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.