' (not expect) those who make a 'choice' not to. That reespect and choice is part of those feminist values too.

:)

Recent events in the US indicate that times have changed and have taken a self-serving feminist elite by surprise. Feminist demands for all women to vote for Hilary Clinton because she was a woman were greeted with incredulity and well-deserved disdain. As is only to be expected of a feminist her age, Hilary claimed her loss was due to 'sexism', a pill that only a zealot could take without gagging.

The words of Obama supporter Kate Michelman, the former head of the abortion-rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America make a lot of sense:

"We're at a time and place where we don't have to base everything we think about in terms of gender, and that's a sign of progress. This rigid view that when any woman runs, we have to all fall into line - that's contradictory to what I consider feminism to be about."

For anyone with an open mind, those words could give a lead as to why young women flee screaming from the nagging of feminists. It will be a red rag to those who obtain personal benefit from continuing the gender war, but that is only to be expected.

Usual Suspect, I wonder whether the figures that you mention of 70% of women wanting to be at home are constructed. Certainly almost all women I know suffer "mother guilt", particularly working women. I dont believe on anecdotal evidence that men suffer the same level of guilt. I would question whether this is biological, or whether its conditioned. That said, I know my father used to feel guilty that he couldnt help us more with homework and such, and was always very quick to correct anyone who praised him on our academic successes, that we had made any achievements entirely off our own back. So I think that perhaps its more social conditioning than biological.

Cornflower, thanks for acknowledging that you understand the point I was trying to make - it makes for peaceful discussion! I agree that the attitudes of today's men (young men in particular) can be blamed as much on their mothers as their fathers. My marriage was a real shock to the system, as my family has always insisted that the girls are capable of fending for themselves and the boys capable of looking after themselves. A family habit of not marrying until quite late has enforced the need for those of both gender to be reasonably self-sufficient! The influence of mothers I think also has had an impact on what new mothers feel is their role (which US alluded to). How much still comes from the day that the mothering role was the only role available and women dug their claws into the few powerbases that they could, and has been taught by association or inference.

I guess I dont believe that roles and talents are biological - they are individual.

I guess if the feminists wanted to promote their gender, they would all support Sarah Palin on the McCain/Palin ticket.

But somehow, I think the "feminists" consider ex-beauty Queen, Sarah the wrong sort of "female"

They would, presumably, sooner vote for a two males straddling a Mule (Hee Haw), than a fellow 'sister' and McCain riding high on an Elephant.

Is that an example of "female logic"?

CountryGal,

'Certainly almost all women I know suffer "mother guilt", particularly working women'
I'm sure they do. But how come nobody ever talks of any mother guilt in not providing financially for their children. I read an article today in the smh, that men were shirking their caring responsibilities and it was time to encourage 'father guilt'.An article on OLO, about the new fatherhood, with males atarting to take on more of the caring role, saying males are finally starting to be 'committed' and 'responsible' fathers.

Nobody ever talks this way about women in regards to the financial aspect of caring for children. SOMEBODY has to earn the money. Imagine articles about how women are now finally staring to be committed and responsible enough to contribute financially to their children. How women are shirking their financial responsibilities for their children and leaving it to men.

I keep hearing this undervalued and unappreciated claim about the caring role, but really the same could just as easily be said for the financial providing role when you look at attitudes shown in these type of articles.

Families need money to survive, and it's pretty offensive to men who are more commonly the majority provider to hear they are 'neglecting' their children because they happen to be away putting food on the table.

Usual Suspect, I'd actually applaud something along those lines (even if just for the fuss it would stir!), and I'd be inclined to think more radical feminists would too, you know, the sort that look down on mothers staying at home. It would be a good litmus test of where current feminist thinking is!

The other issue that I have with your "70% of women" statistic is that if asked, I think very few men or women would prefer to be at work if they didnt have to. Whether it be to spend time with the kids or just do as they please. I'm always a little wary of statistics given that you can prove anything with numbers.

Col, I'd like to think that women (and feminists) are intelligent enough to choose who to vote for based on more than thir gender. There is a school of thought put forward on OLO that suggests feminists (of the harder line variety) are more environmentally active so this aspect of Sarah Palin (oil wells and moose shooting) I imagine would rub them the wrong way potentially enough not to vote for her. Personally my vote would come down to what style of government I felt the country needed at the time. Given that it appears its high time the yanks pulled their heads in and addressed their own problems rather than blowing things up, its probably time for a dose of the democrats, no matter who the leader is.

<Many times I would see husbands caught in the following double bind:

"I need someone more ambitious and makes more money" or, alternatively, "He is too serious and always at work, he is no fun.">

basically it comes down to being caught in an impossible position and as Usual suspect points out, someone needs to earn an income in order to be able to support the costs of children.

In this double bind position there are no winners.

uh...the ability to 'predictively' assess situation one finds themselves with reasonable accuracy is an essential human survival requirement...and we all have...only issue is do we use it...and then more importantly is act as required...

why the above...well...we have a piece here promoting image of feminism...to women who dont want to openly associate with while quietly sucking up the benefits...law/government/day-to-day-working(just put yourself as women/man wanting benefits/favoured in court/government_service etc to see gulf in difference between sexes...while distancing themselves from the corrupt/deceit/deals methods feminist_and_tools used to unbalance the same rights of all to same...

what specific benefits you ask...some infamous examples...two laws separately legislated...family law act\childsupport...on paper seemed ok...daily working...now here is corrupt kicker...court orders most children care to mother...with it childsupport 'payee' title and engages govt power to suck out post-tax money from father(payer)...left without home/child/life...architects of this knew exactly what the practical outcome...till the 300 father protest march to canberra parliament on a rainy 2005 day...shared parenting bill to address inequities soon after but not till feminist muddied bill with relationship centres and stuff...that we have now...

same to domestic violence, and now its becoming in your face feminist sexist/exlusive club on taxpayers burden...eg victorian abortion bill and now fertility bill http://news.theage.com.au/national/fertility-bill-passes-first-hurdle-20081008-4w82.html notice no mention of men/father right fertility access for surrogacy...but surrogate(women) to get parental rights(defeating principle of surrogacy...etc)...while misusing conscientious parliamentary voting method to this issue(like abortion bill-produce bill as you like then only issue is getting majority numbers, unlike 'open' issue debated on which bill structured and amended as proceeds to parliament to when majority votes achieved...)

so applying 'predictive' analysis...the victorian parliament is feminist/women interest corrupted...and victoria soon to be feminist utopia...while states men and children increasingly suffer, while image of success promoted in corporate media...hope the world is watching 'how to mess a nice place' and how messy this is going to turn out...

Sam

Feminist is a bad word. The feminist movement calls for gender equality but what it delivers is the right for women to vilify and physically abuse men without public disapproval.

If feminist wasn't a sexist word and was a word to define someone seeking gender equality the word would be something like humanist and not specifically linked to a sex.

All that feminism has done is destroy women both mentally and emotionally whilst declaring the false idea that it is actually helping women.

Feminist is not a 'dirty' word but it does come from an evil movement that uses dirty tactics to rip apart the social and family unit and rewrite the role of woman as they see fit regardless of the negative outcome for everyone involved.

Hmm. "Casalan" signs up and makes a single post which is identical in tone and content to those of the misogynist reactionaries who haunt OLO.

A couple of the regulars here must be running out of limbs to hang their sock puppets off.

Let us not divide humans into water tight compartments. Any concept developed should lead to enlightment and should not create further confusion.Let us all be humanists and not feminists or male chauvinists.Ills in the relationships between men and women are mostly due to improper understanding of life.We as human beings should not ignore the physiological rloes that men and women are supposed to play.Pregnancy and child birth put women in a special setting.Upbringig of children as responsible citizens is a serious responsibility of parents.When parents quarrel on petty issues it is children who are worst affected.This fact is little realised by both the feminists and the male chauvinists.Modern scientific developments should not be misused to preach chauvinistic tendencies which certainly create disruption of social responsibilities.
Therefore let us all be humanists which is necessary for creating a harmonious and a peaceful society.